Differences of opinion: I see the anti-extradition in the past and Ukraine today

Malaysia is a good place, we can easily receive all kinds of public opinions, especially when public opinions are affected by regional, in Malaysia, a hundred flowers will bloom, sparks and charms bloom.

So, I don't think it's right for Russia to attack Ukraine, but I also don't think Ukraine should be solidified and supported.

My only position is anti-war.

When I see a person being beaten, can I directly determine that he is vulnerable and needs support? How can I be sure that the person being beaten is not a thug? What if I support him and show solidarity with him, and if he becomes rich and powerful, he will attack other people in turn?

Or let's not talk about what hasn't happened, let's talk about the past, Ukraine as the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, it is so peace-loving?

(Friends who are interested can search for "Eastern Ukraine" or "Udong" by themselves. In today's article, I don't want to focus on this matter.)

So, let me just stress one point: don't fight.

Russia attacked Ukraine, I am against it because of the attack.

If Ukraine counterattacks Russia in the future, I also oppose it, because of the counterattack.

What I am really worried about is that after a war starts, a chain reaction will form. After each country finds that war can be used to divert the damage caused by the epidemic, the third world war will be very easy to start.

This is my position, and it is also the position of many people.

But when I recalled how I looked at the anti-extradition incident a while ago, I was conflicted again.

I am very supportive of those who took to the streets to protest.

When a policy fails to comply with public opinion, but does not listen to the voice of the people, I think it is time to stand up and fight.

So people take to the streets to march, and I support it.

The incident heated up, and the people and the police began to confront and clash. I still support it.

In the end, it turned violent, and many people started criticizing the demonstrators. I'm still supporting it.

In history, how many people's freedom and democracy can only be obtained by violence and bloodshed.

Hong Kong is just following the path of history.

Eh?

Why am I double standard?

Fighting China, I am a fighter who can throw my head and spill my blood. Fight! Attack it!

Fight Ukraine, no no no! Don't fight, don't fight, dove! O olive branch! Should my hands be folded or crossed? Anyway, I'm the Virgin, let's not fight.

At this time, I felt that I was a cake on a frying pan, and it went back and forth, over and over again.

Am I wrong before?

Or am I wrong now?

Or am I not figuring out my heart at all, and am I simply opposing a certain force?

I found out later that I was just becoming more cunning and more sophisticated.

fight for democratic freedom

Anti-war

These two views do not conflict, although sometimes we need to use violence to fight for democratic freedoms.

But when we use violence, we need to think carefully about the extent to which we should control it.

For example, I came across a case when I was teaching:

Two students in my class were sent to the Disciplinary Office because of a fight. Although both of them had demerit records, the actual situation was that one student beat someone and the other was beaten.

Then why did the Disciplinary Office remember both of them? Because the student who was beaten took a bottle of water and poured it directly from the opponent's head.

When I got back to the class, the whole class fell silent. Everyone thought I was going to scold me for this, because I said the first rule of the class: The class I lead does not allow my own people to beat their own people.

But I told my classmates that this matter is over, and there is no need to say any more.

The classmate who poured water is a guy who often bullies others in the school. In addition, this incident happens to be full of three major demerits and will be expelled.

And another classmate was poured water on his head, I still don't allow him to fight back? So am I still human?

What's more, he has always been the target of bullying. If he can stand up and fight back once this time, who will bully him in the future?

My heart even agreed with him to do it once, but only once.

Let's look at the "legal violence" carried out by the school. One is expelled and the other is demerited. The force is enough, why should I scold it again? Add another piece of violence to all your classmates? Including other classmates who were not involved?

It has been half a year since this incident. On the last day of class, the student who was expelled came back to attend the graduation ceremony with everyone and got along well with everyone. The classmate who hit someone told me in the text that although I didn't scold him, he still felt guilty for kicking the classmate out of his hands. He hoped to get along well with the other party.

Both have grown.

Moderate violence is good.

But before that, I must firmly oppose the expelled classmate's long-term bullying behavior.

Because if it weren't for his excessive violence, there would be many less bullying incidents in the class, he would not be expelled from school after remembering three major demerits, and his classmates who beat others would not feel guilty.

In short, the best-case scenario is no violence. If you are violent, you can fight back with moderate violence.

(The above photo is taken from Sing Tao Daily website, news link click here )

This is where I get crafty.

In the past, I held one belief and stopped thinking about other things.

Now I hold the same belief, but I leave a little leeway.

"if" room.

So after the war between Ukraine and Russia started, I didn't go to catch Russia's bad deeds and challenge Ukraine's faults, but to focus on my biggest request: anti-war.

Therefore, I will not leave comments and support on both sides.

The difference between good and evil is just a subjective decision of a group of people.

Non-violence is the "relative objective" that is beneficial to everyone.

In a way, this view is sly and green tea. But in this way, I can more clearly stand in the perspective of a third party and see this through a screen.

Then waved his anti-war flag and shouted.