stirring the pot some more

[Satori]

hey hey...


Luke wrote:
>perhaps the Aussies or the Europeans can back me up on this >one..Who has the most flags sewn on their backbacks? Who >kicks up the biggest fuss when they are mistakenly called >American? Just because you don't see nationalism at home, >doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I don't dispute it doesn't exist, what I do dispute is that it's anywhere near as prevalent as you claim. Canadians are extremely low key about that sort of thing and everyone knows that. It's one of the things the rest of the world likes about canada. In canada it's simply not cool to be nationalistic.

The reasons canadians sew flags to their backpacks is cuz canadians are generally accepted with open arms while traveling abroad and americans are pretty much spit on and that is our way of ensuring we are treated with the respect we hope we deserve. If it was to an american's advantage/safety to sew and american flag on there then you can bet they would. But instead they often sew canadian flags on there, go figure eh? Don't assume every candian flag you see is being worn by a candian, and don't assume it's done out of nationalism - it is NOT at all, it's done to have a better and safer trip with fewer hassels. I know you know that already. Everyone knows that.


>If you were aware of the social structure of the Dalai Lhama's >Tibet, you wouldn't be so fervent about getting the Chinese out. >Are you aware just how close to facism it really was?

"close to facism"? Sounds speculative to me but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and ask: this is important, why?

No nation is without fault, but for you to suggest that this is justification for genocide and continued occupation/atrocities is just fucking sick beyond belief. Again I have to ask, how bloody stupid do you think we are to take you seriously? That statement was truly unforgivable and you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm going to puke now.


>I was suggesting that more people from the west having a >greater understanding of what happens in China could only be >a good thing.

Granted. And giving china the prestiege and financial gain of the olympics only feeds the archaic evil dictatorship further, which can only be a bad thing.

Feeding tyranny is not worth people from the west having a greater understanding of china. If it were your blood being spilled and your life being destroyed and your family being raped and murdered then I'm pretty sure saying "hey, at least americans now have a greater understanding of china" would NOT make you feel better. It's not worth the price, maybe to you it is cuz you seem to have no trouble looking past the horrible suffering of innocent people, but to them it is NOT and it's THEM you should be concerned with, not YOURSELF.

Do I really care if the west attains a greater understanding of china? Not really. Do I care if the result of this western understanding hurts even one man, women, or child in the slightest? You bet.


>I think I could extrapolate on your argument of 'giving China the >olympics we help them to commit atrocities' and also state that >by not forcefully inteceding we do the same.

It's one thing to be bound by international law and not having the resources to take over china by (as you say) force. It's quite another to reward them for their crimes and give them even more wealth/power to continue their infliction of evil. Your attempt to equate the 2 things again shows me that you will stop at nothing to blur the issue and it's basically just more of your unique brand of verbal excrement. Your tendency to defend the chinese gov't makes me sick. Your attempts to show that canada is almost as bad as china is nonsense. Your suggestion that tibet's (alleged) facism is justification for the destruction and continued occupation of tibet by the chinese army was the lowest thing of all.


>Are you trying to say that ignorance is bliss? Knowledge may >not be power, but it is a key to it.

No I am most certainly am not. I also think that china has had exposure in the west already and we are disgusted by what we've seen.


>So not all of the government's resources go to the Ministry of >Torture and Murder of Innocents.

I'm sure it doesn't. What percentage would you guess it is?

>More to the point, the government will retain power regardless >of the few hundred dollars I would spend there. But I can make >a positive influence, by going to out of the the way places, and >spending my foreign exchange in the private sector. In fact, >when I go to China or Myanmar and spend money buying goods >or services for m the people I am just as effective, if not more >so, as various aid agencies which provide by indirect means.

Granted. The question then becomes this: Is it justified to give millions of dollars to the evil savages that comprise the chinese gov't so that the lowly and deprived private sector (private sector? in a communist system? Hmm.. sounds kinda speculative) can get a few bucks (which by no means will significantly improve their situations). It's great that the innocent people of china will benefit a little, but this benefit is far outweighed by the evil that is inflicted on them by their own gov't. Think about it, the gov't has enough money to build the three gourges dam, the most expensive undertaking of it's kind, a project that is an ecological and social disaster and will become unuseable in 5 years and then the flood waters will destroy more precious farm land the lives of another few million inncent people on top of the million and a half or so people this project has also completely ruined and sent to hopeless poverty. That is what they do with the money. How could you possibly think giving them more would do ANY good?


>Every time I spend a dollar on a bus ride or bowl of noodles, it's >a dollar that wasn't there before. Being aware of how I spend >my money in these places, I can limit the amount that will go >into the hands of the officials. You misinterpret me.

This is NOTHING compared to the millions of bucks that will go to the communist savages. The harm will far outweigh the benefit. It's not worth it. You know MOST people will buy their hotdogs and noodles from the gov't run stands within the olympic arenas. This argument is completely without merit and again you surprise me with the stuff you come up with. You are again grasping at straws.


>I suppose it is now isn't it? I'd just like you to note that I have >been careful not to defend China's policy, and for the moment I >will keep my politics to myself.

No, it isn't (keeping the conjecture to a minimum). "defend China's policy"? Come on now, you wouldn't be so mindless to do such a thing, as you know it would only discredit you much further and no logical twists of subtle blurring of the issues would do anything to take people's attention away from the fact that they are inherently evil. Therefore, I wouldn't suggest you try to defend China's policy on the destruction of people's lives. But if you are silly enough to do that (and I'm quite sure you are), then while you're at it, you can defend Hitler too, and then we can all sit back and puke at how you can condone/defend/justify the actions of violent, evil, murderous, heartless, and greedy fucking savages.

Defending them says more about YOUR character than you think, Luke.

Satori

 

[luke]

Hey Satori, I hope your stomach is doing a little better. You seem to have a bit of a problem keeping things down long enough to digest them thoroughly.
In case you haven't noticed, all of my arguments have provided a choosing of the lesser of two evils scenario. I think you should rethink your right to all of your claims to having an open mind. That being said, one of my teachers used to say that people with open minds are boring to talk too. We are providing each other entertainment, at least. I think most of the open minded people haven't made much comment on this topic, and your tepid arguments (that have started to become redundant) prove that you are not so willing to change your mind, especially in the face of a logic based argument.
I appreciate that you think I am an evil communist, and thus applaud the oppression of mankind. By the way, how are things going for you with the Reagan Fan Club?

 

[Silhouette]

Originally posted by luke
I think you should rethink your right to all of your claims to having an open mind. That being said, one of my teachers used to say that people with open minds are boring to talk too. We are providing each other entertainment, at least. I think most of the open minded people haven't made much comment on this topic,

In general, you can still be open-minded and have strong opinions about things. Just because you are willing to listen and consider other ppls ideas, doesn't mean that these ideas will change your mind every time.

 

[luke]

Originally posted by Satori



I see. So by that logic, no one is born with a predisposition to anything. So if my parents weigh 400 pounds and I turned out obese then it's entirely cuz of "certain elements, such as the environment they live in, lack of something, etc."? Ridiculous. If I were adopted and lived in a different country I would still most likely have a weight problem. Would you not think so? Apparently not.

You can't chop and divide reality so that it fits into your limited world view. If you feel no one is born with genetic predispositions which influence their sexuality then you must also feel that any genetic predisposition is also bullshit (and i know you aren't silly enough to make that claim). It applies to everything or nothing, you can't pick and choose what genetic dispositions apply to. Whether you think so or not, you are mostly the product of your genes.

Sexuality is one of the most fundamental and instinctual aspects of a person's makeup and something they have very little (if any) control over, sure it's open to environmental influences, everything is, but I feel you are greatly exaggerating how much. Also, the fact that almost all gay people know they are gay by the time they are 4 or 5, even before they know what sex is, suggests that their limited exposure to sexual stimuli has had limited influence.

Have you never heard of investigations of identical twins separated at birth who lived apart for their whole lives whose lives ended up taking incredibly similar paths? If you have, then how can you assert that genetics plays such a small role in a person's makeup? Or do you feel that sexuality inparticular is "learned or environmental" while things like hair colour and food preferences are not? There are even genes with predispose people to addiction or violence or mental illness. Do you doubt this as well? Why is that such a mental leap for some people? It makes so much sense that I find it hard to think that people can't see that. What's the mental block? Is it simply a symptom that people can't accept others for who they really are?

OBVIOUSLY you never heard of some experiments that were done with rats in the US a few years ago. They were able to create gay rats quite easily by giving the momma rat a small injection of estrogen in the first trimester. The amount injected was not significant and simply mimiced the hormone flux that any and all pregnant female mammals experience. Without fail, the new born rats all displayed sexual behaviours of the opposite sex. Are you going to tell me that it was the rat's environment (and not the hormone injection during gestation) was the cause of their gayness? Tell me, what environmental influence caused these rats to turn out gay? Did the researcher wear a pick lab coat that day? Maybe it was the smell of the chicken he had for lunch? Come on, let's be serious. Rats whose momma wasn't injected were all exposed to the *exact* same environmental influences and only about 1% of them turned out gay (which is the about the same percentage we see in humans, dogs, deer, etc, ie. NORMAL, NATURAL ratio that we see in NATURE).

Now that you are aware of the gay rats, what are you going to do? Suggest that the researchers were full of shit (ie. not creditable)? Suggest that I made up the story? I get the feeling that a lot of people will do whatever it takes to hang on to their rigid views, even in the face of evidence which makes their viewpoint seem quite invalid. That's pathetic. I have the courage to change my viewpoint in the face of logic/evidence to the contrary and I wish everyone did too. To do any less is to not intellectually evolve.

Evolution is based on genetic mutations. We see organisms mutate/evolve all the time. We are who we are because of this. We are the product of mutation/evolution and to deny this is simply ridiculous.

Satori

Hey, it's me again, the foul charactered communist.
You seem to have jumbled up your biology textbooks a bit there mate. If the researchers injected a hormone into the system of the mother rat during pregnancy to mimic a natural fuctuation which may occur, this is an adjustment of environmental factors in which the rats genes are the the control. Hormone level change in response to environmental stimuli. The genes of the baby rat are not changed, although it may be that certain traits are suppressed or exhibited by the introduction of the hormone.
You have paralleled homosexuality with heart disease, mental disease and some others. The fact that these are geneitc traits are evidenced in that they are passed through bloodlines. Most people know that if your parents both die of heart attacks, as did theirs before them, you should cut back on the butter a little. The fact that people with a genetic predisposition to heart disease can hopefully avoid an early grave through healthy lifestyle would lead one to deduce that both genetic and environmental factors influence the outcome.
If homosexuality was a strictly genetic predisposition, you would see certain families or regions where the hetero/homosexual ration was noticably increased. That fact that this doesn't happen isn't proof that homosexuality isn't genetic, but suggests that environmental factors do play a role. This could be something like a change in hormone levels during prgnancy, or more direct stimuli in terms of the psycological. I am not informed enough to make a statment on that particular issue. It is entirely possible that everyone carries the 'gay gene' and it just may be a response to such stimuli that causes the gene to activate or dominate the exhibtion of genes which control sexual orientation.
As for the argument about environment having little to do with obesity, what if we were to change your scenario a little. Two obese parents adopt a child who may or may not have a genetic predisposition to being overweight. Can you deny that the odds that this child will be overweight are not greater than if he had been adopted by a family of broomsticks? It surprises me that everybody has been making such extreme arguments, saying that it's either genetics or environment, and no one has come to the conclusion that it must be a combination of the two.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by luke
Hey Satori, I hope your stomach is doing a little better. You seem to have a bit of a problem keeping things down long enough to digest them thoroughly.
In case you haven't noticed, all of my arguments have provided a choosing of the lesser of two evils scenario. I think you should rethink your right to all of your claims to having an open mind. That being said, one of my teachers used to say that people with open minds are boring to talk too. We are providing each other entertainment, at least. I think most of the open minded people haven't made much comment on this topic, and your tepid arguments (that have started to become redundant) prove that you are not so willing to change your mind, especially in the face of a logic based argument.
I appreciate that you think I am an evil communist, and thus applaud the oppression of mankind. By the way, how are things going for you with the Reagan Fan Club?

Instead commenting on the argument, perhaps you would do much better to counter the points I have made as I have countered yours. If you are simply out of counterpoints then the proper thing to do would be to just say so instead of trying to change the focus of the topic and making petty insults and putting words into my mouth. I never called you and evil communist and the Reagan comment just goes to show how far you are willing to go to avoid the points made in my last post. Don't try to change the focus, it doesn't make for very effective dialog and it appears as if you are avoiding the issues (which doesn't surprise me in the least).

If you simply choose not to respond to my last post in kind, then I guess the discussion has ended. You were saying how canadians are nationalistic and how giving more wealth/power to the communist savages would actually help them be less evil. Surely you must have more reasons for thinking this than the ones you've mentioned.

Let's not avoid the issues.

cheers,

Satori

 

[Lina]

Brotherelf said: "We only know when people are gay when they tell us or when they flaunt it. There is no battle, they only like to make a big deal out of things."

You know, posts like Brotherelf's aren't very conducive to an intelligent debate because they give away the obvious homophobia of the person speaking and therefore nullify anything he would have to say. It's almost funny -- I take it Brotherelf wouldn't go on a date with a girl in public because that would be "flaunting" his heterosexuality. LOL. Not even worth further reply.

 

[luke]

Originally posted by Satori


Instead commenting on the argument, perhaps you would do much better to counter the points I have made as I have countered yours. If you are simply out of counterpoints then the proper thing to do would be to just say so instead of trying to change the focus of the topic and making petty insults and putting words into my mouth. I never called you and evil communist and the Reagan comment just goes to show how far you are willing to go to avoid the points made in my last post. Don't try to change the focus, it doesn't make for very effective dialog and it appears as if you are avoiding the issues (which doesn't surprise me in the least).

If you simply choose not to respond to my last post in kind, then I guess the discussion has ended. You were saying how canadians are nationalistic and how giving more wealth/power to the communist savages would actually help them be less evil. Surely you must have more reasons for thinking this than the ones you've mentioned.

Let's not avoid the issues.

cheers,

Satori

Seeing as I don't actually know your standpoint, I suppose the Reagan comment was a bit out of line. But provided that we were pointing out each others' character faults, I thought it appropriate to mention how anit-communist your sentiments have been. Seeing as it is not the issue at hand, your continuous references illuminated a possible prejudice.
Did I put words in your mouth? Did you put words in mine? I don't recall saying 'giving more wealth/power to the communist savages would actually help them to be less evil' This seems to have been on your mind before we even started debating.
Your arguments for denying China the olympics seem very arbitrary. I think that if you dismiss the fact that everyone will benefit (and yes, some possibly more than others) then your argument becomes more one of forcing your politics on another country than actually helping the people in need. The basis of my discussion on the benefit for the common people is that while we may not be able to allieviate their suffering by direct means, we can at least improve their quality of living.
By 'cutting China off' as you have argued, we would only add to the greivances of the common people, who it seems we are both trying to protect. For an analogy, alcohol and antifreeze bind to the same neuroreceptors in humans. If someone has imbibed antifreeze (which is fatal) the treatment is to give them alcohol, thus the alcohol may bind to the receptors instead of the anitfreeze. If you parallel the oppressive goventment with the alcohol, the people with the body, and the antifreeze with 'cutting the government off' and reverse the application you come up with a scenario like this.
The body is suffering from alcohol poisoning, so in an attempt to neutralize the effects of the alcohol you introduce antifreeze to the system. This is successful in curing the alcohol poisoning, but as a side effect, the subject is dead.
Before you dissmiss my analagy so casually as you have tried to dismiss all of my other arguments,(grasping at straws, I believe were your words) think about it. It is a very simplfied example, but contains all of the major elements. For something a little more real, why don't you pick up a paper and read what's happening to people in Iraq or North Korea as a result of the rest of the world is putting a hard line to their government. Economic sanctions don't help the guy with TB who can't get any medicine because his country isn't able to participate in trade. So far all you have done is spout off about how the Chinese government is molesting the public, you haven't offered any alternative solutions as to how we may immediately alliviate some of the suffering. Why isn't it obvious to you that if we cut China off, it would be the innocent people who would suffer the most, while those in power would suffer very little from the changes.
You say that westerners have a good enough understanding of what goes on in China. Somehow I doubt this. How can you offer them help without understanding how to offer it in a way that it would be accepted? You think you understand the Chinese, but all you are aware of is what happens there(and probably only partially aware at that) I don't think you can understand the motives until you live there and look at it from an insider's perspective.
You have been free in pointing out what is wrong, and yet you have mistaken my arguments as being condoning rather than seeing that I have only been questioning the alternatives.

As for the Canadians being nationalistic issue, it sprouted from my having pointed out that there is a possible conflict of interest when someone from Toronto starts screaming about how China doesn't deserve the olympics. It is hard not to think that you have not been biased. If it makes you feel better, I will drop the subject.

 

[Orchid]

Originally posted by Satori
I see. So by that logic, no one is born with a predisposition to anything. So if my parents weigh 400 pounds and I turned out obese then it's entirely cuz of "certain elements, such as the environment they live in, lack of something, etc."?

Hmm, again, I should have taken the time to write a two-page scribbling on how I think of this. I didn't block out the mediation of heredity, did I? I was just saying that the environment does have an effect; our development isn't based purely on our genes.

Or do you feel that sexuality inparticular is "learned or environmental" while things like hair colour and food preferences are not?

Actually, I don't know how I feel about that. I accept things as they are or happen (as opposed to accepting someone else's explanation or interpretation of it), and I usually don't take the time to try analyze and think everything thoroughly, like you seem to do. Which, mind you, I'm not saying is a bad thing at all; it's just not My Thing.

There are even genes with predispose people to addiction or violence or mental illness. Do you doubt this as well? Why is that such a mental leap for some people? It makes so much sense that I find it hard to think that people can't see that. What's the mental block? Is it simply a symptom that people can't accept others for who they really are?

No, I don't doubt that, and I'm fully aware of those genes. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I'll say again: I didn't block off the prevalence of genes - at least didn't mean to, although I might have given such an impression.

I definately don't think myself as "a person who can't accept others for who they really are", no way. Like I said, I accept things as they are or happen. For example, I met this guy at my neighbor's place and a few days later found out that he's gay, but that didn't change the way I think of him. He seems to be a nice dude although he's pretty quiet and mostly minds his own business.

OBVIOUSLY you never heard of some experiments that were done with rats in the US a few years ago. <snip>

Now that you are aware of the gay rats, what are you going to do?

I'm not going to do anything. Maybe I'll go see if I can find some information on it from the net, but I'm not going to start making pointless claims and grant you the pleasure of retorting with your very well prepared and thoroughly thought-out views and opinions.

Peace, brother.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Orchid
Hmm, again...etc etc

Nice reply I'm glad/relieved to see you aren't jumping on the anti-gay bandwagon as some seem to have done (if you read in the beginning of this thread) and that you have the wisdom and courage to accept others for who they without suggesting they are "unnatural" or "hedonistic" or making lame excuses to justify their own personal intolerence. Thanks for the clarification!

cheers!

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Lina
Brotherelf said: "We only know when people are gay when they tell us or when they flaunt it. There is no battle, they only like to make a big deal out of things."

You know, posts like Brotherelf's aren't very conducive to an intelligent debate because they give away the obvious homophobia of the person speaking and therefore nullify anything he would have to say. It's almost funny -- I take it Brotherelf wouldn't go on a date with a girl in public because that would be "flaunting" his heterosexuality. LOL. Not even worth further reply.

Interesting point of view. I also thought this statement was a bit far-fetched, as I have a gay friend who's parents & family knew he was gay from the time he was about 7 years old, and he never flaunted it or made a big deal out of it.

I would ask brotherelf, have you ever been discriminated against for something you loved about yourself and could not change? If not then you have no idea what gays feel like. Therefore suggesting there is no battle is unwarranted, how would you know?

I'm one of those idiots who "flaunts" his heterosexuality in public, what kind of sick freak am I?

best regards,

Satori

 

[love]

Satori

I have great respect for you, more than you might know, but i honestly cant see a reason to respond in the way you want me to. Would you not simply disregard it as Christian rhetoric? And then answer with your own. Sorry, ill see ya around Sat.
((((Love))))

 

[Satori]

Luke wrote:
>Seeing as I don't actually know your standpoint, I suppose the >Reagan comment was a bit out of line. But provided that we >were pointing out each others' character faults, I thought it >appropriate to mention how anit-communist your sentiments >have been. Seeing as it is not the issue at hand, your >continuous references illuminated a possible prejudice.

I think by now you should know my standpoint: destroying the lives of innocent people is wrong and should NOT be rewarded with money and prestiege. Your attempts at showing how giving them more wealth/power will help them doesn't even begin to challenge this basic assertion.

Part of winning an olympic bid is showing the world that you are deserving of the honour, and China simply has not done that. This is another issue I'd like you to comment on. I should note that I am an not anti-communist, I am anti-tyranny, anti-oppression, and anti-genocide, and since these things are typical of the communist savages in china, I suppose I'm quite anti-communist-china-dictator too. Is this a "prejudice"? Depends on how you look at it (interpretation is everything), but if it is then I must say it's one prejudice I'm very proud to hold and I'm sure most loving and compassionate people would agree. To feel any other way, would be to me, to turn my heart away from the poor souls who are the victims of these evil bastards, and there's no way I'm ever going to do that.


>Did I put words in your mouth? Did you put words in mine? I >don't recall saying 'giving more wealth/power to the communist >savages would actually help them to be less evil' This seems to >have been on your mind before we even started debating.

Granted, I was just provoking you. You were saying how giving money to them would help them dispite of the fact that you realize it will be feeding the flames of oppression and death. Please elaborate.

>Your arguments for denying China the olympics seem very >arbitrary.

I would hope that the rest of the world agrees that this decision is just complete insanity. If canada had not been in the running or if I lived in a different country I can assure you my outrage would be the same. I feel you are trying to suggest that my motives are out of jealousy and not out of concern for innocent people and out of my own personal feelings of moral obligation. This is simply not the case at all. May I remind you that it was you who brought my citizenship and canada's credibility into question, had you not done that then I wouldn't have even mentioned where I'm from cuz I quite frankly don't think it is at all relevent to the discussion. My motive is compassion, something I thought you realized all along. But again, this is just blurring the issue and taking the focus off the true point of this discussion.


>I think that if you dismiss the fact that everyone will benefit >(and yes, some possibly more than others) then your argument >becomes more one of forcing your politics on another country >than actually helping the people in need.

Again, the benefit will be far outweighed by the negative impact as they use the gain to unleash further desctruction on their own citizens and environment and (I suspect) assemble even larger armies with more advanced weapons to wreak havoc on others (other than tibet). Do you simply not see that they are capable of such tyranny? Do you think the destruction has ended? Power is addictive. For a country to be so damn evil and then get the world's approval is simply perverse and I know that you realize that this is a travesty of justice and realize the decision was one of under table greedy politics ($). Is this really worth a relatively few lucky chinese people to have a few more bucks in their pockets, while millions more are further oppressed and threatened? Certainly not. Therefore, attempting to compensate for the further oppression of the innocent with the very slight gain by very very few doesn't hold water. You'd feel differently in china had a gun to YOUR head and the rest of the world was supplying them with bullets and cheering them on. You wouldn't be so quick to say "hey, at least a couple hundred thousand lucky chinese get new nikes." The benefits are far far outweighed by the evil, and to dispute this to ignore china's track record and political agenda entirely.


>The basis of my discussion on the benefit for the common >people is that while we may not be able to allieviate their >suffering by direct means, we can at least improve their quality >of living.

Giving the dictators more wealth/power/approval to continue as they have will not improve the quality of living for very many (if any) and it will empower them to cause even more suffering.


>By 'cutting China off' as you have argued, we would only add to >the greivances of the common people, who it seems we are >both trying to protect.

I don't dispute that cutting china off will cause more suffering, that's a given, but I ask, do you have a more effective solution going forward? Do you think they give a damn how many "free tibet" music concerts we put on or how many letters amnesty international sends them or how many dirty looks they receive from the UN? No, they don't give a damn at all, and especially not now that they've received the world's approval for their misdeeds. What do they care about? Money and Power. What's the ONE thing we can do to them that will break them? Do everything we can to reduce their money and power. Your solution is to give them more money and power, and that, as I'm sure you can see, is just feeding the problem and leading us further away from a solution.

>For an analogy, alcohol and antifreeze....

The analogy, though clever, is fatally flawed and not worthy of comment.

>Before you dissmiss my analagy so casually as you have tried to >dismiss all of my other arguments,(grasping at straws, I believe >were your words) think about it.

I haven't "tried to dismiss" your other arguments, I've confronted them and deconstructed them and left no stone unturned. Evading the issues and changing the focus is your debating tool, not mine.

>It is a very simplfied example, but contains all of the major >elements. For something a little more real, why don't you pick >up a paper and read what's happening to people in Iraq or >North Korea as a result of the rest of the world is putting a hard >line to their government.

The thing with analogies is that they are speculative and interpretive and usually blur the focus of the issues by twisting and over-simplifying them. Therefore my deconstructing your analogy would just take us further off topic and while I'd enjoying doing it, it's completely pointless for me to do so.


>Economic sanctions don't help the guy with TB who can't get >any medicine because his country isn't able to participate in >trade.

Certainly not. I would argue however that with people's lives being destroyed by the millions concentrating on a guy with TB is a little short-sighted.

The idea is not to let china wither in poverty, but to make them listen to us and stop being evil savages. If economic sanctions weren't working to this end then I would say lift them, but I have a strong suspicion they would. China is really big on exporting and I think just a very short time of limiting that would have the dictator cowards crying to their mommies. Money is all they understand, we've tried reason and it didn't work, so we have to speak to them in their own language. If I'm wrong then the sanctions can be lifted before too much damage is done. Since this is really the only option that has a shot at enacting change, I feel we are obligated to try it to limit the suffering of future chinese and tibetans (and perhaps even us if china starts getting even more out of hand, which I strongly suspect they will). What if they used the money they make from the olympics to destroy your life? Then, in retrospect, would you still feel giving them the olympics was a good idea? For millions of people this is the reality they must face in the coming years and decades.


>So far all you have done is spout off about how the Chinese >government is molesting the public, you haven't offered any >alternative solutions as to how we may immediately alliviate >some of the suffering.

I don't want to "alliviate some of the suffering", I want to END all of the suffering.


>Why isn't it obvious to you that if we cut China off, it would be >the innocent people who would suffer the most, while those in >power would suffer very little from the changes.

It's a trade off and I'm choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Either lots of people suffer now while the gov't is undermined by economic means (all they understand) or entire generations will suffer for many many years to come as the gov't just grows larger and more cruel. That's if we do nothing. Your suggestion that giving them the olympics is a good idea only further advances their plight of world domination, and I know you can see that. The sooner we do something the better.

continued...

 

[Satori]

Luke wrote:
>You think you understand the Chinese, but all you are aware of >is what happens there(and probably only partially aware at >that) I don't think you can understand the motives until you live >there and look at it from an insider's perspective.

I'm pretty sure that if I went there and saw the atrocities first hand I would be even MORE outraged than I already am. Your suggestion that a greater understanding of them would make me more tolerent of people being tortured and murdered is unfounded, it would have the complete opposite effect, as I'm sure it would on anyone. The "motives" which you claim I can't understand are not very hard to grasp. The desire for money and power is something all humans to some extent share. Perhaps I have a harder time understanding their motives to be sadistic bastards, but quite frankly I don't feel the need to understand this urge and I hope I never do. I'm still shocked that you would defend the motives of evil savages

>You have been free in pointing out what is wrong, and yet you >have mistaken my arguments as being condoning rather than >seeing that I have only been questioning the alternatives.

Giving them more money and the world's approval is not a very logical alternative.

>As for the Canadians being nationalistic issue, it sprouted from >my having pointed out that there is a possible conflict of interest >when someone from Toronto starts screaming about how China >doesn't deserve the olympics. It is hard not to think that you >have not been biased.

Then you have nothing but my word of honour that I have not been biased (which you are free to accept or reject, I really don't care either way). I quite honestly don't care that canada didn't win the bid, the traffic here is bad enough already and I'm not in a position where I actually need the economic boost. What I am upset about is that the world seems to think that the evil dictator savages deserve this honour, when I think what they truly deserve is to be permanently jailed and/or executed in the most humane way possible.

>If it makes you feel better, I will drop the subject.

Don't think I didn't pick up on this subtle patronizing. I'm still disappointed that you didn't reply to my last post before you got off topic and started commenting on the discussion itself, which I still feel was your way of avoiding the points I made. I request/challenge you do so.

Satori

 

[luke]

What points? You've simply repeated yourself, and haven't provided any new substance to your arguments since your fisrts post.
Have you read what I've been writing? The only post that seems to have sunk in is the one where I talked about your problem with communism. I'm beginning to think that I am not really part of this discussion at all.
You offer speculative points, and seem to arbitrarily name new crimes to the list of those commited by the Chinese government without evidencing your claims. Rape? Forcing villiage children to excute their own parents? Where does this come from?

You posted earlier that you doubted if the protalitariate were capable of personal gain in China, seeing as it is a communist state. This just goes to show how little your understanding is of what happens there. This is not the same China that opened it's doors in 1982. You don't seem aware that our best way to politically coerce China into changing their human rights policies is to make the Chinese economy dependent on Foreign trade. They have already proven that they can be self sufficient, so cutting them off would leave zero political leverage.
Granting of the olympics was not a reward. How you managed to suggest that is somewhat puzzling, but seeing as I seem to have been talking to myself for the past few posts, it doesn't hurt to mention it. I suppose you think the IOC members are all sadists too?

 

[luke]

And why do you keep insisting that I am in favour of keeping Chinese officials in power by providing them financial assistance?

You really are egging me on.... I haven't felt this fired up for a while. Keep it comin' mate.

 

[Satori]

>And why do you keep insisting that I am in favour of keeping >Chinese officials in power by providing them financial assistance?

because you keep defending them and the fact that they got the pat on the back. You know they don't deserve it.

>You really are egging me on.... I haven't felt this fired up for a >while. Keep it comin' mate.

Again, I see this as avoiding the issues at hand. Claiming "there are no issues" is also avoiding the issues.

It's difficult to dialog if you keep commenting on the discussion instead of actually discussing. I'm still waiting for a reply from you, as you know.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Luke wrote:
>What points? You've simply repeated yourself, and haven't >provided any new substance to your arguments since your fisrts >post.

Your attempt to suggest that I haven't made any points is yet another attempt by you to avoid replying. "If you can't or are unwilling to counter what a person is saying, then discredit the person." - a common debating and political tool to avoid issues. You were wrong in thinking I was too dumb to not see through this tactic and expose it.

>Have you read what I've been writing? The only post that >seems to have sunk in is the one where I talked about your >problem with communism.

My "problem with communism"? I've never let you subtlely twist things yet, why would you say something like that? You should've known I'd deconstruct it and reveal it for the obviously condescending jab that it is. Had you read my post you would know that I do not have a problem with communism, but rather than repeat myself, you can read it for yourself above.

Not only have I been reading, I've been deconstructing and replying to every point, which is a lot more than what you've been doing in the last day or so. And with the "problem with communism" remark, which one of us is truly not paying attention?


>I'm beginning to think that I am not really part of this discussion >at all.

In fact, you are the center of the dicussion, you and your defence of evil savages and how they are deserving of the olympics.

>Rape? Forcing villiage children to excute their own parents? >Where does this come from?

From american news and documentaries on TV. It was also written about in newspaper articles I've read. We can debate the paticulars of the atrocities and human rights violations but it's quite pointless. I thought this was common knowledge, but no matter, I don't *need* this to support my argument, genocide will do just fine to that end no one disputes that.

>You posted earlier that you doubted if the protalitariate were >capable of personal gain in China, seeing as it is a communist >state. This just goes to show how little your understanding is of >what happens there.

As you recall I didn't argue with you on the gain the olympics would directly bring to a few innocent chinese, I said it sounded speculative but I never discounted it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I merely indicated that this gain wasn't as much you seemed to think and wasn't worth the price of feeding oppression. Again, you are blurring the main issues.


>You don't seem aware that our best way to politically coerce >China into changing their human rights policies is to make the >Chinese economy dependent on Foreign trade.

And this will get the savages to change their tune and be nice... how?


>They have already proven that they can be self sufficient, so >cutting them off would leave zero political leverage.

I was unaware that china had survived successfully in the modern world for a number of years without the benefit of being part of the global markets. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. When did this happen? And for how long? For my entire life I've seen those three little words "Made in China" on many products I have purchased and I was born way back in '73. It never occured to me that china was at all economically isolated from the rest of the world. I also find it difficult to believe that that many people could survive on that little land, especially now that so much precious little farmland has been destroyed by the savage dictators and even more is totally expected to be under water within 3 to 5 years. This does not sound like a country capable of self-sufficiency to me at all.


>Granting of the olympics was not a reward. How you managed >to suggest that is somewhat puzzling,

Hmm.. the advent of shitloads of money is not a reward? On which planet?

>but seeing as I seem to have been talking to myself for the past >few posts, it doesn't hurt to mention it.

Again you make that same fatal error. Need I repeat myself a third time? You are discrediting yourself with this sort of stuff.

>I suppose you think the IOC members are all sadists too?

I don't discount that they are, I doubt it but I don't know for sure so I won't make that claim, but thanks for offering it. I actually think the decision was political back-scratching heavily influenced by the US (which has enourmous weight in everything) who (I was lead to believe by local news sources) supported china in their bid (which is kinda sick when you think that the states were probably most vocal about the destruction of tibet - seems kinda hypocritical to me). Why else would the IOC even think that china displays any of the olympic spirit which would make them deserving of hosting the world games? Do you actually think they said "hey, let give those brainless sadists the games!". I think the IOC members represented the interests of their own nations (duh, now there's a shocker eh?) and voted accordingly instead of voting their conscience. If you doubt this then you must also doubt that politics is inherently corrupt. Do you?

still waiting for that reply...

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by luke
Hey Satori, I hope your stomach is doing a little better. You seem to have a bit of a problem keeping things down long enough to digest them thoroughly.
In case you haven't noticed, all of my arguments have provided a choosing of the lesser of two evils scenario. I think you should rethink your right to all of your claims to having an open mind. That being said, one of my teachers used to say that people with open minds are boring to talk too. We are providing each other entertainment, at least. I think most of the open minded people haven't made much comment on this topic, and your tepid arguments (that have started to become redundant) prove that you are not so willing to change your mind, especially in the face of a logic based argument.
I appreciate that you think I am an evil communist, and thus applaud the oppression of mankind. By the way, how are things going for you with the Reagan Fan Club?

I just wanted to say how weak and pathetic this post was, and I think it speaks for itself to that end. Let's at least *TRY* to stay on topic, shall we?

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by love
I have great respect for you, more than you might know, but i honestly cant see a reason to respond in the way you want me to. Would you not simply disregard it as Christian rhetoric? And then answer with your own. Sorry, ill see ya around Sat.

Thanks for your kind words. I can see that you are a loving and caring person and that's the most important thing to me.

I was hoping you would respond in your own words with logic rather than quoting bible passages which are ancient translations of ancient ideas further lost by our modern interpretations. If you had responded with your own words and logic then I wouldn't have called it rhetoric at all, I would have responded in great detail. With that being said, I still would like a response from you.

I'm sorry you felt my post was rhetorical, I was really trying to be as clear and comprehensible as I could but I guess it wasn't clear enough. I was hoping you would gain subtle insights into your own inherent subjectivity to take the focus off the historical "facts" themselves and show that it's all just interpretation and speculation (like *everything* is). But I realize that existentialism (selflessness) is very odd at first because humans have evolved such deep-rooted notions of ego and individuality which is further deepened by our theology (which is and always has been nothing more than a total personification of ultimate reality). Oh well.

Again I will simply say that there is no such thing as "truth" independent of interpretation, and I can totally back this up with real-life examples of the human condition. We don't see things, we see only our interpretation of them. This means that nothing is really "true" (in the deepest spiritual sense). I know this is very very different than saying "but god said..." or "the bible said..blah blah" but I'm honestly trying to be as clear and selfless as possible. My position is that all positions are inherently subjective/interpretive and therefore there is no such thing as "truth". Truth is what you believe and nothing more. It exists within our minds and no where else and before humans evolved the concept of "truth", it simply didn't exist. Just like there was no light before there were eyes to interpret it as such. There was lots of photons but there was no one to designate this small band of the electro-magnetic spectrum as "light" until organisms evolved to interpret it as such. Light is not "truth", it's only an interpretation which didn't exist until organisms evolved to think of it that way. The same can be said of all things. That is just one example of how inherently subjective reality actually is.

Modern religion is based on the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth outside of interpretation, which is a symptom of being a prisoner of one's own perspectives. I'm saying religion is itself just interpretation and therefore negates it's own validity purely from an intellectual standpoint (and even more from a historical or factual one). There is no truth, just interpretation (illustrated by the "light" example above). If you believe it, it is true (to you and only you), if you don't believe it, it is not true (to you and only you). There is no reality with which you must align yourself. You create your own reality without realizing it, everyone does.

I appreciate your compassion and I hope it rubs off on the people you come into contact with cuz that's what's truly important. take care..

Satori

 

[luke]

>Your attempt to suggest that I haven't made any points is yet another attempt by you to avoid replying. "If you can't or are unwilling to counter what a person is saying, then discredit the person." - a common debating and political tool to avoid issues. You were wrong in thinking I was too dumb to not see through this tactic and expose it.

Isn't that what you're trying to do to me here? I've discussed my veiwpoints on your issues in earlier posts. The fact that you haven't been able to successfully comprehend what I've been writing and continuously re-write my posts by ignoring the bulk of my argument doesn't constitute forwarding your own cause.

>Not only have I been reading, I've been deconstructing and replying to every point, which is a lot more than what you've been doing in the last day or so.

The only deconstruction and response that's been coming from your side has been to re-state your misplaced belief that I favour the financial support of communist dictators by western countries in order to prolong human suffering. I have stated my position, and your replies have yet to acknowledge the focus of my debate.

>In fact, you are the center of the dicussion, you and your defence of evil savages and how they are deserving of the olympics.

Need I say once again that you have missed the point of my posts. You continuously insist that I am making a defense. My objective is to make you question your own standpoint on the issue, because what you have suggessted so far doesn't seem to be the wisest course of action. You sound like an extremist, and by arguing agaist you, I have automatically become one of the 'enemy' in your eyes.

>From american news and documentaries on TV. It was also written about in newspaper articles I've read. We can debate the paticulars of the atrocities and human rights violations but it's quite pointless.

Please, if you can provide any links about on going attrocities like mass rape, I would greatly apprectiate it. More so out of personal interest than to do with this particular discussion.

>As you recall I didn't argue with you on the gain the olympics would directly bring to a few innocent chinese, I said it sounded speculative but I never discounted it, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I merely indicated that this gain wasn't as much you seemed to think and wasn't worth the price of feeding oppression. Again, you are blurring the main issues.

I don't see how arguing that there will be positive gains from having the olympics in China is blurring the main issues. I have stated before (and have yet to be refuted) that regardless of the olympics, the current government would retain power. So we can do what little we can to improve their standard of living directly, or when can ignore nor their plight and try to bully the government into changing. What makes you think any changes made by force would be lasting or anything more than superficial?

>I was unaware that china had survived successfully in the modern world for a number of years without the benefit of being part of the global markets. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. When did this happen? And for how long? For my entire life I've seen those three little words "Made in China" on many products I have purchased and I was born way back in '73. It never occured to me that china was at all economically isolated from the rest of the world. I also find it difficult to believe that that many people could survive on that little land, especially now that so much precious little farmland has been destroyed by the savage dictators and even more is totally expected to be under water within 3 to 5 years. This does not sound like a country capable of self-sufficiency to me at all.

From the 1960`s, for about 20 years, China was largely cut off from the outside world. They lacked official recognition from all but a few states until they insisted that by weight of numbers the UN seat for China should be heldp by the People's Republic, and not the administration founded by Chiang Kai Shek. The products you are thinking of probably come from Taiwan (aka Republic of China).
The Chinese have mastered very effective teracing techiniques which allow them to take maximum advantage of available farmland. And as you have stated, China thrives on exports. Most of their top notch produce is sent to places like Japan, Hong Kong and even Asian markets in North America. Does that sound like they have problems feeding everybody?

>Hmm.. the advent of shitloads of money is not a reward? On which planet?

Nobody gave the olympics to China with the sentiment of 'hey nice job killing those Tibetans'. If you can admit that China is a force to be reckoned with both economically and in the military sense it will be easy for you to see that diplomacy is our best way of trying to exert influence. Things like the olympics and admittance into the WTO are excellent sources of leverage.


>I don't discount that they are(sadists), I doubt it but I don't know for sure so I won't make that claim, but thanks for offering it. I actually think the decision was political back-scratching heavily influenced by the US (which has enourmous weight in everything) who (I was lead to believe by local news sources) supported china in their bid (which is kinda sick when you think that the states were probably most vocal about the destruction of tibet - seems kinda hypocritical to me).

It is far from hypocritical. It's called diplomacy. It is much more efficient and practical than war or economic sanctions.

>If you doubt this then you must also doubt that politics is inherently corrupt. Do you?

Hehehheh, hehehheheh hehehehhehe
that was a real gutbuster.

>still waiting for that reply...

I'm not quite sure what it will take to satisfy you. But seeing as I like having argumnts with you, I will provide you with the information that you are unaware of, and shows the basic flaw in my argument. I wish you were more knowledgable about the state of affairs in China, and didn't have to resort to spewing poorly reiterated western misconceptions.

The population distribution in China is centered mainly in the Eastern Provinces, on the coast, and parts of easter Sichuan province. Correspondingly, economic activity and wealth is also centered here. The western povinces (Xinjiang, Qinghai, Tibet and Inner Mongolia) are relatively new aquisitions of China. To stabilize the regions, there have been mass immigrations of Han Chinese to form economic centres in these otherwise isolated provinces. Most economic activity centres around SAR's (special administrative region) and free trade zones such as ShenZhen near Hong Kong, and TianJin, the port to the south of Beijing. Shanghai is also an economic superpower within China itself. In the outliying provinces to the west, the standard of living is very similar to how it was 70 years ago. Any economic influence procuced by the olympics in Beijing will most likely have very little effect on these outer provinces.
Xinjiang has been named and autonomous region, which doesn't mean much considering the Red Army is still in occupation. Most resistance to the Chinese in this area is funded and executed by Islamic rebels. Xinjiang remains one area of China where the ethnic Han are not in overwhelming ratio to the population of minorities.
The govenment in China is not a dictatorship so to speak. Elections do occur, but there is only one party. Anyone (Tibetan, Uighur, Mongolian) can become a party member and run for office, but they must be a sworn Atheist to be granted admintance to the party. Seeing as it is mostly the minorities who have held onto their religions, they are often underrepresented. Granted the Han make up the largest portion of the population, and control most of the economic interests of the country, but the representation of minorities within the government is too low.
The official policy of the government has been undenialby racist, as evidenced at the time of the handover of Hong Kong. Only those capable of proving they were 100% Chinese were given passports under the new system. This left thousands of African, Indian and other Asian immigrants without a national identity.
The rest were provided for with Overseas passports from Britain. This allows them to travel, but doesn't give the right to take up residence in Britain.
China has been making steady progress since opening up in 1982. Corruption laws have been passed, the market has opened up, and diplomacy has started to make it's inroads. Many young Chinese people are educated abroad, taking back with them western influence and ideas. Thinking we can change a society that was founded over 4000 years ago and been functioning in it's current incarnation for 50 years just by not buying or selling to them, and do it in a short period of time is not based on sound logic. We can influence them, but not control.

Extreme measures taken against China would have extreme reprocussions.

I'm off to work
catch you later.