香港三國志 · 版規 | 說明 搜尋 會員 聲望 日曆 統計 |
歡迎訪客 ( 登入 | 註冊 ) | 重寄認證電子郵件 |
分頁: (7) 1 [2] 3 4 ... 最後 » ( 前往第一篇未讀文章 ) |
參謀ABC | |
神隱之主犯-永遠與須臾之罪人 發表數: 3,458 所屬群組: 太守 註冊日期: 9-18-2003 活躍:16 聲望:1860 |
|
徐元直 | |
攤抖首領 發表數: 7,909 所屬群組: 君主 註冊日期: 9-18-2003 活躍:64 聲望:4175 |
我猜他會說英國已經「進化」了,中國還停留在十九世紀。
-------------------- ......
|
Anon1 | |||||||||||||||||
出世 發表數: 4 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 1-31-2012 活躍:0 聲望:-3 |
I apologise for reneging on my promise that what was previously said was the last word. I ensure that my promise will be kept this time Never mind the sarcasm in the first post, I was eagerly waiting to be enlightened by your lecture as to which parts of the 沉重歷史 would have rebutted my ideas from a philosophical or even jurisprudential point of view. For it is not “what is” that we are (I am) talking about, but what “ought to be”. Those who are content with the status quo and fail to evaluate the present will only be dragged around by others by the nose. Needless to say I was disappointed by your empty response in this regard. Other than asking me to review the 沉重歷史I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the Lockean ideas of the justification of there being a government in the first place. Acquiring further knowledge in the realms of natural law would also aid in your understanding of what is just and what is moral in any given situation. The fact that “it is what it is” is never a satisfactory account of “why” should that be the case. Nor will the fact that other nations have violated the basic principles of justice and fairness justify the (perceived) wrongdoings of what is happening in China.
I have no idea which parts of China you went to and what types of people you talked with. I spent some time recently, as part of my doctoral project on the public international law concept of right to self-determination, in Mongolia and the impression I received, both from the locals and from my local friend who guided me, was markedly different. The Mongolian traditions were sadly eradicated in the regions controlled by China (ie some parts of what is known as "inner Mongolia"). Their spiritual belief in the Gobi plains, the vast pieces of grasslands they once freely roamed and worshiped, were almost wiped out by the reckless industrialisation and failure to attend to local customs and traditions by the communists. Will the Mongolians (or in that respect, the Tibetans) themselves have managed their lands better than the Han Chinese? No one knows, but that's beside the point. The future and prosperity of the "ethnic minority's" homelands lie in their own hands and in their own hands only, not that of an intruder, notwithstanding the latter's genuine good will (which isn't even the case as regards the communists occupation). Just a small note before parting for real. I haven't been a regular reader (or for that matter a contributor) on this forum for quite a number of years, before this forum had had its whole "system" and layout changed. From my memory you always appeared in the past to be a very rational and reasonable person in discussions of topics like these. It was a very coincidental thing for me to have reached this place searching for the general sentiment to Mr Lau Mong Hong's article on the internet. I have no idea why you reacted rather strongly in this thread to what I have written. Perhaps I have infuriated or at the very least annoyed you by my ideas. If that was the case I tender my apologies again. |
||||||||||||||||
one way ticket | |||
五品官 發表數: 775 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 10-19-2003 活躍:7 聲望:165 |
再一次凸顯出閣下對中國歷史的無知,所謂"內蒙古",民國時稱塞北省區,其實和蒙古或者"外"蒙古關係不大,民族比例一直是漢人居多,至少和蒙古族一半一半,因為(優待蒙古人的)錯誤民族政策合併成內蒙古後反而授人以柄,讓一眾泛通古斯餘孽有機可乘 本篇文章已被 one way ticket 於 Feb 5 2012, 03:20 編輯過 -------------------- |
||
徐元直 | |||
攤抖首領 發表數: 7,909 所屬群組: 君主 註冊日期: 9-18-2003 活躍:64 聲望:4175 |
你自己不讀中國近代史,怪我不教你?十九至二十世紀一盤散沙的中國遭受過怎樣的苦難,之後又怎樣才成為一個現代國家在世界舞台上站起來,還有更早之前中華文明的統一觀念是如何建立起來的,甚至包括這裡說得最多的三國時代,都是再明顯不過的實例。Martin Jacques對此也作過很清晰的論述,以前我在這裡貼過的。此外,外國的例子我已經舉過好幾個了,從英國到美國到印度到中東,從過去到現在,無一不在駁斥你所謂的「普世價值」究竟有多普世,各種「自決」在現實中又有多理想。我至今看不到你對這些有甚麼合理回應,只見你一再沒有論據地重申你的value是最普世最先進的,別人說法是outdate會被取笑,然後又擠出一句"I was disappointed by your empty response",討論至此,究竟誰的回覆更加蒼白空虛,我想旁觀者自有定論。 一個人對文化、歷史乃至地緣政治所知甚少,卻去空談自決權的法律基礎,你不覺得這是在沙灘上築高樓嗎?如果你寫的東西跟中國有關......不,只要是跟現實世界有關,我都覺得你是在浪費時間,因為你還沒看懂現實世界。 另外,沒有必要道歉。我說你的觀點是pussy價值,原因很簡單,因為我就是這樣想的,你的說法給我如此的觀感,我在前面也解釋過我為甚麼會稱之為pussy。這些詞既不是因你而發明,也不是只對你才用,更不代表我感到被你侮辱侵犯了人格,所以你不需要道歉。 -------------------- ......
|
||
Leaf | |||||||||||||
請開金口 發表數: 3,516 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 9-19-2003 活躍:14 聲望:428 |
SO? 香港小市民會理? 香港小市民甚至不知莊豐源案是甚麼事和為什麼除了釋法或修改基本法二十四條外任何行政措施都可以被司法覆核打殘 中央不控制出境人流的話小市民就係認為中央故意派人沖淡香港人就會問責中央;這就是民意。 你沒可能要求人人像我們有水平了解整件問題的來龍去脈。 本篇文章已被 Leaf 於 Feb 12 2012, 15:27 編輯過 --------------------
原來猥褻侵犯不但只要啞忍,還要打開雙腳歡迎入去要大叫熱咕真是大開眼界! 某日,某蛇與某b曾是水火不相容的敵人 今日,某蛇與某b是雷打不動的戰友 果真如言,沒有永遠的敵人,也沒有永遠的朋友,只有永遠的利益? |
||||||||||||
徐元直 | |||
攤抖首領 發表數: 7,909 所屬群組: 君主 註冊日期: 9-18-2003 活躍:64 聲望:4175 |
之前明明是你自己發言「問責中央」,結果我一回覆你就轉頭指責「香港小市民」不像「我們」有水平了解整件問題的來龍去脈?轉進得真快啊。 因為無知屬於民意,所以就可以無理當有理了?幾百萬人就可以大條道理問責十幾億人的政府了?何況我不覺得你有資格代表民意。建議你不要整天拿「小市民」說事,這裡大多數人都是香港市民,你說話代表你自己就好。 本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Feb 12 2012, 23:25 編輯過 -------------------- ......
|
||
丫全 | |||
浮不起來的潛艇 發表數: 2,192 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 1-08-2004 活躍:11 聲望:305 |
其他的姑且不論(因為還沒看完 ),但是事實上很多偉人好像都是『很傻』的 例如國父,放著好好的醫生不做去搞革命,好幾次出生入死逃亡海外,還拉著一群人去送死,在當時人們的眼中,他絕對是個大傻瓜。 但就因為國父是個大傻瓜,他才有辦法義無反顧去幹那些傻事,才有辦法吸引那麼多跟他一樣傻的人,才有辦法與同伴用一股傻勁推翻滿清。 我們這些後人從歷史去學習,所以知道國父不是傻瓜,但是在當時,有多少人認為他實在傻得可憐呢? -------------------- 擔心圖片外流,簽名當改為遷名檔QQ
|
||
懶蛇 |
發表於: Feb 27 2012, 14:15
|
||||
中國人不吃這一套 發表數: 22,672 所屬群組: 太守 註冊日期: 9-22-2003 活躍:46 聲望:1908 |
在美日西歐: 不碰少數民族/原住民/土著地區 = 保持原生態 發展少數民族/原住民/土著地區(包括強推官方語言) = 讓少數民族/原住民/土著可以過好生活 在中國: 不碰少數民族/原住民/土著地區 = 不理人民死活 發展少數民族/原住民/土著地區(包括教育當地語言) = 破壞傳統、破壞自然景觀 -------------------- |
||||
willyho | |
八品官 發表數: 250 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 10-01-2003 活躍:6 聲望:110 |
While I agree with you, 元直 all that you've said. It would be preferable if you changed the 'pussy' value to something else, like 'false cocks' and dildos, if not the headless chicken. After all what did the cat do to warrant such an insult.
|
徐元直 | |||
攤抖首領 發表數: 7,909 所屬群組: 君主 註冊日期: 9-18-2003 活躍:64 聲望:4175 |
Oh who doesn't like pussies? I sure do. My apologies to our feline overlord, if they feel offended. And yes, I'm talking about cats, nothing else. -------------------- ......
|
||
懶蛇 |
發表於: Feb 29 2012, 15:13
|
||||||
中國人不吃這一套 發表數: 22,672 所屬群組: 太守 註冊日期: 9-22-2003 活躍:46 聲望:1908 |
Native girl punished for saying 'I love you' in her language 昨天看到了這段新聞,一個美國的土著小女孩因為說自己的語言而被懲罰、恥笑。少數民族在美國的地位確實大大不如中國。 -------------------- |
||||||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 28 2012, 17:23
|
||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
老實說,看到這種極左大中華主義有些令人反胃的感覺。
就跟你談西藏的民族自決權。西藏毫無疑問在歷史上曾為獨立的國家,甚至到了清朝,清政府對西藏的控制程度不同史料上仍有極大分歧。藏族為漢族為兩個民族,此為中方所承認。以你自己一己對西藏「好」的意願而兼併西藏 ( 中國學者所謂的brought liberation to the Tibetan peasantry from feudal domination) 完全是在踐踏西藏人自己的意願和民族自決權。我很有興趣聽你所謂「主要在川藏一帶,也聽過一些對當地比較熟悉的人的講述」的詳細版本。西藏人這麼多百年來擁護達賴,這是他們的文化和自由意志,我怎不看見有人為中共而自焚?大多數自焚者沒有一個是曾經生活在舊西藏社會,全都是「和平解放」西藏後出生的,大部份都是八、九十後,是在中國共產黨政權「培育」的。結果中共統治西藏60年,為何西藏人還是離心離德?可見人家不願接受你所謂「現代化」而喪失民族自由的施捨。 你這種「在大是大非面前,在生產力與人民福祉面前,落後的「文化」和社會結構、生活方式,該淘汰就淘汰,可以不淘汰」,實在是教人心寒的獨裁。中共於1950兼併西藏的非法性為鐵一般的事實,以「救世主」之姿便可踐踏別人自由意志?西藏人受到高壓統治是鐵一般的事實,連基本的宗教自由也沒有。大是大非的功利主義只是你自己一個人的價值吧。或許於你而言,IQ低於80的人或者生來智障的人對社會進步無用,你不乾脆來個種族大滅絕? 普世價值不是你那種自以為是的看法可以代表。聯合國憲章article 1.2: "by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter” 中國好像是聯合國當然成員? 我明白民族自決權跟領土完整原則有矛盾 (principle of national unity and territorial integrity),但退一萬步說民族自決權跟獨立是兩碼子的事。給予西藏真正的高度自治又如何?進一步說,西藏人對其領土的sovereignty大有法理可依,爭取獨立有著國際法的支持,但現在先擱在一旁暫且不說好了。 本篇文章已被 當時 於 Mar 28 2012, 21:28 編輯過 |
||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 28 2012, 17:58
|
||||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
leaf有代表民意了?語法上他用的是客觀陳述句,而且leaf沒說所有小市民,他沒有代表全部,他只是陳述確有一部份市民是這樣想的。 話說基本法有漏洞,當年起草基本法中共無份兒?他們完全沒有責任? 我想你不會不知道提請人大修改基本法就是在損害香港的體制?香港本身體制解決不了問題,而香港事實上認大陸為娘親,說大陸有責任=向他們問責? |
||||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 28 2012, 21:35
|
||||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
我懷疑你看的文章來自傳說中人民日報?真正被brainwash的是你這種極egoistic, 有著nationalistic fantasy 的左派分子吧。 這個問題最基本的判斷標準就是建房是否經過牧民自己的同意,即是否基於自願。如果你不在西藏住上過好一些年,你沒有發言權,因為你沒有調查過。 |
||||
one way ticket | |||
五品官 發表數: 775 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 10-19-2003 活躍:7 聲望:165 |
這個鐵一般的事實似乎也不過是你的個人主張而已 -------------------- |
||
one way ticket | |||
五品官 發表數: 775 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 10-19-2003 活躍:7 聲望:165 |
那你就很有發言權?別跟我來CNN那些廢話 -------------------- |
||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 29 2012, 03:50
|
||||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
就等你了,先談在國際法上的非法性,的確是我個人的主張,但咱至少有根有據。 以下為我自己曾寫的文章: China’s invasion into Tibet in 1950 was illegitimate. It was because Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations states that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Annexation of an independent State therefore became unlawful by virtue of international law after 1945. This principle was affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Corfu Channel case. As Professor Ian Brownlie mentioned in his authoritative work International Law and Use of Force by States , at least after the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, “a fundamental principle of international law is the illegality of the use of force to conquer another State.” In respect of the validity of the Seventeen Point Agreement, a treaty which acknowledged China’s sovereignty over Tibet signed between the two parties in 1951, Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that “a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations." China had already ratified the Vienna Convention in 1997. The signing of the Seventeen Point Agreement was clearly against the will of Tibet which lost the war with China, and as such, the passing of the sovereignty of Tibet to China was null and void under the Vienna Convention. 至於高壓統治,我相信你隨便找一下,什麼大規模示威鎮壓自焚的新聞不會少吧? 你當然可以完全把International Commission of Jurists等所有機構作的報告當作外國勢力為顛覆中國所作的不為餘力的偽造,我也沒有辦法,或許你覺得64也沒有死過人,圖片什麼也只是支聯會偽造的,中共對網絡和新聞自由的審查是假的,不是嗎? 「中共封鎖消息 華爾街日報18日報導,儘管國際媒體大幅度報導西藏抗暴事件,中共控制下的大陸媒體卻極少報導西藏事件。中央電視台播放了西藏民眾上街推倒車輛的畫面,不過卻沒有播出在拉薩鎮壓抗議的武裝警察,明顯煽動對藏人仇恨心理。 當抗議得到國際關注時,中國大陸沒有受影響地區的人大部份不知道情勢的嚴重,甚至根本不知道此事。即使他們知道,在這樣政治敏感的環境中也無法透過網路找到資訊。 在中國最大的搜尋網站百度上搜尋“西藏”,沒看到這次西藏事件的新聞,搜尋“西藏暴動”則會連結到已經被刪除的網頁。“西藏”在星期一的百度搜尋詞彙中排名第五。中國大型的網路入口網站新浪和搜狐都沒有報導西藏抗議事件。」 當然,在一個審查這麼嚴重的國度,你選擇性失明是很合理的 |
||||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 29 2012, 03:53
|
||||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
對對對,CNN比起人民日報公信力少得多了,中國的人權狀況是最好的,是全個地球的國家和媒體都在老屈偉大的中國共產黨 你說話一個論點的理據支持也沒有就別無聊的在噴我了。 本篇文章已被 當時 於 Mar 29 2012, 04:03 編輯過 |
||||
當時 |
發表於: Mar 29 2012, 04:29
|
||
八品官 發表數: 288 所屬群組: 一般 註冊日期: 3-19-2006 活躍:3 聲望:50 |
或許你是因為看到這些文章 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5d8655780100ugo4.html 但同樣地,有一堆文章是說藏民寺廟被逼掛上老毛的畫像。 3.14動亂真相是什麼?沒人說的準。我沒有證據,你也沒有證據; 我信的,只是大陸一貫封鎖新聞自由、審查網絡、把一切反對聲音壓下去的做法,因為這本身已能說明很多事情。當真相被刻意埋沒時,已不符合程序公義。 本篇文章已被 當時 於 Mar 29 2012, 04:31 編輯過 |
||
分頁: (7) 1 [2] 3 4 ... 最後 » |