FIGU Forum Q&A – Self Defense/FIGU论坛问答 – 自卫

资讯源头:FIGU/ ‘Billy’ Eduard Albert Meier
资讯主题:FIGU论坛问答 之 “Self Defense”

资讯来源:「FIGU Forum」
http://forum.figu.org/..(资讯链接随问题注释)
内容中译:N/A
中译链接:「Facebook. BillyMeierChinese」
https://www.facebook.com/billymeierchinese/
内容校译:利昂小子
校译日期:2019年04月29日,周一
推送类型:中文域-[校译&中译]
资讯备注:这是一篇非正式且未经授权的中译版资讯,内容基于英文源版译制,请注意我们的译文可能存在错误。
资讯注释:FIGU论坛上的回复不一定都是Billy本人做出的,也有可能是经由「Semjase Silver Star Center/Semjase银星中心」的核心小组成员转达Billy的意思;又或依据Billy的教导和解释做出的说明。

Question:
论坛上的提问:

Dear Billy,
亲爱的Billy,

In relationships with people, arguments or disagreements do tend to occur.
在人与人的关系之中,争吵或分歧总会发生。

It seems there is a trend developing that even when a person raises their voice to another it can be considered a form of violence or abuse.
似乎有一种趋势正在形成:即便是当一个人对另一个人提高他们的嗓门时,这也会被视作…是一种暴力或虐待的形式。

Sometimes these disagreements can lead to physical altercations between people.
有些时候,这些分歧可能导致人们之间的身体对抗。

It seems in today’s society almost anything can be considered abuse when you either verbally or physically show aggression towards another person whether in self defense or not.
在如今的社会里,似乎无论你是否是出于「Self Defense/自卫」,只要你对他人展现出了口头或身体上的侵略性,那几乎任何事情…都可能被视作虐待。

Even though you may be the victim, you can be considered guilty if you defend yourself under certain circumstances.
即便你(本来)可能是受害者,但如果你在某种情况下保卫你自己,你也有可能被认为有罪。

Do you consider it the right of each person to defend oneself within reason and people should be allowed to solve their own differences, or is society right in enforcing and dictating the behavior of people and to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t?
您是否认为每一个人都有权力在合理范围内…捍卫自己呢(?),还有,人们是否应该被允许自行解决他们自身的分歧呢(?),又或是,应该是由‘society right/社会权力/公共权力’去强制执行和强行规定人们的行为…并决定哪些(行为)是可接受的,哪些是不可接受的呢?

Thank you so much
非常感谢您

Salome
Salome

Scott
Scott

Answer:
来自FIGU的回复:

People should solve their own differences themselves.
人们应该自行解决他们自己的分歧。

There is indeed a (false) trend to make each problem a societal problem.
确实有一种(错误的)趋势…使得每一个(个人的)麻烦(最终)都演变成了‘societal problem/社会麻烦/公共麻烦’。

Due to the ever increasing overpopulation the intolerance is growing, too, because the more people, the less stable relationships are growing.
由于前所未有的「Overpopulation/过剩人口」的增长,(人与人之间的)不容忍也在增加,因为人口越多,人与人之间的关系就越不稳定。


Question:
论坛上的提问:

hello billy and thanks again
Billy,您好,再次感谢

my latest question is in regards to self defense.
我最新的问题是有关「Self Defense/自卫」的。

if someone is trying to kill me, and i choose instead of killing in self defence, to destroy that persons legs or arms with the hope that this persons loss of limbs may spark a moment of self reflection with a possible positive outcome in the thoughts and feelings of that would be murderer… somewehre down the road.
如果有人想要杀我,但我出于「Self Defence/自卫」弄残了那个人的腿或胳膊而不是反杀对方,并希望通过失去臂膀…会激发这个人一瞬间的‘self reflection/自我反省’,进而有可能在其思想和情感层面输出正面结果,使其意识到这是一种谋杀(/会使其沦为凶手)…沿着这个逻辑走下去。

would my actions be considered cruel torture or reasonable?
我的(这种)行为,会被认为是残忍的酷刑…还是合理的(行为)呢?

thanks again.
再次感谢。

Peter_brodowski
Peter Brodowski

Answer:
来自FIGU的回复:

If there’s no other way to stop an attacker from killing you, then injuring the other person, e.g. destroying his hands etc., is a reasonable action.
如果没有其它方法阻止攻击者杀害你的行为,那么伤害对方(例如:破坏他的手等),就是一种合理的行为。

It may not be the primary intention, however, to injure a person with the aim that he may learn something; to protect one’s own life is the foremost goal.
然而,出于让对方从中学到某些东西的目的…而去伤害一个人,不会是这种(「Self Defense/自卫」)行为的初衷;保护一个人自身的「Life/生命」(安全)才是首要目标。

If the other person learns something from the injury, then that’s positive, of course.
当然,如果对方通过受伤学到了一些东西,那这也是积极的(结果)。


Question:
论坛上的提问:

Greetings Billy,
问候您,Billy,

I’m interested in knowing your opinion in regards to ‘rules of aggression in self defense’.
我想知道您对‘rules of aggression in self defense/自卫攻击法则’的看法。

I ask this because in my county of Canada it is kind of illegal to defend yourself against criminals and against people who are like Biker or gang bullies, etc.
我问这个问题…是因为在我的国家「Canada/加拿大」,保护自己不受…(犯罪分子和像「Biker/机车党」或‘gang bullies/帮派恶霸’等人)…侵害的行为,是有些违法的。

Especially when the police can’t actually do anything unless the perpetrators have already caused harm or killed a person, while it is further illegal here to carry a concealed weapon for self defense.
特别是当警方实际上什么也做不了时,除非肇事者已经造成了伤害…又或是已经杀害了一个人,不仅如此,在这里…出于「Self Defense/自卫」(目的)携带隐蔽武器…也是违法的。

So what has actually happened is they want people to become completely dependent on the police while the police can’t always be around in a time of everyones need, nor can they intervene until a crime has already occurred.
由此,实际发生的结果是,他们就是想要人民变得完全依赖于警方,但警方不可能总是在每一个人需要的时刻…都能出现在附近,不仅如此,他们也不能在罪行发生之前…做任何干预。

And despite what people see in the movies, it would actually be illegal to be a super hero if such things could be for real.
所以,无论人们在电影中看到了什么,在现实中,成为一名‘super hero/超级英雄’是违法的,如果这种事真发生的话。

I’ve talked with police here and they said that they can actually lose their jobs if they talk about or disagree with decisions made by the courts, because of political differences of opinion which continues to be an even further problem for the police.
我曾和这里的警方聊过,他们说:如果他们谈论这些事…又或不认可法庭裁决的话,他们真的会因为政治意见分歧(这些分歧对警方来说,会继续成为一个深远的麻烦)…而失去他们的工作。

Unfortunately the end result being that everyone here lives in fear.
不幸的是,这最终造成的结果就是:生活在这里的每一个人…都活在恐惧之中。

It almost appears to me that the governments of every country on the planet are like within themselves gangsters of varying territories to which it’s citizens depend upon them for their social security needs and protection,
在我看来…几乎是这样:这颗星球上每一个国家的‘governments/政府’,在他们内心深处,是喜欢(那些)来自不同地盘儿的匪徒的,由此,他们的‘citizens/公民’就只能依靠他们达成其社会安全诉求和人身保护;

and that these governments want to keep it that way and so the people never recognize the cause of such problems as being their conditioned co-dependencies on money, etc, rather then recognizing a better way of life because they’ve never experienced it.
在我看来…也几乎是这样:这些‘governments/政府’想保持这种状态,由此,人民就永远不会认识到这些问题的原因,就如同他们(即:‘citizens/公民’)被置于共同依赖金钱等的大环境之中…一样-[注],而不是让他们(即:‘citizens/公民’)认识到一种更好的生活方式,因为他们(即:‘citizens/公民’)从未(有机会)经历这些。

利昂注释:这里的意思是,基于物质至上的…社会秩序/生存法则,强迫“citizens/公民”从属于这个体系,并由此沦为被统治者。

So having said all that, perhaps you know of a better way at getting to the heart of the problem;
所以,说了这么多,(我想说的是…)也许您知道一个能够触及这些问题核心的…更好的办法;

Is their a difference between an angry thought or thought of fear, and a negative thought?
‘angry thought/愤怒的想法’又或一种‘thought of fear/恐惧的想法’,是否与‘negative thought/消极的想法’有所区别呢?

Thanks with a little something to think about,
感谢您为此事费心,

James Truthseeker
James Truthseeker

Answer:
来自FIGU的回复:

In Switzerland it is also illegal to carry weapons in order to defend oneself.
在「Switzerland/瑞士」,出于‘defend oneself/自卫’(目的)而随身携带武器,同样也是违法的。

If you take the U.S.A. as an example where it is legal to carry weapons:
但如果你拿「United States/美国」举例,在那里携带武器…是合法的:

just compare it with Canada:
这里只是拿这个国家与「Canada/加拿大」做个比较:

The crime rate in the U.S. is very much higher than in Canada.
发生在「United States/美国」的犯罪率要远远高于「Canada加拿大」。

The more people who are walking around with weapons, the more insecure a society is.
拿着武器四处走动的人越多,社会就越不安定。

A warning to all ‘weapon lovers’ is Florida where it is allowed/legal to shoot at anybody who intrudes your private sphere and evokes the air of a threat.
对所有‘weapon lovers/武器钟爱者’的一个警告…是「Florida/佛罗里达」,在那里,向任何…侵入你私人领地并唤起威胁氛围的…人士开枪,都是被允许/合法的。

Therefore it is not a surprise to learn that a father has shot his daughter who came home late at night, because he, in his cowardice, was thinking he had heard a burglar.
因此,在看到一位父亲开枪打死了深夜返家的女儿的新闻时,(人们)就不足为奇了,因为他,在他的懦弱之中,误以为他听到的…是一个窃贼发出的动静。

In a free society it should not be necessary that the citizens are walking around and carrying weapons.
在一个自由的社会里,‘citizens/公民’应该是没有必要携带武器四处走动的。

It’s the task/obligation of the police to protect the decent and lawful citizens.
保护体面和守法‘citizens/公民’,是警方的任务/职责。

The problem with many countries is, though, that there are criminal persons among the police forces; and there are police forces in many countries which are making their own rules and laws.
尽管如此,许多国家仍面临/存在的问题却是:‘police forces/警力’中也有犯罪分子;许多国家也都有制定其自身法则和法律的‘police forces/警力’存在-[注]。

利昂注释:这里的意思,即是指武力独裁。

To get out of this mess people shall turn to that which is good within them.
为了摆脱这种混乱,人们应该转向他们内在的‘good/善’。

Note by CF:
来自Christian Frehner的注释:

We forgot to discuss your question, but here’s my answer:
我们(之前)忘记讨论你的问题了,但这是我的答案:

Both of them, angry thoughts and thoughts of fear, are negative thoughts.
两种想法,‘angry thoughts/愤怒的想法’和‘thoughts of fear/恐惧的想法’,都是‘negative thoughts/消极的想法’。

Of course there’s a difference in the view of the persons in question, but both are producing bad effects on/to their ‘mental block’ (consciousness, thoughts, feelings, psyche).
当然,问题之人(对此)的看法是有所不同的,但两者都会对他们(即:问题之人)的‘「Mental Block/精神模块」’(「Consciousness意识」、「Thoughts/思想」、「Feelings/情感」、「Psyche/心灵」)产生负面影响。

©FIGU中文域

本篇为「FIGU中文域」原创撰文/译文,版权及原创资质,均完全归属于「FIGU中文域」所有,任何第三方平台或个人,不得以任何不正当目的转载、抄袭、拆分或是篡改该篇原创撰文/译文的文本内容及其链接和配图,以期维护FIGU资讯之权威和原创作/译者之权益,请予支持,违者必究。

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com 徽标

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  更改 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  更改 )

Connecting to %s