>
>There's the nuance that tomjohn was looking for me to admit
>to, above.
>
>Then again, there are a lot of destructive things that are
>enjoyable. Should we let our kids play tackle football? Or
>box? There was a time when that was perfectly normal, and I'm
>sure it's a lot of fun for a lot of the kids. But it's not
>good for them.

Did both...continue to box
also got a undergrad and masters in Engineering and a law degree
it was great for me
but I also was taught that what I "do" is not who I am


>But this isn't about what's good and what's bad.
>
>My point about it being silly, and how that relates to this
>discussion, is the role of biochemistry. If biochemistry
>really gives people such a strong advantage (as I think one
>can validly argue here, and as we've seen in numerous doping
>scandals over the years), then is it really people who are
>competing, or is it biochemistries that are competing? And if
>it's biochemistries, why should anyone care?

True
like I said I knew there was more nuance
shit you see I got Case to recant something down below
sorry I'm a sucker for debates and discussions from everywhere
thanks for breaking it down further
I miss that on these boards