對於新事物的態度 Attitude to A New Thing

我不會在第一時間接受新事物。	I will not accept a new thing at the first moment.
除了比起舊事物具有顯著優越性之外，我不會接受新事物。[1]	I will not accept a new thing except that it is distinctly advantageous compared to the prior thing.[1]

---

Notes:

[1]

第一句話和第二句話的範圍並不完全重疊。這兩者的交集是比起舊事物沒有顯著優越性的新事物被認識不超過第一時間者；而這兩者的聯集的補集是比起舊事物具有顯著優越性的新事物被認識超過第一時間者。

The scopes of the first statement and the second statement are not fully overlapped. The joint of the two is a new thing not distinctly advantageous compared to the prior thing being recognized within the first moment. While, the complement of the union of the two is a new thing distinctly advantageous compared to the prior thing being recognized over the first moment.

左派右派之成敗 Evaluations of Left-wing and Right-wing

一個成功的左派人士，就是他最終成為了右派人士。	A left-wing follower is deemed a winner if he finally becomes a right-wing follower.
一個失敗的右派人士，就是他最終成為了左派人士。	A right-wing follower is deemed a loser if he finally becomes a left-wing follower.

問題之類型 Types of Problems

問題必由下列三種組成： 邏輯上問題，以形式證明解決之。 事實上問題，以科學知識解決之。 法律上問題，以政治實力解決之。	A problems must be composed of the following three types: Logical problems, which shall be solved by formal proof. Factual problems, which shall be solved by scientific knowledge. Legal problems, which shall be solved by political power.
問題非以上述方法，不可解決之。	A problems is impossible to be solved unless following the aforementioned ways.

資源分配之準則 The Principle of Resource Distribution

若將水全給大象，則小鼠會渴死；若將水均分給大象和小鼠，則大象會渴死；若水就這麼多，則兩者遲早都會渴死。	If the water is all distributed to the elephant, the mouse will be parched; if the water is equally distributed to the elephant and the mouse, the elephant will be parched, if the water is limited, the two will eventually be parched.
由此可見，資源分配極不平等，會扼殺多元性；資源分配極平等，亦會扼殺多元性。因此，資源分配，以恰可維持多元性為準；若有剩餘，以可良性循環者為先。	It is noted that, extremely unequal resource distribution kills the diversity, and extremely equal resource distribution also kills the diversity. Hence, the resource shall be distributed in the way that the diversity is exactly preserved; if there is remnant, one who brings a virtuous circle deserves the priority.
資源，係指事實上資源及法律上資源而言。	Resources are referred to factual resources and legal resources.

唯一死刑之改革 Reformation of Mandatory Death Penalty

唯一死刑，係指對於特定重罪，法院僅得判處死刑而言。	The mandatory death penalty means a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited to death penalty.
對於唯一死刑，大法官解釋釋字第二六三號認為：「不分犯罪之情況及其結果如何，概以死刑為法定刑，立法甚嚴，有導致情法失平之虞，宜在立法上兼顧人民權利及刑事政策妥為檢討。」	Regarding the mandatory death penalty, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 263 states that, "imposing a mandatory death penalty on those who commit such crimes regardless of their details and results is indeed very rigorous, and may create an imbalance between the legal system and the people's sense of justice."
為此，應廢除「唯一」死刑，轉而提供「多元」死刑，諸如槍決、注射或煤氣等人道死刑，以供法院依個案情況裁量選擇，俾保障人權、促進法治。	Accordingly, the mandatory death penalty shall be abolished, and there shall be provided with various death penalties by humanitarian methods such as shooting, lethal injection or coal gas chamber, for the court to choose therefrom based on the discretion in a specific case, in order to protect the human rights and promote the rule of law.

反歧視之邏輯上不可能 The Logical Impossibility of Anti-Discrimination

邏輯上，反歧視不許歧視者行歧視，致扭曲其本性，自亦不失為歧視，故反歧視不過以更強之歧視凌駕於上而已。	Anti-discrimination forbids a discriminator to conduct discrimination. However, logically, in view of distorting the nature the discriminator, anti-discrimination itself is also a kind of discrimination. In such aspect, anti-discrimination is just placing a kind of stronger discrimination over other discrimination.
可見消除歧視，必須自發，如強求他人，則歧視不滅。	Therefore, discrimination can only be eliminated spontaneously, and cannot be eliminated by compulsion.
又，反歧視之邏輯上不可能，與反歧視之現實上必要性，誠屬二事。	It is noted that, the logical impossibility of anti-discrimination does not deny the realistic necessity of anti-discrimination.

決斷之次序 The Decision Priority

事理，以形式邏輯為斷；涉及事實者，以相當因果關係為斷；當事人得處分之事項，以其主觀為斷；其餘始得以民意為斷。

A decision shall be made based on formal logic; where it involves a factual issue, it shall be made based on sufficient causality; where it belongs to a purely private affair, it shall be made based on personal choice; only in the remaining situations, it may be made based on public opinion.