Posted In: Blog Discussion
Imagine you are a truck driver on the East coast with a shipment bound for L.A. The person receiving that shipment has promised that your payment for this job will be based on how quickly you can get the shipment to him. The faster you get it there the more you’ll be paid. In fact, your pay will go up exponentially for every hour of time you save. He’s also given you secret directions on back ro
ELITETRACK Founder
Very interesting blog…
In my opinion (and I’m speaking of what I would do personally…), regarding the food for thought, I’d speed because the limits would not be enforced (key word). However, I would not drive through the night, because the laws prohibit it (another key word).
As far as on the athletic side of this, I’m too much of a competitor to use any competitive advantages like that. I like to be the best at what I do, and my ego would never forgive me if I was cheating to get to the top.
Two very similar, yet very dissimilar hypotheticals.
Absolutely no parallel. Using PEDs compared to using backroads to speed? I don’t drive the speed limit most of the time and I know if I am caught I will be punished. I also don’t hit the brakes like 90% of people on the roads driving when they see a cop (hitting your brakes will increase the likelihood of a ticket). A parallel with driving is a DUI scenario and getting into an accident then leaving the scene of the accident. If you get caught your a goner, its that simple.
Athletes who use PEDs don’t deserve anything and definitely haven’t earned anything. I hope they all die young.
Athletes who use PEDs don’t deserve anything and definitely haven’t earned anything. I hope they all die young.
How do you REALLY feel?
There’s a complete parallel because the athletes that I’ve called in to question (MLB and NFL) knew that they could do whatever they wanted and not be caught / punished (just like the trucker). And much like speeding or driving while sleep impaired, they could potentially hurt themselves through their actions but the payout (bigger contracts in the case of MLB and NFL guys) was deemed the better option.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235055047"]Athletes who use PEDs don’t deserve anything and definitely haven’t earned anything. I hope they all die young.
How do you REALLY feel?[/quote]
Its the same way I feel about drug dealers and drunk drivers who injure others.
BTW, Mike that parallel is not the same at least not at a humanistic level. It maybe at a simple logic level, but not at higher levels of thought. I would expect such an argument from a redneck who thinks if johnny b good can drink beer in his own yard that he should be able to drink beer in his truck as both would be drinking beer on their own property.
How’d you get the cover photo from my soon to be released autobiography?
CFKA – The Early Years…
Would you speed? Depends on how fast everyone else is driving. It is safest to drive at what 80-85% of the other drivers are doing. Eveyone has driven past granny on the highway who is doing 50mph when everyone else is doing 75-80mph. In my eyes, that is more unsafe than casually going over the speed limit with traffic.
Would you drive through the night despite laws prohibiting it? Nah, I like sleep too much.
Do you see the parallel? Yes and no. No one cares whether a truck driver puts up great driving numbers. Everyone cares when a player is doing well or is in a slump. Mainly because of fantasy leagues and gambling.
Also, the laws are there so truckers don’t kill other drivers by falling asleep at the wheel.
The laws are in baseball and football to keep things fair and to keep kids from thinking they need steriods to be elite. Ultimately, Johnny Superstar taking drugs won’t make my life hazardous. The truck driver not sleeping most certainly does.
And CFKA, I like the tape measure suspenders. Classic.
It maybe at a simple logic level, but not at higher levels of thought. I would expect such an argument from a redneck who thinks if johnny b good can drink beer in his own yard that he should be able to drink beer in his truck as both would be drinking beer on their own property.
So I’m a redneck incapable of higher levels of thought? Thanks!
BTW- Your example doesn’t parallel because there is no monetary incentive involved for the redneck and unlike my example, there is a risk of getting caught and punished. FAIL.
ELITETRACK Founder
It sounds like we people who feel guilty because they’d speed! Or maybe guilty because they already do speed (I know I do). Just stick to the example (truck driver with financial reward for speediness). As the post says it’s a hypothetical intended to make you think about ways people might justify there actions or make you think what you might do in a parallel situation.
ELITETRACK Founder
How’d you get the cover photo from my soon to be released autobiography?
CFKA – The Early Years…
You know I have a man crush on you. I convinced the publishers to let me on the editorial board.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235057276"]
It maybe at a simple logic level, but not at higher levels of thought. I would expect such an argument from a redneck who thinks if johnny b good can drink beer in his own yard that he should be able to drink beer in his truck as both would be drinking beer on their own property.
So I’m a redneck incapable of higher levels of thought? Thanks!
[/quote]DBandre has been quick to insult lately. Dude- I think you might need some zoloft.
I see the parallel. Seems to apply in those sports and maybe cycling 5 years ago. One thing that might make football a little different is that those guys can actually hurt each other more if they take that stuff and compete against someone who doesn’t.
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235057276"]
It maybe at a simple logic level, but not at higher levels of thought. I would expect such an argument from a redneck who thinks if johnny b good can drink beer in his own yard that he should be able to drink beer in his truck as both would be drinking beer on their own property.
So I’m a redneck incapable of higher levels of thought? Thanks!
BTW- Your example doesn’t parallel because there is no monetary incentive involved for the redneck and unlike my example, there is a risk of getting caught and punished. FAIL.[/quote]
I never called you a redneck, just surprised you used this type of logic as a hypothetical.
There is monetary risk in drunk driving, there is suspension risk in drunk driving, there is a stigma from being caught with a dui and an even worse stigma with a conviction. There is jail time for a DUI especially if it results in reckless homicide. Granted the last situation is far more reaching than an athlete using PEDs, but at some point we must be responsible for our own actions and judgments. The truck driver may assume some risk for speeding, but only a dumb truck driver would take a shippers advice for faster transportation as the transportation end is the drivers responsibility.
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1235084184"][quote author="dbandre" date="1235057276"]
It maybe at a simple logic level, but not at higher levels of thought. I would expect such an argument from a redneck who thinks if johnny b good can drink beer in his own yard that he should be able to drink beer in his truck as both would be drinking beer on their own property.
So I’m a redneck incapable of higher levels of thought? Thanks!
[/quote]DBandre has been quick to insult lately. Dude- I think you might need some zoloft.[/quote]
I am pretty sure Mike understands I am not insulting him. The only way to come to the parallel is simplifying not the scenarios, but what the scenarios represent which often distorts context. Which is what Chad is referring to. The context of each is so different that they cannot ever be parallel.
Its human nature to take short cuts if there is personal gain…specially if you’re not going to be caught.
At the lowest level of cognitive moral reasoning people rely on fear of sactions to guide their decision making.
At higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning you do what is right regardless of the consequences. There are definately similarities between your example and what is going on in MLB.
Its human nature to take short cuts if there is personal gain…specially if you’re not going to be caught.
At the lowest level of cognitive moral reasoning people rely on fear of sactions to guide their decision making.
At higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning you do what is right regardless of the consequences. There are definately similarities between your example and what is going on in MLB.
Thanks. This was the point I was hoping would be picked up. I’m assuming you’re a psychology or cognitive science student?
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="Novice" date="1235093256"]Its human nature to take short cuts if there is personal gain…specially if you’re not going to be caught.
At the lowest level of cognitive moral reasoning people rely on fear of sactions to guide their decision making.
At higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning you do what is right regardless of the consequences. There are definately similarities between your example and what is going on in MLB.
Thanks. This was the point I was hoping would be picked up. I’m assuming you’re a psychology or cognitive science student?[/quote]
We picked up this point but your hypothesis is guided by the lowest level and not higher levels. Besides, Novice is partly right as societal governing bodies rely on fear of sanctions of making sure guidelines (laws) are adhered to with the belief most are taking the higher level of thought. People don’t rely on fear of sanctions, they account for them and assume the risk if not caught at the level they can reason with. If the trucker was enhancing his diesel or buying a new one to go 120mph and then using it to travel that fast you can have your parallel. The means is the “Motor” or changing it or altering it or getting a new one to do something more. The route means little. Similarities don’t make things Parallel. The issue here is context and similar contexts allow parallels, but you can higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning that come to the conclusion to use PEDs and to speed or commit crimes, but their contexts would still be different.
Dan-
It’s breaking the law. That’s the point. Arguments about changing gas type or the engine are irrelevant.
There’s a law or rules in place. They are not being enforced. There’s financial reward for you if you do break it.
Would you break it?
Simple as that.
ELITETRACK Founder
Being a redneck (Texan) let me tweak Mike’s hyopthetical. Let’s say you OWN the trucking company, and your clients prefer carriers who can meet strict timelines etc. and don’t care how its done. Law enforcement doesn’t seem to bothered except for the occasional grand standing, and while the customers may say they don’t like lawbreakers, they keep hiring those that do. You realize that many of your competitors have begun to take these shortcuts and bend/break the law…perhaps most of those who are successful do, and have for some time. You realize there is no way to compete for customers unless you do the same.
Your choices…bend the laws, compete, keep your business and possibly make it big in the trucking industry, or play it straight and lose your business, your means of supporting your family, and any chance you had for making big money, cuz you don’t know how to do anything else.
Now, with your family and friends counting on you, do you bend the laws in order to keep your career (I mean trucking company)?
That is the Ben Johnson type of thinking i.e., people are beating so they have got to be cheating. Which may or may not be true. The moral dilemma is interesting… Suppose our hypothetical truck driver starts cheating and is caught, because he’s essentially a criminal. What good is he to anyone then?
That is the Ben Johnson type of thinking i.e., people are beating so they have got to be cheating. Which may or may not be true. The moral dilemma is interesting… Suppose our hypothetical truck driver starts cheating and is caught, because he’s essentially a criminal. What good is he to anyone then?
Mike’s hypothesis included NFL, MLB etc. There are people “caught” all the time, and they get a slap on the wrist, a “ticket” if you will. A truck driver speeding only gets a fine, less than $100 in many cases. Unless the penalties for speeding tickets received is greater than the reward gained by committing the crime (and keeping your business), its just business sense to do it. Something like a 100 players (plus or minus) tested positive when A-Rod first failed a test. Anyone know their names? That was 5-8 years ago and many of those guys that earned millions since then might have otherwise been cut and back home pumping gas. Their families may not approve, but they’re not giving the toys back.
Not defending PED use at all, but moral indignation is totally bogus unless testing is rigorously enforced, top to bottom, year ’round, and for any illegal drug, not just PEDs.
Its human nature to take short cuts if there is personal gain…specially if you’re not going to be caught.
At the lowest level of cognitive moral reasoning people rely on fear of sactions to guide their decision making.
At higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning you do what is right regardless of the consequences. There are definately similarities between your example and what is going on in MLB.
I agree!
[quote author="DaGovernor" date="1235056154"][quote author="dbandre" date="1235055047"]Athletes who use PEDs don’t deserve anything and definitely haven’t earned anything. I hope they all die young.
How do you REALLY feel?[/quote]
Its the same way I feel about drug dealers and drunk drivers who injure others.
[/quote]
*Off-topic
Yip, I’d agree with that but…how are speeders considerably less in the wrong than either of those two aforementioned cases? Because the individuals beleived they were above the laws(safety laws) for whatever reasons and thus, no matter what their perceived intentions, are obviously willing to risk injuring/killing/paralysing others…
A highway with moving vehicles is dynamically changing system. Which often necessitates speeding or going severely under the speed limit (which is against the law as well). People drive their vehicles at a speed they feel safe driving which is often dictated by the other traffic around them. Regardless of the reason for speeding in almost all cases speed takes a back seat to driving at a speed someone feels comfortable doing in other words safety.
Is the truck driver in this instance going to speed? Not anymore than usual is what I think. Will he cheat on his logs? Probably not as that fine is astronomical to a truck driver. The cost-benefit of getting there faster is outweighed by the cost of getting stopped once. I think the Driver will take the minimum allowed on sleep/rest, cut his food stops short, squeeze as much as out of his truck in terms of mileage as each stop is about an hour’s worth of time. He can probably squeeze a 12hour window out by doing this.
A highway with moving vehicles is dynamically changing system. Which often necessitates speeding or going severely under the speed limit (which is against the law as well). People drive their vehicles at a speed they feel safe driving which is often dictated by the other traffic around them. Regardless of the reason for speeding in almost all cases speed takes a back seat to driving at a speed someone feels comfortable doing in other words safety.
Is the truck driver in this instance going to speed? Not anymore than usual is what I think. Will he cheat on his logs? Probably not as that fine is astronomical to a truck driver. The cost-benefit of getting there faster is outweighed by the cost of getting stopped once. I think the Driver will take the minimum allowed on sleep/rest, cut his food stops short, squeeze as much as out of his truck in terms of mileage as each stop is about an hour’s worth of time. He can probably squeeze a 12hour window out by doing this.
This is a philosophical argument. Some assumptions have to be accepted to get to the point of the hypothesis. Assume that his speeding is excessive. Assume that the roads are lightly traveled and there is little danger to anyone other than the driver. Assume that the reward for breaking the rules may greatly exceed the penalty for being caught. Assume that if he doesn’t break the law he will lose his business and his family will suffer. Is there any set of circumstances that could exist that would put you in a position to break the law, or will you let your business go and absorb the new financial circumstances, which ain’t that great, based purely on moral and ethical grounds?
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235168141"]A highway with moving vehicles is dynamically changing system. Which often necessitates speeding or going severely under the speed limit (which is against the law as well). People drive their vehicles at a speed they feel safe driving which is often dictated by the other traffic around them. Regardless of the reason for speeding in almost all cases speed takes a back seat to driving at a speed someone feels comfortable doing in other words safety.
Is the truck driver in this instance going to speed? Not anymore than usual is what I think. Will he cheat on his logs? Probably not as that fine is astronomical to a truck driver. The cost-benefit of getting there faster is outweighed by the cost of getting stopped once. I think the Driver will take the minimum allowed on sleep/rest, cut his food stops short, squeeze as much as out of his truck in terms of mileage as each stop is about an hour’s worth of time. He can probably squeeze a 12hour window out by doing this.
This is a philosophical argument. Some assumptions have to be accepted to get to the point of the hypothesis. Assume that his speeding is excessive. Assume that the roads are lightly traveled and there is little danger to anyone other than the driver. Assume that the reward for breaking the rules may greatly exceed the penalty for being caught. Assume that if he doesn’t break the law he will lose his business and his family will suffer. Is there any set of circumstances that could exist that would put you in a position to break the law, or will you let your business go and absorb the new financial circumstances, which ain’t that great, based purely on moral and ethical grounds?[/quote]
If you make hypothetical statements about moral and ethical dilemmas there must be a philosophical basis for the hypothetical statement. Reducing the differences of a variably controlled law such as traffic speed limits which are done in the best interest of public safety by those sworn to protect it and a sport regulation or by-law which prohibits use of performance enhancing drugs to keep the integrity of the sporting result is inconceivable to draw such a parallel.
On the surface there may be similarities, but the context is what makes them different. Laws and rules are objective, but can only be subjectively enforced. Some one who runs, jumps, or throws for money either has the ability to do these things for money or not. If they don’t they should have picked another sport or profession or take up a side profession. In the case of the trucker, every one has the same limitations to deliver from point A to point B. The biggest difference between the two situations is exactly this, in sport no everyone has the same limitations, but in the delivery of goods from A to B everyone has the same limitations, getting faster in the sporting scenario can involve legitimate or illegitimate means, but getting from point A to point B in a faster period of time in the truck driving scenario involves using only illegitimate means to improve delivery time by more than a day.
My thoughts are exactly this, not a single trucker with an ounce of thought would immediately take the money. Most athletes wouldn’t immediately take PEDs either, but the trucker who accepts the offer would likely have weighed all costs to the benefit and found an acceptable solution as he is going to make money regardless, but he’s unlikely to risk anything more than he already does while driving, remember sometimes truckers roll in convoys or 4 or 5 trucks if they are going the same direction. The athlete on the other hand still has legitimate means at hand to improve and if the athlete decides to go the other direction this can only be paralleled by a trucker who is driving his rig at 100mph or more or taking 4 hours rest and logging 8 hours rest, this trucker realizes if he is caught which is likely considering a truck going 100mph would likely nearly blow every small vehicle it passes off the road. Then lastly no trucker is going to take 2 lane highways when 4 or more lane highways are nearby unless they need to make stops along the 2 lane road or bisect another 4 or more lane highway. Therefore I cannot see a parallel between the two either from a humanistic point of view or a philosophical one, because only in the worst case possible scenario of a trucker going 100mph and doing the same on 2 lane roads and then is cooking his log book do I see such a parallel and guess who isn’t going to driving a truck for a period of time? There will be no slap on the wrist with reckless driving, possible reckless endangerment, and other laws which immediately turn into 1 to 2 year suspension or possible complete revocation of the truckers license. Severity is the key here and the hypothetical did not account for the severity of the truckers dilemma only the athletes.
If you make hypothetical statements about moral and ethical dilemmas there must be a philosophical basis for the hypothetical statement. Reducing the differences of a variably controlled law such as traffic speed limits which are done in the best interest of public safety by those sworn to protect it and a sport regulation or by-law which prohibits use of performance enhancing drugs to keep the integrity of the sporting result is inconceivable to draw such a parallel.
Inconveivable? Please. There is no more variabililty in traffic law enforcement than there is in athletics. There are areas where you can get away with it unchallenged, and there are areas where the penalty is certain, swift and severe, traffic fines or drug testing, enforcement is inconsistent and certainly variable.
On the surface there may be similarities, but the context is what makes them different. Laws and rules are objective, but can only be subjectively enforced.[/quote}Exactly, both are objective in nature and subjectively enforced in practice. Some one who runs, jumps, or throws for money either has the ability to do these things for money or not. If they don’t they should have picked another sport or profession or take up a side profession. In the case of the trucker, every one has the same limitations to deliver from point A to point B. The biggest difference between the two situations is exactly this, in sport no everyone has the same limitations, but in the delivery of goods from A to B everyone has the same limitations,…[snip]
Look at it this way. An uneducated, not incredibly intelligent but very near-elite level athlete is about to lose his job to someone stronger and faster and who is probably cheating. He has done everything he can to improve, and has no other options that are remotely comparable in terms of salary, so he has the choice of cheating, like his replacement, or giving up his golden ticket. The trucker has the same choice. He can’t do anything else that will earn him the money he makes trucking (just take my word on that assumption). He can cheat or lose his golden ticket.
There is a parallel if you don’t spend all your time trying to complicate the issue. Would you speed? Yes or no. Would you take PEDs if you were that athlete? Yes or no.
Yes to speeding and No to PEDs, it’s pretty simple. The rules of the road are for safety and the rules of sporting competition is to provide for fairness. Fairness and safety are not parallel. When you get straight to the point of how severe was the action taken that’s when you will see parallels, but equalizing speeding to taking PEDs is stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish. I don’t care who you are, I am going to call you on it.
Yes to speeding and No to PEDs, it’s pretty simple. The rules of the road are for safety and the rules of sporting competition is to provide for fairness. Fairness and safety are not parallel.
So you’re saying fairness in a game is more important than increased fatality (of the driver or other drivers)?
When you get straight to the point of how severe was the action taken that’s when you will see parallels, but equalizing speeding to taking PEDs is stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish. I don’t care who you are, I am going to call you on it.
It would seem that there are enough people here of above average intelligence that it would be you who is wrong to call us ‘stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish.’
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235283929"]Yes to speeding and No to PEDs, it’s pretty simple. The rules of the road are for safety and the rules of sporting competition is to provide for fairness. Fairness and safety are not parallel.
So you’re saying fairness in a game is more important than increased fatality (of the driver or other drivers)?
When you get straight to the point of how severe was the action taken that’s when you will see parallels, but equalizing speeding to taking PEDs is stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish. I don’t care who you are, I am going to call you on it.
It would seem that there are enough people here of above average intelligence that it would be you who is wrong to call us ‘stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish.’[/quote]
How can you equate fairness in a game more important or as important as safety? That’s what you are doing. If the truck driver is going 70mph he may or may not get ticketed, if he’s going at least 85mph or more he is going to jail for reckless driving and reckless endangerment and his license is going to revoked for at least a year. Then he’s going to pay probably 10K or more in attorney fees. Then he’s never going to get a job as a trucker ever again. So if you are a trucker are you going to do some crazy ass driving? No. You may speed, but you are not going to drive recklessly for any amount of potential money, well at least I am not nor are any truckers who like what they do for a living and enjoy it. What everyone here is not doing with exception of a few is looking at it from a truckers perspective the same way every here looks at it from the athletes perspective. So yes, I stand behind my words. Put the hypothetical into context and perspective and I’ll side with you, but as you laid it out there is no way in hell I can say speeding is equivalent to doping.
It would seem that there are enough people here of above average intelligence that it would be you who is wrong to call us ‘stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish.’
More to the point, the original post was a fair and reasonable attempt to engage those individuals Mike mentions. The question was never, and still isn’t, to try and equate speeding, or cheating of any kind, directly to the use of PEDs. It amazes me how some people will run a mile to avoid walking a block, and how quickly some people can rain down the insults and personal attacks rather than admit someone else may have a valid point. The original poster obviously had no intention of attacking or provoking, anyone. Thought provoking maybe, but insults and personal attacks, there was no justification for that, period?
I see a pattern developing here…
[quote]It would seem that there are enough people here of above average intelligence that it would be you who is wrong to call us ‘stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish.’
More to the point, the original post was a fair and reasonable attempt to engage those individuals Mike mentions. The question was never, and still isn’t, to try and equate speeding, or cheating of any kind, directly to the use of PEDs. It amazes me how some people will run a mile to avoid walking a block, and how quickly some people can rain down the insults and personal attacks rather than admit someone else may have a valid point. The original poster obviously had no intention of attacking or provoking, anyone. Thought provoking maybe, but insults and personal attacks, there was no justification for that, period?
I see a pattern developing here…[/quote]
It’s not a personal attack or insult, it’s my opinion and belief system which I am espousing. Neither of which makes me right, nor does it make me wrong. If you believe its an insult then you are even more small minded than those I am questioning. I think Mike may have more motives to the posting than you believe and in some form the post has achieved this, because there are people like myself who can see grey areas and interpret them in ways many can not. This is probably the surprising part to myself as there are plenty of posters here on this board who are intelligent, but I don’t think the intelligence shows through when espousing there is a parallel between the two situations thus making them congruent (equivalent) when in reality the only equivalency that could happen is when the speeding is really reckless driving and reckless endangerment and the resulting fines and suspensions would be greater than those suffered by the athlete and not a slap on the wrist. A trucker going 56 mph is not equivalent to a trucker going 86 mph, in fact the similarity and parallel between the trucker and athlete exists somewhere near this point of speed probably more likely around 75-80 mph. So is the trucker going to take the money if he has to travel at speeds greater than 75 mph and/or have to cook his logs? Would you as a trucker do this? Would you sacrifice your livelihood for the rest of your life in all livelihood? I think not. So would you speed? Yes, but not to the point of losing my life and work. So why do athletes do it?
…but equalizing speeding to taking PEDs is stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish. I don’t care who you are, I am going to call you on it.
Anger management anyone?
[quote author="dbandre" date="1235283929"]…but equalizing speeding to taking PEDs is stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish. I don’t care who you are, I am going to call you on it.
Anger management anyone?[/quote]
Could you please stick to justifying the argument at hand or not, don’t strawman this into a perceived “fit of rage” segment. Years ago I used to throttle people, nowadays I am much calmer, but still call it how I see it and if the truth hurts so be it. I don’t pussy foot around the issues.
debandre said…
It’s not a personal attack or insult…
…I would expect such an argument from a redneck…
…’stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish…
…then you are even more small minded than those I am questioning…
star says…
If you can’t see that you have insulted and personally attacked Mike and the others, and now me, you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.
debandre said…
I think Mike may have more motives to the posting than you believe…
Please share…
I don’t pussy foot around the issues.[/quote]
But you do seem to cause and/or esculate them!
[quote]I think Mike may have more motives to the posting than you believe…
Please share…[/quote]I am secretly operating a clandestine bi-coastal trucking company that pays its drivers extra follow our secret highway and speed from one coast to the other.
ELITETRACK Founder
debandre said…
[quote]It’s not a personal attack or insult…
…I would expect such an argument from a redneck…
…’stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish…
…then you are even more small minded than those I am questioning…
star says…
If you can’t see that you have insulted and personally attacked Mike and the others, and now me, you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.
debandre said…
I think Mike may have more motives to the posting than you believe…
Please share…[/quote]
So I’ll share, I think Mike was posting to create some debate on the topic. I think he knows how this topic already plays out in this forum and usually its myself and davan arguing over who is strawmanning whom in it. With that said, if Mike thinks I was personally attacking him he could ban me or he could message me or he could say cool it. None of those were done, Mike posed the rhetorical question back to me earlier in the thread which I answered and I think he presumes like I do for all intentions my post is about the hypothetical being to simple to draw a parallel from in my opinion. The equality in the comparison is simple equals redneck, which is a true statement and not derogatory as I know many people who take the simple road in life and lead the simple life and are quite happy in doing so. However, I don’t think you can force the simple life on everyone or in this instance the simple hypothetical, because the issues at hand are more complex and diverse between the 2 examples used. Trust me, I generally would let Occam’s Razor take hold in a hypothesis, but the difference between the two example are many fold suggesting a few more conditions are needed for the hypothesis to hold true. If Mike was offended he would have stopped debating me in this thread after I posted that comment.
Your argument should be “If I am a redneck and small minded then why are you a hypocrite who believes it is ok to speed, but not to take PEDs when Safety is more important Performance in your small little ideal world.” Yet no one addressed that issue, although my argument goes a little deeper than that, because I think you can draw a parallel between the two, but only when the truck driver part satisfies a couple of more conditions. Instead you went on this rampage about how you are offended and how others are offended. Yet only 2 people here seem to be offended (trackjabber and yourself). We get nowhere in life and make no advancements as a society making sure everyone’s feelings are not hurt. If you are expecting an apology for yourself forget it, in time I may apologize to Mike or others if I feel this put a barrier between us, but for you and jabber you could ignore it, but by responding to how you were offended I can only providing you with more offending commentary to upset your feeble sensibilities as that must be how you thrive in the wilderness of the web.
[quote]It would seem that there are enough people here of above average intelligence that it would be you who is wrong to call us ‘stupid, moronic, quarter-witted, and foolish.’
More to the point, the original post was a fair and reasonable attempt to engage those individuals Mike mentions. The question was never, and still isn’t, to try and equate speeding, or cheating of any kind, directly to the use of PEDs. It amazes me how some people will run a mile to avoid walking a block, and how quickly some people can rain down the insults and personal attacks rather than admit someone else may have a valid point. The original poster obviously had no intention of attacking or provoking, anyone. Thought provoking maybe, but insults and personal attacks, there was no justification for that, period?
I see a pattern developing here…[/quote]
The original question
Would you speed?
Would you drive through the night despite laws prohibiting it?
I think many on here would probably say yes to at least one of those questions. Do you see the parallel? Think of what’s been going on in the MLB and NFL. See any similarities? Just some food for thought
Would I speed? Yes, but no more than usual. Would I drive through the night? Yes and No, I would drive as long as legally allowed trying to shave time from stops. I think that’s what most people would do. I think that is what most people do already, because that’s what law enforcement typically allows, not what the laws say. This allows for a small parallel, because the NFL and MLB have allowed it, but the problem then is one of personal safety. Would you do something that will make you die quicker? The answer to that question becomes NO. That’s why there is not a parallel at least in my eyes. A parallel between the NFL and MLB and the first statement (speeding) is true as long as they are doing it in a way they will not get caught or do something so overtly wrong, but the second statement is no laughing matter or slap on the wrist to the trucker, thus ending the parallel for the hypothetical.
So I’ll share, I think Mike was posting to create some debate on the topic. I think he knows how this topic already plays out in this forum and usually its myself and davan arguing over who is strawmanning whom in it.
You think? Why, how underhanded of Mike to start a thread on an internet discussion forum that might create some debate!
With that said, if Mike thinks I was personally attacking him he could ban me or he could message me or he could say cool it. None of those were done, Mike posed the rhetorical question back to me earlier in the thread which I answered and I think he presumes like I do for all intentions my post is about the hypothetical being to simple to draw a parallel from in my opinion. The equality in the comparison is simple equals redneck, which is a true statement and not derogatory as I know many people who take the simple road in life and lead the simple life and are quite happy in doing so.
Not speaking for Mike, but his response had nothing to do with the hypothetical, only about your degrogatory comments. And equating redneck to simple is derogatory. I know some extrememly intelligent, hardworking, internally complex people who are proud to call themselves rednecks.
However, I don’t think you can force the simple life on everyone or in this instance the simple hypothetical, because the issues at hand are more complex and diverse between the 2 examples used. Trust me, I generally would let Occam’s Razor take hold in a hypothesis, but the difference between the two example are many fold suggesting a few more conditions are needed for the hypothesis to hold true. If Mike was offended he would have stopped debating me in this thread after I posted that comment.
I think you have totally missed Mike’s point. Here’s the quote again…
“The person receiving that shipment has promised that your payment for this job will be based on how quickly you can get the shipment to him. The faster you get it there the more you’ll be paid. In fact, your pay will go up exponentially for every hour of time you save. He’s also given you secret directions on back roads that he guarantees speed limits will not be enforced.
Would you speed?
Would you drive through the night despite laws prohibiting it?
I think many on here would probably say yes to at least one of those questions. Do you see the parallel? Think of what’s been going on in the MLB and NFL.”
The parallel is that, rightly or wrongly, the truckdriver, and the athlete, have been convinced, or allowed themselves to believe, that this shortcut will not cost them anything, but instead will allow them to be more successful, exponentially so. So all the logical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant. The truckdriver/athlete falls for the lie and takes the bait. THAT is the point of the hypothetical as I see it. Not that the actual circumstances are a parallel, but the willingness for both to believe something that reason and logic should tell them is obviously unbelievable. They can cheat and win…nobody gets hurt.
…you went on this rampage about how you are offended and how others are offended.
First, I believe you were the one to go on the rampage, calling names and hurling insults. And two, I never said anyone was offended, I only questioned your assertion that you never intended to insult anyone. And I don’t need an apology from you, it would be meaningless, as is the majority of what you write.
As I stated, since you and jabber are so easily offended I am going to continue to offend both of you until you can learn to ignore someone you believe is offending you. Lets stay on topic here and my original statement still stands.
Just watched this: https://is.gd/nMGO
Very relevant to the discussion…especially for dbandre’s arguments.
ELITETRACK Founder
Thanks a lot Mike, yet another riveting website 😉
In reply to your original question, another…would not the first thing you should ask yourself is, “Do I trust someone who councils me to knowingly break laws to also pay me regardless of how much they could end up owing me?”
I mean from the “employer’s” view, they may be fine with paying you say a bonus of $100 but what if you get that truckload there so quickly as to warrant a $1000 bonus? They could also be setting drivers up to be caught, increasing the revenue of that police force/city.
Is it a matter of degree (the gist from the TED broadcast?), earlier reference to 56mph or 86mph…well if the speed limit is 55mph both are breaking the law but with speeding are the fines not usually on a sliding scale? I drive fast on a regular basis but does the knowledge as a general rule that enforcement will not happen unless 10mph over the speed limit mean I only drive 9mph fast? So as with previous posts, 9mph too fast all the time or way over the speed limit on occasion? It depends on the particular day as to how high my moral high ground is.