Recent Comments

Wait what

So is #VT20' the new #Sandman16?

'Like and Subscribe'.

I came from Strasburg HS (up I-81 in VA), and watched a few matches there (SHS had several Group A titles down in Salem, back when VHSL was still A, AA, AAA). A guy a year or so ahead of me (who I mostly knew from track and football), DJ Hockman, went on to wrestle at JMU and I got to see a match or two (he was a big guy for sure - a lineman - not sure if HWT for wrestling, though) my freshman year. Definitely a sport that is fun to watch, but aggravating if you don't know the rules or how the scoring works.

Other than Track & Field, this was the only "Olympic" sport I had any exposure to. Its simplicity in just rolling out the mats and displaying pure physical strength with some mental prowess and skill thrown in. I'm glad that the schools I'm a fan of at both levels are able to have success in something like this.

The individual rule is arbitrary.
Not breaking the rules as a whole is the value.

Sometimes an attempt may be made to present an arbitrary rule with a moral component such as the 55 mph speed limit or motorcycle helmet law.
Speed over 55 and you burn more fuel and thus increase the cost or availability of the fuel to someone else. The real reason was to limit the political power of OPEC.

Don't wear a helmet, have a severe head injury in a crash and that's bad. We don't want to see that happen to you so prevent our anguish and wear a helmet. The real reason was so insurance companies would have lower costs.

Driving 56 mph presents no moral dilemma absent the law. There is no moral problem with the law. Would your neighbor look at you in any less light should you receive a ticket for driving 56 in a 55 mph zone?
Perhaps 56 in a 20 mph zone you would get some moral judgement. This would be because 20 mph zones only exist in certain circumstances, school zone or some such. Common sense tells us that these would be instances where we need to be especially vigilant in order to prevent injury to another that may be less than able to watch for themselves- children, infirm, less mentally able or animals.
This then would be a case where the law and moral line up, in a speeding law, because we recognize the special circumstance.

Your error is in your very first statement.

Some rules or laws are created that have no moral component, it is arbitrary this performing the act, in the absence of the law or rule, presents no moral dilemma.

An example would be smoking marijuana or parking a truck in front of a recruits house. In the absence of a rule or law, neither of these is injuring anyone or their rights nor an affront in any way. There is no moral component to these laws absence their presence. They also both exist for different reasons.

The rule about the truck is to prevent the appearance of exploiting the athlete for the improper gain of the school. It is also to level the playing field to prevent the various schools from getting into a war with this type of thing where they make a circus and media event of visiting various high school students. It is an attempt to kee down the ridiculousness. Imagine where some schools would make a huge media event and YouTube videos make a circus of visiting various recruits houses and they never had a chance to land the recruit but could use the video as a recruiting tool anyway. That is one reason for a rule.

The marijuana law is another type of law. This,law is ostensibly to prevent not exploitation or appearance thereof, it's to prevent the individual from hurting themselves, whether misguided or not. Again, no moral dilemma here. Except in the relatively recent concern of driving while under the influence, but that is a different matter completely.

Don't really understand the move to switch these two. We have a former RB and RB coach now the WR coach, and a former WR and WR coach now the RB coach. I wonder if it has to do with how important WR's are for their system and he wants someone who is more familiar with it to guide them first. Who knows maybe they will switch back. When I watch the video above I just get a sense that Burden wants to be with the WRs, but that's just me.

I had to look it up. I didn't know it was unlawful to "cheat" on your spouse in some states.

There are 16 states with anti-adultery laws: Source

I like how in Kansas, only 2 very specific acts are cheating. All others are fair game.

In reality though, all these laws would have to be unconstitutional, in light of Lawrence v. Texas (Supreme Ct case in 2003).

Coach Fuente would look good if would cut that groove in his hair on the left side like JaQuan Bailey has. We could add the accent grave to Fuent~

The problem is, 'commit' is a meaningless concept, completely invented by the universities. Like a pre-engagement ring. We accept commitments because everyone else does.

I wish we would just do away with the concept of commits and the signing day, and allow prospects to sign as soon as they are otherwise able.

Ummm...many over the years.

...and to rile you up further, I'll add that drug laws are also moral-less malum prohibitum laws ;).

Society's morals define that "cheating" is wrong, thus rule is formed --> To "cheat" breaks the rule --> Breaking rules lead to the Enforcement of "cheating" --> Enforcement reenforces the moral that "cheating" is wrong --> To "cheat" is to break the rule --> Breaking rules lead to the Enforcement of "cheating" --> etc.

Perpetual circularity until morals change. Morals can change (maybe, will change) if "cheating" is not enforced. Overtime, "cheating" is an accepted practice.

Need a real life example: Marijuana. Change the word "cheating" with "smoking marijuana," see where the logic is wrong.