Armstrong’s Admission is Meaningless
He can’t undo the harm he caused all the people he lied about and all the reputations he ruined in order to cover up his cheating deceptions. He is a liar, a life ruiner, and a vile human being. I have to agree with Paul Kimmage who says Lance Armstrong should be behind bars for doping and that Oprah’s interview was a miserable failure and that …
… he was left with the feeling that Armstrong had little or no contrition for what he had done. He added: “It was obvious that this guy had just one regret and that was that he was caught. He doesn’t give a damn about anyone except Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong is immoral and the enfleshment of total depravity and his admission is yet another in a long line of publicity questing ploys aimed at bringing more attention to the miserable deceiver. Little wonder he’s an atheist. He has the ethics of an animal so his atheism suits him nicely and he wears it proudly.
1,. Do you think it’s possible (or effective), in principle, for the depraved/ the sinner to repent?
2. Do you think the admission of guilt and the recognition of the irreparable nature of one’s sins is tantamount to repentance?
phil_style
January 18, 2013 at 08:16
of course repentance is possible. and no, repentance isn’t mere admission. repentance is a change of behavior.
Jim
January 18, 2013 at 08:24
Sure, it requires a change in behavior, or at least a commitment to start changing. I should have added that.
Do we think L.A. has changed his behavior? Is he still lying? I wouldn’t know what he might still be lying about…. I’m not sure if I should adopt a skeptical attitude to the sinner who appears to be begging the path of repentance…
I guess time will tell. It seems to me that he has started on a road that looks like repentance.
phil_style
January 18, 2013 at 08:28
it looks the opposite to me. his whole tenor is self justification. he is not at all sorry for cheating or lying.
Jim
January 18, 2013 at 08:44
Fair enough. IF that is the case, then yes, it’s hard to argue that he is repentant. Excuses do not necessary indicate contrition.
phil_style
January 18, 2013 at 08:57
question for you- why are you more interested in defending armstrong than siding with those he has wronged?
Jim
January 18, 2013 at 10:33
How do you know what I’m interested in doing? What it seems that you presume my interests are do not correlate with my interests.
What part of Armstrong do you think I am “defending”? I’ve not offered a single defence of any of his drug taking, lying, cheating or bullying in the sport of cycling.
pstyle
January 18, 2013 at 11:29
oh you’re far too clever to defend him outright. your defense is more insidious. more sinister. it’s the sort of defense which seeks to undermine questions with irrelevancies. it’s a ‘behind the scenes’ secretive supportiveness which casts any sort of calling armstrong to account as somehow or other misguided or inappropriate.
Jim
January 18, 2013 at 11:38
Phil – if his contrition were real, wouldn’t he have come clean and apologised BEFORE being stripped of his titles or losing all his sponsorship money?
Paul Regnier
January 19, 2013 at 07:29