[BuShinJu]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, and if you reach a point where you suddenly start to fear failure then you step over that line. You take performance enhancing drugs, cheat on tests, break into gyms at night, fabricate resumes and past lives, all because you believe you are enitled to the success, that you are special, that society should be helping you or giving you some kind of privilege or assistance that others don't get andthat you justify it because you have a greater need or that you should be the one and the rules don't apply to you. Arnold worked out and did plenty hard yards but he was also full of drugs like all the other bodybuilders. Maybe, if we can find Obama's true birth certificate and realise that it isn't important to be an American to be President, then you can all vote for Arnold, after all don't most Americans aspire to be just like him, follow his moral code?

Well, I guess the litmus test is:

Has society punished these people for their actions?

No.

In fact it has raised these people up beyond the level of the average person in society into something closer to a god. This is what happens when a person chooses to be extreme and becomes good at it and starts to get recognition. Crazy people become 'eccentric', lawbreakers become 'driven'.

DV - "Asteroids do not concern me!"

[topquark]

If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not wrong.

[mieu]

So if the question is 'is something unethical if you leave no evidence' then is it unethical if someone murders a total stranger, leaves no evidence or witnesses and a court is never able to convict them? Yes there are victims in a murder, in the sense that someone is deprived of their right to life. Arnold apparently doesn't agree with the right of the owner of a piece of property to dictate its use. That is a right that is apparently upheld by the state. Although he didn't supposedly do anything directly harmful to other people, he subverted the wishes of someone else and potentially paved the way for additional harm to be done--others sneaking in behind him to do harm, breaking shit 'by accident,' making himself vulnerable to injury by using equipment while unaccompanied. The gym is an asset that belongs to the proprietor, it's part of his livelihood. I don't want someone driving my car unbeknownst to me even if they leave me with a full tank. For someone to do so puts my property into jeopardy without my consent.

[sunitaishot]

Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm so sorry sunitaishot, I just posted that quote for some light reading while you guys were arguing the other points. I could care less but I couldn't. Oh okay I have an opinion: When you want to be the best, and you are approaching being the best, and every fibre of your being is directed towards being the best, then you will hold yourself to a different standard, a much higher standard than everyone else. Other people will hold you to the standard you set for yourself. As a consequence you will hold other people to a higher standard as well, because if you can do it, with all your faults and disadvantages and hardships you have had to endure then surely other people can hold themselves to a higher standard as well. These days that higher standard is being met by 24 hour security access unmanned CCTV viewed gyms. This makes Arnod a pioneer not a criminal. AS - "Come on, get to the chopper!"

Arnie used a service without paying for it. I don't see how that is a victimless crime.

[Seablue]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Arnie used a service without paying for it. I don't see how that is a victimless crime.

If he paid a monthly subscription to the gym or something of that sort, no he didn't.

[BuShinJu]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Arnie used a service without paying for it. I don't see how that is a victimless crime.

You may have confused my post with someone else's.

I was talking about being held and holding others to higher standards and the fact that if you do it in the 'right' way you can get away with it.

Just look at the nightly news for stories about celebrities getting away with things. If it was a skinny ghetto kid breaking in and messing things up they would run him through the system. But it wasn't. It was Arnod.

That's the disparity.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So if the question is 'is something unethical if you leave no evidence' then is it unethical if someone murders a total stranger, leaves no evidence or witnesses and a court is never able to convict them? Yes there are victims in a murder, in the sense that someone is deprived of their right to life. Arnold apparently doesn't agree with the right of the owner of a piece of property to dictate its use. That is a right that is apparently upheld by the state. Although he didn't supposedly do anything directly harmful to other people, he subverted the wishes of someone else and potentially paved the way for additional harm to be done--others sneaking in behind him to do harm, breaking shit 'by accident,' making himself vulnerable to injury by using equipment while unaccompanied. The gym is an asset that belongs to the proprietor, it's part of his livelihood. I don't want someone driving my car unbeknownst to me even if they leave me with a full tank. For someone to do so puts my property into jeopardy without my consent.

I don't know where you're pulling murder from.

It's simple: If Arnold is subscribed to a gym but it isn't open on Sundays because the owner would rather spend time with his family and can't afford to pay someone else to keep the gym open, and Arnold cant ask the owner to make an exception for him because of the fallacy where the owner thinks he'd have to then let everyone, and the owner is scared of stuff being stolen or broken or him being sued, and Arnold sneaks in to work out because he thinks all that is nonsense, and Arnold doesn't let the owner know so the owner isn't upset, then it isn't wrong.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't know where you're pulling murder from. It's simple: If Arnold is subscribed to a gym but it isn't open on Sundays because the owner would rather spend time with his family and can't afford to pay someone else to keep the gym open, and Arnold cant ask the owner to make an exception for him because of the fallacy where the owner thinks he'd have to then let everyone, and the owner is scared of stuff being stolen or broken or him being sued, and Arnold sneaks in to work out because he thinks all that is nonsense, and Arnold doesn't let the owner know so the owner isn't upset, then it isn't wrong.

Unless the cops drive by and see him and arrest him and charge him after talking ti the owner and the judge convicts him. But that would never happen would it.