What, you want my milkshake? Here.
什麼?你要我的奶昔?拿去!
“It’s 1819. As the United States Congress prepares to make Missouri the 24th state in the Union, Representative James Tallmage Jr. delivers a speech. He says slavery is morally wrong, calling it an ‘abomination’ and a ‘monstrous scourge.’ He insists that ‘the extension of the evil must now be prevented,’ and that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in Missouri, or any new state.”
1819 年 美國國會準備要將密蘇里 納為聯邦的第 24 個州 眾議員詹姆士.塔梅奇二世 發表了一場演說 他說奴隸制在道德上是錯誤的 並稱之為「可憎」和「可怕的禍害」 他堅持「現在一定要阻止邪惡延續」 密蘇里或任何新成立的州 都應該禁止蓄奴
Obviously.
這還用說嗎?
“Representative Tyler disagrees. He believes it is a state’s right to choose whether or not to allow slavery. He doesn’t think the federal government can prohibit slavery in any newly added states.”
眾議員泰勒不同意 他認為是否允許蓄奴是各州的權利 他不認為聯邦政府 有權禁止新成立的州蓄奴
Whaaaaat?
什麼?!!!
“Senator Thomas proposes what he sees as a compromise: Missouri will join the union along with another state, Maine. Slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. He also suggests drawing a line through territories yet to become states: slavery will be prohibited north of the line, and allowed south of it.”
參議員湯瑪士提出一個 他認為是妥協的方案 密蘇里會與另一個州—— 緬因,一同加入聯邦 密蘇里可以蓄奴,但緬因州不可以 他同時建議在尚未立州的 領土上畫一條線 線的北方不准蓄奴,但是南方可以
And this is where <i>I</i> have to draw the line.
換我要劃清界線了!
That’s better. Now, senators, congressmen, this Missouri compromise you are proposing is fundamentally flawed— flawed is putting it mildly. The compromise is based on the middle ground fallacy. By saying that half of the new territories should allow slavery while half prohibit it, you position the two viewpoints, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, as equally valid. But if one view is wrong, while the other is right, a compromise between them is still wrong. And one side is definitely wrong here: the pro-slavery side.
這樣好多了 參議員,眾議員 你們提議的這個密蘇里妥協方案 存在根本上的缺陷 說有缺陷還算好聽 這個妥協是基於中間立場謬誤 藉著說一半的新領土准許蓄奴 另一半卻禁止的這個說法 你把支持蓄奴及反對蓄奴這兩個觀點 視為同樣正當合法 但是如果一個觀點是錯誤的 而另一個觀點是正確的 兩者間的妥協還是錯的 這裡有一方絕對是錯的: 支持奴隸制的一方
The whole reason this government exists, the whole reason states exist at all, is to serve the people. That should include all people.
這個政府之所以存在的全部理由 聯邦之所以存在的全部理由 就是要服務人民 這應該包括所有人種
Now, I know there are those among you who would argue otherwise, even among those in favor of ending slavery. In response to your many contorted arguments, all of them wrong, I offer this reminder: the idea that slavery is morally indefensible is not new to you. The founders of your country knew it and many even acknowledged it publicly, even those of them who enslaved other people themselves.
現在,我知道你們有些人會對此爭論 甚至是贊成終結奴隸制的人 也會加入戰局 為了回應你們全都是錯的扭曲論點 我提醒大家 奴隸制在道德上站不住腳 對大家來說並不是新的想法 你們的國父對此非常清楚 有許多位甚至公開承認其錯誤 即使是本身有蓄奴的 幾位開國元勛也這麼說
It’s clear that the errors and delusions on this subject go far beyond the middle ground fallacy, but I call your attention to this particular fallacy because it can have dire consequences in many situations. Failure to recognize the fact that a compromise between two positions, one of which is morally indefensible, is also morally indefensible, has helped to perpetuate countless injustices large and small. Even well-intentioned people— which rest assured, I don’t mistake you for— fall prey to this fallacy, because you humans tend to view compromise as a virtue unto itself.
關於這個問題的錯誤及幻想 很明顯遠遠大過中間立場謬論 但是我要特別提醒大家注意這個謬論 因為它會在很多情況下 造成可怕的後果 未能認清這個事實 而在兩種立場之間選擇妥協 要是其中之一在道德上站不住腳 其妥協在道德上也是站不住腳 妥協就會助長永無止息的大小冤屈 即使是出於好心的人──放心 我沒有把你看走眼── 也會淪為這個謬誤的犧牲品 因為你們人類傾向將妥協視為一種美德
“It’s March 1861. Seven states have seceded from the Union since Abraham Lincoln was elected president. As Lincoln takes office with four more states threatening to leave, he promises not to interfere with slavery in states where it exists, but to prohibit its expansion into new territories and states.”
時至 1861 年三月 自從林肯當選總統 已經有七個州脫離聯邦 林肯就職後,又有四個州威脅要脫離 他承諾不會干涉已經有奴隸的州 但是禁止蓄奴延伸至新領土及州
“It’s April 1861, and a Civil War has broken out over slavery.”
現在,1861 年四月 南北戰爭因奴隸制開打
Some things can't be resolved with a compromise.
有些事不能以妥協解決