Topic: Competing injured versus team responsibilites

[Shaun Le Conte]

I did not see any earlier posts from you Rachel
I do see some Junior Worlds results in here:

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Rachel, I deleted your post for violating site rules and because it was basically spam. It was nothing but personal attacks, profanity, and off-topic nonsense about who is the real Objectivist. This topic is about the lifters you slammed and the principle you advocated (altruism). Your defense of altruism under the guise of Objectivism is laughable as are your condemnations. I defend the athletes and the principles of individualism. Your effort to change the subject and pursue these attacks are of no concern. I'd just ask for peace. This isn't the first time you have blown up at me and IMO its blown out of proportion.

You just happened to brush up against a few of my passions on this one head on. First, I have passionate hatred of the fitness tests for reasons somewhat mentioned, as an Objectivist am fundamentally opposed to altruism (sacrificing for the team), and do not like being told what I think- "you are not an Objectivist." This is a great insult I have never uttered to anyone and one thing that fairly quickly drove me away from Christianity. I think most other ideologies would say the same, but Objectivism is a process anyway, a philosophy, not a set of positions. So I have Objectivist friends of some variation (even some anarchists) and I don't say they are not an Objectivist though I disagree strongly with their interpretation or application of the philosophy.

[Dave Chiu]

Peace is good,

as long as it is real, not the kind based on appeasement

or other anti-freedom or false bases.

Anyway, I am interested in how to best recompense lifters

who do recognize that their desire for the US team

to do as well as possible would be helped by reassigning

the slot they have earned.

We have seen asst coaches/managers capably help

the lifters of other countries, would that be appealing

(say, on a 2 for one basis)?

How about 2 tkts to the next Olympics, usable by either

the lifter and a buddy, or by two more family/friends

if the lifter makes the team?

Cold-hard-cash?

As w/most sports, a tough factor in lifting is that mishaps

can often be overcome by the time of the contest, but you

just don't know until you get there.  Some are obviously

too serious, and there are the crazy ones that derail athletes

at the last minute, but at least a third are known well in advance,

and another third are could-go-either-way deals.

[Dave Chiu]

No worries,

I just always take the opportunity to counter

the typical presumption of Peace

as an absence of armed conflict.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I would not be opposed to the USAW offering cash buyouts for lifters who declare themselves too injured to compete, but it doesn't sound realistic given the USAW's finances or philosophy. And, of course, put enough money down and you will encourage lifters to declare themselves injured for less than fully honest reasons. I consider this a non-issue. Athletes have good performances and athletes have bad performances. No solution necessary. This issue should not be examined in a vacuum. It is not a primary factor in our overall performance and is absolutely no reason to introduce subjectivity to the selection process or to kick athletes around after they compete.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

A relevant quote:

"But an honest man can cheat himself. His trusting innocence can lead him to swallow sugar-coated poisons- the deadliest of which is altruism. Americans accept it- not for what it is, not as a vicious doctrine of self-immolation- but in the spirit of a strong, confident man's overgenerous desire to relieve the suffering of others, whose character he does not understand. When such a man wakens to the betrayal of his trust- to the fact that his generosity has brought him within reach of a permanent harness which is about to be slipped on him by his sundry beneficiaries- the consequences are unpredictable."

Ayn Rand

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Rachel, I don't care about what is controversial personally, only what is true. Altruism is the most accepted philosophy in the World. By definition, Objectivists are controversial. It seems pretty obvious that saying because lifter(s) did so badly in your eyes that they shouldn't have even competed is kicking them around, kicking them when they are down in my view. Did you not say, "I would personally be ashamed to place below the top 25 in the World?"

Remember, you said the lifters had a moral obligation to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the team. This is altruism. You have yet to offer any philosophical backings for your statements that my position is inconsistent with Obvjectivism or how your support for altruism is- just appeals to emotion and the authority of the majority- which is of course not an Objectivist argument.

But you seem to be hedging claiming it is self-interest to not lift when you are not at your best, saying it is irrational to lift hurt. I might agree depending on the situation but then such things can only be evaluated by the individual themself with some input from their coach, doctor, etc. Anything else is inevitably a rationalization to add subjectivity to the process, centralization, beauracracy, etc (i.e., fitness tests). I haven't addressed people missing flights. Thats something else entirely.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I fail to see how global altruist statistics have anything to do with my personal stance on selection criteria for WWC.

Global statistics have nothing to do with selection criteria. That was in response to your appeal to the authority of the majority by saying your position was not controversial with the majority and thus correct while mine is supposedly not in line with the mainstream, extremist, etc. In other words, it was you that introduced this off-topic tangent by appealing to authority, an authority Objectivism rejects entirely.  The philosophic battle at issue here is altruism. You are consistently advocating it (now saying "fulfilling their obligations to the team"). This is altruism. You are a claiming the individual has a moral obligation to the group.  This is the opposite of Objectivism. Meanwhile you have said my position is not consistent with Objectivism. But, you have not explained why. In short, you claimed authority of majority while Objectivists are inherently radicals- "radicals for capitalism."

-No, I did not say that. I said "I, for one, would be embarrassed to place out of the top 10, much less the top 25." Beware your quote marks around incorrect quotes, please.

The message is the same. You are holding yourself above the athletes you are deriding for not living up to your standard.

I would be embarrassed to go to the World Championships on the dime of USAW's membership and have nothing (such as points for Olympic Team slots) to show for it. To do so would be to accept a trip but give nothing in return, and that's neither Capitalist nor Objectivist, if I may be so blunt as to point out that little nuance.

Exactly, the athlete should be embarrassed by their performance, if they were as great as Rachel Crass, but you weren't kicking them around.

It was not a call for breaking the contract between lifter and organization in order for the organization to usurp the slot from the lifter after the contract had been agreed upon, as you have seemed to suggest. Suggestion for a change in the selection procedures for the future? Yes. Suggestion for breaking an existing contract? No.

Exactly as I said. Its kicking around the lifters which is then a rationalization for "fixing the problem" via centralized authority. What is your suggestion for changing the procedures to fix the problem? It cannot possibly be consistent with Objectivism.

I said that if people choose to join a team, then they should act in accordance with the best interest of that team.

This is altruism. You are claiming the individual has a moral duty to the team that is a higher duty than to their own self-interest. Its plain as day. The Objectivist viewpoint is one of mutual self-interest- with the organization and the individual both wanting the athlete to lift well. If anything was to be fixed, it would be the individual fixing it via free, voluntary choice because they want to do better, like adjusting training regiment, etc.

But you seem to be hedging claiming it is self-interest to not lift when you are not at your best, saying it is irrational to lift hurt.

-Now I'm just confused. When did I say that???

You didn't. And this statement would have been consistent with Objectivism.

Why can't the organization take an active role in determining who to spend money on? It's USAW's money. They shouldn't be forced to spend it on people who are unfit to provide a decent return on the investment.

The organization has the right to decide their teams however they want. That has never been questioned. When you give me your plan for fixing the problem, however you define it, I will tell you why Objectivist theory rejects it. :)

Really, right or wrong on the issue is one thing. But, you are *not* representing anything that could be described as an Objectivist viewpoint. You are advocating altruism. Before we can discuss practical applications of principles, we must agree on the principles at issue to have an honest debate.