關於 premises意思 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

“Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.”

Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

為何我說林鄭像東條英機呢？

如果你有看銀英傳，應該記得裡面有個馬鈴薯軍官，叫作「德森上將」，他的特色平庸，固執，挑剔，會被稱為馬鈴署軍官是因為他會去親自翻垃圾桶，去檢查有沒有浪費食物。然後大肆鞭撻浪費食物的士兵。

這個角色的藍本，其實就是東條英機，東條英機就正正是一個會翻垃圾桶去找出誰浪費食物的軍官。

而他的特色是「平庸」，他出身好，讀書成績好，是日本人所稱為的「秀才」，很早就進入了軍隊體制，仕途順利，無風無險也沒有戰功。就是一個很硬淨的官僚，就這樣，陰差陽錯的成為了最高指揮官，然後在戰爭（就像現在的抗疫吧）中權力擴大到可以支配整個日本。

但是他本人是個甚麼人呢？就是一個平庸，欠缺個人意見，只是不斷瑞摩上意再執行的人，一隻天生的狗，他感到天皇好像想要打仗，便自己用自己猜度，理解，用粗糙的手段執行了一切。他行為的方式就是力排眾議，一意孤行，除了他猜想的主子意思外，其他人的意見他一概不聽，在他眼中這一切牌是盡忠屠守，當官就是要清清白白一心不亂的盡力執行好主子的任務。

這也是日後被視為戰犯的原因，這種人先天就是帝國的理想下屬：他們會想像上意然後擴大執行，成功歸功於主子，失敗就是自己的錯自己當 condom。有這種人帝國可以不斷施行暴政，而皇上永遠是對的。

東條英機自然就 condomize，但那已是日本人吃了兩個原子彈之後的事情。

然後你怪罪他也沒有用，他生出來就是個 condom，死的一天也覺得很光榮，你殺他全家也沒有用，他根本不會後悔也沒有感動。所有人受罪了，但沒有人能報仇。

被稱為天才但被帝國冷落的石原莞爾被問過，你是否跟東條英機不合？他答的是，當然不可能，這個人根本沒有個人的見解，你要怎樣跟他不合呢？

東條英機這種人的殘暴在於平庸，沒自己見解，他們只是在返工，但認為返工大晒的他們行為自然強硬，橫蠻，只要盡忠職守越嚴刻就越正確，法律與制度與權力無限放大。因為返工所以有正當性，因為有正當性所以就不需要人性和彈性。

他們也會把很小的事情，放到很大，很重要的事情，則只有固執，他們的良心永遠過得好，甚至覺得自己是悲壯的犧牲者，這種像狗一樣的官僚，在盛世中大量生產，因為聽話而士途暢旺，去到亂世就是最大的問題。

可是東條英機之所以上位，是因為社會欣賞這種人，林鄭也是一樣。

9 common phrases you didn't know have dark origin stories
九個擁有不為人知黑暗背景的英文片語

Riding shotgun真的跟霰彈槍有關
"Riding shotgun" is the ideal place to ride during on a road trip. But in the Old West, the person sitting in the passenger seat was required to do a whole lot more than find the perfect radio station.
在現代，riding shotgun指的是汽車上路旅行的理想座位，也就是副駕駛座。在從前的美國西部，副駕駛座上的人要做的可不僅僅是調到一個好電臺那麼簡單。
Stagecoach drivers in the Old West needed a person to literally "ride shotgun." The passenger would carry a shotgun in order to scare off robbers who might want to attack them, according to Reader's Digest.
根據美國雜誌《讀者文摘》的文章表示，過去在美國西部趕馬車的人需要有人在旅行途中保護駕駛。副駕駛座上的人要手持霰彈槍來嚇阻想要攻擊馬車的強盜。

Highway robbery真的是搶劫
Most people would agree that paying $10 for your favorite cup of coffee is highway robbery. But the original definition of highway robbery once meant literally robbing travelers on or near the highway. The first known usage of the phrase was in 1611.
多數人會認同一杯可口的咖啡要價10美元（310元新台幣）是highway robbery（敲竹槓）。但是highway robbery原來的意思就是在公路上或公路附近搶劫旅客。這個片語的使用最早出現於1611年。

Painting the town red來自醉鬼的惡行
For you and your crew, "painting the town red" probably means getting glammed up for a fun night of drinks and dancing. However, the phrase originates from a night out that makes dancing on the bar seem tame.
對你和你的朋友們來說，painting the town red的意思是打扮得光鮮亮麗，晚上出去喝酒、跳舞。但是，這個片語原本的意思比在酒吧跳舞還要勁爆多了。
Back in 1837, the Marquis of Waterford went out for a night of drinking with some of his friends, according to Phrases.org. Afterward, the group went through the streets of a small English town destroying property. They broke windows, knocked over flower pots, and damaged door knockers. But things got really crazy when they got their hands on some red paint and literally painted the town red, including doors, a tollgate, and a swan statue.
http://xn--phrases-901ow6v.org/ 網站的記載，1837年，沃特福德侯爵和幾個朋友夜出喝酒，後來他們經過一個英格蘭小鎮的街道時開始搞破壞：砸碎窗戶、打翻花盆、損壞門環。這些酒鬼拿到了一些紅油漆後，局面就開始失控了，酒鬼們把整個城鎮都塗成了紅色，包括門、一道關卡和一座天鵝雕像。

Pulling someone’s leg並不總是在開玩笑
You probably think that pulling someone's leg is all in good fun. After all, what's the harm in a little joke, right? This commonly used phrase that today means playing an innocent joke meant something a lot more sinister years ago.
你大概以為pulling someone's leg（開某人的玩笑）都很好玩。畢竟，開個小玩笑無傷大雅。這個常用片語在今天的意思是開個沒有惡意的玩笑，但多年前的意思卻邪惡得多了。
Thieves in 18th and 19th Century London would drag their victims to the ground by their legs in order to rob them, according to Phrases.org.
http://xn--phrases-901ow6v.org/ 網站的記載，18和19世紀時，倫敦的小偷會拉住受害人的腿將其拖倒在地，然後搶劫財物。

Paying through the nose北歐海盜真的做得出
You won't be happy if you think you're paying through the nose for something. Although you may feel like you're getting ripped off, at least you get to keep your face intact. The roots of this commonly used idiom come from a brutal tactic of The Dane Vikings of slitting someone's nose from tip to eyebrow if the person refused to pay their tax, according to Grammarist.
如果你覺得自己paying through the nose for something（為某件東西花了很多錢），肯定高興不起來。不過，就算被「剝皮」，至少你的臉是完好無損的。根據Grammarist網站記載，這個常用片語來自於北歐海盜的一種殘酷手段，如果有人拒絕交稅，就將此人的鼻子從鼻頭到眉毛間劃開。

如果有人read you the riot act 那你就有大麻煩了
After your parents "read you the riot act" for breaking curfew, you might have been facing a few weeks in your room without a television. But in 18th Century England, being read the Riot Act meant you could be facing time behind bars.
如果你的父母因為你深夜不歸而read you the riot act（責罰你），你可能將面臨幾星期的禁足，還不能看電視。但是在18世紀的英格蘭，being read the Riot Act（宣讀《暴動法案》）代表著你可能要進監獄。
The Riot Act was implemented in 1715 and stated that the British government could consider any group of 12 or more people a threat to public safety and be ordered to break up, according to Atlas Obscura. Anyone refusing to disperse could be arrested or forcibly removed from the premises.
據Atlas Obscura網站記載，1715年實施的《暴動法案》指出，英國政府將會把任何12人以上的團體視為對公共安全的威脅，並勒令其解散。任何拒絕解散的人將被逮捕或強行驅逐。

Letting the cat out of the bag可能是陰險的行為
Today, "letting the cat out of the bag" is used to mean spilling someone's secret. But one of the supposed origins of the phrase was rooted in deceit.
在現代，letting the cat out of the bag指的是洩露某人的秘密。但該片語的原意和欺騙有關。
Supposedly in Medieval times, farmers would go to markets to purchase pigs. Most of the time, their bag would contain the animal they paid for. But if they bought from a shady dealer, they would open their bag to find an unpleasant surprise - their pricey pig had been swapped for a much less expensive cat.
據說，在中世紀時期，農民會到集市去買豬。大多數時候，這些農民付錢後就會拿到裝在麻袋裡的豬。但如果他們是從不良商販那裡買的，農民打開麻袋後會驚愕地發現高價買來的豬居然被偷龍轉鳳成不值錢多的貓。
But as Mental Floss notes, there are quite a few holes with this theory.
不過，Mental Floss網站指出，這一說法漏洞百出。

Baker's dozen是為了查驗麵包師傅的誠信
You may be thankful to count on that 13th roll in your baker's dozen, but you can think a rather sinister rule for its creation.
從麵包師傅那裡買了一打麵包，結果一數有13個，你可能會挺感激的，但是baker's dozen的起源卻和一條殘忍的規定有關。
It all traces back to a 13th-century British rule called the Assize of Bread and Ale. The rule stated that if bakers were caught selling smaller or low-quality bread to customers, they could have their hands chopped off.
這要追溯到13世紀英國一項名為《麵包和麥酒法令》的法規。這條法規規定，如果麵包師傅被發現賣給顧客不足量或劣質的麵包，這些師傅們的雙手就會被剁掉。
That's why it was just easier to throw a 13th piece into the pile — thus creating the baker's dozen.
所以往一打麵包裡多放一個就更保險一些，於是，麵包師傅的一打（baker's dozen）就成了13個。

Meeting a deadline曾經真的是「死線」
When you get that big report to your boss on time, "meeting a deadline" is a good thing. But the phrase was coined during the American Civil War and had some deadly consequences.
如果你準時將重要報告交給領導，meeting a deadline就是好事。但這個片語是在美國南北戰爭期間被發明的，當時可是會招來致命的後果。
The deadline was apparently a line inside of the area where Federal prisoners of war were kept. If a prisoner attempted to cross the line, they would be shot, according to Bloomsbury International.
布魯姆斯伯里國際英語學校稱，很顯然，deadline是聯邦監獄中戰犯關押區內的一條線。如果有犯人試圖越過這條線，他們就會被槍斃。

#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 #多益達人林立英文
#成人英文
#高中英文
#多益家教班
#商用英文

【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問（外務篇） | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)

(Please scroll down for English version.)

中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問，就不同外務議題立場，包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。

訪問節錄如下：

1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼？
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場，因為例如本土、港獨等，第一他們並沒有清晰的界定，或是社會一致的定義，我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人，其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時，我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是，我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家，不論金融、出口產業，所以在考慮香港利益同時，我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場，我們會選擇「國際視野，本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。

2. 你們是否支持香港獨立？
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論，特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面，港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策，因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻，例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題，如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題，所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。

3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法？
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的，所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下，加上沒有違反法律，就應可就不同議題提出想法。

4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨？
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善，所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決，我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止，社會上有不同聲音，但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。

5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員？
其實我們由始至終都相信，而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅，所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊，所以對於有部分議員被DQ，我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的，並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決，所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。

6. 你們是否支持人大釋法？
每一個法律的訂立，其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架，然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書，而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善，就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是，我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持，這才是一個成功的新詮釋。

7. 你們是否同意一國兩制？
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文，其中當然包括一國兩制。

8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法？
因為爭議聲非常之多，所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗，該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間，所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音，從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。

9. 你們對違法達義有何看法？
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市，任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音，但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。

10. 你們對初一事件有何看法？
對旺角騷動，很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入，所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢？

11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者？
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為，我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持，以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。

Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.

The interview excerpts are as follows:

1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.

2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.

3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.

4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.

5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.

6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.

7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.

8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.

9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.

10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?

11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________

二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。

2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行，時間為下午十二時半至二時半。

Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.

The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.