Propganda and Prophecy

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:13 am

Zhu Jianping I'm afraid, I had forgotten about Zhou Xuan. I had also just read Liu Dun's sgz and was recalling Dong Fu's prophecy

Most that I have read don't give reasoning. I would add the Wei Yan dream one as one that did though
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:46 pm

Links?
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:01 pm

Jianping and Liu Dun sgz's are on xuesangou's site (Wei and Wu), Dong Fu (actually he mentions something in sky when predicting the fall of the Han capital but worth a look anyway) is early on in Liu Yan's sgz. There is also Li Yiqi in Liu Bei annotation 39

Edit: Got more time, Jianping's SGZ and Liu Dun's
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:50 pm

Thanks!
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:42 pm

I meant the similar link plus the fact that I always believed Zhang Yu prophecy was never appropriate.

How many debate do you have that go up to 7 pages.


The Zhang Yu one sure. The similarity I don't recall you doing so

Nowadays? Not that often though this started before 7th page to be fair. I was pointing out this as a problem on page 4

2) And I already countered this previously that it was too far back and I mentioned previously that I only looked past a few pages.

3) Occasionally when they are too far back or too similar to other links? Sure.


You have only said too far back with the Zhang Yu link, nothing else. Again though, you want me to write up a long passage in my free time but yourself are not willing to look up your own posts

Then why do you keep denying you forget?

Err no. Im looking back right now and Im seeing me stating the same thing over and over again which was names as reasoning and the dynasties falling as evidence.


In terms of the names as reasoning I said early on "I agree, problem is we have only one of them being dated. The "source" was mentioned to you but it is Farmer's book, in terms of removing information, only further added explanations of how prophecy worked and bits about Emperor Ling and somebody way back in the past that sets up how the naming thing works." and other times like "The reasoning was the names of Liu Bei and Liu Shan, Qiao Zhou used two examples (like Ling/Xian but also a far earlier one) to build the case of "can prophecy by name", he didn't say Shu's fall was connected to the last Han emperors.", or "He uses two examples to establish the methodology and the worldplay, to provide examples. If you needed those two to understand how it worked (or Farmer's explanation), neither Farmer or myself connected it as Han-Shu connection (as it were). If the prophecy had been "becuase of the Han" then yes, that would be highly relevant but given Duke Mu is the other example, it isn't taken as such." so and so forth.

You never accepted that when but now declaring it is about naming? You spent ages arguing Xian/Ling was vital to it, that the Han connection was key rather then "he was building the case for naming". Bar, once we sorted out the issue of timing of memorial, why did you keep arguing against me and declaring Xian was vital rather then building a case for name prophecy? :?

Long time. I obviously cant give you a number. Lmao no. I never use lmao to say your point is bad. Never. Stop making up things about me and then blaming me for it. Also, its not my fault that only you are taking offense to my lmao. And since when have I used lmao to mock your effort? Didnt we agree that I only use lmao immediately before or after I refute your point. Furthermore, Im not the one going around snipping points and dismissing it entirely. :roll:

You engaging in my point is one thing. You dismissing my point by snipping it and then either dismissing it or bringing up the same question again is another point entirely. These two things are not mutually exclusive. This is in contrast to me who have yet to snip your point and ALWAYS ALWAYS refute your point one by one.

And why do you have to be careful? :wink: Is it perhaps because you do not want to offend a regime based on Han Loyalism in a tense political era where the Han existence was in utmost danger? :wink:

Ehhh. IIRC, According to you way back, the definition of slander is accusing someone of doing or saying something the person never did or say. So not slander but insult is more appropriate. No account state that he gave reasons.

No, only insults, backed with logic plus the links that I gave. Yes. So whats your point, that Im biased in favour of Liu Bei. Im not criticising Zhang Yu because of Liu Bei. I literally claim that Liu Bei execution of Zhang Yu was unjust. Me liking Liu Bei and dissing Zhang Yu are two completely different things and not relevant to our discussion.


Yeah don't worry, very few can remember when but I am surprised given some of the things that needed to be explained to you. Ok explain to me when someone makes a point and you go "I'm laughing my ass off" in immediate response, your meaning is? I'm not making things up about you, I'm merely giving you a heads up on how it can be perceived and why it isn't considered a good idea to go lol (or similar) during lengthy debates. Up to you if you take it or, as seems likely, not that advice.

You don't always refute my point one by one. You often respond by repeating the same thing as last time, you say something but you don't always engage with the actual point brought up. I obviously will try to avoid repeating the same things as past post or already in post, maybe that is where your feeling I have snipped? If not, could you give me some examples (I acknowledge I missed that you wanted me to do the direct Qiao Zhou/Zhang Yu comparison)

Because 1) I'm not a good soothsayer/predictor, 2) while I clearly wouldn't expect to be executed, it is not a good way of getting promotion, 3) if I'm going to make a stand, soothsaying is not where I'm going to do that, 4) predicting Cao Pi's death date at Cao Pi's party (for example) is not something I would be confident enough in myself to do.

Ok insult. Yes like other mystics, no reasons were recorded

Sure, your biased in favour of Liu Bei and you have long been open about that, 99% of the time (bar Zhang Yu basically) it hasn't been an issue. However that the one soothsayer just happens to be the one Liu Bei dislikes? That the one guy you call a dum dum is the one whose death has left a black mark on Liu Bei's reputation? That just happens to be the one soothsayer you object to? I recall you saying the grudge and insult was wrong Liu Bei was an ass for joking about a secretary beard I guess. And holding a grudge for a witty comeback was wrong. Another moment where Liu Bei behaved badly was when he spank that dudes ass. A slight overreaction. but I don't recall you condemning the actual execution till this post?

Yep. Logically speaking, how do you that someone bore a grudge against you especially if they asked you for advice for a campaign and was known to have treated his surbodinates with kindness by accepting surrender then giving ranks plus gifts. 1) Liu Bei SGZ specifically state that which means Zhang Yu wouldnt know that Liu Bei bore a grudge if he hide his emotions. 2) He asked the person he grudged against for advice? 3) And so how would Zhang Yu knew? 4) Zhang Yu pleaded with Liu Bei to know what error he had done. Exactly.

And I refuted that already, which you may also go and read. Yes I know that, and already explained to you why Qiao Zhou had more legitimacy for that when compared to Zhang Yu. Sure.

Dont make up stuff. Im not offended that you snip. Im worried :wink: that I refute your point, you snip them, then ask the same question related to my rebuttal which shows that you never read my rebuttal properly.

And there you go. I literally answer this many times already. Zhang Yu literally did when it came to Liu Bei and East Han.

When the year reaches Geng-zi the realm will change hands. The reign of the Liu house will be over.



Although our lord will gain Yizhou he will lose it nine years later during the Yin-Mao time.”



I have yet to ignore anything lmao. Once again, stop making up stuff. I claim that you never rebutt some stuff not all 7 pages.

I agreed that the execution was wrong lmao. Nahh. Sure. I never said Zhang Yu was wrong. I argued that he was wrong at that time because political realities plus no reasonings. But since all his predictions came true without political realities plus reasonings, he is impressive and correct. Hmmm, how about those that are not backed by political realities and have no reasonings? :wink:


If I beat someone in a battle of wit who is unused to such humiliation and I know I'm going to die a less then happy death, that would make me wary. As a member of his staff and a leading soothsayer, I would be a tad surprised if I was never consulted

1) that doesn't mean every person ever didn't know his emotions 2) Sure. Liu Bei may have held a grudge but why wouldn't he seek the advice of his staff? 3) He hanged around Liu Bei as a staff officer, part of his soothsaying was reading people's bodies 4) I see Zhuge Liang asking, I don't see Zhang Yu? Are you using another source?

Exactly, I'm not as confident as the soothsayers of the three kingdoms era!

Well you responded to it, rebutted no. Of the 7 possible reasons I came up with (as well as pointing out things were not recorded) off the top of my head you answered...
Sure sure. Or maybe he did not give reasonings for prophecy and was not backed by political realities.
So 0 of them. You just refused to engage with possible reasons and just kept the same line as ever.

So I'm like you then :wink:

Sorry, you seem to keep posting a "Zhang Yu predicts fall of dynasty" (which we agree he did) rather then the "attacks legitimacy" quote you keep seeming to think you have. I'm still waiting for that legitimacy quote. Predicting fall is not the same as attacking the legitimacy of the dynasty. Du Qiong and Zhang Yu didn't attack the legitimacy of the dynasty but predicted fall, Qiao Zhou predicted fall and attacked legitimacy.

I do not see how this quote is relevant to the discussion? I agreed that Kong Rong was clear slander to the Wu envoys hence execution by clear slander part. With the clear slander being the badmouthing. Still waiting for rebuttal.


Ok sources agree Kong Rong was friends with people in Wu. However only one source as I understand it has Kong Rong badmouthing Cao Cao to Wu envoys: Chi Lu's list of charges.

I have pointed out those list of charges include an outright lie and that Professor Rafe has questioned the credibility of Chi Lu's claims. Your source for Kong Rong slandering Cao Cao is a desperate hatchet job by Chi Lu who is twisting every little thing he can to try to get enough for Cao Cao to be able to justify killing Kong Rong. Now as I have said before, Kong Rong brought his fate on himself and was a jerk with a death-wish but the actual charges that killed him are slander by Chi Lu (and Cao Cao by allowing that to be the charges)

Because Zhuge Liang was not convinced enough? Like we discussed previously?

Fine. Fair enough. And thanks for rebutting my point instead of just snipping then dismissing it.

1) Yes you did. So... ... just to confirm, your argument is: I disagree with the writer viewpoint(Liu actions is kind) because my viewpoint is different( Liu actions not kind) so the writer is wrong.

2) So you attack the writer instead of his annotation. Very rude of you to attack someone who takes his time to translate and explain Liu Bei biography piece by piece. Lmao. :roll: By the way this does not in any way counter his annontation:

XL: It can be seen here that Liu Bei not only treated his own subordinates generously but also Liu Zhang’s generals and subordinates. We note that Liu Ba, who constantly avoided Liu Bei for many years, was promoted. Everyone was satisfied and Rafe De Crespigny mentions about Liu Bei’s amazing charisma and how he won the alleigance of people from all over China, from his home province of Zhuo (Jian Yong), to Xuzhou (Mi Zhu), the Jingzhou region and now the officials and generals of Yizhou.

3) Guan Zhong is unreliable? :wink: Compared to me and you?

4) No. I object comparisons that are not related to history. Unlike you who frequently use vague terms like "behaviour" to justify your comparisons When I compare political realities of Qiao and Zhang, I use political realities of today with Brexit and Trump. When I compare history( Liu Bei), I use history( Guan Zhong) as reference. Etc etc. Furthermore, now we are arguing kindness, so I use writer opinion, annontation( which admitedlly you have refuted after 2 pages), Guan Zhong and present day definition to back my stand. Im not just asking why our definition of kindness differs. Im also asking why you differ with google definition of kindness:



Sure and given your saying Zhang Yu shouldn't have been executed, that's fine.

In fairness I have pointed out the sgz didn't say it, the annotations didn't say it and only the translator did (rather then after two pages) and that what you were quoting at me didn't say he was being kind repeatedly. Maybe it will help avoid such arguments in future if you can explain why my simply repeating the three passages in that annotation made such a difference?

1) No, I think it would simply be we agree to disagree. Remember I was fighting the idea that the sgz and the historians said it was a kind act and I have long acknowledged we have simply a very genuine disagreement on what counts as kind

2) I actually thought that was a clever attempt there Han, well done. No I feel my wider arguments about kindness which I mentioned across these pages cover it

3) I don't believe I said it was unreliable, I was just giving with your "no stuff outside 3kingdoms" a tease

4) Yet when I do relevant examples, you demand I stop, Your definition of relevant seems to be when you do it but not when I do it

the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.
"he thanked them for their kindness and support"
synonyms: kindliness, kind-heartedness, warm-heartedness, tender-heartedness, goodwill, affectionateness, affection, warmth, gentleness, tenderness, concern, care; More
a kind act.
plural noun: kindnesses
"it would be a kindness on your part to invite her"
synonyms: kind act, good deed, act of kindness, good turn, favour, act of assistance, service, help, aid
"she has done us many a kindness"


Agreed. However your and I definition of kind act (for example) seems to be different.

Let us take gift giving. I think a gift giving is kindness if done with no serious thought of reward, with care and consideration, with proper thought and becuase you want to give them something that makes them happy. If the gift goes wrong, then it is one's duty to try and make up for that but the intent of the gift was kind. One can be obliged (say anniversary or your secret santa) but as long as you do it with such care, consideration and not caring about what you get in return, it is kind.

If you give gift in hopes of sex, a future favour, a future promotion, to share in the gift, to curry favour, simply doing your obligation (or your job), becuase of fear of the consequences if you don't then it isn't kind, doing it improperly. Your doing it to benefit yourself, that isn't kind.

Whereas for you, simply the act of gift giving is kind whatever the (bar, I'm guessing, more extreme ones) motives

Is Liu Bei accepting surrender of enemies a form of favour? Yes.

Is Liu Bei giving gifts to said individuals a form of generosity? Yes.

Is Liu Bei giving them ranks after said individuals were alienated by previous regime a form of affection? Yes.

So is Liu Bei accepting surrender of enemy forces and treating them nicely kindness? Yes.

Feel free to rebutt.


1) Liu Bei not activity seeking to shaft himself is not kindness, it is common sense

2) Not when done to win favour

3) No. That is doing his job and good PR. I'm fully willing to praise the quality of the work he is doing there, not to call it kind

4) No, that is good warlordship.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Han » Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:35 pm

The Zhang Yu one sure. The similarity I don't recall you doing so

Nowadays? Not that often though this started before 7th page to be fair. I was pointing out this as a problem on page 4


The kongming one which was exactly the same bar the sentence structure and Lady Wu 'misspoken words'.

Point still stands. Few arguments go beyond 3 pages.

You have only said too far back with the Zhang Yu link, nothing else. Again though, you want me to write up a long passage in my free time but yourself are not willing to look up your own posts

Then why do you keep denying you forget?


Hmm, I only want you to source your claims. You chose the book but left out information. I then request that you fill it out. I did looked back for both our posts for Zhang Yu once and Kong Ronf twice.

You are right. I apologise for keep claiming that I never forgot when I did forgot. That was completely wrong of me. But I still stand in my defense that I never forgot the Kong Rong part and mixed up the Zhang Yu links.

In terms of the names as reasoning I said early on "I agree, problem is we have only one of them being dated. The "source" was mentioned to you but it is Farmer's book, in terms of removing information, only further added explanations of how prophecy worked and bits about Emperor Ling and somebody way back in the past that sets up how the naming thing works." and other times like "The reasoning was the names of Liu Bei and Liu Shan, Qiao Zhou used two examples (like Ling/Xian but also a far earlier one) to build the case of "can prophecy by name", he didn't say Shu's fall was connected to the last Han emperors.", or "He uses two examples to establish the methodology and the worldplay, to provide examples. If you needed those two to understand how it worked (or Farmer's explanation), neither Farmer or myself connected it as Han-Shu connection (as it were). If the prophecy had been "becuase of the Han" then yes, that would be highly relevant but given Duke Mu is the other example, it isn't taken as such." so and so forth.

You never accepted that when but now declaring it is about naming? You spent ages arguing Xian/Ling was vital to it, that the Han connection was key rather then "he was building the case for naming". Bar, once we sorted out the issue of timing of memorial, why did you keep arguing against me and declaring Xian was vital rather then building a case for name prophecy? :?


When I meant dynasties I meant Duke Mu state and the East Han state.

Never accepted what? I never accepted you leaving out information. Because Xian and Ling was vital? Qiao Zhou argued Duke Mu and the East Han specifically mentioning Duke Mu sons names and Ling sons names as examples and their dynasties falling as evidence. And then proceed to use the Shu Han names as reason why they will fall. Thats the connection.

Yeah don't worry, very few can remember when but I am surprised given some of the things that needed to be explained to you. Ok explain to me when someone makes a point and you go "I'm laughing my ass off" in immediate response, your meaning is? I'm not making things up about you, I'm merely giving you a heads up on how it can be perceived and why it isn't considered a good idea to go lol (or similar) during lengthy debates. Up to you if you take it or, as seems likely, not that advice.

You don't always refute my point one by one. You often respond by repeating the same thing as last time, you say something but you don't always engage with the actual point brought up. I obviously will try to avoid repeating the same things as past post or already in post, maybe that is where your feeling I have snipped? If not, could you give me some examples (I acknowledge I missed that you wanted me to do the direct Qiao Zhou/Zhang Yu comparison)

Because 1) I'm not a good soothsayer/predictor, 2) while I clearly wouldn't expect to be executed, it is not a good way of getting promotion, 3) if I'm going to make a stand, soothsaying is not where I'm going to do that, 4) predicting Cao Pi's death date at Cao Pi's party (for example) is not something I would be confident enough in myself to do.

Ok insult. Yes like other mystics, no reasons were recorded

Sure, your biased in favour of Liu Bei and you have long been open about that, 99% of the time (bar Zhang Yu basically) it hasn't been an issue. However that the one soothsayer just happens to be the one Liu Bei dislikes? That the one guy you call a dum dum is the one whose death has left a black mark on Liu Bei's reputation? That just happens to be the one soothsayer you object to? I recall you saying the grudge and insult was wrong Liu Bei was an ass for joking about a secretary beard I guess. And holding a grudge for a witty comeback was wrong. Another moment where Liu Bei behaved badly was when he spank that dudes ass. A slight overreaction. but I don't recall you condemning the actual execution till this post?


Not all internet forums have rules for explicit words. Granted, its my fault for not looking for the rules in the first place. My meaning for lmao is laughing my ass out. Aka haha. Thats it. If its not backed by any points, feel free to take it as an insult... but if I immediately state my points before a lmao or after a lmao... then.. Again, you seem to be the only one having an issue with it.

Obviously I occassionally forgot to refute all your points. But I never snipped any and dismiss them. Sometimes, my point was already made, but because you snip and dismiss I posted them again. You can take a look at what you snipped and see if you had rebutt my point. Most of the time... ... ...

1) Zhang Yu was literally praised by everyone in his own time to be a good soothsayer/predictor. He also believed his prediction about his death. 2) And because insulting a dude who pays your salary without providing any reasons... 3) Then Zhang Yu should not be expected to be taken seriously if his not going to make a stand or even give a reason. 4) And insulting a Dynasty in a tense political situation...

Only Zhang Yu. His not a mystic. His a dumb dumb predictior.

Not really no. Someone who is biased would defend Liu Bei including his failures, errors and flaws. I have criticised Liu Bei many many times. When Sun Fin called Liu Bei a top ten general. I disagree wholeheartedly. When you asked me for examples of Liu Bei being an ass, I gave them with no excuse. Etc etc. The soothsayer that isnt backed by political realities or any reasoning? Hell yeah. You never asked me anything about Liu Bei until that post. How can I tell anybody about Liu Bei when noone asked me about Liu Bei until that very post. When you did ask, I did criticise... so... ... ...

If I beat someone in a battle of wit who is unused to such humiliation and I know I'm going to die a less then happy death, that would make me wary. As a member of his staff and a leading soothsayer, I would be a tad surprised if I was never consulted

1) that doesn't mean every person ever didn't know his emotions 2) Sure. Liu Bei may have held a grudge but why wouldn't he seek the advice of his staff? 3) He hanged around Liu Bei as a staff officer, part of his soothsaying was reading people's bodies 4) I see Zhuge Liang asking, I don't see Zhang Yu? Are you using another source?

Exactly, I'm not as confident as the soothsayers of the three kingdoms era!


And how would Zhang Yu knew that Liu Bei would be unused to humilitation? Assumptions again...

1) Liu Bei was a master of deception, cunning and propaganda. We are told that he preferred to keep his emotions to himself. I find it highly unlikely he would display his emotions in public because of a joke. 2) You are arguing that Zhang Yu knew Liu Bei bore a grudge. Im arguing that Zhang Yu would not know Liu Bei bore a grudge considering that Liu Bei kept him around and asked him for advice. 3) Liu Bei left him when he went off to Hanzhong and immediately executed him when he came back. Zhang Yu also went around telling people privately about his predictions. He most certainly did not hang around. And you are basing this off what? That his soothsaying had zero reasons? Lmao. 4) I had a brain fart apologies. But point still stands, Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei closest companion bar his fictional sworn brothers did not even know that Liu Bei bore a grudge, so how would Zhang Yu knew.

Zhang Yu was confident.

Well you responded to it, rebutted no. Of the 7 possible reasons I came up with (as well as pointing out things were not recorded) off the top of my head you answered...
Sure sure. Or maybe he did not give reasonings for prophecy and was not backed by political realities.
So 0 of them. You just refused to engage with possible reasons and just kept the same line as ever.

So I'm like you then :wink:

Sorry, you seem to keep posting a "Zhang Yu predicts fall of dynasty" (which we agree he did) rather then the "attacks legitimacy" quote you keep seeming to think you have. I'm still waiting for that legitimacy quote. Predicting fall is not the same as attacking the legitimacy of the dynasty. Du Qiong and Zhang Yu didn't attack the legitimacy of the dynasty but predicted fall, Qiao Zhou predicted fall and attacked legitimacy.


Oh I definitely rebutt your point. I never dismiss them.

When have I snipped?

I did wayyy back and many many times. Liu Bei regime existed based on Han loyalism and even loyalty to him. By predicting that the Han would fall and Liu Bei would die with no reasons and tense political situation, is attacking the legitimacy of Liu Bei regime and existence. Du Qiong gave his reasons, Qiao Zhou did too and was even backed by political realities.

Ok sources agree Kong Rong was friends with people in Wu. However only one source as I understand it has Kong Rong badmouthing Cao Cao to Wu envoys: Chi Lu's list of charges.

I have pointed out those list of charges include an outright lie and that Professor Rafe has questioned the credibility of Chi Lu's claims. Your source for Kong Rong slandering Cao Cao is a desperate hatchet job by Chi Lu who is twisting every little thing he can to try to get enough for Cao Cao to be able to justify killing Kong Rong. Now as I have said before, Kong Rong brought his fate on himself and was a jerk with a death-wish but the actual charges that killed him are slander by Chi Lu (and Cao Cao by allowing that to be the charges)


The Sanguozhi has

Thirteenth year [208], Róng met Sūn Quán’s envoy, said mocking and slanderous words [about Tàizǔ], and met with execution. His two sons were eight years old, at the time playing chess, when Róng was arrested, they sat upright and did not rise. Their attendants said: “Your father has been seized, why do you not rise?” The two sons said: “When the nest is destroyed how are there eggs not destroyed?” Therefore they both were killed.


Its in the SanGuoZhi... ... ...

Sure and given your saying Zhang Yu shouldn't have been executed, that's fine.

In fairness I have pointed out the sgz didn't say it, the annotations didn't say it and only the translator did (rather then after two pages) and that what you were quoting at me didn't say he was being kind repeatedly. Maybe it will help avoid such arguments in future if you can explain why my simply repeating the three passages in that annotation made such a difference?

1) No, I think it would simply be we agree to disagree. Remember I was fighting the idea that the sgz and the historians said it was a kind act and I have long acknowledged we have simply a very genuine disagreement on what counts as kind

2) I actually thought that was a clever attempt there Han, well done. No I feel my wider arguments about kindness which I mentioned across these pages cover it

3) I don't believe I said it was unreliable, I was just giving with your "no stuff outside 3kingdoms" a tease

4) Yet when I do relevant examples, you demand I stop, Your definition of relevant seems to be when you do it but not when I do it


Sure.

Which doesnt rebutt anything, it did and only you dont accept it until you made it clear why, he did and only you dont accept it, I did and it showed that they felt satisfied and pleased. So you did respond but did not rebutt. :D It helped because instead of just saying why the sgz/annontations/translator point of view was wrong(response), you actually gave reasonings(rebuttal) unlike say... Zhang Yu.

1) Sure. Yes you did. The Sgz did hint at it by saying all were satisfied.

2) I dont understand what this mean. No it doesnt. You still have not rebutt the translator annontation.

3) Then rebutt it. Sure, except that I already made the argument that outside of the 3k works only if its related? Like political situations of now vs political situation of 3k and that comparing is ok like when Guan Zhong definition of kindness plus translator definition of kindness plus google definition of kindness seem to agree more or less with one another... ... ...

4) You use human nature as your argument. How is human nature of 21st century west relevant to human nature of ancient china?! In fact, human nature is such a vague term that even the different philosophers of China interpret it differently! Meanwhile, the definition of kindness of Guan Zhong, google, and the translator more or less agree with one another. And people being wary of their country's political status is common throughout the history of menkind, especially when their country is in a bad shape.

Agreed. However your and I definition of kind act (for example) seems to be different.

Let us take gift giving. I think a gift giving is kindness if done with no serious thought of reward, with care and consideration, with proper thought and becuase you want to give them something that makes them happy. If the gift goes wrong, then it is one's duty to try and make up for that but the intent of the gift was kind. One can be obliged (say anniversary or your secret santa) but as long as you do it with such care, consideration and not caring about what you get in return, it is kind.

If you give gift in hopes of sex, a future favour, a future promotion, to share in the gift, to curry favour, simply doing your obligation (or your job), becuase of fear of the consequences if you don't then it isn't kind, doing it improperly. Your doing it to benefit yourself, that isn't kind.

Whereas for you, simply the act of gift giving is kind whatever the (bar, I'm guessing, more extreme ones) motives


And google.

Sure? I dont even know what Im suppose to be reading here and how to respond to this paragraph.

And nowhere does it state that Liu Bei gave gifts out of fear of consequences. If thats the case, why did he gave promotions along with said gifts? Even what consequences were there to fear considering that most of them surrendered to him willingly before even the siege or immediately after the siege.

Or things isnt so black and white like you try to paint it.

1) Liu Bei not activity seeking to shaft himself is not kindness, it is common sense

2) Not when done to win favour

3) No. That is doing his job and good PR. I'm fully willing to praise the quality of the work he is doing there, not to call it kind

4) No, that is good warlordship.


1) And kindness and common sense is not mutually exclusive.

2) Sanguozhi uses celebration as reason...

3) Good work and kindness is not mutually exclusive.

4) Great warlordship that does not include murder plus kindness is not mutually exclusive.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Scholar
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:48 am

The kongming one which was exactly the same bar the sentence structure and Lady Wu 'misspoken words'.

Point still stands. Few arguments go beyond 3 pages.


In the old days where that wasn't uncommon

Hmm, I only want you to source your claims. You chose the book but left out information. I then request that you fill it out. I did looked back for both our posts for Zhang Yu once and Kong Ronf twice.

You are right. I apologise for keep claiming that I never forgot when I did forgot. That was completely wrong of me. But I still stand in my defense that I never forgot the Kong Rong part and mixed up the Zhang Yu links.


one Source actually around=chose? Really? Yet you missed things which is concerning. I did source it and no didn't leave out relevant information

I think I have seen what happened with the Kong Rong one, we very much talking at cross purposes and misunderstood each other so I'll withdraw that you forgot.

2) And I already countered this previously that it was too far back and I mentioned previously that I only looked past a few pages.

3) Occasionally when they are too far back or too similar to other links? Sure.


4 pages is not too far back


When I meant dynasties I meant Duke Mu state and the East Han state.

Never accepted what? I never accepted you leaving out information. Because Xian and Ling was vital? Qiao Zhou argued Duke Mu and the East Han specifically mentioning Duke Mu sons names and Ling sons names as examples and their dynasties falling as evidence. And then proceed to use the Shu Han names as reason why they will fall. Thats the connection.


Don't worry, I know what you mean with dynasties

Ok. As a dyslexic who finds copying out of a book onto screen actually quite hard, it takes longer then it should and then need to do something else if doing it too long. Since we were on a debate about Liu Bei prophecy, I copied out the bit of the prophecy about Liu Bei and Shu, the relevant bits as that is what the prophecy is about. Not the preamble that establishes that naming prophecy works, that is the only bit where Mu and the Han Emperors are vital, not the Liu Bei/Shan bit. Since the discussion was not on naming prophecies or how it worked, I left those bits out. Leaves the passage shorter and more readable, all relevant bits in

I'll acknowledge that two other historians doing the exact same thing of going down to Liu Bei/Shan passage only is a complete fluke, I only discovered that afterwards.

Not all internet forums have rules for explicit words. Granted, its my fault for not looking for the rules in the first place. My meaning for lmao is laughing my ass out. Aka haha. Thats it. If its not backed by any points, feel free to take it as an insult... but if I immediately state my points before a lmao or after a lmao... then.. Again, you seem to be the only one having an issue with it.

Obviously I occassionally forgot to refute all your points. But I never snipped any and dismiss them. Sometimes, my point was already made, but because you snip and dismiss I posted them again. You can take a look at what you snipped and see if you had rebutt my point. Most of the time... ... ...

1) Zhang Yu was literally praised by everyone in his own time to be a good soothsayer/predictor. He also believed his prediction about his death. 2) And because insulting a dude who pays your salary without providing any reasons... 3) Then Zhang Yu should not be expected to be taken seriously if his not going to make a stand or even give a reason. 4) And insulting a Dynasty in a tense political situation...

Only Zhang Yu. His not a mystic. His a dumb dumb predictior.

Not really no. Someone who is biased would defend Liu Bei including his failures, errors and flaws. I have criticised Liu Bei many many times. When Sun Fin called Liu Bei a top ten general. I disagree wholeheartedly. When you asked me for examples of Liu Bei being an ass, I gave them with no excuse. Etc etc. The soothsayer that isnt backed by political realities or any reasoning? Hell yeah. You never asked me anything about Liu Bei until that post. How can I tell anybody about Liu Bei when noone asked me about Liu Bei until that very post. When you did ask, I did criticise... so... ... ...


I didn't say all forums as I'm aware different types of forums have very different rules but the sosz type forums in my expirence all have no swearing rules. I'm aware of lmao actually means (though here it is off rather then out) but again, why are you laughing? Again the issue isn't whether you then put a serious point or not afterwards (I have acknowledged you always do), that doesn't turn the lmao into irrelevance. Again I'm merely passing on advise gained from years on these kind of forums where there have been problems in past, take it or leave it

So you again want me to do all your work for you

You asked about what I would do. 1) Glad your admitting Zhang Yu was good at his job which he can't if he is a dumb dumb 2) The insult was before Liu Bei was his lord and due to Liu Bei's insult 3) again, talking about me and I would rather make a stand on something other then prophecy 4) pedicting fall isn't an insult

Yes, my error for using term mystic. My point stands, just swap mystic for soothsayer

You spent post after post defending Liu Bei and never once went "I know Liu Bei did this wrong" during those times when you could have. I asked simply becuase you never made a moral criticism and was defending him on some bizarre stuff. You still haven't told me when you said Zhang Yu's execution was wrong

You still also haven't told me which soothsayers/predictors was wrong. It is still somehow just the one guy that makes Liu Bei look bad that you call wrong, that you slander and abuse.

And how would Zhang Yu knew that Liu Bei would be unused to humilitation? Assumptions again...

1) Liu Bei was a master of deception, cunning and propaganda. We are told that he preferred to keep his emotions to himself. I find it highly unlikely he would display his emotions in public because of a joke. 2) You are arguing that Zhang Yu knew Liu Bei bore a grudge. Im arguing that Zhang Yu would not know Liu Bei bore a grudge considering that Liu Bei kept him around and asked him for advice. 3) Liu Bei left him when he went off to Hanzhong and immediately executed him when he came back. Zhang Yu also went around telling people privately about his predictions. He most certainly did not hang around. And you are basing this off what? That his soothsaying had zero reasons? Lmao. 4) I had a brain fart apologies. But point still stands, Zhuge Liang, Liu Bei closest companion bar his fictional sworn brothers did not even know that Liu Bei bore a grudge, so how would Zhang Yu knew.

Zhang Yu was confident.


True but why would Zhang Yu assume that a famed figure like Liu Bei who warlords need to keep onside is used to getting verbal humiliation?

1) He was. He was also human and Zhang Yu's trade involved reading peple, 2) I'm arguing it is possible Zhang Yu knew, I'm open to the idea he didn't. Why wouldn't Liu Bei have a man he knows is a famed soothsayer around? 3) Zhang Yu was on Liu Bei's personal staff, one would assume Liu Bei's personal staff would be with Liu Bei at various times. As for reading bodies, that was part of his trade as a physiognomist. 4) Or he thought the reasoning given was ridiculous

Sure but again, you asked about me

In fairness to the three Shu soothsayers, none of them went to court and declared the doom to the emperor.

Oh I definitely rebutt your point. I never dismiss them.

When have I snipped?

I did wayyy back and many many times. Liu Bei regime existed based on Han loyalism and even loyalty to him. By predicting that the Han would fall and Liu Bei would die with no reasons and tense political situation, is attacking the legitimacy of Liu Bei regime and existence. Du Qiong gave his reasons, Qiao Zhou did too and was even backed by political realities.


You responded to 0 of the point I made about reasoning. That may explain the confusion, I consider rebuttal to make an argument against the points raised but sometimes when I do that you are unhappy over that. You seem to consider repeating what you have said in past and not addressing the points as a rebuttal

I was more referring to then ask the same question related to my rebuttal which shows that you never read my rebuttal properly.

Yes and when pointed out that isn't about legitimacy, you keep ignoring that and repeating the same point. Predicting fall is not legitimacy, Du Qiong and Zhang Yu are not attacking legitmacy. I have explained why Qiao Zhou's is different

The Sanguozhi has

Thirteenth year [208], Róng met Sūn Quán’s envoy, said mocking and slanderous words [about Tàizǔ], and met with execution. His two sons were eight years old, at the time playing chess, when Róng was arrested, they sat upright and did not rise. Their attendants said: “Your father has been seized, why do you not rise?” The two sons said: “When the nest is destroyed how are there eggs not destroyed?” Therefore they both were killed.



Its in the SanGuoZhi... ... ...


That would have been helpful several pages ago :wink: I hadn't seen that passage before, that annotation seems to be accepted by Professor Rafe in his tome so sure, I accept Kong Rong slandered Wei to Wu and on that he deserves execution. Chi Lu's charges were still bull on plenty of other fronts but not on that one

Heads up though, the sgz is unhelpful an answer. Kong Rong's sgz makes it clear where people can find it

Sure.

Which doesnt rebutt anything, it did and only you dont accept it until you made it clear why, he did and only you dont accept it, I did and it showed that they felt satisfied and pleased. So you did respond but did not rebutt. :D It helped because instead of just saying why the sgz/annontations/translator point of view was wrong(response), you actually gave reasonings(rebuttal) unlike say... Zhang Yu.

1) Sure. Yes you did. The Sgz did hint at it by saying all were satisfied.

2) I dont understand what this mean. No it doesnt. You still have not rebutt the translator annontation.

3) Then rebutt it. Sure, except that I already made the argument that outside of the 3k works only if its related? Like political situations of now vs political situation of 3k and that comparing is ok like when Guan Zhong definition of kindness plus translator definition of kindness plus google definition of kindness seem to agree more or less with one another... ... ...

4) You use human nature as your argument. How is human nature of 21st century west relevant to human nature of ancient china?! In fact, human nature is such a vague term that even the different philosophers of China interpret it differently! Meanwhile, the definition of kindness of Guan Zhong, google, and the translator more or less agree with one another. And people being wary of their country's political status is common throughout the history of menkind, especially when their country is in a bad shape.


How does pointing out that none of what your claiming exists not count as a rebuttal? You can read the passage. It literally at no point says it is kind. My simply repeating what is there doesn't change that you can read the passage unless you have misunderstood the passage. I din't give reasoning here, I simply states "these are the three annotations"

1) Of course people were pleased. That doesn't make it kind. If I promote someone as would be my job, that person is likely to be pleased. It isn't an act of kindness by me. If I give a gift to curry favour and get the right gift then that person will be pleased, that I do it to gain their favour means I wasn't being kind. If someone gives me a gift bar the extreme end (like room for sex scandal we have here) then I would be pleased despite the motive

2) The attempt to link it up with my past comments. That is his personal view, I have said several times why I feel the act wasn't kind

3) Why? It is his view, he is trying to encourage good rule. But I would argue my points were related but you always then demand I don't do it, the only ones you seem to accept are your own.

4) Your using human nature with Brexit and Trump

Sure people will always disagree on human nature within the same time period. We do, philosophers have and I suspect always will do. I have no issue with you believing the act was kind, just your claims the sgz and annotations themselves say it

And google.

Sure? I dont even know what Im suppose to be reading here and how to respond to this paragraph.

And nowhere does it state that Liu Bei gave gifts out of fear of consequences. If thats the case, why did he gave promotions along with said gifts? Even what consequences were there to fear considering that most of them surrendered to him willingly before even the siege or immediately after the siege.

Or things isnt so black and white like you try to paint it.


I'm trying to help flesh out my views of kindness.

He had used gifts to curry favour before and it is a common way of gaining favour. He is a warlord who just got some land and an officer core, why would he not begin filling his government? I'm not saying he feared but he is trying to unify a new realm under him including Liu Zhang loyalists (speaking of which, there was a kind act when he refused to press a Liu Zhang loyalist hard during the war out of respect), doubters, and those who had joined expecting better things and might be a bit annoyed if that better thing doesn't happen.

I'm not trying to paint it black and white

1) And kindness and common sense is not mutually exclusive.

2) Sanguozhi uses celebration as reason...

3) Good work and kindness is not mutually exclusive.

4) Great warlordship that does not include murder plus kindness is not mutually exclusive.


1) It isn't but doing something for yourself isn't kind

2) That is more timing

3) If I'm doing my job, how am I being kind. It is literally what I am being paid to do

4) Doing something where refusing to do it is just plain stupid and going to harm yourself, that isn't kindness. Refusing to accept those surrenders would make him a complete and utter idiot
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:33 pm

Edit: Post messed up. Ignore!
Last edited by Jia Nanfeng on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Assistant
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:52 pm

Jia, you have quoted a whole post, I'm not sure if there is something you meant to say and it got lost in the quote?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15877
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Propganda and Prophecy

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:52 pm

I'm not sure why that happened. :? I did type a few things in reply but apparently it got eaten.

Sorry! I'll edit the post so it's not such an eyesore. Or you can delete it. :P
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Assistant
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved