Lack of Olympic Cycling Spectators

[Flying_Monkey]

Ah, my stalker returns...

Wow! You must either have second sight or the seventh son of a seventh son, do you mean 'assumed' or thought'?

I predicted based on knowledge and experience and it has been shown to a correct prediction. QED. Apart from sarcasm, what do you have to offer?

Are Chinese journalists above the law or do they have to abide by it? You and I would get punished if we broke the law so why shouldn't Chinese journalists?

'the Law' is not the same as what is morally right, generally or specifically. You seem to assume that 'the law' is fair, morally right and compatible with internationally-recognised standards of human rights. It isn't. Either that or that 'the law' is the only thing that matters. To clarify:

1. Do you think that 'the law' is automatically fair in every state in the world?
2. Do you think that 'the law' should always be obeyed, or accepted as morally right, without question?
3. Do you think that those who break laws that are contary to internationally recognised standards of human rights deserve to be imprisoned, tortured or killed?
4. If you were subject to imprisonment, torture, or execution because of an unjust law, would you think this was fair or right?

 

[mr_hippo]

Ah, my stalker returns... You either flatter yourself or are paranoid
I predicted based on knowledge and experience and it has been shown to a correct prediction. QED. Apart from sarcasm, what do you have to offer?
'To know' and 'to predict' are not the same. Again, you have changed your tack - anyone can predict events after the fact!
'the Law' is not the same as what is morally right, generally or specifically. You seem to assume that 'the law' is fair, morally right and compatible with internationally-recognised standards of human rights. It isn't. Either that or that 'the law' is the only thing that matters. To clarify:

1. Do you think that 'the law' is automatically fair in every state in the world?
Different countries have different standards. How do you define 'fair'?
2. Do you think that 'the law' should always be obeyed, or accepted as morally right, without question? Morally right - by whose standards?
3. Do you think that those who break laws that are contary to internationally recognised standards of human rights deserve to be imprisoned, tortured or killed?
In internal issues, which takes precedence?
4. If you were subject to imprisonment, torture, or execution because of an unjust law, would you think this was fair or right? Another hypothetical question?

Whilst you are still on your computer, please log onto ebay then search for life and then get one.

 

[Keith Oates]

I know. Unbelievable, isn't it? Keith seems to be a nice guy, but I really don't understand people who become apologists for the governments of countries in which they happen to work - be it Israel, China, the USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia or wherever. I can understand people keeping their heads down and keeping their views and observations to themselves in such situations (as I have had to do myself on occasions), but what makes intelligent people give up critical thinking or actively defend repression in a Lord Haw-Haw kind of way?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chuffy]

Whilst you are still on your computer, please log onto ebay then search for life and then get one.

I presume you sold yours on there some time ago...

 

[mr_hippo]

^No, I have the same happy & carefree life that I have had for many years!

 

[Tim Bennet.]

No, I have the same happy & carefree life that I have had for many years

Just doesn't see why other people in places like Tibet should have the same.

 

[Chuffy]

Just doesn't see why other people in places like Tibet should have the same.

 

[mr_hippo]

Just doesn't see why other people in places like Tibet should have the same.

And your personal experience of life in Tibet is what?

 

[Tim Bennet.]

Several visits.

 

[Chuffy]

Several visits.

:8:

 

[Flying_Monkey]

How do you define 'fair'?

Obviously in a different way than you! However, why not use your definition of fairness to answer the question rather than avoiding it, so long as you tell us what it is so we understand the basis of your answer.

2. Do you think that 'the law' should always be obeyed, or accepted as morally right, without question? Morally right - by whose standards?

Well, let's see - tell me what your standards are and we might start to get somewhere. However once again, you avoided answering the first part of my question, which is rather more basic and doesn't require either of us to define our morals - do you think that the law should always be obeyed?

3. Do you think that those who break laws that are contary to internationally recognised standards of human rights deserve to be imprisoned, tortured or killed?
In internal issues, which takes precedence?

Do I take it that you don't believe there are any human universals - whether intrinsic and fundamental or agreed or possible? If you don't then what you are basically arguing is that there is never any basis for general morality. That's all very post-modern, but since nation-states are arbitrary historical creations, how do you determine whether any particular one is a correct basis for your particularism? In other words, what defines your notion of what is a legitimate 'internal' issue? Is any country's law as good as any other's? Is the Burmese oligarchy as acceptable as an arbiter of what occurs within Burma as the Swedish democratic government is of Swedish affairs? Is a military coup as legitimate as an election? etc. etc.

4. If you were subject to imprisonment, torture, or execution because of an unjust law, would you think this was fair or right? Another hypothetical question?

Yes indeed - why not try answering it.

 

[zimzum42]

I really don't understand people who become apologists for the governments of countries in which they happen to work - be it Israel, China, the USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia or wherever.

interesting bunch of countries to lump together.....

Never thought I'd see the UK mentioned in the same context as Saudi....

Israel deserves it's own thread, but I can guess you were weeping when Arafat snuffed it (palestinians might have had a chance if that criminal hadn't been their leader...)

Anyway, I've said in another thread, why not worry about some of the countries where you stand a high chance of dying for no reason whatsoever?

At least in Saudi etc you know what to do to keep out of trouble, not so in Congo, Somalia, E.Guinea, the list goes on.....

 

[Flying_Monkey]

interesting bunch of countries to lump together.....

Never thought I'd see the UK mentioned in the same context as Saudi....

Israel deserves it's own thread, but I can guess you were weeping when Arafat snuffed it

Why on earth would you think that? And the variety of countries was the point...

 

[girofan]

Sorry chaps, but you are all missing the point. The Olympic Games are a business and all the Federations, Countries and Sponsors have their noses deep in the trough. They couldn't give a Tinker's Toss about human rights or any other rights as long as they all get a big slice of the cake.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Sorry chaps, but you are all missing the point. The Olympic Games are a business and all the Federations, Countries and Sponsors have their noses deep in the trough. They couldn't give a Tinker's Toss about human rights or any other rights as long as they all get a big slice of the cake.

That is also entirely true. China is the biggest potential market on the planet, and that's the main reason it is there anyway...