雜技裡的國民教育

So you're saying that you can't make any prove within the topic of discussion (is the show very risky and life threatening etc.) ? If you can, why don't you just show it and stop complaining about other things? Then the discussion will remain short and concise.

Obviously you failed at English comprehension. And now you're trying personal attacks, need me to remind you that the rule is still there?

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jul 23 2007, 04:11 編輯過

一方面，你认为大陆腐败得伤残死亡事故可以很容易的隐瞒或不用承担责任。另一方面，你难道又认为大陆官员的青云路升迁完全是靠工作业绩表现，如此的务实透明？

请多少了解一下大陆的情况，前面看到徐元直已经请你不要把自己的想象做证据。

即使杂技表演成功，除非有证据证明胡锦涛对杂技表演有特别的爱好，否则以他的职务身分，对此的评价大致就是礼貌性的鼓鼓掌，他不会关心对杂技团的嘉奖，也不可能会有人专门来问他对杂技表演的观感以此做为嘉奖的依据。具体奖励操作是低上数级的人负责，具体到层层的责任人能够得到的好处，请你自己了解一下。

而如果在这样的场合出了事故，最后的处分胡主席却是很有可能会关心一下。而这样的关心意味着什么，也请了解一下。

大陆也许对人命确实轻视，但是对涉及到“政治影响”、“社会影响”、“国际影响”等的事故的处理却是相当严厉的，即使没有公开的处理，但是最低限度官员今后的升迁可以说是基本无望。除非是类似“非典”的情况，责任者就是top leader本身。

实际上这样的表演节目按常理在大陆会经过层层审批，不要说训练中出现死亡或者脑瘫，即使表演失误率高一些就不会让你通过。因为官员们也许轻视人命，但是要让他们拿前途冒险至少要有相应的代价，所谓杀头生意有人做，吃亏生意无人做。

Again, agrees with taojh. I guess we can't say it any clearer than that, but if they just don't want to hear, they'll still neglect the point.

如果要对该杂技表演的安全性评价，我想应该是专业人士的评价才最为权威，而以外行者的眼光说有多么危险，恐怕没有什么说服力。

观人围釭，局坏，粲为覆之。釭者不信，以帊盖局，使更以他局为之。用相比校，不误一道。其强记默识如此。

但实际上，这对围棋爱好者并不难，我就能做到，而我的棋友大多数也有这个能力。KYr您行吗？按照您的逻辑是不是会围棋的人具有特别记忆力的大脑？或者反过来说，为了做到这点，我们在学围棋的过程中进行了非人的训练？

我并不知道该杂技的表演的危险程度，但是以常理不会有人为了3分钟娱乐胡锦涛的表演那点区区好处而冒训练中多出伤残死亡事故的危险。如果您有异议，请先咨询一下杂技专业人士而不是拿自己的想象做证据。

That would be the complete opposite to what I'm saying, and is improbable to happen.

So? Then people probably gets killed and that becomes a performance not respectful to human lives, and so on?

Risk depends much more on the learning curve and preparation pre-performance, less on how early you do the actual action within a performance. If you think this is not true, give me a reason that they should risk screwing up the whole event and make international news, a major embarrassment.

Supporters of the original article simply failed to argue at this point.

0~infinity? So it doesn't even mean anything?

If you want to file a complain, welcome. You can talk to other admins here. However, what are you complaining at? As for word of insult towards a board member, I don't see any in this topic except someone saying "a nut" towards me. You may claim otherwise, but please show your evidence.

Or is it that you just failed to distinguish between a rebuttal and an insult? You can't win argumentatively, then you say it's an insult?

Please explain.

If you hardly believe a shorten exhibition do not involve any faster in action.skip in-warm up . All things false~



THe writer saying prepare a hurry exhibition cause dangerous,the actor are easier to get injuryed.Disabled and death may found,however,all data will not be recognized,in a exaggrate form.
If u still labelled it as a ""curse",negative thinking,continue your speech then.

You asked me for comment in a"if condition",and I give a straight respond.
However, my words do not match what u think.So,I am failed to distinguish between a rebuttal and an insult???
What u think urself??
Law??Right??Justice??
Or only a simple Admin in a World wide net forum??
Can't the fact you do not know you speaking maybe an insult?
Can't the fact you cannot identifly what actually 2 things???


Anyway,I never said that(at least this moment)I will complain about you,just fight forurself if u see anything in宛城.
No need to worry there.

So you're saying that you can't make any prove within the topic of discussion (is the show very risky and life threatening etc.) ? If you can, why don't you just show it and stop complaining about other things? Then the discussion will remain short and concise.

Obviously you failed at English comprehension. And now you're trying personal attacks, need me to remind you that the rule is still there?

Honour from International Arcobatics competition or high quality performance brings reputation to their country,city and their chief, this is common sense I think. And that should be simply realized by searching in google or what.



I am in serious.
I really want to know how someone can put the dangerous of""walking ""the same level with """arcobatics"""
Please show me your walk .
If u are disabled,I won't laugh you.
If u really walk as arcobatics,I appreciate u and agree the risk of walking.
If you cannot prove the risk of walk same as arcobatics,please stop on ""walk and arcobatics"".
Since you told walking is a danger action first.

一方面，你认为大陆腐败得伤残死亡事故可以很容易的隐瞒或不用承担责任。另一方面，你难道又认为大陆官员的青云路升迁完全是靠工作业绩表现，如此的务实透明？

请多少了解一下大陆的情况，前面看到徐元直已经请你不要把自己的想象做证据。

即使杂技表演成功，除非有证据证明胡锦涛对杂技表演有特别的爱好，否则以他的职务身分，对此的评价大致就是礼貌性的鼓鼓掌，他不会关心对杂技团的嘉奖，也不可能会有人专门来问他对杂技表演的观感以此做为嘉奖的依据。具体奖励操作是低上数级的人负责，具体到层层的责任人能够得到的好处，请你自己了解一下。

而如果在这样的场合出了事故，最后的处分胡主席却是很有可能会关心一下。而这样的关心意味着什么，也请了解一下。

大陆也许对人命确实轻视，但是对涉及到“政治影响”、“社会影响”、“国际影响”等的事故的处理却是相当严厉的，即使没有公开的处理，但是最低限度官员今后的升迁可以说是基本无望。除非是类似“非典”的情况，责任者就是top leader本身。

实际上这样的表演节目按常理在大陆会经过层层审批，不要说训练中出现死亡或者脑瘫，即使表演失误率高一些就不会让你通过。因为官员们也许轻视人命，但是要让他们拿前途冒险至少要有相应的代价，所谓杀头生意有人做，吃亏生意无人做。

Um....
What u want to trying to say is....
A small accident in performance can kill someone future while 6.4 kick noone ass from manage?

Actually plane performance may more danger than it (for me)But the actors are adults with amount of incume and protection from insurance/salary.

The kids have the same risk but under a poor protection.

See? That's not what I said, and you completely evaded my point again. It seems you just don't care what others says, just keep repeating things in your own words.

The arguement here was not about whether it's 100% safe or not (it could never be), nor was it about whether the risk increased in this particular performance (maybe true, maybe not). The real argument is, according to the author:

Was the risk in this performance so high that it must be highly life threatening (which means it would be inhumane to perform)? And if viewers just enjoyed it and failed to express comapssion, can we say that they must be lacking basic human moral?

So, please stick back on topic. Want to support the author? Try to prove the above, not something else. The author himself has failed to provide valid support for the above argument, and none of the people participated in this topic was able to remedy that failure.

Btw, a slippery slope is exactly a series of exaggerations followed by resorting to improbable probabilities. That method doesn't create valid arguments. If you think a slippery slope is acceptable, you need to relearn your critical thinking.

What are you talking about? I failed to understand these "English" and your logic. I gave you some rebuttal about how people understand an implicative sentence, then you says I'm a nut and I insulted others, so I asked for the evidence. Where are they? Or did you just attacked me randomly with no support at all?

We're talking about getting better promotion opportunities from some good performances. Is it true for the chief of the acrobatics team? Yes. Chief of the military region? Hardly. This is just common sense and it seems you can't even understand it.

You're on your imagination mode again, when will you ever get rid of this? Check what I've said, don't imagine what I've said.

Making up other people's statment will only degrade your own credibility. (It seems you already don't have much credibility because you did this a lot)

LoL, what a comparison, what similarities did they even share? And now you think someone gets paralyzed or dying is a "small accident", according to the author you must be 「無人性」 , hehe.

What "plane" performance? And again you know there's poor protection because you just know.

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jul 23 2007, 09:08 編輯過

呃，在这样的场合出现事故只是“small accident”？看来胡锦涛看到大陆的杂技团在表演中出事会觉得很有面子。。。。

即使大陆和共党没人性，也请相信他们中多数人做无人性的事至少也会在对自己有利的情况下。这是我和你讨论的基础。

六四？六四动武的利益显而易见，杂技团能相比？

以保护条件而言，这类杂技团的保护条件按常理只可能大大优于国内平均水准——显然杂技团表演成功比表演砸锅而言对责任者更有利。

Oh~selective memory&quote operate again.

I read it as"kids may disable/die in their traing"
Similar as "3 mins performance,10 years training "

Ha
In most topic.
You insult all aurther/anyone in words with the different opinion with you and now........describe them as rebuttal?

呃，在这样的场合出现事故只是“small accident”？看来胡锦涛看到大陆的杂技团在表演中出事会觉得很有面子。。。。

即使大陆和共党没人性，也请相信他们中多数人做无人性的事至少也会在对自己有利的情况下。这是我和你讨论的基础。

六四？六四动武的利益显而易见，杂技团能相比？

以保护条件而言，这类杂技团的保护条件按常理只可能大大优于国内平均水准——显然杂技团表演成功比表演砸锅而言对责任者更有利。

这样的场合is incident,few actors injury/die is a small accident.

If explosion found in the incident and cause massive ppl dead,that is big accident.


Anyway.

It's impossible/not fair for a chief officer to respon all things directly.(view of managment)
The workers provide the platform ,the leader of the kids.....the guys in 1st line should take repond since they fail their duty.



What"""责任人以后的前途几乎是毁灭性的打击"""do not make any sense if 责任人 is the Chief officer for you.

Will u believe all words from your agents??(investment,insurance,fund....)
Will/Should China listen to the foreign ""professional""???

Profession in China is not Professtional?Only foreigner can make professional judgement? How professional you are can make this professional argument?

本篇文章已被 路人甲 於 Jul 23 2007, 12:50 編輯過

Yup, that's what you're doing. Questions irrelevant stuff, keep deviating from the mainpoint, evading other people's arguments......

Doesn't matter how you read this. Just read the darkened words from my last post.

Oh really, then point them out and ask other people whether it's a reasonable criticism (rebuttal) or just personal insult violating board rules. Otherwise, you're making a false accusation (which may be considered personl attack), and this further deviates the course of discussion.

Also, board rule only applies to people who is participating in the discussion. When people here attacks public or historical figures, do you think I shold consider this personal attack and ban them all? Authors and their articles are no exception to criticisms, and harsh comments can be included. Actually, they are harsh beacuse they are reasonable. If I just come out and curse lots of bad words, that won't be harsh at all, that'll just be stupid.

If you really think that example I gave you is a personal insult violating board rules, instead of making sarcasms, you shold try to find some admin or moderator who agrees. I guess you can hardly do that because I clearly stated that it was hypothetical, an example for the sake of discussion. But then you may still make yourself an execuse that's because I'm a bigger admin and "have power" over others, or whatever you'd like to think.

Fortunately, no government officials, ordinary viewers nor the media attending that show would think like you do. This is not 500 years ago.

The last sentence do not make any sense to me.

You seems to have no problem believing all words from the author (e.g. the performance was life threatening and inhumane).

You're going nowhere with these kind of topic deviation.

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jul 23 2007, 13:08 編輯過

It's futile to discuss with kyr. He makes lots of bold statments but whenever you point out the mistakes in them, he either evades them or use another way to question your reply, sometimes deviating from the topic. He almost never admit his faults and it's hard to stick to the point.

So Kyr, any direct comment for this?

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jul 23 2007, 13:22 編輯過

彼此的估計，牽涉對內地一般情況的認知，這類背景認知是很難舖陳出來的，但這卻是彼此所以有不同估計的原因。我估計出現嚴重意外的可能性大，你說我「拿不出任何具說服力的證據」；但你估計出現嚴重意外的可能性不大，不也是難有甚麼「具說服力的證據」可言？「他們肯定蠢得不知道雜技演員的死傷會損害雜技團的利益」，這不是很好的理由。香港興建赤臘角機揚，死了五十多人，建築公司也未至「蠢得不知道工人死亡會損害建築公司的利益」。這裡要說的是，高難度疊羅漢雜技演員死傷會一定程度損害雜技團的利益，這不足作為其訓練時不大可能出現傷亡的理由。

你只是以戲謔的口吻述說常理罷了。正式在人前公開表演時的保險功夫，自然要比起私下訓練時要大大提高，這確是常理。

我說甚麼，我自己知道。原文是說路人甲承接你「看到這種空中飛人雜技後鼓掌=沒人性」的理解，而說出「看雜技並拍手表示欣賞原來會做成社會風氣不良」。「這種浮淺化的曲解」，是指路人甲所承接的由「看到這種空中飛人雜技後鼓掌」到「沒人性」這一步。如果你依上文未明白我的意思，我現在補充。

經年訓練，是否有大可能出現嚴重意外，這種問題，只能訴諸對國內一般情況的認知，作類比歸納，主要不是依賴演繹式的「proof」或「valid support」的。至於某一危險度是否不仁，得依賴道德直覺，此更不可能有演繹式的證明。

我實在看不見你舉的這個例子如何藉以反駁我在前文的解釋。我在前文解釋的是：「見ｘ，發生ｙ不奇怪」的說法，不必理解為「ｘ是ｙ的唯一主要因素」而大可理解為「ｘ是ｙ的其中一個主要因素。」
在你所舉的情況下，我可以說「你發燒未至不省人事」（或「試前有預備」）難怪沒得零分；而我這樣說不表示「你發燒未至不省人事」（或「試前有預備」）是你沒得零分的唯一主要因素。

這依然是含糊其辭。依討論脈胳，關銉是：你說的「ｘ->ｙ」或「ｘ引發ｙ」，是想說ｘ是ｙ的唯一主因還是其主因之一？文章沒提其他主因，可不就表示了否定有其他主因吧。



坦白說，這個辯論，花費了我甚多時間。我已不能再像讀書時可以投放大量時間在這類討論上了。還是在此打住，元直與路人甲即管繼續反駁，我只得努力「駁不還口」，忍手不將心裡的回應寫出了。

本篇文章已被 太空漫遊 於 Jul 23 2007, 19:16 編輯過

Yeah... Showing appreciation for an acrobatic performance is immoral, because it is 'dangerous.' You seem to forget that these performers are trained to do their job. I can show you a similar argument and explain how it literally fails.

Soccer is an extremely dangerous sport. There are risks of serious injury. from the brain concussion to later - life back problems, or suffering threatening injuries that make one disabled. Yet you see the Italian President congratulating the players as well as the Italian fans... They are all so inhuman, cruel and immoral. We should ban soccer for good and dismiss all those soccer teams!!

First let me point out some similarities.

Football players have to start training from a young age.

Their playing career rarely goes beyond the age of 35.

The typical career would last maybe 20 years.

They usually don't have any other skill


So next time there's a match, we should remain silent?

覆漫遊：

看來你也不得不承認原文沒甚麼證據可言。

對情況的認知有其主觀性，但不等於可以不講合理性，不是說就可以隨著片面印象去隨便假設。在前面已經說得很清楚，在這種重要場合的表演，不會有人想去冒重大風險的，除非你認定中共官員已無理智可言。既然演出要保險，排練自然也沒理由是玩命，因此所謂「捨命演出」「跌死跌癱」就已經是完全無理的猜測，作者要拿這表演說事，只好向滑坡論證邁步。

這麼簡單的道理，我一再重複，別人也一再重複，文章支持者似乎都喜歡視而不見，轉頭又說「沒有具說服力的證據」，對此我也沒辦法。他們總是認為，中國一般不重視人命，所以這種正規雜技團也不重視人命，這才是比上面那段更合理的推斷。我不知道需要怎樣的背景認知才能產生這種先有立場後有推斷的想法。

你先說表演時可以有重重保護避免差池，然後又認定訓練肯定沒有類似的保護，因此(還是因為?)內地不重視人命。可是你又認同人員傷亡明顯不符合雜技團的利益，而雜技團的人也不是不懂維護自己利益的傻子，這種省級雜技團更不見得會沒有經費，那麼訓練不人道，不顧保護措施這是怎麼推論出來的？又是「內地一向不重視人命，所以訓練必然是不重視人命」的所謂「常理」？

這種片面印象，說的難聽點叫偏見，說得好聽點就叫「道德直覺」。可是無論你這「道德直覺」如何，也不能成為不顧合理性，站在道德制高點上胡亂猜測的藉口。

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jul 23 2007, 22:02 編輯過

Will u believe all words from your agents??(investment,insurance,fund....)
Will/Should China listen to the foreign ""professional""???

很奇怪，我不知道我的回复中的专业人士哪里有特指是大陆专业人士？

foreign ""professional"的意见当然也是很有力很权威的论据，不过似乎我没看到，难道您或者本文作者是杂技专业的？

如果在大陆few actors injury/die真的不过是small accident的话，那在这个场合也不是小事故了，因为它让胡没面子了不是？按照您的观点，上层官员的个人意见显然更为重要。

而且关于事故是否是small accident的判定是以国内的标准而不是您的，请多少了解一下国内的情况而不要以你的想象做证据。

至于处分，其实前面已经回复过了，没错，最大的责任者或者如你所言的“替罪羊”也许会找一线员工承担，但其上的领导者轻轻重重的也会有些处分，这由事故的严重程度决定。

即使c hief leader并没有受到严重处罚，但他今后还可能升迁吗？上级可能提升一个让胡不快的人？也请多少了解一下国内官员的升迁情况。