你有什么不受歡迎的觀點(diǎn)( 二)

Ali K, Critic of modern/liberal narratives
I have many, and here they are:
Human life and animal life are not equal. Human life is far more valuable. Basic moral intuition tells us this. This doesn’t mean animals should be mistreated or should be killed as a hobby (i.e hunting) unless its for eating. However, ask yourself if you could save a baby toddler or a rat from dying, which one would you save? I would instantly save the toddler, not a rat. Most sane people would do the same. This alone shows that human life is more worthy of saving.
Science is very powerful, however we in this day and age blow its power out of proportion. Lets be honest, science is perceived by many as modern day God. A lot of the science we lay people take is really, faith. Atheists have heavy emphasis on proof yet they cannot realize that even science, which is limited to empirical evidence has to rely on factors such as logic, rationality and mathematics which it cannot prove. So how can science be at the forefront of evidences when it cannot prove the very factors it has to rely on? To add on top of that, you need to have faith in the scientific method you are using. If you do not have that, then how would you proceed to do the experiment and judge it according to what your method?

我有很多這樣的觀點(diǎn)，比如下面這些:
人的生命和動(dòng)物的生命是不平等的，人的生命要珍貴得多，基本的道德和直覺(jué)告訴我們，這并不意味著動(dòng)物應(yīng)該被虐待或應(yīng)該被殺死，僅出于愛(ài)好(即狩獵)，除非是為了吃，但是，問(wèn)問(wèn)你自己，如果你能拯救一個(gè)蹣跚學(xué)步的嬰兒或一只瀕臨死亡的老鼠，你會(huì)拯救哪一個(gè)?我會(huì)立刻救那個(gè)蹣跚學(xué)步的孩子，而不是一只老鼠，大多數(shù)理智的人都會(huì)這么做，僅這一點(diǎn)就說(shuō)明人的生命更珍貴。
科學(xué)是非常強(qiáng)大的，然而我們?cè)谶@個(gè)時(shí)代把它的力量吹得不成樣子，老實(shí)說(shuō)，科學(xué)被許多人視為現(xiàn)代的上帝，我們普通人所接受的很多科學(xué)都是信仰。無(wú)神論者非常重視證據(jù)，但他們無(wú)法意識(shí)到，即使是僅限于經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)的科學(xué)，也不得不依賴(lài)于它無(wú)法證明的邏輯、理性和數(shù)學(xué)等因素，那么，當(dāng)科學(xué)不能證明它所依賴(lài)的因素時(shí)，它怎么可能代表真相呢?除此之外，你還需要對(duì)你使用的科學(xué)方法有信心，如果你沒(méi)有，那么你如何繼續(xù)做實(shí)驗(yàn)，并根據(jù)你的方法來(lái)判斷它?

I don’t know why this is controversial but white people can be victims of racism just as much as anyone else. I mean, the amount of criticism and jokes and mockery made out of white people nowadays is way too far. If this was done to someone outside the white ethnicity, then they would be looked down upon. Men and women are not equal when it comes to capabilities, biology and psychology. Needless to explain, this is a fact. Again, this is not to be sexist or anything. It is true. The generally conservative views on social climate just makes more sense. I feel that liberal thought process is generally hard to be consistent with. I also feel that conservative thoughts and view points tend to have more logic behind them.
Gender roles exist and are natural and are more beneficial to societies than to not have them. There are certain things that are better suited for men such as construction, military, working in mines and others that are better suited for women. This isn’t to say men and women are limited to their roles. It simply means that men and women are more efficient in terms of certain roles in society. For example, even in Scandanavian countries that have gone further than any other country in terms of gender neutrality, the differences in genders are FAR higher than any other country. Women choosing to go into STEM fields has dropped further. Many psychologists argue that if you leave a society to make its own choice, men and women will segregate themselves in accordance to their capabilities and natural inclincation towards certain tasks. Also, you cannot blame culture because even the most conservative views and cultural expectations of women, have seen a huge portion of women in STEM fields, higher than the West. For example, Iran, 70% of graduates in medicine are women, in Algeria, 42% of graduates in computer science are women. If culture was the reason as to why women choose traditional feminine fields such as nursing, surely we would at least see a better rate in western societies of women choosing to go into STEM fields than Iran and Algeria, which are not known to be gender egalitarian.

我不知道這個(gè)問(wèn)題為什么會(huì)引起爭(zhēng)議，但是白人和其他人一樣也可能成為種族主義的受害者，我是說(shuō)，現(xiàn)在對(duì)白人的批評(píng)，笑話和嘲笑實(shí)在太多了，如果這種事發(fā)生在白人以外的人身上，他們就會(huì)被人看不起，在事實(shí)上，在能力、生理和心理方面，男女是不平等的，再說(shuō)一次，這并不是性別歧視，這是真實(shí)存在的。我覺(jué)得自由主義的思維過(guò)程通常很難保持一致，我也覺(jué)得保守的思想和觀點(diǎn)背后往往有更多的邏輯。
性別角色自然是存在的，對(duì)社會(huì)來(lái)說(shuō)，有一些工作更適合男性，比如建筑、軍事、礦山工作，也還有其他更適合女性的工作，這并不是說(shuō)男人和女人被限制在他們的角色范圍內(nèi)，這僅僅意味著男人和女人在社會(huì)中的某些角色更有效率，例如，即使是在性別方面比其他國(guó)家走得更遠(yuǎn)的斯堪的納維亞國(guó)家，性別差異也遠(yuǎn)高于其他國(guó)家 選擇進(jìn)入STEM領(lǐng)域的女性人數(shù)進(jìn)一步下降。
許多心理學(xué)家認(rèn)為，如果你離開(kāi)一個(gè)由社會(huì)自己做出選擇的社會(huì)，男性和女性將根據(jù)他們的能力和對(duì)某些任務(wù)的自然傾向而將自己隔離開(kāi)來(lái)，此外，你不能責(zé)怪文化，因?yàn)榧词故菍?duì)女性最保守的觀點(diǎn)和文化里，也有很大一部分女性在STEM領(lǐng)域工作，高于西方，例如，在伊朗，70%的醫(yī)學(xué)畢業(yè)生是女性，在阿爾及利亞，42%的計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)畢業(yè)生是女性，如果文化是女性選擇護(hù)理等傳統(tǒng)女性領(lǐng)域的原因，那么我們肯定會(huì)看到西方社會(huì)女性選擇STEM領(lǐng)域的比例要高于伊朗和阿爾及利亞，這兩個(gè)國(guó)家并不以性別平等著稱(chēng)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Religion is the only way to obxtively justify morality. Without it, you simply cannot. No, utilitarianism is not the answer. Saying utilitarianism is a way to derive morality is wrong because the greatest good for the greatest number of people doesn’t make something moral. Atheistic positions cannot justify morality. Again, this is not to say that atheists cannot be moral. It just means that they cannot justify it. There will never be a system of absolute equality. Keep in mind, I am referring to it from an outcome perspective, not opportunity or human value. Human value and opportunity should be equal all across the world. Human beings, generally are not perfectly equal in terms of their talent. Not everyone will make the same amount of money, have the same talents, or have the same luxuries. you simply cannot however, force equal outcomes.
Modern day western feminism has done more disservice to women than it has done good. They have forced many women to believe that they like to do things that they simply do not want to. Entering into workforce which women generally, do not want to. Spend hours at work as opposed to preferably spending hours with kids at home. Wage gap doesn’t exist. This statistic of women earning 70 cents for every dollar a man makes is horse shit. They do not take into account the fact that on average, men do put in more hours at work, women take more time off of work due to having children. By the ways, there is nothing wrong with this. But at least be honest in statistics. When the differences are taken into account, we see the wage gap doesn’t exist. On top of that, more men are willing to work dangerous jobs hence why the fatality rate at work place is way higher for men. Not something we should make a big deal out of. Plus, if companies could get away with paying women less, they’d do it.

宗教是客觀地為道德正名的唯一途徑。沒(méi)有它，你根本做不到。不，功利主義不是答案。說(shuō)功利主義是推導(dǎo)道德的一種方式是錯(cuò)誤的，因?yàn)闉榇蠖鄶?shù)人帶來(lái)最大的好處并不意味著道德。無(wú)神論立場(chǎng)不能為道德辯護(hù)。這并不是說(shuō)無(wú)神論者沒(méi)有道德。這只是意味著他們無(wú)法為其辯護(hù)。絕對(duì)平等的制度永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)存在。請(qǐng)記住我是從結(jié)果的角度而不是從機(jī)會(huì)或人類(lèi)價(jià)值的角度說(shuō)這個(gè)話。人類(lèi)的價(jià)值和機(jī)會(huì)在全世界應(yīng)該是平等的。人類(lèi)在才能方面通常是不完全平等的。不是每個(gè)人擁有相同的天賦，都能掙到相同的錢(qián)，或者擁有相同的奢侈品。然而，你根本不可能強(qiáng)迫出現(xiàn)平等的結(jié)果。
現(xiàn)代西方女權(quán)主義對(duì)女性的傷害多于帶來(lái)的好處，他們迫使許多女性相信，她們喜歡做自己根本不想做的事情。進(jìn)入勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)通常是女性不愿意的。把時(shí)間花在工作上，而不是花在家里陪孩子。工資差距并不存在，說(shuō)男人賺1美元，女人賺70美分，這一統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)太扯淡了。他們沒(méi)有考慮到這樣一個(gè)事實(shí):平均而言，男性確實(shí)投入了更多的工作時(shí)間，而女性則因?yàn)橛泻⒆佣?qǐng)了更多的假。順便說(shuō)一下，這沒(méi)什么錯(cuò)。但至少在統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)上要誠(chéng)實(shí)的考慮到這些差異，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)工資差距并不存在。最重要的是，更多的男性愿意從事危險(xiǎn)的工作，這就是為什么工作場(chǎng)所的死亡率對(duì)男性來(lái)說(shuō)要高得多。我們不應(yīng)該小題大做。此外，如果公司可以不受懲罰地降低女性薪酬，他們就會(huì)這么做。

Men are dominant ones in society because they more of them tend to have dominance in their nature. There is nothing wrong with this and we shouldn’t lose our minds over this. Personality traits such as agreeableness, less prent in men. This is proven my numerous studies done. In fact in most gender neutral countries like scandanavian countries, the gender differences increased instead of decreasing. But this results in them being more dominant.
Women generally make different life choices than men when it comes to roles in society. Being dominant comes with too many responsibilities. Civilizations were built upon men conquering parts of the world, building societies etc. This isn’t to say women are not capable of doing this. They simply would rather not. This is why traditionally, it is the men that propose, men hold doors open, men protect the family, and women LIKE this. They prefer that the man does his part. Again, nothing wrong with this. We need to be a little more conservative in our thought process as it makes more sense and is more in line. It isn’t everyday labeling everything as sexist or traditional. The issues men face in society isn’t talked about enough. Examples of this are suicide rates, fatality at work places, unfair judgement and settlements at divorce cases to name a few. When have you seen a feminist stand up for these? never.

男人在社會(huì)中是支配性的，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诒举|(zhì)上更傾向于支配性，這沒(méi)有錯(cuò)，我們不應(yīng)該為此失去理智一定要弄清楚這個(gè)問(wèn)題，隨和等個(gè)性特征在男性中并不常見(jiàn)，這證明了我做過(guò)的許多研究，事實(shí)上，在大多數(shù)性別中立的國(guó)家，如斯堪的納維亞國(guó)家，性別差異增加而不是減少，但這導(dǎo)致他們更占優(yōu)勢(shì)。
當(dāng)涉及到社會(huì)角色時(shí)，女性通常會(huì)做出與男性不同的生活選擇，主導(dǎo)地位意味著更多的責(zé)任，文明是建立在人類(lèi)征服世界部分地區(qū)，建立社會(huì)等基礎(chǔ)上的，這并不是說(shuō)女性不能做到這一點(diǎn)，她們只是不想這樣，這就是為什么傳統(tǒng)上，男人求婚，男人保護(hù)家庭，而不是女人，她們更希望男人做他該做的事，我們需要在我們的思維過(guò)程中更加保守一點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗幸饬x，更符合生活，并不是每天都給每件事貼上性別歧視或傳統(tǒng)的標(biāo)簽，男性在社會(huì)中面臨的問(wèn)題談?wù)摰貌粔蚨?，這方面的例子包括自殺率、工作場(chǎng)所的意外死亡、不公平的判決和離婚案件中的和解等，你什么時(shí)候見(jiàn)過(guò)女權(quán)主義者支持這些?從來(lái)沒(méi)有。

obxtive morality exists. Morality cannot be subjective. This gives the green light to anyone come out and say stealing is okay and gives as much legitimacy to it as someone who says stealing is not okay. There is no real ethical reason behind being a vegan. To say all life is valuable and we shouldn’t kill animals raises the question that plants are classified as life. Now the argument against this is that plants do not feel pain. Debatable but even if I agree they don’t, that only throws the all life is valuable argument out the window because now your reasoning for not eating meat is that animals feel pain. Which implies that if we could find a way to kill animals without them feeling pain, it would be okay.
I will add another one. Equal outcome and equal opportunity is not the same. You can give people equal opportunity, however you cannot enforce an equal outcome. The more liberal side of the population seems to conflate the two. They think that there is unequal representation of people in every playing field because there isn’t equal opportunity. This isn’t true. In a free society, people are bound to make unequal decisions and therefore resulting in unequal results.

道德是客觀的，不是主觀的，這就給那些站出來(lái)說(shuō)偷竊是可以被接受的人開(kāi)了綠燈，就像那些說(shuō)偷竊是不可以接受的人一樣給他們披上合法的外衣，成為素食主義者并沒(méi)有真正的道德原因，所有的生命都是有價(jià)值的，植物被歸類(lèi)為生命，反對(duì)這一觀點(diǎn)的論據(jù)是植物感覺(jué)不到疼痛，這是有爭(zhēng)議的，但即使我同意他們不這么認(rèn)為，那也只能把所有的生命都拋到一邊因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在你不吃肉的理由是動(dòng)物會(huì)感到痛苦，也就是說(shuō)，如果我們能找到一種方法殺死動(dòng)物，不讓它們感到疼痛，那就沒(méi)問(wèn)題。
還有就是，平等的結(jié)果和平等的機(jī)會(huì)是不一樣的，你可以給人們平等的機(jī)會(huì)，但是你不能強(qiáng)求一個(gè)平等的結(jié)果，民眾中比較開(kāi)明的一方似乎把這兩者混為一談，他們認(rèn)為在每個(gè)競(jìng)技場(chǎng)上都有不平等的代表，因?yàn)闆](méi)有平等的機(jī)會(huì)。其實(shí)，在一個(gè)自由的社會(huì)里，人們注定要做出不平等的決定，從而導(dǎo)致不平等的結(jié)果。

Anonymous
I'm posting this anonymously because I'm afraid that I will be stoned because of the opinion I hold. I'm a liberal. I believe that people are ¨C evidently ¨C equal, regardless of their race. I'm a member of a minority that often faces discrimination, therefore I can imagine what it could be like to be black. But... Here comes the unpopular opinion.
I think the Black Lives Matter movement has done more harm than good, is misleading, and is not a solution to anything. Especially with all the rioting. Police brutality is a very serious problem, there is nothing similar in any democratic, western country. But one thing is very clear: it is not specifically against blacks but against all people. The system is wrong and it needs to change. Racism is a serious problem but it has little to do with this. (If we take the bigger picture of course, not individual cases which can unfortunately be racially motivated.) If we look at the data, we can see that whites are not less likely to be killed by the police then blacks. This is a fact. The media just withholds information; they're comparing the wrong numbers.

我之所以匿名發(fā)表這篇文章，是因?yàn)槲液ε挛視?huì)因?yàn)槲业挠^點(diǎn)而飄飄然，我是自由的，我相信，無(wú)論什么種族，人們都是平等的，我是一個(gè)經(jīng)常面臨歧視的少數(shù)族裔，因此我可以想象身為黑人的處境是什么樣子，但是，下面是一些不受歡迎的觀點(diǎn)：
我認(rèn)為“黑人命也是命”運(yùn)動(dòng)弊大于利，這是一種誤導(dǎo)性的觀點(diǎn)，不是解決所有問(wèn)題的辦法，特別是在發(fā)生暴亂的情況下，警察暴行是一個(gè)非常嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題，在任何民主的西方國(guó)家都沒(méi)有類(lèi)似的情況，但有一件事很清楚:它不是針對(duì)黑人，而是針對(duì)所有人，這種體制是錯(cuò)誤的，它需要改變。種族主義是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題，但它與此無(wú)關(guān)(當(dāng)然，如果我們從更大的角度來(lái)看，而不是個(gè)別情況，這些情況很可能是由種族因素引起的)，如果我們看一下數(shù)據(jù)，我們可以看到白人被警察殺害的可能性并不比黑人低，這是事實(shí)，媒體只是隱瞞信息，他們?cè)诒容^錯(cuò)誤的數(shù)字。

You can look up the FBI database. African americans make up 13.4%[1] of the US population, yet 29,3%[2] of people who are killed by the police are black. But, here comes the other part of the story... The thing is, african americans are responsible for 38.7% of violent crime.[3] Same number for whites for example:
Total: 60.1%[4] Violent crime: 58,4%[5] Shot to death by the police: 46,1%
[6] So if we take the offenders, not the whole population that has nothing to do with the police, we get this:
Fatal police shootings of blacks/ number of black violent crime offenders: 0,155%
Fatal police shootings of whites / number of white violent crime offenders: 0,162%
No significant difference. I don't think we shouldn't question our own media unlike the other side's. This is somewhat propaganda-ish, and although not for a bad cause, it is to make hatred and is nothing more than a political movement instead of a civil right one.
I'm truly disappointed in left-leaning media. Also in people. How to get rid of violence with violence? Blacks are killed by the police. This must stop. But whites and latinos are also and on a similar if not insignificantly higher rates. This must stop too. There is just no point calling this movement Black Lives Matter, as police violence is against all people.

你可以查一下聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，非裔美國(guó)人占13.4%，占美國(guó)人口的29.3%，被警察打死的人中沒(méi)有一個(gè)是黑人，但是另一方面的表現(xiàn)是，非洲裔美國(guó)人對(duì)38.7%的暴力犯罪負(fù)有責(zé)任。同樣的數(shù)字，例如:暴力犯罪:58.4%，被警察槍殺:46,1%，所以如果我們把罪犯，而不是所有和警察沒(méi)有關(guān)系的人放在一起比較，我們得到這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù):
警察槍殺黑人人數(shù)和黑人暴力犯罪人數(shù)對(duì)比數(shù)據(jù):0.155%；
警察槍殺白人的人數(shù)和白人暴力犯罪罪犯的人數(shù)對(duì)比數(shù)據(jù):0.162%.
由此看出，沒(méi)有顯著差異，我認(rèn)為我們不應(yīng)該質(zhì)疑我們自己的媒體而不去質(zhì)疑對(duì)方的媒體，這聽(tīng)起來(lái)有點(diǎn)像宣傳，但它是制造仇恨，只不過(guò)是一場(chǎng)政治運(yùn)動(dòng)，而不是一場(chǎng)民權(quán)運(yùn)動(dòng)。我對(duì)左傾媒體和這些人真的很失望，如何用暴力來(lái)擺脫暴力?黑人被警察殺害，這必須停止，但是白人和拉丁美洲人的比率也差不多，如果不是微不足道的話，這種情況也必須停止，稱(chēng)這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)為“黑人的命也是命”是毫無(wú)意義的，因?yàn)榫毂┝κ轻槍?duì)所有人的。

Marco Antonio Muoz, Lawyer, experienced and boring.
The main problem with society today is that IT HAS NO REAL PROBLEMS. DISCLAIMER: I am making my claim observing the traditional western society of the rich countries. I am PERFECTLY aware that there are many societies with a myriad of problems in the world. But please hear me out. For much of his history humans fought for their very survival. It was either be strong or be dead. As time passed we progressed, and societies became more complex and rich. But STILL you could die from a simple cavity, apendicitis, or your city could lose the wrong war and you were either dead or enslaved. Even all mighty empires suffered this fate (i.e.: Samarkand and Baghdad when facing the mongols).
Come the Renaisance, and humanity took a leap forward. But STILL we suffered from many problems, even monarchs and leaders: Frederick the Great, mighty and wise king of they wealthy state of Prussia, and George Washington, leader of the mighty new nation of the United States, ended with wooden teeth early in life. As we continued our progress, wealth increased and we solved most of mankind?ˉs problems, one by one. Infections and diseases were beaten by antibiotics and vaccines. Distance and communications problems were solved by engineering. Hunger and famine were solved by technology (and yes, GMO’s played an important role on this). We are even closer to global peace than we have ever been (anyone who claims we are not, should read more history).
Today mankind is vastly more wealthy, prosperous, and peaceful than it has EVER been in history. We produce more food than we need globally (the fact that some people still hunger is merely a problem of policy and management, not capacity). We have instant worldwide communication, and we can travel to the farthest places of the world in at most 24 hours. We have baten nearly every disease known to man. Poor people today have more luxuries than kings and emperors had 100 years ago (i.e.: regular food and heating). And yet some people keep claiming that humanity is in crisis. We’ve beaten diseases, so some people decided that vaccines were unhealthy, and measles is back for vengeance. We had more than enough food, so some people decided that GMOs were not natural and only organic food is really good, and thus blocked Golden Rice, removing an excellent source of Vitamin A from millions of children in need.
But not content enough, some people are now being offended and feeling unsafe just from hearing certain words or opinions different than their own, despite living in the SAFEST moment in human history. We now deny basic biology and claim that gender is fluid and it doesn’t depend on your genes but on your choices, So, despite mankind having solved almost all of its problems, we decided it was not enough and simple created new and fictional problems, all so that we can complain again

當(dāng)今社會(huì)的主要問(wèn)題是它沒(méi)有真正的問(wèn)題，免責(zé)聲明:我是通過(guò)觀察富裕國(guó)家的傳統(tǒng)西方社會(huì)來(lái)發(fā)表我的觀點(diǎn)的，我很清楚，世界上有許多社會(huì)存在著無(wú)數(shù)的問(wèn)題，但請(qǐng)聽(tīng)我說(shuō)完，在他的大部分歷史中，人類(lèi)為生存而戰(zhàn)，要么堅(jiān)強(qiáng)要么死亡，但隨著時(shí)間的推移，我們進(jìn)步了，社會(huì)變得更加復(fù)雜和富裕，但你仍然可能死于簡(jiǎn)單的齲齒，闌尾炎這些病，或者你的城市可能在一場(chǎng)錯(cuò)誤的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中被輸?shù)?，你要么死，要么被奴役，甚至所有?qiáng)大的帝國(guó)都遭受了這樣的命運(yùn)(比如:撒馬爾罕和巴格達(dá)在面對(duì)蒙古人的時(shí)候)。
到了文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期，人類(lèi)向前邁進(jìn)了一大步，但是，我們?nèi)匀辉馐芰嗽S多問(wèn)題的困擾，甚至君主和領(lǐng)袖也一樣，比如偉大的、強(qiáng)大的、英智的普魯士國(guó)王腓特烈，以及強(qiáng)大的美國(guó)新國(guó)家的領(lǐng)袖喬治·華盛頓，都很早就去世了，隨著我們的不斷進(jìn)步，財(cái)富不斷增加，我們解決了人類(lèi)的一個(gè)接一個(gè)的大多數(shù)問(wèn)題，抗生素和疫苗戰(zhàn)勝了傳染病和疾病，距離和通信問(wèn)題都由基建工程解決了，饑餓和饑荒是由技術(shù)解決的(轉(zhuǎn)基因在這方面發(fā)揮了重要作用)。我們比以往任何時(shí)候都更接近全球和平(任何聲稱(chēng)我們不和平的人，都應(yīng)該多讀一些歷史)。
今天，人類(lèi)比歷史上任何時(shí)候都更加富裕、繁榮和和平，我們?cè)谌蚍秶鷥?nèi)生產(chǎn)的糧食超過(guò)了我們的需求(事實(shí)上，一些人仍然饑餓只是政策和管理的問(wèn)題，而不是能力的問(wèn)題)。我們有即時(shí)的全球通信，我們可以在24小時(shí)內(nèi)旅行到世界上最遠(yuǎn)的地方，我們幾乎預(yù)防了人類(lèi)已知的所有疾病。
今天的窮人比100年前的國(guó)王和皇帝擁有更多的奢侈品(即:正常的食物和供暖)，然而，還是有些人一直聲稱(chēng)人類(lèi)正處于危機(jī)之中，我們戰(zhàn)勝了疾病，但有些人認(rèn)為疫苗不健康，麻疹又回來(lái)復(fù)仇了；我們有足夠多的食物，但有些人認(rèn)為轉(zhuǎn)基因食品不是天然的，只有有機(jī)食品才是真正好的，因此阻止了“黃金大米”，使數(shù)百萬(wàn)需要維生素A的兒童失去了一種極佳的來(lái)源，除此之外，一些人盡管他們生活在人類(lèi)歷史上最安全的時(shí)刻，現(xiàn)在正因?yàn)槁?tīng)到與自己不同的某些話語(yǔ)或觀點(diǎn)而感到被冒犯和感到不安全。
所以，盡管人類(lèi)已經(jīng)解決了幾乎所有的問(wèn)題，但我們認(rèn)為這還不夠，并且還簡(jiǎn)單地創(chuàng)造了新的和虛構(gòu)的問(wèn)題，所有這些都讓我們可以再次抱怨。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Thomas Mitchell Friend, Viewpoints of life from an arguably unique perspective
Currently, after watching the news during this rather tacky time of the year, I hold what could possibly be an unpopular opinion but here’s the lowdown of what I saw. The news report I saw was about a particular person being rather anti-mask-wearing and claiming that it is draconian and an affront to her human rights. Of course such videos have popped up very frequently during the course of this pandemic but what has sort a led me to formulate this opinion now is when I saw that Australia civil libertarians and lawyers actually admit that such an incentive is actually necessary - and I actually agree with them and I personally am proud that they’ve finally stood up to say this.
But what my unpopular opinion about this whole mask vs no mask controversy is about is not so much about the legality of it all (because I do believe it is legal for the police and private businesses to warn people about the consequences of not wearing a mask). It’s more or less to do with what could be an incentive or something to that effect. I believe that if a person willingly forgoes wearing a mask or doing a COVID test because they believe it is a draconian measure, then let them be but then when they get sick with Coronavirus, they should be charged a higher medical bill when they seek recovery and FURTHERMORE should be charged the medical bills of anyone who they’ve directly affected with the virus (through contact tracing).
Sure, we will respect your right to not wear a mask, self-isolate and/or take a viral test but your freedom to be out during such a crisis should not be without its consequences. You KNOW that the virus is dangerous and it can incapacitate anyone, you KNOW you could be a carrier for the virus and not know, you KNOW that there is advice from medical professionals about how to decrease your risk of catching it, you KNOW that businesses are doing their best to do their bit for public safety while also allowing for the economy to run?- and yet you just choose to disregard all that just so you can be free to you, To the rest of us however, the advice from these medical professionals literally makes the difference between life and death. Sure the economy will be hit regardless of what measures are taken but if we all do our bit to be COVID-safe by following the guidelines, then the chances of deadly outbreaks occuring and (consequently) issued extended quarantines will be significantly lowered. The proof is there. Masks and controlled physical distancing help lower the chance that you and the people around you acquire COVID.

目前，在這個(gè)時(shí)候看了新聞之后，我認(rèn)為這可能是一個(gè)不受歡迎的觀點(diǎn)，但以下是我看到的真相：
我看到的新聞報(bào)道是關(guān)于一個(gè)人在非常時(shí)期不戴口罩，并聲稱(chēng)要求戴口罩的行為嚴(yán)厲的侵犯了她的人權(quán),澳大利亞公民自由主義者和律師承認(rèn)這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，實(shí)際上，我也同意他們的觀點(diǎn)，我個(gè)人感到很欣慰，他們終于站起來(lái)把自己的心聲說(shuō)出來(lái)了，但我不喜歡的觀點(diǎn)是，關(guān)于整個(gè)戴口罩與不戴口罩的爭(zhēng)議，并不是關(guān)于它的合法性(因?yàn)槲蚁嘈?，警察和私人企業(yè)警告人們不戴口罩的后果是合法的)，這或多或少可能需要激勵(lì)或達(dá)到類(lèi)似效果的措施，我認(rèn)為，如果一個(gè)人因?yàn)檎J(rèn)為這是一種嚴(yán)厲的措施而自愿放棄戴口罩或做冠狀病毒檢測(cè)，那就隨他們?nèi)グ?，但?dāng)他們感染了冠狀病毒時(shí)，當(dāng)他們尋求康復(fù)時(shí)，他們應(yīng)該被收取更高的醫(yī)療費(fèi)，而且他們應(yīng)該被收取任何因他而感染病毒的人的醫(yī)療費(fèi)(通過(guò)接觸者追蹤)。
當(dāng)然，我們會(huì)尊重你不戴口罩、自我隔離或接受病毒測(cè)試的權(quán)利，但你在這樣的危機(jī)中外出的自由不應(yīng)該沒(méi)有后果，你知道病毒是危險(xiǎn)的，它可以使任何人喪失能力，但你不知道你可能是病毒的攜帶者，你知道醫(yī)學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)人士會(huì)建議你如何減少感染的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，企業(yè)正在盡最大努力為公共安全盡自己的一份力，同時(shí)也讓經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)行，但你們卻選擇忽視這一切，這樣你們就可以自由地面對(duì)自己，然而，對(duì)于我們其他人來(lái)說(shuō)，這些醫(yī)學(xué)專(zhuān)家的建議實(shí)際上是生死攸關(guān)的，無(wú)論采取什么措施，經(jīng)濟(jì)都會(huì)受到?jīng)_擊，但如果我們都能通過(guò)遵循這些指導(dǎo)方針，為2019在疫情防控盡一份力，那么發(fā)生致命疫情的幾率和延長(zhǎng)隔離時(shí)間的幾率將會(huì)顯著降低，證據(jù)就在那里，戴口罩和隔離措施有助于降低您和您周?chē)娜烁腥静《镜膸茁省?br />