Jwayne

The CCP has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the last several decades. That's a monumental achievement. They have given generations of people opportunities for their children to follow their dreams and to lead lives of dignity. China considers itself 'moderately prosperous'. But if you were to ever visit there I am sure you be would astonished at the high standard of living. Mainland Chinese people are mostly very happy because China doesn't have the domestic problems of other countries: no crime, no gun violence, no drug abuse, no homelessness, no gang activity, and so forth. The cities are exceptionally clean with no litter anywhere. The parks are plentiful even in urban areas. They are manicured and green. It's a very stable place to raise a family. And its a very high trust society and the people share the same values as one another. It has a real sense of community. Chinese people just like to take care of their children and live ordinary lives. They have their own civilizational identity with their own history, language, culture and philosophy. Chinese scholars are very well-read about the West, but you cannot say vice-versa. China has its own terms of thinking based on divergent histories, and they don't share Western idolization of Plato, the Bible and the American Constitution. And that's fine. They have thousands of years of their own culture. And that's their prerogative. Chinese scholarship is very explicit about how capitalist elements have been intentionally introduced into their political economy. It's called 'the primary stage of socialism' and it began around 1956. You should read Chinese scholarship if you want to understand China.

If you take a stand against imperialism, then you cannot also support democracy. Because the people may decide/vote/ratify imperialist policies. How are you going to resolve this problem? The world has addressed it by establishing international laws through the UN, which the United States merely leverages as a weapon to veto and blackmail anyone who challenges their hegemony. However the UN is also faulty because most of the world's population is unrepresented on the Security Council (e.g. India, Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, the entire Global South). So the UN also needs reform for its international law to be legitimate. Or, you can claim "My personal sense of morality should be the universal standard and all peoples everywhere should bow to my convictions." That's basically what you're doing now.

Ukraine was artillery shelling its own territory in the breakaway republics in the days leading up to invasion which is a violation of the Minsk agreement. That's when Putin ratified his official protection of them so he can have legal precedent should they be attacked further. At that time Zelensky even suggested reneging on an agreement not to seek nuclear weapons. Going back to October before the conflict Russia was asking for dialogue to remove missile sites around its borders that can hit Moscow in a matter of minutes (how many missiles does Russia have in border regions to Washington DC ?). The USA said we are ready to discuss anything but your terms are non-negotiable. Which is why the rest of the world, specifically Russia and China, consider Americans to be exceptionally poor diplomats. They have no tact and rely upon bullying vulnerable countries. Then in February China and Russia signed a 55,000 word statement announcing their "friendship" which is a very profound sentiment in Eurasian-Chinese cultures. Whereas America sees friendship as a mere pragmatic tool to further its own 'national interests'. The USA is by far the most aggressive imperialist power in the world going back a century. Just type into a search engine "American invasion of ..."

Obviously Xi doesn't have 'absolute power'. China isn't a monarchy like Saudi Arabia. China has a ruling class, as do Western democracies, not a dictatorship. The core power of the Chinese ruling class is shared by the Politburo Standing Committee.

Someone claiming 'I have paranormal powers' means nothing except to position themselves atop a new imaginary hierarchy of superheroes, unless said abilities can be demonstrated to others.

Polls show a majority of Russians support the war. That's even reported in Western media.

Tailored to their interests and abilities, as you would any education.

That's why polling and surveys are done anonymously. There's no fear of reprisal because there's no way to trace who said what. As for social media and public speaking, that's different. Even in Western democracies, you will be censored, targeted and surveilled for expressions of wrongthink.

That's highly presumptuous of you. Are you omniscient? Upon what basis can you say what 'most Russian citizens' think?

He has a domestic approval rating over 80%.

It is a matter of clarifying how we come to determine the nature of phenomena. Especially when it is a matter of extrapolating from subjective experience. What a person considers to themselves to be obvious has nothing to do with the veracify of the thing. There must be standards to measure whether a paranormal phenomena has substance or not. You may prefer to not scrutinize the thing and it can retain legitimate significance and meaning in your mind. But that does not translate to it having any bearing on others. Others do not have your direct, inner perception of whatever your experience is and hence demonstration and evidence is necessary to substantiate the thing with significance for others. What matters to others is what demonstration the thing can manifest into our shared reality.

First a disclaimer, I write provocatively. But mainly as a strategy to carry dialogue forward. It's not malicious. And I'll apologize now if some sensitive people take it insultingly. Interfacing over screens is very impersonal and when conversation gets heated then both sides are forced to read/project things into the text. If we talked on the phone, or met in-person, that wouldn't be an issue. When I ask Devil's Advocate questions, it doesn't mean I believe the opposite. I haven't yet stated a position about the paranormal. I only asked for evidence about Dalai Lama's supernatural powers, which raises the issue of how these things are to be known in general. And how should we go about finding out? What about your spiritual practice has led to the development of your 'high intuition' and being 'supernatural'? Was it bestowed at birth, or nurtured? Or a freak accident like Peter Parker and Bruce Banner? Next, your claim has the side-effect of positioning yourself atop a new hierarchy. You've basically created a new social hierarchy of 'People With Superpowers'. And then stepped on top of it. What are the rest of us supposed to do with that? This is an epistemological issue. Both, how did you come to determine you have paranormal abilities, and how should others verify that? You don't expect us to pedastalize you and accept you at your word, do you?

The original argument was that Dalai Lama used supernatural powers to create a snowstorm. Which is very obvious and apparent even to the 'unevolved'. Now you are shifting to saying the 'supernatural' powers are ethereal/only perceptible to 'evolved' beings. Which implies you are yourself such an 'evolved being', or that you are a mutant like Professor Xavier who can see the 'supernatural powers' of others. In either case, maybe you should work for an intelligence agency like the CIA (as the Dalai Lama did) because they are very interested in such paranormal abilities. Or, you are trusting another authority on the matter of Dalai Lama having 'paranormal powers'. Because I don't believe he has ever claimed it for himself. So upon what basis do you claim knowledge of Dalai Lama's 'supernatural powers'?

There's no grounds that he has 'supernatural powers'.

Here comes his supernatural tongue magic 'right in front of your nose'.

Where's all that magic been since then? Is it like a video game where has 100 magicka points and then needs to re-charge? Or like a Hollywood movie where he exhausts his vitality and then needs to rest for a while (i.e. 70 years)?

He always speaks from his political and religious biases. It's not about commitment but mutual understanding. Even moreso than that its about respect and fun.

I agree there is little evidence (i.e. a single ambiguous isolated incident) to support he is a sexual predator. This video is not definitive either way. Although I agree with the internet outrage on the basis of defending victims of abuse. Even if it was not intended, the Dalai Lama's actions come far too close. I consider this was an inappropriate act, and I also consider the possibility of repressed sexuality. He was right to issue an apology. He would be wise to issue a further statement. Not to self-deprecate himself or to appease the media, but to address the genuine and legitimate concerns that have been raised about pedophilia and sexual predation.

The favorable interpretation ranges from Dalai Lama can do nothing wrong because he's a spiritually superior being to he made an innocent mistake. The unfavorable interpretation ranges from he is expressing the dark side of volcel sexual repression and perhaps has done similar (or worse) behaviors before in-private to he acted inappropriately. We cannot know his intentions. The benefit of the doubt goes to his lifetime(s) of spiritual practice. We cannot know the suffering he may have brought to the kid. The benefit of the doubt goes to take caution in protecting the child. It is logical that there ought to be more evidence of his 'inappropriate' lifestyle/activity, if it exists. And it is also reasonable to expect some statement from the family if they felt the situation was inappropriate or not. Another context is whether Tibetan culture accepts the Dalai Lama'a actions. That may be a mixed reaction. Maybe something more definitive will surface.

Where is the evidence that its normal in Tibet to do this behavior between old men and children? There should be other videos of old Tibetan men and young boys behaving like this, right? Can you find anything like that?

Go and ask some children in your neighborhood (doesn't matter what country it is) to 'suck your tongue' and see how many of them find it playful. And see how many parents are offended. And see how many people in the community are alarmed. And try to defend your action to them on the basis of your spiritual superiority, specifically your deep love and compassion for children. We don't need to rush to judgement on the character of Dalai Lama based on a 50-second clip. But neither do we need to normalize old men mouth kissing and asking for 'tongue sucking' from young boys as 'playful'. Dalai Lama is a role model, right? A supposedly very spiritual being. He should be held to the highest standards. Instead many are making excuses for him.

He requested the boy to share (small) acts of intimacy with him. That's a kind of greed. It's not sharing but demanding (e.g. kiss my mouth, suck my tongue). It's exploitative. Holding a hand is more than enough to show compassion. Or even more subtle is just a look, or a smile. Or some words. Anything that shares and doesn't demand from the other. Especially not a physical demand.

'Innocence' doesn't need to mouth kiss, does it? Why not kiss the forehead? Why kiss at all? And why not just stick out your tongue and make a silly face? Why tell him to suck it, and after saying it, why not be silly and laugh? Why keep the tongue extended? Why lean in as if it were serious? There are millions of other harmless jokes that don't have obvious predatory connotations.

How are you going to determine or measure the suffering this brought the boy? It may not be felt until many years later, as is often so with trauma. There is also the suffering brought to his family, specifically, his parents. The way to prevent suffering in such situations is to go nowhere near them. Don't put yourself in such a dangerous place where you are an old man kissing a young boy and asking him (joking or not) to suck your tongue. Once you have crossed that line. There is no telling what you may have done. So it was a wild misjudgement for the Dalai Lama to go into this kind of situation. Why would he risk this unless it is his normal disposition?

You are spinning in circles on the question of his 'intention'. I'm saying the 'intention' of the abuser is irrelevant to whatever abuse follows. That's the reason cultural norms exist. There are behaviors that are nearly universally prohibited because nothing good can come from it. One of those is old men mouth-to-mouthing young boys. It's the decision to take such an action which is problematic. There are millions of other ways to show compassion, playfulness and love which don't infringe upon the rights (and bodily integrity) of a child.