主题：一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷，成怒恼不羞 (一） -- 不悱不发

yeh, 愤老送我出兵营！填坑以谢各位丢花鼓励。

接上帖

http://www.cchere.net/article/1523411

（小注：帖中关于 US Manifest Destiny 翻译有误，已在原帖中修改。）

——————————————————————

我给愤老的回帖的回帖

看起来，大卫更关心我的判断，而不是我们大家做出判断所应依据的事实和逻辑。

Apparently, David cares more about my judgment than the facts and

logic that should guide us to form a judgment.

我3月28号的帖子只关乎事实。大卫好像没有理解这点，比如他指出卫报的文章不支持我。完全正确。我并不是先在心里形成一个观点，再过滤支持它的事例。相反，我认为我们大家都应尽力避免这样做，而是从事实开始， （构建观点）。

My previous post (28 March) was simply about facts. David seemed to

misunderstood this by saying, "nor am I convinced that the *Guardian*

article supports you." Exactly; I didn't start with a judgment in my

mind and then filter things to support that. Instead, I think we

should all try to avoid that and start from the facts.

事实是什么呢？卫报作者， 一个可以用“灭绝”这样的词的人，的版本，一定比我，一个大卫认为“支持高压虐待政策”的人，的版本，更加不偏向中国人。这也是我引用卫报文章的原因。这样即使他陈述的事实有些许歪曲，这种歪曲更可能背离中国的立场，而不是偏向中国的立场。

What are the facts? The version from the author of the article, who

can use the word "annihilation," should be much less likely biased

toward the Chinese than the version from me, who David thinks "appear

to support a set of policies that appears ... as rank oppression."

That's why I refer to the *Guardian* article. So even if the facts

there were distorted to some degree, It's most likely biased against

China, not towards China.

即便在这种设定下，我们看到的事实是：

1． 西藏和新疆属于中国

2． （当地）中国政权的建立和维系是以给当地带来发展和现代化为基础的

3． 中国文化包容而不是去除少数民族文化

以上事实决定了中国政府的目标和当地人民的利益是一致的。这就是我做出判断的依据。

Even under this setting, the facts are:

1. Tibet and Xinjiang belong to China.

2. The authority is built and maintained by bringing development and

modernity to those areas.

3. The Chinese culture contains not expunges the minority culture.

These facts makes the government's goal agree with the local people's

interest. That's where I find my judgment.

相反，任何想改变以上事实的企图，其实施不可能避免颠覆和流血。达赖正确的一点是他不宣称独立和暴力。不过，事实显示，他或者言行不一，或者对他的追随者失去掌控。CIA和藏青会绝不是甘地的学生。

On the contrary, any attempt to change these facts cannot be

practiced without overturn and blood shedding. Dalai Lama is right by

not proclaiming independence and violence. However, reality seems to

indicate either he does not mean what he is saying or he's losing

control of his followers. Neither the CIA nor the Tibetan Youth

Congress are students of Gandhi.

感谢大卫的认真讨论。希望我回答了他的提问。

I appreciate David's serious engagement in this discussion and hope I

answered his question.

（我的回帖无非是揭露愤老逻辑误区，明示不可否认的事实。以愤老之刚愎自负，自不会反思内省，恐怕只有恼羞成怒了。愤老的回帖还是出我意料，怒则怒矣，未见其羞啊。诸位请看。）

——————————————————————

愤老再回帖

在我看来，尽管有John Eipper（所在论坛的铁手）所作的可敬和策略的编辑工作，我们WAIS的帖子的总体质量明显下降， 和网上其他博客的趋势相同。

In my opinion, and despite John Eipper's heroic and diplomatic

efforts as editor, the general quality of WAIS posts has declined

substantially, and in directions familiar from elsewhere in the

blogosphere.

（有趣啊有趣，真没想到愤老能化悲愤为思考，上升到如此理论高度。）

太多的帖子完全是鼓吹个人立场，争论过时的结论，而不是说点有趣，或者更高层次一点，有利于我们思考的事。我们WAIS成员，总体上说都是过着精彩人生的智者，他们想什么是值得重视的。但是思考不是也不应该是罗列成见。然而，我们经常，尤其是最近，发的帖不是通过批判性思辨得出的思考或思考过程，而是强力推销很久以来就确定的立场。太多的帖子只是在复述重复的论调，也许援引一下意见相同的媒体。这种帖子里陈述的所谓“事实”一般被忽略，因为这种帖子的狂热鼓动性, 会使谨慎的读者对那些明显是居心叵测的人陈述的 “事实” 大打折扣。这种“事实”， 我们需要到WAIS来找吗？

Far too many posts essentially advocate positions, argue to foregone

conclusions, rather than show us anything interesting or (a tall

order) help us think. WAISers are, by and large, smart people who

have led interesting lives, so what they think is worth some

attention. But thought is, or should be, more than the rearrangement

of prejudices. And far too often, of late, we've posted not what we

think, or have come to think, in some sort of critically reflexive

way, but what we have long ago decided, the positions we have adopted,

which are then set forth as forcefully as possible. Far too many

postings are merely recitations of well-rehearsed arguments, perhaps

with a cross reference to a like-minded journalist. What "facts" are

presented in such postings are generally ignored, because the zealous

advocacy of the post causes the prudent reader to discount anything

presented as "fact" by somebody who, clearly, has an ax to grind. For

that, who needs WAIS?

（彻底无语啊。这就是某些自认理性良知的西方知识分子在认知和心灵上的不归路。我已经把他逼到了“任何事情只要是你说的或引用的，我就是不信”的逻辑死角，他要死扛到底，我也只能旁观了。）

再下是老头关于论坛建设的拳拳之心， 与我辈无关了。

综观两轮对话，我与愤老，都自认为讲理，沟通尚如此之难，何况怀恨斗狠的双方？道理有时不是讲出来， 要硬生生做成现实。大多数人撞到现实感到痛，才会去想道理。 同胞们各尽其职，一起造就中国的硬道理吧。

• 【讨论】西方愤老论坛里的中国愤青视频