Hacker News Reader

Comment by kajecounterhack | Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty sure I agree with you but comments like these could be more verbose. It's not helpful to simply disagree without explanation. One word responses are just dogmatic.

View on HN

Thanks. I personally believe in right and wrong, but also in degrees of right and wrong. Doing the right thing in a situation where everyone else is doing the wrong thing is more difficult. Doing the right thing when everyone is doing the right thing is easy. Thus, you don't really know your values or the depth of your values until you are placed in a situation where it is difficult to carry them out.

Here, for "culpability" I mean simply that I believe that the power to actualize the values of each individual differs, and that those who are able to actualize their values even in very difficult situations is worth more and to be praised more than those who are unable to and go with the flow.

This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing. You have to act on those values and, because acting on those values can be difficult, I have sympathy for those who fail to -- even as I praise those who do.

Your analysis is not wrong. The UCI/The Tour DeFrance, Lance Armstrong were just as bad. You highlight lots of good issues (including - other people making money off it regardless of who wins, the act of not doping was arguably dangerous, given the exertion levels of the pack, etc). The conclusion of this section is fine I'd also agree with (It is true). But ultimately you fail to provide a framework for analysis. You conclude This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing

If you were a CEO of UCI and the Board asked you: 'How would you "fix" the pervasive problem' would your really come back debating "doping" and "problem"? Or would your come back with something more like: Here is my Answer X,Y,Z. While itsn't perfect, we've identified things that are clearly wrong that we can fix. First, we need to draw lines between doping and legitimate theraphy. Second, we need to have the science to fairly test between the Two. Third, while maintaining privacy and fairness, the athletes and the teams will need to co-operate with the [XYZ] league to make sure it doesn't damage the credibility of the competition and abuse our position of trust amongs the fans....etc.

I'd actually be interested to hear your views on that. Your analysis pointed out the analogy to the Armstrong case (was not something I thought of before hand, but it fits perfectly). But when I see a huge, intelligent analysis thrown up then ends the way yours does, it seems like a waste of all the energy that you put into writing it. (Unless you are a lawyer -- with a point to defend =D)

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with contemporary doping scandals to offer programmatic advice on what can be done about them, except to say that in my view here too we are probably at the cusp of major shift in a massive historical trend. This trend I suspect will end with 'doping' being considered the norm not only among athletes but among the general population, and the chemicals used will be seen as an generally accepted life enhancement rather than an aberration -- much like vitamin supplements already are. What to do about it today, when doping is illegal, at least within the context of professional sports competitions? I don't know, especially since in this context it seems that the trend is a scientific one, perhaps mixed with a degradation in values (here I'm simply not informed enough to comment).

You want to "fix" the problem? It probably depends on the gravity of the specific offense and the pervasiveness of the offense. Pushing a few people harshly and publicly can send a statement that certain things are not acceptable, and curb abuses by others who are watching them. This is not a particularly bad tactic, but again it is context specific.

My own approach is always to fit the solution to the problem in such a way that the optimal outcome (i.e. reduction of abuses in the short and long-term) is achieved.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with...
You want to "fix" the problem?...

My own approach is always...

This is pretty common failure avoidance technique.

But it lacks ambition.

Imagine a father or a mother with a newborn infant, "Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with...changing nappies" so I just won't bother. The kid cries "You want to "fix" the problem?..." The kid cries. "My own approach is always to fit the solution to the problem in such a way that the optimal outcome (i.e. reduction of abuses in the short and long-term) is achieved." The kid cries.

Is that being a responsible Adult? The kid might ask. I dunno. Not my kid. Anyway, who gives a shit about the kid? The kid is kind of fucking annoying.

Maybe that's just the world we live in.

But the difference between an Adult and a Child, is that the Adult doesn't have the luxury of being the Child.

Somebody has to clean up the Shit.

Maybe the kid has a point?

Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing.

http://paulgraham.com/essay.html

In other words, the point of thinking is to solve, not to display thought.

Same as for the Harvard students.

Fine, but I think you generally have be familiar with the problem domain to devise the optimal solution. I am in a good position to change the diapers or punish my own child. Not quite so for someone else's, particularly if they are not in my own geographic vicinity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com