3 ms·

It doesn't "challenge the concept of heat," but it does make pretty ridiculous a line on one side of which is "hot" and on another side of which is "cold" and "

It doesn't "challenge the concept of heat," but it does make pretty ridiculous a line on one side of which is "hot" and on another side of which is "cold" and "cold" is bad and wrong and immoral and "hot" is awesome. (And "pathology" has all the same bright-line-distinction problems that performance-enhancing-substances do, so your proposal to clear up the problem actually makes things even less clear.)

matt4077 9y ago
Nobody is saying that one side of that divide is uniformly "bad" and the other is "awesome". There's obviously no "morally awesome" in doping–only "not doping". And nobody is denying that there is a grey area. But the existence of a grey area doesn't mean that the extremes don't exist. To try another example: within the infinity of possible human actions, you can probably find something for every nuanced level of morality from "saving a hundred babies" all the way to genocide, with parking in a handicapped spot slightly on the "bad" side of average, and "looking at the watch" somewhere really close to neutral. But just because we can't always draw a bright line between "good" and "bad" actions doesn't mean we should abolish all criminal law, does it?
- aetherson 9y ago
  You're trying very hard to create analogies to explain something that I already understand, have said I understood, and don't disagree with you on. And if this article were about someone taking a shit-ton of steroids and attaching a cybernetic device that super-oxygenated her blood during the match, then we could reasonably say that it doesn't matter where the line is, she's way over it.
- KGIII 9y ago
  To beat your analogy into the ground, go to a car show and see what happens if you flick a single grain of sand onto some of the cars. My only point is to draw attention to there being wildly different views on where the line should be drawn. I am way over on the permissive side, if you're curious. I do think it needs to be disclosed and separate records kept/established.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    I think your examples actually proves my point: even though there are wildly different views on where the line should be drawn, we don't consider that to be a reason not to draw any lines. So there's disagreement over the damage inflicted on a car by various actions: the car aficionado will consider it an assault on himself if you look at his car the wrong way, whereas the hippie will shrug his shoulders and bemoan the spelling mistake if someone tagged his VW Camper van with "I sukk". But even though these differences exist, nobody is arguing that setting someone's car on fire should be a criminal offence. To get back to doping: you can reasonably argue that caffeine in huge doses is doping, and you can reasonably argue the opposite. But that's no reason not to limit EPO or genetic doping.

matt4077 9y ago

Nobody is saying that one side of that divide is uniformly "bad" and the other is "awesome". There's obviously no "morally awesome" in doping–only "not doping". And nobody is denying that there is a grey area. But the existence of a grey area doesn't mean that the extremes don't exist. To try another example: within the infinity of possible human actions, you can probably find something for every nuanced level of morality from "saving a hundred babies" all the way to genocide, with parking in a handicapped spot slightly on the "bad" side of average, and "looking at the watch" somewhere really close to neutral. But just because we can't always draw a bright line between "good" and "bad" actions doesn't mean we should abolish all criminal law, does it?

aetherson 9y ago
You're trying very hard to create analogies to explain something that I already understand, have said I understood, and don't disagree with you on. And if this article were about someone taking a shit-ton of steroids and attaching a cybernetic device that super-oxygenated her blood during the match, then we could reasonably say that it doesn't matter where the line is, she's way over it.
KGIII 9y ago
To beat your analogy into the ground, go to a car show and see what happens if you flick a single grain of sand onto some of the cars. My only point is to draw attention to there being wildly different views on where the line should be drawn. I am way over on the permissive side, if you're curious. I do think it needs to be disclosed and separate records kept/established.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I think your examples actually proves my point: even though there are wildly different views on where the line should be drawn, we don't consider that to be a reason not to draw any lines. So there's disagreement over the damage inflicted on a car by various actions: the car aficionado will consider it an assault on himself if you look at his car the wrong way, whereas the hippie will shrug his shoulders and bemoan the spelling mistake if someone tagged his VW Camper van with "I sukk". But even though these differences exist, nobody is arguing that setting someone's car on fire should be a criminal offence. To get back to doping: you can reasonably argue that caffeine in huge doses is doping, and you can reasonably argue the opposite. But that's no reason not to limit EPO or genetic doping.