Moving the Winter Olympics...

[meikle]

If I had to quote every stupid law in the world, Elliquiy needs a bigger server. Rather pointless.

Looking the other way and shrugging and saying, "Eh, it's just the way it goes," is how things get worse, not better.

Your home nation was so undesirable that you fled to another country, but you seem eager to defend everything it does.  Why?

[Cyrano Johnson]

John Aravosis points out that the protest ban is being framed as an "anti-terror" measure.

If I had to quote every stupid law in the world

You would once again be desperately trying to distract attention from the subject of this thread and the direct relevance of further developments related to it?

Seems we've seen this movie before.

[Kythia]

Russia   17,098,242 km2 (6,601,668 sq mi)
Canada   9,984,670 km2 (3,855,100 sq mi)

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

Almost as big ye?? So unless you're from Antarctica... what's the bullshit now? Get your facts straight next time.

And yes America is more populated but the population is a lot more unified than Russia is :)

Holy crap.  I knew Russia was substantially bigger than everywhere else but wow.  Bigger than Antarctica.  That's blown me away.

[Ephiral]

Russia   17,098,242 km2 (6,601,668 sq mi)
Canada   9,984,670 km2 (3,855,100 sq mi)

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

Almost as big ye?? So unless you're from Antarctica... what's the bullshit now? Get your facts straight next time.

And yes America is more populated but the population is a lot more unified than Russia is :)


As for the rest, I've already agreed to disagree.


If I had to quote every stupid law in the world, Elliquiy needs a bigger server. Rather pointless.

In what way, exactly, is Russia "too big" for democratic government? What do you even mean when you say this? For that matter, democracy isn't exactly the point here. Human rights are. Do you really think that Russia is too big to be governed without gratuitous and flagrant abuse of significant portions of its population?

[Dashenka]

In what way, exactly, is Russia "too big" for democratic government? What do you even mean when you say this? For that matter, democracy isn't exactly the point here. Human rights are. Do you really think that Russia is too big to be governed without gratuitous and flagrant abuse of significant portions of its population?

I never said that. Despite what's been taught in the US and Europe, the USSR overall was a nice place to be with Lenin. Why I think Russia is too big to be governed with a democracy is a completely different subject, one I'll gladly discuss in PM's or a new topic made for that.

[gaggedLouise]

Holy crap.  I knew Russia was substantially bigger than everywhere else but wow.  Bigger than Antarctica.  That's blown me away.

Yep, and the Soviet Union was more than twice as big as Canada or China, in terms of area.

[Ephiral]

I never said that. Despite what's been taught in the US and Europe, the USSR overall was a nice place to be with Lenin. Why I think Russia is too big to be governed with a democracy is a completely different subject, one I'll gladly discuss in PM's or a new topic made for that.

If it's not relevant to the subject - if the obvious implication in this context is not a position you hold - then why did you bring it up?

Oh, right. Because you have an ongoing pattern of doing anything possible to distract from the central point that this law is indefensible.

[Dashenka]

If it's not relevant to the subject - if the obvious implication in this context is not a position you hold - then why did you bring it up?

Oh, right. Because you have an ongoing pattern of doing anything possible to distract from the central point that this law is indefensible.

Which is why I wrote it in a smaller font. Because it's nothing to do with this topic.

[Rogue]

I never said that. Despite what's been taught in the US and Europe, the USSR overall was a nice place to be with Lenin. Why I think Russia is too big to be governed with a democracy is a completely different subject, one I'll gladly discuss in PM's or a new topic made for that.

Rogue can not help but go off on a History rant right now... Please forgive her as it's severely off topic

*coughs* Do NOT presume to think what has been taught in the US. Lenin was, as far as dictators go, a fair one who had beliefs the world didn't and does not at large believe in. Stalin was the asshat who fucked everything up, killed millions, and literally changed history books to suit his needs. My senior high school history class was all about dictators (basically all of the ones from South America and Europe) and I did a solo research project on the fall of the Romanov family. Please do not bring up a dictator nearly a century old to point out that the USSR was a nice place to be.... because he really REALLY didn't last very long. He died in 1924. That puts...29 years under the most clever and demented dictator known to man (imo). I'm going to be fair and say that I really don't know what happened very well from 1954-1991. But, seriously? Bringing up someone who died in 1924 to prove a point that "Oh the USSR was a great place to live 90 years ago." I'm sorry but that just rubbed me wrong

Back on topic now....

This topic is about whether or not the Olympics should be moved, not whether or not the law is wrong. Here is what I believe we can agree on from here on out and please correct me if I'm wrong.

• Russia is perfectly within it's rights to create this law. The government should have known the kind of reaction this would spark on an international scale.
• ANYONE is within their rights to disagree with this law, and I believe we've covered that everyone to speak in this thread doesn't agree that this law is correct.

Okay, now that this is covered.... I think that adjustments need to be made to make the competitors feel safe. The blatant amount of censorship going on regarding this law and protests over it makes me think that this will not be safe. Therefore, I think the Olympics should be move for the safety of the competitors, their families, and their supporters. Should adjustments be made or new information be brought to my attention, my thoughts shall change and adjust as necessary. Until then, I think the Olympics should be moved.

[Kythia]

It seems the two of you are agreeing there?  That the USSR was fine under Lenin

[Dashenka]

It was. Fact.

[Rogue]

It seems the two of you are agreeing there?  That the USSR was fine under Lenin

We are. It is true. The issue I'm having is her ignoring about 90 years worth of history and trying to make it a relevant point.

[gaggedLouise]

I guess Dashenka is right about the framing of this one: if it drifts into a general debate about Lenin and Stalin as good cop/bad cop, as progressive leaders (both of them) or as the worst kind of dictators, and about the Soviet Union and democracy, that bit had better branch off into another thread.

Personally I'm not sure there was an open avenue to bring about a stable, constitutional, free-market democracy in Russia a hundred years ago, a historical window for it. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had next to nothing to do with overthrowing the Tsar, he had been forced down by the time they got into that round of the game, so the next questions were all about what kind of government and political system would take over in the long run, and whether Russia would stay in the First World War which was going dreadfully bad. The old guard and most of those who stepped in after the tsar had come down were all committed to sticking with the war in order to be on the winning side in the end.  Lenin didn't buy any of that, his party was almost the only one that demanded peace, a disengagement from the war, and that was going to be an advantage of course, if they could turn the program into political and military capital via the masses and the soldiers...

In some ways, the situation was so run-down that there may not have been any real, long-term option for a modern democracy, the majority of people couldn't read and write and political life was kind of primitive, but this was a hundred years ago.

[Rogue]

*laughs* If we want to discuss this further in an Open thread, I'll gladly start a topic. :)

But I would like to return to the point of this thread, not discussing men who are both dead, but the Olympics and our opinions on whether they should be moved...

[Kythia]

Following on from Rogue's heroic attempt to bring things back on topic:

Back on topic now....

This topic is about whether or not the Olympics should be moved, not whether or not the law is wrong. Here is what I believe we can agree on from here on out and please correct me if I'm wrong.

• Russia is perfectly within it's rights to create this law. The government should have known the kind of reaction this would spark on an international scale.
• ANYONE is within their rights to disagree with this law, and I believe we've covered that everyone to speak in this thread doesn't agree that this law is correct.

Okay, now that this is covered.... I think that adjustments need to be made to make the competitors feel safe. The blatant amount of censorship going on regarding this law and protests over it makes me think that this will not be safe. Therefore, I think the Olympics should be move for the safety of the competitors, their families, and their supporters. Should adjustments be made or new information be brought to my attention, my thoughts shall change and adjust as necessary. Until then, I think the Olympics should be moved.

I mentioned before that I don't (think it should be moved).

This law is early days.  It's not even clear whether it will be enforced and to what degree at the Olympics.  The IOC is right to be seeking further clarity on this and if it will affect the sporting nature (under which I'm including fans, perhaps less so athlete's families as a distinct category seperate from supporters) then yes, it should be moved.  Even if it were to prove incredibly oppresive but Russa were to say (for example) "we will suspend enforcement of that law for one month in Sochi" or something to make it absolutely clear that the law will not affect the Olympics but will still affect the rest of Russia then, no matter how oppresive, I don't think the Olympics should be moved.

My issue is that pace Cyrano I don't see the IOC as a political organisation.  They're not a human rights treaty or anything else that has a, I dunno, an enforcement capacity to them.  They have ideals certainly and where I differ from Cyrano is to what extent I am willing to call those ideals, politics - at least thats how it seems to me.  While international pressure on Russia is perfectly supportable, I don't think the IOC is an appropriate tool for that.  Individual athletes are free to boycott or not, individual NOCs even, but not the IOC.  The issue is that they have no oversight.  Imagine if the Olympics were organised by, I dunno, the UN.  Despite its (the UNs) many problems, at least then the IOC would be answerable to someone with a mandate to speak for the international community.  Currently it has no such mandate.

Dashenka has mentioned the death penalty in the US.  Many others have mentioned that the Russian law is categorically different.  I'm not sure I agree, but lets say it is for the sake of argument.  The problem there is that noone in this thread (I would assume) in charge of the IOC.  Handing the IOC the power to strip a country of hosting the olympics because of a law the IOC disagrees with is a dangerous precedent.  What if the IOC also disagrees with the death penalty?  The IOC is answerable to noone and asking it to take a power to cause great economic and political harm to a country because it disagrees with a law when noone here has any idea what other laws it does and doesn't disagree with, nor has any say over that decision, strikes me as a terrible idea.

[Rogue]

Following on from Rogue's heroic attempt to bring things back on topic:

Just in case my cpu dies before I finish writing a reply... KYTHIA I LOVE YOU! Yay cpu not dying yet!

I mentioned before that I don't (think it should be moved).

This law is early days.  It's not even clear whether it will be enforced and to what degree at the Olympics.  The IOC is right to be seeking further clarity on this and if it will affect the sporting nature (under which I'm including fans, perhaps less so athlete's families as a distinct category seperate from supporters) then yes, it should be moved.  Even if it were to prove incredibly oppresive but Russa were to say (for example) "we will suspend enforcement of that law for one month in Sochi" or something to make it absolutely clear that the law will not affect the Olympics but will still affect the rest of Russia then, no matter how oppresive, I don't think the Olympics should be moved.

I agree that the law is in it's early days, I just prefer to error on the side of caution. To be honest, this is an empty wish. The only way they'd be able to move the Olympics this late is to move it to another stadium that already exists. Most countries start building their Olympic stadium as soon as it's announced they're hosting after all. I just hope that it ends up as you say and that they're not going to affect Sochi during the games.

My issue is that pace Cyrano I don't see the IOC as a political organisation.  They're not a human rights treaty or anything else that has a, I dunno, an enforcement capacity to them.  They have ideals certainly and where I differ from Cyrano is to what extent I am willing to call those ideals, politics - at least thats how it seems to me.  While international pressure on Russia is perfectly supportable, I don't think the IOC is an appropriate tool for that.  Individual athletes are free to boycott or not, individual NOCs even, but not the IOC.  The issue is that they have no oversight.  Imagine if the Olympics were organised by, I dunno, the UN.  Despite its (the UNs) many problems, at least then the IOC would be answerable to someone with a mandate to speak for the international community.  Currently it has no such mandate.

I agree with pretty much everything here. They're not really a political force, just a committee focused on the games and fairness for the competitors. I just think it would be a shame if some of the best athletes was forced to not compete because they felt unsafe. Like I've said in an earlier post, most of these people have been training their whole lives. It'd be a shame to ruin that because of a stupid law. And on top of that, if one of the top competitors were to drop it'd lessen the quality of those medals for the competitors who do win.

Dashenka has mentioned the death penalty in the US.  Many others have mentioned that the Russian law is categorically different.  I'm not sure I agree, but lets say it is for the sake of argument.  The problem there is that noone in this thread (I would assume) in charge of the IOC.  Handing the IOC the power to strip a country of hosting the olympics because of a law the IOC disagrees with is a dangerous precedent.  What if the IOC also disagrees with the death penalty?  The IOC is answerable to noone and asking it to take a power to cause great economic and political harm to a country because it disagrees with a law when noone here has any idea what other laws it does and doesn't disagree with, nor has any say over that decision, strikes me as a terrible idea.

I actually agree with that and hadn't really thought about that. My thought process is that there should be a committee in the committee dedicated to proving that the country would be safe during the games. Personally, I think had the games been in Egypt or Greece this upcoming year, they would have been moved. False equivalence I know, but that's my thought.

[Ephiral]

Dashenka has mentioned the death penalty in the US.  Many others have mentioned that the Russian law is categorically different.  I'm not sure I agree, but lets say it is for the sake of argument.

Actually, no. Dashenka has mentioned gun ownership in the US, which is categorically different. The death penalty would've been a much stronger argument - I would hold that it is morally unjustifiable for very similar reasons.

Touching on something you said earlier, and with which Dashenka agreed:

It could be argued, as Dashenka seems to be, that if 51% of a democracy vote for gays (or blacks, or people called "Kythia" or any other demograph) to be stoned to death then the government has a real obligation to put such legislation in place.

The problem here - and I think that this is cutting very close to the heart of the disagreement - is that you can only make this argument by first saying that civil rights do not and should not exist - that they are, by their nature, immoral and wrong. This is... a fairly radical position, and needs a lot more justification than "because I said so".

[Dashenka]

You and you're human rights...

They are not as holy as you might think they are in most countries. Russia isn't breaching any human rights by saying you can't show off your homosexuality. You can be gay, you just can't show it off in front of others.

You're obsession with the human rights is getting a bit tiresome to be honest. The Russian government is obliged to protects it's citizens, which is a federal law as somebody mentioned earlier in this topic. So they do, by putting this law in order. How is that a breach of human rights? Protecting your citizens because they ask for it?

[Kythia]

The problem here - and I think that this is cutting very close to the heart of the disagreement - is that you can only make this argument by first saying that civil rights do not and should not exist - that they are, by their nature, immoral and wrong. This is... a fairly radical position, and needs a lot more justification than "because I said so".

I'm intensely confused by this, Ephiral. 
1) I don't see your chain of logic in the slightest.  Why must I claim that civil rights don't exist?
2) If civil rights don't exist, how can they be immoral and wrong? 
3) If I'm saying they don't exist then your argument is upside down - the null hypothesis is that they don't, and it requires more from you than "because I said so" to show they do.

I suspect I'm misreading as that doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

However, after reading and responding to your reply, should you make one, I think I'm out.

Sorry, Rogue.  I did try.

[meikle]

You and you're human rights...

They are not as holy as you might think they are in most countries. Russia isn't breaching any human rights by saying you can't show off your homosexuality. You can be gay, you just can't show it off in front of others.

You're obsession with the human rights is getting a bit tiresome to be honest. The Russian government is obliged to protects it's citizens, which is a federal law as somebody mentioned earlier in this topic. So they do, by putting this law in order. How is that a breach of human rights? Protecting your citizens because they ask for it?

I want to protect people from not having bombs strapped to them by strapping bombs to them!

This isn't protecting anyone from anything.  It's enforcing homophobia; people aren't in danger of seeing homosexuals because seeing homosexuals isn't dangerous.  The premise that people needed to be "protected" from ~non-traditional sexuality~ is faulty from the outset.

What if the IOC also disagrees with the death penalty?

Then the United States doesn't get to host the Olympics, either.  So what?

[Dashenka]

I want to protect people from not having bombs strapped to them by strapping bombs to them!

This isn't protecting anyone from anything.  It's enforcing homophobia; people aren't in danger of seeing homosexuals because seeing homosexuals isn't dangerous.  The premise that people needed to be "protected" from ~non-traditional sexuality~ is faulty from the outset.

That's not how most Russians think.

[meikle]

That's not how most Russians think.

I can't help that most Russians are bigots; I can do my best to disincentivize their bigotry, though!

[Dashenka]

Alright but that's not the issue is it? Nobody in Russia who 'hate' homosexuals will really care what you think or not. For them, homosexuality is dangerous and wrong so the Russian government, which has the plight to protect the Russian people, implements a law to protect them.

Human rights have got nothing to do with this.

[Iniquitous]

Human right: A right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

With that said, every person has the right to the pursuit of happiness. If this issue was the fact that the Russian government put a law into effect that said it was illegal for all people with brown hair to be seen and allowed crimes to be done to brown haired people would you still argue in favor of the government’s law?

And before you say that is silly, think about it. A person cannot help if they are born with brown hair. Sure, they could go and spend money to dye their hair every 4-6 weeks - but that is being forced to be different than you are. Sound familiar yet?

Be gay … but don’t let anyone know you are. What you are saying is Russia is demanding the community live in secret. They cannot be themselves. And THAT is taking away the human right to pursue their own happiness. 

Fact of the matter is: Russia is going through the birthing pains of change. Just like every other country has. With hope this will be a swift change and everyone will be equals.

[Dashenka]

Russia isn't as easy governed as Europe or the US.

But I agree with the last bit you said. Russian democracy is only young and things will change.