dust

Yeah.. that ties in more closely. Risk is a part of that perhaps, but ego itself is what needs to be kept in check..

Retire when the work is done. A few words come to mind: simple, wise, elegant. But dare I say that the most obvious word is: obvious. The advice seems to be obvious. And yet so many do seem to have trouble with the idea. Political history is full of people who didn't know when to stop! Or who do know, but carry on anyway... I guess it has to do with risk. Those who pull the bowstring too tight, who fill their cup with too much wine, who oversharpen their blade, are looking for a thrill, or caught up in the idea of winning, or of beating someone else, or of irrationally gaining more than is possible... the risk seems worth it, or they don't even consider that they might lose. So... is it suggesting that we never take risks?

I'll sum them up for you: rape of women and children by Buddhist monks of various sects in various countries; national commonplace (74%) domestic abuse in Bhutan; attempted genocide in Myanmar; some of the major backers of Japan's militarization and conquest (i.e. murder, rape, torture camps, etc) in the 1930s and '40s were Zen monks. That's just from a couple of quick Googles. Of course you could find many more examples about the atrocities perpetrated by Muslims (especially considering how many more Muslims there are)... but the point is that in judging a person by the savage acts committed by others of their religion, and suggesting that all members of said religion must be deported, one will have to deport all Buddhists, too.

Deforestation. You know what's responsible for deforestation, guys, right? https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill#Criticism https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/01/burger-king-animal-feed-sourced-from-deforested-lands-in-brazil-and-bolivia https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html

No problems with Buddhism then? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176747/Buddhist-monk-repeatedly-raped-teen-years-impregnated-her.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/cambodia/3482192/Buddhist-monk-arrested-for-rape-of-British-tourist.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan-women-abuse-idUSKCN0WP04E http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rohingya-muslims-burma-government-rapes-massacres-government-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-rakhine-a7471636.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/ZenandWar.html

Assuming this is in response to the current 'Islam front for terror' conversation, I'm not really sure what this is supposed to prove? Yes, there are a lot of Muslims out there who want to kill people. Nobody's arguing against that, I don't think. It doesn't prove that all Muslims are terrorists (and I don't believe that you believe that they are either so I'm a little confused). The list contains a lot of examples of Boko Haram, but no mention of the LRA. Boko Haram since 2009 has killed over 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes; the LRA from 1987 to 2004 killed over 100,000 civilians, displaced 1.5 million civilians, and abducted over 20,000 children. This is not to mention the other horrific things both groups have done (rape, slavery, torture, etc) and that both continue to do, right now. It's an unfair comparison: the time scale for LRA is longer than BH so the death toll is likely to be higher. But both are still ongoing and both, when all is said and done, will have caused an incredible amount of suffering. Who's to say that the LRA won't have caused more suffering in the end? (considering their methods, which are terrifying in their cruelty) The reason for the comparison? The LRA is supposedly Christian, versus Boko Haram's supposed Islam. Are we to blame Christ and all Christians, including the precedents set by Christian warlords over the centuries, for the horrors of the LRA? Do we, knowing that Islamic scripture gives a little precedent for some of Boko Haram's action, then blame all Muslims for Boko Haram and insist that all Muslims must be terrorists? Heck no, neighborino! Another example of the site's apparent inclination to skew the truth by presenting a limited scope of information: Looking at the article comparing casualties from mass public shootings in the USA & France, we see tables showing around 30 shootings in the US from 2009 to 2016, and 6 in France from 2012 to 2015. We see that one shooting in France killed more than any other of the listed attacks (the Nov 13 2015 Paris attack, though I believe some of those casualties/deaths were caused by suicide bomb? Not going to quibble over that but worth noting) and also that in terms of deaths, the listed US attacks still come out in front. Yes, more people died in shootings in the US, and quite a few of these attacks were not perpetrated by Muslims (though the worst in terms of deaths and injuries were). Now, the comparison might not seem entirely fair, comparing 8 years in America to 4 in France, 30 attacks to 6, until we realize that France didn't have any mass shootings in 2009, only one (with one dead) in 2010, one in 2012 (7 dead), etc. So the comparison of 8 years to 4 was for effect: the totals would have been quite similar. More dead in the US, more overall casualties in France. But it seems even more compelling to compare a relatively short term in France to Obama's whole presidency. What has it proved? That Muslims have shot a lot of people? Yes. That US shootings are not so bad? Absolutely not.

I don't think you truly believe that all Muslims are terrorists (which Islam is a front for terrorism implies) but just to be sure, https://muslimheroes.wordpress.com/ Obviously this is a blog dedicated to showing nice Muslims, not nasty ones. The point is that there are a lot of Muslims out there who are really wonderful people, just like there are loads of wonderful Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and atheists and whatever. And if we extend that, there are also a lot of average ones, and etc etc... Islam is not a front for terrorism: there are strict scripture Muslims, who might be likely to believe in violence for Allah, and there are Muslims who aren't really bothered about scripture, or who haven't really read the ahadith and don't really understand that Muhammad was (at best) a warlord. I don't understand why you must be so adamant in your singling out of Islam!

Hm.. I see a false equivalence..? My body is always me; I am always my body. Not all cats are tigers, but all tigers are cats.

This "something more" or "not all that I am"... if we're talking in terms of 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts', or saying that the greater something is the ineffable / Dao / universe, something that we all share (or feel that we do), then I agree. There is something more, my human body is not all that I am. And if someone wants to use the word 'spirit'.. I don't get it, but OK. But I do believe that a literal belief in a spirit, or a soul, that is distinct from the body, can be dangerous, both psychologically to the individual and outwardly to others. As I see it, the body is the centre. Each individual is essentially the universe having a unique subjective experience, and each experience is the centre of its own universe. We don't each have the ability to wield the omnipotent power of the universe, but we are each responsible for our behaviour, for how we respond to the experiences we have (with the information available to us). And in our daily lives, it's important to remember that we are individual experience®s, who may affect each other in many different ways, mentally and physically, but always through our physical form. He cannot read my mind, she cannot speak to ghosts, you cannot attack me with your vampire soul. There is space between us.

You are your body. Speaking of 'my body' as a separate entity is a mistake enabled and exacerbated by insufficient language. Your body is not 'your body', it is you; your eye is not 'your eye', it is you. Your breath is not 'your breath', it is you; your food, your water, your shoes, your home, your family, your planet, are all you too. How could they not be?

Missed this comment somehow. Never really saw Star Wars as insulting any particular groups, but growing up with it I've never examined it like that. Also... does he insult Jews? Seems out of character that he'd insult anyone, but especially coming from a family of Orthodox Jews..? Yeah there are elements who attempt to be 'the opposite of racist' and end up just looking silly. Too PC or whatever. But I wouldn't say it's cringe-worthy "most of the time"..?

I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. I know we're supposed to believe that every vote counts, but is there any question about the result at this point? It's not a conspiracy, but there has been a wave of similar sentiment washing across parts of Europe. Trump did applaud Brexit, while others (e.g. Obama) said it would be a bad idea. This idea of 'populism' is holding hands with 'nationalism' and 'anti-elitism', which people like Trump and Farage and Le Pen share a stake in.. and it's odd in all cases, as many of the policies of these so-called populist and nationalist and anti-elitist politicians/parties are geared, directly or indirectly, towards fucking over the majority of people, ordinary or otherwise..

No, you didn't, but Aetherous did. My responses to you have been informed by the fact that you responded to a post I made in response to him (claiming that the US is civilized, implying that Americans don't do awful things, implying that the Muslim world is all violent, implying that we can judge all other places by the US example..). Yes the PRC is a terrible place in many regards; you'll note that that was one of my points in arguing that it's not fair to suggest that Muslims should all be deported because of the behaviour of a few when the situation in China, the ideological situation, results in a lot of suffering and death. As far as HK.. it exists as an autonomous region of China now: goodness knows the special situation will be forced to end at some point, but for now they are allowed to live pretty free from the mainland. I might vote Lib Dem.

I get carried away sometimes. Well, quite often. The death penalty I mentioned as a response to the mention of stoning and decapitation and such things in some nations. I despise such acts, and it's true that capital punishment and other forms of punishment are worse in many places than in the USA, and given for less; but there's also the argument that the USA has executed innocent people, and that execution itself has no place in a civilized society. And no, the best countries are not all Western. I'd agree that Europe has the best claim to most "civilized" continent, but in terms of living free (which is not the same as being "civilized" !), there are many places. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Chile, Mauritius, Uruguay, and others, all rank pretty high on the Human Freedom Index. HK is #1 I believe. Getting more and more off-topic. I think the point is that it is a little ridiculous to suggest that majority-Muslim countries are completely "uncivilized", Western countries are all great, and whatever else, with the idea that all Muslims should be deported because they're going to start stoning people on Sunset Boulevard. Time and again I've used a number of sources to illustrate that it is a select few Muslims in non-Muslim countries who commit terrorist acts -- that they're usually from said country and well-educated, apart from anything else. It's a completely different ball game to the poorly educated and economically troubled people of Iraq, or Syria, or Myanmar, or Uganda, or India -- Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, whatever -- who commit heinous acts that can be blamed equally on their religion OR their situation. Allow someone a better situation and they will likely accept the improvement. No. British. And much of the criticism that can be levelled at America can be levelled at the UK too..

No, not all. In the USA, government murder is legal in 31 states; guns are widespread; many states only eliminated laws outlawing sodomy in 2003, and crimes against homosexuals still occur. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people the country kills in wars. In contrast, a country like Indonesia has no laws against homosexuality; in 2012, 12 people were officially executed by the government (compared to 43 in USA and not dissimilar population size). I don't know anything about gun law over there but the homicide rate is lower than that of the US. The US homicide rate is higher than that of most Western Asian / Middle Eastern nations. China executes more of its citizens each year than the rest of the world put together; they are inwardly hostile towards foreigners; homosexuality is generally taboo; gulags are still commonplace; horrific trades in humans, organs, endangered species, etc are widespread; etc. So, is China particularly civilized? Should all Chinese people be denied immigration to our glorious lands? I'm not saying there isn't a problem with Indonesia, or Iran, or wherever. Yes, there is inequality of gender, sexual preference, etc. Yes, many of their beliefs are dangerous religious tripe. But it's perverse to choose the acceptable limits of behaviour based on where one was born or what religion one assumes people to be following. There is nasty violence in some Buddhist countries -- the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are among the most persecuted people in the world. Zen Buddhism in Japan was partially responsible for the growth of imperial power, with Zen practitioners among the most vocal supporters of their wars in America and Asia. To adhere to Zen does not mean one must be violent, it's not a prerequisite, but historically Zen and the sword go pretty well together. America is not particularly civilized, in my opinion. With civilization as an ideal, there is no civilized place on Earth. And to suggest that all members of one religion or nation are uncivilized and must be discarded... well, that only proves how... arrogant? ignorant? deluded? many Westerners still are.

Haha! The USA, epitome of not fucking goats. So in order to be civilized, one simply has to not be a rapist or murderer? And if homosexuals are killed, children are molested, the government kills people, animals get fucked, and people get shot in the street, then the country is not civilized? What bizarre reality are you living in if you think all of those things don't happen regularly, even daily, in the USA?

Apech made good points in response to the rest so I just want to ask.. what's a "civilized" country?

Apologies for my earlier tone. I appreciate that people are not out with the intention to lie and misdirect.. but it does bother me that so much information is misquoted, misattributed, omitted, or simply made up so often. Trump and his cronies concoct outright lies on a daily basis, and many on the so-called "left" and "right" lie by omission almost as often. I'd just rather have a conversation where everything said is true and nobody is sweeping the dirt under the rug... As has been said already I think, the worst offenders so far on US and UK soil have often been home-grown and educated to a medium or high level. Deporting refugees, people genuinely fleeing from a barbaric civil war for example, won't solve the problem with this. It only weakens the position of such nations when we claim to be upright and compassionate. If we're talking about terrorism, about Islamic terrorists, we need to be looking at the people who commit these acts, and they're largely raised and educated in the very places they end up hating -- and their hate comes about because of the fucked up value system that Islam teaches them, not because they're foreign. In fact I'd argue that the most well-educated in Islam, the ones reading the Quran and ahadith in depth, and getting down to the stuff about martyrdom and all that, are the ones who have the time and money to learn such stuff -- not the ones travelling hundreds of miles to get away from their own countries where Islamism has destroyed their homes. I agree that Islam poses a threat. But I disagree that simply closing mosques and "expelling" anyone preaching hate (I'm pretty sure Le Pen is referring to the majority of Muslims when she says that, not just so-called Islamists) is going to solve much at all. Now..if we're genuinely talking solely about outright hate preachers and murderers, not the average nonviolent Muslim, yes of course they should be stopped. And perhaps there is an argument to be made that not enough is done about them... the case of Choudary, for example, who preached hate in the UK for 20 years and was only convicted after ISIS came into the picture. But most British Muslims agree that he should be in prison, that he's a hateful piece of shit. And most of the immigrants and refugees that anti-immigration parties are so keen on deporting are not likely to be the terrorists. But if you just kick them all out, they are far more likely to end up hating you. No, I'm not saying they would be justified in becoming terrorists, simply that compassion and support on our end is more helpful than fear and hatred. The Muslim Council of Britain said:

Imponderable doesn't literally mean one cannot ponder it. It means, in French and English, something difficult to estimate or assess. And I agree. I'm no fan of Islam, and I'm certainly no fan of hardline Islam, but the point is that most European Muslims don't actually follow Muhammad's example in most areas of life, and when we consider those who do -- the "extremists" -- we have a hard time figuring out how to stop them. It's difficult to assess. Now.. I'm not a fan of this language either, really. I'd prefer a slightly harder stance. Not "get all the Muslims out", but "Hey everyone, be cool. We won't tolerate violence, we won't tolerate violent religious views, and Islam is no exception. Get it straight." But what Le Pen is saying -- "The places of Islamic preaching will be closed and the propagators of hate will be condemned and expelled," for example... Really? Closing all the mosques? And when she says "propagators of hate", I can only assume she means all Muslims, because she seems to believe that all Muslims are propagators of hate. That kind of speech, let alone that actual action should she be elected... is it going to improve things?

Right... so he didn't say "we must learn to live with terrorism." That is actually something the PM, Valls, said. Not Macron. And if any of you think they're the same thing -- "part of our daily lives" vs "must learn to live with" -- I'd suggest going back to school. I'm not trying to defend Macron here. I just cannot abide liars, and I can't converse with people who think that quoting person A is the same as quoting person B. Our aim should be to seek truth, not something we feel is vaguely close to what might be the truth. Macron could be less easy on Islam. And I can't find much about what his policies are. He's certainly not someone I'd choose for a candidate. But Le Pen is pure nastiness. The FN is militantly opposed to Islam, generally anti-immigration, they believe gay marriage is wrong, they hate the EU, and their party also has a history of antisemitism and general racial hatred.

Please direct me to where he said that. If you can't, I hope you will admit that you believed and posted false information without fact-checking it.

Meanings of 病 include illness, sickness, disease, hardship, fault, worry It basically means a problem with the mind or body. But I don't like the word 'sick' here -- in English it carries too much connotation of vomit, fever, etc. It seems pretty obvious that the text is referring to mental 'sickness', not physical. And the English term 'mental sickness' sounds too much like we're talking about a clinical mental illness or condition, like PTSD or psychopathy or something. It's not physical sickness we're talking about, and it's not a mental health issue.. it's more like a faulty belief / problematic way of looking at things. So I quite like Henricks's use of 'flaw'. Or maybe 'weakness', or even 'failing' would be suitable.

No apologies.. we shouldn't ignore the French election. It's more important on an international scale than the UK one. There might not be much to say about the UK election anyway, the outcome seems pretty certain. I figure the title of the topic can actually be an umbrella for any current election... election after election.. eugh

No, it's not great, but has helped me highlight some areas of agreement/disagreement. Then again, maybe you just don't realize how Tory you are?

Indeed... thank goodness for that 51% isn't a showstopping lead though. I got 45% for Conservative, which isn't far off yours. What got you there? Science, national security? I also agreed with BNP (37%) and UKIP (35%) on some points for science, economics, and national security, though these were predictably my least compatible. I am apparently most compatible with Plaid Cymru and SNP (64%). As their primary platforms are Welsh independence and Scottish independence respectively, I'm thinking... no. A shame that one of the areas that is most important to me is not addressed there, or in any public forum, or indeed hardly addressed at all by most parties. http://voteforanimals.org.uk/party-policies-on-animals/ https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ar.html