dust

Was this split from another thread? Anyway... MH you aren't wrong, it's perhaps easier to understand and remember, but...the original text isn't that easy, so shouldn't we translate it awkwardly too? The author chose to use "不敢為天下先" -- literally "not daring/brave to wei (be/act) first under heaven" -- rather than a single character, like 慈 and 俭, we get a 6-character phrase. There were surely a couple of characters that could have been used if the author meant "humility", e.g. 谦 which is used for hexagram 15 humbling/modesty

Why would one not question "God" ?

Look.. I'm aware that anything I say here that isn't vehemently anti-Soros is going to be taken as "left wing" and "brainwashed" and whatever other silly terms people like to throw around. But just try to remember that I'm not all that left of centre (sometimes right), I agree that Soros is a problem, and I'm certainly not generally in favour of rich maniacs trying to manipulate global affairs, destabilizing governments and potentially causing turmoil because they think they know best or have something to gain from it. I can't be angry that Soros gives money to certain causes -- green energy, National Organization for Women, etc. That said, I'm aware that his largest hobby (playing God) is not something we want any more than we want someone on "the right" manipulating affairs. However.. Soros isn't alone right now. Macedonia's another pawn in this continued game of 3D chess "the West" is playing with Russia. The whole situation is fucked. https://www.ft.com/content/a09bbd72-ff79-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30

Even the Chinese have some teeny tiny modicum of democratic power. Where there are elections, there is a form of democracy. Of course, understanding democracy as fully as we in the West do (note a little bit of sarcasm here) nobody in this part of the world would consider China as democratic..and rightly enough, when we consider the pervasive corruption etc. The vote doesn't count for much over there. But move back to Europe and North America and it starts looking a whole lot more democratic. There's no nation which makes every decision with a referendum. Deep down everyone knows that would be silly, unmanageable. But we are given the opportunity to choose, and however much manipulation is happening, our choices do have an effect. So while I understand your position and your scepticism (re manipulation, misinformation, etc) I don't think it's wrong to say that our countries are democratic.

I would be curious about an explanation as to the benefits to those in power of engineering things such as immigration policy that are apparently detrimental to the country...

Who in power benefits? If these pieces really fit as an intentional, fully-formed, long-term plan.... why? Yes, the sentiments of both carving and plaque are nice, and no, that they were placed there doesn't mean that they must hold true for eternity, but I'm glad you agree that the sentiment of The New Colossus, and the modern symbolism of the statue, is nice. Also... isn't the American system merit-based? As far as I know, in order for a foreigner to get a visa to work at an American company there must be evidence that the company cannot find a US citizen to fill the position?

...but a republic? A form of government combining different modes of rule into one system? But democratic elections are a part of it, and people believe they are supposed to get their way because they put a mark on a piece of paper...

People have been able to talk shit online for over 30 years, but it's only become a common hobby since Facebook and Twitter. I've been discussing bullshit with friends and on the internet since I was a teen -- I remember my first message board, a gangsta rap forum in the '90s, quite clearly! -- and I'm aware that I'm not the only one, but it seems like the number of political "experts" and idiots shouting opinions has increased massively in the last few years, partly due to the popularity of "social media". On the one hand, it was a previously unimaginable dream for any democracy to be able to supply its people with so much information and have them so involved in the discussion. On the other hand, this is why I've always been wary of democracy...

Perhaps, though I might point to The New Colossus. Isn't there some merit to that sentiment? Wasn't it the huddled masses yearning to breathe free that made America (apparently) great in the first place?

Well.. I think, as long as he has a valid passport, the UK has no opportunity or right to involve itself. And he's already worked abroad for some years. What with lawyers being involved in the advisement and application process and the fact that he's already worked in another country for the same company... it's not that he's generally undesirable. But apparently not desirable enough for the USA. Not that the US doesn't have every right to pick and choose... I'm just saying, it's not the case that any foreigner can apply for a work visa and be accepted without question!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

"Left" and "right" can be pretty subjective. The economic left and right are easy enough to define (communism/capitalism); political wings (+/- economics) are less easy but still possible to differentiate; etc. These things cannot be summed up as one single "left and right". Rarely, if ever, has anyone fit neatly into a 100% "left wing" or "right wing" box. You (ralis and Brian) know this, yet call back and forth about it as if there could be a winner! Murdoch is obviously a capitalist; he has closer ties to the Conservative party than any other (yes Tony Blair too but mostly Thatcher, Major, etc); he is against "liberal" bias in the media; he identifies himself as libertarian. He once tweeted, "Of course I want him [Romney] to win, save us from socialism, etc." At the same time, he is in favour of open immigration policies and was a big supporter of Obama at the beginning: "He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education." Then again, he supported Ben Carson towards the beginning of the latest election, and doesn't seem to think much of Obama any more. Looking at his media holdings, what I've read about him, and what else I've heard of his actions/tweets etc, I'd judge him closer to the silly traditional notion of "right wing" than of left.

Well, yeah. Any of us might be surprised to learn suddenly of something of which we were unaware! However... whenever I first became aware of such tactics being used it didn't 'surprise' me. As VKh says, it's the way things work, the way things have been for thousands of years. On first read of your comment, it sounded to me like it surprised you to learn that 'the right' would be doing the same thing as 'the left' -- that 'the right' is less likely to use underhand tactics. And so I wondered if that would genuinely be a surprise... because it seems obvious to me that any of the many sides in a political war can and do have many wealthy and manipulative benefactors who believe themselves to be some kind of saviour, or who aim to control people in order to amass more wealth or power...

Why does it surprise you?

It's not easy. A good friend of mine, UK citizen, highly qualified in his field, working at a multinational which already has offices in the US, was denied a visa twice. Before Trump.

Good! That's what I would have expected/hoped for. As I said in my first post, my argument was hypothetical, based on taking the OP article at face value -- it implies that she was denied medical care. Many seem to disagree that she should be given medical care for any reason -- she's broken the law, she's not a citizen, so she requires no help from the states. If it's a question of her entering the country simply to get some medical assistance that maybe she couldn't get back home.. why not head to Canada or somewhere else where healthcare is assured to a much greater degree than in the US? And yes of course you'd be able to help! And I think you would, really. I disagree with a lot of you about a lot of shit these days, but I believe most bums would try to help, even if they take a hard position in theory on here. Give the intruder a drink of water, call an ambulance, etc? Thanks. Though as I've been told, it's my own stupid fault No.. I'd try and get to Canada, I think!

I was drunk last night and am hungover right now so maybe you'll have to take my words with a pinch of salt, but... I don't think so. I don't think it was a strawman. I'm assuming that the same thing could have happened a year ago -- an undocumented immigrant detained. And that's fine, that's the law, that's what should happen... except that this one has a brain tumour. I don't know US law on this point exactly, but international law certainly has something to say about it. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs323/en/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449334/ That latter article is 12 years old and perhaps things in the US have changed, but based on the OP article it doesn't sound like it. I'm not suggesting she should have just been set free. I'm saying in her imprisonment she should have been treated with more respect and, as blackstar says, compassion. Surely this isn't too much to ask?

I don't remember learning about the American secession at all (in school). I'm not sure we learned American history at all beyond minor points about its role in WWII.

Not if you had a brain tumour. If you were sick or dying I would try to help you. Knowing you who are... I'd see about an in-person discussion of Zhuangzi and a couple of beers.. and then I'd try and get rid of you by any means necessary..

Just from the article, assuming what it says is true... an immigrant with a brain tumour detained without access to medical care simply because she's an immigrant? This is not acceptable. Countries like the USA, UK, France, Iceland, etc, are subject to higher expectations than others. We are supposed to be the better places. Yes, in a general way -- there might even be an element of nationalism in this -- certain countries are supposed to be culturally superior. Many pride themselves with the notion that America is the land of the free, that opportunity and freedom and equality and justice are the highest ideals, yet a woman with a brain tumour can be treated so? When Trump says "Make America great again!", what is that supposed to mean? Imprison everyone a shade darker than cream? Be cruel to and distrustful of anyone born outside of the states?

I'm not sure that 'substantive' applies.. it's the word of one man. I haven't read the book but I doubt that anything more than his word is given as evidence? Contrary evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group#Duelfer_Report But then there's this: http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/the-real-news-the-duelfer-report

Perhaps a better example would have been Japan invading China in 1938. It's a very clear-cut "They started it." So then, whether or not FDR intended a war with Japan prior to 1938 (you didn't claim that he did but I'm just covering the base), Japan was the first offender on that side of the Pacific. Japan was the first offender, period. To go one step further: it is not in my view arguable that Japan had any legitimacy in any form at any time. They were an imperial invading force -- they raped and murdered and performed terrible experiments throughout China and much of Asia. They needed to be stopped. Whether or not the US had the "right" to step in and manipulate the situation I don't know -- and an American manipulation of the Pearl Harbor situation seems ethically tenuous at best -- but I don't think the general act of going to war with Japan was wrong. If the US hadn't stepped in they would have crossed the Pacific eventually anyway, no? edit: I should be the first to say, my knowledge of the American side of WWII is bare, and my initial example of Japan invading the US was a little simplistic given the complexity of the situation, but I think the general point still stands: Japan was the aggressor.

Technically something's only a crime if it's legally defined as one at the time, right? A paleolithic human killing another didn't commit a crime -- there was no legal system. But no, I can't think of a case of war, real or hypothetical, in which at least one party couldn't be considered at fault (and often all parties). And so if we consider that any war in history could be retroactively considered a crime, then there was never a war that was not a crime. A point to note is "Who started it?" Sometimes it's not so easy to delineate, but sometimes it is. When the leaders of Japan declared war on the USA, they committed a heinous crime without provocation -- without any reason other than "We want to subjugate you". When the leaders of the USA retaliated, they did what they must to defend. The invasion of Iraq wasn't on the same level as WWII, obviously, not as easy to delineate -- Iraq had had WMDs, and might have had them again, and Hussein was a brutal shit. But if we're talking current international legal definition of crime, Japan in the USA and the USA/UK in Iraq both committed the same legal crime of war without provocation. And the coalition's reasons were different than subjugation, but maybe no better in the end.

If the issue is either provocation or genuine fear of foreign attack... well then yes, a crime was committed. Not sure if "someone told a lie" or "who told the lies?" is really the important issue. There was no provocation, and there was no genuine evidence for fear of attack. These are well-established facts now, no? Admitted by the men themselves. There was no "legal" reason for the war. An entire war as a crime is a pretty fucking big crime.

It implies it to an extent, yeah. But I would not say that everyone who makes this claim is conceited or deluded, just as I'm sure you don't believe that everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. I just wanted to point out the potential Catch-22 nature of the perspective (you're brainwashed, and if you think you're not then that proves you are, and if you think you agree that you are then maybe you're actually not but you'll still never be sure...) Really I suppose I was trying to ask, Who gets to decide? Your criteria (for someone able to see through the net) are all agreeable.. Though I'd guess that the majority of bums would be labelable as brainwashees based on such investigation. Who's not pushing the line of some party or another?