Tibet Discussion Thread (Pruned and Open)

[Aardvark]

This saddens me.

 

We agree on so much, yet you attack me personally.

 

You choose to imply that he is a racist. Don't whine when he responds, it makes you look either hypocritical or just plain stupid.

 

We are one planet, and old labels of "us and them" no longer serve our mutual benefit.

 

Wake up. This planet is full of 'us and them'.

 

Trying to pretend otherwise is just ignoring all of reality. When it comes to China, there is a VERY clear distinction between the Chinese and the Tibetans. Complaining that they are 'old labels' which don't work for 'our mutual benefit' is just an abdication of reason and intelligence in the face of an unpleasant reality.

[ParanoiA]

You choose to imply that he is a racist. Don't whine when he responds, it makes you look either hypocritical or just plain stupid.

 

Well, in my experience racists have generally been intransigent haters that do not possess the skills to articulate an intelligent reason for it. Norman has spouted his dislike, and yet cannot seem to articulate ANY reason for it, let alone an intelligent one.

 

At this point, stabbing rhetoric may be the only way to coax an argument out of him - besides one liners hypocritically calling everyone in here stupid while he complains about the substance of the thread. He's irrational and overly emotionally invested to the point he can't even seize the repeated opportunity to convince a room full of people to agree.

[Aardvark]

Well, in my experience racists have generally been intransigent haters that do not possess the skills to articulate an intelligent reason for it. Norman has spouted his dislike, and yet cannot seem to articulate ANY reason for it, let alone an intelligent one.

 

Just because racists tend to be stupid and Norman is stupid does not logically lead to the conclusion that Norman is a racist.

 

Come on, you know better than that.

 

At this point, stabbing rhetoric may be the only way to coax an argument out of him - besides one liners hypocritically calling everyone in here stupid while he complains about the substance of the thread. He's irrational and overly emotionally invested to the point he can't even seize the repeated opportunity to convince a room full of people to agree.

 

I doubt it, he's had the opportunities to respond, thinking that accusing him of racism is going to get a better response doesn't make sense. It does mean that iNow has descended to his subrational level.

 

Anyway, i hate the way that discussions on China aways descend to these false lies about racism. It's a contemptible, dishonest diversion i see a lot, to state or imply that any criticism of China must be motivated by racism. I don't see it claimed when people criticse America or France or Sudan, yet it always comes up with China. This deliberate refusal to see the difference between disagreeing with the Chinese regime and disliking the Ethnic Han group.

[ParanoiA]

Well I certainly didn't suggest he's a racist because of criticism of China. I also have a big issue with their human rights violations. That's what makes Norman's antics so disappointing - we're already primed for persuasion.

 

I'm going to call it how I see it. He exercises a militant agenda against China and can't type enough words together to explain why. He's spent more time calling everyone stupid than he has anything else. This is what haters do. He's playing the role so I don't see how anyone should be surprised by accusations like that.

 

If I suggested we should boycott the NAACP and gave examples of the militant things I've done to that end, and called everyone stupid that asked me about it and I failed to respond to ANY question over and over again... I would be suspected of a racist agenda. Is that accurate? Maybe not, but I am playing the role aren't I?

[Aardvark]

Well I certainly didn't suggest he's a racist because of criticism of China. I also have a big issue with their human rights violations. That's what makes Norman's antics so disappointing - we're already primed for persuasion.

 

So, he's singlehandedly derailed the entire discussion and made people who have concerns about China afraid to voice them for fear of guilt by asscociation.

 

He won't respond to reason, that doesn't mean that reason should be abandoned and irrational and emotional arguments used instead. Surely the obvious thing is to ignore him, not to descend to his level.

[iNow]

So... uhhh... errmmm... yeah.

 

What is it about a boycott that will help us to move Chine toward the final goal we all mutually seek?

 

What specifically is it about the Olympics that will motivate these changes?

 

How can a boycott be performed without harming the athletes who have spent their lives training for it more than the leadership we hope to bring to our side regarding human rights and environmental responsibility?

[Aardvark]

If some people use the Olympics as an opportunity to protest and boycott it will let the Chinese government know the strength and depth of feeling around the world about their behaviour in Tibet and involvement in other areas such as Darfur.

 

As China wishes to engage internationally and be dealt with, with respect, then an awareness of these opinions will have to be considered in their decision making processes.

[ecoli]

[ParanoiA]

Oh my, that's priceless.

[Pangloss]

Rofl, I guess the spare tire is the only thing on that guy that's Made in the USA. (grin)

 

Classic.

[iNow]

Norman,

 

As you've repeatedly mentioned, you listen to NPR. Since I also listen to NPR, I'm confident you're aware of the issues right now in Zimbabwe.

 

Why have you not focussed such passion on that issue? What is it about China that warrants your attention and energies that isn't present in other parts of the world?

[Norman Albers]

You are milling in circles. I have not talked myself into powerlessness as you do.

[iNow]

You are milling in circles. I have not talked myself into powerlessness as you do.

 

Well sir, in fact, that's PRECISELY what you've done. You came into this thread with ENORMOUS power to bring people to action. I've yet to encounter a SINGLE person in this thread who is against making things in China better.

 

We have tried to engage in this discussion with you. We have tried to open dialog, explore the possibilitity of benefit.

 

You have, however, ignored EVERY question. You have retaliated personally against EVERY criticism. You have turned people who previously agreed with your stance away from it.

 

Talking yourself into powerlessness is the ONLY thing you've managed to do in this thread.

 

 

Thanks for the respect you've shown me in this thread. It is quite telling.

[Norman Albers]

We still nail 'em up, folks. I will not accept your moral burdens.

[Aardvark]

We still nail 'em up, folks. I will not accept your moral burdens.

 

I don't understand. What or who is being 'nailed up'? And what moral burden are you refusing to accept?

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, you do know there is an ignore button, right? I do believe I've seen enough from Norman Albers in this thread and others to know that I am not missing anything by using it (I very seldom use ignore).

 

Also, if a sentence starts with your name, do we capitalize the 'i'?

[iNow]

iNow, you do know there is an ignore button, right? I do believe I've seen enough from Norman Albers in this thread and others to know that I am not missing anything by using it (I very seldom use ignore).

Yes, I am aware of the ignore feature, but I generally prefer to use my own internal "ignore" feature. This way, I'm not blind to things being said, I just choose not to respond.

 

 

Also, if a sentence starts with your name, do we capitalize the 'i'?

It doesn't really matter, but I do thank you for asking. I usually don't capitalize it. It's technically short for "infinite" so you could put that, or ∞, or capital "I." It's the tone of one's post I pay close attention to, and don't worry myself much with the capitalization of the username. Hell, if you're so inclined, you can call me "hey, ass face," so long as you're making an intelligent point when doing so.

 

This is why I've become frustrated with Norman. He's resorted the "hey, ass face" approach, but hasn't supported his position intelligently yet.

[Pangloss]

Well unlike you, I'm not okay with the "hey, ass face" approach even when the poster DOES have something to back it up.

 

This thread has clearly outgrown its usefulness, and I'm closing it to prevent more "hey, ass face" posting. If some new information comes along you guys can start a new thread on that, but it will be carefully monitored to prevent more "hey, ass face" posting.

[Phi for All]

You came into this thread with ENORMOUS power to bring people to action.

I wanted this to end on a more positive note. Imo, passion without reason is wasteful of people and resources. Reason without passion gives direction but no impetus. It's only when we couple reason with passion that we create effective action.