偏執行為來自偏執思想，甚至是，來自一種邏輯不通，昧於常理的怪誕想法。K太帶八歲的兒子坐馬路，不顧親兒安危，已是人神共憤。觀其於電視上的講話，已發覺此人是無力分辨是非的，說香港不是一個很安全的城市嗎？為甚麼遊行都會遭受警方武力云云。
但問題是當你坐馬路阻塞交通，已不是一個和平守法的遊行。執法者要恢復秩序，勸喻不行就要強行清場了，實在沒甚麼不妥的地方。至於認為武力的定義不該包括胡椒噴霧，是犯了自行定義的膠誤，這點已毋用多說。
倒是今天讀報，這絕種阿媽的另一句話更令我瞠目結舌！話說那公民黨成員曾建峰見小孩中了胡椒噴霧，不即時為他清洗施援，還凉薄地要先給記者拍照。事後K太竟然說他是出於好心，以證明小朋友受傷害！
冷血地讓小孩子在痛在叫，而不立即為其施援，要待記者來拍照，這叫好心？這是甚麼理解了？是K太都認為「證明小朋友受傷害」比立即為兒子減痛更重要？
唉，思維如此混沌的阿媽，難怪會作出這些不合人情的行徑了！
.
.
.
28 則留言:
實在太令人氣憤了，個仔痛成咁佢都仲要做呢場騷！校長，對唔住，我要在你這裡粗魯一次，「妖！呢個死女人好乞人憎！好乞人憎！好乞人憎啊！」
When the majority of people believing in wrong, does it really makes it right?
Reminds me of a story.
http://qna.rediff.com/questions-and-answers/a-group-of-children-were-playing-near-two-railway-tracks-one-still-in-use-while-the-other-disused-only-one-child-played-on-the-disused-track-the-re/15218560/answers
Desert：
我抄了個完整故事過來---
A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track. The train is coming, and you are just beside the track interchange. You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?
Coffee：
哩個確係絕種阿媽。雖然世上還有更狠毒的父母，但K太的行徑，確是令人眼界大開的！
Desert：
謊言說上一百次成了真，但都是那一刻裏的錯信，真理經過時間考驗還是顛撲不破的！
至於那故事，在衡量對錯的時候，盡量減少傷亡已是當下一刻最重要和最支配性的考慮，play on what track 已經不再重要！
其實自從六四開始，我參加過不少遊行，但近年已經不再去了，因為我真的唔知啲人為乜！
果個阿媽，自己心智都未成熟！
另，校長和“樓上”的 Desertfox，你們提到的那個 story，我曾經轉貼，我轉貼的 version 有提及出處及原作者的想法和背後的原因...
http://sally-smallthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/06/tough-decision.html
根本就是有心用小朋友安危來挑釁，政府應該起訴這所謂母親疏忽照顧兒童。
1. 我同意呢個阿媽同曾建峰有問題
2. 我同時又認為當有人示威時, 警方係可以採用暴力
3. 但同時, 我又認為採用暴力時, 一定要係合理低最低暴力,
綜合而言所有新聞報導, 警方係有需要交待及調查有冇人濫用暴力 ?
(即係有人非法在高速公路過馬路, 警方當然可以拘捕佢, 但可唔可以搵車撞9佢呢 ?)
校長：
呢個女人已經將個仔變佐係佢件工具，比佢用黎搞搞震。
根本班友（包括個女人自己）只係當個細路係一件工具，有咁好嘅時機，梗係要利用到盡啦！校長，你太厚道喇，只係話佢地不合人情，我就會話佢地滅絕人性嘞！
>警方係有需要交待及調查有冇人濫用暴力 ?
啲飯民成日都話唔激進冇用，唔流血都唔算激，點解剩係佢哋可以得寸進尺而維護社會秩序的警察就要原地踏步唔可以因應佢哋的步伐作出相應的調整呢？？？你答我吖？
果個推冧铁馬的格仔衫友鎖佢手扣都唔過份啦！出動胡椒噴霧我個人認為非常合理！
果個8歲細佬出現在唔應該出現的地方，要負責任的當然是佢阿媽啦！最好笑係啲飯民/後生話警察噴到8歲細佬隻眼肯定係近距離對住佢噴先至會中到應，無知識就係無知識啦！細佬係大人堆中梗係抬头望啦...
如果我著件低胸衫去街梗係預咗畀啲馬拉佬眼定定望啦！如果我著件低胸衫去咗地盤班地盤佬指住我指指點點都係意料中事；又如果我著件低胸衫去咗苯蘭街抑抑揚揚咁行啲馬拉佬上來問價都正常不過啦！我覺得你啲諗法越來越不可理喻！(見係你我先会咁直話直說咋！)
如果你認同高太根本唔應該帶個仔去遊行後的違法占用馬路示威，咁之後嘅講法都係想將責任部分/全部推卸畀警方遮，意圖或試圖減輕市民對哩班人的負面看法，這种行為可以用鄙陋來形容。
見係你我先会咁直話直說咋
>>>面紅tim...
回應
啲飯民成日都話唔激進冇用
>>>lsd o甘講ge, 主流泛民基本上覺得喪屍式遊行就夠了, 在立法會否決左撥款申請, 佢地已經驚到面青了.
出動胡椒噴霧我個人認為非常合理！
>>>我唔敢講合唔合理, 因為冇在現場無法判斷。
我唔敢講出動胡椒噴霧唔合理, 但對一個小朋友出出動胡椒噴霧, 就有唔同意見。
現場其中一個可能係太混亂, 射中小朋友都唔知。 但the key point係警察在使用暴力時必須要合法合適, 警方需要在此有一個交待。
如果我著件低胸衫去街
>>>下次早d通知我, 我得閒的。當然, 我目及你係好正常的,如果我問你攞電話, 當然係因為你索; 但如果警察因為你著deep v 過黎抄你牌, 甚至抽水, o甘就有問題了。
即係有o甘既case出現, 係警方問題, 而唔係在於你著成點既問題。
你明唔明 ? 唔明, 出黎傾下好wor, 你記得著件低胸衫wor~~
咁之後嘅講法都係想將責任部分/全部推卸畀警方遮，意圖或試圖減輕市民對哩班人的負面看法，這种行為可以用鄙陋來形容。
>>>> 重點不在對呢班人既睇法, 而係我地期望警方在執行權力時, 有冇限制 ? 而呢個限制係建基於什麼基礎。
呢一點, 係一個現代文明社會既重要基石, 遠比有少數人有幾野蠻重要得多。
而呢一點係超越示威者arm唔arm, 警方可唔可以使用暴力既問題。
S：
謝謝你的提供，我把答案又貼過來了 --
Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. You might think the same way, I guess.
Exactly, to save most of the children at the expense of only one child was rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally. But, have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place? Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was.
This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society, the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are, and how farsighted and knowledgeable the minority are. The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, no one would shed a tear for him.
The great critic Leo Velski Julian who told the story said he would not try to change the course of the train because he believed that the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still in use, and that they should have run away if they heard the train's sirens..
If the train was diverted, that lone child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track! Moreover, that track was not in use probably because it was not safe. If the train was diverted to the track, we could put the lives of all passengers on board at stake! And in your attempt to save a few kids by sacrificing one child, you might end up sacrificing hundreds of people to save these few kids.
While we are all aware that life is full of tough decisions that need to be made, we may not realize that hasty decisions may not always be the right one.
'Remember that what's right isn't always popular... and what's popular isn't always right.'
就像中諺所說西瓜靠大邊嗎？
故事要有很多前設：逃離跑道還是來得及的、舊軌道不能再用(即使緊急的情況都是)、那列火車是載客列車...
事實上，若那群小孩仍有時間逃離跑道，那人也毋須落甚麼決策，那守規的孩子也該有更多時間離開舊跑道。
不過我倒認同那結論，講述了一個現象：
'Remember that what's right isn't always popular... and what's popular isn't always right.'
就正如馬克斯的共產主義，曾令前俄羅斯、前東歐、前中國大部分人嚮往，但實踐後卻原來證明只是個虛夢。
行西式選舉可能是香港大部分人的以為對，但事實可能會告訴我們，那是錯的！
另外有關六四，我有寫過看法的：
http://lau-long.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_04.html
Eric：
這個心智異常的媽媽，把孩子作為實現自我的工具，意義上同攬子自殺的母親一樣，只是程度有異而已！
篤篤：
既然前提具備了，結論就是必然。
但前提還有需要釐清的地方，合法的示威警方是不該壓止。若示威演變成不合法的破壞行為，警方就需要執行法律。若警方在執行法律，那就不能說是暴力，你只可以質疑警方使用的方法是否恰當。
把示威者抬走是一種方法，正如當年在皇后碼頭清場，但今次搗亂秩序者並非如那次的可被乖乖抬走，於是只能用武力，而胡椒噴霧已是最低武力，再高的是用警棍、水炮、催淚彈。
佛爺：
佢已經失心了！甚至可以說是喪心了！
Arma：
哩個阿媽真係有病，係嚴重嘅認知缺陷。
我只擔心小朋友長大了一點後，如何看群情怎樣審判他的母親，他的朋友同學又會不會揶揄他母親而對他造成壓力。
花花：
當日有位警長被同袍的胡椒噴霧噴到，場面混亂，小朋友被噴到絕對可以想象，只恨那個曾建峰還在向小朋友灌輸執法者離譜、好衰之說。
「我唔好，但你就更衰」是很多人慣用的自我防禦及開脫口實，正如剛上演的飯民狙擊臨時撥款案一樣：係你唔老醒啫，所以責不在我。
是非公道，其實明矣！
K太在訪問中說要她的兒子得以摸摸警察的防彈護罩！？真是虧她想的出！
舸兒：
那是很異常的想法，是極度自我之下的荒誕行為。過度支配性的影響，我怕小孩子的將來並不好過！
如果我著件低胸衫去街
>>>下次早d通知我, 我得閒的。
>你明唔明 ? 唔明, 出黎傾下好wor, 你記得著件低胸衫wor~~
好無恥！利用男女性別的差異极盡抽水之能事，文字暴力！
Hana真是大肚量！太多人站在道德高地做萎縮、鄙卑事。
其實警察不如「積極不干預」,由佢地坐係大馬路上,睇下過多一兩個鐘,係曾俊萍落嚟同佢地對話,仰或係塞緊車D乘客落車來打佢地丫?
Kate：
Hana 的留言，其實是留有餘地的，是不慍怒但很直接的諍言。
篤篤的反應確是過火了。
魔術師：
若我是乘客，警察又容許的話，我一定走下去叫這班糞青彈開，唔聽嘅話不排除我會用自己的武力，因為他們剝奪了我合法使用道路的權力！
Kate：
該人作為一名社工，正如卡爾．榮格所講的人格面具，人們是期望他去輔導的。他竟然使用低等語言來作辯論，他的專業去了那裡？
Kate＆ 佛爺 ：多謝仗義執言！
發佈留言