chimera wrote on Jan 27^th, 2026 at 5:44pm:


Is this the  nonsense are you referring to:

  Hobbes argued that in the "state of nature," there are no moral rights, only a chaotic "war of all against all" where individuals have a right to everything, including others' bodies, making life "nasty, brutish, and short". He argued that rights must be surrendered to a sovereign (the state) to create order, making him an opponent of the idea of inalienable rights.

Hobbes is obviously correct; note his reference to (universal) 'moral rights' (eg as delineated in the UN UDHR) as opposed to delusional 'natural rights" of individuals.

Quote:


You suffering from early stage dementia?  Anyway, moving right along....

Quote:


Ah - at last, questions showing how your "rights" and "sovereignty"  delusions cripple your capacity to think.

Answer: there is no difference, of course.

Quote:


So you don't understand how the delusional  concept  of 'individual rights' - which self-interested individuals (who by nature compete with one-another) believe they possess in nature -  are replicated in the delusional "sovereign rights" of  individual  nations which, in the absence of an international rules-based system, aka interntional law, resort to might is right.

Quote:


Oh dear - it's 'mirror time'....

chimera wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 4:45pm:


And you lack the mental competence to even begin to critique his revelations regarding  the reality of the human condition. 

Admittedly it's tricky: delusions by definition are fixed false beliefs not amenable to reason, therefore Hobbes' revelations are excluded/beyond your capacity to think.

However I persist in the expectation that others might be open to Hobbes' (et al) revelations.

Quote:


You've obviously forgotten the pages in which I regularly admonished you to take yourself to the Donbas frontline's mincing machine, a situation deserved by those ruled by their Neanderthal indstincts, and weak-minded enough to follow socalled 'patriotism' (on both sides)  to an untimely death. 

Quote:


Did you miss my answer?

It isn't different; both place themselves above UN sovereignty in internaional affairs.

That's the problem the world is facing, ie lack of a rules-based system aka international law, in a globalized economy. 

And I already explained why China wants to to turn some rocks in the SCS into military bases, ie to defend the UN-recognised One China principle, against delusional US "freedom" freaks.

Quote:


How is the answer I've given - twice now - propaganda?

It's a reasoned response based on Hobbes' (et al) revelations about the human condition, and the need for a system of universal rights based on morality justice and fairness, as delineated in the UN UDHR.

I can hear your non-evolved reptilian brain screaming from here...oh dear

THIS IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

You put them in cuffs and put them on a plane🫡

Thank you for the demonstration @D_Tarczynski


https://x.com/BasilTheGreat/status/2016588253365744096

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 1:43pm:

Relevance??

Where does it say that immigration law applies only if you have committed additional crimes while illegally in the country??
Nowhere.


Do some illegal aliens commit crimes while illegally in the country, including murder, rape, child sex trafficking?

Yes.

Do sanctuary city police hand over such criminals to ICE, so they can be deported?
No.

Why not?

Er.... 'sanctuary city'.

chimera wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 7:03am:


And you resisted every inch of the way a consideration of effective international law, to outlaw war as a means of dispute settlement between nations in the age of MAD.

That's why I now condemn Putin for haggling over  Trumps' peace plan - while Putin is mindlessly sending a thousand of his OWN people to the slaughter on the front-line every month, while Rutte wants to 'defend' Ukraine by supporting Ukraine to mindlessly fight to the last Ukrainian...while Rutte insists the EU needs US weapons.

ie,  in the absence of a rules-based system to prevent or end ongoing war, Trump is the next best thing (since he is CiC of the Pentagon, still the greatest military force in the world).

Quote:


UN res 2758:

The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" (referring to the then Kuomintang regime as the dominant party in the Republic of China, whose central government had retreated to Taiwan from the mainland) from the United Nations.[1]

Note: until recently the ROC based in Taiwan claimed to be the 'sole government of China'; but now, after accepting reality, the Taiwanese themselves are split over whether to claim independence  from China.

Obviously the US-backed "freedom" freaks in Taiwan are the most vociferous in seeking separate nationhood from the mainland.   

Quote:


Awkwardly worded  (caused by your delusional "natural individual rights" and "(individual) national sovereignty" narratives); effective  international law requires ALL nations to surrender that portion of their national sovereignty relating to international relations, to the UN  - which is why effective international law doesn't exist yet.

As for  "....law for PRC is not individual but morality and fairness" (your vague construction); China is in the same postion as all other nations regarding national sovereignty vis a vis international law - which still only exists on paper; but a 'Marxist' state (seeking Marxist 'common prosperity'...."it's the economy. stupid") is more attuned to the reality of the foundation of "rights" ie rights are not 'natural', but founded in law exorting  'moraliy, justice and fairness'.

I'm only intesrted in China in that it offers an alternative to the West's soaring inequality amidst poverty....."freedom",  you see....

And I expect results in the next decade,  otherwise I will condemn the PRC as just another dysfunctional government.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 3:42pm:

Cheap air travel and people smuggling.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 3:46pm:



Cultural death wish.


Freud believed people are driven by two main forces: life instincts (Eros) and death instincts (Thanatos).
Life instincts help people survive and promote positive behaviors, like love and cooperation.
Death instincts can lead to aggression or self-destructive behaviors, like risky actions or revisiting trauma.
https://www.verywellmind.com/life-and-death-instincts-2795847

Frank wrote on Jan 29^th, 2026 at 3:43pm:


OK -  hence Pauline's ON is on a roll.

But how do you deal with cheap air travel and people smuggling, given the pressures on numerous people fleeing war-torn states benighted by poverty and crime?

I presume you want a cheap airline ticket for your next overseas holiday, and  people smugglers are like bootleggers during prohibition.