Mu Bai’s writing is mediocre | Prison A targets Luo Xiang, picking the wrong target

Text | Mu Bai

The topic of Lao A refuting Luo Xiang’s words went viral online.

Because Luo Xiang used the historical allusion of Wu Song killing Pan Jinlian to explain modern law, playfully combining it with the topic of legitimate defense and excessive defense. As a result, this playfulness was seized upon by Lao A, who then refuted Luo Xiang, saying: “The lives of loyal ministers and filial sons are more valuable than those of adulterers and adulteresses.”

Then, under the influence of Lao A, some fools with no cognitive ability “awakened” again and found a new direction.

Of course, under this boring “refutation”, the internet started a new round of attacks on Luo Xiang.

This matter, a few points:

First, to be honest, I was quite surprised, because I could have guessed a few days ago that Lao A would look for a target, like Mao Xinghuo looked for Mo Yan, but I didn’t expect Lao A to target Luo Xiang. To be honest, just from this point, Lao A’s level is tens of thousands of miles worse than Mao Xinghuo’s. Because if you attack literature, you can say anything about literature. Mao Xinghuo says that the poems I write are also poems, and the poems Mo Yan writes are also poems. You outsiders can’t say anything.

But Luo Xiang is not literature, he is law, and law is all about logic, and logic is the hardest thing to fool. If you open your mouth and say something unpleasant, you expose your IQ.

Second, take Luo Xiang’s point of view. In modern law, if Wu Song killed Ximen Qing and Pan Jinlian, no matter how well you argue, it would be a severe sentence, not legitimate defense, nor excessive defense, but outright intentional homicide. Does Luo Xiang want Wu Song to be sentenced to death when he talks about this logic? The answer is no, it is modern law that determines Wu Song’s death sentence.

Therefore, what Lao A is refuting is not Luo Xiang, the trending topic should be, “Lao A refutes the legislation of the National People’s Congress”.

Luo Xiang is just a law professor, teaching existing legal knowledge to others.

Third, let’s look at Lao A’s point of view again, that the lives of loyal ministers and filial sons are more valuable than those of adulterers and adulteresses.

This sentence actually exposes what is in a person’s bones. This is a product of ancient feudalism. Not to mention the distant past, just take the definition of loyal ministers and filial sons in recent history. You kowtow to the emperor every day and shout “Long live”, this is a loyal minister; you accidentally saw your father with a lame leg poking a photo with a bamboo pole at home, and then reported your father and had your father beaten to death in the bullpen, and as a result, you were still praised as a filial son with a big red flower.

If so, who defines loyal ministers and filial sons?

Take Afghanistan and Iran on the international stage recently as an analogy.

The Taliban’s laws in Afghanistan now clearly distinguish between the classes of free people and slaves, depriving women of the right to education. According to Lao A’s idea, Afghanistan is also protecting tradition, and those who follow the Taliban’s ideas are also loyal ministers and filial sons.

Iran is even more typical. In order to prevent women from going to public places without wearing a black veil outside, they have specially established an organization called the “Moral Police”. Then, according to Lao A’s idea, those who follow the Moral Police are all loyal ministers and filial sons.

To put it bluntly, China has used thousands of years to get out of the feudal dross of the emperor, ministers, fathers, and sons. It is also because it has gotten out of this dross that women can avoid foot binding and no longer become a commodity-like appendage. Your sentence of loyal ministers and filial sons overturns everything.

Of course, there is a group of people among those who support Lao A who are looking forward to being the emperor at home every day, watching short dramas every day, and really feel that they will be the young masters of the landlord’s family, the young masters of the gatekeepers, and have a lot of concubines when they return to ancient times. You are thinking too much. With your IQ, if everyone goes back to ancient times and relies solely on the law of the jungle and Confucianism, you are likely to be a slave who gets a steamed bun from the master if he is in a good mood today, and a stray dog who is beaten to death if he is in a bad mood tomorrow.

To put it bluntly, it is precisely because of the bottom line of modern law that the basic rights of the weak are guaranteed. Without a modern legal system that is rooted in Christ and has compassion as its core, those in power will say you are loyal, and you are loyal. If they say you are a rebel, you can be convicted simply because you wrote a few words, or even coughed.

Zweig said: The most unforgivable thing for a person is to be forced to wake up from sincere enthusiasm and realize that the person who once entrusted them with all their hopes is the one who is disappointing them.

Thank you!