Should players, sports organizations, or the whole COC boycott the Sochi Olympics?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This post leads me to believe you were in the navy.....

How dare you sir

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Would Russia participate though?

The first boycott in history tied to the desire to deny human rights?

That would be hilarious

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

The first boycott in history tied to the desire to deny human rights?

That would be hilarious

Why did they boycott LA?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why did they boycott LA?

Cold War shenanigans.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

Cold War shenanigans.

So in a way it was a boycott supporting the denial of human rights.....

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So in a way it was a boycott supporting the denial of human rights.....

No.

I guess technically if you wanted to say the invasion of Afghanistan was a denial of human rights thing, then yes, but really this was part of the ideology battle of the Cold War.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

No.

It was a dick swinging retaliation for the boycott of Moscow 4 years earlier, which was brought on by the invasion for Afghanistan, which I highly doubt was done to improve human rights. In short I can't seem to recall much of what the USSR did improved human rights.

[nik-]

Ok. I guess the real response then is "so what?". Let them stay home.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

What a ridiculous argument. By your logic nothing can ever be protested or argued against unless it's done on the very first instance. One kick at the can and then it's off the table.

Want to end slavery? Well did you protest it centuries ago? No? Can't do it now. Hell, we can't even complain about China anymore by that logic, we had our chance. Incredibly ridiculous logic.

This is a poor argument as we are discussing the Olympics here which has nothing to do with slavery. We are discussing the Olympics and the merit of a boycott solely here. If the politics of opression in China didn't warrant a boycott in the eyes of athletes and the IOC what makes you think a less severe topic like this anti-gay propoganda law will?

Please enlighten me why this is different and why they should all of a sudden use this venue of the worlds largest sports competition to take a hard political stance on a controversial law that pertains to a single country. Tell me why hundreds and countries and thousands of athletes should throw away years of preparation and billions of committed dollars just because Russia has a stupid grey area anti-gay propoganda law? Tell me in an intelligent manner without ridiculous references to slavery.

[Daradon]

I think he means, like has been said better earlier on the previos page by flameswin, is that ignoring this because previous conflicts were missed is not a reason in itself.

Sure, China should have and probably could have been boycotted. But because it wasn't is not a reason not to here. Things have to start somewhere.

Can we go back and change the past? No. Can we do something now?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is a poor argument as we are discussing the Olympics here which has nothing to do with slavery. We are discussing the Olympics and the merit of a boycott solely here. If the politics of opression in China didn't warrant a boycott in the eyes of athletes and the IOC what makes you think a less severe topic like this anti-gay propoganda law will?

Please enlighten me why this is different and why they should all of a sudden use this venue of the worlds largest sports competition to take a hard political stance on a controversial law that pertains to a single country. Tell me why hundreds and countries and thousands of athletes should throw away years of preparation and billions of committed dollars just because Russia has a stupid grey area anti-gay propoganda law? Tell me in an intelligent manner without ridiculous references to slavery.

Look up, that's the point sailing over your head.

You made the ridiculous argument that somehow a previous failure to act negates the ability to act now. That's idiotic. Things change, people wise up and things that were previously allowed to pass without comment become unacceptable. Using your logic once you decline to protest something once you've had your chance. Replace slavery with anything, women's right to vote, racial equality, workers rights, anything. Let it go once and you can't protest it later. You actually took it a step further than that by saying that not protesting something in years past precludes you from protesting anything in the future. It's clearly an absurd argument.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

Look up, that's the point sailing over your head.

You made the ridiculous argument that somehow a previous failure to act negates the ability to act now. That's idiotic. Things change, people wise up and things that were previously allowed to pass without comment become unacceptable. Using your logic once you decline to protest something once you've had your chance. Replace slavery with anything, women's right to vote, racial equality, workers rights, anything. Let it go once and you can't protest it later. You actually took it a step further than that by saying that not protesting something in years past precludes you from protesting anything in the future. It's clearly an absurd argument.

You still haven't asked my question. I still havent seen a proper answer in this thread.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Sure, China should have and probably could have been boycotted. But because it wasn't is not a reason not to here. Things have to start somewhere.

There's obviously a disconnect here. There was no China boycott because it wasn't warranted. You and others that say there should have been a boycott is akin to an anti-gay person saying that gay marriage bills shouldn't have been passed. They got passed because the majority deemed to legalize gay marriage just as the majority deemed boycotting the world's largest sports competition China was not warranted. Some of you have to start accepting that being on the side that didn't get their way doesn't mean that the decision was wrong.

I get that there are a lot of people out there that enjoy fighting the good fight and like to make up signs and picket everything they feel is an injustice but there is clearly a minority that believe an Olympic boycott is warranted. People need to really think about the thousands of athletes and what they have sacrificed to be able to compete in these games.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You still haven't asked my question. I still havent seen a proper answer in this thread.

What question? You've completely missed the point that was made.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There's obviously a disconnect here. There was no China boycott because it wasn't warranted. You and others that say there should have been a boycott is akin to an anti-gay person saying that gay marriage bills shouldn't have been passed. They got passed because the majority deemed to legalize gay marriage just as the majority deemed boycotting the world's largest sports competition China was not warranted. Some of you have to start accepting that being on the side that didn't get their way doesn't mean that the decision was wrong.

I get that there are a lot of people out there that enjoy fighting the good fight and like to make up signs and picket everything they feel is an injustice but there is clearly a minority that believe an Olympic boycott is warranted. People need to really think about the thousands of athletes and what they have sacrificed to be able to compete in these games.

So the sacrifices and disappointment of athletes trumps the sacrifices and beatings, jailing and overall dehumanizing of people?

I get that it would suck for athletes, and I'm not sure that a boycott is the right approach, but let's get some perspective here.

[Devils'Advocate]

I think EE has convinced me. I now WANT a boycott.

This "think of the thousands of athletes" is BS. Think of the thousands of gay people that are being oppressed. I put their right to love someone well ahead of an athletes right to compete. And yes, Chinese oppression was even worse, and the Olympics should not have been there either. The rights of the Chinese people are more important than the athlete desire to compete. There are far more important things in the world than watching people go down icy hills as fast as they can.. And gay rights happen to be one of those things.

What has changed since yesterday? Do I think this would have any impact on Russia? No. But I think it says to Canadians that we are willing to put principles ahead of our selfish need to be entertained.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think EE has convinced me. I now WANT a boycott.

This "think of the thousands of athletes" is BS. Think of the thousands of gay people that are being oppressed. I put their right to love someone well ahead of an athletes right to compete.

Wasn't there just 200 Canadian athletes in 2010? So about 150 non-hockey team athletes.

And just 2,500 in total for all countries combined?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

What has changed since yesterday? Do I think this would have any impact on Russia? No. But I think it says to Canadians that we are willing to put principles ahead of our selfish need to be entertained.

Put your money where your mouth is. How many of you would quit your job to send a futile message to the Russian government that you know fully well they are not likely to soften their stance? Really how many here would quit their job for this principal? All you people that busted your hump the last four years to get to where you are at the company you work at. All the sacrifices to your family. Just throw all that away to protest this. This is what you are expecting of the athletes.

There is a lot of selfish in this thread but it's not the athletes or Canadians. It's the hypocrites that expect people who have invested a large chunk of their lives in their sports to throw that away for a futile cause to appease a forum warrier using his keyboard to emphasize his nobleness.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Wasn't there just 200 Canadian athletes in 2010? So about 150 non-hockey team athletes.

And just 2,500 in total for all countries combined?

So 2500 is not thousands?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There is a lot of selfish in this thread but it's not the athletes or Canadians. It's the hypocrites that expect people who have invested a large chunk of their lives in their sports to throw that away for a futile cause to appease a forum warrier using his keyboard to emphasize his nobleness.

damn you angry EE, but that's not really the reason.