3 ms·

If my genetics aren’t as good as another athlete. I’m at a disadvantage. Why is this considered not just acceptable but even good? The genetically gifted person

If my genetics aren’t as good as another athlete. I’m at a disadvantage. Why is this considered not just acceptable but even good? The genetically gifted person didn’t do anything to receive praise society gives out for said genetics.

rapind 5y ago
That’s just life. There are many genetic advantages and disadvantages people have beyond just athletic ability, not to mention non genetic advantages like opportunities due to wealth, gender, race, birth place, influential peers, etc. If you follow your logic and some how eliminate all outside advantage, then you may come to the conclusion that athletic competition is meaningless.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Why are you and downvotes/others possibly able to extend my logic into a wild conclusion. Yet, I assume you would find me taking your logic down a wild path as preposterous. Following your logic of that’slife and genetics are part of natural life while steroids are so wrong, we should heavily focus on making sure advantages from consumption are curbed. No supplements, no high protein low calorie food. Limit medications and so on. As genetics are a part of life, something I never disagreed with, and we all agree they are not equal in fairness, why are steroids of almost any kind frowned upon so strongly? But other life advantages or disadvantages are hand waved away?
void_mint 5y ago
Because having good genetics isn't enough to actually achieve anything, and there are a myriad of reasons someone with excellent genetics won't achieve as much as someone with lesser genetics.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Outside sports that are only about strength (if there are any), steroid usage isn’t enough to actually achieve anything in athletics. There are many reasons why two people taking some assortment of steroids will have one achieve much more than the other. Even when the achiever uses less steroids.

rapind 5y ago

That’s just life. There are many genetic advantages and disadvantages people have beyond just athletic ability, not to mention non genetic advantages like opportunities due to wealth, gender, race, birth place, influential peers, etc. If you follow your logic and some how eliminate all outside advantage, then you may come to the conclusion that athletic competition is meaningless.

skinnymuch 5y ago
Why are you and downvotes/others possibly able to extend my logic into a wild conclusion. Yet, I assume you would find me taking your logic down a wild path as preposterous. Following your logic of that’slife and genetics are part of natural life while steroids are so wrong, we should heavily focus on making sure advantages from consumption are curbed. No supplements, no high protein low calorie food. Limit medications and so on. As genetics are a part of life, something I never disagreed with, and we all agree they are not equal in fairness, why are steroids of almost any kind frowned upon so strongly? But other life advantages or disadvantages are hand waved away?

void_mint 5y ago

Because having good genetics isn't enough to actually achieve anything, and there are a myriad of reasons someone with excellent genetics won't achieve as much as someone with lesser genetics.

skinnymuch 5y ago
Outside sports that are only about strength (if there are any), steroid usage isn’t enough to actually achieve anything in athletics. There are many reasons why two people taking some assortment of steroids will have one achieve much more than the other. Even when the achiever uses less steroids.