| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27] > | Off topic: 对人生与社会的思考 Thread poster: chance (X)
|
|---|
ysun 
United States
Local time: 17:59
English to Chinese
+ ...
那个“大纪元”和“新唐人”确实与“法广”是一路货色！如果一个人言必称“法广”，只从“法广”吸取营养，怎么能得出公正的结论呢？
给“法广”翻译文章的那些中文翻译肯定天天有活干，而且是高价。:D
isahuang wrote: 你说得是 Yueyin Sun wrote: wherestip wrote: chance, 中央情报局的工作人员 有这么"不打自招" 的吗? 我想不可能.  Steve, 看来那个自称“我是美国中情局的”竭力想把对方描述成“中共中央派来的”，并企图要人相信，海外华人那么愤怒是由于“中共中央派来的代表”如此这般的策动。 像此文作者那样的水平，如果真会被美国中情局看上，那就说明美国中情局应改行去卖红薯了。:D 你大概见过此地的一份中文报纸，是那个“法功”的机关报，免费赠阅。那里面尽是类似的文章。难免这里有人会从“法广”联想起“法功”。 大记元吧，他们还有个机关电视台呢。叫新唐人。节目质量极低，那些播音员简直就是大街上随便找来的会说中文的就行，声音一点训练都没有。听着那叫别扭。
[Edited at 2008-04-03 17:27]
| | | | ysun
United States
Local time: 17:59
English to Chinese
+ ...
大概也是“中共中央派来的”！
chance wrote:
要是我贴同样的，可能早就被删了。有的人贴，不会删，尽管贴。
| | | | chance (X)
French to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
法广是法国国际广播电台，和“大纪元”、“新唐人”没什么关系。有本事摆道理，用这种方法扰乱视线，实在不算高明。
Yueyin Sun wrote: 那个“大纪元”和“新唐人”确实与“法广”是一路货色！如果一个人言必称“法广”，只从“法广”吸取营养，怎么能得出公正的结论呢？ 给“法广”翻译文章的那些中文翻译肯定天天有活干，而且是高价。:D isahuang wrote: 你说得是 Yueyin Sun wrote: wherestip wrote: chance, 中央情报局的工作人员 有这么"不打自招" 的吗? 我想不可能. Steve, 看来那个自称“我是美国中情局的”竭力想把对方描述成“中共中央派来的”，并企图要人相信，海外华人那么愤怒是由于“中共中央派来的代表”如此这般的策动。 像此文作者那样的水平，如果真会被美国中情局看上，那就说明美国中情局应改行去卖红薯了。:D 你大概见过此地的一份中文报纸，是那个“法功”的机关报，免费赠阅。那里面尽是类似的文章。难免这里有人会从“法广”联想起“法功”。 大记元吧，他们还有个机关电视台呢。叫新唐人。节目质量极低，那些播音员简直就是大街上随便找来的会说中文的就行，声音一点训练都没有。听着那叫别扭。 [Edited at 2008-04-03 17:27]
| | | | ysun
United States
Local time: 17:59
English to Chinese
+ ...
| 高明的你就继续欣赏你的“法广”吧！ | Apr 3, 2008 |
chance wrote: 法广是法国国际广播电台，和“大纪元”、“新唐人”没什么关系。有本事摆道理，用这种方法扰乱视线，实在不算高明。 Yueyin Sun wrote:
那个“大纪元”和“新唐人”确实与“法广”是一路货色！如果一个人言必称“法广”，只从“法广”吸取营养，怎么能得出公正的结论呢？
给“法广”翻译文章的那些中文翻译肯定天天有活干，而且是高价。:D
| | |
|
|
|
redred
China
Local time: 06:59
English to Chinese
+ ...
chance wrote:
但是我自己清楚知道我有过类似经历，只是我没像作者那样最后开个玩笑，当时也没想到要写篇文章揭露。我也是从那类学校出来的，所以知道双方谈得是什么。有一点很清楚，我们没有像有些校友那样选择不分青红皂白的民族主义。
最近国内有朋友问我为什么有些人在美国呆了那么长时间，还会有那样的反应？我告诉她，也许他们心虚。同时我也不得不向她解释，美国有些方面确实越走越远，与欧洲的人文和民主越来越不同，他们大概就是这种环境里出来的产物？
之前把你想像得太简单了。“什么学校出来”，中情六处？KGB？
| | | | | 民主、自由以及每天24000人死于饥饿 | Apr 4, 2008 |
下面的引文来自www.thehungersite.com，西方世界那些整天说中国不够民主，不够自由的人是不是应该去非洲关心一下那些濒临饿死边缘的孩子，比空喊民主自由要实在得多。中国现在至少不会饿死人，民主自由大概没有每天饿死24000人（其中四分之三是小于5岁的孩子）紧迫吧。说穿了就是中国现在经济发展太快，民主随着经济的发展也会慢慢跟上来，西方不愿看到中国经济发展，�... See more 下面的引文来自www.thehungersite.com，西方世界那些整天说中国不够民主，不够自由的人是不是应该去非洲关心一下那些濒临饿死边缘的孩子，比空喊民主自由要实在得多。中国现在至少不会饿死人，民主自由大概没有每天饿死24000人（其中四分之三是小于5岁的孩子）紧迫吧。说穿了就是中国现在经济发展太快，民主随着经济的发展也会慢慢跟上来，西方不愿看到中国经济发展，也不愿看到中国随着经济发展，中国民主的逐渐进步，因为他们担心自己主宰世界的好日子不长了，于是处处为难中国。所谓没有永恒的敌人，也没有永恒的朋友，只有永恒的利益，对我有利的就是朋友，对我不利的就是敌人。
http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1
About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
[Edited at 2008-04-04 05:32] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
1997年香港回归的时候，我在social.culture.china新闻组上跟一个叫Jim的美国人就中国的民主和人权辩论了一段时间，他在多个论坛上发表了成千上万的帖子，肯定是好几千，说不定超过一万了，那时候一查，到处都是他的帖子，后来听说中情局雇写手在网上专门攻击中国，我觉得他很可能是其中之一，就不跟他抬杠了，毕竟弄到中情局的黑名单上并不好玩，还是由安全部跟他们打�... See more 1997年香港回归的时候，我在social.culture.china新闻组上跟一个叫Jim的美国人就中国的民主和人权辩论了一段时间，他在多个论坛上发表了成千上万的帖子，肯定是好几千，说不定超过一万了，那时候一查，到处都是他的帖子，后来听说中情局雇写手在网上专门攻击中国，我觉得他很可能是其中之一，就不跟他抬杠了，毕竟弄到中情局的黑名单上并不好玩，还是由安全部跟他们打交道比较好。只是中国官方的宣传简直就是屁话，根本说不到点子上，弄了一帮蠢货在那儿白吃皇粮。
Subject: Re: What is Human Right ?
Date: 27 Oct 1997 20:23:27 GMT
From: [email protected] (Yuk Chan)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
下面的引文后面是我回复另一个叫Tim的人的对Adrian Planinc （澳洲Curtin大学）的跟帖：
Bin Li ([email protected]) wrote:
Tim wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Adrian Planinc) wrote:
>
> >It is not necessary to have a set of HR values based on Western values
> >when other ones would work just as well for people who know how to live
> >in countries like Croatia or China.
>
> I would drink to that mate!
For people who demand immediate democracy in China, I would like to ask them the following questions:
1. Had the western democracy and human rights concepts been developed in a few years and suddenly come into being?
2. Will the current status of western democracy and human rights remain the same and will never change as time goes by?
If their answers to the above two questions are no, then there must be different phases or stages for the development of democracy and human rights in a society. If that is the case, then why China should synchronize with the western world in terms of democracy and human rights?
Besides, democracy and human rights have a lot to do with the economic development of a society. Why is it so wrong for a country like China, where tens of millions of people are making less than $1 per day, to emphasize economic development to improve people's living while gradually introduce political changes?
If you can not have a basic living, how much does political freedom mean to you. The best way to determine this would be doing a statistics on how many homeless people there are in the US and how many of them voted. When you can not get a basic living, democracy is a luxury, not a necessity. I remember last June (1996) when I was working as a simultaneous interpreter for Amway Corporation's annual meeting, what Dick DeVos, President of Amway USA, said about homeless people. He said, without economic independence, freedom means nothing to those people.
It seems to me that our democracy-now folks are just like a kid demanding the Moon and demanding to have it in his hands right now and on the spot. He won't take anything less. That doesn't help any.
The human right vociferousness is just another tool that western strategists are using in place of gunboats to take advantage of poor countries. Since gunboat is out of fashion and sometimes not as useful as before, they congratulate themselves on finding these new tools which serve their purposes of taking advantage of poor countries politically as well or even better. Consider the behavior of the Brits in the last several centuries and the origin of Amnesty International in that country. I don't think that is a coincidence.
Of course, the above inference applies only to those strategists and think tank people, not to common people in the west who are influenced by the media which those strategists and think tank people control. Their voice are mostly genuine and I fully respect their concerns. Personally, I cherish democracy and human rights as much as those people. The questions is not whether we should have democracy and respect human rights but rather whether we can absolutize these noble concepts and apply them without regards to reality. We all know that a luxury car is a nice thing to have, but can we all afford one?
Recently, China announced a plan to make the country's legal system more complete by 2010 so that the change in leaders will not affect the policy of the state. If that can be achieved, it will be a significant progress in political reform. This is exactly what China needs. Whoever can make this happen will take credit in Chinese history. If I were Jiang Zemin, I would not let this opportunity slip.
下面的引文是Jim对我上面帖子的的回帖，他无法驳斥，只好悻悻地说，没有人要求中国立即民主化，并说魏京生说过大概需要一个十年的过程等等。我也挑战那些整天高喊民主自由的人用理性思辨的方式驳斥我上面的观点，看看有没有人比Jim还会狡辩，至少Jim还是Decent，没有强词夺理，无理取闹，也没有骂人。
> > >A. No one is demanding "immediate" democracy in China. Wei Jingsheng (for example) talked about a ten year process before he was sent to jail.
How many people have been criticizing China because China concentrated on economic development and delayed the process of democratic reform in the political system? To those people, "immediate" democracy is already too late but rather it is overdue because the criticism for not engaging in democratic reform in China has been around ever since Deng started the economic reform. I don't know about you, Jim. But if those people are not demanding immediate democracy they must be crying democracy overdue in China. Now at least I know you are not demanding immediate democracy in China.
The bulk of Western economic and industrial advancement is not achieved during the most democratic era. The obsession of excessive democracy and individual freedom can actually slow down economic progress. When everyone wants to have his own way, the society as a whole can not get much done. Just like in an organization, we are getting less and less done as we have more and more committees. If you compare the current living standard of the people in the US with that 30 or 40 years ago, it is not difficult to find how much it has deteriorated. My impression is that 30-40 years ago, one pay check could support a comfortable life for the family. Nowadays, two are not enough. Why? There is one obvious reason, that is, in the 50's and 60's, most of European and Asian countries were in the process of rebuilding to heal the wound of WWII. They bought many US products for their reconstruction. Now, They have rebuilt their countries and are manufacturing their own products and competing with the US. However, I think that is only part of the problem. The fundamental problem is political in the US itself. Otherwise, US had such an absolute advantage over Europe and Asia (mainly Japan), why it cannot effectively compete with them? Again, it is my impression (not necessarily accurate) that at least for some time the GNP of the US account for nearly half that of the world. At that time, the US economy was in effect the world's economy.
Centralism is the best for current China. The failure of communism in the past was caused by Mao and others, not the present leaders in China, except probably Li Peng and a very few others. China keeps Li Peng in position obviously as a show of its determination that it is not going to reevaluate 6.4 anytime soon, effectively telling those who advocate the re-evaluation "Don't even think about it now." Most of those in the new political Bureau are professionals and experts in their field, again except a very few, such as Li Ruihuan who is known for his integrity. Most of the new faces almost have nothing to do with communist's failures in the past. Why should they shoulder the responsibility of those dead people and why shouldn't they be given a chance to get something done. I heard a story about Zhu Rongji from the grapevine. He once said, when I try to catch 100 corrupt officials, I also prepare a coffin for myself." I find the sweeping statements about communists in the western media, including this newsgroup, unconscionable. We need to study more about them.
下面是关于理查德·基尔和白灵主演的电影《红色角落》的讨论，引文是Jim写的。
> |IMHO, some film-makers (both Chinese and non-Chinese) do not treat
> |Chinese as adults. Also, any government which keeps its people from
> |seeing whatever movies they want to see treats their people like
> |children. Finally, people who avoid seeing films which present
> |alternative views of life are treating themselves like children.
Question: If someone makes a film the content of which amounts to saying "Fuck your mather(land)", you think the cursed must go and see the film just to show he is an adult? Think harder and deeper, please.
Besides, using a Nazi's activities in Tibet to attack China is itself an abysmal farce. If I were the leaders of China, I will definitely show the film in every cinema of China and provide free ticket to everyone. That will definitely result in a national boycott of Hollywood films and automatically raise the Chinese nationalism to a new high level if that is what they want. You simply do not understand the Chinese people.
[Edited at 2008-04-04 11:55] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Angus Woo
Local time: 06:59
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Hi Dr. Li Bin | Apr 4, 2008 |
Since you mentioned 97 handover, here is something else you might want to know. Who knows when you are going to bump into another contentious debater.
Everybody knows that HK had been under British rule for more than 100 years and countless western politicians and political activists are presently demanding the green light signal from the central government of mainland China to give HK full suffrage, i.e. true democracy. However, what most people don't know is that before the handov... See more Since you mentioned 97 handover, here is something else you might want to know. Who knows when you are going to bump into another contentious debater.
Everybody knows that HK had been under British rule for more than 100 years and countless western politicians and political activists are presently demanding the green light signal from the central government of mainland China to give HK full suffrage, i.e. true democracy. However, what most people don't know is that before the handover became inevitable back in the 80's, no one, I repeat no one, including the English and the American government, said that HK people should have democracy. It was the left wing, not the pan-democrats we see today, they were the ones who were stipulating that democracy should be given to the HK people without delay. Today, ironically the roles of these two sides have changed. What's been happening after the handover is the polar opposite of what had happened prior to the handover. Now, the central government is saying that HK will receive full scale democracy when it thinks fit, for HK is not ready for full suffrage yet. 40 years ago, the message was different.
The left wing even organized a riot back in 1967, not peaceful protests for sure, bombs were discovered, and there were human casualties. Pretty much like what happened lately in Tibet, only the roles were different, so were the message of their propaganda and the premises of their argument.
This is partly why I am not that interested in politics, for in the political realm, honesty is something of a rarity. Everybody lies.
In my opinion, what the western world is afraid of is not just that China might become too powerful one day, according to some, that would happen around 2030. What they are truly afraid of is the idea that a combination of a market economy and a totalitarian (or aristocratic) government will, against all conventional theories, work like a charm. If this happens, then the very foundation of the entire western civilization for the last few centuries which is the marriage between market economy and democracy would be completely capsized. China would be the living proof that a country could still prosper even when governed by a highly centralized regime. The outcome of this war on ideology could reshape a large part of the political map of this planet. This is what they are truly afraid of, not just economic disputes and some minor military clashes, for everybody knows that the bottom line is that we are in the same boat, once you try to wipe out your opponent, you too will become history.
[Edited at 2008-04-04 15:20] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Yes. Beijing Model vs. Westerrn Model | Apr 5, 2008 |
Hi Angus,
Thanks a lot for the background of the turnover of Hong Kong, especially the 1967 riot which I was not aware of. Yes. I agree with you when you said that no one demanded democracy for Hong Kong people before it was returned to China. When it was turned over to China, American and British governments and others all ask China to give Hong Kong full democracy as if China is more democratic than the UK. Since China has the tag as Totalitarian country. How can you expect to hav... See more Hi Angus,
Thanks a lot for the background of the turnover of Hong Kong, especially the 1967 riot which I was not aware of. Yes. I agree with you when you said that no one demanded democracy for Hong Kong people before it was returned to China. When it was turned over to China, American and British governments and others all ask China to give Hong Kong full democracy as if China is more democratic than the UK. Since China has the tag as Totalitarian country. How can you expect to have full democracy from a totalitarian government immediately after Hong Kong is returned to China when you cannot get full democracy from a democratic country as UK. That is why I do not have any respect for Li Zhuming and Mrs. Chan. Those people represent the residual force of British colonialism. As Hong Kong has been ruled by the Brits for 100 years, you do not expect that their influence is completely gone when it is returned to China. The same holds true for Taiwan. Taiwan had been ruled by the Japanese for 50 years and you do not expect that their influence will disappear when they withdraw from the island. This entire Min Jin Dang staff is partly the residual influence of the Japanese and partly created by the US government in their effort to separate Taiwan from China. Nowadays, the US hardliners have seen that the cost might be too high to do that so they temporarily give it up and try to make trouble for China in the west front, that is, in Tibet, which is much safer for them.
I really don't care what they might come up with in the future as I believe that if you want to get a piece of Chinese territory, you must have the muscle to defeat China before it will let them have it, and it is more and more impossible for anyone in the world to easily defeat China nowadays. Therefore, if I am the leaders of China, I will not pay too much attention to whatever Dala Lama does. If they go to extreme, just try to stop them at first so that people and the rioters are not hurt. If that fails, then, force will be used. Since China has been demonized by the western governments and their media, the Chinese government should collect more evidence of the riot. I even was thinking about installing a video camera on the rifles of the armed police. If a policeman finds a rioter is killing an ordinary citizen using a gun, a big sword or a heavy hammer or metal rod etc., record the scene on the camera. If the policeman can reasonably assume that the citizen is dead, for example, lying on ground without any movement, then he should have the authority to fire to kill. This policy should be publicized to deter the rioters from killing people who do not have any weapon to defend themselves, that is, if they kill people, they also have a good chance to be killed if there is a armed police around. The scene should also be recorded on the camera so that you have evidence on your hand.
Every citizen must abide by the law, whether he is a monk or a secular person, whether he is Han or Zang or any other minorities. No one should think that he has a free license to kill other people.
Many people have been talking about Beijing Model which is especially attractive to the third world countries. Just as you said, the West is scared to death that this might mean the end to the Western Model that they have been touting all these years. I, for one, believe that with the economic development, democracy will follow. It is not necessarily that the totalirianism will remain unchanged. The present ruling of communists over China is much different from that of Mao’s days. It is a collective leadership and major decision is made in the Politic Bureau by votes, not simply by Mao's words. Let wait and see.
Angus Woo wrote:
Since you mentioned 97 handover, here is something else you might want to know. Who knows when you are going to bump into another contentious debater.
Everybody knows that HK had been under British rule for more than 100 years and countless western politicians and political activists are presently demanding the green light signal from the central government of mainland China to give HK full suffrage, i.e. true democracy. However, what most people don't know is that before the handover became inevitable back in the 80's, no one, I repeat no one, including the English and the American government, said that HK people should have democracy. It was the left wing, not the pan-democrats we see today, they were the ones who were stipulating that democracy should be given to the HK people without delay. Today, ironically the roles of these two sides have changed. What's been happening after the handover is the polar opposite of what had happened prior to the handover. Now, the central government is saying that HK will receive full scale democracy when it thinks fit, for HK is not ready for full suffrage yet. 40 years ago, the message was different.
The left wing even organized a riot back in 1967, not peaceful protests for sure, bombs were discovered, and there were human casualties. Pretty much like what happened lately in Tibet, only the roles were different, so were the message of their propaganda and the premises of their argument.
This is partly why I am not that interested in politics, for in the political realm, honesty is something of a rarity. Everybody lies.
In my opinion, what the western world is afraid of is not just that China might become too powerful one day, according to some, that would happen around 2030. What they are truly afraid of is the idea that a combination of a market economy and a totalitarian (or aristocratic) government will, against all conventional theories, work like a charm. If this happens, then the very foundation of the entire western civilization for the last few centuries which is the marriage between market economy and democracy would be completely capsized. China would be the living proof that a country could still prosper even when governed by a highly centralized regime. The outcome of this war on ideology could reshape a large part of the political map of this planet. This is what they are truly afraid of, not just economic disputes and some minor military clashes, for everybody knows that the bottom line is that we are in the same boat, once you try to wipe out your opponent, you too will become history.
[Edited at 2008-04-05 10:49] ▲ Collapse
| | | | chance (X)
French to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
请不要把西方国家放在一个篮子里，也许英语系国家的体制和思想意识更接近，而欧洲其它国家与你所了解的英美是有很大区别的。我已多次指出美国在许多方面越走越远，与欧洲的人文思想、民主平等有很大的差别。欧洲更讲究大多数人受惠的社会福利制度，而美国更喜欢丛林的弱肉强食。欧洲国家也有问题和困难，但是问题的性质和程度与美国不同，欧洲国家，尤其是北�... See more 请不要把西方国家放在一个篮子里，也许英语系国家的体制和思想意识更接近，而欧洲其它国家与你所了解的英美是有很大区别的。我已多次指出美国在许多方面越走越远，与欧洲的人文思想、民主平等有很大的差别。欧洲更讲究大多数人受惠的社会福利制度，而美国更喜欢丛林的弱肉强食。欧洲国家也有问题和困难，但是问题的性质和程度与美国不同，欧洲国家，尤其是北欧国家远比美国和谐稳定。
中国走哪条路，最后还是中国人民决定，当然他们可以选择相信集权制度给他们富裕、和谐、强大的生活，而且这一切都不需要他们操心和发言。但是不要忘记，中国人民不仅是那生活在别墅里的千分之一，也不光是生活在城里富裕起来的市民，中国还有60%以上的农民。建议你有时间读读2004年出版陈桂棣，春桃的《中国农民调查》。
Angus Woo wrote:
In my opinion, what the western world is afraid of is not just that China might become too powerful one day, according to some, that would happen around 2030. What they are truly afraid of is the idea that a combination of a market economy and a totalitarian (or aristocratic) government will, against all conventional theories, work like a charm. If this happens, then the very foundation of the entire western civilization for the last few centuries which is the marriage between market economy and democracy would be completely capsized. China would be the living proof that a country could still prosper even when governed by a highly centralized regime. The outcome of this war on ideology could reshape a large part of the political map of this planet. This is what they are truly afraid of, not just economic disputes and some minor military clashes, for everybody knows that the bottom line is that we are in the same boat, once you try to wipe out your opponent, you too will become history.
[Edited at 2008-04-04 15:20]
[Edited at 2008-04-05 12:19] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
lbone
China
Local time: 06:59
Member (2006)
English to Chinese
+ ...
Libin PhD wrote:
下面的引文来自www.thehungersite.com，西方世界那些整天说中国不够民主，不够自由的人是不是应该去非洲关心一下那些濒临饿死边缘的孩子，比空喊民主自由要实在得多。中国现在至少不会饿死人，民主自由大概没有每天饿死24000人（其中四分之三是小于5岁的孩子）紧迫吧。说穿了就是中国现在经济发展太快，民主随着经济的发展也会慢慢跟上来，西方不愿看到中国经济发展，也不愿看到中国随着经济发展，中国民主的逐渐进步，因为他们担心自己主宰世界的好日子不长了，于是处处为难中国。所谓没有永恒的敌人，也没有永恒的朋友，只有永恒的利益，对我有利的就是朋友，对我不利的就是敌人。
你的大致意思我同意，中国是个高速发展的国家，很多事情，不能用西方某些人的思维来判断。很多人对中国的概念还停留在20年前。
不过另一方面，在经济整体快速发展的背景下，仍有很多暗面，只是因为新闻管制，这些暗面往往难以出现在新闻中，大纪元总能登出不少这样的东西，但是有多少人愿意相信他们呢？反正我看他们是很反感，现在中国的利益集团只是要统治地位，保持自己人上人的地位，但那些轮子都已经不把自己当人了，它们关心“凡人”，目的只是为了给自己积德（白色物质），积的白色物质越多，它们修进到轮界的速度就越快，这种人，还能指望他们什么？民主仍是大多数人的愿望，只不过你不能要求老百姓会用血肉去争取民主。但是大部分人对此是认同的，只是一时找不到办法去实现。
饿死人的事情，肯定会有，中国有很多流动人口，虽然总体经济水平上去了，但也有很多贫困人口，某些人实际上是真正的赤贫。有的事只是不那么容易登出来。现在物价这么高，尤其是房价，而且国内没有什么切实可行的保障体系，如果谁生了大病，治不起，就只有挂了。如果没有收入，没人会养你。现在在国内的，大家都有数，有很多人是不工作的，有很少是不愿意工作的，但也有很多是因为找不到合适的工作。如果一段时间断了粮，真不知怎么办。
昨天晚上有个以前认识的人打电话给我，说实在没钱了，连住的地方都没有，晚上就要流落街头。我赶紧汇了点救命钱过去。否则真要出事了。那还是在北京生活了多少年的人。
[Edited at 2008-04-05 14:58]
| | | | Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
Local time: 06:59
English to Chinese
+ ...
lbone wrote:
饿死人的事情，肯定会有，中国有很多流动人口，虽然总体经济水平上去了，但也有很多贫困人口，某些人实际上是真正的赤贫。有的事只是不那么容易登出来。现在物价这么高，尤其是房价，而且国内没有什么切实可行的保障体系，如果谁生了大病，治不起，就只有挂了。如果没有收入，没人会养你。现在在国内的，大家都有数，有很多人是不工作的，有很少是不愿意工作的，但也有很多是因为找不到合适的工作。如果一段时间断了粮，真不知怎么办。
不管出于怎样的原因，台湾也同样会饿死人的，大多是饿到烧炭自杀的。甚至像芬兰那样发达的国家里，每年冬天各地的市政府总要在街道上收拾几具尸体，全都是冻死的醉鬼。
民主自由对那些人有什么用呢？民主自由也死人，不民主自由也死人；那么，最好是自己享受着别人由于不民主自由所提供给社会某个阶层以上的人的优渥生活，好让那个阶层以上的人说那个阶层以下的人“民主自由对他们一点用处都没有”。美国的街道上不就有那么多流浪汉吗？民主自由对他们确实一点都没有意义。
刚到德国时，看到一些流浪汉，令我感到惊奇，他们的处境比我们这些从外国去求学的学生还惨。但是，他们似乎也不在意贫穷的生活，政府定时每周发放救济金，让他们还能到学生餐厅吃午餐。那类的街友流浪汉，居无定所，常常是在公园里的小角落打地铺。冬天到了，总要冻死几个。我当时不明白问题出在哪里，直到我的一位朋友完成了哲学博士学业立即失业（应该说立即待业），政府的劳工局怎的也找不到适合他的工作岗位，还好有救济金帮着撑，撑到老婆也跑了，他的精神沮丧，心灰意懒，但至少依靠政府的救济，还维持了人样的生活。
社会的问题不那么容易解说清楚，贫穷的现象也不可能完全消失，但在政策上每个国家有不同的处理方法，就在那些方法上让人看见文明与不文明的区别。
台湾的情况是，我们相信很快就不会在媒体上看到贫穷人家烧炭自杀了，马上就好了。还是用专制的手段处理贫穷，效果马上显露出来。说来我算是幸运的，工作收入全都不是来自台湾，否则目前的情况看来，工资赶不上通膨，就是马上给大家十八趴优惠存款利率，照样会饿死人的。
| | | | chance (X)
French to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
包括法国、欧洲以及国内一些人士的看法，还没有提倡“用血肉去争取民主”的，相反，正是为了避免那些流血牺牲和动乱，才有必要形成舆论压力，提高民众整体对问题的认识，迫使执政者不得不加速政治改革。
lbone wrote:
民主仍是大多数人的愿望，只不过你不能要求老百姓会用血肉去争取民主。但是大部分人对此是认同的，只是一时找不到办法去实现。
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » 对人生与社会的思考 | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
