@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Who is haughty? Not I. I'm allowed to have a goddamn opinion on the matter without it being portrayed as a character failing by you, especially as there is no real disagreement between us that he broke the law multiple times and was caught doing so.
I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion. I'm just expressing my non-dammed opinion myself. <shrugs>
Quote:The real issue that he used an illegal drug to cheat at his job. His actions did deep and lasting damage to the sport.
That might be the main issue to you, but it certainly can't be the issue to the government. The government's job isn't to enforce the rules of baseball.
Quote:I don't think it's the governments' business either. However, there's no conflict between that position and the position that you should follow the laws on the books or be prepared to face the consequences for doing so.
You don't change the law, you break it. Your claiming moral high ground for just being "prepared" to face the consequences but I don't see any real qualitative difference other than he got caught and you didn't.
I personally don't think he's obliged to not try to mitigate his punishment and if he is punished I don't know what exactly "being prepared" for that means or counts for.
Ultimately you are saying he is bad because he got caught and then lied about it and that you, breaking a similar law, are not as bad because you wouldn't lie about it and are more prepared to face the consequences and I think that is moralizing over his misfortune and your comparative lack of it.
Quote:If Bonds, when confronted during the BALCO investigation, had come clean and said, 'yeah, I used performance enhancing drugs. Everyone in baseball is doing it (which is/was somewhat true). It's none of your business what I do, in my opinion... '; well, that would be one thing. But he wasn't honest.
I understand. We don't disagree that he lied, or that lying is bad but you seem to selectively care about lying. When Bill Clinton lied you didn't want him to go to jail.
Bill Clinton has also lied about taking illegal drugs too. I don't think your moralizing is consistent with either your own illegal drug use or any of the other reasons you are using to judge Bonds.
Quote:He lied the entire time and got caught doing so, because he didn't want to be revealed as a cheater. His position, from start to finish, was entirely and totally morally bankrupt. Why shouldn't he be punished for that? Why should I feel bad that he will be?
I think you should feel what you like. Why should I not feel that it is untoward if I want?
As I said, I was just surprised at how authoritarian you are about illegal drugs as a fellow illegal drug user. I certainly think your opinion is your prerogative and never said any differently. I just criticized it. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have your opinions, it just means I don't agree with them.
Quote:Every time we break the law, we make a calculated decision: is the benefit I gain from this action greater than the trouble I will get in for being caught? In a lot of minor cases, the answer is the benefit does indeed outweigh the cost: minor speeding. Jaywalking. smoking a ciggie in a no-smoking zone.
And there's nothing wrong with taking these actions, if you are willing to pay the price for getting caught. It's not morally wrong to speed by 5 or 10 miles an hour on the freeway. But you ought to own up to your actions afterward. In my case, I have no problem owning up to my actions, because the penalty is minimal: a hundred dollar ticket. Not a problem. When I visit areas that have an unacceptable penalty for doing drugs, I don't do them.
I think cost/risk analysis is a good idea. I don't think it is a moral issue though (for example I don't think that someone who has not done so is wrong, just perhaps stupid).
Quote:That is an excellent position to take, but it's not incompatible with the opinion that one ought to respect the laws on the books.
At some level the notion that all laws must be obeyed and you should just work to change them is noble and at some level it's just silly.
It wouldn't be that hard for you to think of recent laws in your country that you think were right to be disobeyed civilly as the very means to get them off the books.
For example, you say that he "deserves" legal punishment because of this disrespect of the law. But would you really always say the same? For example it used to be illegal for someone to not return a fugitive slave or to help them. Do you think that fugitive slaves and those who helped them "deserved" their punishments and should have just worked to get the laws off the books and respected them while they were there?
If so it's a pretty drastic rule of law position but it would be consistent, but if not then you are ultimately deciding that some laws must be respected and that others must not.
