Cheetin' Chinese

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Chushin wrote:

You tell em Lix! It aint like little kids will be driven till their bodies break, only to be discarded like a used condom or something. After all, governments in countries like China have their citizens best interests as their highest priority!

And I admire the consistency in your approach to the welfare of children, especially young girls.

Well-done, indeed. [/quote]

Exactly - the age restrictions are not about eliminating advantages, but rather protecting young kids from the grueling pressure to compete as early as possible due to those advantages. Someone somewhere actually thinks it a good idea to disincentivize the pressure that cutthroat athletics would put on kids who should be, well, being kids.

Lixy the self-professed Humanist embarrasses himself yet again.

62

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

Silly restrictions defeat the purpose of the Olympics just the same. If anything, this will help the idiots in the Committee to see the error of their ways.

Age discrimination is stupid. But that’s probably just me…

You tell em Lix! It aint like little kids will be driven till their bodies break, only to be discarded like a used condom or something. After all, governments in countries like China have their citizens best interests as their highest priority!

And I admire the consistency in your approach to the welfare of children, especially young girls.

Well-done, indeed. [/quote]

When does personal responsibility come into play? And who are you to draw arbitrary age limits?

I would love for all kids to be adequately fed, clothed, schooled and tucked in at night. But the reality is quite different and the age you deem appropriate for a child to learn a trade is only adapted to your perception of your own society. Who are you rob a person (yes, children are people too!) of the prospect of fame, recognition and livelihood knowing that the alternative for some of them is hunger and misery. The decision is that of the kids’ family and community (as in communism, not Bolshevism, Maoism or any of the other bullying centralized hacks).

Your arbitrary No Child Labor line of thinking is the kind of crap that’s fueling delinquency, teenage prostitution and other societal issues. Kids that can’t get jobs legally often turn to the black market where they are much worse off at the end of the day.

It’s the sort of retarded solutions one dishes out when they don’t take the time to understand the problem.

“OMG1!!! Won’t anybody think of the Children?!”

63

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Chushin wrote:

You tell em Lix! It aint like little kids will be driven till their bodies break, only to be discarded like a used condom or something. After all, governments in countries like China have their citizens best interests as their highest priority!

And I admire the consistency in your approach to the welfare of children, especially young girls.

Well-done, indeed.

Exactly - the age restrictions are not about eliminating advantages, but rather protecting young kids from the grueling pressure to compete as early as possible due to those advantages. Someone somewhere actually thinks it a good idea to disincentivize the pressure that cutthroat athletics would put on kids who should be, well, being kids.

Lixy the self-professed Humanist embarrasses himself yet again.[/quote]

You can’t protect people from themselves.

Whatever solution you implement ends up being worse than the problem.

64

[quote]lixy wrote:

You can’t protect people from themselves. [/quote]

We are talking about protecting children not so much from themselves, but from the nationalist desires of a Politburo trying to force kids into 6 hour training sessions at 2 years old based on genetic promise.

Which, ironically, is the opposite of enjoying free will. something a “humanist” should understand. Of course, you would need to have common sense to appreciate the difference for children, and we are well-aware of your limitations in this area.

Lixy the Worm continues to provide unintentional comedy.

65

[quote]lixy wrote:
Your arbitrary No Child Labor line of thinking is the kind of crap that’s fueling delinquency, teenage prostitution and other societal issues. Kids that can’t get jobs legally often turn to the black market where they are much worse off at the end of the day.

It’s the sort of retarded solutions one dishes out when they don’t take the time to understand the problem.

“OMG1!!! Won’t anybody think of the Children?!”[/quote]

Yes, I agree. Where do some people get the idea that all children need and require the same things in life. Some are happy not having any education; some are happy competing in sport; some are happy with their nose stuck in a book; some are happy with the opportunity to learn a trade.

People need to mind their own business and get over this nanny way of thinking about the world and its children. We made it out of the jungle and we have thrived without it for hundreds of years why is it so necessary now?

66

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

Silly restrictions defeat the purpose of the Olympics just the same. If anything, this will help the idiots in the Committee to see the error of their ways.

Age discrimination is stupid. But that’s probably just me…

You tell em Lix! It aint like little kids will be driven till their bodies break, only to be discarded like a used condom or something. After all, governments in countries like China have their citizens best interests as their highest priority!

And I admire the consistency in your approach to the welfare of children, especially young girls.

Well-done, indeed.

When does personal responsibility come into play? And who are you to draw arbitrary age limits?

I would love for all kids to be adequately fed, clothed, schooled and tucked in at night. But the reality is quite different and the age you deem appropriate for a child to learn a trade is only adapted to your perception of your own society. Who are you rob a person (yes, children are people too!) of the prospect of fame, recognition and livelihood knowing that the alternative for some of them is hunger and misery. The decision is that of the kids’ family and community (as in communism, not Bolshevism, Maoism or any of the other bullying centralized hacks).

Your arbitrary No Child Labor line of thinking is the kind of crap that’s fueling delinquency, teenage prostitution and other societal issues. Kids that can’t get jobs legally often turn to the black market where they are much worse off at the end of the day.

It’s the sort of retarded solutions one dishes out when they don’t take the time to understand the problem.

“OMG1!!! Won’t anybody think of the Children?!”[/quote]

You are a moron, while you are fun to insult it is useless to waste any further time with an intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt person such as yourself.

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
People need to mind their own business and get over this nanny way of thinking about the world and its children. We made it out of the jungle and we have thrived without it for hundreds of years why is it so necessary now?[/quote]

The Chinese (or any) government taking three year old children and putting them into the government’s service is the very definition of “nannying.”

There is also a huge difference between what needs to be done in the context of emerging from a state of nature (the jungle) and the oppression of a totalitarian state.

68

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a moron, while you are fun to insult it is useless to waste any further time with an intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt person such as yourself.[/quote]

???

Where has lixy ever been shown to be “morally bankrupt” and intellectually dishonest?

You disagree with what he says which is fine but he has never done those things you say – which raises the question do you even know what those terms mean? In fact, lixy is to be commended for actually giving a real opinion and not backing down unlike you with your one-line, rhetorically charged, empty quips.

You are a “troll” of the highest order…

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Where has lixy ever been shown to be “morally bankrupt” and intellectually dishonest?[/quote]

Welcome to T-Nation’s Politics & World Issues forum - you must be new around here.

70

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In fact, lixy is to be commended for actually giving a real opinion and not backing down …[/quote]

Lixy has been owned so many times in these threads we can’t even figure out who has title to the deed anymore.

But your defense of him is heroic - what, are you guys forming an Anklebiters Union?

71

[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
People need to mind their own business and get over this nanny way of thinking about the world and its children. We made it out of the jungle and we have thrived without it for hundreds of years why is it so necessary now?

The Chinese (or any) government taking three year old children and putting them into the government’s service is the very definition of “nannying.” [/quote]

How did setting an arbitrary age limit worked up so far? From what I can see, it didn’t stop them one bit. Matter of fact, it might push “frauders” to make the kids even look older than they are.

It’s the freakin’ government! They issue identifications. What makes anyone think it’ll EVER stop them from deciding what age someone is. Shiiiit, the Chinese are so nationalist that they might approve of that if (let’s dream for a bit) it went through a referendum.

72

[quote]nephorm wrote:
The Chinese (or any) government taking three year old children and putting them into the government’s service is the very definition of “nannying.”

There is also a huge difference between what needs to be done in the context of emerging from a state of nature (the jungle) and the oppression of a totalitarian state.[/quote]

Yes it is nannying and I was not commenting on how the Chinese government does it. We all know they do it. It is entailed by the notion of communist totalitarianism. I was commenting on the notion that other people think they know what is best for all Children in all places – and if you will, include China in that list, please.

The consequence of raising child robots exists in both the US and China for the exact same reasons though different means may bring it about. It isn’t just totalitarianism that worries me.

73

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In fact, lixy is to be commended for actually giving a real opinion and not backing down …

Lixy has been owned so many times in these threads we can’t even figure out who has title to the deed anymore.

But your defense of him is heroic - what, are you guys forming an Anklebiters Union?

[/quote]

I offer you the invitation to provide one example of lixy showing “moral bankruptcy” and intellectual dishonesty as well.

That he has been “owned” does not necessarily include the above indictments.

Your attempt at “moral superiority” is tiresome and doesn’t add any value to any of the discussions either. Your posts are generally filled with negativity directed at the poster and not directed at the context of what is said. You are an intellectual weakling just like Zap.

74

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I offer you the invitation to provide one example of lixy showing “moral bankruptcy” and intellectual dishonesty as well. [/quote]

Look no further than this thread.

Lixy claims to worship at the altar of Humanism, and constantly rails against corporations, governments, foreign policies, etc. that humiliate and oppress people.

And yet, his Humanism suddenly stops short of including protection of children from totalitarian governments hell-bent on grinding them into powder to try and train them from an early age to further the the totalitarian’s nationalist ambitions in world sport.

Short answer: Lixy will throw tantrums about oppression by “corporations”, but quietly whistles past and gives succor to brutal totalitarian regimes. Any form of Humanism that can’t demand some protection for children against a Politburo is categorically and suspect, and is, wait for it, morally bankrupt.

Further, the fact that Lixy puts on a facade of caring about the “oppressed” while carving out this little exception for communist China is, wait for it, intellectually dishonest, because he has shown he is a fraud.

Try something other than your painfully banal cut-and-paste job from LewRockwell.com and try to add something of value. You haven’t produced an original thought in months.

No, but it speaks to your claim that he “stands up” - and, he sure does, only to get smacked down in embarrassing fashion.

Read above - my post to Lixy addressed exactly what Lixy was talking about.

Sure thing, Lifticus. Tell me, do you aspire to anything more than being a mere cipher while the adults talk around here?

75

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I offer you the invitation to provide one example of lixy showing “moral bankruptcy” and intellectual dishonesty as well.

Look no further than this thread.

Lixy claims to worship at the altar of Humanism, and constantly rails against corporations, governments, foreign policies, etc. that humiliate and oppress people. [/quote]

That is from ignorance of correct theory and not the two other concepts that Zap laid at his feet which you apparently, incorrectly, agree with.

[quote]
And yet, his Humanism suddenly stops short of including protection of children from totalitarian governments hell-bent on grinding them into powder to try and train them from an early age to further the the totalitarian’s nationalist ambitions in world sport.[/quote]

So he has come out right and said he agrees with China’s policies? You lay accusations at him for what he has not out right denounced of a specific place. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty to me.

It is no doubt that lixy has grievances with the US foreign policies and may in fact be the only reason he hovers around but still you throw insult which are not legitimate analyses.

[quote]
Sure thing, Lifticus. Tell me, do you aspire to anything more than being a mere cipher while the adults talk around here?[/quote]

What have aspiration anything to do with giving me a real response instead of throwing, yet again, another marginalizing insult? Weakling may have been the wrong word. Peon sounds much more accurate.

76

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further, the fact that Lixy puts on a facade of caring about the “oppressed” while carving out this little exception for communist China is, wait for it, intellectually dishonest, because he has shown he is a fraud.
[/quote]

In Lixy’s world view oppression is only wrong if the US is the oppressor. If we had 10 year olds competing in gymnastics we’d never hear the end of it.

Reading these threads and seeing how opinions and ideas change from one day to the next the only consistancy is total anti-US bias, you begin to wonder who the real trolls are.

compulsatory edit marker: . . . You know who the real trolls are.

77

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

That is from ignorance of correct theory and not the two other concepts that Zap laid at his feet which you apparently, incorrectly, agree with.[/quote]

More incoherence.

A red herring - my criticism of Lixy centers on his lack of consistency. Lixy’s “theory” would apply to any of the other circumstances that he routinely denounces w/r/t corporations, etc. And yet, a totalitarian regime gets a “whaddyagonnado?”.

Nope. Lixy is being shown his hypocrisy and his dishonesty on the issue - you flailing about in the deep end notwithstanding.

No, insults are just icing on the cake for the preceding analysis. If you missed the analysis, I am not surprised, but do me a favor and butt out of it instead of creating misdirection by your desperation to be taken seriously.

You should learn to read - I explained exactly my analysis, in a color-by-number fashion so even you would get it.

And, I would ease up on the tough talk of “weakling” and “peon” - coming from you, knowing is buying it.

78

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

In Lixy’s world view oppression is only wrong if the US is the oppressor. If we had 10 year olds competing in gymnastics we’d never hear the end of it.

Reading these threads and seeing how opinions and ideas change from one day to the next the only consistancy is total anti-US bias, you begin to wonder who the real trolls are.

compulsatory edit marker: . . . You know who the real trolls are.[/quote]

Emphasis mine above. Exactly. The issue is plain and easy to see - Lixy is speaking out of two mouths and has exposed himself to shaming criticism. Only our resident dilettante Lifticus is struggling to keep up.

79

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Only our resident dilettante Lifticus is struggling to keep up.

[/quote]
Is there something shameful with amusing oneself with distractions.

80

TB, does every other thread have to be about me, rather than my arguments?

Get a grip, people! China is BAD. Very BAD. And if I was talking to Chinese folks, they’ll never the end of it. From Tibet to The Party, down by pervasive censorship. But I’m not. I’m commenting on a thread where Americans are using insults and racial slur to downplay the athletic performance of a Chinese girl. She doesn’t look kidnapped, abused or threatened to me. Matter of fact, she is adored by her fellow countrymen and by fans the world over. In a country where little girls are discarded in garbage dumps, I’d say she is privileged.

I bitch about corporations because, from a certain threshold, they are inherently evil. They’re the embodiment of greed. The 12 years old working the fields in Africa is totally different from the child slaving in a sweatshop in Phnom Penh to make a Londonian fat cat obscenely rich. And I smack imperialistic foreign policy because of the same reasons. Except, you know…with bombs and all.

Nationalism is a disease, alright. This thread is a perfect illustration of that. I have no issues condemning it. But imposing half-assed arbitrary age limits knowing they are easily circumvented creates more issues than it fixes.

You give me any evidence that the Chinese girl or her entourage doesn’t want her competing and I’ll condemn it. But forbidding coerced participation is freakin’ common sense. I don’t think it needs to be a written rule in the Olympics.

I’ll say it again: This is an attempt to protect people from themselves.