reds8n wrote:
No, it's 2 birds with one stone really.
I think the laws passed in Russia are monstrous and should be repealed.
And I think sporting events ( amongst other things) would be much better off without the involvement of large companies like this.
But I do love watching you futilely try and set it up or claim otherwise.
I pass no judgement on the Russian legal system other than to leave it Russians how to run their country.
If the laws have no popular support it will show itself.
Also my comments on the laws themselves have two pointers.
1. The legislation against individual indications of public homosexuality which while regrettable are issues for the Russian people to settle for themselves.
2. Comments on recent activism in Russia that offended a lot of Russians are do the gay activist movement no favours. Putin may well have factored this into the current legislation, I think he did.
Perhaps if activist activities designed to shock and offend were less of a problem in Russia the Russian government would be less threatened. I wonder if this legislation would have happened at all had activist shock tactics not occured.
As for corporate funding in sport, its here to stay, whether you like it or not. I suppose if everyone turned into a socialist hippy and we agreed to share resources and cancel all debts the world would be a better place. But it isnt going to happen soon. Asking to remover corporate funding from sport is as futile as to ask for profit to be removed from banking and for politicians to be honest. Nice idea, but its better to live in the real world.
reds8n wrote:
No thanks, as that's not what I'm saying, but it was an admirable, if predictable, attempt at your usual strawman.
Companies put conditions and terms on all their deals, from small franchises to huge mega international sporting ones.
So I don't think it unreasonable for these things to include such clauses as the host country must adhere to .. say, the universal declaration of human rights or a similarly drawn up set of criteria.
Well for a start the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't include sexuality, so you will have to find another common ground. Good luck on that. You will also have to explain why a company is not morally permitted to trade why and when.
Now you believe that companies should avoid all forms of business if the results don't meet a preordained set of moral criteria.
Again that is fantasy economics. It's technically possible to set such standards for an individual, though in all likelihood very difficult, but categorically impossible for any large scale business structure.
Where do you draw the line, would you agree to trade with China, if so why not Russia. If you don't agree to trade with China on moral grounds that do you do so anyway. Got anything in your home that is made in China, a
40K codex for example, which is printed in China.
So back to your unrealistic expectation for large corporations to cover all the moral bases with every country they deal with, or topically, who the IOC deals with. The bar you set for the IOC and corporations both in unrealistic unfeasibly high, which funnily enough was my earlier point.
reds8n wrote:
If between now and then Putin invades 6 other countries and starts shooting anyone whose taller than him then I don't think the event would go ahead.
Which is about what it would take, and most likely because with so many wars on Putin would be unable to guarantee the safety of the Olympics.
reds8n wrote:
Boycotting the Olympics will not do anything to help anyone in Russia,
And your overwhelming and infallible factoid about this is .....
oh.
Non existent.
Actually as the boycott of the 1980 games didn't remove Soviet troops from Afghanistan thus there is good evidence to suggest that another boycott of these games will not deter Moscow. Russia isn't quite the Soviet Union, but has the same relience to external intervention in their own affairs.
reds8n wrote:
But I'd rather not help Putin/similar at all really.
And this is one way to do that.
Except that while there is good evidence it will not have any real pressure effect on Moscow, what a boycott will be sure to do is discriminate against sportsmen and women who will be prevented from particpating and will harm relations with Moscow.
There is no good reason to support a boycott and good moral and political grounds not to attempt one.
reds8n wrote:
It will do a lot to hurt sport and those who trained to participate in sporting events.
Again, maybe, maybe not.
I don't think the South Africa boycott turned out badly, for the country or it's athletes.
The South Africa boycott didnt turn out badly because it had the full backing of dozens of countries
IIRC about fifty who said to the IOC either South Africa is out or they would withdraw their teams, support of the boycott was widespread in the nations that took the step to force the IOC. However reaction to the current boycott calls have been mixed at best even in the
UK, and have not been echoed in other countries so far, admittedly it is early days but I am not expecting anything like the dynamic of the anti apartheid movement, for good reason.
Also South Africa triggered the boycott by refusing to allow black atheletes to compete in international sporting events. I am yet to hear any reports or evidence that gay sportsmen or women are being prevented from competing in the Russian teams.
So the only expected result from a
UK boycott will be damaged relations and the ruin of the sporting careers of individuals who have trained for in all likelihood their one shot at competing in the Olympiad. Unlike the slender likelihood of any positive outcome the negative outcomes are guaranteed, especially those in relation to sporting careers.
reds8n wrote:
You're using such a broad sense of the word harm that it's meaningless.
And, again, refuse to admit of the benefits it could bring either.
No benefits are to be expected, looking at past experience of boycotts both successful and failed.
However the harm is very real.
reds8n wrote:
But, again, I don't accept your premise that it will do harm and help no one.
You ought to, its based on facts.
The proposed boycott will harm
- Competitors who will be robbed of their chance to participate in the games, and this is no minor issue. I would even call it a human rights issue. You train to participate in the games for years, and now the government says you cannot.
-
UK relations with Russia.
The proposed boycott will fail to help
- Because it bears similarities to the failed 1980 boycott of the Moscow games.
- Because it is markedly different in support and cause to the successful South Africa boycott.
- Because so far it has no countries supporting it, indeed its already a dead story in the
UK press. No public support has materialised.
reds8n wrote:
That last sentence pretty much torpedoes the support you're giving for Russia here.
I am not giving support for Russia, I am saying its not our business how Russia sets its own social laws. I made that point frequently enough..
I am giving support for sportsmen and women who shouldn't be prohibited from realising their dreams of participating in the Olympics.
reds8n wrote:
Whilst the opening bit... errr... so we have to keep slavery and child labour as otherwise the poor ship owners and their crews or the chimney sweeps will suffer ! Hogwash.
No comparison whatsoever.
reds8n wrote:
You have no evidence whatsoever that I wish gays to suffer
You really should have a reread of some of what you're written.
Go ahead, quote me then.
Find where I have called for the proactive persecution of homosexuals. You wont find it.
You will find understanding that Russians have been offended by gay activists and that this probably triggered legislation.
You will find a call for Russia to be allowed to settle its own differences.
You will also find an acknowledgement that our society is different to Russia and that our own equal opportunities legislation is positive, even if it has resulted subsequently attempts to disempower other groups.
I understand that to you have been brainwashed into following the assumption that criticise gay activism or its agenda is
de facto homophobia, its an unfortunate side effect of poltical correct ideology in the
UK. What happens to critics of gay activism happens to those who oppose other political correctness in the
UK.
reds8n wrote:
and nothing I can do will relieve any presumed suffering by gays.
Citation.
Again.
I need a citation to prove why I am not able to liberate Russian gays from evil Putin?
Most I could do is invade Russia with 4000pts of High Elves.
reds8n wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that innocent third parties who have their dreams of competing will be crushed if the boycott goes ahead, for which the boycott itself is responsible and for which you show no sympathy or regret.
Where is all this evidence you're speaking of then ? You haven't presented any.
And,
IMO, any such "suffering" pales in comparison to what those being oppressed are going through and , possibly, the benefits or positives that a boycott brings about.
Do I really need to spell out the negative side effects of having a
UK citizen train for several years for the one chance they have to compete in the Olympics only to have those opportunities removed due to a political boycott.
Perhaps I credit you with too much intelligence.
Ok. Olympics competitors normally only get to compete in one games and are usually too old to compete at world level four years later. There are some exceptions but those are relatively rare.
Most competitors train full time for several years before the event, funnily enough you have to be really good at sort to compete for Team GB in the Olympic Games, and for most other countries.
A boycott is a major obstacle and is not to be taken lightly.
You want more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
Seb Coe is an atheliete who competed in the 1980 and 1984 olympiad, subsequently became an MOP, peer and chairman of the
UK Olympic committee and one of the key organisers of the London 2012 bid and games organisation.
Thankfully this is because Thatcher decided not to boycott the 1980 games, and instead decided upon a more modest protest and ordered that the Great Britain team would not take part in the opening ceremony.
I wonder where he would be if the 1980 games had been boycotted, or what might have happened to US atheletes had Carter not withdrawn the US team as part of the boycott.
reds8n wrote:
To behave with human decency would be to agree to avoid politicising the Winter Olympics and the damage to innocents it would cause and rely entirely on other means of protesting the Russian government policy.
To instead follow the abhorent practices of this form of activism is to consider the cost to innocents outside the gay community is an irrelevance, and highlights the gross selfishness of that cause.
Nope.
To behave with human decency everyone, everywhere should be yelling at Russia so they can hear it.
Go ahead, I suggest you do something constructive.Potential ideas include advocating for boycotting Russian goods, most notably vodka; and buying fuel from companies that don't import from Russia. You could encourage people not to visit Russia on holiday and you can write a letter of protest to the Russian Embassy. You can also organise a picket of the Russian embassy.
But are those things too much trouble? Why not instead drink vodka with your mates, buy your gas from Gazprom (you probably do whether you like it or not) , stay home rather than sit outside the Russian embassy with a placard and have someone else who trained for years to become a world class skater pay the price of the protest instead. Then you can tub thump a vacuous claim that you are doing something useful for Russia's gay community without actually having to make any sacrifices for it.
Funnily enough, if enough people pledge not to buy Russian vodka and wrote in to the Russian embassy saying as much it will probably have more lasting effect as a protest. It would solve a lot of issues.
reds8n wrote:
What
is selfish and grotesque is pretending that people maybe not being able to ski one time in one place , even though they could well do so again elsewhere or elsewhen, maybe even at the next Olympics, is comparable to what the people who suffer under this law go through.
Anything buy selfish. Selfishness is forcing the competitors to pay the price for your protest. Find another means that doesn't hurt innocent third parties.
As stated earlier, most competitors only get one Olympiad and train for years for the chance, don't rob them just because it will make you feel better because you 'sorted' Putin..
It wont stop Putin's new law, because if a
full boycott by the USA and sixty four other countries didnt have effect in 1980 a
UK boycott in 2014 wont. It would be nice to think that we have more clout than the Americans, plus sixty four other countries, but you are really clutching at straws if you expect we do. Please give it up.
reds8n wrote:
And I'll be buying less, and where possible I won't be buying the products of companies that support that regime.
I don't buy Argentinian wine either, which breaks my heart as some of their Malbecs ..
oh god ! 
It's nice that while we are verbally beating on each other we can see some common ground. It's healthy to remember we are not opposed on all issues.
For the record I don't boycott Argentinian goods, mostly because I prefer if we do not lower ourselves to their level. Also if you had to learn the blatant misinformation that Argentinians are spoonfed in their schools you would believe in the Malvinas issue also, I would too. These people are horribly lied to, my main problem is that the British government doesn't do enough to silence the lies by debunking them, its a mistake we will likely regret as the one sided Argentine version of events is being proliferated unchallenged thoughout the Spanish speaking world.
Ok. I concede this point. It's a very poor tactical move by the Russian foreign minister.
After all Nazi Germany did not attempt to prevent Jews or blacks from competing in the 1936 games.
reds8n wrote:
One notes that racists, homophobes etc etc nearly always deny the fact that they are too.
I so hope you don't believe that dangerous twaddle.
On a lighter note this reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian when Brians is told only the true messiah denies being the Messiah.
However there is a darker side to that dogma, it featured as part of the indoctrination I myself experienced. One of the weapons of
PC dogma is the ideology that those who deny being bigots often are. It's a catch 22 to prevent anyone from escaping unjust accusation.
I remember mandatory County Council Social Services training courses I had to attend for my homeless work qualification, filled with this sort of nonsense.
For instance whites were taught (read indoctrinated) that being white I was 'racist without being aware of it', so it was best to confess my racism and move forward towards a better understanding of equal opportunities. Same logic for heterosexuals, males etc. The catchpoint is that by instilling an ideology of guilt to better channel the training, it also removes any form of moderation and means that correct community cohesion is only possible when in conjunction with the dogmas being taught.. I knew better than to challenge the training material, that of course would be bigoted. Of course one had to accept the training as
de facto correct in order to pass the course. So for example I was expected to accept the doctrine that ethnic minorities cannot be racist, and females cannot be sexist because white males are the political majority and control societal power. Failure to agree would render me unfit to continue as a homeless worker as I would not pass equal opportunities assessment.
I felt like the Cambodian journalist in the film
The Killing Fields, listening to the propaganda with a grin and saying 'taxi' 'taxi' as if it was all the knowledge he had.
I sat though that twaddle because I was doing good work with the homeless in my hometown. Many of my clients were openly gay, they never got any less support from me than any other, because I am not the bigot you think I am.
