My Take Two or Ben tries to get Kyle to read what Ben is saying rather then what Kyle thinks Ben is going to say

Kyle, you conveniently ignored everything in my last post.

Suppose I give you that athletes should be cheered for taking steroids (I don't, but the for the sake of arguement lets say I do). That adulation would be based on the premise that steroids improved their performance. Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?

Kids are going to do stupid things I agree, and maybe if I had ingested things that were performance-enhancing instead of performance-debilitating I would be in better shape. Nonetheless, their impetus for doing so is clearly a belief that taking steroids will improve their chances of success. I think we'd be better off to disprove this. No one is arguing that we are going to eradicate the existence of idiocy, but you are trying to say that doing steroids IS NOT stupid. There is a critical distinction between steroids and smoking (to use your example of two stupid things). One you do for pleasure, the other you do not. Without the perception of benefit, steroids would not be used. It is different from your usual run-of-the-mill narcotics.

Also, I did not make the "role-models argument", what I was referring to was that the ingrained belief that taking steroids would improve your chances of success would in turn lead to greater use amongst adolescents. The "role-models argument" is not an interesting one. Should athletes (or actors, musicians, politicians, bloggers, etc.) be held up as a paragon of a successful life? No. Are they? Yes. If you think I'm arguing that this is for this is for the betterment of society, I'm clearly not. I'm not even saying athletes should make decisions based on what kids are going to do. I'm in agreement that famous people are not obligated to make choices for the greater good. They should make choices that are in their self-interest. That's what YOU'RE arguing, and what I'm taking issue with is the idea that taking steroids is in their self-interest.

The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives.

Let me end with one more hypothetical. Would you take steroids? If athletes should be lauded for their use, then by extension it is good for the rest of society. If they improve athletes performance, then wouldn't they improve yours?

If only science had developed a grammar steroid, you'd be in grand shape.