From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Protection bill
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:38:00 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:
>>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.
==========================================================================
I was amazed that you were so furious. I thought through all weekend and
still could not figure out what made you feel it was a personal attack. May be
the word " Puppy" was not appropriate. If so, I do applogize. What I meant
was that we were not somebody's stooge. By accepting someone's protection
will not make us morally stronger.
About Adam Smith, I do know him and I also know Karl Marx accept (or I
should say utilized) a lot of theory. But, forgive me, I am a semiidiot about
economy. However, your summerization in the previous post sounded more
like a moral argument than an economic argument. That was the reason
I raised the question of correctness. You do not have to be furious when
somebody has doubt about your statement if you are certain that
you are right. If I am not a semiidiot or a total idiot, I would have
easily admitted you were right or pointed out that you were wrong.
I demanded the defination of freedom, democracy, etc.Apperently, you
are not ready to give me your defination. CCP had its defination. In the30s
and 40s, it was fighting for a "New China with peace, democracy and freedom."
Even today, CCP still claims that the system in China is "The People's
Democratic Dictatorship." Mao once said that "We will grant PEOPLE the
greatest freedom but not our ENEMY". Even in the non-Communist world,
the so called freedon and democracy is different. Mornachy is part of 
the democracy system in Britain. The so-called democracy in India is
different than that of the United States, not to mention South Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore or South Africa. Like all the other political terms,
freedom and democracy are subject to defination!! Without defination,
the argument would be worthless.
I was interested in the boundary you were going to set for the "minimum
constraint". It is another example of ambiguous defination.
I admit that New York city is ONE of the greatest cities in the world. I
went to there, drove hours, several times just for the MET. However, no
body could deny that one can find the world's most ugly places in 
the NEW YORK CITY too. I do think that most of the
people who work, live and enjoy NYC, including you, would agree with
me. I do not think that you really enjoyed being robbed even you can
logged with NYPD. (By the way, when I was in NYC last Christmas Eve,
my car was broken in and a couple of the policemen were on the
scence before I got there. It did not mean that my property/right
was well protected.)
Now back to the issue of human beings and animal. The difference
between them, according to Christianity, is that human beings is
"created with the GOD'S IMAGE". I do not know whether it is your
understanding but it is not mine. I believe that human beings, in 
order to differ from animal fundementally, has to have moral. Using
"we are all human beings" as an excuse for selfishness will only
degrade someone himself as well as the human beings to the level
of simple animals. It is neither based on the communist dotrine, nor 
Christianity, nor Confucianism. 
When somebody disagrees with you or you do not like somebody's idea/
argument, calm down. Do not say somebody is thoughtless. Probably
you are thinking on a different track. If anybody who disagrees with
you has to be degrading the argument, idiot, thoughtless, even ass****,
I could not understand what you are arguing for.
I have been in the States for more than four years. I have heard this
word before. This is the first time I saw somebody explicitly spell
this out, especially in this "serious discussion". I have to admit
my disappointment and my doubt about your seriousness.
You do not have to regard this as a personal response. It was just 
a personal statement about issues I have been concerned with. You have 
no need to read them as you wish.
BY the way, I feel it is not necessary for me to use my English name
on SCC any more since most people here are Chinese or at least
very interested in the issues about China. So, if you see the
name c.q., then that is me. The other name I may use: CORC(Conservative 
Old-fashion Republican Communist.) Avoid them as you wish!
Regards!

YANG, Changqing
University of Massachussetts,
Department of Chemistry
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china