Free Tibet, Free Tismett

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

So the olympics being in China, there's been much focus on Free Tibet, about the protesters and oppressive china. And it gets me steamed up. You know why? because when Tibet was independent, it was one of the most backward, non-democratic, non-free places on Earth. Tibet was ruled by a privileged monk ruling class, and it's people were basically serfs and slaves with no rights, who worked to maintain the Dalai Lama and the monk's lifestyle. Tibet wasn't an enlightened democracy, it was a backward religious oligarchy Here's a little thing I saw on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, that originally turned me onto what a phony the Dalai Lama is.

Now look, I'm not saying China is great and free place and the Tibetans should be happy to be occupied. What I am saying is the beautification of the Dalai lama and Tibetan Buddhism by hippies is a bunch of garbage.

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you saying this man is wrong?He's an actor, I'm sure he wouldn't be supporting someting that wasn't true.I think you are just jealous that you aren't Richard Gere.Admit it, you got no where else to go!

[whatgreatis 0]

Tibet was probably the most peaceful country on the Earth and China took them over because it was an easy target.Their argument for taking over Tibet is the same for wanting Taiwan back, the only difference is Taiwan isn't an easy target.

[Gaffer 0]

I think we need to go with what the people of Tibet want, if they wanna go back to the way it was, let them do it.Everyone's tastes differ.Plus if they get tibet back, gere may move there. So no more crap movies. Win Win

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think we need to go with what the people of Tibet want, if they wanna go back to the way it was, let them do it.Everyone's tastes differ.Plus if they get tibet back, gere may move there. So no more crap movies. Win Win

Do the people of tibet really want to go back to being serfs, or do the Elite monks want to go back to being the ruling class? I 've seen plenty of monk protesters, not so many serf protesters.And again, I'm not saying China occupying Tibet is right or fair. I'm just saying, Tibet had a fcked up political system too, it's people were not free, and Tibetan Buddhism is highly overrated.

[Gaffer 0]

Do the people of tibet really want to go back to being serfs, or do the Elite monks want to go back to being the ruling class? I 've seen plenty of monk protesters, not so many serf protesters.And again, I'm not saying China occupying Tibet is right or fair. I'm just saying, Tibet had a fcked up political system too, it's people were not free, and Tibetan Buddhism is highly overrated.

Yeah i agree, i think what i should have said was that the people of tibet should choose there path.We dont know what the people of tibet want, we know what the dali lama wants and we know what china want.Untill china opens up a bit i dont think we will ever know.But i think its there right to be free and to do what they want.

[Metternich 0]

Thank you for this, nobody in the west realizes how ****ed up a place Tibet was. Which is part of the reason why they I'm in the wilderness when I say that I fully support the occupation of Tibet, with or without the consent of Tibetans. I've got a lot of reasons that I'm too lazy to type out, but if someone really challenges it I might be riled up enough to.It's funny that you don't hear those whiny hippies making any noise about China's occupation of East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and the Uighur resistance. Maybe it's because they're muslims, because they don't cloak themselves in mystic nonsense, or just because there's no reason for the U.S. to put military bases there.

[vbnautilus 48]

Do the people of tibet really want to go back to being serfs, or do the Elite monks want to go back to being the ruling class? I 've seen plenty of monk protesters, not so many serf protesters.And again, I'm not saying China occupying Tibet is right or fair. I'm just saying, Tibet had a fcked up political system too, it's people were not free, and Tibetan Buddhism is highly overrated.

The Penn & Teller video is really quite misleading. The people of Tibet were not "serfs". There is a big difference between living simply and living in "squalor" as they called it in the video. I have spent some time in Bhutan, which is basically one valley over from Tibet and at least when I was there was still living very much the same way as Tibet originally did, with a kind of spiritual monarchy. The people are very poor by our standards in that they do not have much material wealth. But the lifestyle and culture is one that values simplicity and the people are very happy (ranked in the top ten in that world happiness study thing). The monks have big palace-looking temples, yes, but they aren't sitting around being fed grapes by scantily clad women, they are ascetic and spend the vast majority of each day chanting and meditating. They also took specific Dalai Lama quotes to paint their picture -- Tibetan Buddhism is not "greeting card philosophy" -- it's actually one of the most sophisticated forms of mental science outside of western experimental psychology. Surely the truth lies somewhere in between the paradise as portrayed by Gere and friends and the slave camp portrayed by Penn &Teller, but I think Bhutan is a good way to see what Tibet could have been and it's doing pretty well.

[Nimue1995 1]

Thank you for this, nobody in the west realizes how ****ed up a place Tibet was. Which is part of the reason why they I'm in the wilderness when I say that I fully support the occupation of Tibet, with or without the consent of Tibetans. I've got a lot of reasons that I'm too lazy to type out, but if someone really challenges it I might be riled up enough to.It's funny that you don't hear those whiny hippies making any noise about China's occupation of East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and the Uighur resistance. Maybe it's because they're muslims, because they don't cloak themselves in mystic nonsense, or just because there's no reason for the U.S. to put military bases there.

Okay maybe I was wrong about you in the other thread. It looks like occupation and dictatorships are something you support. Only thing I have to ask is why are you here?

[Metternich 0]

Okay maybe I was wrong about you in the other thread. It looks like occupation and dictatorships are something you support. Only thing I have to ask is why are you here?

I don't just "support dictatorships"I support the government that can best represent the interests of it's people and deliver prosperity. In the United States, because of the compartmentalization of our government and the privileged position we occupy on the world stage, that is a democratic government. But most of the countries of the world don't have that luxury, they have to constantly be fighting against foreign subversion. In those countries democracy as it is practiced here is nearly a death sentence; it means corruption, foreign influence, economic decline, and powerlessness on the world stage. So in those countries, of which Russia and China are prominent examples, I support autocratic governments.As for democracy, does it matter at all that most of these governments have the support of vast majorities of the populations they govern? Is it better to open yourself up to foreign attack by holding elections frequently than it is rule by acclaim? Look at the governments of Kwame Nkrumah and Gamal Nasser (Ghana and Egypt during part of Cold War). These were men loved by the people, even if they didn't hold western style elections.

[copernicus 0]

Thank you for this, nobody in the west realizes how ****ed up a place Tibet was. Which is part of the reason why they I'm in the wilderness when I say that I fully support the occupation of Tibet, with or without the consent of Tibetans. I've got a lot of reasons that I'm too lazy to type out, but if someone really challenges it I might be riled up enough to.It's funny that you don't hear those whiny hippies making any noise about China's occupation of East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and the Uighur resistance. Maybe it's because they're muslims, because they don't cloak themselves in mystic nonsense, or just because there's no reason for the U.S. to put military bases there.

Okay maybe I was wrong about you in the other thread. It looks like occupation and dictatorships are something you support. Only thing I have to ask is why are you here?

gotta love the "theyre muslims....they dont cloak themselves in mystic nonsense".you cant have a discussion with a communist or an anarcho-capitalist. They cling to demonstrably failed philosophies like a toddler to his binkie. Try and take it away and they'll throw a tantrum.

[Metternich 0]

As for you all, if your positions were really strong couldn't you meet my arguments on the strength of your conviction's merits rather than resorting to absurd accusations? You're only demonstrating the strength on my points.

Myself again.What evidence do you have that I'm either a communist or an anarcho-capitalist. I can proudly tell you I'm neither. Now you're just name-calling because you're incapable of actually responding to my arguments.If we're going to do some name calling, I'd say that you're a deluded western who has swallowed the lies of the American state department.HINT: If you want to know what I believe, I'd advise you to look up the gentleman pictured in my signature. He's probably the thinker closest to myself.

[copernicus 0]

Myself again.What evidence do you have that I'm either a communist or an anarcho-capitalist. I can proudly tell you I'm neither. Now you're just name-calling because you're incapable of actually responding to my arguments.If we're going to do some name calling, I'd say that you're a deluded western who has swallowed the lies of the American state department.HINT: If you want to know what I believe, I'd advise you to look up the gentleman pictured in my signature. He's probably the thinker closest to myself.

I didnt say you were either, I was drawing an analogy to clinging to failed or irrelevant philisophies and philosophers, like Fanon. I didnt respond to your arguments because a discussion with someone with their head buried as deeply as yours is quite frankly is a waste of effort.

[Metternich 0]

I didnt say you were either, I was drawing an analogy to clinging to failed or irrelevant philisophies and philosophers, like Fanon. I didnt respond to your arguments because a discussion with someone with their head buried as deeply as yours is quite frankly is a waste of effort.

Isn't it arbitrary to claim that Fanon is failed or irrelevant. I frankly doubt you'd even heard of him, much less read his work.Your views, whether you know it or not, also rest on the arguments of philosophers. Probably many of whom are older and less modern than Fanon. It's significant that I didn't bring up your philosophers as a justification to give up argument, you brought up mine. That's a sign of weakness IMO.We were having a fact based argument, when you ended it the most relevant question was the Soviet motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan. You had given an absurd reason and I had rebutted it, then all the sudden your position changes to "Oh, well you're clinging to outmoded ideas."If you actually had a leg to stand on you wouldn't have had to resort to that cop out.

[copernicus 0]

Your views, whether you know it or not, also rest on the arguments of philosophers. Probably many of whom are older and less modern than Fanon. It's significant that I didn't bring up your philosophers as a justification to give up argument, you brought up mine. That's a sign of weakness IMO..

I dont philosophize or rely on philosophers. I rely on empirical results.I didnt respond to your dismissal of oil as a motivation for Russia in the Afgan war because it was so preposterous. Try reading a real history book instead of relegating anything you disagree with to a CIA plot. "The Soviet Union has exhibited a long-standing interest in its southern neighbors, as evidenced by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Protocol to the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, which asserted that Soviet territorial aspirations lay in the direction of the Persian Gulf and 1ndian.Ocean. In recent years, the Kremlin's incentives for expanding its influence to the south have been significantly enhanced by the growing importance of Middle Eastern, especially Persian Gulf, oil in the Western economic system. Seen from the vantage point of the Persian ~ulf, the single most important energy-surplus region in the world, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan constitutes one part of a giant pincer movement designed to encircle Gulf oil reserves. The Kremlin already has established a military presence in Ethiopia and South Yemen; now that the Iranians are no longer willing or able to underwrite Oman's security, Sultan Qabus faces the growing danger that the Dhofar insurgency will flare up once more, this' time with greater material support from the Soviets' stalking horse on the Arabian Peninsula South Yemen At the other end of the pincer, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan constitutes a flanking movement which opens up the flat, pemeable eastern border of Iran to potential Soviet military pressures. More importantly, it extends Soviet influence to within 350 miles of the Arabian Sea, blocked only by a disputed territory Baluchistan which itself faces the potential threat of a separatist insurgency important Afghan air bases, fortified them with surface-to-air missile batteries and are equipping them with modern command and control facilities The Soviet intervention has in effect moved Soviet aircraft 500 miles closer to the vital sea lanes of communi cation (SLOCs) which function as the oil lifeline of the industrial West. In fact, Soviet planes based in southwest Afghanistan are now situated closer to the strategic Straits of Hormuz (through which pass 40 percent of western oil imports) than if they were based in Tehran. Using these bases Soviet aircraft could reach the chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and remain on The Soviets have occupied most 7 n s station there for at least 30 minutes Clearly, Soviet access to Afghan airbases significantly upgrades the Kremlin's ability to block, or even sever, the petroleum jugular vein of the West and greatly enhances the Soviet ability to neutralize American naval power in the Arabian Sea a SECURITY TBREATS TO IRAN AND PAKISTAN In addition to providing a platform from which Soviet air power could be brought to bear on the crucial Persian Gulf SLOCs a pro-Soviet Afghanistan provides an excellent fulcrum which amplifies Russian diplomatic leverage over both Iran and Pakistan."

[Metternich 0]

I dont philosophize or rely on philosophers. I rely on empirical results.I didnt respond to your dismissal of oil as a motivation for Russia in the Afgan war because it was so preposterous. Try reading a real history book instead of relegating anything you disagree with to a CIA plot.

Try responding to an argument rather than making baseless attacks.And if you want a history book, maybe start with one about Zia ul HaqCIA plots aren't so preposterous, the CIA was engaged in one in Afghanistan that caused the Soviet Invasion. "The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, (according to Brzezinski).[53] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology." Now, why exactly is it preposterous to suggest that the USSR was more interested in checking an expansion of American power that could threaten it in central Asia than it was in a resource it had plenty of? Afghanistan has 3.6 billion barrels of oil reserves, Russia (to say nothing of other parts of the USSR) has at the very least 50 billion barrels (likely much more). Why would any sane state enter into a war that would take up a third of it's national budget every year in order for such a pitifully small gain? You're the one who's preposterous.EDIT: Wikipedia again BTW.

[El Guapo 8]

I have not read all of this, but you have to take Penn and Teller w/ a grain of salt. They are entertainers, and they paint a good picture. I have watched some of their B.S. shows and agreed, and also disagreed know the facts they were distorting.For instance, there was one on Chiropractic. They interviewed a guy who could barely articulate his deranged point, and he believed in a lot of stuff most Chiropractors don't. My point being, it was a skewed interpretation and biasedly slanted from the beginning.

[copernicus 0]

I have not read all of this, but you have to take Penn and Teller w/ a grain of salt. They are entertainers, and they paint a good picture. I have watched some of their B.S. shows and agreed, and also disagreed know the facts they were distorting.For instance, there was one on Chiropractic. They interviewed a guy who could barely articulate his deranged point, and he believed in a lot of stuff most Chiropractors don't. My point being, it was a skewed interpretation and biasedly slanted from the beginning.

They are like a funny 60 minutes expose. Find a few facts that fit your theory and then fill it in with a lot BS (pun intended) painting the subject as evil/idiotic or both. The only P&T that Ive seen come close to having hard facts is the recycling one.

[Balloon guy 158]

Try responding to an argument rather than making baseless attacks.And if you want a history book, maybe start with one about Zia ul HaqCIA plots aren't so preposterous, the CIA was engaged in one in Afghanistan that caused the Soviet Invasion. "The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, (according to Brzezinski).[53] The Mujahideen belonged to various different factions, but all shared, to varying degrees, a similarly conservative 'Islamic' ideology." Now, why exactly is it preposterous to suggest that the USSR was more interested in checking an expansion of American power that could threaten it in central Asia than it was in a resource it had plenty of? Afghanistan has 3.6 billion barrels of oil reserves, Russia (to say nothing of other parts of the USSR) has at the very least 50 billion barrels (likely much more). Why would any sane state enter into a war that would take up a third of it's national budget every year in order for such a pitifully small gain? You're the one who's preposterous.EDIT: Wikipedia again BTW.

Kind of answered your own question there pal.

[El Guapo 8]

They are like a funny 60 minutes expose. Find a few facts that fit your theory and then fill it in with a lot BS (pun intended) painting the subject as evil/idiotic or both. The only P&T that Ive seen come close to having hard facts is the recycling one.

Actually the one on Morgues and Mortuaries is spot on. That is one of the biggest rackets that has been going on forever. Selling distraught widows $5,000 sating lined caskets because they don't want to seem like they don't care about their loved one enough not too.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Actually the one on Morgues and Mortuaries is spot on. That is one of the biggest rackets that has been going on forever. Selling distraught widows $5,000 sating lined caskets because they don't want to seem like they don't care about their loved one enough not too.

Yeah, I am 100 percent anti the morgue and mortuary business, I honestly don't think there's a lower form of work than guilting a bereaved family into upgrading to an higher priced casket. I'm donating my body to science.

[copernicus 0]

Yeah, I am 100 percent anti the morgue and mortuary business, I honestly don't think there's a lower form of work than guilting a bereaved family into upgrading to an higher priced casket. I'm donating my body to science.

I am running some experiments, your avatar's body would be a fit donation for them.

[BigLebowski 0]

I am running some experiments, your avatar's body would be a fit donation for them.

Why am I not surprised you are a necrophiliac? One with good tastes mind you.

[copernicus 0]

Why am I not surprised you are a necrophiliac? One with good tastes mind you.

I never said the experiments were post-mortem! they might involve her chains though.