dust

Let me explain the graph below: the USA spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare, yet has one of the lowest life expectancies among the world's richest nations. The majority of the nations in that large bubble, such as Italy, Japan, Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, and Spain, have universal healthcare. Not all run by the government, but all universal. We spend less and live longer. Cattle? Or smarter than you guys?

I know very little about these things, but it has been my understanding that many traditional Chinese practices have been better preserved in the West than they were in China over most of the 20 Century (generally due to decades of war, revolution, civil war, more war, and most of all the evil Mao). True understanding and practice of martial applications have been decreasing for longer than that, too, in the East and West. In the West, centuries of sword fighting art (among other things) were fairly quickly forgotten with the advent of guns, and have now faded into oblivion. The same happened in China... just a little bit later and more slowly. If a martial art isn't continuously exposed to real fighting, if its practitioners aren't using it to fight, the understanding of its fighting application must decline. I don't mean this as a "Chinese martial arts are useless in a fight" kind of post, but as a defense of Western teachers in preserving these arts as best they could. If any watering-down has happened, it's happened more in China.

Perhaps his half-hearted agreement was a way of practicing what he preached: not attacking, but forgiving you for implying that he's a demon...? __________________________________ Interesting topic. It is worth seriously thinking about -- if everyone in the world considered this rationally, perhaps we'd be in less turmoil. But I don't take it as given that forgiveness alone is always the best option. In fact, I think one can choose both options at the same time if necessary. The main objectives/foundations in (my) life are to be alive, healthy, and free to act without harming others. If someone opposes any of these, by killing or harming or imprisoning me in some way... I might be able to 'forgive' them, but I would consider myself remiss if I did not also attempt to remove the possibility that they do the same again, to me or to someone else. Not as punishment, but because we don't want people like that in our society. They would need to be imprisoned, and if possible "rehabilitated".

Just say "Fuck 'em."

No problem. I'm not sure if there's a full text like this. I seem to remember someone saying that there is, but not naming it. I've done this kind of translation with a few chapters (not many though) and they're in the older topics here. Can't remember which ones exactly. One day I'll look through and make a collection of them cos it does seem like something worth having.

From experience it seems that the best way I can offer something to such a discussion, and especially questions like you have Gerry, is to do a little multi-word translation of the text. This is an edited version from an earlier chapter 6 topic. It contains a mixture of the received and Mawangdui versions, MWD in blue. There are more permutations of most of these words available but I had to stop somewhere...! 浴/谷神不死 valley / desire / grain spirit / god not die 是胃玄牝 is called mysterious gorge / female 玄牝之門 mysterious gorge / female door 是胃天地之根 is called heaven / sky earth root 縣縣 / 綿綿(呵)其若存 hang/suspend / continuous / tender/weak / flourishing (ha) it’s like exist / life / preserve / survive 用之不堇/勤 use / put forth its strength / need / act / function not few / merely / industrious / exhaust

Honestly, I have no idea where Crowley got most of that from. There's no mention of de/teh or dao/tao at all, nor "joy" nor "love" nor "sycamore"; he's mixed up gate and root; and he's ignored this mysterious 'valley spirit' completely. I know you're looking for a different answer but in a discussion of the DDJ.. well, I don't see how it fits. It doesn't actually translate the text, as far as I can tell. Also Jonathan Star's. It's barely recognizable as chapter 6. Dude should stick to Christian mysticism (well, he basically has with this translation).

You forgot a couple..

Heh.. "research chemicals"... If only I'd thought of that back in school. "It's not drugs sir it's research chemicals."

Or Badlands even. You should've told me earlier. This whole thing could have been avoided. Just kidding, I still would have argued the point. But yeah I will check it out, thanks. (Looks like I haven't seen all the television yet afterall.)

Wassup with Ghost in the Shell? I've never seen the animation but seems like 'fanboys' are a bit put out by the "whitewashing" in this new version. Was the original character supposed to be Japanese?

Link dump (Pertaining to: eating meat / animal agriculture / overfishing is very bad for the environment) Worldwatch Report: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf FAO report: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM 25% Land Carbon Sequestration by Amazon: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151124-paris-climate-talks-forest-carbon-amazon-congo/ 70% of Amazon Destruction from Livestock: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/15060 Vegan diet lowest carbon footprint: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1 30% of land and 1/3 of freshwater used by livestock: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/52/20888.full "Almost 50 percent of the grains produced in the world are fed to livestock" http://www.fao.org/docrep/v8180t/v8180t07.htm 39 billion humans worth of solid waste each year in the US alone: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf 48% of the carbon sequestered in the ocean: https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle Killing whales prevents sequestration study: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1699/3527 Livestock leading cause of species extinction study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

Well, scanning it again, it says that the trend is "a plant-based diet", which suggests a minimal amount of meat. Either way, any other article you might read about the Blue Zones will agree that the meat consumption is minimal, even if not using that exact wording. Where did you grow up? Not to pry into your personal life, but if you are going to make that claim and have it taken seriously, you're going to need to provide something more than "I lived there and I say so"... I haven't been to any of these places, but everything I have read about them suggests that they do not eat much meat. Either way, it's easy to find information oneself if one is so inclined. I think the reason many people don't, that almost nobody is talking about this, is because they don't want to. They want to keep their head in the sand. http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/the-seventh-day-adventist-position-statement-on-vegetarian-diets The vegetarian diet recommended by Seventh-day Adventists includes the generous use of whole grain breads, cereals and pastas, a liberal use of fresh vegetables and fruits, a moderate use of legumes, nuts, seeds. It can also include low fat dairy products such as milk, yogurt and cheeses and eggs. It is best to avoid high saturated fat and cholesterol foods such as: beef, lamb, pork, chicken, fish and seafood. Coffee, tea and alcoholic beverages provide few nutrients and may interfere with the absorption of essential nutrients. Has there been any research? Since 1954 more than 250 articles have been published in scientific journals on the Seventh-day Adventist lifestyle and health. In the 1960s, Loma Linda University, in cooperation with the National Cancer Institute, began to study the health of SDAs. Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, data on the Seventh-day Adventist lifestyle was collected and analyzed under contract with the National Institutes of Health. SDAs in general, have 50% less risk of heart disease, certain types of cancers, strokes, and diabetes. More specifically, recent data suggests that vegetarian men under 40 can expect to live more than eight years longer and women more than seven years longer then the general population. SDA vegetarian men live more than three years longer than SDA men who eat meat. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797 California Adventists have higher life expectancies at the age of 30 years than other white Californians by 7.28 years (95% confidence interval, 6.59-7.97 years) in men and by 4.42 years (95% confidence interval, 3.96-4.88 years) in women, giving them perhaps the highest life expectancy of any formally described population.

Your post contained various beliefs that, I believe, need to be shown to be wrong. And under this topic, in particular, it is important to address such bizarre statements as "the human brain is predominantly made of animal fat" The revolution would not be good enough. WHY?! Any solid scientific literature that proves this claim? Here are some that don't: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196 High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source. Yes, I agree with you that we all need proteins, fats, and carbs. This is not debatable, it's as true and accepted as anything. But it has little to do with eating meat. I get a lot of protein and fat. A LOT. A really really big lot. And none of it comes from dead animals... It's for open-minded discussion leaning towards vegetarianism. There are clearly a bunch of people here who do not have any kind of open mind regarding a no-dead-animal diet, and despite my plea in the OP, there's obviously no way to make you all keep an open mind. Scientific consensus obviously doesn't work to convince people. You just repeatedly claim that the issue isn't settled...even though it is. Even though the data regarding health, environment, and not being cruel to animals overwhelmingly supports not eating meat. So.. I'm at a loss. Deleting posts won't help. I will reserve that for anyone doing a Trump and repeatedly making false claims in the face of evidence.

Hope so. If there wasn't an observable difference from then to now (USA and UK), we'd be in even more trouble than we appear to be (considering the current political climate)...! Searching "1950s tv shows" on Google, it comes up with a list with pictures. Not a single non-white face, of course. Searching "1990s tv shows", the list includes The Fresh Prince, Kenan & Kel, and Family Matters -- all of which are all-black casts. Not much mixture that I can see. Searching "2010s tv shows", the list includes some actual mixture. Treme, Parks & Rec, Community, The Walking Dead, Orange is the New Black, New Girl, Hellcats.. so yes, an observable difference, even since the '90s. It is heartening. And most of those shows are excellent. Though actually fewer black leads (or popular shows predominantly featuring non-white people) showing up for the 2010s than the 1990s, it seems. It's dawning on me just how much TV I've watched in my life... oh, but even if they were all white I'd still be watching...

I don't think I've said that either show was prejudiced. It was not my original intention to suggest that they were, and if I did, it was in error. I think they're brilliant shows, and I'm happy that they were cast so very well. I think my original reason for mentioning them was that they are the only examples I can think of of non-white characters taking precedence over an otherwise predominantly white cast (and that this is in their favour in my eyes). Yeah. I was only joking with the Braveheart thing I don't know. I've brought up a bunch of shows, and there have been arguments against each individual example, but the bigger picture remains relevant. In the majority of TV I've seen from the US, the cast is lead by a white person. And, if the lead is non-white, so is the rest of the cast (all-black sitcoms, Empire, etc) Look at partner/cop shows. Castle (white male lead, white female partner, hispanic third), The Mentalist (not seen it but 2 white leads), Psych (white lead, black sidekick), Grimm (white, black, Asian), Elementary (white male lead, yellow female sidekick)... The only recent detective show I can think of with a singular non-white lead is Luther -- and that's from the UK, where blacks make up way less of the population than in the US. There were some great buddy cop movies in the '80s and onwards that paired a white and black guy, often without having a definite lead, and that was cool.. Eddie Murphy (48 Hours, Beverly Hills Cop) and Will Smith (Men In Black) did incredibly well at gaining not just mainstream acceptance but adoration... but there doesn't seem to have been much in that way since? Sam Jackson and Morgan Freeman, as popular as they are, rarely play the lead. Will and Denzel are the only real examples and I can't think of a single Asian example of this. Ken Jeong?

Though I do enjoy a person with jet black hair and eyes as much as a blonde or brunette, I'm not particularly craving Asian actors. And I do watch the occasional Chinese TV show...but most of them are shit. But this was not my point. To reinforce a main point I was making, as maybe you missed what I wrote before..my first post along this line was: However, to bring some actual data into the conversation: There is a much higher ratio of naturalized or native non-whites in America than naturalized/native non-yellows in China. There are around one million people in China from "other immigration jurisdictions", most of whom are from Macao, Hong Kong, Taiwan. There are only a few hundred thousand white and black people who live there long-term, and way fewer who are born there. Whereas there are around fifteen million people of Asian ancestry in the USA. America is a 'melting pot'. China is not a melting pot. China is racist as fuck, no question about that. I'm not saying it's "morally offensive" that there aren't more Asians on US TV/movies, just that the overwhelming pattern is: white > black > asian

So what's the end game in this engineering?

I'll just note that these YT audiences are younger and more international than the average American TV audience. Things are changing, for sure, though. Older people like to shit all over "millennials" for spending too much time on phones or some such nonsense, but their perspective is righteous.

Maybe. Yes, I did say that they are 2 of my favourite shows of recent years and that the actors are "excellent" and "stunning", and that audiences seem to agree. But I also noted that the mainstream has paid way less attention to them than to other shows or actors. Is that not true? Mr Robot gets critical acclaim, but not such popular acclaim. It's a clever and awkward show, for people who like to think of themselves as awkward and clever.. it's not written for full-on mainstream appeal. edit: looking at it on IMDb, I'm wrong. It's got a lot of ratings. A lot of people do seem to love Malek as lead, too. Though I still wonder about the average age of this audience. Younger, no? But at the same time, how would audiences react to an American-Egyptian, even a classically handsome one, being cast as lead in a superhero show like Arrow or a legal show? No, it hasn't happened, so I'm jumping to a conclusion, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened because producers/casters know that most people don't want to see that. Well it's "loosely based on", but so was Braveheart, and we expected that guy to be white... I know nothing about the man -- maybe he didn't want it to be obviously based on him (considering what the character gets up to in the first scene of the first episode, I wouldn't blame him). But none of that is the point -- you avoided my question. IF the role had been cast brown, would anyone have watched it? I appeared in a beer commercial on Chinese TV with a couple of friends There were a bunch of whiteys there, a couple of whom make a living playing foreigners in Chinese TV. There is a much higher ratio of naturalized or native non-whites in America than naturalized/native non-yellows in China. Way, way more. That's kind of the point: America is a 'melting pot' but television doesn't reflect that. China is not a melting pot. China is racist as fuck.

Can I go further? To make an argument that ZZ doesn't promote 'morals' or 'values' so much a few basic 'principles' that, if understood, might be helpful in... living with more enjoyment? Certainly it doesn't promote anything like the kind of 'good' and 'evil' that we see in many other texts and philosophies.

Nah, I like generalizing Why do they see it as a financial risk? Because it is. The studios know to a pretty good extent what their audience is looking for. There are a lot of 'Asian' actors, but most of them never become popular. And the popularity of a celebrity is down to the viewers, at the end of the day. I write this as Jessica Henwick (looks to be of Asian origin?) becomes IMDb's most popular star on their starmeter...! Though all of the main actors from Iron Fist are up there, so I suppose it's mostly down to that, as it's 'trending' right now. Aside from Iron Fist, though... how many Asians, or just non-whites generally, do you see up there? I'd actually say that the studios give non-whites more opportunity than the general public do. Rami Malek (American-Egyptian) is excellent as Elliot Alderson in Mr Robot, and Gemma Chan (British via China) is stunning as Mia in Humans (and I think of her as the main character, though there isn't really a single protagonist), and these are two of the best TV shows in recent years in my opinion. And they are rated highly on IMDb.... but they're not particularly popular. Most people don't want to watch Rami or Gemma -- they want to watch Rick Grimes, Daenerys Storrmborn, Meredith Grey, Barry Allen, Ragnar Lothbrok... And even with Mr Robot and Humans, the non-white characters are cast as robots against otherwise mostly white 'normal' people. Also, look at Billions. Do we think it would have been made or if anyone would watch it if someone had insisted on making the lead character of Indian origin? (as the story is based on Preet Bharara)

A little random but I thought it was cool.. Shu Siyao, Chinese rhythmic gymnastics team member:

There are examples, but few and far between. A couple of the most famous kung fu guys, held in high esteem, got the lead roles in US-made movies: Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan. I always saw Rush Hour with Chan in the lead role and Tucker as the sidekick. And the bad guy was white, if I remember (unless I'm confusing it with Legend of Drunken Master..been a while). And now there's a Rush Hour TV show which I haven't watched but believe is the same set up. But take nearly any other famous Asian kung fu star and he invariably gets relegated. Jet Li in Lethal Weapon 4 (bad guy); in Cradle 2 the Grave (sidekick); in Unleashed (well, not the bad guy, but a literally chained slave...). Donnie Yen in Blade II (sidekick). Gordon Liu in Kill Bill (teacher). I don't believe it's a conspiracy, but it's obvious that the American audience doesn't cope well with the idea of a strong yellow lead taking precedence over any number of white or black people.

Hmm. Well, the story of how the name came to be does sound a little made up (Chinese labourer asked what he's doing, he says "I holly wood" [i'm hauling wood]"). Fucking inspirational. It has been apparent to me for a long time that Hollywood, as diverse as it claims to be, will generally cast white actors in the main roles (and usually male roles), and blacks as sidekicks or secondary characters. Then comes Asian, then whatever else. I just watched the last episode of Grimm, and it's a perfect example. White lead, black detective partner, Asian uniform cop as a third. Then again.. shouldn't we expect there to be a sensible ratio? There aren't many Asians in the US, are there? (relative to others)