From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Protection bill
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:40:00 GMT


In article <29226@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU>, eshen@.stern.nyu.edu (Eileen Shen) writes...
>In article <27AUG199210003418@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.
edu (s9874194) writes:


IF ANYONE HAS READ THIS BEFORE, I APPOLOGIZE AND PLEASE SKIP IT AS
YOU WISH!
===============================================================================
Hello, Mr. Eileen Shen,

I posted an article to your following post yesterday. However, it seems
not going through. So, here I am again. This will also serve as an 
anser to "ping". I will try to be calm and decent as I said earlier today.
Do not regard it as a personal response. It is just my personel statement
regarding to issues. After all I am new to the SCC netters, so I'd like
the oppotunity to let my points known.

I did not realized that my previous post made you so furious. Probably, 
the word "Puppy" was not appropriate. If so, I do apologize. What I 
meant was that we were not someone's stooge or puppet. By accepting
the other people's protection would not necessarily make us stronger.
The protection bill may improve the situation of the Chinese student
here for short run, but in the long run it will hurt the Chinese
community as a whole. (I think that I may post another article to
express myself more explicitly on this issue.)

I mentioned Adam Smith. I do know who is Adam Smith. I do know how
Karl Marx derived his theory from Adam Smith. However, I am a semiidiot,
if not a total idiot about economy. I do not feel shameful to say that 
there are a lot of things I do not know, do not understand. I do not
believe that I should feel shameful. When I asked you whether you
were sure your summerization, I meant it. If I knew more about
Adam Smith, I would have admitted your correctness or pointed out
you were wrong. I am sorry you misunderstood me.

When I brough up the issue of Law and Order, I did not mean that
I agree with the law and order within PRC or anybody here was
doing something unlawful. What I meant was to give you my defination
for your "minimum constraint". I was expecting your defination. Too
bad that you missed my point.

I brought up the issue of animal and human beings, because that I believe
"we are all human beings" has become an excuse for someone's selfishness.
According to Christianity, the difference here is that human beings
"are created with the GOD'S image". Apprently, I do not agree with
this definition. I do not know what is your definition. As I understand,
the fundamental difference is that human beings live in a community,
do have a moral in accord with the community and every individual has
to obey the moral standard. If everybody thinks only for themselve
without following the social moral standard and use "we are all
human beings" as an excuse, it will just degrade the value of human
being to the animal.

I still do demand a definition for the freedom and democracy we
are talking here. CCP always claims that it grants the people the
greatest freedom and democracy according to its definition. In
the struggle in 30's and 40's, they claimed that they were fighting
for a "new China with peace, democracy and freedom." Mao once said that
"We will grant our people the greates freedom but not our enemies."
So, clearly, there is a problem of definition. Even in the so called
free world, the style and degree of democracy was different and varies
with the culture and nationality. Ping said I enjoyed my dad slash
me on my face. What I meant was just a cultural difference. When I
was in Japan, I could often hear a husband beating her wife from
the house across the street from my apartment and n body intervene.
I am not say it is not a problem. Do you think mornachy is in accord
with the democratic principle? Of course not. Then is Great Britain a
democratic country? You would say yes. So, like other political term,
democracy and freedom do subjuct to definition and do varies from 
culture to culture, from country to country.

About the USSR, I have my own opinion. Forgive me, I do not want to
state that today.

I agree with you that NYC is one of the world's most beautiful city.
I went to there several times. Some time I drove there for hours just
for the MET. However, nobody can deny that one can also find world's
most ugly place in NYC too. I think most of the people working in NYC,
living in NYC, enjoying NYC, including you, would agree with me. I do 
not believe that you enjoyed being robbed even though you could log
in the cases with NYPD.

Why CCP loosened the restrictions to the CSS? I smelled more of gun
powder of power struggle within the party than anything else. After
the Party's 14th congress and next year's People's Congress, how will
thing be, remains to be checked. I believe that if anyone wants to go
back, between now and the People's Congress would be a great oppotunity,
unless s/he is on the name tag of CCP after June 4th. I may be wrong
but that is how I understand the politics in China.

After all, I wish you will not be offended by different opinions and
different standings. If somebody disagree with you or you do not like
his ideas, then he must be degrading the discussion, idiot, or ass****,
then why you need discussion here? I have hear a lot of people saying
that word. I have to admit that this is the first time I saw it in a
serious discussion. I have to admit my disappointment and my doubt 
about your seriousness. I think we all need to behave ourselve. Other
wise, we probably do not have to rights and the chance to change our
country and the world. Don't you agree?
BTW, I do not think that I need to use my English name in the net
since most of the friends here are Chinese or at least interested in 
the issues regarding to China. So, c.q. will be the name I use the most.
Also, I may use CORC (Conservative Old-fashion Republican Communist).
Avoid them as you wish.
YANG Changqing,
University of Massachusetts,
Department of Chemistry.
========================================================================
>>How? I can not understand the logic here. Under someone's PROTECTION
>>makes you stronger? Are you someone's Puppy? The word "protection"
>>makes me sick!!! 
> 
>Since you, Daniel, degrade a serious discussion into a personal
>attack, you are nothing but an asshole. I suggest you for goodness
>sake read some of the news.* groups and learn how to behave yourself
>before you make your next post. Also read again what you just said.
>They suggest you do not use your brain, or it's faulty.
> 
>>Are you sure you summarized it RIGHT? I do not know any Adam Smith.
>>Do not fool me.
> 
>If you don't know who is Adam Smith, the grand daddy of classical
>economics, and don't care to learn a little bit of economic theory,
>then keep your mouth zipped. No one's fooling you. You're making a
>fool of yourself by showing your ignorance and stupidity.
> 
>>>In a society, each individual should be able to pursuit what he/she
>>>wants with minimum constraints. This is what made America great. At
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>So, you do agreee that there shall be some "Constraint". Then, how do you
>>define minimum or excessive? Is there a clear, universal cut? I believe
>>the line here should be a country's constitution, the law and the order
>>of a particular country, not some body else's.
> 
>Chinese law has no jurisdiction in US, and no one is charging the
>lobbying of the bill unlawful, so what is your point?
> 
>>>theory of sacrifice notwithstanding. We are after all human beings,
>>					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>I read it as "We are all animals." After all what is the fundamental
>>difference between human being and animals??
> 
>Those who can tell the difference between human beings and animals are
>human beings. Those who can't, including you, are animals.
> 
>>>world. We need a free, democratic China whose full potentials can be
>>		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Can somebody give me a defination here? What do you mean by free? Free of
>>what? I can freely walk on the street of Beijing anytime I want (may
>>be not on June 4) but I would be afraid of walking in the street of Mahattan
>>after dust everynight. 
>>Daniel
> 
>If you don't know what it means by a free democratic country, my short
>answer for you, Daniel, is that you probably don't need one. Nor need
>you worry about it. It does not mean, though, that other people don't
>deserve one.
> 
>No one will be afraid of, or sick of, any "protection bill" which will
>protect you from being forced to walk or live in Manhattan. This
>proves Manhattan is a more desired place. There are millions of New
>Yorkers enjoying their lives in the one of the greatest cities in the
>world, including its night life. If you don't like it, we will take
>it. (For the record I got robbed twice in NYC and logged the cases with
>the police. So exercise your vigilance while you are here.)
> 
>>>the bill. It is heterogeneity, not homogeneity, of opinions that makes
>>	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>nations great. In fact, I dare venture to say that SCCers make a fine
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Not so absolute. Heterogeniety also can divide a country. We saw it last
>>year in USSR.
>>Daniel
> 
>It's their choice, none of your business.
> 
>>>example for all Chinese by asserting themselves and pushing a stubborn
>>						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>regime change for the good. It's not a flawless tactic, and it will
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You are pretty cocky here. CCP only will make changes towards its own
>>interest. It will not bend to outside pressure. After all, 1972 and 1978
>>Daniel
> 
>It's CCP's own interest to treat students nicely ONLY AFTER they
>demand for it WITH FULL STRENGTH. Not so long ago they got harassed
>very time they went back home and had a visit, you idiot.
> 
>Seriously, Daniel, I do not enjoy reply to you at all. Your posts are
>so thoughtless that they are unworthy of my attention. It's not my style
>to flame on the net, but since you started it, it can only be fair
>that I finish it. Don't bother to talk to me again. My best response to
>you will be silence.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china