> This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would also be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you throw in trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families, foreign bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...
I'm not denying that there will be expenses. Obviously, some detailed calculations would have to be done and a cost-benefit analysis performed. However, my intuition tells me that it will be worth it when China starts to dominate. Moreover, the cost of living is low in India, so it would be a lot cheaper than training athletes in the US.
> So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say 'congratulations'.
Oh please, those are just empty words you tell kids. No one really believes that, least of all the American or Chinese teams.
> Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.
First of all, I already gave you a solution to that problem. And no matter how you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end up physically and mentally deformed, and often illiterate. Any cultural issues pale in comparison to those very real problems.
> "We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern US opinion on immigration, yes.
And there's nothing wrong with doing that. One of the reasons that the US doesn't have the demographic timebomb faced by the rest of the developed world is that we encourage large-scale immigration
> Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.
That would be entirely antithetical to the spirit of the modern Olympics, so that's a non sequitur.
> But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?
Regardless of their methods, they will be lauded. It would be remiss of us not to do everything legal and ethical in our power to fight back.
> All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you.
Once again, we wouldn't be "purchasing" them. They wouldn't be slaves or indentured servants. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing. These children would be given a chance at a vastly better life. It's not like they would be deprived of something because of our actions.
> Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.
Except that is what the US is all about - we are a nation of immigrants. While the rest of world might scoff at our short history and lack of ethnic homogeneity, we take great pride in that fact.
No, you really need to stop restorting to ad hominem responses and face the cold, hard truth. It is a fact that nearly 50% of children in India suffer from malnutrition. It is a fact that malnutrition is a condition that is universally accepted within the scientific community to cause lifelong physical and mental deformity. This has nothing to do with race. It could happen in any country, to any ethnicity.
Taking umbrage at your statement that all Indians are mentally and physically deformed is not an 'ad hominem' response. Seriously, think about the extension of what you said - it would mean that every Indian national is physically or mentally deformed. You've pegged it back to 50% with this comment, but even then, is your mythical scouting network really going to be looking at malnourished children?
Then you compound it by wanting to be given a pat on the back because you're willing to save a mere handful if they happen to perform well. It's like saying that blacks in the US don't have to worry about poverty so much because there's the NFL to save some of them.
Also, "It is a fact that -foo- is universally accepted within the scientific community" is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Besides, malnutrition comes in a range of degrees - it is not synonymous with kwashiorkor or marasmus, not among the scientists you claim as your authority. Hence, it also refers to the diet of obese Americans (and there's also mild undernutrition as well). Given that the obesity rate in the US is climbing towards 30%, it's not so much of a gain to go from a culture with 50% to a 30% malnutrition rate.
I'm not denying that there will be expenses. Obviously, some detailed calculations would have to be done and a cost-benefit analysis performed. However, my intuition tells me that it will be worth it when China starts to dominate. Moreover, the cost of living is low in India, so it would be a lot cheaper than training athletes in the US.
> So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say 'congratulations'.
Oh please, those are just empty words you tell kids. No one really believes that, least of all the American or Chinese teams.
> Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.
First of all, I already gave you a solution to that problem. And no matter how you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end up physically and mentally deformed, and often illiterate. Any cultural issues pale in comparison to those very real problems.
> "We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern US opinion on immigration, yes.
And there's nothing wrong with doing that. One of the reasons that the US doesn't have the demographic timebomb faced by the rest of the developed world is that we encourage large-scale immigration
> Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.
That would be entirely antithetical to the spirit of the modern Olympics, so that's a non sequitur.
> But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?
Regardless of their methods, they will be lauded. It would be remiss of us not to do everything legal and ethical in our power to fight back.
> All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you.
Once again, we wouldn't be "purchasing" them. They wouldn't be slaves or indentured servants. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing. These children would be given a chance at a vastly better life. It's not like they would be deprived of something because of our actions.
> Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.
Except that is what the US is all about - we are a nation of immigrants. While the rest of world might scoff at our short history and lack of ethnic homogeneity, we take great pride in that fact.