China's air is too polluted for olympics ?

[Throckmorton]

Why are the Olympics being held in China again? What a damn affront to what the Olympic games stand for.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: techs
Get used to it. The wackos who cry "free trade" and "competition" won't be happy until we are just like China.

In P&N I posted how Olympic teams can't serve the meat found in China because it has so much steroids it would cause the athletes to test positive. The US team is importing it from Tyson foods in the US.

To your first part, free trade and competition does not mean that companies can pollute wherever they like. If you live next to the plant, why should you have to have your property polluted by their waste? Property rights are important in forcing companies to maintain a clean and safe enviroment.

edit: In fact it's the idea of communism that allows for this pollution. The government does things "for the greater good" thereby ignoring the negative side effects. People living next to these plants and polluted areas would probably do something if they could.

Stop with your bullshit.

The job of a liberal bigot is to spread such bull shit...you wouldn't want him to lose his job would you?

 

[redly]

we import their products, and export the air pollution

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: mwmorph


Or that the example is effective and fits.

But hey, thanks for the personal attacks and lack of any real contribution to this discussion.

Every internet kiddie seems to think that a Nazi reference is effective and fits. It's so played out that it's totally ineffective and cliched.

Thank you for your opinion, now onto more productive discussion,

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: techs
Get used to it. The wackos who cry "free trade" and "competition" won't be happy until we are just like China.

In P&N I posted how Olympic teams can't serve the meat found in China because it has so much steroids it would cause the athletes to test positive. The US team is importing it from Tyson foods in the US.

To your first part, free trade and competition does not mean that companies can pollute wherever they like. If you live next to the plant, why should you have to have your property polluted by their waste? Property rights are important in forcing companies to maintain a clean and safe enviroment.

edit: In fact it's the idea of communism that allows for this pollution. The government does things "for the greater good" thereby ignoring the negative side effects. People living next to these plants and polluted areas would probably do something if they could.

Stop with your bullshit.

Would you like to back that up?

I'm amazed at this whole "communist" buzzword thrown around all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

:

China has a currency based on the gold possibly(probably imho) pegged to the US dollar depending on whom you ask, china has property ownership and taxes and private businesses. It's been that way since oh about... 10,000B.C., except for one period of a few years during Mao's Great Leap Forward.

As for environmental issues, China has advanced more in 30 years than he first 200 or so years of the European Industrial revolution.

Take a young government, no experience in what an advanced, modern economy is like, a large population and create on a unprecedented scale and speed an industrial base rivaling anything else the world has to offer and see how it turned out.

Western civilization had a gentler progress curve and the benefit of experience. Sure France or Britain or America looks good now, but go back to the beginning of their respective industrial revolutions and you will see many of the same things then as you see in china now. Time will work things out for the better eventually.

I don't believe you can blame china, It's early in it's cycle and things tend to get much better as time progresses, it's doing well considering how much more quickly it's developed when compared to say America of the early 1900s, when we were undergoing our very own economic revolution.

History tends to repeat itself.

It's easier to see when you no longer compare China to America circa 2008 but rather civilizations in it's category of development.

Politically, 50-60 years after our revolution we still had slavery, had quite a few massacres of native Americans and government dissenters. Hell in WWII we sent a bunch of Japanese and possibly Japanese to basically detainment camps by executive order.In 1970 we shot up students at Kent State for protesting the Vietnam War's expansion into Cambodia.

Give it time, countries and governments need time to grow and mature, learn from experience.

Ok, my mistake, I should've caught it[and explained more]. I tend to use communism as a dual meaning. Sometimes as what it is officially defined as, and sometimes as what it has evolved to mean today by the actions of certain countries and what they claim to be.

Still, my argument was valid.

All in all, I think it's much more of a open, market economy. It's a bit of a mixed economy but still mostly free.

A market economy is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services take place through the mechanism of free markets guided by a free price system.[1][2] In a market economy, businesses and consumers decide of their own volition what they will purchase and produce. In theory this means that the producer gets to decide what to produce, how much to produce, what to charge customers for those goods, what to pay employees, etc., and not the government. These decisions in a market economy are influenced by the pressures of competition, supply, and demand. This is often contrasted with a planned economy, in which a central government decides what will be produced and in what quantities.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

As for that, yeah I agree, it's a shitty system, it's human nature to do whatever benefits you the most and without market controls, yeah,
Low wages are going to be prevalent in a country with a large workforce
Environmental controls will be nonexistent without regulation (after all it costs more)
Product quality will be lower as long as they can get away with it as defined by the economy, not the government safety standards

I don't particularly like the system, sure it's essential for the quality of life we experience now, but it fucks a lot of people in China over.

The US semi open, mixed economy works damn well and it's about as good as it gets, but I'd like to reiterate, we cant compare China to the USA because of similar GDP.

China is a younger developing country. It was a very newly industrialized country on the order of South Africa, Brazil or Mexico and I'd say it's done well in a lot of aspects for the amount of time it's had and as time goes on and it finally becomes a mature, economic powerhouse like the USA, more and more parallels will be able to be drawn towards it. When China's celebrating it's bicentennial in 2149, I'll bet it'll be much like America in 1976, probably even better and even before then at the rate it's improving.

I don't understand everyone looking at China and expecting a young, recently industrialized country to be just as developed as the US or Great Britain. I mean no shit, it's a new country, the government hasn't had the establishment and luxury of experience that France, Britain or America has. It's still going through it's learning phase.

I mean this is like comparing a 7 year old to a 35 year old man and criticizing that the 7 year old would make a much, much worse father and husband. Nations grow and mature through time. If we look as little as 200 years back, we'd be aghast at what our forefathers did or all the genocides throughout European history. I mean people blame china for it's 500 or so executions a year, but dammit, some European massacres make that look like a friendly family outing.

Throughout the 1800s, we committed countless atrocities to Native Americans, African Americans, in fact most anybody that wasn't white Christian and male(You could get away with shooting a "chinaman" to death in some parts of america, if you could testify he was annoying you) and that was 24-124 years after America was founded.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: mwmorph
If by know better you mean I'm aware I'm subconsciously biased and willing to admit it, yes.

Ok so to cut through the pseudo intellectual collegate mumbo-jumbo, you are saying "I, mwmorph, am a bigot"?

I'm sorry if you think it's intellectual mumbo jumbo, it actually is information that is as factual as I could strive for that convey a point.

As for bigot, id depends on how you define it,

big·ot (big'?t)
n.
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/bigot

Then I'd like to say no. I'm rather more apathetic. I just don't care about people. Want to get married to another man? Ehh, fine. Want to condemn those homosexual couples to hell? It's your thing, not mine. I just want to know your reasoning behind it as long as it's logically sound.

I'm more than willing to change my views for the right supporting arguments.

Now, I'd like to ask, what's your point?

Would you like me to argue ideas without using "intellectual collegiate mumbo-jumbo"? I personally don't think it's possible to explore the discussion without bringing up these ideas and topics.

For example I believe Social Identity Theory explains why 0roo0roo wold be so against the Chinese.[/i]
My point is to just pick out hypocracy when I see it and to generally get under your skin. Don't take it personally and don't look too far into it like you are.

You're just coming off as a typical intellectual elitist. I see endless number of them on this forum, so it's nothing new. You're calling people out for doing something you, as a normal human, do on a daily basis. Then you criticize them and devalue their arguments based on your opinion of what they are trying to say. Your analysis is based on a human psychology study of "social identity theory" done in the 70s and not a current critical analysis of the person you are criticizing. Your lack of critical analysis is shallow, foolish and makes you look like a stereotypical pseudo-intellectual tool that we have far too many of on this forum

There really isn't much discussion to be had on the topic. I know how your 'arguments' will go, how my retorts would be and frankly I really don't care to get into any of it.

Saying that you're apathetic is just a cop out. I don't believe anyone who says they are completely apathetic, because it's complete bullshit. Apathy in this case only means that you've formed an opinion but rather not express it in fear of losing you false image of objectivity (as if objectivity exists).

I'd like to know someone studying social psychology can claim not to care about people. Seriously.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: mwmorph
If by know better you mean I'm aware I'm subconsciously biased and willing to admit it, yes.

Ok so to cut through the pseudo intellectual collegate mumbo-jumbo, you are saying "I, mwmorph, am a bigot"?

I'm sorry if you think it's intellectual mumbo jumbo, it actually is information that is as factual as I could strive for that convey a point.

As for bigot, id depends on how you define it,

big·ot (big'?t)
n.
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/bigot

Then I'd like to say no. I'm rather more apathetic. I just don't care about people. Want to get married to another man? Ehh, fine. Want to condemn those homosexual couples to hell? It's your thing, not mine. I just want to know your reasoning behind it as long as it's logically sound.

I'm more than willing to change my views for the right supporting arguments.

Now, I'd like to ask, what's your point?

Would you like me to argue ideas without using "intellectual collegiate mumbo-jumbo"? I personally don't think it's possible to explore the discussion without bringing up these ideas and topics.

For example I believe Social Identity Theory explains why 0roo0roo wold be so against the Chinese.[/i]
My point is to just pick out hypocracy when I see it and to generally get under your skin. Don't take it personally and don't look too far into it like you are.

You're just coming off as a typical intellectual elitist. I see endless number of them on this forum, so it's nothing new. You're calling people out for doing something you, as a normal human, do on a daily basis. Then you criticize them and devalue their arguments based on your opinion of what they are trying to say. Your analysis is based on a human psychology study of "social identity theory" done in the 70s and not a current critical analysis of the person you are criticizing. Your lack of critical analysis is shallow, foolish and makes you look like a stereotypical pseudo-intellectual tool that we have far too many of on this forum

There really isn't much discussion to be had on the topic. I know how your 'arguments' will go, how my retorts would be and frankly I really don't care to get into any of it.

Saying that you're apathetic is just a cop out. I don't believe anyone who says they are completely apathetic, because it's complete bullshit. Apathy in this case only means that you've formed an opinion but rather not express it in fear of losing you false image of objectivity (as if objectivity exists).

I'd like to know someone studying social psychology can claim not to care about people. Seriously.

True objectivity, just like anything pure doesn't exist but you can always make an attempt to minimalize it.

I do have opinions but they do change with the correct arguments. For example, I now support the death penalty, something I was against before.

I also think you understood me wrongly.

I care about thoughts and ideas. I care about why people think a certain way but I get emotionally charged if you are going to have strong opinions. I just like learning about them.

I do care about people, I like people. I just wont get all riled up if you think one way or another.

 

[SampSon]

So you're not apathetic, why would you claim to be? As I said, that's a bs copout. You know it and I know it.
What you meant to say is that you'll stand back, hear as much information as possible and then make a decision. That is how most people make their choices, join the club. Why would you make an exception and not do that with 0roo0roo? You called 0roo0roo a racist/bigot at the drop of hat. You made an assumption on his intention and judged his character, with no second thoughts. Your post had little to no evidence of critical thinking. It took you all of 1 minute to make your decision and post it. Exactly how do you quantify what you did as objective? A decision made that quick is little more than a bigoted opinion.

Do you see my point in this? You did exactly the opposite of everything you claim to uphold.

I'm sure you are close to be how you claim you are, but in this case you did not exhibit any of thoes characteristics. I understand what you're trying to say, it's not very complicated, nor does it require any indepth discussion of your 'ideas and topics' of social psychology.
Seems to me your imperfect human side broke through. Do you have any indepth self-analysis on why you would just to conclusions about 0roo0roo so quickly?
You completely judged him on one statement, then went on to argue tangents with other users who questioned your criticism of him.

So exactly what is your position in the field of social psychology? What are your credentials?

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
The British needs to stop being vaginas, 10+ million people lives in Beijing everyday and they are just fine. 20 Days aint shit.

Except the 10+ million living in Beijing AREN'T PARTICIPATING IN AN ATHLETIC COMPETITION idiot! Any legal performance advantage should be used--if the British feel that masks will keep their athletes' lungs healthy and help them win, so be it. I really think the Chinese athletes might be at an advantage, since they might've had time to train in Beijing and condition their bodies to the pollution a little.

Show me proof if the air in Beijing acutally degrades athletic performance before you call anybody an idiot, dipshit.

 

[Stattlich]

But I thought if you didn't polute, the Politburo would come come kill your daughters? Or something like that.

edit: dammit, I haven't been inside ATOT since 2002 on a different screen name. maybe it's the vodka. why do I slip back now? why! why?!

 

[LongCoolMother]

wow, people need to stop being pansies about the air quality. it stinks, but cmon, this is yet another jump-on-the-bandwagon bitter towards China for the Olympics ordeal. If you've been to Los Angeles, you know there is no such thing as a blue sky there. Yet I don't think people would be crying about that if the Olympics were there.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: SampSon
So you're not apathetic, why would you claim to be? As I said, that's a bs copout. You know it and I know it.
What you meant to say is that you'll stand back, hear as much information as possible and then make a decision. That is how most people make their choices, join the club. Why would you make an exception and not do that with 0roo0roo? You called 0roo0roo a racist/bigot at the drop of hat. You made an assumption on his intention and judged his character, with no second thoughts. Your post had little to no evidence of critical thinking. It took you all of 1 minute to make your decision and post it. Exactly how do you quantify what you did as objective? A decision made that quick is little more than a bigoted opinion.

Do you see my point in this? You did exactly the opposite of everything you claim to uphold.

I'm sure you are close to be how you claim you are, but in this case you did not exhibit any of thoes characteristics. I understand what you're trying to say, it's not very complicated, nor does it require any indepth discussion of your 'ideas and topics' of social psychology.
Seems to me your imperfect human side broke through. Do you have any indepth self-analysis on why you would just to conclusions about 0roo0roo so quickly?
You completely judged him on one statement, then went on to argue tangents with other users who questioned your criticism of him.

So exactly what is your position in the field of social psychology? What are your credentials?

Touche, I see you do have a valid point. I think I was much more harsh on him than most because the hit and run tactic of saying something like that and providing no basis or explanation for their thoughts confuses me.

I'm an undergrad at a major university double majoring in Mechanical Engineering and Social Psychology. I'm thinking about changing it soon from ME to either Economics, Business, or very possibly Secondary Education though since Psychology and Engineering doesn't make a lot of sense and I am a lot more passionate about psychology than Engineering.

As for what I've done, mostly study the psychology greats before me like Harry C. Triandis. I'm working on spearheading a study right now concerning gender and sexual orientation on cheating and infidelity. Surprisingly, from preliminary studies, homosexuals seem to cheat more on their partners than heterosexuals, and females are much, much more likely to cheat and be cheated on(though they're more likely to be cheated on than be the cheaters).

What it says so far is that women seem more likely to cheat or be cheated, but do it less times than certain males, who tend to maintain a pattern of chronic cheating, also, the adage, once a cheater, always a cheater seems to have some truth since more people are cheated on than do the cheating, creating less than a 1:1(among males it's a close ratio, among females, not as close) ratio, but since the studies are so preliminary so far, I wouldn't state those as anything close to facts or theory and much more through study is required