JeffFromSchool t1_jcv0d75 wrote

Decline is one thing, but US protestants, specifically evangelicals, are definitely the most out of touch Christians. I'd love to see them take the same stance as the pope on homosexuality.


JeffFromSchool t1_jca78tf wrote

There is a world of difference between boycotting an Olympics games held in the Capital of a country invading others, and to refuse to host that countries athletes in an Olympiad held elsewhere. One is a political stance, the other is just racist/nationalist.

We boycotted the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow, but the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid welcomed Soviet Athletes with open arms. Who would have thought that we could learn a thing or two from 1980's America...

We still make movies about what happened in the 1980 Winter Games


JeffFromSchool t1_jc84csk wrote

If that's what you want, then I'd have to agree with the IOC - this would be the end of international competition as we know it.

I know you think it would make them look like fools with their "Olympics" of only 4 or 5 nations, but what you suggest would just grow into it's own monster. What we would end up with are "blocks" of international competitions where only countries that get along politically compete against each other.

People need to sit down and think before they just blurt out and run with the first solution that comes to mind. If we aren't careful, our solutions may not lead to a more peaceful world in 100 years, but a blocked-off, isolated one.

Personally, I don't want to look back at the 20th century as a rare and fleeting time in human history where we actually had our shit together enough to compete as a world.


JeffFromSchool t1_jbp2xd2 wrote

The only reason the Korean War was undertaken by the UN and not Vietnam is because during Korea, the USSR was boycotting the UN for recognizing Taiwan as the true China immediately after the communist government took over and didn't have veto power in the Security Council. They were an active member of the security council during Vietnam and would have vetoed any resolution that didn't support the Viet Minh.

If that's literally your only reason, I think you might want to look back and re-examine that "international consensus"


JeffFromSchool t1_jbp19eq wrote

>Canada and the us were settled at the same time. Jamestown and Quebec City were the first two permanent European settlements in North America. And settled within months of each other. The history of Europeans in Canada didn’t begin in 1867 just like the history of Europeans in the united states doesn’t begin in 1776.

Right, but everything until 1867 is generally shrugged off as "done by the French/British settlers, not us". Hell, that might as well have been the Canadian governments official slogan until the 21st century.

>There have been others, named above in previous comments where the unites states has pursued self interest to the detriment of human rights, democracy, and common decency. Can you name a single conflict in which Canada has done the same?

Yes. To use your examples above, Vietnam (through logistical support) and Afghanistan. After all, Canadian snipers didn't get a reputation as among the world's best in the modern age by staying in Canada and shooting paper targets.

Also, I'm very curious to hear why you have such a high opinion of the Korean War and not the Vietnam war, considering the many parallels between them.


JeffFromSchool t1_jbor6zy wrote

Dude, by the time Canada came around, the United States had already had it's Civil War, abolished slavery and had expanded out to California. You weren't even around to get involved in any of that.

You were settled by western Europeans, too. You'd have been right by our side if you didn't show up to the party so late. What Canada did to the First Nations was all it could do at that point in history. Given the chance, no doubt it would have been worse.


JeffFromSchool t1_jbomiat wrote

Many countries did, but many countries didn't.

While we haven't always had everyone's backing, we've always had someone's backing. The US's foreign policy history is certainly checkered, but every single country can find themselves somewhere in one of the black squares, too. Some, many more than one square. That's my point.


JeffFromSchool t1_jboewbc wrote

You were talking about which sport are fluff and which are "where it's at". Ratings are a pretty good indication of which sports more people care about

The Olympics doesn't care about the "athletic" sports as you think they do. Don't they regularly think about getting rid of wrestling, which is probably the most quintessential Olympic sport?


JeffFromSchool t1_jbo9bfz wrote

It's certainly bigger than basketball... Which is another that the players care less for the Olympics than their own league.

All of North America and most of Europe play hockey. That's already like 80% of the top medalling countries at the Olympics

If it's a major US sport (half of which are featured in the Olympics), the Olympics aren't the highest stage.


JeffFromSchool t1_jbjbeii wrote

If the coach they mentioned with 4 undefeated seasons was some sort of left-field ridiculous answer, I'd agree with you. But their two sentences were telling the person that they're ridiculous followed by him backing up how ridiculous he thinks they are being by comparing it with a real life stat of 4 undefeated UCLA teams. They are very clearly being sincere.


JeffFromSchool t1_jbizls5 wrote

What's ridiculous is that you saw that number and were like "yeah, that's totally what this dude means. After all, everyone but me is an idiot" and then acted like a raccoon with rabies instead of just being like "hmm, that's so ridiculous, maybe that's a typo, and perhaps I should ask for clarification."