陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由,毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! 陈凯博客 Kai Chen Blog: www.blogspot.com 陈凯电邮 Kai Chen Email: elecshadow@aol.com 陈凯电话 Kai Chen Telephone: 661-367-7556
Nickname:
Subject:


Message:
[b][/b]
[i][/i]
[u][/u]
[code][/code]
[quote][/quote]
[spoiler][/spoiler]
[url][/url]
[img][/img]
[video][/video]
Smileys
smile
smile2
spook
alien
zunge
rose
shy
clown
devil
death
sick
heart
idee
frage
blush
mad
sad
wink
frown
crazy
grin
hmm
laugh
mund
oh
rolling_eyes
oh2
shocked
cool
[pre][/pre]
Farben
[rot][/rot]
[blau][/blau]
[gruen][/gruen]
[orange][/orange]
[lila][/lila]
[weiss][/weiss]
[schwarz][/schwarz]
Security-Check*
Enter the letters here:

 
*to avoid spam
Attach file

Your reply to

RE: 共后时代的标像符号及语言/一些构想 • Author: fountainheadkc, Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:27 am

RE: 共后时代的标像符号及语言/一些构想
in 陈凯论坛 Kai Chen Forum 不自由,毋宁死! Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Today 1:51 am

by ksk• ( Guest )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 虽然这个网站是你的property,我无权干涉,但我还是希望你能审核通过我在你blog的comment。
"As far as using "Federation" or "States", I think both can be considered."
用F亦可。然而,如果用federation的话,需加个s,i.e. United Federations of XXX,这很重要,这里federations指的是各小entities,因为这样可突显各小entities的主权性和主体性,instead of支那这个大联邦‘s。同时,这亦可以强调新的支那是一个自由加入自由退出的国际组织,而非邦联或联邦。另一方面,由于前面一句话所讲的原因,整个名称前须加一个the Organization of,变为the Organization of United Federations of Cina,这样可从文化上不让人觉得这是一个国家。
“What is your suggestion of the title for the new nation?”
实际上在之前的post已经讲得很清楚了,虽然由于加入了link导致显示有点乱码的感觉,但逻辑是很清楚的。
“America is established by people seeking freedom. China is formed by people seeking "perfect despotism". The premises of both countries are opposite. ”

Dear ksk: Definition of Federalism: "Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based on democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists."

Warlordism often occurs after the downfall of a Chinese dynasty. This is almost inevitable in today's China. But if there is a chance to thwart this phenomenon, a constitutional federalism is the best way. Those who violate the constitution must answer to a legitimately elected central authority. To establish slavery/Communism/Nazism/Fascism in a given "state" will not be allowed. Military force will be used to ensure the sanctity of the constitution based on the Universal Human Values of "truth, justice, liberty and dignity". America will never allow slavery/communism/Nazism to be established in any given state. That is what Constitutional Republic/Federation means. Thanks for your point. America today is still trying to find a balance between the federal power and the state power. Thus an independent judiciary to interpret the Constitution is a must. Kai Chen

2. “To equate China's reality with America's is a huge mistake. To compare China's reality with Germany after WWII is more appropariate.”
尽管你谈到了这个现实上的问题,然而我仍不认为ban能解决问题。除了我上一个post所述的,这里我还补充几点。
1.现在支共如果解体后,面临的大论战将不仅仅是communism的问题。
将还包括更深层次的【1】个体主义与集体主义,【2】支那文化与西方文明,【3】现存的支那伪历史观(包括伪四大发明),【4】现存的伪支那人同血缘同文化论,包括作为其sub-genre的伪汉人同血缘同文化概念等。
这些,加上communism的问题,须在这个大论战中完美解决,这才是未来支那上新独立的诸国未来历史走向的关键点。
虽然我常强调责任只来自个体的主动承担,但是,如果要促使未来支那各国走向life,instead of neon destruction,首先知识阶层主流必须先自己对个体主义和西方文明的优越性和必要性ponder好,以及对【3】【4】的deconstruction做好。
其次,知识阶层主流必须全力以赴的进行这场大论战。而最基本的,是不可以采取ban这种逃避论战的手法来行事(希望你能注意这句话)。

Dear ksk: Germany's ban on Hitler's image and Nazi symbols, along with the Ease Europe's ban on communist symbols are not some idiosyncrasies by someone's whim. There is a deep seated reason behind it. I hope you do some research on why they adopted such measures to ensure the seeds of freedom can finally start to germinate. I concur with your point that China now is in an even more dire spiritual shit-hole, for in China people have never had any immersion into Christianity, not like Germany and Europe. Therefore, the seeds of freedom face much more challenges to germinate in a culture that knows nothing about individuals, values and principles. Decades if not centuries are needed, that is if the moral compass is in place (Christianity), to gradually establish a culture of freedom. If you don't drain the poisonous water from a pond, nothing will grow (not to mention the fish).

"Ban" is not a way to escape competition. It is a way to ensure healthy competition can finally be in place. Poisons and feces can never be presented to people as "meals". Your logic to use feces to "compete" with meals, to use "poison mushrooms" to add to salad to want people to "choose" is a dangerous notion. The premise in your erroneous notion is there is no evil and good, no justice and injustice, no moral absolutes. You need to re-check your premises and your moral compass. I do appreciate your presenting your views so everyone can benefit. Kai Chen

2.当新的政治游戏规则建立的时候,最重要的是在一开始时,即要【1】互相建立对规则的信任,【2】双方皆按规则办事,【3】规则能及时体现真实政治关系和政治需求的变化,即能及时随着真实政治关系和政治需求的变化来修改【4】也是最重要的,规则自己不能自相矛盾。四者在inter-relationship上互为充要条件(Necessary and sufficient condition),只有同时满足四者才能使新的政治的主要部分不会重新变为旧支那的说一套做一套,背后使小辫子的共同烂的所谓“权谋术”。无论你用什么excuses或者是reasons来解释,然而这些人仅仅是因为宣扬某种思想,并没有去真正的做(这亦是现行美国法律对言论自由判断的分界点),然而你已经主张去对其进行罚款甚至forced labour,这本身已让新规则itself关于言论自由的部分陷入了一种自欺和虚伪。这对新的政治游戏规则形成初期造成的冲击是巨大的,也将significant影响新规则的成功。

Dear ksk: Community Service is often used in American court to punish those who violate the laws. And such measure is never voluntary. It is always forced upon those who disrespect the rules. To say a free society is a lawless society is truly self-contradictory. To day politics has no rules is an illusion. To say people will always voluntarily do the right thing is a huge mistake. We are all sinners and a society built by sinners will never be perfect. I sense you are aiming at a "perfect arrangement" based on human good will. You should wake up from such an illusion. Human societies will never be perfect. Those who harbor such illusions often aim to establish despotism without even knowing it. They can always claim after each failure: "My intention is good". To progress toward a hopeful tomorrow, not only do we need our conscience and good will, we especially need our brain and reason - faculties by God. When there is freedom, there will never be peace for many will use freedom to oppress others. When there is freedom, there is never going to be income equity, for freedom allows some to fail while others succeed. When there is freedom, there will always be laws to maintain order. Force is always used to punish those who violate the principles of freedom. I enjoy your enthusiasm but you need to return to the real human condition and China's reality. Most likely China's future may not be determined by the Chinese but by an invasion force after the Chinese Fascism is defeated, much like what happened after Japan's Fascism was defeated by nukes and society's rules rewritten by the Americans. Or if the CCP collapsed by its own weight, the Chinese themselves will most like establish another despotism. So it is most important to foster a culture of freedom now with an thorough understanding of the principles of freedom. Thanks for your point. Kai Chen

3.当然,你关于新支那诸国的文化缺陷的论述(我Quoted的部分)是现实的。然而,这不是我们用ban这种逃避的手法的理由。这种困难,只是增加了解决问题的难度,但不应以此影响我们解决问题的决心,这是重点。因为一旦问题被解决后获得的利益(benefit,中性词)是远远大于不解决问题的利益的,因此我们必须想办法解决之,即使是难度增大亦一样;我的思考逻辑just这么accurate。而人类不断将自己和与自己相关联事务利益最大化的mentality在某种perspective上,是最值得肯定的mentality之一。所以,compare with forbid,in the contrary,我们应该进行1.所述的大论战。我们应在遵守政治游戏规则(包括言论自由的游戏规则)的前提下,进行论战。规则的建立和尊重很重要。你不能让别人遵守规则不耍小辫子,while yourself are trying to break the rule and doing cheat。对规则的信任和遵守不能靠互相指责或互相欺骗获得,相反必须靠真实行为来赢得。

Dear ksk: "Ban" is banning the harmful behaviors to freedom. "Ban" does not mean banning freedom of thinking and debating. I have no argument with you here. To accurately interpret human nature as "imperfect beings" fallible with our "sins" is a must in our debate here. If our premises are too far apart, such debate becomes pointless. We must make sure we stand upon "Christian Principles" that all humans are imperfect sinners. If you don't agree with such a premise, we should stop here, for further "debate" is only playing "word games" to make ourselves feel better. I don't have time for that. Best. Kai Chen

4.在言论自由上设置禁区最容易造成黑箱操作,亦最容易造成权力的迫害。这里的迫害,不仅是指那些的确发表了communism言论(但并没真的去做,没有真的去law breaking)的人受到的以言迫害,更指那些并没发表communism但被权力当局以发表communism言论名义来进行迫害的人所遭到的迫害。
美国过去70年代有一个案子,是和classified相关进行的case,结果被告lawyer(s)根本没法进行辩护,因为一切都是classified,在这种情况下成了一个黑箱,被控方必败无疑,任由控方摆布。

Dear ksk: Communism in the 1940s and 1950s' America was real. The leftists' propaganda of some "communist witch-hunt" has distorted history to have brainwashed many Americans today. Ayn Rand is one example of Hollywood communist persecution. Her "We the Living" could not made a movie in Hollywood for most producers refused to make movies criticizing USSR. "We the Living" was finally made in Fascist Italy. But after a short period, it was banned by the Fascist regime as well, for they discovered its anti-despotism/tyranny nature.

5.今天其可以以communism是XXX(XXX请自想,如“过去的毒素”)为借口(或理由)ban一切与communism相关事务,那么明天其亦可以以conspiracy theory是XXX(XXX请自想,“如散布谣言,扰乱社会秩序”)为借口(或理由)ban一切conspiracy theory相关,后天亦可以以gore scene是XXX(XXX请自想,如“危害儿童健康成长,毒害成年人心智,增加社会暴力”)为借口和谐一切gore scene相关,包括games,virtual reality simulators,films,paints,music videos。第三天则ban porn。第四天ban 反现政府言论。第五天ban weapons,等于解除了个体的反击能力。一旦开了第一个口子,有了一则有二,有了二则有三。结果:1.政府权力将会越来越大2.整个文化和文明将会逐渐受到毁灭性打击,最后变成个新authoritarianism国家或totalitarianism国家。虽然时间可能会长一点,但结果和支那河蟹社会一样。你所推崇的德国现在已经ban了枪,去年,有德国人跟我说,他们甚至连airsoft gun都开始打算ban了;我说,你赶快移民了吧。

“I once wrote an article on "You don't have anti-freedom freedom". If you think Mao is worse than Hitler, you have to agree with my point.”
I do think Mao is worser than Hiltler.However 这是两个话题from different categories(不同的范畴)。我自己亦是共奴支奴出生,personally 我亦against communism,totalitarianism,collectivism,authoritarianism,nationalism;然而我们需理性客观的分析问题,而理性思考问题,分清权利和义务的界限,这正是共奴支奴出生的人所缺少的。
还是前文所述,如果其只是宣扬communism,但没真的去做,并没有law breaking,那么仍属言论自由范畴。这是其的权利。

从genocide的绝对数字来看,别说元首了,即使我们伟大的钢炮哥亦不是猪肉毛的对手。
钢炮哥:An article in the newspaper Pravda in 1988 claimed the word derives from the Old Georgian for "steel" which might be the reason for his adoption of the name Stalin. Сталин ("Stalin") is derived from combining the Russian сталь ("stal"), "steel", with the possessive suffix -ин ("-in"), a formula used by many other Bolsheviks, including Lenin.

“By the way, "Community Service" 劳役服务 is often used in America to punish those who violated the laws. Thanks for your point though. Kai Chen)“
我之前想强调的是对非convicted的强制劳役(我特别指义务兵役)已结束40年。

Dear ksk: If you want to avoid misunderstanding between us, you should use English to communicate with me. How do you want me to translate "Community Service"? I like to listen to your view. Using Chinese to talk often results in meaningless "word games" which I want to avoid. I sense you are a thinking man and have a strong reasoning power. But you have to ask yourself this: What do I believe? Though I like to reason with you, but my reasoning has a strong moral base - there is evil and good in the world; there is right and wrong among humans; there is black and white in our conscience. Laws in a free society are established to protect individual freedom against artificial and arbitrary power from mainly the government. Laws are not established to curb individual freedom. Those who call for violence against human beings must be restrained and punished by law to protect freedom. That is why Mao with his essence of "Power from Guns and Violence" must be "BANNED". There is no question on that point. Naivete should have no place in our debate. Best wishes to you. Kai Chen

“There is no American freedom or German freedom. There is only "Human Freedom".”
请不要用宏大概念代替实际讨论,亦不要用抢占道德制高点(不过你是有意或无意)来代替理性讨论。支那出生的人和美国左派特别喜欢这种方法。上次在美国candidates电视讨论非法墨移大举涌入的问题时,几个candidates本来各述观点,相对而言较理性而有逻辑,然而轮到某democrat发言时,其一抢过话筒即大声吼一句:“There is no Illegal Human!”底下愚人们立刻呼声一片,因为这正中其ethic orgasm的G点。另几个原先发过言的candidates看到这种热烈情况,亦只好苦笑。等于本来一个理性而实际的讨论被这democrat给搅黄了,现在变成抢占道德制高点(moral high ground)和扯宏大概念的谈的竞争了。
老欧洲(德法)自由和美国自由在实际现实的定义中不但有差别,而且差别很大。关于具体差别,前一post已经说得很清楚了。
同时,虽然同为西方,但各国的左右的具体定义亦有差别。比如英国现PM,被label为英国右派。
而这传统英国右派的观念,是包括monarchy cult和等级制在内的,以及对authoritarianism的崇拜,这在美国传统右派中是不可接受的。
同样,英国现PM公开宣称老师有暴力体罚学生的权利(虐待儿童合法),以及扒手完全没人权,这在美国右派中亦是不可接受的。
另外,英国国教提倡忠君,欧洲catholic教会的结构为威权主义(authoritarianism)的一级压一级体制,同时提倡对pope的personal cult,在实际操纵中将pope当成demigod一样来朝拜,有时甚至有十多万人一起朝拜pope的情况,这在美国抗议宗们尤其是baptist的世界(教会里人人平等,人人有解释god的权利)里亦是不可想象的。
英国现在仍还有等级制的礼仪文化,即如一个无爵位的人与一个有爵位的人相见,无爵位的人在社交活动中地位低于有爵位的人,需表示更多敬意给有爵位的人;爵位低的地位在社交活动中低于爵位高的人;而当一个人面对Queen the Parasite,不管有无爵位,都不能直呼其名,还要根据这个人的身份地位对Queen行复杂的礼。这在美国亦是不可以想象的。
至于现在的德国,其柏林的中心仍竖立着一个巨大的马克思恩格斯雕像(当年两德时期柏林亦是西德最左的地方),多条街道以communists的名字命名,左派思想是社会主流,社会主义和communism仍大有市场,至于你谈到的ban nazi的问题请去看此post前面的“5.”。nazi其实是communism的一个分支,zi = socialist,而socialism是马克思定义的communism的一个过渡阶段,丘吉尔亦是这样认为的。同时USSR亦曾大力支援Nazi Germany,包括传授其propaganda和Concentration camp技术。更多:纪录片 The Soviet Story (2008)

至于所谓的德国的重新合并并没有你想象的那么好,现在东西德人self-identify最高分别是的Ossi和Wessi,而不是德国人。

Dear ksk: I sense from this segment that you are aiming not at "making sense" by addressing points. You are aiming at "winning or losing". If what I sense here is the reality by your words and behaviors, we should stop here. "Winning or losing" is never my point in expressing myself here on this forum. "Making sense" and "Knowing right from wrong" is my point. If you want my continued input and communication with you, please do not guess my motive or question my morals. If you continue to do so, I will cut you off here. Are we on the same page?! I bear no ill will toward you. But do not waste my time by questioning my morality and conscience. That is a matter between me and God. Take care. Kai Chen

陈凯博客 Kai Chen Blog: www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com 陈凯电邮 Kai Chen Email: elecshadow@aol.com 陈凯电话 Kai Chen Telephone: 661-367-7556
Visitors
0 Members and 4 Guests are online.

We welcome our newest member: ancientgroundhog
Board Statistics
The forum has 957 topics and 1499 posts.