블로그 이미지
영어소리~ 듣고~ 말하고~ 읽고~ 쓰고~ 생각하는~ 영어호흡 블로그
Sunny in New York

☞ Translate to English

☞ 영어로 쓰인 글을 한글로 보기


calendar

  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29          
  • 1,778,056total
  • 455today
  • 558yesterday
2016.02.03 09:52 자유란?
동영상보기↓

Thessaloniki WUDC 2016 - Finals | Open Final


Open Final: THB that the world's poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist revolution.동영상보기↓

토론주제 : 세계의 가난한 사람들과 마르크스 혁명 추구의 정당성


0:00

Welcome to the grand finals of the world's universities debating championship 2016. I'd like to congratulate all four teams for making it this far and I'd like to introduce them to you. In opening government, we have Harvard A. In opening opposition, we have Sydney Union B. In closing government, we have Pep A. And in closing opposition, we have Harthouse A. My name is Thesymnyas and I have with me, a wonderful panel of Mr. Odeyan Mokurjee, Sebastian Templeton, Madeline Schultz, Michael Shapira, Buzz Klinger, Duncan Crowe, Syed Sadik, and Shira Almela. The motion for tonight's grand final is this house believes that the world's poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist revolution. I'd like to start the debate by calling our Prime Minister to deliver their speech. ...

2:40
All around the world and no matter what country in which they live currently live in a system of dictatorship. They live under a dictatorship known as no alternative shackled by capital that's been unjustly acquired, constrained by a land of gentry who have no incentive but to pursue their own interests, and chained by the fact that they can't do anything but to look at the question of their own subsistence. They're unable to reach out for the right to liberty and to self determination that we think in here in the human condition. How are we going to define a Marxist revolution in this debate? We say that in all its forms, it shares the feature of wanting to break down the system of private property. That is what a Marxist revolution means. It can take place in one of two ways. One, is it can happen through internal systems that exist presently, that is to say that you vote in Marxist governments who support things like mass redistribution and the abolishment of private property. Or it can exist externally in the instance of forcibly bringing down governments that for far too long have tread on these people's rights. The first thing that I'm going to note, just on account of the model is just a picture of what we think this world looks like. That is to say, we accept that this attempt at revolution won't succeed in all instances, that in many instances, it'll just lead to the rise of Marxist parties. But in the world in which we do succeed, we encourage you to use your imagination, that is to say, just notice how chronocentric our vision of civilization is. That is, a system of private property emerged out of the Enlightenment, that is the last 300 years of human existence. Prior to that, people lived in sharing economies where they defined themselves as something greater than their labor and their productive force. That's the kind of world that we support. Two things then I'm going to begin this speech with. First, private property constitutes a fundamental assault in human dignity in three key respects. First, it is found and it has been acquired unjustly. In the vast majority of instances, the reason why wealthy countries are wealthy is through processes like colonialism, through slavery, through patriarchy. It represents plunder, when you refuse to give any representation or resources to whom or from whom you took money. But even if it wasn't in those direct instances of theft, in many instances, it was negligence, that's to say the creation of vastly constrictive intellectual property rates. That means that individuals doored in the poor have proper access to things like medication. It's refusal to tax properly. We think negligence is just as morally culpable. The fact that it is unjustly acquired in it of itself gives the poor a claim to that property and to an institution that as itself been harmful. The second thing it enables the poor in terms of a principle is that it allows them ot get redress in opposition to centuries of disenfranchisement. That is to say, theft and negligence represent the stripping of the individual right to assert themselves. We're going to give you systematic reasons why you don't get reforms on their side but notice that this as a principled argument is independent from a consideration of practices. That's to say, compensation or giving more money is unlike categorically what these people require in principle, which is a redress from the fact that they've been taken out of the system of moral equality by theft and negligence. The last thing to say is let's take them at their best. That is, let's wipe the slate clean and accept that everybody has equal access to resources. Why then is property still oppressive and why does it represent an assault on human dignity? The first reason is that competition and the premises on which it is based is artificial. That's to say, trade are morally insignificant or arbitrary factors. The fact of scarcity which allows many corporations to succeed. The fact that I was born with certain talents or certain skills that other individuals weren't. We think those are morally arbitrary from the consideration of desert and we don't think that's just ground. The second thing is a question of actors. So capital continues to decide what begets it. So you get to decide as the head of a corporation, who you hire and what kind of skills you have. Priniciply, private property assaults dignity. This second leads to good outcomes. Notice on the other side, the reason why they need to defend the status quo is that they don't get the levers of structural reforms that you require. There are three reasons for this. The first is the democratic system, that through processes of gerrymandering which are almost irrevocable in very many parts of the world. The poor are systematically disenfranchised. They don't control hedgemonic media that control media narratives about what good policy is. They usually kept up hard by racist rhetoric that accentuates other ascryptive descriptions preventing them from coming forward. The fact of historical disenfranchisement furthermore means that they're less likely to turn out the vote in a way that other people are. The second reason why you don't get structural reform is because it's internationally imbalanced on the considerations of nations. So the Bretton Woods institutions largely built by the west, the institution of human rights which favors civil and political rights of a socioeconomic human rights. We say that those things mean that the alternative they need to defend is continued and systematic in action. What do you get under our side? One, the success cases. These are the ones in which the revolution works. Closing, I'll take you if you have something.


Despite this rhetoric, the last two decades have seen almost a billion people lifted out of poverty in Asia because companies have an incentive to unlock an unskilled and uneducated workforce they otherwise wouldn't.


Uh, we refuse that premise. The reason why we were able to get socioeconomic rights in countries like China is through massive systems of redistribution and bringing up the poor from the public. So if you want to claim literally the communist country for your side, that is to say the people who have put it together the single biggest program of economic and social rights.


Yeah, okay I think enough said.


So let's say the world in which they succeed. We think that those communities will succeed for three reasons. First, it encompasses the vast majority of the global population and given that capital is dependent on labor to get any returns from it, we think that's beneficial. Second is the location of resources in many parts of the developing world means that they have access to those things. The third thing to say is that you get cross-pollination, and you get global solidarity across racial lines where currently, capital has the incentive to get them divided. Those deals with the best case scenario for their side where you get complete revolution. For now we'll also talk about why you get structural reforms along the way that are beneficial. What we need from an opposition is a comprehensive account of property, why it's just and why it doesn't as it has continually done throughout history, assault human dignity. We're very proud to propose.





Sorry this is going to take a second. Panel ladies and gentleman, in opening government, we say there's a specter that haunts the land of gentry, and that specter is the freedom of the poor have been systemically excluded from the society that we should all have a right to call our own. Earlier this year in South Africa, a bunch of students tired of, like the fig of roads, looming over their university, decided "you know, enough is enough. " And they said they're going to get rid of this. That led to a movement for the requirement and the request of higher education to which the government said, "we simply do not have the money." What they did is they stormed Parliament and said, "you will make it a mandatory requirement because our parents fought for the liberty that we were denied by the Apartheid regime." This is precisely the sort of thing we're standing for at opening government. The suggestion that it won't work is absolutely absurd. A number of things in this speech. Firstly, we're going to talk about the principle in the feeble response we heard, and then I'm going to talk about pragmatic benefits, right? But before which, I just wanted to start with two things. One, I want you to ask yourself about a human life. It's such a precious thing and we only have about 80 years in this world, if at all. 
40 of those years are actually useful. And you spend those years working 9 to 5 jobs which all of us hate right? Just to get like 60,000 US dollars if you're very very lucky, at the very best. And you call that freedom. But when I reject that this is a realistic way to which individuals have a right to live their life. We think it's absurd that this is the extent to which we aspire to. We think that that was nonsensical and principally something we haven't heard a justification for. What did we hear in the previous speech? Quickly, a mechanistic cripple saying we can't work both within and without the system. Two things: firstly, he misunderstood. We're very happy to stand for violent mechanisms like this, we saw roads must fall movement within South Africa. These are literally students who are able to get the government to invest millions of dollars they otherwise said they weren't, and take that money out of private property by increasing taxes within that country. Secondly, we think it's totally consistent with it working within the system thinking abolishing certain property laws like intellectual property is the sort of thing we're standing for so it can work both within and without the system. On the principle, I'm going to start by telling you just how violent private capital is. The vast majority of the people who are imprisoned in like, in the world's prisons, are imprisoned in virtue of crimes where they were trying to get something for themselves. So you were burglaring somebody, or.. The vast majority of these people are actually poor so what they're striving for is the bare minimum required for sustenance in the developing world. The government can't provide them with that. The state, then, that is supposed to represent all of us, puts these prisons in cages right? They put these people behind cages. We think that this is never at all justified and this is the sort of system of enforcement that is required by private property. Secondly, wars of conquest for minerals in the vast majority of the circumstances, in the vast majority of the world are justified on the principle that potential gain would actually justify this war. We think that this violence is the direct assault on human dignity that Bo was talking about. What did we hear in the previous speech? Firstly, and this is important because this is the extent of the principle argumentation we heard out of opening opposition. This is a principle debate. They said, in the instance that you fail, this amounts to sadism. The analogy was the extent of the argument. Panel, you have nothing else there on which to vote. Why is this problematic? Bo and I see self-defense even when you're guaranteed to fail is a justified thing to do. So I'm going to give you an example. At the end of the Holocaust, there were certain individuals in a Polish ghetto and they knew that the German assaulters were coming to get them. Those people had two options. They could kind of just like concede and capitulate because all of them were going to die in any case. Or they could pick up their arms and give it their best shot, right? Fight against like the Luftwaffe as they did. We think they were justified in pursuing these means even if it meant that they were going to fail because the resistance of evil is a good, in and of itself. We think that this is the principle we stand for on opening government. We've heard nothing of comparable sophistication in the previous speech. The second thing which he said was a principle argument but in fact, it was just pragmatic arguments was that like,"these people aren't culpable." Firstly, ask yourself about how the process of the acquisition of private property occurred. It was slavery; it was the Industrial Revolution. The principle was actually taking people. So we think that that acquisition was unjustified. But secondly they talked about people who want to buy a piece of bread and that sort of thing and that we're going to take money away from them. We think the ability to imagine a world outside of the confines of property is severely constrained. The only extent to which that is an argument is if you buy the premise that the paradigm we need to operate under is one of private property. Pragmatic benefits: they had a number of things here. I'm going to start by telling you why contextually, the state of affairs are getting worse with the global poor. The aggregate levels of absolute poverty in Africa are worse today than they were in 1960's. Media rages of African American families approximate Apartheid South Africa and the trend is that they are decreasing. The one percent continue to own more and more wealth in society. Why was this when Bo gave you like 5 pieces of material that weren't responded to, but principally, they said two things. One, capital in all instances seeks to exclude and secondly it seeks to self propagate. He gave you five reasons why we can't change it from within the system. He told you about where people live; he told you about the media, the collective action problem, disenfranchisement in the international system that protects private property. To this, all we heard was that unions and democracy will solve. Panel, look at what they're saying in terms of argumentation and compare it to the sophistication you heard in Bo's speech. The second thing they wanted to have then was they were talking about. They wanted to bring up the example of Asia. Two sorts of responses here, the Asian tigers. Firstly, we say state owned capital in many of those circumstances approximate, on a balance, closer to what we're talking about than what they're talking about. There's instances like Singapore, China while aren't ideal but getting closer to the sort of ideal we want. Closing, I really encourage you to ask me a question.

You honestly think that Singapore more closely approximates Marxist Russia than it does Western liberal democracy?

Literally, this is our point, this is our point. Our point was this. Yes, the state is acting in a capitalist manner but the ownership of that is based on a democratic principle which everybody has the potential to benefit from. Yes it exists on the capitalism but an approximation that we think is a step in the right direction, right? The bourgoiese element before we get to Marxist utopia. Okay, on Asia right? The second thing to say is that, we don't think this is freedom at all. When people are dying in burning factories in Bangladesh and they don't have the political enfranchisement to say, "hey this is unacceptable, government." We don't think that democratic representation is something that is at all beneficial. What did we give you then, in addition to this? Firstly, we told you they can succeed and this is contrary to their arguments about them having better guns. Three sorts of things. Firstly, the soldiers that man those armies, we think in very many circumstances, are the global poor. The vast majority of the draft of the United States happens to be African Americans who have systemically been prejudiced by their government. Secondly, we think, that just in the virtue of the number of people that are actually poor, if all of them decided tomorrow they'd like to follow opening government, Harvard, on their way to success, we think we'd be very successful. Secondly, we think the resources happen to be in the places where are very poor and capital requires labor for it to be effective. Panel, there's a principle here and an assault on human dignity. Even if we fail, self-defense is justified. Incredibly proud to propose.




이런 동영상 머리가 조금 아프긴 해도 우리가 살아가는데 삶의 의미를 부여해준다. 그냥 살지 말고 생각하면서 살라고 한다. 어떻게 살아야하고 어떻게 키워야할지 중심을 갖게 해준다.

세상은 변하는 것으로 이루어져 있다. 

변화를 두려워하지 말자~ 





여기서 영어이름에 관련된 문제 하나 내보자.


미국생활영어


문제 1. 위의 세계 대학생 토론대회에 참가해서 우승을 차지한 첫번째 하버드생은 한국인 2세이다. 그렇다면 그의 이름(First Name)은 무엇일까? 위의 동영상에 그의 이름이 직접 나오지는 않지만 두번째 하버드생이 그의 이름을 몇번 말하고 있다.

(____)가 말했듯이~

지난번에 미들네임에 관한 글 "여권이름표기:영어의 미들네임과 우리이름 석자 그리고 하이픈(-)"을 올린적이 있는데 그 글의 예로 들어보려고 한다. 그 글을 읽지 않았다면 먼저 읽고와서 문제를 풀어보자. 내 글은 문제 내고 그냥 답이나 알려주는 그런 수련장이 아니다. 생각 없이 왔다면 잘못 온것이다. 지금 당장 나가라~ 흥미가 있는데 시간이 없어? 나중에 한가할때 들러라~



답 1.

① Bohyun

② Bohyon

③ Boh

④ Bo


이 문제에 대한 답을 하려면 글이 너무 길어져서 여기서 다른 글 샤키라 "Objection"에 가서 잇기로 한다.

기분 전환을 위해서 그 음악 샤키라 "Objection"을 우선 듣고 답과 설명을 보도록 하자.





동영상보기↓

Snowpiercer Official US Release Trailer #1 (2014) - Chris Evans Movie HD





동영상보기↓

Snowpiercer TRAILER (2013) - Chris Evans Movie HD





우리가 살아가는 이 세상은 이 열차의 칸처럼 등급이 매겨져서 살아가게 된다. 돈이 많은 사람들(상류층)과 가난한 사람들(빈민층)은 이미 태어날때부터 다른 열차 칸에서 생활하게된다. 부당한 대우(=하나님이 우리에게 준 자유를 방해받는 것)를 받으면서도 아무말도 할 수 없이 살아가는 현실을 보여주고 있다. 이때 솟구치는 힘~ 나는 이 영화를 보면서 내가 서있던~ 내가 가고 있던~ 80년대를 되돌아보고 있었다. 만약 그들의 솟구치는 힘들이 없었다면 지금의 대한민국은 꿈도 꿀수 없었던~~

아무 동작도 보이지 않고~ 정지되어 있는것 같은 지금도~ 그 솟구치는 힘은 어디엔가 존재한다. 욕을 먹고 밟히면서도 꿈틀거리는 그 힘~ 그때는 오늘을 과거로 기억할 것이다.


자유란 무엇인가?에 대해 글을 쓰고 생각하는 시간을 자주 갖는데 내 글을 읽는 분들이 이 부분을 공감하기를 진심으로 바라면서 글을 쓰는 것을 정지할 수가 없다. 우리 인간에게 누려야할 자유가 있는데 그것을 누리지 못하고 죽게 되는것~ 그것이 무엇인지조차 찾지 못하고 살다가 가게되는 것이다. 맨 아래 사진에 밀치고 달리는 이 사람들은 그것을 느낀 것이다. 자신의 느낌조차 제대로 표현할 수 없는 무감각인 사람이 되어있지는 않은지? 사랑하는 나의 사람들아~



여기서 영어문제 하나 내보자.



미국생활영어

문제 2. 위에서 "자신의 느낌조차 제대로 표현할 수 없는 무감각의 사람"이라고 표현했는데 이렇게 무감각의 상태를 영어로는 무엇이라고 할까?

힌트: 치과에 가서 치료하기전에 마취를 하면 이런 무감각의 상태가 된다.



답 2.

① comb

② bomb

③ dumb

numb


위의 단어들을 소리내어보자.






답은 한국음식의 세계화를 꿈꾸며-6 "애완견과 보신탕"(Dogs for pet, Dog for meat)에 가면 있다.





If You Say Go

Fun.: We Are Young, Some Nights

땅콩항공과 글로벌 사고방식

목격자의 오류 : 5번입니다

평균대에서 심판대까지



posted by 써니의 뉴욕노트 & 잭스피킹 호흡영어




저작자 표시 비영리 변경 금지
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons License
posted by Sunnie in New York Sunny in New York

댓글을 달아 주세요

 <PREV 1 2 3 4 5 ... 423    NEXT>