|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 19, 2001, 10:38 AM
Post #51 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey Everyone!
Well, this has turned into quite a debate! Lots of good points too. After my last post I dont think that there is much else for me to say. Talon and rlkelley- I can see where you are coming from, but we seem to be arguing two seperate things here, and to be working on different premises.
Anyhow, you guys seem to be explaining what DID happen- he broke the rules, and was DQ'd. I'm arguing: what SHOULD, idealistically, have happened; and why it should be that way. I am making a moral argument, and you are making a realist argument. We are on two different pages in that respect.
Along with you, I agree that Chris should have been DQ'd according to the rules. I am saying that the rules are wrong, for many different reasons, so Sharma should not, in a moral sense, have been DQ'd. The existance of an unjust rule doesnt change the moral reality of the situation- in other words, it is not immoral to break an immoral rule. It is more unjust to enforce an unjust rule than it is to break it. If you think that the rule IS moral, then see my last post and try to explain to me why the rule is moral.
I also agree that breaking the rules doesnt make somebody a revolutionary, and that Sharma wasnt trying to make a political point by getting stoned with his friends- he doesnt seem like a very political guy... just someone who likes to climb, and likes to get high on his own time. What's wrong with that? Again- a distinction needs to made between what is legal and what is moral.
I'm not quite sure why nobody who has disagreed with me hasnt actually tried to counter my arguments- from all of those philosophy and logic classes I took back in college, I think that my argument is pretty solid (assuming of course that the point of the comp was to determine the best boulderer and that pot isnt a performance inhancing drug). You guys seem to keep falling back on "yeah, but he broke the rules". I have already admitted that- in fact, I think that the point that he broke the rules is REALLY obvious. However, again, breaking immoral rules is not immoral- was Gandhi immoral for breaking the rules of India's British colonizers? The fact that SHarma wasnt trying to make a moral or political statement doesnt change the fact that he did actually make one.
The monolpoly analogy is a decent effort... but re-rolling the dice until you get the right number is definately "performance inhancing" in terms of the rules of monopoly! That would definately effect the outcome of the game (like- there is no way you couldnt win!!!). Smoking pot is not to bouldering what re-rolling dice is to monopoly! I think this is pretty clear, so I wont go on about that.
What I am taking issue with is those people who have posted messages indicating that what actually happened is what should, morally, have happened- based on the premise that "rules are rules and should be followed" merely sake of the fact that they are rules. As I have said before, there are lots of rules- many of them are good, many of them are not. I am advancing the idea that the particular rule in question is not a good one, in light of the purpose of the Munich World Cup, and that we should show our support of a fellow climber by denouncing what is basically an unjust rule.
Saying that Sharma deserved to be DQ'd because he knew the rules and broke them would be a fine stance to take if the rule were a just one (in situations such as a weight lifter taking steroids, or the re-rolling of dice in in a game of monopoly). But this is not a just rule because smoking pot, especially days before the comp, has no impact on the purpose of the Bouldering World Cup. If Sharma had been stoned during a donut eating contest I would totally agree-he should be disqualified, as being stoned allows a person an unfair advantage in donut eating. But this is bouldering, not donut eating.
Soooooo, the issue here isn't actually about following or breaking rules in general, it is a about breaking a specific rule in a specific situation, and that specific rule is unjust in this specific situation. We need to further the idea that comps should be about determining who the best climber is, not about determining who can follow pointless rules the best. Sharma was the best boulderer, getting high with his friends didnt make him a better boulderer, so Sharma SHOULD have won. Why would anyone want to defend an unjust rule?
JCS
PS- Maybe for all of you "rule followers", we could hold a special rule-following comp, where the person who follows silly rules the best wins :0)
[ This Message was edited by: jcs on 2001-11-19 02:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 19, 2001, 8:42 PM
Post #52 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
JCS, I think you're the only one trying to talk about any moral content in this situation, and no one can effectively argue against anyone else's moral beliefs. Neither you nor I can win an arguement about differing moral beliefs. Morals can't be justified by reason. I don't think anyone said Sharma is immoral, but that he was justly disqualified. Nobody said "rules are rules" is a moral position. I will say it's a position of fact, and competing in accordance with the rules is a position of character.
And, there is a PROFOUND difference between the "rules" of Nazi Germany and a climbing comp. The victims of Naziism did NOT know the "rules" and the consequences. Most of the people who complied with the laws of Nazi Gemany did NOT know the consequences of their compliance. The vast majority of those who did protest did NOT know the full extent of the consequences of their protest. No one at the time fully knew the consequences, and could freely choose to accept them. Simple-minded hyperbole can assert that there is a parallel between climbing comp rules and a brutal oppressive regime, but that doesn't make it so.
Sharma's behavior is not a political statement. Perhaps you or someone else can take hold of what happened to him, and use it to make you own political statement, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sharma has made one of his own. If there was no intent to make such a statement, it can't be 'thrust upon him' after the fact to fit a political agenda.
Ghandi did not start out by aggressively challenging the British (and the South Africans), he started first by searching for remedies in the law, the courts, and through political means. He escalated to riskier and more high-profile protests only as needed. And, he didn't do it on somebody else's dime.
Do you genuinely believe that any comp anywhere will establish who is the best boulderer or climber? That is NOT what these events are about; they're about being a viable commercial venture, and about competitors making money. They ARE about rules, such as out-of-bounds, and they are about advertising and sponsorhip and selling tickets and products; they are commercial. The people and companies investing time and money in them set up their parameters for the event to maximize the return on their investment. It's reasonable that the rules and guidelines that they set up are going to be founded in the rules and guidelines of other, more major competitive sporting events. Some of the same sponsors that other sports have are also sought by the climbing comp industry. If they want to be taken seriously, then they, of course, conduct themselves with a similar 'seriousness' as the other major sports businesses.
These questions about the 'morality' of rules and laws prohibiting pot are irrelevent to the facts of Sharma's DQ. To a large extent, he has accepted the business-like responsibilities of a sponsored climber, and his character may fairly be questioned, in light of the poor judgement and/or carelessness he demonstrated so publicly.
The issue is about following a specific rule in a specific situation, and when you can afford to stage a climbing comp and pay the competitiors, and when you can afford to sponsor a climber, then you can decide what is an "unjust" rule. And then you can also notify them that can break any rule they choose, as long as they personally, morally, feel that it's "pointless", "unjust", or "immoral", and they won't be DQd. It sounds like the scenario that you'd prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
miker
Nov 19, 2001, 9:45 PM
Post #53 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2001
Posts: 170
|
OK, so here is more of a technical question.
Is alcohol illegal for the competition's? I would assume so for safety sake, but if you have a beer the night before you will have traces of alcohol in your system, so you should be DQ'd, right? They have blood alcohol limits for driving and presumably you could institute the same for climbing, now what would be a limit on THC content in the blood or urine which would be below any performance enhancing or impairing level?
Now I know they have certain classes of drugs that are used for bodybuilding/strength training, like steroids and numerous others, but does anyone think that Marijuana is a training tool?
ATTENTION ATTENTION
New on the market, the way to beat out all the other homies on the rock.
STONED GAINER 2000-now with the freshest green buds. Also try our new energy bar, brownie flavored of course with enough THC to last you through the longest all day climbs.
I must say that smoking does not enhance my climbing so I do it after or on the peak, but I am still just as impressed by Chris's career and his choices in life and I hope he keeps on doing what he will for as long as his tendons o' steel hold out.
miker
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 20, 2001, 9:24 AM
Post #54 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey JDS!
Some nice points there. However, I believe that this is a moral argument, and that, while Sharma being DQ'd is obviously an imperical fact, the stance that each of us takes towards his disqualification- in other words what each of us proposes "should" have happened- is a moral statement. Anytime the word "should" is used it implies a value judgement, and values always, ultimately, boil down to morality. So "rules are rules" implies that rules SHOULD be followed, and is therefor a moral position.
Likewise, any comment on the "character" of Chris Sharma, or anybody else, is a moral judgement- what else could "character" be? For you to say that Sharma was "justly disqualified", justice being a moral/ethical ideal, not an objective fact, is to make a moral judgement- not to state an objective fact. So this IS a question of morality and ethics, because the question I am concerned with is: SHOULD Sharma have been disqualified (not WAS he disqualified). And I continue to assert that, for the reasons that I have mentioned above, the only way to argue that he "should" have been disqualified is to support "the rules" which are, for reasons that I have already stated, unjust. Thus, because the rule that resulted in his disqualification was unjust, Sharma was unjustly disqualified.
All of this is based on the assumption that the World CUp was held to determine who the best boulderer is. You assert that it is a purely financial venture. While the financial aspect is definately a major component of the comp, it is only half of it. There is nothing contradictory about holding an event to make money and to determine who the best climber is- the ideas are not mutually exclusive. So yes, I genuinely believe that the purpose of the comp is to determine who the best boulderer is. Are you going to argue that the Olympics has nothing to do with determining who the best athletes are, that it only exists as a commercial venture? And in regard toward other sports and there rules on marijuana- remember Ross Rebegliati, the olympic snow boarder?
And once again to Germany. Firstly, the point was made to demonstrate that not all rules/laws are just. The Nuremburg laws were unjust- and well known in Germany and without. I can think of lots of other examples of unjust laws. The point is that just because something is legal or within the rules doesnt make it right- so "rules are rules" doesnt hold up to anyone who thinks about it. Germany serves as a perfect examples of this- though the specifics obviously differ, the logic is the same. Chris broke the rules, but that doesnt mean that he justly deserves to be DQ'd, unless you believe that the rules themselves were just. Germans helped Jews by hiding them in attics (for example) knowing that they were saving lives but that it was against the law-when those Germans were caught they were punished according to the rules that they knowingly broke, but there is a big difference between saying that they WERE punished and that they SHOULD have been punished. OBVIOUSLY the scope is VASTLY different, and on a PROFOUNDLY different scale, but the point is that there are rules that are unjust- like the one that caused the best boulderer at that comp to be disqualified. You can claim that that is "simple minded hyperbole" but look at it in the context that I meant it in and you should, I hope, be able to see the logical similarity.
Supporting rules simply because they are rules is ignorant. Comparing the marjuana rule to out of bound hold rule misses the entire point- if they were the same we wouldnt be having this debate. As for moral arguments being unable to be won, I ultimately agree with you. But I dont hear anybody saying that the ban on marijuana at bouldering comps is in anyway just- I think that most people agree that the rule is stupid, but that for some reason Sharma deserved to be DQ'd anyway- as if there is more respect for the letter of the law (no drugs!) than its spirit (level the playing field).
As for your last paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that the person with the most money, and therefor the most power, decides what is just or unjust- and the tone of your message indicates to me that you support that line of thought (like when I have enough money I can decide what is just?). By that logic Hitler had a monopoly on morality in Germany? Or is it possible that there is a higher principal at work that the rules/laws should conform to? I am inclined to believe that what is right has little to do with how much money and power a person has.
As far as each person making their own morality and myself prefering that situation, I think that you have missed my point again. I think that the rules should exist in accordance with the purpose of the comp, which I (naively?) think is to determine who the best boulderer is. I am not saying do away with all rules, just ones that make no sense- like the one in question. DO you think that the rule is justified, or just that it should be enforced because it is a rule? Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
rocmonkey
Nov 20, 2001, 10:11 AM
Post #55 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2001
Posts: 292
|
In South Africa pot is called DAGGA. Our miners in the gold mines use it to enhance their work and make it more acceptable.
It DOES enhance them and on pot some dudes work for days without rest. The feeling of euphoria makes one forget pain and tiredness and it keeps you going. When you smoke it at leisure it makes you bum out.
BUT when you smoke pot while intensely focussing on something you have so much drive that you wont believe what you've accomplished when its all over.
So if Chris smoked pot right before the competition it would enhance his performance...
breathe stone
RoC
|
|
|
|
|
awkward
Nov 20, 2001, 10:09 PM
Post #56 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2001
Posts: 64
|
He made a personal choice to use the drug. Unfortunately, it is not legal, and being in the spotlight will cause people to try to make an example of him. I didn't read through the umpteen pages of posts on this one, so I am not sure if this has been said or not. Hopefully, he will be able to keep his dignity through all this. Personally, I see nothing wrong with what he did, but I am not in charge, so my opinion does not matter in this situation.
Please donate to the Put-Bryan-In-Charge fund.
-Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 21, 2001, 10:23 PM
Post #57 of 107
(18090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
JCS, I think I define "morals" differently than you, making just a finer semantic distinction between, say, "moral", "just", "ethical", "reasonable", "fair", "sensible", and such. It's a spectrum of value-loaded concepts, that, for me is often contextually dependent. So, judging character doesn't have, for me, have the same weight as a moral judgement. For me, the use of "should" sometimes has the weight you assign it in this discussion, and sometimes it doesn't, depending on the subject and context of actions. For me, for this discussion, a "just" law is one that is legal, not necessarily one that is right. I never wanted to debate the merits of the law.
The comp is not "purely", in the sense of "only", about commerce, but if you take away commerce, there will be no comp. Commerce is not sufficient for the comp, but it is necessary. Bouldering and climbing are neither necessary nor sufficient for commerce. They're not mutually exclusive, but climbing is certainly more dependent on commerce, than is commerce on climbing.
As to the Olympics, all I'll say here is that I miss the way the Olympics were when I was a kid, 30-35 years ago, when real amateurs competed. That's what was so nice about seeing Rulon Gardner (USA) win in wrestling. Okay, a little more: it often seems that the Olympics are more about some high-profile USA athlete trying to get commercial endorsement contracts with Nike, American Express, etc. etc.
My point about referring to Nazi Germany was, again, made to emphasize that the victim/participants did NOT know what the consequences of their actions would be (whether they went along or not).
My "comparison" of out-of-bonds rules and prohibiting pot is made to say that in the view of the comp authorities, it was probably the case that breaking a rule earned a DQ. The nature of the violated rule would probably be immaterial. (I don't know for a fact that that would have been the case, but that was the source and purpose of my comparison.)
I'm not saying that I support the system that basically allows wealth to establish power, I'm saying that that is pretty much the free-market system we are in, and in which the comps are, mostly, staged under.
Hitler and the Nazis did have a monopoly for awhile on the legal justice in Germany, as did Pol Pot in Cambodia. Hopefully that knowledge leads people to consider how different things might be if the "bad guys" had ever won. Or, perhaps to some people, maybe the bad guys already have won, and they're trying to get rid of them and their (our) justice. That is how contextual these concepts are: is "right" really right, or is "right" right because that side happened to win power to make that determination?
I agree that "right" and "morals" and all those similar aforementioned concepts do (dare I say, "should"?) refer -defer- to something well beyond money and material, and well beyond myself. I just don't think that's what Sharma's DQ was about.
I think this thing will blow over (no pun intended), and no one can question his preeminence in the climbing world. The DQ cast a worse pall on the comp than it did on him, and it has to be somewhat embarrassing to the competitors who all moved up one notch after the DQ. But, that takes me back to asserting that Sharma should have taken into account and consideration all the effects of his actions (whether his actions were deliberate or just careless).
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2001-11-21 14:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
hincking
Feb 18, 2010, 4:14 AM
Post #58 of 107
(14316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2010
Posts: 29
|
people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high
sheeeesh
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 18, 2010, 4:18 AM
Post #59 of 107
(14312 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
hincking wrote: people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high sheeeesh
It took you 9 years to come up with that response?
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Feb 18, 2010, 4:48 AM
Post #60 of 107
(14290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
zeke_sf wrote: hincking wrote: people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high sheeeesh It took you 9 years to come up with that response?
He was high. Heck, in the Law School world 9 years is Kentucky derby status.
|
|
|
|
|
deltav
Feb 18, 2010, 5:13 AM
Post #61 of 107
(14261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 597
|
You can tell who smokes pot here and who doesn't. Let's take weed out of the picture. What if he had shot smack? That certainly would not have enhanced his performance. Would that have been morally acceptable? Look at it this way, would you want your kid looking up to someone who does heroin? Most likely not. Pot is the same thing. Illegal or not, it is a drug, it screws with your body. Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. Do I think any less of him? No. Do I think he got what he deserved? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
hincking
Feb 22, 2010, 11:58 PM
Post #62 of 107
(14139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2010
Posts: 29
|
in marijuana time maybe 9 years
|
|
|
|
|
Moose2994
Feb 23, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #63 of 107
(14126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2009
Posts: 15
|
Dude listen to any of the rock climbers talk who are pro! ? There all a bunch of hippies! Wake up people He is not the only one to smoke pot! Yea he broke a rule but that could have been a few weeks ago. He may not have been high at the time of the comp! Pot is not his secret too hahaha do some research if you cant tell from experience! Does any one have an article or something actually confirming this?
|
|
|
|
|
jcrew
Feb 23, 2010, 1:26 AM
Post #64 of 107
(14084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2006
Posts: 673
|
deltav wrote: You can tell who smokes pot here and who doesn't. Let's take weed out of the picture. What if he had shot smack? That certainly would not have enhanced his performance. Would that have been morally acceptable? Look at it this way, would you want your kid looking up to someone who does heroin? Most likely not. Pot is the same thing. Illegal or not, it is a drug, it screws with your body. Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. Do I think any less of him? No. Do I think he got what he deserved? Yes.
what if he had a few brews in him? would that be o.k. ? would the kids be warped by looking up to someone who drinks?
|
|
|
|
|
Potts875
Feb 23, 2010, 1:33 AM
Post #65 of 107
(14080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2009
Posts: 52
|
Wow so many straight edge climbers here. I quit smoking dope a couple years ago because of personal reason but what ever happened to seedy climber behavior? Geesh..... People here are judging his character??? WTF please.... Sorry those with your head in the clouds, all your little heroes puff. Many here including myself have smoked with these guys.
The only people that will be affected by this DQ will be the comps themselves for not having the worlds greatest climber at their comps!
|
|
|
|
|
holdeddie
Feb 23, 2010, 1:37 AM
Post #66 of 107
(14073 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 92
|
Who cares if he smoked some herb? He climbs harder than most, and he is great at it. Weed didn't make him climb harder, he still should have won.
It is beyond me to think that just because Sharma smokes herb, the climbing community will cease to support him. Come on people, do not be ignorant. If you cease to support climbers that smoke then you must also look down upon those who drink.
The end.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 23, 2010, 1:45 PM
Post #67 of 107
(13991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
hincking wrote: in marijuana time maybe 9 years
You're going to quibble with 8 versus 9 years? Fucking stoner.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Feb 23, 2010, 3:05 PM
Post #68 of 107
(13962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 23, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #70 of 107
(13922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
zeke_sf wrote: mturner wrote: [image]http://ownedirl.com/misc/Thread-Crap-Die.jpg[/image] Oh, come on, isn't it entertaining to see people respond to this topic like it happened yesterday? Tokin' 'n postin', ain't got no time for lookin' at the time stamp.
It *is* funny how the stoners are so clueless. But I'm totally on board with the die-thread-die picture - mostly because of the irony - it's a very 90's thing to post. (RIP dirtineye).
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jhernand
Feb 23, 2010, 4:47 PM
Post #71 of 107
(13895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2006
Posts: 55
|
Down with Dope! Up with Hope!
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 23, 2010, 5:02 PM
Post #72 of 107
(13886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
jhernand wrote: Down with Dope! Up with Hope!
You in here for some marijuana?! Boo this man!
|
|
|
|
|
jhernand
Feb 23, 2010, 5:12 PM
Post #73 of 107
(13875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2006
Posts: 55
|
Mother F-er
Sorry... note the rev's Up with hope, down with dope hat!
sucka! Get me a life vest cracka... I's B on a boat fool!
(This post was edited by jhernand on Feb 23, 2010, 5:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Potts875
Feb 24, 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #74 of 107
(13814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2009
Posts: 52
|
OMG sorry....yeah I didnt realize this was only 9 fricken years old!
Kinda clueless huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Dynosoarus
Feb 27, 2010, 7:28 PM
Post #75 of 107
(13669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2010
Posts: 83
|
I guess all people who smoke pot are potheads.
Then that would mean everyone who drinks beer is an alcoholic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Sharma DQ'ed Is It True?
[
