A knife in heaven
For example, Xiao Feng resolved the Song-Liao War and then killed him. He was a hero, but after he resolved the Song-Liao War, he personally arrested Liao Emperor and offended him. Would we still recognize him as a hero if he killed his sworn brother Duan Yu Xuzhu? Duan Yu Xuzhu is not the protagonist of the novel, but two walk-ons. It is still possible to write a hero.
It may be necessary for a leader to decide to sacrifice some individual interests at an appropriate time from different angles and positions, but whenever he makes a decision, he should and must consider these individual interests and must have enough institutions to constantly wake him up, otherwise it will definitely lead to extremely dangerous results.
To change the position, an ordinary person should and must consider respecting others, whether his compatriots or enemies, even if they don’t consider this, so what is the difference between them and the law of the jungle?
We can protect and maximize our own interests, but this protection maximization is based on harming the interests of others. Then we are no different from animals. We are no different from animals. What spirit, culture and feelings are we talking about?
Brother Dao doesn’t have to be so good. I admit that it is the last thing in the world to harm others’ interests, because it is my personal dignity. Of course, when life is in a serious crisis, we will sacrifice others. This is possible. Maybe I will do the same when my life is in crisis, but I can understand this, but it is absolutely wrong to maximize my own interests and deprive others of their interests when there is no crisis.
Carry a pot and rush
For example, Xiao Feng dissolved the Song and Liao wars and then killed him. He was a hero, but he killed Duan Yu Xuzhu, the eldest brother who offended him by catching Liao emperor himself after the Song and Liao wars. Will we still recognize him as a hero? Duan Yu Xuzhu is not the protagonist of the novel, but two walk-on words, or it may be written as a hero. That’s great. I suddenly remembered that the soldier who was sacrificed by Yang Guo pitied his country for guarding the city for so many years and finally died like this. But then again, it would be Oberstein or Su Muyun. They would all make the same choice as Yang Guo.
But what bothers me most is yelling at people when they are not careful. I dare to argue again, but seeing this sentence makes me very depressed. I really can’t help but talk about yelling at people for what’s wrong. It’s negative for everything, but it must be better than everything. Just look at China in the former Soviet Union and you will know that there will be no one to shout at. Then this meeting must be hopeless. I suddenly remembered that Yin Yingli explained the alliance to the country’s individuals. Those politicians just talked about democracy, and the national dignity demanded that the people sacrifice everything. Wen Yang has always been different from me.
It may be necessary for a leader to decide to sacrifice some individual interests at an appropriate time from different angles and positions, but whenever he makes a decision, he should and must take these individual interests into account, and there must be enough institutions to keep waking him up, otherwise he will be in an extremely dangerous ending and clap his hands wildly. This is really very good, very good and very true. I know this, but my law is so clear.
Nalan
Personal interests will inevitably sacrifice individual interests, because in the social organization, we are all part of this huge machine. When the machine runs frequently, we may lose one piece, but it is impossible to lose one piece. If we lose a machine, we will lose our guarantee because there are no components that the machine runs frequently.
I am also annoyed with some people who are always shouting at people, because the most basic human resources are born and need material guarantee, and it is not advisable to pay attention to one aspect for a physical guarantee as well as economic foundation development. At the same time, we should pay attention to the protection of individual interests, which is interactive. It is true that the economy is cold and incomplete for individuals, and there is no foundation for economic development. People are illusory and unrealistic.
Is it too high?
Besides, I don’t think baby Cheng will definitely die. I remember remaking the orphan Zhao in the video and saying that the traitor wouldn’t kill the child. It’s impossible to think about it. How could he kill all the people and children at that time? It would arouse a rebellion. It’s also scary. Only people without brains would believe it
Nalan
Hahahaha, I didn’t report for duty yesterday, especially Brother Hu. I’m not afraid of you. Smile. I’ll make a statement to Brother Hu. First of all, some of my opinions about Brother Hu are negative than everything, but they must be better than everything. Look at China in the former Soviet Union and you will know that there will be no one to shout. Then this meeting must be hopeless. I agree with you very much. I mean, when you preach the truth, don’t easily rise to the level of being gay and noble like a slogan. This may be that my thoughts are extreme. Maybe you need facts to engage in a career with
It may be necessary for a leader to decide to sacrifice some individual interests at an appropriate time from different angles and positions, but whenever he makes a decision, he should and must consider these individual interests and must have enough institutions to keep waking him up. Otherwise, it will definitely lead to an extremely dangerous outcome. I also agree with this part very much, but it seems that I have not had the opposite opinion.
In order to change the position, an ordinary person should and must consider respecting people, whether it is his own compatriot or the enemy. If he doesn’t even consider this, what is the difference between him and the law of the jungle? This part is firmly opposed to the argument of the enemy. From the perspective of preaching the road, Uncle Lei Feng said that treating the enemy as cruel as winter is cruel to himself. In Brother RICEWHU’s foil record, he made a deep judgment about treating the enemy, but I don’t think Brother Hu will stick to me face to face. I hope that no one will recognize me as a thief.
Haha, I’m sorry that the starting point doesn’t allow people to paste it again. Brother Hu, you’ve gone to see it. You think it’s too wrong for your appetite. You can read the chapter on man and beast in the foil record. Personally, I think everyone who is called a beast by the enemy should regard this as a general compliment. Of course, my enemy here refers to the national enemy, not the contradiction of the people’s department. Don’t get it wrong, hehe.
We can protect and maximize our own interests, but this protection maximization is based on harming others’ interests. Then we are no different from animals. We are no different from animals. What spirit, culture and feelings are we talking about? This sentence is absolutely right, but it seems that it is even more out of line with Cheng Ying. For the enemies of nation and country, I still say that we should give a medal to those who are called beasts by the enemy.
It is absolutely wrong to say that maximizing one’s own interests and depriving others of their interests when there is no crisis. Brother Hu, you are all wet. To give an inappropriate example, if a criminal is going to be betrayed and the death penalty is a murderer, it must be the cause of death. If he kills and kills like this, it will probably kill our head and bring us a crisis of life. But if it is manslaughter, it is said that he made a mistake for a while and did not threaten the safety of the people. In other words, it is irrelevant to our hungry life. But why should he be sentenced to death because he may affect the interests of our people, that is, it is illegal
Brother Hu, at this time, you will come to shout loudly. We shouldn’t deprive this person of his interests because he is potentially harmful to our interests. Can you deny that sentencing this person didn’t maximize your interests? Don’t tell me that you have no interests here, because doing so can safeguard the dignity of the law and give you a stable living environment. This should be the first benefit.
Brother Hu doesn’t have to apologize. Do you want to let Bambusa seem like Nalan? If you can’t stand it, just worry that he will delete it, so there will be no argument. Say me, you can avoid it. Hehe, forgive me if I say something too much.
A baby is like a blank piece of paper. Have you no choice? What should you choose to do? It’s like a novel commenting on a drama.
In the face of Brother Gao, it is concluded that the most basic human resource is born and needs material guarantee. It is not advisable to pay attention to one aspect as well as the development of economic base. While paying attention to economic development, we should also pay attention to the protection of individual interests. This is an interaction. It is unrealistic and unrealistic to pay attention to individuals. It is absolutely incisive to balance the two. It is strongly recommended that Nalan give priority to refining.
A knife in heaven
A baby is like a blank piece of paper, but it doesn’t have the ability to choose. What should you choose to do? It’s like a novel commenting on a drama. That is to say, you can kill the baby at will, but it seems that the Hakka officials in Zhaojiamen will not be involved if they are willing to leave. Otherwise, it can be seen that the Cheng Ying family was not arrested at that time, and Cheng Baobao was still alive and his own father deprived of this interest.
I’m determined to shut up, but seeing a baby is like a blank piece of paper. Can’t you choose what to do? I finally can’t help it. Even if he doesn’t choose less, he should have a baby.
I remember once reading a report that a woman was heartbroken because she was betrayed by her husband. She was rescued from a building with her newly born child. She was a poor girl government and the people would sympathize with her, but who knew that she was charged with attempted murder because she deprived her poor child.
Nalan
The traitor Nalan doesn’t need to kill children, just kill all the children in Cheng Ying, so that the proportion of people in the total population will not be very large, will it arouse a great reaction? At that time, would it be a very old saying that winning children in Cheng would not die? I want to eradicate the roots.
A knife in heaven
Of course, commenting on history can’t be completely divorced from the times. Compared with modern people, Han people and Nuzhen people in Song Dynasty and Jin Dynasty are all from China. Yue Fei is not a national hero, or it may be a bad point to split the country. This is too much for his wife, but it’s not necessary for modern people to look at it. Compared with the ancient people’s mentality, those chivalrous people who explained their understanding of chivalrous people in historical records during the Warring States Period, it’s true that he was an assassin who died or was a bully in Fangda, but he didn’t have much sense of right and wrong. It is impossible to
Treacherous court official wants to kill all children of the same age. I didn’t say it was an orphan of Zhao’s. In the story, it was said that the drama was better interpreted. The treacherous court official was so much flesh and blood that it was really annoying. Cheng Ying asked him if you really killed children in those days. Treacherous court officials laughed and said, how is this possible? It was just to scare people. At that time, Cheng Ying looked pale, hehe.
Nalan
A baby is like a blank piece of paper, but it doesn’t mean that he can’t make a choice later. It doesn’t mean that he can make a choice later. It doesn’t mean that he can make a perfect match with this young life as a guardian. According to you, parents can kill their children before they grow up. It is deplorable to choose the law against children in Cheng Ying at that time, but what people feel about it now must be the standard of modern values. I’m not denying Cheng Ying’s work at that time because he is also limited to history. I’m right.
Is it too high?
At that time, Cheng Ying’s practice was reprehensible, but now people’s feelings about it must be the standard of modern values. I am not denying Cheng Ying’s work at that time, because he is also confined to history. I am disgusted with erasing the weak foundation. Then what are we arguing about? If we argue over this purely subjective question, we will be laughed at and naive by others. Are you right?
Moreover, if you don’t have the ability to kill the benefits, wouldn’t it be that the disadvantaged groups should be slaughtered? Because you don’t have the ability, you can’t support them. I said that strength is to be a person because the benefits are not based on the ability, but what is the benefit of people? This definition requires too many standards to be raised to the ideological field, and it will involve people. The definition will be too complicated and it will become subjective.
A knife in heaven
First of all, I have to say that I poured a lot of water into people’s lives because I was not okay. It was too abnormal to pull an orphan story of Zhao to the height of human life and death. In fact, I didn’t comment on this story at that time because I couldn’t remember what the story was about at that time. I was sweating because I saw a knife brother say that it was no less than sacrificing individuals, and I didn’t understand the feelings of the sacrificed individuals at all. Finally, I added the sentence that everything was the most annoying. I jumped up as if I were stabbed in the ass by a needle. I talked a lot about things that were not directed at Brother Yidao. I expressed my views face to face. I am also very interested in Brother Yidao’s case of manslaughter. Here, I would like to argue a few words. If you say it is a murderer, it must be the cause of death. If it is manslaughter, it will probably bring us a life crisis. However, it is said that he made a mistake for a while and in other words, it did not threaten our hungry and irrelevant life. You once said that your work is about facts and evidence. I take the liberty to guess that you are a public security worker. Then I think you should definitely not.
The key of law and law is that it stipulates the reward and punishment degree of this society, thus safeguarding the overwhelming interests of the society through this degree. I know little about the law. It is a saying that we punish the murderer because we want him to be responsible for the same manslaughter. He may be emotional, but everyone may believe that he will not kill anyone again, but he must be punished. This is not to stop him from hurting others, but to safeguard the dignity of the law. He must be responsible for what he does, even if this matter may not be blamed for what he is most afraid of, it is not obeying the law.
You say, but why should I be sentenced to death? Because it may affect the interests of our people, that is to say, it is illegal for us to punish him and deprive him. First, I say that manslaughter is not sentenced to death in most cases. When the court knows that he was injured by accident, it will give him a reduced sentence according to the circumstances. Second, I say that it is absolutely necessary to punish manslaughter, and this punishment is not as simple as maximizing the interests. It has reached the point where what will happen and imagine what will happen. Sometimes, we all decide the punishment according to the purely subjective factor of whether this person killed in malice. We decide the difference of punishment because of human feelings. These are all shaking the roots of the law, which will lead to the collapse of the law. Should we give up the five-year law construction and go back to the past? The root of punishment for accidental injury is not to avoid him and then hurt others, but to be afraid that he will hurt our law again. Is this injury fatal or not a simple interest measurable?
Brother Yidao is cruel to the enemy in his opposition to me, and in fact, I have read both the self-protection films. I saw that mainly because the protagonist’s ability has increased and he has achieved success. But I really don’t agree with the killing of the enemy, including the Japanese. First of all, you say that the enemy’s people’s department is contradictory. How do you distinguish between the enemy’s people’s department and the Japanese? But at that time, was the Kuomintang an enemy or the people’s department contradictory? So one day, if aliens invade the earth, will Japanese and Japanese be enemies or the people’s department?
At this moment, your people are killing the enemy. At this moment, you become the enemy of the people because of some reasons. So what do you think? Will you protect the interests of the majority of the people and they are cruel to yourself? Or will you make the people more humane to you as an enemy? I ask these questions because I often say that the concept of enemy is vague, how can I tell the difference between the enemy and the people’s Ministry? Perhaps you think China Day must be an enemy, but don’t you know that the Kuomintang treated each other cruelly? Aren’t they the people’s Ministry?
Secondly, how cruel is cruelty? I think we must master this method for dealing with people. The method of dealing with the enemy in Huanhua is similar to that of the Nanjing Massacre in those years. You should evaluate whether they really eliminated the army from the perspective of Japanese or Japanese, but from the perspective of Japanese. Is it their own life? Is this a purely animal vent?