戴燿廷乃天下一大愚人也

戴燿廷跑出來揭露自己的底細給全世界看:『「佔領中環」並非顏色革命,他無意挑戰中央在任命特首上的權力,甚至提出,若普選產生的特首未符中央要求,會尊重中央行使否決權不作任命。』

如果是山中去組織,我第一件事就是挑選一個顔色作主題。一邊要說「引爆核彈」,另一邊連個顔色也不敢用,還談公什麽民,抗什麽命?戴燿廷到底知不知「顔色革命」是什麽?它是因爲什麽而出現的?一個政權不讓你民主普選,你要組織反抗力量用盡方法,甚至不顧個人的安危去爭取民主普選,請問戴教授這在政治科學上叫做什麽?

毛潤之有言:「搞革命不是辦家家酒。」戴燿廷搞的甚至不是家家酒,「佔領中環」只是為了讓大家坐牢而搞的活動。嗚呼!要坐牢可以去高買或打劫銀行,這樣做至少會有一點錢到手。爲「佔領中環」去坐牢,坐牢之後它不承認普選結果,你又甘心接受這樣的決定,請問去坐牢有什麽意義?普選之後可以不承認,像小孩子玩泥沙般推倒重來,你要普選來幹什麽?爭普選純粹是爲了好玩?

有戴燿廷這樣的朋友真的不需要敵人。我是中共的話我絕不放過這個機會跟他玩玩,蓋難得可以碰上這個千年不遇的大白痴。「為愚人劃策罪該一死」,我奉勸大家,尤其是熱血方剛的學生,不要為愚人去坐牢。

後記:

在這裡提供幾句中國諺語讓戴教授參考參考。「船頭驚鬼,船尾驚賊」、「又要馬兒好,又要馬兒不吃草」、「駑馬戀短豆」、「又要做婊子,又要立貞節牌坊」。請戴教授想想自己到底是在幹什麽。

This entry was posted in Awesome Stuff, 政治與經濟 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 則回應給 戴燿廷乃天下一大愚人也

  1. Bill 說:

    montwithin,

    They will not go to jail for their action unless they are repeated offenders. What is pathetic is the seemingly justified argument put forward by Senior Counsel and prominent lawyers. I read the news yesterday about what Martin Lee said「 在資深大律師排名第一的李柱銘,一直以合法手段爭取民主,今次破例,他解釋,因理念而犯法有其合理性,「法律是重要,但不是最重要,法律之上還有一個Natural Law(自然法),尤其是民主這些大題目」。」I really don’t know what natural law he talked about. If he talked about natural justice, then he is totally wrong. I am afraid he set a bad and misleading example to the young people who may think even the senior counsel is going to challenge the law, it must be legally arguable. It pays if they let stupidity lead their mind.

    • 山中 說:

      Bill,

      Since going to jail is their selling point now, I’ll play their game for a bit. Overall, I detest people making legal argument to justify “revolution" or whatever they are trying to do. Any kind of anti-establishment movement is fundamentally political; the political argument one has to make is that the rule established by this regime should no longer apply for the time being because of “tyranny". One cannot agree with the rule (agree to go to jail, or that the arrest/sentencing is just), while saying the rule is wrong at the same time. That’s the point I was trying to raise with social contract. Since the contract, the source of the law (using the term loosely here), is twisted and unjust, the legal regime, or a part of it, has to be suspended and cannot resume unless a new contract is made.

      Natural law, natural rights, natural justice or whatever name one wishes to call it is a rather outdated 18th century concept, I believe (very outdated if one believes in the implementation of the so-called positive rights). There is nothing “natural" about human political organizations and everything is political (politika in Greek, “affairs of the city"); we do somethings in some ways because they serve us or some of us well in a given situation. Nobody is born with any natural rights, for nature is probably the most horrifying monster in our known universe. We create political and social institutions so that we can survive and prosper. If these regimes do not allow us to do that, we change them. There is no need to invoke “nature".

  2. Bill 說:

    I should change “seemingly justified argument" into"purportedly justified argument".

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s