Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[spetsa]

Valuable contribution

Please inform me what contribution has been valuable. I don't drop in here very often because of exactly what is going on. Thought I would take a look at the thread after it was all straightened out by the mods, and the new rules were implemented to stop what used to be and obviously still is the norm. SSDD.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Please inform me what contribution has been valuable. I don't drop in here very often because of exactly what is going on. Thought I would take a look at the thread after it was all straightened out by the mods, and the new rules were implemented to stop what used to be and obviously still is the norm. SSDD.

Cool story bro

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thought I would take a look at the thread after it was all straightened out by the mods, and the new rules were implemented to stop what used to be and obviously still is the norm. SSDD.

Historically, the best way to improve a thread like this is by users such as yourself changing the course of discussion with valuable input and useful information, even speculation.

Even in past cases where we mods have governed with a heavy hand, it hasn't had anywhere near the effectiveness as that of users taking positive action themselves.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Please inform me what contribution has been valuable. I don't drop in here very often because of exactly what is going on. Thought I would take a look at the thread after it was all straightened out by the mods, and the new rules were implemented to stop what used to be and obviously still is the norm. SSDD.

Hey, check out the "Armstrong - response to his article on Pantani" article. I think it's right up your alley.

 

[ebandit]

run

on cue. like color blindness i suppose.

run forrest.............................run

Mark L

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well, much as I'd love to oblige you, it is, as they say, a forum. And you are not a mod (you pretend more to the status of rhetorical despot--and the plebs love you for it), so that means my own interpretation of this "fascinating subject" does have much to do with the subject of Mr LA as a media and sociological topic. You may not like it, but those are inseparable aspects of his career as cyclist--and vice versa. As the media aspect continues to define that half-life, I see no reason not to keep it in play. The Pantani tribute being a case in point.

Now, anytime you feel capable of giving me a rigorous and nuanced definition and historical genealogy of what the "spirit of sport" might be, then I'll take your posts seriously, rather than viewing them as ultimately naive, sheltered and unintentionally comical--in a very pathetic sort of way.

It's a subjective assessment, and this is a forum. Those two go together like lube and a d!ldo. It means what it means. Discomfort with subjectivity is a common malady in society, don't fall victim to it.

 

[aphronesis]

It's a subjective assessment, and this is a forum. Those two go together like lube and a d!ldo. It means what it means. Discomfort with subjectivity is a common malady in society, don't fall victim to it.

You're exactly right, except the only discomfort is when it gets presented as an objective natural. That's the blind spot in the argument. Self-satisfaction is another common malady--a lot of that going on around here--i'll leave the sexual analogy to you on that one.

Nothing means what it means or is what it is. That's platitude as ontology used to excuse pretty much anything these days.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You're exactly right, except the only discomfort is when it gets presented as an objective natural. That's the blind spot in the argument. Self-satisfaction is another common malady--a lot of that going on around here--i'll leave the sexual analogy to you on that one.

Nothing means what it means or is what it is. That's platitude as ontology used to excuse pretty much anything these days.

Everything means what it means when referenced to opinion, and this is a forum for opinion on a news site. It's their job parse out precise definitions, but individuals ALL follow their subjective assessments, as well as the motivations for actions taken in conformance with those assessments. It isn't an excuse, it's reality.

I love morals and ethics, but I never pretend my assessment of those is anything but subjective. My subjective assessment may be shared by millions or none at all, but that is irreleant to me in reality, but that doesn't mean that I am immune from questions of that, nor do I believe I should be immune from actions in conformance with those subjective assessments if I have, by choice or by general duty to society, submitted to that authority.

Asking for an objective assessment of a subjective term is effective in trying to cut off debate of opinion, but it doesn't further it, nor is it intended to...then again, trying to change opinion by debate is like trying to use a d!ldo on a wooden board.

 

[Netserk]

Everything means what it means when referenced to opinion, and this is a forum for opinion on a news site. It's their job parse out precise definitions, but individuals ALL follow their subjective assessments, as well as the motivations for actions taken in conformance with those assessments. It isn't an excuse, it's reality.

I love morals and ethics, but I never pretend my assessment of those is anything but subjective. My subjective assessment may be shared by millions or none at all, but that is irreleant to me in reality, but that doesn't mean that I am immune from questions of that, nor do I believe I should be immune from actions in conformance with those subjective assessments if I have, by choice or by general duty to society, submitted to that authority.

Asking for an objective assessment of a subjective term is effective in trying to cut off debate of opinion, but it doesn't further it, nor is it intended to.

Sounds like you took that lube and d!ldo, and shovelled it up in his @ss

 

[aphronesis]

Everything means what it means when referenced to opinion, and this is a forum for opinion on a news site. It's their job parse out precise definitions, but individuals ALL follow their subjective assessments, as well as the motivations for actions taken in conformance with those assessments. It isn't an excuse, it's reality.

I love morals and ethics, but I never pretend my assessment of those is anything but subjective. My subjective assessment may be shared by millions or none at all, but that is irreleant to me in reality, but that doesn't mean that I am immune from questions of that, nor do I believe I should be immune from actions in conformance with those subjective assessments if I have, by choice or by general duty to society, have submitted to that authority.

Sorry, but I disagree, and in the case of the topic of this thread and the article referenced elsewhere, there's no conflict between a person commenting on their past with another rider and whatever ends that telling may serve in the present. More precisely, not even all the details in the Pantani story are likely so motivated and manipulated as some would have it. Then or now. Consciousness and motivations don't work that way. Moreover, morals and ethics are two separate things--frequently collapsed and used interchangeably in this thread.

In the case of the poster you're defending it's a known rhetorical tactic of theirs to frame what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discourse and statements within a given thread. So when he defines his terms, I'll be happy to do the same. By the lines of your own argument you are free to do so as well.

And no, asking for an objective assessment of a subjective term is merely suggesting some self-awareness and responsibility. Ethics in your terms rather than morals. That distinction in terms of self-awareness as distinct from self-identity is at the heart of what you're trying to--but not quite--articulate in that convoluted and ultimately circular post.

 

[zlev11]

Sounds like you took that lube and d!ldo, and shovelled it up in his @ss

i dont think he used the lube

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry, but I disagree, and in the case of the topic of this thread and the article referenced elsewhere, there's no conflict between a person commenting on their past with another rider and whatever ends that telling may serve in the present. More precisely, not even all the details in the Pantani story are likely so motivated and manipulated as some would have it. Then or now. Consciousness and motivations don't work that way. Moreover, morals and ethics are two separate things--frequently collapsed and used interchangeably in this thread.

In the case of the poster you're defending it's a known rhetorical tactic of theirs to frame what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discourse and statements within a given thread. So when he defines his terms, I'll be happy to do the same. By the lines of your own argument you are free to do so as well.

You just engaged in the known tactic of seeking to stifle debate by asking for an impossibly complex definition not to elicit that definition, but to make a rhetorical point.

As for the difference between morals and ethics, they are both subject to the reality of subjectivity. If you need further proof, walk out your front door.

And no, asking for an objective assessment of a subjective term is merely suggesting some self-awareness and responsibility. Ethics in your terms.

Your assessment presupposes information about him that you don't have. How would you know what he has and has not taken into account when he devised his opinion about "spirit of sport?"

EDIT: You could have just started with "I believe spirit of the sport means..."

 

[aphronesis]

You just engaged in the known tactic of seeking to stifle debate by asking for an impossibly complex definition not to elicit that definition, but to make a rhetorical point.

As for the difference between morals and ethics, they are both subject to the reality of subjectivity. If you need further proof, walk out your front door.



Your assessment presupposes information about him that you don't have. How would you know what he has and has not taken into account when he devised his opinion about "spirit of sport?"

EDIT: You could have just started with "I believe spirit of the sport means..."

That same definition could be sketched out in the time it takes to deliver smug and juvenile workshops on trolling and slipping past the mods. Four stages say: the classical era, middle ages, onset of modernity and from the late industrial age to the present. All reductive of course, but as you're fond of pointing out it's an opinion forum. One would want to factor in propaganda, population control and economies.

Don't know what he's taken into account other than the fact that he just repeated it as given. That's not argument or debate either.

They are also part of the reality of subjectivity and can also be used to redefine and transform it. You walk outside your front door and try it. But, again, you are now presenting the "reality of subjectivity" as universal. I don't buy it.

I could have started with that, but I didn't introduce the term and it's not the thread for it.

 

[blackcat]

No, the obvious question wouldn't be "how many," but rather why. And, it's quite evident that the "spirit of the sport" is quite up for debate. Anyone pretending otherwise is hypocritical--if not deluded.

"They have." So what? Those rules are arguably not working. Now you may argue for better or more aggressive enforcement, but then if that needs to the case, the "spirit of the sport" will again be in question.

anti-doping rules are pretty arbitrary, and the bureaucratic regime that administers them is pretty incoherent.

"spirit of sport"? safety? rules (for rules sake)? off-label criminality? "for the kids" (I like that one <not>)? for Nike and Coke and GE? <that one is unstated, but prolly the most salient>

The problem as I see it, is the definition, or the inability to achieve an adequate definition, of anti-doping, and also, the leitmotif contention spirit of sport.

Ok, wrt anti-doping aims and regulations, they have codicils on the WADA and IOC website available to all. But these are not the understanding that is out there in the public domain.

Wrt spirit, this is perhaps more coherent, and less prone to subjective interpretation, but subjective nonetheless.

Unlike branding on Obama, when he offers a tabula rasa for the populace to project their wishes upon, in sport these two issues offer an incoherency that can not offer an adequate resolution, or reconciling.

Now, another question, can they be reconciled under any scenario, p'raps, just p'raps, they cant

 

[mewmewmew13]

ghod
I keep coming back to see if anybody 'won' yet…

wth

 

[aphronesis]

anti-doping rules are pretty arbitrary, and the bureaucratic regime that administers them is pretty incoherent.

"spirit of sport"? safety? rules (for rules sake)? off-label criminality? "for the kids" (I like that one <not>)? for Nike and Coke and GE? <that one is unstated, but prolly the most salient>

The problem as I see it, is the definition, or the inability to achieve an adequate definition, of anti-doping, and also, the leitmotif contention spirit of sport.

Ok, wrt anti-doping aims and regulations, they have codicils on the WADA and IOC website available to all. But these are not the understanding that is out there in the public domain.

Wrt spirit, this is perhaps more coherent, and less prone to subjective interpretation, but subjective nonetheless.

Unlike branding on Obama, when he offers a tabula rasa for the populace to project their wishes upon, in sport these two issues offer and incoherency that can not offer an adequate resolution, or reconciling.

Now, another question, can they be reconciled under any scenario, p'raps, just p'raps, they cant

Ultimately they probably can't be any more reconciled than in most other regulated mass activities in contemporary society that have an idealistic and non-utilitarian aspect, but are still part of a professionalized work environment. The issue in part though is acknowledging the tension and conflict between the idealistic/idealized side and the practical/commercial.

Much like in the case of Obama that conflict between ideals and realities is never acknowledged, but only spoken of as if self-evident and hand in glove

 

[blackcat]

they hate me at Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That same definition could be sketched out in the time it takes to deliver smug and juvenile workshops on trolling and slipping past the mods. Four stages say: the classical era, middle ages, onset of modernity and from the late industrial age to the present. All reductive of course, but as you're fond of pointing out it's an opinion forum. One would want to factor in propaganda, population control and economies of course.

Don't know what he's taken into account other than the fact that he just repeated it as given. That's not argument or debate either.

They are also part of the reality of subjectivity and can also be used to redefine and transform it. You walk outside your front door and try it. But, again, you are now presenting the "reality of subjectivity" as universal. I don't buy it.

I could have started with that, but I didn't introduce the term and it's not the thread for it.

You asked for exacting details sweetie. I suggest reforming your questions to comport with the intent contained therein.

As for the reality of subjectivity not being universal...yea, fundamentalists across the world agree with you, so you got that going for you...

Glad you are a fan of my work though.

 

[BroDeal]

This thread needs thehog. Free thehog.

 

[aphronesis]

You asked for details sweetie. I suggest reforming your questions to comport with the intent contained therein.

Intent is broad. We're not in court dear. Which details, exactly? Again, you're parsing my intent based on pre-conceived notions and questions that weren't directed to you.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Intent is broad. We're not in court dear. Which details, exactly? Again, you're parsing my intent based on pre-conceived notions and questions that weren't directed to you.

Sweetie, you need to read your request. You asked for a historically detailed recitation...I get it, being wrong isn't in your bag of things to be...

 

[aphronesis]

Sweetie, you need to read your request. You asked for a historically detailed recitation...I get it, being wrong isn't in your bag of things to be...

Confused, not wrong, thought you were referring to the much earlier post from back when we were still remotely on topic. No, I'm fine with how I put the request you're referring to. You're free to carry on rephrasing as you like, but that has nothing to do with me.

You spend days in the politics thread arguing for the non-universality of subjective experience as defined by "reality". Maybe get your concepts in order.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And no, asking for an objective assessment of a subjective term is merely suggesting some self-awareness and responsibility. Ethics in your terms rather than morals. That distinction in terms of self-awareness as distinct from self-identity is at the heart of what you're trying to--but not quite--articulate in that convoluted and ultimately circular post.

Please, please, please stop. This is neither a logic, political, or philosophy forum. This business of subtly launching personal attacks needs to stop too.

Don't feed the wordy troll.

 

[blackcat]

Ultimately they probably can't be any more reconciled than in most other regulated mass activities in contemporary society that have an idealistic and non-utilitarian aspect, but are still part of a professionalized work environment. The issue in part though is acknowledging the tension and conflict between the idealistic/idealized side and the practical/commercial.

Much like in the case of Obama that conflict between ideals and realities is never acknowledged, but only spoken of as if self-evident and hand in glove

as I see it, there is professional sport, and sport as a business, then we have the adolescent sport and juvenile competition, and ne'er the twain shall meet (in theory).

And there exists an invisible line (more a spectrum), or arbitrary position, where you go from AAA High School varsity, to NCAA division 1 (or an equivlent professional feeder route).

Pro sport is not your local rec league, and all the ideals, mores, culture and rules, taught in adolescence go by the wayside. Its basketball, but its not basketball. (hows that for incoherency and inscrutability). Effectively, the same sport is bifurcated, and changed, but looks the same.

how 'bout them apples of hypocrisy (allegations of incoherency of others)

re: Obama the tabula rasa. Well, he won the 2008 Advertising Industry award, p'raps, it is just pragmatism and realism in the cloak of ideals, and they were never ideals held. I dont reckon you can hold the top spot without checking them at the door

 

[aphronesis]

Please, please, please stop. This is neither a logic, political, or philosophy forum. This business of subtly launching personal attacks needs to stop too.

Don't feed the wordy troll.

Then why address it to me? I didn't introduce those terms or concepts. Scott doesn't like it when I post with brevity, you don't like the words. So which is it?

It's not a psychology forum either, but look at how often those concepts get put into play in this thread. A little double standard DW? I'm shocked.