陈凯博客： www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Kai Chen's response to ksk's message:
陈凯关于共后构想回复读者

Dear ksk:

Thanks for your thoughtful message. I appreciate it. I now respond to each point you make here. Please see the response following each point:

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 9:03 am

by ksk• ( Guest )

“1. 国号：

首先，我不认为有重新强制性设立一个新的被迫合并的国家的需要。即使按照现在支那任何除北京之外的多数个体的真实意见，亦是互相仇恨，互相排斥，互相基于小圈子如家门，街道，乡，县，市，省，甚至不同companies（or corps.），不同兴趣爱好，来划分亲近关系和拉拢打击欺压的居多。
至于北京人，他们亦是这样仇恨排挤打压，但在中央集权体制下他们可能会是首都，以及在现今事实下其作为体制中最高等人的情况，其可能会支持搞一个新的中央集权实体。

The New Nation's Title:

My Own View: United Federation of East Asia (UFEA) ”

此名字仍有待商酌。

原因：

1.新名需突出各entities的主体性和主权性，以对抗支那二千年的大一统和中央集权思想，以及集体主义；那么，在命名上即应该体现出这一点。
因此，命名上应该改Federation为States。如果新的政治实体们的确是以英语为official language，那么它们应该，也必须培养各国意识，那么如果用这个词，可以使它们在文化上培养新的各国意识。

同时，在constitution上，可以直接照搬USA的，但必须加上两条：

（1）新的政治实体组合不为邦联亦不为联邦，而是属于自由加入自由离开的国际组织。包括一开始的加入或不加入亦是自由的。各国享有完全的主权。（此一条款另一方面亦可解决如今美国联邦中央政府规模和权力不断扩大的问题）
（2）如果此政治实体组合内的任一实体或任一些实体们的自由离去权被此国际组织所阻止，此一实体或此一些实体们有完全的权利进行一切包括武装手段的反抗。

另外，还是关于这个east asia。我认为这个名字要不得。因为太广了。支那一向有大中华（大支那猪圈）主义，包括这种主义相关的政治策略和文化。这种主义，不但想把现在的支那纳入其统治，亦想将整个东亚纳入其统治。而此种命名，将会在文化上为新政治实体们继续埋下这一文化毒根。举个例子，对于相当多的普通支人来说，“南支那海”的这个名字已足以让其在文化上觉得南支那海（包括其岛屿们）天生即是支那的。这也是为什么前几个月www.change.org有个投票，主要是东南亚国家人，想改“南支那海”为“南亚洲海”的原因。同样，“东支那海”须改为“东亚洲海”。
我认为新名的要点：

1.不能用老名：中华（支那），原因同下，另一原因是不能与支那淫民共咳国或支那冥国扯上关系。
2.不能带“中”字（废除支文化的世界中心观念）
3.既然是英语为official language，那么cina或china皆可
4.在完全支语向完全英语的过渡阶段，需要用一个新的支文名字，不能让支人看到china即联想到“中国”。需建立新的英-支联想。华夏（虽然我认为其配不上此二字所代表的原意），震旦，唐土，（此二名为古代日本对支称呼）皆可；但我认为最好的名字莫不过于“支那”
1.支那二字语源自cina，本身与cina，china同根（这样可在语言过渡时期的英语-支语关联上达到一种同源性）
2.其本身意义亦无侮辱性，在一开始的历史阶段亦无侮辱性。在古代，不但日本人称支那为支那，支那人自己亦称支那为支那，请看唐玄宗《题梵书》一诗：“鹤立蛇形势未休，五天文字鬼神愁。支那弟子无言语，穿耳胡僧笑点头。”在近代，支那一词在日支两国都曾经不是侮辱性的词。相反，还有些褒义。一如明治维新志士高杉晋作的汉诗“单身尝到支那邦，火舰飞走大东洋。交语汉鞑与英佛，欲舍我短学彼长”。支那当时的留学生，尤其是反对清朝统治的革命家们，也以支那标志出身国。1902年，章太炎等在日本东京发起《支那亡国二百四十二年纪念会》。1904年，宋教仁在东京创办了名叫《二十世纪之支那》的杂志。梁启超在1899年写的《忧国与爱国》中也有日本人称支那人为“支那人”的纪录。另如孙中山的革命伙伴，日本人梅屋庄吉，在辛亥革命成功后在日本发起成立“支那共和国公认期成同盟会”，敦促日本政府承认支那冥国，此时的支那也显然没有侮辱之意。
支那此词之所以变成一个侮辱性的词，完全是由于两次日支战争时，日本不愿称支那为带有极端愚蠢的支那中心主义和蔑视他国（大中华主义：大中华圈【支本土】小中华圈【朝鲜越南】，蛮夷圈【日本和其它东亚国】，禽兽圈【东亚之外】http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E...#65289;的“中华”，因此支那一词在支那人那里成了贬义词。你亦可以说这是一种由于支那人极端狭隘和封闭的意淫而造成的贬义词。
更多：http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%94%AF%E9%82%A3_(%E6%97%A5%E8%AF%AD)
3.在为“支那”这一支那人自己搞出来的贬义词来正名的时候，亦可顺便破解与这个词相关的如大支那主义，和仇日complex。
4.不必担心普通支人对这个新名字的接受度。在大破之时，只要有知识阶层的主流的引领（虽然我不喜欢用引领这种精英主义的文化背景的词，不过这是支那的事实），普通人重新接受这个词是不难的。何况这个词本身亦的确没有侮辱义，同时如前所述曾经在古代和近代都是中性偏褒义的词，最重要的是古代和近代的支那人都认同这个词。

(Dear ksk: Most of your points are well made. Using Chinese language to formulate titles and names is often misleading. All the Chinese words must be backed by English definitions. As far as using "Federation" or "States", I think both can be considered. I appreciate your opinion on this important issue and I welcome everyone's imput. By the way, to comment on what you don't want is NOT enough. You must present your vision of what kind future China should have. What is your suggestion of the title for the new nation? Best. Kai Chen)

“9. 禁毛像与共产标像符号：”

这点完全无法认同。

原因：
既然是个自由的国家，那么言论自由必须保证。言论自由并不代表只去保护“在某种价值观下认为是正确或者是真理”的言论；相反，美国的言论自由的意义是要让所有言论都能说出来（当然别人愿不愿意听是另一回事）
同时，这将牵涉到4个问题：

1.言论自由的目的论或手段论

你是把言论自由作为达到“在某种价值观下认为是正确或者是真理”的手段；还是言论自由本身即是目的？
如果只是作为手段，那一旦出现如猪肉毛或希特勒这样的人物，或者某一种党派或势力，它完全可以以“终极真理已经掌握，不再需要言论自由”的理由来废除言论自由。

(Dear ksk: America is established by people seeking freedom. China is formed by people seeking "perfect despotism". The premises of both countries are opposite. To allow Mao's image (the biggest mass murderer in human history) to exist after the downfall of the communist regime is a travesty of universal proportion. In a country that is founded on freedom, America allows the existence of Nazi Party and Communist Party, for the deep seated culture of freedom will never allow such perversion of human mind/soul to flourish in America. Yet in China the case if opposite. The entire history and culture of China is founded on despotism/tyranny. To foster the seedling of freedom, the poisonous soil must be replaced/cleansed. To legislate banning of Mao's image and communist symbols is a must. Along with such banning, all the communist officials that committed anti-humanity crimes/atrocities must be brought to justice in the court of law. Thus legistation of such laws in the first place is also a must. I cannot see a picture that the trial of communist officials is held under Mao's portrait of the Chinese red flags. Best. Kai Chen)

2.你自己本身的逻辑问题。

一个人不能一边不断的宣扬言论自由，but meanwhile以某种理由来宣扬限制言论自由。这本身即是一个逻辑混乱的问题。
我能部分的（现在的一般情况下，世界上没有一个人能100%的理解另一个人）理解你对communism的感情，但这个问题请你用英语，用理性来思考。
“立法宣布在公共场合展示毛像及共产标志（如镰刀斧头，中共国旗等等）为非法，如同今日德国立法宣布在公共场合展示希特勒像与纳粹符为非法一样。”
如果某些个体和组织只是宣扬某种思想，而并没有真正的去打破法律，这完全属于美国的言论自由保护的范围内，你既然一直宣称美国的自由（包括言论自由），美国的价值，为何此时反而搞双重标准？

“新国度的个体如在公共场合展示毛像与共产标志应按法律受到罚款、劳役服务等处罚。”连以言获罪和强制劳役都出来了。
你一直在谈人权，可是以人权的标准，强制劳役本身是一种缺乏人权的表现。
现在的美国早已废除强制劳役（义务兵役）40年了，为何你现在却又提倡这个事？搞得像新加坡那个支那威权主义（authoritarianism）国家一样。

(Dear ksk: 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. The banning of communist symbols in Eastern Europe after the downfall of the USSR is never pointless or unnecessary. Even right after the downfall of the USSR, there was a brief period of banning the Communist Party. To think that after the downfall of Nazi Germany, Hitler's image and Nazi symbols are still displayed in public is a gross demonstration of moral confusion and outright corruption. You cannot have Mao's image/communist symbols coexist with the Memorial of Communist Victims (which must be built around China after the downfall of the communist regime.) Your premise that anti-freedom can coexist with freedom is an erroneous one. This is not about "authoritarianism". This is about safeguarding freedom, especially right after the downfall of PRC.

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)

3.美国自由和德国（欧陆）自由的问题。

你是更喜欢美国的自由标准，还是更喜欢德国（欧陆）的大政府的，西左的，authoritarianism，将个体视为政府的subject和property的，collectivism的和极端愚蠢的nationalism的自由？
虽然你一直宣扬美国的自由标准，但在对communism的态度上，我觉得你更喜欢德国（欧陆）的。或者你是双重标准。

(Dear ksk: There is no American freedom or German freedom. There is only "Human Freedom". There is no double standard in my reasoning. There is only the recognition of China's reality after the most extreme tyranny under Mao/Communist regime. To equate China's reality with America's is a huge mistake. To compare China's reality with Germany after WWII is more appropariate. Best. Kai Chen)

4.the faith to free competition in speech field

美国言论自由标准背后的理论是言论自由竞争的必要性，包括各种不同观点同时存在的必要性，以及优胜劣汰性，以及最重要的，所有个体的知情权。不知你是否真的对这个有信心？
另外，从事实上来看，去ban什么言论是最无助于解决问题的；相反，应该展开全社会范围内的讨论和争论（建立在solid论据上和事实，以及用理性来reasoning的争论），这才是更好的解决问题的方法。去banXX，正是没有自信的表现。
需记住，相对于其（自由的）浪漫面而言，自由更是有代价的。然而，我们能通过自由而获利的，远远大于其代价。

(Dear ksk: To simply foster a culture of freedom in China is already a daunting but necessary tast. Most Chinese have no idea what freedom means. They view freedom as "free to depend/harm others". Yet freedom's only meaning is "free from others". One can never try to free from oneself's mind, soul, physical desire, conscience, etc. Please read my article "On Freedom". Best. Kai Chen )

陈凯博客： www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

你没有反自由的自由
You Have No Anti-Freedom Freedom

价值一语： Words of Value:

存在是价值； 虚无是反价值。 一个人有自由的自由，但没有反自由的自由。 --- （陈凯）

Existence is a value; Nothingness is an anti-value. One has freedom to be free, but has no freedom to be anti-freedom. --- Kai Chen

自由的人首先发明了轮子； 吃人者首先发明了辩证法。 --- 安、兰德。

A free man first invented wheels; a man-eater first invented dialectics. --- Ayn Rand.

*****************************************

Dear visitors:

The "Ying Yang" mindset of the Chinese compells them toward Marxism and his Material Dialectics. Both are none-value or anti-value. Both are against Freedom and the concept of human free will.

I have heard many times from the Chinese, due to their dialectic mindset, that because Democracy means diversity, China should be different from America in its values: If America values freedom, China should value unity and despotism, just to be different, just to have diversity. Many in China mention, as some Beijing University student demanded Bill Clinton, that the United States should respect China's freedom to value despotism, for the Chinese chose to be under oppression.

Does diversity mean the world has to have anti-freedom to counter the principle of freedom, or anti-value "Nothingness" to counter value and existence? Only the addicts of cultural and spiritual narcotics, such as many in China, can have this idiotic and patholocial explanation of the universe and its values.

Should we put matter and anti-matter together to have diversity, or mix gas with water to power the engine, or castrate a man to impregnate a woman, or kill everyone to have freedom?? Believe it or not, this is what a typical Chinese mindset comes up with. They have claimed that if the world becomes just like America, it will be wrong and boring, or it will be anti-democratic, or anti-freedom, for the Chinese want their anti-freedom freedom, and want their anti-democratic democracy, and want their anti-life livelihood...

This sickness has permeated the Chinese society, prompting a feverish anti-West nationalistic movement, represented by people like 郭飞熊. The dialectic mindset, initiated thousands years ago, and reinforced by Marxist Material Dialectics, poisons everything the Chinese touch.

There is no such thing as moral absolutes and objective values such as freedom, life, pursuit of happiness, justice, truth.., in a Chinese mind. Everything is twirling around in a Chinese mind, the history of China is cyclic, right is wrong, black is white, just is unjust..., everything is relative. But relative to what??? To Power. In the Chinese mind, only Power can get their attention, only Power determines outcome of everything, only Power makes the earth turning, only Power makes kings out of winners and bandits out of losers...

Power is God to a Chinese. With power, they have freedom to kill, rob, rape, humiliate, persecute. With power, everyone can be God. With power, freedom and value become relative. With power, they are free of law of nature. With power, even Nothingness can be of value. With power, even slavery can be freedom....

The cyclic nature of the Chinese despotic culture has repeatedly shown us that "Ying Yang" dialectics is center in the Chinese complex and worship of Nothingness. Combating the Chinese dialectics, combating Chinese worship of Nothingness, combating Chinese addiction to Power, have to be prerequisits in the arduous journey the Freedom-loving people in China are about to embark on.

Being aware of this insidious and powerful ingredient in the Chinese cultural narcotics is so important in formulating the map for the Chinese toward progress and directional history.

Best. Kai Chen 陈凯
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zitat von CK

---

[size=18]每日一语：[/size]

存在是价值； 虚无是反价值。 一个人有自由的自由，但没有反自由的自由。 --- （陈凯）

---

[color=darkred]解读，没有反自由的自由。

首先一个人有放弃自己自由的自由，其次，一个人也有反对自己自由的自由。那么，一个人有没有反对别人自由的自由呢？我认为有。 如何人都可以用和平的方式反对我的自由。他们的反对归反对，他们的反对能不能起到作用不取决于他们的反对；最终的决定权在我这里。因为我自由的权利没有被剥夺。所以，我认为，任何人有权反对别人的自由，但是，没有权利限制和剥夺别人的自由。我们反抗中共独裁是因为中国人民的自由权利被剥夺了，被侵犯了，而不是遭到反对。自由遭到反对的时候，正是自由存在的时候。 我们争取自由正是因为中国人民还没有得到自由。如何人都有自由反对我们争取自由权利，但是，没有剥夺我们争取自由的权利。
[/color]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bianli:

If you have read my essay "On Freedom", you will understand my definition of "Freedom".

A person "free from his own Freedom" is not a person, or a true existence, so to speak. He is defined as "Nothingness". Freedom is only meaningful when it is attached to individuals, specifically, an individual's "self". There is no "other's freedom", or "self-freedom". There is only "Freedom", period.

If a person cannot respect Freedom manifested on any particular individual, he is not only against so called "others' freedom", he is against freedom, period. A person who is against freedom is not a free person. He is an Anti-Freedom person, period. Or we can call him "a man-eater".

Your definition of Freedom tends to confuse people. And it verges on traditional Chinese circular thinking. Directional (linear) history only occurs when people stop thinking in a circular fashion. This pattern of thinking is crucial in the concept of "Progress". And this indeed separates Chinese dynastic cycles with Western directional history and Human Progress.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

Best. Kai Chen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
陈凯，谢谢你的回复。


你可以注意到“反对“和“限制“的区别。 “反对“是个观点和言论的概念；而“限制“是行为的范畴。言论自由的原则是公民有思想的自由，有持有不同观点的自由，有发表自己观点的自由。既然“反对自由“是个人的太度，这个态度又可以以言论的方式表现出来，本着言论自由的原则，这个人的反对自由的言论应该允许自由地表达。即是“有反对自由的自由“。 我说“反对自由“这个观点可以自由表达并不意味着我赞同这个观点。言论自由核心是：经管我不同意你的观点，可是我尊重你持有和表达你的的观点的权利。尽管我不同意“反对自由“这个观点，但是，“反对自由“这个观点有自由表达的权利。自由不会因为被反对而丧失；自由只会在受到限制，被剥夺的时候才会失去。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bianli:

Our difference is: You think when a person declares that he is a devil, he still is a person. I think when a person declares he is a devil, he is a devil, and he must be responsible for his declaration, and he must be treated as a devil.

While you think preaching hate and murder is OK, I think otherwise. Words carry responsibility and consequences. This is why being parents is not easy, and being a responsible, true free being is never easy. We must be aware of what we say and do and be ready to take the responsibilities and consequences.

To demand everyone to be responsible for his words and actions is to treat him as a free being, to respect him and his choices. To demand everyone to be responsible for his words and deeds is to demand ourselves to be the same. Logic is simple.

A free being is a being with great power, and along with that power it comes tremendous responsibility. If we treat our words and deeds as jokingly and lightly as we treat others', we are not truly free, for we are not ready to take the trememdous responsibility attached to that true Freedom. This is what I mean "You don't have freedom of anti-freedom". The moment you do that is the moment you cease to be a Free being, and you logically invite others to trample on your own freedom. The dire consequences is that No one is free.

How one defines freedom will form one's attitude toward freedom. Either you fear and loath freedom, or you treasure and appreciate freedom. Either you have hatred toward freedom, or you have love for freedom. Either you are enslaved by your own confusion and fear, or your are free because of your will, courage and ability. The ones who want to walk the middle will cease to exist. You must choose.

Thanks for the response.

Best. Kai Chen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks:

Existence exists. Nothingness is not a value. Slavery is not the opposite of existence. It is a perverted existence. The opposite of existence is nothingness. Oriental nihilism is at the bottom of every Chinese vice and at the bottom of the very evil of the Chinese existence.

I often say that one has every right to be free, but no right to be anti-freedom. Now in their perverted state of mind, from Europe to Mid-East to Asia, many want to assert their right to be anti-freedom. They want to assert their right to be nothingness - a blackhole to swallow everything in existence. They view their anti-freedom freedom as the ultimate state of "being free".

In such an anti-freedom existence, humans lower themselves to the state of not only sub-human, but sub-animal. This is why when the Chinese start eating their own babies alive, they feel no moral guilt or remorse, they feel nothingness. Their own excuse was, is and will be that they are hungry. Not even animals do that to their offspring.

So it is no surprise that there have been countless atrocities and anti-humanity crimes committed by the Chinese, from ordinary people to the government authorities. They are still continuing their anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-existence thinking and behavior today without a shred of self-awareness, without a shred of moral fiber and moral standard.

Another tragedy, another atrocity, another human disaster is brewing on the horizon and it will manifest itself very soon.

Best. Kai Chen

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

Dear ksk:

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your attempt to communicate with me in English. Yet I want to request a small favor: Please separate paragraphs with a double space so I can understand your train of thoughts a little better. At least now you understand my rules: If you try to denigrate on my character and integrity on this forum, or to question my morality and motives, I will indeed cut you off. I am glad now we are on the same page with this regard. Seeking truth, not to feel above or below someone, is the purpose of our communication. If I sense you are here to feel your superiority or inferiority, I will stop communicating with you. Communication/Trade is only meaningful between free beings/countries. Existence indeed exists. Any nihilistic tendencies between our communication will surely doom our conversation.

I also would like you to write English in a concise way, using one or two sentences to clearly express your point. "What is your point? Or what do you want to say?" should always be behind every word we write here. As long as we adhere to these principles and try to make ourselves as clear and concise as we can, we can have a fruitfull discussion here.

Now I will try to decipher what you are saying in English and try to respond as best as I can: By the way, please do not use the word "Chiks" (a derogatory term to call the Chinese) in our discussion. This is not a name-calling session, even though I despise many Chinese "antry youths/elders". Kai Chen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you want to avoid misunderstanding between us, you should use English to communicate with me."
correct." "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." --- Quote Kai Chen

From ksk:

1.plz notice the original vocabulaire: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
I had have reckoned the accuracy of the usage of words.Le Chinois is a very ambiguously language.However,while i am using it,i do let it become much more accurate that it was.
2.i don't use the words such as perfect.No doubt i know it's original meaning not equally to 完美 in Le Chinois.it's original meaning is "thoroughly + to do".
However,before SUBJECT(we,i,you,etc) to talk about "thoroughly + to do",the more significant is to ponder to which perspectives & what kind of Wertvorstellungen（from de. sense of view）of "perfect" are SUBJECT talking about.

Kai Chen's response: I fail to understand what you want to say here. Please make your point clearer: What is your point?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The premise in your erroneous notion is there is no evil and good, no justice and injustice, no moral absolutes. " --- Quote Kai Chen

From ksk:

I do think this world is a relativity world.

It is a relativity world,however personally i think in the relativity world,there do have some absolutes in the relativity.Absolutes in relativity means,such as,the benefits 【here benefit is a natural word,neither good nor evil/bad.don't use the 利益 in Le Chinois to relate with the word "benefit".利益 is derogatory word in Chink.benefit is a natural word.】 of capitalism can bring to ppl are much more bigger than communist can brings.Relatively,in another perspective,the damages(or "ruin",which will more accurate) that communism can brings to ppl,are much bigger than capitalism can brings.
Also,Freedom is much more fit ppl's bigger benefits,than Slavery.
I do think we should care about the conception "Justice" or "fair".Yet the fair or justice in my own english language world,they are not equal with the chink 正义.it only equals it's original meaning,which from their very basic morphemes.As you can see,i always deconstruct(Деконструировать in russian) the incorrect conception in chink language from the least basic morphemes;then,i will reconstruct(реконструировать in russian) them from the original meaning from the least basic morphemes,in English.Therefore,i can desinicization much more efficiently.
About "evil and good".
Generally,i myself do not use Binary Opposition System to ponder & analyze things.
I would like to use much more detailed,exhaustive,&specifically words to ponder & analyze.
For example,if you want me to analyze the affects of communism,maybe i will through the 【1】“Obliteration of the Self” side【2】Collective Destruction，including the topest one.it's not fit all persons' benefits【3】In all aspects(including economic,political,and all social memeber's mentality) the Fundamental Communism can not be sustained in even a little long period,so in all major communism entities which do last long tine eventually have to enter the Revisionism.
So,you can see.i will not use words like good nor evil/bad to ponder & analyze.
Even if i have to use Binary Opposition System,i prefer like to use good/bad,instead of good/evil.
Why?
Have you ever study some philosophy?Then,go to search the "Master–slave morality" in wikipedia english version.Of course,now i am NOT assault your morality.And as i am going to saying,i never have interests to assault other's morality,even in period of while disputing things.

Kai Chen's Response: So what I sense about your premise is correct: You are a moral-relativist. By the way, you should substitute the word "benefit" with the word "interest/s". That way I can make some sense from what you said.

Your relativist stand makes our communication very difficult to continue. Marxist "dialectics" and Chinese "ying-yang mentality" is the root of evil in today's China. I compare such "Monkey King Tricks" (standing everywhere but standing nowhere, or talking from both sides of one's mouth) to "Spiritual/Intellectual/Mental AIDS virus". Anyone who contracts such virus will literally transform into "Spiritual Zombies" (the living dead who wants to only prey upon the living). The Chinese always resort to the "Monkey King Tricks" - a nihilistic zimbie-like state, to beat their opponents/enemies to win. They don't know in the end they themselves become the very victims of their own nihilistic mindset. China's never-ending, never-progressing dynastic cycles are precisely the result of such "Monkey King AIDS virus". They end up going nowhere but mired in a man-eating-man-eating-man-eating-man.... I don't want to engage with you in such a cycle. So please re-check your premises to see where exactly you stand, so I can engage you, not 72 monkeys around me.

Your problem starts with your moral-relativistic stand. You truly don't know where you stand and what you believe. You want to win, but not want to live and bear all the responsibilities and consequences of your choices/decisions. You think winning is everything - the one who wins is the king while the one who loses is the bandit. This is precisely the "Chinese mentality" I want all free beings to be aware and to be away from.

This is why you think Mao's image with communist symbols can stand side by side with "Communist Victims' Memorial" (80 million people dead for nothing). This is why you think evil can coexist with good, truth can coexist with falsehood, right can coexist with wrong, justice can coexist with injustice. This is precisely why the world is in trouble now. And the Chinese regime knows exactly how to use people's moral relativism to spread "Confucian Socialism" around the world. So please make me believe you are not one of zombies aiming to devour all the living.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"China's people have never had any immersion into Christianity" --- Quote Kai Chen

Even if chink immersed into Christianity,the chink Christianity also will mixed with chink culture,and use chink language to express it.
For example,Korea always be considered as Chink the Minor(in ancient chinese & korean Weltanschauung【sense of world】,they both do identify korea as it)
Traditionally,Korea have a lot of chink shit either.Collectivism,Confucianism,Hierarchy,Despotism,Authoritarianism【CCHDA】;and current Korea have highest Christian demographics in population for percentage in east asia.However Korean Christianity mixed a lot of chink shits or east asian shits【CCHDA,as i motioned】.

Kai Chen Response: (Please don't use the term Chinks) I do agree with you that using Chinese language to understand Christianity is like using a basket to retain water, or using a pair of "HaHa Glasses" to view the world. Everything is distorted when using Chinese language to understand, to analyze, to formulate.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If you want my continued input and communication with you, please do not guess my motive or question my morals.” --- Quote Kai Chen

I never guess your moral nor motive.
About the "moral" problem,actually i've been NOT stand in any certain standard of moral to judge ppl for a very long period.A lot of years,i estimate.
Everyone always do judges.Me either.However my judge itself do not relates with any kinds of standard of moral.
About the "motive" problem.I don't know what you were talking about?
About the "Dual-Standard" problem.First,i think it is a cognitive problem,instead of(= not) a moral problem.
Everyone all have dual-standard or Tri-stanard,just like everyone all have racism,and Egocentrism in cognition realm（here is in cognitive,noticed.do not equal it with selfness）, me too.However,the difference is it's not everybody will intentionally to seek and recognize(admit) those.

Kai Chen Response: (Quote ksk: “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。

You yourself raised the issue of "German style freedom" or "American style freeom". I was merely addressing your expression and deem your expressions as inappropiate. Then you accuse me to use morality to demean your point. That is way out of line. Morality/immorality is in everyone's points and expressions. Values/anti-values is in everyone's points and expressions. To deny they exist is to evade moral responsibilities. You should re-examine your life and your views on the world. Not having any moral stand/conviction will doom this discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Communism in the 1940s and 1950s' America was real." --- Quote Kai Chen

True.And current day's communism threaten also is real.I never said it's a illusion.And current day's threatens need plus Muslim,and maybe needs to plus a uprising Neon Authoritarianism Russia(Russia is turning to a neon Authoritarianism country rapidly).And plus a rapidly increasing government size in USA.
But as i had have said,before these ppl do exactly broken the law,all these ppl are "not guilt".You said you think i don't care justice.Well,then,this is one of my Wertvorstellung of justice.
Noticed,While the time that threaten expands,Also is the time that Government Power expands.

Kai Chen's Response: To say US Congress has no right to inquire upon individuals in question of communist activities is a distortion of US laws. No one was put in jail during the period in question, unless he/she was clearly a Russian Spy. Some were executed, rightfully. Others experienced social difficulties and loss of opportunities. But the scale is very limited and now with the leftist propaganda in schools/media exaggerated into some kind of "Witch Hunt" as it is termed. It is much like the Christian "Dark Ages", it only exists in people' imagination spread by the leftists. The total numbers of dead during the 300 years of "dark ages" is only a dozen per year. Though I never mean to day it is good, it is dwarfed by the 20th century atrocities by the atheist Nazi and Communist countries. The "Witch Hunt" is also in people's imagination. In my view, during WWII, American internment of the Japanese is fully justified. If today US and China is in a war, I think some Chinese-Americans with their anti-West, anti-American activities such as spying, sabotage and propaganda, should be put in jail or interned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Warlordism often occurs after the downfall of a Chinese dynasty." --- Quote Kai Chen

This problem is very easily to solve.NATO garrisons.(I don't like the UN.You?)At least garrisoned in the very early period of new countries born.

Kai Chen Response: Thanks for your input.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""Ban" is not a way to escape competition. It is a way to ensure healthy competition can finally be in place." --- Quote Kai Chen

So your suggestion is ban sth for a very short period(like 10 years),after ppl leave it for a period,and when they could talk and discuss it reasonable then finally un-ban it?
if you do suggest it as this,i am afraid i still can not agree with you.
Except the reasons i had have said,here i plus another one:It's government interference.
Here maybe i needs to notice you the difference between us in the political spectrum.Although i always says words like "left wing shit",and i always emphasize the "right wing XXX",it was seemed like that i am inclining to right wing,but actually my personal political view is Libertarian.According to several simple test,my personal political view be tagged as Radical Libertarian by those sites.Since you have a Doctorate Degree of Politics,you must know what is that too.
Yet i do have some different views with the mainstream of American Libertarian.
Mainstream(or at least some views of American Libertarian) claims that shouldn't interfere outside of USA.
Maybe this thought caused by their previous Isolationism tradition,or maybe even plus some other reasons.
However,i do support to do interference,including the very special method —— war.Isolationism in current day just self-cheating and self-anaesthesia.It only let things get worser and let others increase their courage and audacity.
In our private life,we know we shouldn't be passiveness,we shouldn't neither self-cheating nor self-anaesthesia.We should be more activeness to face & solve things.And in International affairs,so it does either.
And maybe for some Libertarians,why they choose this theory as personal political views,i think maybe sometime just cause for the their ethic,or they just simply like it.
However,to me,i also simply like it though,yet the reasons i choose it,are after massive rationalism reasoning reckoning,pondering,comparison,and analysis.And it do not have any neither ethic nor moral factors to prompt me choose it.However,even if i chosen it,i still intentionally keep doubts in it.Notice that,the doubts are intentional.

Kai Chen Response: Skepticism is necessary and healthy. Cynicism is harmful and unhealthy. I lean toward being a Libertarian as well. But I am never an anarchist. Minimal/limited government to ensure justice and national defense is necessary. But economy is a realm government should not interfere. I am not an atheist either. I believe our freedom and rights come from God/Providence/Divine Power, never come from men. Your infatuation with allowing Mao's image to exist in a political culture after communism befuddles me. We can agree to disagree on this point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

【Feinde der Wahrheit. - Ueberzeugungen sind gefährlichere Feinde der Wahrheit, als Lügen.】
【Enemies of truth - Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.】
——Friedrich Nietzsche,I, Aph. 483

"But you have to ask yourself this: What do I believe?"
As I said,“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies”,i always intentionally have doubts to everything,even the things which i partly support or partly agreed(human can't and also shouldn't 100% support nor agree with nor believe in sth.It's the ABC of Psychology and Philosophy).I am definitely not always 100% correct in all conditions of all time periods.So i always preparing correct my Weltanschauung，Wertvorstellung，and Sense of Cognition,of course,the correction should basis on the solid evidence or multiple solid evidences,and the logical,rational reasoning.
I am both are Radical Sensibility and Radical Rationality.Radical Rationality means i demand myself must & have to think things ultimately near the objectively truth,and i also demand myself must & have to think things beyond my own Egocentrism(egocentrism in Cognitive Realm).I always want to know new methods or theories that can let me achieve these aims better.For example,methods such as P-value(in Statistical Significance),Comfirmation Bias,Double-Blind,etc.Radical Rationality is my tool to see Ce Monde(=world,include myself),it's my tool to cognōscere（=to know） the world(include myself).Meanwhile,i demand myself must & have to maintain the Radical Sensibility.Because Radical Rationality only my tool,not myself's character.Myself's character is Radical Sensibility,which means if i have already use my tool(Radical Rationality) estimated or reckoned or pondered some thing have enough big benefits to do,then difficult will not be counted.What really important is should or shouldn't to do,Not can or can't to do.If the cost is too big,then it's the time to use the intelligence to reduce the cost.If the cost still enough big,or i change my mind(because the estimate of the thing's value to me have already decreased),then some cases should be abandoned or at least temporary abandoned.However,there also have cases that even the cost enough big,and the reduction of the cost is not so efficacious,yet subject still shouldn't to abandon them.

Btw i should notice you that there is not only you read bible.
Some ppl like KJV,however i myself much more prefer ESV(English Standard Version).Because it's considered an "essentially literal" translation（if you know any version is better at essentially literal plz tell me）,and the very first phrases that give me aesthetic(original morphemes= to perceive) feeling or spiritual feeling from some other media（such as any kinds of art works）is from the ESV.
Yet meanwhile,i also like the Koine Greek Version of New Testament.Because it's one of the original languages of New Testament.The major languages spoken by both Jews and Greeks in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus were Aramaic and Koine Greek, and to a limited extent a colloquial dialect of Mishnaic Hebrew.And Koine Greek is different with current day's Greek.You say current day's ugly mainland China's chink language can be treated as a art,however i personally do think Koine Greek is much valuable to be treated as a art.It's beautiful,meanwhile precise,which is chink language lack of.

Matthew 7:13-14 ESV
Ματθαίον 7:13-14 Ελληνιστική Κοινή
"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
“Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης• ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς•τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν.”

Even if we discuss about the Pictogram,current day's chinese character in china mainland also is a shit.First current day's china mainland's character is not true Pictogram.Egyptian hieroglyphs(original morphemes=Sacred Engrave) is the true Pictogram.Second,if we talk about aesthetic feeling and the precision of hanzi itself,japanese kanji > taiwan hanzi > china mainland's hanzi.You can do the comparison while you buy books from the three places.

There did had have some times in my previous life that felt things which sort of callings or evokings,however after i meditated them,i know actually i only interest to the concepts like "save",and my Weltanschauung，Wertvorstellung，and Sense of Cognition as i said in previous,so i refuse to be a Protestant,and in the future i don't think i will either.But i do had a big influence from Protestantism & it's culture,in this sense i am a Half-Protestant,and objectively,i think in general aspects(means in at least 50% aspects) comparison,Protestantism is hitherto known best religion of the world in all major religions. Yet in another side,i am anti it,because Radical Rationality(as i noticed) is my tool,meanwhile i dislike any kinds of religious emotion or passion,includes the Personal Cult(actually is God Cult) Religious Passion in communism,for example,the famous words in old chink ppl in Mao Period and even in current day,"I swear to Chairman Mao".Current day in chink countryside,profile of Chairman Mao is still popular in chink ppl's home,just like christ's profle or artifact(such as cross) is popular in USA.

Kai Chen Response: Friedrich Nietzsche was an atheist. Marx was an atheist. That may very well explain the development of Nazism in pre-WWII Germany. Truth does not come from men. Truth comes only from God. Men can only DISCOVER truth by God. Men cannot be Gods to manufacture truth and principles. Newton DISCOVERED law of gravity. Newton did not invent it. Conviction to the principle of freedom (from God) is what we badly need today. Your non-committal mindset will impede your further mental/spiritual/intellectual growth. Think more deeply on the origin of life, consciousness and morality. You will discover reason and science can never explain it. It only belongs to the realm of faith/belief. Good luck. Kai Chen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Though I like to reason with you, but my reasoning has a strong moral base. ” ---- Quote Kai Chen

Can see it.
But morality isn't the politics.And politics is not morality.Though the morality maybe can be one of the dynamic factors of politics which con-forge it.

Kai Chen Response: Morality - good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, truth vs. falsehood, justice vs. injustice, is in our every day words and deeds. To deny such existence is to enter the morass of nihilism and meaninglessness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To say people will always voluntarily do the right thing is a huge mistake." --- Quote Kai Chen

It's a way to get rid off responsibility.People who say it while discussing affairs,most of them perhaps have a chaostic status of logic. Yet Chinks like this phrase very much.

Kai Chen Response: What phrase?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" You are aiming at "winning or losing.Are we on the same page?! I bear no ill will toward you." --- Quote Kai Chen

now you know which status of mindset that current chink is.

Kai Chen Response: I fail to see what you mean. (Please do not use name-calling in our discussion. "chink" should be "Banned" if you still want to continue. This is my rule and bottom line. )

"I will cut you off here." --- Quote Kai Chen

of course,it's your property.

Kai Chen Response: I will indeed do that if you don't follow the rules and defy a free being's moral principles.