Beijing the host city !!

Yo Mamma · 17-07-2001 8:42am #1

China has 68 crimes that are punishable by death and average just over 4,000 executions a year thanks to their buffet style approach to capital punishment. So to reward their zeal the International Olympic Commitee has named Beijing the host city to the 2008 Olympics.

In case you haven't heard of China it has an area of 3,705,407 square miles and a population of 1.3 billion people but only one haircut. For more fun facts on China visit your local public library.

Human rights organizations are furious with this selection but if it wasn't for brutal countries like China these Human Rights people would'nt have a job so I question their motives ?
So will there be a boycott? Corporations backing away from 1.3 billion consumers in that country alone? Not fcuking likely. What about an athelete boycott? Atheletes have a small window of optimum performance so to sit out when they could be winning gold and securing their financial futures is ridiculous to anyone who has bills. Besides China has promised their concession stand hotdogs will now have 50% more dog.

My only wish is that when the Games are upon us there is a democrat in The White House in 2008 otherwise it could be used for political gain by that Twat George Dubula Bush and hurl us into our much heralded much awaited world war 3.

:S

Chubby · 17-07-2001 9:08am

Some of that is quite racist and not funny.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 17-07-2001 9:34am

It obviously wasn't so-intended Chubby. I mean after all, isn't your name a horrible swipe at obese people everywhere? I mean even your comic-book guy avatar sends out subliminal messages...EVIL!

C'mon- that post was hilarious- and raises some good political points at the same time...plyd Hugo

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

TwoShedsJackson · 17-07-2001 9:41am

Obviously China's human rights record is abysmal, on the other hand if 'civilised' countries continue to revile and exclude China from world events then they have no reason to discontinue such practices.

Perhaps getting the Olympics will help open China to the world more and the authorities will start treating people better in general. The Communist Party of China has a leadership change next year, so we can hope, I suppose.

[This message has been edited by Castor Troy (edited 17-07-2001).]

adnans · 17-07-2001 10:00am

the amount of journalists that will be allowed in china to cover the olympic games will be enormous and i dont think that most of them will be interested in just only the olympics...

china is not the may west country and this could be our chance to see what the hell is happening to those 1.3 billion people.

adnans

bonkey · 17-07-2001 12:03pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
Sorry , i think its disgraceful. They have been rewarded for a brutal and oppresive regime

China is being encouraged to become a more active partner on the world stage.

To do this, they need to be shown the tangible benefits of adhereing to "western" rules. They have to be given a marketing incentive to show their city off to the world.

The one overriding reason that Beijing recieved these games is the fact they have 1.3 billion potential coke and sony customers, if you think its for any other reason I would advise you to wake up

If you honestly believe that the entire population of China is a reachable market, then "I would advise you to wake up" and have a look at the geographical and economic structure of the country.

If we continue to condemn the Chinese for their priactices, this must include trade sanctions. If we do not trade with them, then we have no reason to expect them to kowtow to our wishes in how they should run their country.

And before you go on about atrocities, consider that the Chinese have one of the oldest surviving civilisations in the world. They see our western culture condemnation as insignificant.

So, rather than saying it is a reward for their brutal and oppressive regime, I would say it is a reward for the steps they have begun to take over the past while, and an incentive to move further along the line.

Personally, I believe that if holding the Olympics in Beijing has the possibility of improving the conditions in that country and changing the governments position on ANYTHING for the better, then it is a worthwhile exercise.

If China today was a model citizen of the world, people would be queueing up to say that they were recently massively oppressive, and this new face is just to cash in on western capitalism, and we shouldnt reward them because.....

I'm fed up of people knocking decisions without apparently trying to see what the reason was. Sometimes, capitaslism can work for good.

jc

Dustaz · 17-07-2001 12:10pm

Originally posted by bonkey:
If you honestly believe that the entire population of China is a reachable market, then "I would advise you to wake up" and have a look at the geographical and economic structure of the country.

who said anything about entire? .1% of the population is 14 million people. thats a whole lot of market mate. wake up

If we continue to condemn the Chinese
blah blah blah, snip
I'm fed up of people knocking decisions without apparently trying to see what the reason was. Sometimes, capitaslism can work for good.

jc

Because lets face it, it worked like a dream in 1938 didnt it. Hitler saw the true spirit of the olympic goal and ..oh no wait.
But it DID work in 1980 in moscow. In fact, even 8 months before the games started the russian tanks were joyfullying rolling into afghanistan extolling the virtues of the olympian spirit...oh wait.

Well, third time lucky eh?

[This message has been edited by Dustaz (edited 17-07-2001).]

bonkey · 17-07-2001 12:41pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
who said anything about entire? .1% of the population is 14 million people. thats a whole lot of market mate. wake up

I believe when you said "1.3 billion potential customers" you were referring to the entire population. Which is what I was doubting. You have now refined this to a much smaller number, which is still based on flawed assumptions.

Where in China, that Coke is not already available, will Coke suddenly become available? Where in China will the Olympics be seen which was not already an economically suitable market for Coke? What was preventing Coke from advertising to these millions of people previously which has suddenly been changed so that they can do so in the Olympics?

You argument is hugely flawed. Sponsorship of events like this is a massively expensive way to reach the indigenous population 0 it only makes financial sense as an advertising medium with a worldwide audience. Coke dont give a rats ass where the Olympics are held - they only care that enough people watch it on the goggle-box.

Because lets face it, it worked like a dream in 1938 didnt it. Hitler saw the true spirit of the olympic goal and ..oh no wait.

Yes, wait.

The olympics are held in leap years. So they werent on in 1938. Oh, you must mean the 1936 olympics.

Fine.

But it DID work in 1980 in moscow. In fact, even 8 months before the games started the russian tanks were joyfullying rolling into afghanistan extolling the virtues of the olympian spirit...oh wait.

Yes, wait.

[sarcasm]
1980 Moscow, where the west was most definitely trying to encourage moscow to take part on the world stage. They encouraged Moscow to give up its ways and to be a good citizen of the world.
[/sarcasm]
In fact, the west was so eager to send this mesage to the Russians that a large number of western countries boycotted it.

Neither of your cases are remotely similar to the situation in Beijing at the moment.

Furthermore, your emotive response proves my point. Even if you were right, and it had failed before, this is a reason to give up?

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 17-07-2001).]

Dustaz · 17-07-2001 1:07pm

sorry, basic mistake there on the year.

The whole of Europe and the world DID know what Hitler was up to actually. Without even allowing for the WW2 aspect, The world was aware of the Nazi parties stance against Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other minorites.
"Neither Americans nor the representatives of other countries can take part in the Games in Nazi Germany without at least acquiescing in the contempt of the Nazis for fair play and their sordid exploitation of the Games."-Ernest Lee Jahncke, American member of the IOC, in a letter to Count Henri Baillet-Latour, President IOC, November 25, 1935
He was fired for that letter.

A boycott was called for and ignored, for similar reasons that you are posting. Hitler used the games as shamelessly as the Chinese doubtlessly will.

Yes, western countries boycotted the Moscow games. I wont argue that there was no political motivation to this move , but it was not politics alone that kept countries away.

Chubby · 17-07-2001 1:55pm

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:

C'mon- that post was hilarious- and raises some good political points at the same time...plyd Hugo

No, sorry, I don't find making fun of a race of people like that funny at all and I'm not just being politically correct. Okay, Hitler really wanted to be a jew but they wouldn't let him because his mother wasn't a jew. So was ****ed off and wanted revenge. Or, Hitler just wanted to prove once and for all if the jews are the chosen people and if god will come save them again. Hey, I'm just trying to be funny (failing horribly to most people obviously) and speculating at Hitler's motives at the same time. If people are offended then tough eh?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 17-07-2001 2:09pm

I challenge you to find a single quote in Yomama's post that could be interpreted as rascist by a fair-minded person. You're obviously trolling shamelessly...either that or you haven't the faintest damn clue about what racism means. Either way...cop on or go someplace else. This forum is for people who wish to discuss serious issues- not to cater to the immature or intellectually deficient. That attitude may be harsh...(even racist?

) but considering your trolling and uninformed response- I can't see myself losing any sleep over it

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

bonkey · 17-07-2001 2:11pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
sorry, basic mistake there on the year.

The whole of Europe and the world DID know what Hitler was up to actually. Without even allowing for the WW2 aspect, The world was aware of the Nazi parties stance against Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other minorites.
"Neither Americans nor the representatives of other countries can take part in the Games in Nazi Germany without at least acquiescing in the contempt of the Nazis for fair play and their sordid exploitation of the Games."-Ernest Lee Jahncke, American member of the IOC, in a letter to Count Henri Baillet-Latour, President IOC, November 25, 1935
He was fired for that letter.

Why was he fired? If he was only stating what , as you claim, everyone knew to be true, then there was no grounds to fire him.

Anyway - this is all beside the point, so lets forget about it..unless you can show how it is part of your Sony/Coke theory.

Hitler used the games as shamelessly as the Chinese doubtlessly will.

What? You wish to argue that the Chinese similarly will fool the world into thinking they are nice people, and then as soon as they Olympics are over, they will go back to their old ways? And you think we wont notice?

Doesnt this fly completely in the face of your Sony/Coke theory? If the Chinese go back to their old ways, then they will lose everything they have gained on the world stage, and will essentially get cut off from Western economies again.

The financial/political world is not going to stand by and listen to crap from Beijing about how good it says it is...it wants results. If those results are withdrawn, so are the benefits ceded to the Chinese for making the changes in the first place.

Which means that Sony and Coke benefit nothing from the location unless there really is change in Beijing.

Alternately, maybe its NOT a Sony and Coke decision. Maybe the IOC are themselves getting involved in politics (and not for the first time).

Which lends credence to what I said...the world is trying to encourage the Chinese to come and join the rest of us. You show them how good that can be, and maybe, just maybe you will end up causing some improvements.

Even if you dont, are you so 100% sure that this is doomed to failure that you believe it is not worth the effort?

jc

Chubby · 17-07-2001 2:16pm

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
I challenge you to find a single quote in Yomama's post that could be interpreted as rascist by a fair-minded person. You're obviously trolling shamelessly...either that or you haven't the faintest damn clue about what racism means. Either way...cop on or go someplace else. This forum is for people who wish to discuss serious issues- not to cater to the immature or intellectually deficient. That attitude may be harsh...(even racist? ) but considering your trolling and uninformed response- I can't see myself losing any sleep over it

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

okay

Originally posted by Yo Mamma:
In case you haven't heard of China it has an area of 3,705,407 square miles and a population of 1.3 billion people but only one haircut.

Besides China has promised their concession stand hotdogs will now have 50% more dog.

I am not saying Yo Mamma was deliberately being a racism but the content of his post contained racial prejudices. Trolling or not, as a chinese person, I find those remarks offensive just like a jew would find mine offensive.

Dustaz · 17-07-2001 2:21pm

In a word Yes.
The olympics will not make them pull out of Tibet. It wont make them turn into a democratic society. It wont make them be any the less fervent in thier quest to execute 4,000 people a year. They might think twice about using tanks on students, then again they might not.

Maybe if they execute every falun gong member they can get thier hands on and invade a couple of other soverign nations, they might get the world cup!

C B · 17-07-2001 2:23pm

I've said it before and I'll say it again nobody has the right not to be offended. If you really think that Yo Mamma's remarks make him a racist then don't bother replying to him. When you wake up and smell the coffe you might realise that the remarks were a humourous way of getting across a serious point so get over it. If I were to feign indignace everytime I heard a Paddy joke I'd never get anything else done.

Chubby · 17-07-2001 2:27pm

Originally posted by C B:
I've said it before and I'll say it again nobody has the right not to be offended. If you really think that Yo Mamma's remarks make him a racist then don't bother replying to him. When you wake up and smell the coffe you might realise that the remarks were a humourous way of getting across a serious point so get over it. If I were to feign indignace everytime I heard a Paddy joke I'd never get anything else done.

FFS, for the last time, I am not calling Yo Mamma a racist. Yeah, he was very funny, haha, I had my laff. All those stupid chinese people with the same haircut, hair color, slanty eyes and dog eating diet. Very funny. I'm ignore thise from now on. No point talking to you lot cause I am the oppressed minority here and am obviously in the wrong.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 17-07-2001 2:34pm

Interestingly enough, after showing the comments to my Jewish room-mate he didn't actually find them offensive at all. Showing him your comments cut&pasted in Notepad, his response was uproarious laughter. And considering the amount of direct humor that Mel Brooks and others have directed at themselves (the Jewish people) including "To Be or Not to Be" which directly addresses the Nazi question- I find the analogy distinctly unconvincing.

Upon showing Hugo's post to my Singaporean friends (who are Chinese) I have no doubt that they too will laugh uproariously. What can we conclude from this? That:

1) We have strayed off-topic due to
a) You taking this the wrong way, failing to see he was generalizing harmlessly to make a humorous point
OR
b) You trolling pathetically and shamelessly as I've seen you do many a time
AND/OR
c) Your failure to see that Yomama's comments were not meant maliciously

2) A comment which might have been viewed as a harmless one, has been blown waaaaay out of proportion by a self-important user of boards.ie (*cue symphonic violins playing Handel's weepy 12th Progressive*)

Now, having dispensed with the poorly argumentative troll, back to business.

Dustaz- I think it's fair to say that the decision to grant the games to China will have a far more positive outcome than people suspect. It at least shows the West's willingness to engage the Chinese government in the affairs of a modern world society- ie- the Olympic games. As far as commercial benefits go- bonkey's absolutely right- practically the ONLY short-term commercial benefit reaped by China will result from the hard work that its government and citizens put in, to make the games a success.

This will put the world's spotlight on China, make no mistake about that. Ironically enough, General Zhang Zhu-Yi, the party ideologist and hard-line supporter along the lines of Premier Li Peng was one of the biggest voices shouting that China should NOT corrupt itself by exposing itself to commercialistic practises of the West that would inevitably result by hosting such a games.

Most of the reformists in the Party recognize that the Olympics would be another step towards achieving reform in a state where the politicians are decades ahead of institutions like education and the military. In order that such a system were to become stream-lined, we must realize that Western citizens at several points in their past had to tolerate far more oppressive regimes than this one- and reform was only achieved through frank and open dialogue.

By shutting out China, we're hardly going to improve the situation. However, giving Beijing the challenge of hosting the games will lend enormous incentive to capital investment by China's own companies in the project. It's good business, and intelligent and forward-thinking politics. By approaching the issue from a punitive stance (as you do) it's hardly likely that an already arrogant voice in the party will be silenced- if anything, such action will lend it strength and impede reform.

This is good political judgment on the part of the IOC and those who cast their ballots. Let's all remember, on another leve, this has to do with SPORT- and China has more than proven itself a worthy and fair(well, except for women's swimming occasionally

) competitor in several events.

This is in the best interests of most parties concerned- I find it hard to believe that such a decision will in any way impede reform given the current political atmosphere, and the situation for the forseeable future in the PRC.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

bonkey · 17-07-2001 2:34pm

Im taking a brief time out to deal with our threatening off-topic discussion...

Originally posted by Chubby:

Originally posted by Yo Mamma:
In case you haven't heard of China it has an area of 3,705,407 square miles and a population of 1.3 billion people but only one haircut.

Besides China has promised their concession stand hotdogs will now have 50% more dog.


I am not saying Yo Mamma was deliberately being a racism but the content of his post contained racial prejudices.

What? You find the ignorance of non-Chinese to be racist? The fact that the poster was not aware that its more likely the Koreans than the Chinese who serve dog? Or the fact that he poked fun at the fact that your race has been persistently portrayed in the movies as having a "pudding bowl" hircut racist.

Or....perhaps....and here's what Occy was hinting at....you dislike the fact that there are traits about your race which can be viewed as humourous.

A racial prejudice is a far cry from finding something amusing in a culture.

This is not racism. This is a concept called humour. Racism is more about intent and belief than anything. You think YoM meant to demean you?

You think that he hates Chinese because of their different eating habits and different physical appearances?

Or maybe he was poking fun at the differences, rather than tryinf to demean them.

If you cant laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

If you find those remarks offensive rather than humorous, I would humbly suggest that the wilds of the Internet are far too dangerous a place for one as sensible as you.

If you choose to remain offended, and remain in this hostile environment, I would then politely ask you to take your arguments to either the thread on POolitical Correctness Vs Racism, or to go and start up a new thread, cutting and pasting the relevant stuff from here, or offering a synopsis.

Thanks

jc

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 17-07-2001).]

Yo Mamma · 17-07-2001 2:39pm

Just to clear this up !

There was no rascial slur intended here ! It was meant in the same way as the "Drunken Fighting Shamrock loving Paddys". It was a joke, plain and simple. I'm sorry if it has offended u Chubby!

I was just trying to put some humour into a topic that is not really funny at all ! Dont take it so seriously!

Chubby · 17-07-2001 2:52pm

Yes I was trolling and deliberately making a much bigger deal out of this than it is. Thank you Bob for your generous comments about me. And for the last time, I am not calling YoMamma a racist or having a go at chinese people. His humour to me in in very bad taste is all. Remember the film, Dragon, the Bruce Lee story? Jason Scott Lee's reaction to seeing that comedian impersonating an asian sums it up.

YoMamma, it's okay, I'm not really offended. Like Bob said, I was just looking for some attention and I need to get a sense of humour, he knows me so well...

[This message has been edited by Chubby (edited 17-07-2001).]

Dustaz · 17-07-2001 2:53pm

I see an oppurtunity here to combine both topics of this thread...

Beijing Olympics = me no rikey

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 17-07-2001 3:05pm

Originally posted by Dustaz:
I see an oppurtunity here to combine both topics of this thread...

Beijing Olympics = me no rikey

LMAO Dustaz!

Pay no attention to Chubby, he simply likes being an Attention Whore(tm). I still stand by the points I make in my post above with regards to freedom and reform being preceded by a tolerant attitude from the West.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Hobbes · 17-07-2001 6:34pm

Well known fact that the Olympics is in fact a front for the CIA to recruit foreign nationals.

If your really that upset boycott the event. Totally boycott the event. Refuse to use any product which is sponsering the event.

Btw every country has human rights issues.

bugler · 17-07-2001 10:01pm

Originally posted by Hobbes:

Btw every country has human rights issues.

Exactly.How that has not be mentioned until now I do not know.I don't want to single out the US in yet another thread (

)(it's the only country that I can currently recall of having got the Olympics and having relatively serious human rights issues), but I don't remember very many complaints when the US was awarded the Games.It is one of very few countries that executes juveniles(crimes were committed before they were 18, China does not afaik) and considering what the people of Cuba, Iraq et al have gone through you would have to say that some mention of the US's human rights issues would not have been amiss.

Dustaz · 17-07-2001 11:40pm

Troy, China are not excluded, they are allowed to compete in all games since (i think) 1984. Thier state sponsored doping program reflects this.
Sorry , i think its disgraceful. They have been rewarded for a brutal and oppresive regime and were not even duly questioned about it in the bidding procedure.
When they bid for the 2000 olympics they released a number of high profile dissedents from jail, 6 months after they lost the bid (by 2 votes - one of the reason they got it this time) EVERY single one of those dissidents was back in prison.
The one overriding reason that Beijing recieved these games is the fact they have 1.3 billion potential coke and sony customers, if you think its for any other reason I would advise you to wake up or mount a bid for Afghanistan and those nice Taleban people to host the next availale world cup.
Juan Antonio Samaranch is now looking for a nobel prize. Nice.
btw, lol yo mamma

[This message has been edited by Dustaz (edited 17-07-2001).]

Chaos-Engine · 18-07-2001 2:18am

exactly
the US has an appoling Human Rights Record. its no wonder why they were voted off the UN Human rights council...
When some terrorist in Kenyan bombed their embassy Clinton used it as a chance to launch Cruise missles all over Asia and Africa. Supposably taking out Terrorist training camps... During the US muck up in Kosovo they dropped several bombs on civilians(cluster bombs at that)
Then even got the Chinese Embassy Kllling 2 Journalists....
And in Iraq millions Die each year from the sanctions imposed by the US. Most r children. Not to mention the HUGE rise in Lukemia that their Uranium Shells cause(Depleted Uranium is still Uranium which is decaying- no real difference just amounts)...
Thats just a small amount of their foreign affairs Human Rights Ignorances(they r just the offical governmental ones) How many US Multi-Nationals use Child slaves to produce their goods???
At home if u are not White and kill more than 3 ppl u will most likly face a death penalty(if in the appropriate state). Where as if u r white and middle class u might get out in 12 yrs...
A 14 yr old boy who is mentally disturbed and black was sentenced to LIFE in prison (or was it the Death penalty? - someone can corret me) for accidentally killing a 3yr old while playing... Is that right? Especially when a grown adult Mother in texasa kills all 5 of her children. She probaly will be out in a year after intensive pyscho therpy and she won't go to jail she will go to a Pyschatric unit instead....
The US is probably one of the top five abusers of Human right in the globe... Get out while u still can

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

bonkey · 18-07-2001 8:40am

Originally posted by bugler:
It is one of very few countries that executes juveniles(crimes were committed before they were 18, China does not afaik)

That is completely misleading.

Certain states in the US allow for the execution of juvenlies, but this has not happened in living memory.

However, they have executed ADULTS for crimes comitted while juveniles. And, AFAIK, there is a general trend that this can only happen for juveniles offending between the ages of 16 and 18.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but can someone tell me if the US government have the right to change the policy of its member states vis a vis Crime and Punishment?

Also, Chaos-Engine....

When some terrorist in Kenyan bombed their embassy Clinton used it as a chance to launch Cruise missles all over Asia and Africa. Supposably taking out Terrorist training camps

Could you quantify "all over Asia and Africa" a bit please. And if they were not taking out terrorist camps (as you appear to be implying) could you enlighten me as to what they were firing at.

And classing them amongst the 5 worst offenders of human rights in the world is laughable.

The US has a terrible human rights record, granted. The way to criticise this is by being accurate in what you say - not using exaggerations or misleading comments. This has often been the problem - criticism coming from over-emotive groups gets dismissed as coming from "nuts". If you really want to be critical, and taken seriously, then be critical in a rational manner.

jc

Shinji · 18-07-2001 2:05pm

Pay no attention to Chubby, he simply likes being an Attention Whore(tm).

Thoughtful and well-reasoned argument there Occy, I'm REALLY impressed.

I thought Chubby raised a fairly valid point actually, more about the whole issue of where humour ends and where simply being rude begins... But hey, it's a lot easier to jump up and down and shoot the messenger than it is to actually post a considered opinion on the matter, right?

bonkey · 18-07-2001 2:15pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
Thoughtful and well-reasoned argument there Occy, I'm REALLY impressed.

I thought Chubby raised a fairly valid point actually, more about the whole issue of where humour ends and where simply being rude begins... But hey, it's a lot easier to jump up and down and shoot the messenger than it is to actually post a considered opinion on the matter, right?

On the other hand, this topic has been taken over to the ongoing "racism nonense" thread to avoid going too far offtopic on this one....

so if anyone feels like joining us....please do.

jc

bugler · 18-07-2001 3:15pm

However, they have executed ADULTS for crimes comitted while juveniles. And, AFAIK, there is a general trend that this can only happen for juveniles offending between the ages of 16 and 18.

I thought I had indicated that the crimes were committed before they were 18, therefore they are juvenile offenders.Of course they are not killed when they are minors, that just wouldn't look good.Apologies if I did not make it clear enough.Anyway, so long as they wait a few years til they are a bit older and it doesn't look so bad this is quite ok, is it? I don't think so.Just because someone rots on death row for 5 years before they are executed doesn't change the fact that they were minors when they committed their (I'm sure) awful crimes. For the record, the other countries that execute people for crimes committed while they were juveniles are: Yemen, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

bonkey · 18-07-2001 3:37pm

Originally posted by bugler:
I thought I had indicated that the crimes were committed before they were 18, therefore they are juvenile offenders.

Yes, you pointed that out.

You also said they execute juveniles which is not strictly true. This is what I was correcting.

However, I do take your point that they condemn a minor to death, but do not pull the trigger until after he/she has become an adult.

I should probably have been less "forceful" in my correction. Sorry.

As far as I am aware, however, the US legal system allows for a minor to be tried as an adult, given sufficient reason.

Gnerally, the "sufficient reason" is to be able to show that an adult thought process was at work. The seriousness of the crime is also a factor - premeditated murder (for example) by a youth of sound mind and body approaching his or her majority is generally considered as just cause to be tried as an adult.

Personally, I applaud a legal system which allows leeway for juveniles to be tried as adults, with guidelines for when that is appropriate. However, as we determined in previous discussions, I am against the death sentence entirely.

I would like to suggest, however, that we all get back on topic before Shinji or Draco or someone comes in and lays down the law.

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 18-07-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 18-07-2001 5:13pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
Thoughtful and well-reasoned argument there Occy, I'm REALLY impressed.

I thought Chubby raised a fairly valid point actually, more about the whole issue of where humour ends and where simply being rude begins... But hey, it's a lot easier to jump up and down and shoot the messenger than it is to actually post a considered opinion on the matter, right?

Rather harsh there Rob...but then again, that usually is your style, so getting offended obviously isn't going to get me anywhere. My point was hinted at in an earlier post, and seeing that it was expanded in full by jc (bonkey) in his subsequent post, I though better of beating not just a dead horse...but one that had long passed into a further realm...

The point had already been made, but just to show I can make it on my OWN steam, here it is Shinji:

It is very easy in the vast majority of cases to spot negative prejudice- having been on the staff-student NHS committee for combatting racism in medical education practices for about 3 months now, I can certainly appreciate that. Aside from my admittedly limited experience there (plus the numerous studies conducted), we have the indisputable fact that Hugo (YoMama) is a man of character, and not a person given to making prejudiced remarks with malicious intent.

Having met several of his close friends, one of whom (Ken Cheah, aka Spiritus Rectus) is Chinese, originating from Malaysia (my own family has ties there), I have no reason to question YoMamas bona fides

On the other hand, having observed the shameless way Chubby trolled a "Death to Goths" thread, where he harped on an on and on(and on and on) about prejudiced behavior...I think it is a far more reasonable assessment of the situation to say Chubby was grossly overreacting to comments meant in jest, whether deliberately or intentionally, I don't care. A certain level of tolerance is expected in online communities- but that does not in my considered personal opinion, extend to political correctness blanketing the freedom of our thoughts.

There is a difference between showing consideration for one another's uniqueness, and making a political point in jest. It was hardly either the thrust of YoMama's statement, nor was it the case that he had spent an incredible amount of thought on the subject Chubby objected to. It was an incidental remark, with no more intent to cause harm than the character Apu on the Simpsons. Using Chubby's unreasonable standards...I could quite rightly take a hell of a lot of offense in citing the way that Apu makes all Asian ethnicities settled in the US look- ie- like cab drivers and shopkeepers to a man. The fact that it isn't politically correct doesn't mean I should take excessive offense at a show ultimately designed in a humorous vein. To object in such a way would be to condone the muzzling of liberties I think we all take for granted.

Are we to allow political correctness to rule our daily patterns of speech Rob? I certainly won't condone it, or practise a philosophy that is in accordance with such sophomoric ideals. You're entitled to say that my comments were not considered, but not that I didn't consider what needed to be said. Having presented my views in a fairly well-organized(if incomplete) response, perhaps you will be less vindictive of my judgement this time? Well, there's always hope...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Chubby · 18-07-2001 9:41pm

Okay, what I don't get is why my standards are unreasonable? Because it's different to the standards of the majority of people on boards.ie regarding this subject? I found making fun of the appearances of and the cultures of chinese offensive and pointed it out. I might've been offended but I wasn't demanding anything other than maybe recognition that the comments can be offensive to some individuals like me. I certainly didn't want everyone here to be pro PC because of it or censor it. I was offended yes, but it doesn't mean I want to do much about it because it wasn't YoMamma's intention to have a go at chinese people.

And I am not "trolling" for more responses but are you so anti political correctness that I can't even say what I did? Do you condone censoring people who has different views to the censensus and disregard whatever they have to say? People said I was over-reacting, were you not over-reacting what I said? I am sure you don't but your intolerance to my posts suggest otherwise. Or maybe you are just ****ed off with me for whatever I did on the goth thread (and I am not sure what I did as I can't find it) or just my way of presenting myself? Have you any idea how incredibly rude you were? (you called me a troll, uninformed, immature, intellectually decicient, self-important, unreasonable) All this because I had a different opinion and spoke up. It seems you just don't like me which is fine and that's definitely something I won't loose sleep over.

[This message has been edited by Chubby (edited 19-07-2001).]

Chubby · 19-07-2001 9:10am

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
On the other hand, having observed the shameless way Chubby trolled a "Death to Goths" thread, where he harped on an on and on(and on and on) about prejudiced behavior...I think it is a far more reasonable assessment of the situation to say Chubby was grossly overreacting to comments meant in jest, whether deliberately or intentionally, I don't care. A certain level of tolerance is expected in online communities- but that does not in my considered personal opinion, extend to political correctness blanketing the freedom of our thoughts.

I didn't think I contributed anything to the goth threads and after looking through the trolls board I found that you have mistaken me for Zero (same avatar). So you were being hostile and called me a troll because of what someone else did (apart from my less than elegant approach to all this). I just thought I should clear that up.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 19-07-2001 10:44pm

Apologies Chubby, my most humble ones

*noise of Occy eating humble pie*

Not just a harsh prejudgement, but a false one- yikes. I'd do well to read names rather than remember avatars- again, I'm sorry

That doesn't mean however, that I agree with your point of view. I maintain that if you're going to take offense at something so innocuous, you're better off not responding. Either that, or grow a thicker skin. Out in the real world people say far worse in jest across racial divides everywhere and are easily tolerated. You should be made aware that you hold the minority point of view. Not to say that the majority's point of view is always correct, but I believe it is, in this case.

If such posting annoyed you, but not enough to take serious action (as you yourself have said) then why post to boards? Surely an e-mail to Yomama (who's more than reasonable) would have been sufficient. If you feel racial comments have been passed- why not take it to someone in authority in a discreet manner?

Whether you hold your point of view with serious conviction or not...it has dragged us off-topic. I have yet to hear a convincing refutation as to why China holding the games would be a bad idea. Unless you hold a retrograde punitive approach to international relations, denying them the bid makes no sense. Trying to engage the PRC will have far more effect than trying to isolate them. They can live with isolation, their foreign policy for decades shows this. Furthermore, I have yet to hear a foreign policy analyst who thinks that isolationism combined with punitive exclusion will keep China involved in world affairs beyond those central to the Party.

Until that changes, we can expect the US (led by that brainless fool Dubyah) to rattle sabers opposite Chinese hard-liners. I don't believe that is in anyone's best interests- that is my considered opinion.

Sorry again for the misappropriated comments Chubby- I hope my apology goes some way towards redressing my ignorant ramblings earlier in the thread.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Chubby · 20-07-2001 9:11am

I can tolerate what was said and a lot more but I just chose not to tolerate it in silence this time for some reason (must be something I ate for breakfast, usually I'm quite passive and just ignore it). And don't worry about mixing up the identities, apology accepted.

bugler · 20-07-2001 11:38pm

You also said they execute juveniles which is not strictly true. This is what I was correcting.

No, I didn't "also" say that, as such. I said : "It is one of very few countries that executes juveniles(crimes were committed before they were 18, China does not afaik)".

There was/is no 'and' or 'also' in there. I meant that they executed people who committed their crimes while a juvenile. however as you pointed out, they also have provision for executing juveniles while still juveniles, and that is wrong in my opinion.As I said above, I apologise if I was unclear on the matter, but I didn't mean to say that the US regularly executes juveniles.

Beijing the host city !!

Comments