字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2008/03/19 10:37:08瀏覽869｜回應2｜推薦8 | |
|
大哥的回應超過兩千字，不為UDN系統所喜，只好另闢一文。文末引用的詩 "First They Came," 出自德國牧師 Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)。(文中 Chicken = 北橋客） -------------------------------------------------------------- I've been known for a big time flip-flop, so for this one I will take Chicken's side. I do not think Chicken should withdraw this article unless he never did believe in what he wrote. In that case, it would be such a shame because it is well written and he would certainly have my vote has he gone along with it. The article may have leaned a bit toward the sentiments but that does not invalidate the points he wants to make. Is it too emotional as some have suggested? There's nothing wrong with that. You can not be truly compassionate about human nature and passionate about your belief in their capabilities to excel, without making a contrast to how emotionally you are affected by the disappointment caused by their lacks of progress. About that point of being not rational enough...what the hell does that mean, exactly? Seriously, have you ever met an absolutely rational person in your life? And if you had (or think you had,) tell me earnestly that such a person did not bore you to death. I pray that I'll never run into such a person. He who possesses that quality must also have his mind in the highest form of symmetry - a complete randomness which directs his thought, if any, to nowhere. Rational thinking or at least the one we have always been hypnotized to aspire to, is really the residual effect of the antique version of modernism, a reaction to the (failed) revolution of 1848. In intellectual capacity it gained us nothing but the cold hard facts of materialism and the belief that all human are evil. So my dear Chicken, there's absolutely no reason to back down from where you stand. I don't think you wrote it with an intention to persuade somebody. Do you remember all those lessons on pens being more powerful than swords? Have someone hold a sword against your neck and you will find it extremely persuasive. Persuasion is not the point. You have an opinion that you wish to express (of which you did famously.) That is the point. I have one complaint (more like a whining.) It really should not be about being kind or unkind, as your title has suggested. It should be about where you draw the line between civilized and barbarous behaviors. CW is going to give me hell on this one from his relativistic philosophical point of view, which I normally would have agreed. But for this one time I can't adopt that doctrine. This is one bullet that none of us can afford to dodge. In the end of day, one has to make a yes or no choice between the two. He who tries to evade the question by denouncing that either way is full of hypocrisies will have to show me that he can really live like a beast before I can let the matter rest. A little something for those of you out there who believe that it is here and now this line should be, and has to be drawn: "They came after the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I did not object. They came after the Catholics, and I was not a Catholic, so I did not object. They came after the trade unionists, and I was nota trade unionists, so I did not object. Then they came after me and there was nobody left to object." I have no desire to take that stand alone in the future, so I better do it now. |
|
| ( 時事評論｜政治 ) |
