Beijing 2008 Olympics (Should China Play Host?)

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='James;819601][font=franklin gothic medium]As much as I think it's fair to just talk about this event in terms of the sport, I do find it kind of strange to call the controversy a "silly fuss".[/font][/QUOTE]Understandable, I find it strange that people are getting upset in the first place, mainly because we dealt with the scandal of bribery when the Olympics were here in Utah. So I find it silly in the sense that the Olympics are meant to be an event that all countries can be a part of. What's the point in having it if you punish all citizens of a country because their government has hang ups? [QUOTE=James'][font=franklin gothic medium]It just kind of reminds me how comfortable most of us are where we live. You know, because we can easily afford to dismiss the horrors of the world when it suits us.

I suppose we could always just say "well, every country has had some bad blood in its history" (as if it's all totally comparative anyway) and be done with it. I mean, that's mostly what [i]does[/i] happen I guess. It's sort of sad.[/font][/QUOTE]That sounds like your saying that since I'm not taking the protest seriously, I'm just dismissing the horrors in the world... say what? Since when did not being bothered by the Olympics being hosted in China equal I find their past history acceptable? Am I suppose to always hold a grudge against China?

Personally I think people are so hung up on the atrocities that have happened over there to realize that by allowing them to host the Olympics there, they're extending that "olive branch" as it were. Opening the place up to quite a bit of scrutiny. It's also a big step for them to allow so much about them to be aired around the world. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]It's also sort of funny that everyone is ignoring the political component even though vegeta rocker's entire premise for this thread revolved around the politics of awarding the games to China. So we've actually diverted from the thread's original purpose anyway. But, I digress (and threads are allowed to as well!) :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE]Ignoring it? No, we just don't agree that it's as big of a tragedy as some people think it is. Malkav said it best, it's common history to ignore the problems of the host country. Not permanently since I'm not likely to ever forget what happened in Germany. But I think it would be wrong to keep holding that over someone's head. Otherwise all that bribery here would have sent the Olympics elsewhere, yeah that makes sense, punish everyone for the actions of a few.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff'] Malkav said it best, it's common history to ignore the problems of the host country. Not permanently since I'm not likely to ever forget what happened in Germany. But I think it would be wrong to keep holding that over someone's head. Otherwise all that bribery here would have sent the Olympics elsewhere, yeah that makes sense, punish everyone for the actions of a few.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]That's true, and no host country is without it's flaws (some more than others) Civil Rights Violations were ignored in the US during the times we've hosted the Olympic games, Or if not ignored brushed aside for a few weeks. Hitler did his best to clean up Berlin from all his anti Semetic slogans and propaganda- however I for one find it entertaining that Lutz Leibermann (sp) helped Jessie Owens to win gold in the long jump and the so-called racial superiority was never recognized in those games. And no one should ever forget any atrocities, but it's not fair to make these atheletes suffer (especially the US Men's Basketball team, they suffer enough on their own!)

By the way it's 10:51PM my time and the Olympics comittee overtunred Serbia's protest of Mike Phelps gold medal. He won by 1/100th of a second.

And can anyone tell me if Canada has placed in anything yet? You know besides having the ugliest outfits in the opening ceromonies[/color]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]I guess my question or rather questions to the one who started this thread would run along these lines...

Would denying China the Olympics actually change any of the problems you're referring to?

Personally, I don't see denying them the ability to host the events really changing anything.

Would allowing the Olympics possibly help to bring about change?

I think that though it's unlikely to make any real change now, it can be a step in the right direction.

I know another question or argument that could come up is how the money spent on the Olympics could have been put to better use. However, isn't that always the case? I could say the same for when they came to where I live. The money spent hosting the winter Olympics could have easily gone to better causes. You can always find something else. [I]Always.[/I]

Many of us aren't protesting because we don't see the Olympics as something that sanctions or means we approve of any host country doing horrible things.

It doesn't mean we've suddenly forgotten about it either. It also means that we think using the Olympics as a venue to protest other problems is not a very effective platform for change in the first place. So no, I don't have a problem with it being in China.[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Teal"]Well, although I'm no expert at politics, every country had and has its problems that are to some of us, extremely bad. If China can't host the Olympics because of its problems, no country should.[/COLOR]

[James]

[quote]Understandable, I find it strange that people are getting upset in the first place, mainly because we dealt with the scandal of bribery when the Olympics were here in Utah. So I find it silly in the sense that the Olympics are meant to be an event that all countries can be a part of. What's the point in having it if you punish all citizens of a country because their government has hang ups?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think it's about punishing the citizens, but I do think that there are legitimate questions about the way China's government operates.

The question is, should that aspect of China be discussed as part of the Olympics?

As I have said before, I don't necessarily agree that we should "politicize" the Olympic Games. We do, to some extent, have to take them for what they are. And we do have to try to look at the positives of the event itself.

Having said that, it's unreasonable to be dismissive of those who are putting out those legitimate concerns. Characterizing their government's problems as "hang ups" probably doesn't help, because it trivializes the very serious and systematic problems in the country (I mean, I wouldn't say that being arrested and thrown into a forced "re-education" camp could be considered a "hang up").[/font]

[quote]That sounds like your saying that since I'm not taking the protest seriously, I'm just dismissing the horrors in the world... say what? Since when did not being bothered by the Olympics being hosted in China equal I find their past history acceptable? Am I suppose to always hold a grudge against China?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's kind of a mis-reading of what I was saying. I'll try to clarify.

What I meant was that if you dismiss the very real concerns of those who have made comment about China during these Games, you [i]imply[/i] that these matters are not of utmost importance. That implication is the problem - I don't believe that you yourself actually don't care about the horrific treatment of various groups of people.

Not being bothered that the Olympic Games is being held in China is one thing (something I agree with).

But simultaneously dismissing serious concerns over human rights violations as "hang ups" is not helpful, to say the least. We may not want politics and sport to converge, but they so often do - as evidenced by the actual premise of this thread in the first place.[/font]
[quote]
Personally I think people are so hung up on the atrocities that have happened over there to realize that by allowing them to host the Olympics there, they're extending that "olive branch" as it were. Opening the place up to quite a bit of scrutiny. It's also a big step for them to allow so much about them to be aired around the world.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, that's right. So why then complain when the scrutiny occurs?

I think that the added scrutiny - while sometimes overshadowing the event itself - can invariably only be a good thing.[/font]

[quote]Ignoring it? No, we just don't agree that it's as big of a tragedy as some people think it is. Malkav said it best, it's common history to ignore the problems of the host country. Not permanently since I'm not likely to ever forget what happened in Germany. But I think it would be wrong to keep holding that over someone's head. Otherwise all that bribery here would have sent the Olympics elsewhere, yeah that makes sense, punish everyone for the actions of a few.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Once again this comes back to what I was talking about earlier - it's easy for us to talk like this when we live in a relatively happy environment, sheltered from any kind of serious oppression.

Many of the events that have occurred - and continue to occur - on a daily basis within China are not only tragic, they are horrific. To describe them as anything less only demonstrates that maybe you aren't actually aware of what's been happening there.

I mean, where do I start? Do I start talking about the recent events where the Chinese military opened fire on unarmed monks? I mean, totally unarmed monks who were fired upon with heavy weaponry in an open street?

If you do not view events in China to be as serious as some say, then you may want to pay more attention to the stories that come out of the country.

When Germany held the Olympic Games in the 30's, this kind of scrutiny was not only warranted, but it was probably necessary. The same is true now.

Anyway, as I've stressed before, I actually do think that holding the Olympic Games in Beijing can have positive consequences. And I do like the fact that often, the games are separated from the politics.

However...it would be wrong of me to dismiss the concerns of people who are truly suffering. It's not something that should be ever trivialized.[/font]

[quote]Civil Rights Violations were ignored in the US during the times we've hosted the Olympic games, Or if not ignored brushed aside for a few weeks.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]At least the United States wasn't shooting priests in the street, simply because they dared to protest. If they had been, then I think it would have been a worthy topic of discussion.[/font]

[quote]
I know another question or argument that could come up is how the money spent on the Olympics could have been put to better use. However, isn't that always the case? I could say the same for when they came to where I live. The money spent hosting the winter Olympics could have easily gone to better causes. You can always find something else. Always.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah I think that this argument is extremely flawed - I agree with you completely here.

People will always say "Well you could have spent that money on a hospital or this or that" and that will always be the case. But at the same time I think those people devalue these kinds of events and what they can do for morale and commerce. You can bet that a lot of small businesses in China could be benefiting from these Games - and that's a positive thing.[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

Instead of quoting and replying to everything James I?ll just say that Sabrina explained it best. I think the Olympics are not the best platform for addressing the very real concerns that China faces. I see it as protesting about say a parking law on a person?s driveway instead of going to the government that makes the law. I?m not trying to trivialize or dismiss the concerns, I just think that protesting the Olympics isn?t the best avenue for it.

A lot of good comes from something like the Olympics so I think denying it over those type of problems is not a course of action that will make a real difference. I see it the other way, it's something that can be good for the country.

So yes I see it as silly, since I think it's the wrong place to protest, not that the protest or actual problem is silly, make sense? There is a time and a place for protests and in my opinion, the Olympics is not the place for it.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium]...if you dismiss the very real concerns of those who have made comment about China during these Games, you [i]imply[/i'] that these matters are not of utmost importance.[/font][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]True.

However, when the Olympics are used as the [I]venue[/I] for discussion of the erroneous ways of the host country, then I tend to dismiss the [I]speaker[/I], since they then appear to be drawing an audience by using false advertising. If the thread topic is China's government and its flaws, then the title should not merely be The Olympics, but perhaps The Olympics: Why China Should Not Have Hosted.

Also, I view the practicality of debating China's right to host at this point in time as very low. If we already have four finalist cities for the games eight years from now, and the current games are already ongoing, is there really a point in raising a stink? Shouldn't that have been done back in 2000, when it might have done something?

Incidentally, I sincerely doubt that the current discussion is doing anything for anyone.[/FONT]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I agree with Allamorph, I think it's a little late to be up in arms over what country is actually hosting. This was decided a long time ago so suddenly changing it isn't exactly a simple matter. I also tend to agree with the sentiment that using something like the Olympics to protest isn't the best place for it.

I don't see it as dismissing the concerns, I see it as saying, this isn't the place for it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to denying a country certain things because of current or past atrocities? I imagine there are economic or other forms of sanctions that would have a better impact than denying them the privilege of hosting.

The protest in my opinion shouldn't be to keep them from hosting, but against the actual problems. I think people are missing that some of us don't see hosting the Olympics elsewhere as a viable solution. I don't see that changing anything at all. Other than it would be in a different country. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Hisamtsu]

:animesigh Ok look just try and forget about what happened in Beijing and try to be happy that we won some of the compitions.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Hisamtsu;819653]:animesigh Ok look just try and forget about what happened in Beijing and try to be happy that we won some of the compitions.[/QUOTE]Don't worry about it Hisamtsu, we enjoy having drawn out discussions here. At least I think we do. ;) Anyway...[QUOTE=Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]If the thread topic is China's government and its flaws, then the title should not merely be The Olympics, but perhaps The Olympics: Why China Should Not Have Hosted.

Also, I view the practicality of debating China's right to host at this point in time as very low. If we already have four finalist cities for the games eight years from now, and the current games are already ongoing, is there really a point in raising a stink? Shouldn't that have been done back in 2000, when it might have done something?[/FONT][/QUOTE]Or perhaps the question should be just how does one decide when a country [I]shouldn't[/I] be allowed to host. Or like in the case of Germany... when do you stop looking at past horrors when making decisions on who should be able to. Or how current events tie in. I think that one is more tricky since locations are decided years in advance.

Also, like you've said here Allamorph, it's kind of a moot point when it comes to China. The decision was made quite some time ago. So wouldn't a better objection be one of stricter rules as to what's allowed in regards to the hosting country? My understanding is that other than to apply, China had no say whatsoever in who was chosen. It was done by a process of voting after they went through all the steps necessary to be considered. Plus a quick look at the IOC web site shows:
[INDENT]The host city is elected by a majority of those voting, and each active member has one vote. Members who are nationals of the countries which have a candidate city taking part in the election must refrain from voting for as long as their city is in contention.[/INDENT]
And yes I know all about bribery issues when it comes to that sort of thing. >_> Anyway, where do we draw the line? After all, what happened in Germany was pretty horrible and yet they still hosted the games.

[James]

[quote]So yes I see it as silly, since I think it's the wrong place to protest, not that the protest or actual problem is silly, make sense? There is a time and a place for protests and in my opinion, the Olympics is not the place for it.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, this makes sense. Some of your earlier comments gave an entirely different implication though - and I felt that was worth addressing.

But on this point, we definitely agree. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]However, when the Olympics are used as the venue for discussion of the erroneous ways of the host country, then I tend to dismiss the speaker, since they then appear to be drawing an audience by using false advertising. If the thread topic is China's government and its flaws, then the title should not merely be The Olympics, but perhaps The Olympics: Why China Should Not Have Hosted.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's probably true. vegeta rocker could have done a better job with the thread title.

Be that as it may, though, the opening post was explicitly clear.[/font]

[quote]Also, I view the practicality of debating China's right to host at this point in time as very low. If we already have four finalist cities for the games eight years from now, and the current games are already ongoing, is there really a point in raising a stink? Shouldn't that have been done back in 2000, when it might have done something?[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, it was raised back then. And it continues to be raised today, for very legitimate reasons.

As Rach said, there's now an increased scrutiny on what happens within China. How can that be a bad thing, if it sheds light on human rights atrocities?

At the same time, I do agree that we should be able to talk about Olympic events independently of the politics. It's just that I'm respecting the OP's intentions here, rather than simply brushing those views to one side.[/font]

[quote]Incidentally, I sincerely doubt that the current discussion is doing anything for anyone.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's odd, given the number of replies and the depth of the discussion.

If this discussion raised no strong opinions, people simply wouldn't post. I appreciate that everyone takes the time to discuss issues like this.

Anyway I've edited the thread title to reflect vegeta rocker's intentions. Hopefully that will no longer be an issue.[/font]

[quote]I don't see it as dismissing the concerns, I see it as saying, this isn't the place for it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to denying a country certain things because of current or past atrocities? I imagine there are economic or other forms of sanctions that would have a better impact than denying them the privilege of hosting.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If it were simply about Beijing hosting or not hosting the games, that'd be one thing.

But we keep being told about "hang ups" and "every country has its issues", both of which are [i]totally[/i] dismissive. Calling that out is fair.

Now that we've divided the two, things make a lot more sense. I do think it's far too late to try to somehow take the games off China (obviously), but it's never too late to question the validity of China as host. I may not agree with people who put that view forward (because I think the Olympics are a positive for China), but their views are certainly relevant.[/font]

[quote]The protest in my opinion shouldn't be to keep them from hosting, but against the actual problems. I think people are missing that some of us don't see hosting the Olympics elsewhere as a viable solution. I don't see that changing anything at all. Other than it would be in a different country.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The good news is that nobody seems to be implying this anyway.

I think the issue was originally more to do with China not being given the privilege, rather than saying actual issues would be fixed if the games were held elsewhere.

I think anything that encourages China to open up and become more transparent is an inherently good thing.[/font]

[quote]And yes I know all about bribery issues when it comes to that sort of thing. >_> Anyway, where do we draw the line? After all, what happened in Germany was pretty horrible and yet they still hosted the games.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's totally reasonable for China to host these games. I also don't believe that Germany's past actions would actually hinder them in future Olympic bids.

In any case, my basic point is that someone like vegeta rocker is not the kind of irrelevant whiner that has been implied throughout this thread. Far from it, in fact. Taking these issues seriously (whether in the context of the Games or not) is surely nothing if not based on honest compassion.

My real hope is that China learns some positive lessons from all of this. For one thing, it is true that if they make genuine efforts, the world will not reject them. And although they are minor, I know that China has made quite a few efforts to increase transparency during these Olympics (certainly not enough, but it's a start).

What I find most funny, though, is that a lot of people forget that China is still a typical Communist regime of the old school variety. When someone mentions re-education camps, political killings/arrests or even the massacre of unarmed monks, the reaction is all too often one of disbelief.

Maybe this is evidence of how well China has been able to manage PR over recent years. And maybe the growing middle class of China contributes to this idea that China is "getting there" more quickly than it really is.[/font]

[celestialcharm]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]
And can anyone tell me if Canada has placed in anything yet? You know besides having the ugliest outfits in the opening ceromonies[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Har har har, I never watched the opening ceremonies (stupid exams!), so I wouldn't know :P

And YES FINALLY we got three medals today!!

We got a silver in rowing; men's pair without coxswain, a gold in wrestling freestyle; women's -48kg Final, AND a bronze in another weight class of the wrestling freestyle, women's -55kg Final.

About time Canada!![/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]That's probably true. vegeta rocker could have done a better job with the thread title.

Be that as it may, though, the opening post was explicitly clear.[/font][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Yes. Which is why I dismissed it.

[QUOTE][I][font=franklin gothic medium]Well, it was raised back then. And it continues to be raised today, for very legitimate reasons.[/font][/I][/QUOTE]
That's not the problem I'm seeing. The problem is one of usefulness. Will a discussion of China's right to host [U]this[/U] [U]year's[/U] games do anything [U]now[/U]? No. And yes, I know the issue was raised then, but since the decision to allow them to host was made back then as well, continuing the debate (again, over their right to host [U]this[/U] [U]year's[/U] games, which was the specific intent of the OPer) serves absolutely no purpose. Absolutely none.

If we were discussing their right to host any future games, or hosting rights and governmental ethics in general, then I would not be descrying this thread quite so intensely. Such an issue is, as you have said, a legitimate topic, and one that should definitely be addressed.

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]As Rach said, there's now an increased scrutiny on what happens within China. How can that be a bad thing, if it sheds light on human rights atrocities?[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
See, that's the whole thing with discussing [I]future[/I] rights. Discussing flaws and a need for change is great. Debating a decision that cannot be reversed is . . . well, downright silly.

[QUOTE][I][font=franklin gothic medium]That's odd, given the number of replies and the depth of the discussion.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
What, thirty-seven replies? [strike]Eleven[/strike] Sorry, [I]twelve[/I] of those were discussion of the games themselves, and at least twelve more now have been debating the legitimacy of the intended topic—which stemmed from my and [COLOR="DarkRed"]Darren[/COLOR]'s efforts to discuss only the games in the first place. Confounding variables there, methinks.

I'm not entirely sure this thread would have [I]had[/I] quite as much depth if I hadn't tried to change the subject.

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]If this discussion raised no strong opinions, people simply wouldn't post.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
I almost didn't. But then I realized that more people than me wanted to discuss something that didn't [I]need[/I] strong opinions.

Also, the Funtime thread presents no discussion material, and yet people post there in droves, getting their borogoves all mimsy and outgrabing their mome raths. Snicker-snack to that point. :p

[QUOTE][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][I]Anyway I've edited the thread title to reflect vegeta rocker's intentions. Hopefully that will no longer be an issue.[/I][/font][/QUOTE]
Yeah, and from this point forward I'll only add to the discussion if I have something that directly pertains to it. I understand you, and I hope you understand me, so I doubt this line of speaking holds any more value, either.[/FONT]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='celestialcharm'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Har har har, I never watched the opening ceremonies (stupid exams!), so I wouldn't know :P

And YES FINALLY we got three medals today!!

We got a silver in rowing; men's pair without coxswain, a gold in wrestling freestyle; women's -48kg Final, AND a bronze in another weight class of the wrestling freestyle, women's -55kg Final.

About time Canada!![/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I got to watch the opening ceromonies because I work at a senior living community and the staff had the residents watching the ceremonies. It did calm some of them down for a while. And just look up Green ugly Canada olympics 2008 on youtube to find the outfits.

Also as of this post you all also got bronze in the 100 metre (Or was it more than that?) swim. I was cheering for Cochrane the whole bloody time (silently so I wouldn't wake anyone up) even though we had Hansen in that competition too. I don't care really, we have enough.

And hey, only two years til Vancouver![/color]

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms] I haven't really read the thread, but I'll add my two cents:

Protesting the fact that China is hosting the Olympics or discussing why shouldn't have been able to isn't moot or pointless. I know of several people who are personally boycotting the 2008 Olympics, and I find it admirable. A lot of people like to use the excuse of "but the Olympics is all about unity!" to stop the discussion, but really the fact that the world is recognizing the coming of a nation that has *terrible* human rights and wants to forget about it for a while because of the Olympics is sort of sad.

I'm not anti-Olympics or anything, I've been watching parts of it but I recognize what China has been doing lately. Put the semantics aside- clearly we can't stop the fact that China is hosting it, but that doesn't mean it's a good time to raise these issues. I've discussed it before and during the Olympics- I never thought China should have been able to play host. [/font]

[James]

[quote]That's not the problem I'm seeing. The problem is one of usefulness. Will a discussion of China's right to host this year's games do anything now? No. And yes, I know the issue was raised then, but since the decision to allow them to host was made back then as well, continuing the debate (again, over their right to host this year's games, which was the specific intent of the OPer) serves absolutely no purpose. Absolutely none.

If we were discussing their right to host any future games, or hosting rights and governmental ethics in general, then I would not be descrying this thread quite so intensely. Such an issue is, as you have said, a legitimate topic, and one that should definitely be addressed.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, you concede that the scrutiny placed on human rights violations is a legitimate topic in your second paragraph - and that is essentially part of what we are discussing here.

It is the underlying motivation for those who did not want China to host the Olympics.

Yes, the choice has been made and China is now hosting them, but that certainly doesn't make the question moot or irrelevant. Dismissing people's real concerns and questions about the selection isn't fair or reasonable.[/font]

[quote]See, that's the whole thing with discussing future rights. Discussing flaws and a need for change is great. Debating a decision that cannot be reversed is . . . well, downright silly.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Asking the question "Should China have been made host of the 2008 Olympics?" is not a silly question. It's a fair question and it's one that [i]someone[/i] should probably be asking.

Just because an event is in progress doesn't mean people can't question the motivations or lead up to the choice itself. A topic doesn't suddenly become untouchable simply because the event itself is passing, lol.[/font]

[quote]What, thirty-seven replies? Eleven Sorry, twelve of those were discussion of the games themselves, and at least twelve more now have been debating the legitimacy of the intended topic?which stemmed from my and Darren's efforts to discuss only the games in the first place. Confounding variables there, methinks.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That isn't even worth debating - what is "confounding variables" supposed to mean? lol

My earlier point still stands; if this were an entirely useless discussion, people wouldn't be discussing it. Simple. And obviously people [i]are[/i] discussing it. It is therefore a legitimate topic of interest (even if you yourself have no interest in the political aspect of the Games).[/font]

[quote]I'm not entirely sure this thread would have had quite as much depth if I hadn't tried to change the subject.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well then, give yourself a gold star and a big pat on the back, by all means.

I tend to give credit to the OP, who put this line of discussion on the table and therefore sparked a number of different responses. I have been spending at least some time defending the OP from being utterly dismissed (and quite rudely so in some cases).[/font]

[quote]I almost didn't. But then I realized that more people than me wanted to discuss something that didn't need strong opinions.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I am not sure what you mean - what doesn't need strong opinions, in your view? The sport itself?

The political side obviously has strong opinions by default. Any situation where you have controversy or human rights issues is obviously going to generate strong (and understandable) feelings.[/font]

[quote]Also, the Funtime thread presents no discussion material, and yet people post there in droves, getting their borogoves all mimsy and outgrabing their mome raths. Snicker-snack to that point. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Snicker-snack to what point? It doesn't seem to me that you have one.

I'm not quite sure how the Funtime thread compares to this one at all, lol. The only thing I can say is that if a thread has a lot of responses or activity, then people [i]obviously[/i] wish to spend their time in that discussion.

The same is absolutely true here. It doesn't matter what the topic is about or how "deep" it is - people will only ever post if they are actually interested in doing so.

And there's clearly sufficient interest in this topic, so as to validate vegeta rocker's original proposition.[/font]

[quote]Yeah, and from this point forward I'll only add to the discussion if I have something that directly pertains to it. I understand you, and I hope you understand me, so I doubt this line of speaking holds any more value, either.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure if you've understood some of my points, but I've clarified them a little here anyway.

In any case, that's what topics like this are about - it's not only fine for people to disagree, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the political side of an event like this. Those who aren't interested in the OP's line of discussion should simply not post here.

Also a sports-specific Olympics thread has begun in the Amphitheater, so I hope that people will use that if they want to talk about the sport specifically.[/font]

[quote]
Protesting the fact that China is hosting the Olympics or discussing why shouldn't have been able to isn't moot or pointless. I know of several people who are personally boycotting the 2008 Olympics, and I find it admirable. A lot of people like to use the excuse of "but the Olympics is all about unity!" to stop the discussion, but really the fact that the world is recognizing the coming of a nation that has *terrible* human rights and wants to forget about it for a while because of the Olympics is sort of sad.

I'm not anti-Olympics or anything, I've been watching parts of it but I recognize what China has been doing lately. Put the semantics aside- clearly we can't stop the fact that China is hosting it, but that doesn't mean it's a good time to raise these issues. I've discussed it before and during the Olympics- I never thought China should have been able to play host.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I did think that China being host was acceptable, but I have to say, [i]this[/i] is the type of post that probably better expresses vegeta rocker's original point. :catgirl:[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, this makes sense. Some of your earlier comments gave an entirely different implication though - and I felt that was worth addressing.

But on this point, we definitely agree. :catgirl:[/font][/QUOTE]That's why I clarified what I meant. It's too easy to misread or not understand what I mean, especially when I could have been clearer to begin with. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Asking the question "Should China have been made host of the 2008 Olympics?" is not a silly question. It's a fair question and it's one that [i]someone[/i] should probably be asking.

Just because an event is in progress doesn't mean people can't question the motivations or lead up to the choice itself. A topic doesn't suddenly become untouchable simply because the event itself is passing, lol.[/font][/QUOTE]I don't think anyone is actually saying that. More that we're saying the choice was made and we're fine with it. People can object and move that such a thing never happen again. I'm just not going to agree with it since I had no real issues with a place like China being allowed to host the games.[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]That isn't even worth debating - what is "confounding variables" supposed to mean? lol[/font][/QUOTE]I wasn't the one who brought this up, but it's pretty simple or I think it is. He was referring to the math or percentage of people actually discussing the original topic. There were posts that had nothing to do with the OP's question. So therefore...the variables (in this case the number of replies) don't accurately reflect the interest in the topic at hand.

So though you may have 40 replies, perhaps only 50% of them even discuss the actual topic. So at a glance it looks like a lot of people are interested, but you get in and read the thread only to find that there is stuff that is unrelated to the topic. So saying, it's getting attention because the thread has "this" many replies isn't a true picture. He just summed it up in only a few words by putting it like that.

Though even if there were only two people discussing it, that's important enough right there. A topic doesn't have to have a lot of responses by different members to be interesting. After all, people love to lurk and read without taking the time to actually comment.

[James]

[quote]I wasn't the one who brought this up, but it's pretty simple or I think it is. He was referring to the math or percentage of people actually discussing the original topic. There were posts that had nothing to do with the OP's question. So therefore...the variables (in this case the number of replies) don't accurately reflect the interest in the topic at hand.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Haha, yeah, I understood his meaning. :catgirl:

What I meant was, he had no real point and was being dogmatic for the sake of argument, rather than making an attempt to actually debate the subject.

Whether 60% or 20% of people are talking about the politics, the fact remains that a large number of people are discussing that subject. And, moreover, it has once again become dominant in this thread.

Therefore, there is sufficient interest in the topic. Getting into specific numbers and ratios is splitting hairs to the point where it becomes purely argumentative and doesn't have much bearing on the topic itself. [/font]

[quote]People can object and move that such a thing never happen again. I'm just not going to agree with it since I had no real issues with a place like China being allowed to host the games.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's totally cool. It's just a shame this wasn't clear at the beginning.

Several people not only disagreed, but outright dismissed vegeta rocker's entire point as being irrelevant or "whiny".

Disagreement is fine, but the way vegeta rocker's point of view was rudely brushed aside by several people is far from fine.

The point of view and rhetoric has subsequently changed and cooled down and has been portrayed as though it was always like this when it wasn't.

So I think that's what I took issue with. However, ironically, I actually agree with most people in this thread as far as China playing host. I know I've said that a lot, but I think it's important because we also really have to be respectful of those who still see this as an issue.[/font]

[Korey]

[quote name='James']


[font=franklin gothic medium]That's totally cool. It's just a shame this wasn't clear at the beginning.

Several people not only disagreed, but outright dismissed vegeta rocker's entire point as being irrelevant or "whiny".

Disagreement is fine, but the way vegeta rocker's point of view was rudely brushed aside by several people is far from fine.

The point of view and rhetoric has subsequently changed and cooled down and has been portrayed as though it was always like this when it wasn't.

So I think that's what I took issue with. However, ironically, I actually agree with most people in this thread as far as China playing host. I know I've said that a lot, but I think it's important because we also really have to be respectful of those who still see this as an issue.[/font][/QUOTE]
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
And I apologize if I dismissed his point of view in a manner that seemed rude. I don't intend to do that to any of the fine members here. I didn't really take issue with his statement, but I do feel that it is kinda trivial in my own mind to say that the games shouldn't be hosted in China when the thing is, this stuff is selected by committee. If a consensus was reached, not too much we can do about it.

I do feel that having the games in China might have aroused some things that China has to hide, but when you're under the world's scope, of course your nation's problems are gonna be unearthed. China does have a LOT of issues to work out, especially on the human rights side of things. I blame that on a weird economic system that counteracts itself with communist/socialist policies in every city save for Hong Kong. If the country could just decide, I'm sure there would be less issues.[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Haha, yeah, I understood his meaning. :catgirl:

What I meant was, he had no real point and was being dogmatic for the sake of argument, rather than making an attempt to actually debate the subject.

Whether 60% or 20% of people are talking about the politics, the fact remains that a large number of people are discussing that subject. And, moreover, it has once again become dominant in this thread.

Therefore, there is sufficient interest in the topic. Getting into specific numbers and ratios is splitting hairs to the point where it becomes purely argumentative and doesn't have much bearing on the topic itself. [/font][/QUOTE]I didn't see it that way, I saw it as him explaining why he saw no value in the discussion or rather one of the reason's why he saw no value. I don't see it as dogmatic if someone points out exactly why they think a topic is silly. That is just their opinion after all.

By changing the focus in that manner, it became more prevalent in the thread where before it was not. That's pretty common in local politics when it comes to debating a decision or considering a topic for discussion, if there isn't enough consensus then the request for it to be considered is dismissed. This isn't that kind of deal, but I can see the logic behind not wishing to go in depth over something that we don't consider an issue. Or the logic of looking at the numbers to measure interest.

[James]

[quote]I didn't see it that way, I saw it as him explaining why he saw no value in the discussion or rather one of the reason's why he saw no value. I don't see it as dogmatic if someone points out exactly why they think a topic is silly. That is just their opinion after all.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I see why Allamorph is talking numbers. The problem is that it's becoming an exercise in semantics.

The bottom line is that there are enough people talking about the OP's contention to warrant the thread staying alive.

And, secondly, it's not for one member to decide that a thread is useless anyway (unless a Mod decides that it's against the rules) - especially if it's just personal opinion. Posting in a thread simply to say "this is an invalid discussion" is not really acceptable. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]By changing the focus in that manner, it became more prevalent in the thread where before it was not. That's pretty common in local politics when it comes to debating a decision or considering a topic for discussion, if there isn't enough consensus then the request for it to be considered is dismissed. This isn't that kind of deal, but I can see the logic behind not wishing to go in depth over something that we don't consider an issue. Or the logic of looking at the numbers to measure interest.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh that's true, but thank god OB does not operate this way. Otherwise only the most popular topics would be discussed and nothing else would ever get a look in! Ouch. Haha.

The numbers were brought up to refute my claim that a large number of people were discussing the political aspects. But note that I said "large number", not "majority" or "half" or whatever. As I said, it's a semantic argument that is now pretty tired.

So with that said, I am going to pose a question.

We all know that the Olympics in Beijing can't be reversed, purely for the fact that they're in motion now, haha. However, if you guys were on the selection committee, would you take human rights and other matters into consideration with future Olympic bids?

For instance, the recent issues with Russia/Georgia. If Russia were to bid for the next Games, should their current strife be a factor? Or should it only relate to how well they can service the event?[/font]

[vegeta rocker]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']

I get tired of that mentality of searching for a reason to be upset. [/QUOTE]

You don't have to SEARCH for a reason to be upset...I mean China has deported it's own people who have been protesting the Olympics since 07.

I am by no means saying my country is perfect (I'm American) but if your own country is protesting it than thats really pretty sad.

Stephen Spielberg also pulled his support because of China's involvement with the Genocide in Darfur.

Protesters even hung a large banner protesting the Olympics on the Great Wall of China; of course they were quickly and quietly deported.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']You don't have to SEARCH for a reason to be upset...I mean China has deported it's own people who have been protesting the Olympics since 07.

I am by no means saying my country is perfect (I'm American) but if your own country is protesting it than thats really pretty sad.

Stephen Spielberg also pulled his support because of China's involvement with the Genocide in Darfur.

Protesters even hung a large banner protesting the Olympics on the Great Wall of China; of course they were quickly and quietly deported.[/QUOTE]You left out part of what I said by the way: [quote]I get tired of that mentality of searching for a reason to be upset. [B]Not that it isn't [U]appropriate[/U] at times[/B][/quote]I still hold with the reasoning that people look for a reason to be upset. It's like a mental filter of only seeing the negative instead of [I]also[/I] seeing the positive in a situation. By allowing China to host the games it's forcing another layer of transparency on them around the world. It's also letting their citizens see what it can be like to be part of something better than what they currently have.

I've said it before in this thread, other countries with horrible cases of cruelty have been allowed to host so I see no reason to deny China for similar reasons. I also don't subscribe to the [I]if your own country is protesting it must be sad[/I] deal either. In China's case, yes their protest is valid, but at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't host the games.

[vegeta rocker]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff'] By allowing China to host the games it's forcing another layer of transparency on them around the world. It's also letting their citizens see what it can be like to be part of something better than what they currently have. [/QUOTE]

They have seen what it would be like to have something better, those that have are now political prisoners.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']They have seen what it would be like to have something better, those that have are now political prisoners.[/QUOTE]And quite a few of them were not put in jail. You said it yourself, many of them were deported out of the country. The way I see it now is that we disagree on the topic so don't you think we should give it a rest? You're not going to change my opinion and I don't expect you to change yours either.