Luke Thomas likens PED use to superior genetics in terms of 'fairness'

[tatsuke]

Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.

This is a circular, illogical argument. Cheating is cheating. The whole dispute revolves around whether or not taking steroids should be considered cheating, so concluding that steroids are bad because they're cheating makes no sense. You've essentially said "It's against the rules because it's against the rules." Yeah, we get that.

The proper metaphor is whether someone with lesser intelligence, say, took a substance to get results on tests as good as yours. Is that cheating? I don't know.

 

[Mob69]

Latest from Luke:



Standing by his position on PED cheats. This position, as we all know, is designed to excuse one Jonathan Jones.

Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being 'donks', Luke actually had the self-awareness to appreciate that all of his views are underpinned by two central and unchanging assumptions: [1] Jon Jones is the shit and it is racist to examine his actual behaviour, and [2] trade unionism is the solution to life as we know it.

 

[Dangus]

Your analogy is idiotic... Cheating in academics is nothing like taking peds. Performance enhancing drugs ENHANCE your performance. You are acquiring those abilities. Cheating on tests you are not acquiring the knowledge. Loading your gloves would be a closer comparison. If a pill was invented that made you smarter, that would be the academic equivalent to taking peds in sports. And nobody would complain or call it cheating, everyone on the planet would have a prescription to that pill.

Today's MMA Fighting Live Chat was enjoyable. Luke Thomas finally came out with his true views on PEDs.

He doesn't think PEDs are all that bad, on the grounds that sport is inherently unfair. He pointed to some people possessing superior genetics compared to others as an example of 'unfairness', and repeatedly returned to this point. Luke then mentioned that he has recently undergone a DNA test and discovered that he has zero genetic athleticism. The idea that PEDs might 'violate the spirit of the sport' is 'a total non-starter for me'. It is 'bankrupt'. He favours minimal testing and wants to see 'excellence' when he switches on the TV.

I find comparing illegal chemical enhancement to genetic advantage simply ridiculous. You have no human right to excel in sport, or anything else. Luke's argument is bogus. Let's test this by applying Luke's own logic. Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.

That's stupid. One might even say it's the argument of a donk.

Luke then embarrassed himself further by stating that 'anybody who tries to boil an ethical dilemma down to "are you clean or are you dirty?" is someone with a fundamentally unserious position'. The whole purpose of an ethical dilemma is to separate right from wrong, Luke.

It's striking that Luke doesn't put the onus on the individual to obey civilised norms (a bit like his defence of Jon Jones). Like a true ideological statist, he then started banging on about the failures of commissions to regulate the sport properly and protect people from bad referees - as if that is even connected to the separate issue of PEDs. It's interesting that Luke always looks to the government rather than the individual, isn't it?

EDIT: Latest from Luke:

 

[Recounter]

Your analogy is idiotic... Cheating in academics is nothing like taking peds. Performance enhancing drugs ENHANCE your performance. You are acquiring those abilities. Cheating on tests you are not acquiring the knowledge. Loading your gloves would be a closer comparison. If a pill was invented that made you smarter, that would be the academic equivalent to taking peds in sports. And nobody would complain or call it cheating, everyone on the planet would have a prescription to that pill.

Cheating in academics is exactly like taking PEDs.

You can be good only when you are on PEDs, it's the same as you are good only when you have that cheat paper hidden under your desk.

I think you are stupid.

 

[Dangus]

Cheating in academics is exactly like taking PEDs.

You can be good only when you are on PEDs, it's the same as you are good only when you have that cheat paper hidden under your desk.

I think you are stupid.

Not even remotely the same. With peds you acquire abilities. Cheating in academics you're not acquiring knowledge. If you did acquire the knowledge it would be called learning. Read and learn.... Or cheat and keep missing my point...

 

[Spidermine]

What do you expect from someone who says anyone who doesn't like Jones is racist after a hit and run? In fact this guy rides Jon so much I'm skeptical if he truly believes this or he's just saying it so he can give Jon a pass.

 

[Recounter]

Not even remotely the same. With peds you acquire abilities. Cheating in academics you're not acquiring knowledge. If you did acquire the knowledge it would be called learning. Read and learn.... Or cheat and keep missing my point...

Go take college entrance exam with a computer and internet connection, it's the same as acquiring that much knowledge during that time.

You are just ignorant fuck.

 

[Mob69]

Go take college entrance exam with a computer and internet connection, it's the same as acquiring knowledge during that time.

You are just ignorant fuck.

I love how those people attacking the analogy have next to nothing to say about Luke's bizarre argument and his attempt to acquit Jones.

 

[Mob69]

What do you expect from someone who says anyone who doesn't like Jones is racist after a hit and run? In fact this guy rides Jon so much I'm skeptical if he truly believes this or he's just saying it so he can give Jon a pass.

 

[Dangus]

Go take college entrance exam with a computer and internet connection, it's the same as acquiring that much knowledge during that time.

You are just ignorant fuck.

Once again, if you acquire the knowledge it is called learning. It doesn't matter the amount of time it takes you to learn it, it is yours. If you are cheating on a test, your are not learning anything. Clearly comprehension is not a strong point for you. Go ahead, keep repeating that they are the same over and over again without refuting my point.

 

[Mob69]

LATEST FROM LUKE'S WAR ON DRUG TESTING:





Not happy with Dave Meltzer ridiculing the idea of a cap on tests:



Luke poses a ridiculous question to those who think there shouldn't be a set limit:



Conclusion: Luke's bid to disparage PED testing so he can acquit Jon Jones in his own mind is now reducing him to a drooling idiot.

For a man who is obsessed with fighter rights and pay, he doesn't give a flying fuck about clean fighters being robbed of money and accomplishments by guys on PEDs, to say nothing of physical harm.

Don't forget Luke recently argued that Anderson Silva should have had a point deducted at UFC 200 for controlling DC's posture and trying to force a standup. I think Luke did this because he wanted to make DC look better. If he makes DC look better, Jon looks better for defeating him.

 

[Mob69]

The latest tweet from Luke on PEDs...

He tweeted a video in which the need for NFL players to take PEDs is being discussed, and how the union should be demanding that they take HGH. Luke clearly agrees with this, because it fits his demand that MMA should only have a 'modicum of testing'.

 

[TrainHard]

His starting point seems to be that equality = fairness. Typical leftie. If what you're saying is right then he seems to think that people who are athletically gifted are a privileged minority and it's unfair that they exist.

Both those things are technically true. The first is a tautology.

 

[TrainHard]

Today's MMA Fighting Live Chat was enjoyable. Luke Thomas finally came out with his true views on PEDs.

He doesn't think PEDs are all that bad, on the grounds that sport is inherently unfair. He pointed to some people possessing superior genetics compared to others as an example of 'unfairness', and repeatedly returned to this point. Luke then mentioned that he has recently undergone a DNA test and discovered that he has zero genetic athleticism. The idea that PEDs might 'violate the spirit of the sport' is 'a total non-starter for me'. It is 'bankrupt'. He favours minimal testing and wants to see 'excellence' when he switches on the TV.

I find comparing illegal chemical enhancement to genetic advantage simply ridiculous. You have no human right to excel in sport, or anything else. Luke's argument is bogus. Let's test this by applying Luke's own logic. Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.

That's stupid. One might even say it's the argument of a donk.

Luke then embarrassed himself further by stating that 'anybody who tries to boil an ethical dilemma down to "are you clean or are you dirty?" is someone with a fundamentally unserious position'. The whole purpose of an ethical dilemma is to separate right from wrong, Luke.

It's striking that Luke doesn't put the onus on the individual to obey civilised norms (a bit like his defence of Jon Jones). Like a true ideological statist, he then started banging on about the failures of commissions to regulate the sport properly and protect people from bad referees - as if that is even connected to the separate issue of PEDs. It's interesting that Luke always looks to the government rather than the individual, isn't it?

EDIT: Latest from Luke:

The correct analogy would be somebody using intellect-boosting drugs to ACTUALLY outsmart you, NOT cheating test scores to create that impression.

Take whichever side of the moral argument you want from there, but at least get the analogy right in the first place.

 

[Blackjack]

I find comparing illegal chemical enhancement to genetic advantage simply ridiculous. You have no human right to excel in sport, or anything else. Luke's argument is bogus. Let's test this by applying Luke's own logic. Let's say I am an excellent and gifted theoretical physicist. Someone else who lacks my genetically-determined intelligence would, according to Luke, be fully justified in cheating on tests and experiments in order to compete with me. Moreover, for me to complain about this is 'bankrupt' and 'a total non-starter'.

That's stupid. One might even say it's the argument of a donk.

Yes, it is stupid. Possibly even the argument of a donkey, if donkey's were capable of speech of course. Here's a smart argument:

Let's say you're an excellent and gifted physicist. Suppose you have a colleague who can compete with you fairly well, but only if he takes Ritalin to enhance his ability because his ability is happened by Attention Deficit Disorder.

Would it be fair for the company which employs the two of you prohibited their employees from using drugs which enhanced their performance, including Ritalin, on the bases of them believing to do so is unethical?

I say it would not be fair for the company to prohibit it's employees from using Ritalin as long as the Ritalin users in the company had legitimate doctor's prescriptions for Ritalin.