2004 Summer Olympics

I asked the same question to Straggler but he seemed to have difficulty replying . . . When I read your replies, I thought of Charlton Heston's monologue in the original "Planet of the Apes" movie . . .

quote:

---

Tell me, though. Does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbor's children starving?

---

Maybe you don't find the quote relative at all. Regardless, can you expand your thought? How would the human race and human experience suffer if the olympics were canceled?

Well, I guess if you expanded your list to include oxygen too, then that would also remove my difficulty to understanding your point.But seeing that specifically replying about how the human race and human experience would suffer if the olympics were canceled is proving difficult for you, would you want to try again?I am highly doubting the olympics have positively affected MOST of the six (7?) billion inhabitants of the world. Instead, I see it as a wasted opportunity to help impoverished lives via medicine or just clean water. I can't imagine any of the three thousand children who die EVERY day from malnutrition as really being positively impacted by any country hosting the olympics.In addition, at 24 BILLION pounds, I am doubting the olympics will have a positive net affect on most Brits, the hosts of this year's olympics, especially during these recessionary times. (I sense you believe that too, though you often hid it behind your 'humour.')(BTW, As I asked earlier, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Perhaps 10-100 million pounds would be a more appropriate cost for the olympics. I think the original games in Greece did it for less, even adjusting for inflation)Edited by dronester, : clarity

No. Not as a GLOBAL event. Really? Did you not read the quote in my post about people in war and hunger? Was is too difficult to relate the people in impoverished regions to how the olympics serves them?

Since I made it abundantly/repeatedly clear that this wasn't an "all or nothing" choice, I have no idea in the world why you keep trying to sell this point. I like art, theater, sports that I actively participate, and I also want to reduce misery in the world. Having DOW corporation as an olympic sponsor is counterproductive to both. Do you really think anyone would pay Shakespeare 24 BILLION pounds for one of his works? Should your tax money pay that kind of money? During a recession? Should Shakespeare's work affect human rights, take away liberties, allow government to install missiles on top of your homes? Really? We are discussing the 2012 olympics, let's TRY to stay on topic. If you have to remind ME of that, you haven't been paying attention to any of my posts. Dronester sad. None-the-less, I agree, the items ARE parallel. So if you can understand the outrageous amount of one, you should understand the outrageous amount of the other. No, I very well think the TAXPAYER SHOULD mandate the costs of the olympics, not the "government/elites". And not the global corporations like DOW that influence the olympic committee..Edited by dronester, : clarity

Thanks for the reply Ringo, but read my post about all or nothing above.

Thanks for the reply Phat. Unfortunately, the olympics gets quite a few blood-dollars from corporations like DOW, makers of fine napalm. Agreed. I don't wish ALL sporting events were cancelled. rather, I simply want the olympics to be an ethical/moral event. It is not.

Ok, either participants didn't pay attention to my original posts, or they didn't even read my original posts, came in late and made strawmen arguments against me:1. dronester advocates removing the olympics completely. False.
2. dronester doesn't believe that the human experience is lifted by ANY athletic competition, art, theater, etc. False.Here's my original post from JULY 25, 2012 Message 37:Ok, I am not a fan of the olympics because:1. It promotes nationalism/patriotism, a hateful discriminating tool which helps divide humanity.
2. it promotes consumerism by linking corporations directly to the games.
3. it promotes hypocrisy of the performers who shroud themselves in their country's colours when they are really performing for future marketability
4. The vast costs for buildings, security and ceremony can be much better used for humanitarian causes.
5. They direct the "liberal" media to dutifully hide injustices. China's abuse/repression of Tibet, Vancouver's poor/slums, etc
6. In China, many old Hutongs (neighborhoods/communities), occupied for many many generations were destroyed so new olympic buildings could be built.
7. Unused white elephants (in the shape of billion dollar stadiums and related buildings) sit unused after the games.
8. Security opportunities for elites/authorities to push though laws/regulations that will allow human right violations.I think the above items have been touched upon before in our forum. We can re-hash them again if you really want to, but I'd prefer our British participants commenting about:1. Missiles placed on rooftops throughout the city. Really, are most of you OK with this? Really?
2. Exploited workers: bus drivers who had to strike because of unfair rider increases.
3. "Dispersal Zones," police have power to tell any group of two or more people to move on. Really?
4. Misplaced economic aid as historic and popular Herne Hill stays closed and in disrepair.
5. Although Olympic organizers are bragging about environmentally friendly 'Green Games,' its sponsors include BP who inflicted massive oil spills, and Dow Chemicals, makers of such fine products as napalm and linked to the Bhopal disaster. BTW, BBC was very generous in describing all the wonderful DOW products used in the London Olympics. How nice. Which leads me to my summing question:
6. How well has the British media portrayed ANY of the above negative stories? Or has the British media been nearly all one-sided/pro-olympics/pro-corporate, like the american counterparts? IF 4.8 BILLION (yeah, I do like to capitalize the word "BILLION") people 'watched' (via in-person, television, or radio) the 2012 olympics, THEN I would concede that it is a global event. Evidence please. It is only one of MANY items I dislike about the olympics. You are merely attacking the toenail of my elephant of an argument. Again, read my original post. And where did I do that? Be specific. How in the world do you get that from these two posts:In post Message 78 "Perhaps 10-100 million pounds would be a more appropriate cost for the olympics."And in post Message 63 "Maybe a price tag of one billion pounds would be sufficient?" If you were paying attention, something Rrhain seems to badger you about, my original postS included the corrupting influence of DOW corporation as a sponsor to the olympics. It's inclusion is fair game. Yes, thank you for finally realizing my argument. The olympics, like the US military can both be viewed as outrageously costly. Re-read the costs (not just the monetary costs) of my original post. Since you virtually repeated my stance, I think I very well understand. Re-read my original post. I have a difficult time believing that the entire costs of the olympics, which included missiles placed on their homes, were a fair cost that the British were prepared to pay.Off-topic: The truer, criminal, cost is closer to 1.2 TRILLION. I also like to capitalize the word "TRILLION."

If I had 25 BILLION dollars, I'd buy the world's largest rice krispie square. Why not ask him?

quote:

---

Whiles, like a doe, I go to find my fawn
And give it food. There is an old poor man,
Who after me hath many a weary step
Limp’d in pure love: till he be first suffic’d,
Oppress’d with two weak evils, age and hunger.
As You Like It (2.7.138)

​

A most poor man, made tame to fortune’s blows;
Who, by the art of known and feeling sorrows,
Am pregnant to good pity.
King Lear (4.6.216)

​

Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O! I have ta’en
Too little care of this. Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.
King Lear (3.4.33)

​

I can get no remedy against this consumption of the purse:
borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
2 Henry IV (1.2.74)

---

My favorite quote about the poor?

quote:

---

A poor man shames us all

---

You may be surprised to know that it is not a typical american saying. And if this thread has any merit, it doesn't seem to be a typical British saying either.Edited by dronester, : added comment

Well, as Mod wrote, at least it isn't 24 BILLION pounds that went into the military. ('cept for the missiles that were placed on the rooftops. I am sooo depressed). As a gluten sufferer, I'd be obliged to give it all.

Oh, I see.Since you were pretty thorough in your original post in this thread, yet failed to reply about this specific item, I thought it an INNOCENT mistake and I then went about repeating the item. But it seems that you just confirmed that my generous benefit-of-the-doubt was actually being met with on-going intentional disregard and finally, derision.Boy, do I look silly. And yet, you did respond. Many times. Including your posts, there were well over 50 messages made after my original post. In addition you wrote words that, in effect, were opposite to your stance above:Message 88 of 94 Message 88
Message 80 of 94 Message 80
Message 60 of 94 Message 60
Message 52 of 94 Message 52

hey Ringo,I've been doing some calculations. Using a 24 BILLION dollar budget, I've pictorially reconstructed the approximate size of a Rice Krispie Square . . . Similar to the defense-capabilities of the London Olympic's missiles, this one also includes a death ray.

No, you had at least three options. The first two are used when showing respect on a debate forum:1. When you replied to my original list, you could have simply wrote: "5. agreed".
2. After you seen me "crowbarring" the DOW example for the second time, you could have wrote "No need to keep crowbaring, I acknowledge your item and agree"
3. You act like a discourteous jerk and refrain from ever acknowledging the item until you can also mock. Kudos Mod, Kudos. Still forcing this into a binary problem I see. If you were paying attention, something that Rrhain badgers you about (yes, another instance of "crowbarring"), you would know that I don't think this is an all or nothing problem. I haven't read such backhanded gibberish since the release of the Boy Scout addendum on knife usage: "Don't do as Donny Dont Does."Instead of me trying to make sense of your non-answers and your imaginary answers, here's my original list for a third time. Note our opinions and then maybe the solution(s) will be clearer. I specifically asked Brit participants to just reply about the last six items:1. It promotes nationalism/patriotism, a hateful discriminating tool which helps divide humanity.
All the while you mock me with disdain, you say no.
2. it promotes consumerism by linking corporations directly to the games.
You didn't reply.
3. it promotes hypocrisy of the performers who shroud themselves in their country's colours when they are really performing for future marketability
You didn't reply.
4. The vast costs for buildings, security and ceremony can be much better used for humanitarian causes.
You said that that excuse can be applied to all things. I replied that when Britain is in an economic recession where vast amounts of people may be laid off from work, there is less wiggle room for luxury items.
5. They direct the "liberal" media to dutifully hide injustices. China's abuse/repression of Tibet, Vancouver's poor/slums, etc
You didn't reply.
6. In China, many old Hutongs (neighborhoods/communities), occupied for many many generations were destroyed so new olympic buildings could be built.
You replied that MOST of the Brits who were displaced have found permanent housing.
7. Unused white elephants (in the shape of billion dollar stadiums and related buildings) sit unused after the games.
Straggler mentioned they are using the BILLIONS dollar stadium for the paralympics. Next week the Shriner's circus will rent the facilities. Wonderful, glad to see the BILLIONS dollar facility, built for a global audience, is not going to waste.
8. Security opportunities for elites/authorities to push though laws/regulations that will allow human right violations.
You said it is possible the law can be interpreted too broadly and cause civil liberty violations.1. Missiles placed on rooftops throughout the city. Really, are most of you OK with this? Really?
You said no. This is a deal-breaker for me. I don't want any uplifting human experience if the military has to construct a missile defense system on my roof. Period.
2. Exploited workers: bus drivers who had to strike because of unfair rider increases.
You corrected me, the drivers did not actually go on strike. But they were placated with more money.
3. "Dispersal Zones," police have power to tell any group of two or more people to move on. Really?
You said it is possible the law can be interpreted too broadly and cause civil liberty violations.
4. Misplaced economic aid as historic and popular Herne Hill stays closed and in disrepair.
You didn't know about, didn't reply. Again, I should think Britian could use SOME of the money for more pressing social problems.
5. Although Olympic organizers are bragging about environmentally friendly 'Green Games,' its sponsors include BP who inflicted massive oil spills, and Dow Chemicals, makers of such fine products as napalm and linked to the Bhopal disaster.
Using a crowbar, and all my strength, it was ultimately revealed that you apparently agree with me.
6. How well has the British media portrayed ANY of the above negative stories? Or has the British media been nearly all one-sided/pro-olympics/pro-corporate, like the american counterparts?
You replied, "haven't noticed." I should think some things are non-negotiable:
1. Missiles on civilian's roofs. What percentage of Brits agreed to that? Would YOU ever agree to that?
2. Creating civil right violations, upholding human right violations. During the Chinese Olympics, every news and sports media dutifully self-censored the violence and oppression in Tibet. How uplifting were the people of Tibet's human experience during the olympics? Scanners, car-number-plate and facial-recognition CCTV systems, biometric ID cards, disease tracking systems, new police control centers, and checkpoints. These items will surely be abused.
3. "evil" sponsors. BP? DOW? How about the makers of Zyklon B Gas, would you mind if they were a proud sponsor of your olympics too?The following IS a negotiable item:
1. Cost. Sure, if the majority of Brits, during harsh recessionary times, wants/votes to mortgage their future's economy, layoff health workers, by all means pay 100 TRILLION pounds to see which global participant can skip the quickest. That uplifting human experience must be truly worth it, eh? Seriously, I think it should be balanced (not cancelled) against other pressing needs. IMO, the London olympics were not.

Very droll Straggler, very droll.If only you had asked me why I want the american embassy in Iraq removed.

So now at this very late stage of discussion, I find I was not even correct about your ongoing deliberately omitted stance. Can you NOW see how not answering a repeated point can lead to confusion, frustration and misunderstanding? A simple reply: "5. Not sure" would have saved a lot of time and aggravation. Or how difficult was it to type your dubious words above in your original reply? That you needed to further escalate my frustration with mocking me instead of just simply stating, "not sure" is beyond me. However, since your actions were deliberate omittance but not "lack of paying attention," I'll fully apologize for my Rrhain comments. They were wrong and jerk-like. You believe REPEATEDLY avoiding an opponents direct point while declaring their actions mockable isn't being discourteous? Well, this seems a rather obvious point. But it does seem that Straggler is having some difficulty with this. Yes, I think that may have been ONE of my points I have written several times. Perhaps there was SOME jerkiness to my reply which I'll apologize for, but it was MOSTLY meant as a joke. "Don't do as Donny Dont Does" is a humorous reference to your using nearly double negatives in statements which, collectively with your omitted stances, haven't been helping to clarify your position. Wonderful. Do you seen how communicating that with me helps forward our discussion? It will also decrease sass up to 98% in future communications. Thanks, but you've already gave me your answer, "no" in your original reply, no need to expand your thoughts on this item. The olympics need not be cancelled. However, if ANY (including the British) government is unresponsive to the people's best interests, then the games and particularly the sponsors should be boycotted. I would love to see a brand new BILLIONS pound stadium with unfilled seats. Nothing gets the attention of the government or corporations like massive embarrassment or lost profits. I really don't know why anyone would deliberately patronize unlimited resources for militarization. IMO, the uplifting human experience in awarding the globe's fastest tumbler is secondary to opposing missiles on the roofs. The olympics need not be cancelled. I've already stated, the human rights violator is in a perfect position to be exposed by the media. Instead, China had the media dutifully avoiding the on-going violence in Tibet. Perhaps, this year, the British should have been thrashed for its recent arrest plan of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by invading the Ecuadorean embassy. IMO, the uplifting human experience in awarding the globe's quickest skipper is secondary to appeasing a human rights or international law violator. Is this your dark humor again? I am slow, but I do eventually catch on. (But just in case, you are aware of monks currently committing fire self-immolation, ongoing human rights violations, and violence in Tibet, right?) The olympics need not be cancelled. However, if the government is unresponsive to the people's best interests, then the games and particularly the sponsors should be boycotted. I would love to see a brand new BILLIONS pound stadium with unfilled seats. Can you imagine the global embarrassment? Anyways, I really don't know why anyone would deliberately patronize the maker of Zyklon B gas. IMO, the uplifting human experience in awarding the globe's highest tumbler should have been secondary to opposing DOW's or BP's catastrophic environmental policies. I think I already answered this: The olympics need not be cancelled. First, ALL the olympic costs listed in my original post (not just the monetary costs or the few you highlighted in your last post) should be accurately presented to the public by a public funded media, such as the good ol' BBC. Then, if the majority of Brits, during harsh recessionary times, wants/votes to mortgage their future's economy, layoff health workers, wants to pay 100 TRILLION pounds to see which global participant can skip the quickest, then who am I to put a limit on the British's uplifting human experience in this very valuable global competition.

I understand that you are not under any obligation except the rules of the forum in which you as a moderator should uphold more than others. Treating others with respect by mocking them seems to be in opposition to the rules, no matter how "lightly" you insist on laughing. OTOH, if this was really an attempt at "male bonding - a sign of friendship," then I wish I would have considered that originally. Since I still don't know your stance about my Dow corporation point, I don't know why you think you've finally addressed it with this: Huh?_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alas, I concede it would be an exercise in futility. Alas, I remain doubtful that enough others share my disgust in matters of social inequality. Just one article wouldn't change or educate too many minds. And I doubt sponsors, whom many have factories in China, would have been keen on that type of negative reporting during the China olympics. Correct. Then how about pressuring the public to put war-criminal Tony Blair in jail? If not, as a resident I am sure you could use the awesome advertising potential of the olympics to improve some inequity of England, take your pick, I don't think you've achieved Xanadu quite yet. You may have not fully read your example of positive effects:

quote:

---

Many Tibetans chafe under Chinese rule and believe that a sharp influx in central Chinese investment primarily benefits Han Chinese migrants. Tensions bubbled over into torrid violence in 2008 across Tibetan parts of China.

---

Reuters | Breaking International News & ViewsThis type of funding was also largely condemned in western China, Xinjiang, by the Uyghur culture when I visited there during 2010 which also erupted in violence. The things I learn on this forum! But my point still stands about Dow and BP. Why should it be mandated? The publicly funded BBC is the supposed guardian of the people. I should think they would welcome the opportunity to educate the masses. Then perhaps it is an exceptionally bad gamble to make for the future when such a large sum of money is required.Ok, can I have a simple Yes or No conclusion? As a British citizen, were the costs, as identified in my original post (I understand you didn't accept them all), of hosting the 2012 olympics worth it? I am curious, this question is not just for Mod.