Posted in: 其它

Politics Fair

美国芝加哥大学的一位法学博士 (JD) 曾讲过这样一个故事: 在第一堂法学课上,一位有名的教授讲美国宪法。 一上来就对学生说,如果我在你们任何人提交的case analysis 中看到fair这个词。 I will fail you. Never use F word in your argument. 

他解释,不管是法律还是政治,总是代表了多方利益的妥协, 每个人在阐述自己观点的时候,都是屁股决定了脑袋, 从个人利益出发,不管是有意的还是潜意识的。 所以,你的fair 和我的fair 永远不是一个标准。 

所以,虽然是律师,我从来不在任何场合与别人进行政治讨论因为这毫无意义。最有效的途径就是各自按照各自的意愿和信仰去投票,这是宪法给每个人参政的机会。 

说到底,这个国家的政策,是多数人(包括钱的多数)决定的。我们能做的就是去投票,或去煽动投票。 

联合跟自己利益一致的人,通过投票吧美国的政策向你喜欢的方向引导。最后,谁能获胜,就看实力了,打嘴仗永远最省事,但永远最没用。 

如果想在大选中支持某个候选人,非常容易。 在网上联系他们在加州的竞选团队,可以出钱,出任帮助宣传。 他们甚至可以拍你去摇摆州挨家挨户敲门拉票。

所以,真的想影响大选就行动起来,加入该加入的组织团队!

不出钱,也不出力的,只在中国人群里吵架的,一点儿用也没有用,也不可能说服和自己观点不同的人,因为“屁股”不坐在一起。 

大女儿在幼儿园时, 常常说It’s not fair. 我问她,你觉得怎样才fair呢? 她说你必须一样对待我和妹妹。 然后给她解释,妹妹出生以前, 妈妈只有你一个孩子, 所有的东西都给你。 公平可不可以这样理解,你4岁以前得到的关注,妈妈应该一样一样地给妹妹? 那你等四年,这四年我不能管你, 因为fair 我要给妹妹全部的关注。 四年以后,我平均分配。 

而且, mom’s love will double for each of you because I have two daughters and I can appreciate their differences. 

My younger daughter told me “She listens to stories from both sides.” when I asked her what she thinks of a teacher. 

You can never put yourself in others’ shoes. SAT Money cannot buy love, asymmetric belief 

As a real estate broker, middle woman, I have deep feelings about this. 

I can never complete my clients’ situation. I listen to their decision. Obedience. 

I only tell  facts, including the law, the contracts. I won’t reason and judge because I won’t be better than them if I were in their position. 

I only try to be flexible and compromise. explain I need to be firm, 

We are politic animals. We must express our opinions. Or it will give crying babies more chance to be heard. True, we need to discern the situation. 

I have been disappointed that churched try to avoid politician discussions. If good thing lost arena to bad thing, what do they expect? They will eventually be muffled totally. 

Then I realized churches do have their political opinions, indeed everyone does. But we vote with our many and our actions. And due to persecution and avoid further segregation and due to the fact that each topic is so important to our future, we are very open in small group discussions where people can take time to demonstrate his or her opinions clearly. 

We find close friends with same political views in this way. 

Los Altos: the first law after incorporation. 

Lgbt+: identity – who you are.

My younger daughter was bothered by this question when she was in 6th grade. Her article. 

My elder daughter told her not to tell me because I am a Christian. 

Little by little, I found chance to tell her that I am a Christian but I know

Who you are is a good question and you might spend your whole life to find the answer. While at the same time, ask yourself, What is a person? What is consciousness? What is death? What is a meaningful life? What is kindness? What is your vision of the ideal society?
 
Because no matter which gender you choose, you are my child and I love you. Nevertheless, I care more if you can become a responsible and independent adult  and carry my genes and live on after I die. Others care more what you can do for them, for this society. To survival, we have this ability exchange system. If you are useless to others and cannot produce food and clothes for yourself, you cannot live on. So when you try to figure out your real gender, at the same time think about what is a person? what is a meaningful life? Where you come from and where you are going?
 
Philosophical questions often explore what is, what should be, and how we can know what is and what should be. They can cover topics such as metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Here are some philosophical questions you can ask a philosopher:
  • Metaphysics
    What exists and how it exists: What is a person? What is consciousness? What is death?
  • Ethics
    What we ought to do and what a good life is: What is a meaningful life? What is kindness? What is your vision of the ideal society?
  • Epistemology
    What can we know: Can we really know everything? Do we really have free will? How should we define knowledge?

+1,这个群很多时候像个大字报公告板,大多数人沉默不代表同意。而且你没有办法用逻辑去说服一个非理性无逻辑的人,政治观点大多数情况下也无法说服。从这个群我最大的感慨大概就是“XX不过如此”哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈。对待社会达尔文主义者,你不可能用道理去说服,因为铁拳没砸在他们头上他们就觉得“定是你不够努力”。也不可能说服一个歧视者告诉他们什么是歧视。

发表个人几点不成熟的观点: 1、 鲁迅说(划掉)伏尔泰说:我不能同意你的每一个观点,但是我誓死捍卫你说话的权利。 2、 本群是我目前最活跃的一个校友群。其实很高兴还有这么多人愿意说话,尤其还愿意说点真心话。真的很难得。 3、 每逢选举年,为了民主共和之争,多少夫妻都成怨偶。看来讨论政治真的不利于团结。 4、 讨论问题的时候尽量就事论事,不要贴标签。 5、 康德说:有两种事物,我们越是经常、持续地对它们反复思考,它们就总是以时时翻新、有增无已的惊叹和敬畏充满我们的心灵:这就是头上的星空和内心的道德法则。

借用上面一位校友的话“本群是我目前最活跃的一个校友群。其实很高兴还有这么多人愿意说话,尤其还愿意说点真心话。真的很难得。”

虽然我不活跃,但也想珍惜我们这个最活跃的校友群, 为此,建议可否将其中的规则5)敏感话题做些改变。 不好意思提前声明,可能我不太活跃所以我对被封没有太多的感觉。 基于这个偏颇,下面的建议也有可能有不妥的地方,请谅解。 

让我们承认:每个人都有自己内心的道德法则, 也都有说话的权利。 每个人都是不同的, 我们的认知都有局限, 而且知道的越多,对这个局限的了解也越多。这也是我们活到老学到老的原因, 也是我们追寻真理,贵朝闻夕死的原因。 

我们说话,首先为了表达自己, 其次为了寻求理解, 再次为了得到认同-志同道合,最终期望更多志同道合的人。人生来就是政治动物。 

其次:Kaylee 帮我们捋清并具象了一个共识; 我们一直以来应该没有排斥任何观点的发表,我们排斥的是她举的四个例子(可以作为我们的案例法哈),对这些言语,理事会应该有权作出处罚。

  • Newsom 就是bustard, 滚出加州
  • Harris 就是妓女,一路睡到现在这样的位置,不能让这样的女人当总统!
  • 支持Trump 的都是脑残粉,Trump 自己打了Covid 疫苗, 为什么脑残粉还坚持不打?
  • 支持拜登的人眼都瞎了吗?他都走不动了。 

让我们捍卫彼此说话的权力,允许每个人做”自说自话的总裁“, 我的一点经验分享-做到就事论事有一个小窍门,不要在表达自己观点的时候cue别人。同意的自然会给你点赞。不同意的人也会尊重你的想法。 还有,人们会在自问“为什么有这样的想法呢”中从你的视角反思自己的想法。 

cue 别人, 我完全赞同辩论中的正面硬刚,“单挑”。 因为当你这样做的时候, 你自己也会多想想你的观点, 其次,你在进一步阐明你的想法的同时,也给对方机会更多阐述他的想法。如果他有空接招的话。 

作为社会的人, 我们最大的渴望是获得关注。 对一个人最大的处罚其实是“孤立”和“无视”。 我们中国有“哀莫大于心死” In western culture, I heard that if you stop loving somebody, you actually murder him because this person to you is dead. 

我听说国内有的老师用“无视”如此惩罚学生。 

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

发表评论