跨越：飞人折翼

8月7日，中国选手刘翔在伦敦奥运会田径男子110米栏前突然受伤摔倒，无缘晋级，止步伦敦奥运。飞人折翼，本是一件令人悲伤的事，但是坊间各种非议却接踵而来。     

世界充满声音，声音充满智慧

希望你们完全把我忘记。——吴仪宣布明年两会后退休不应一味规定卖淫非法。——李银河谈女性主义与性自己人搞什么自己人。——便衣殴打的哥阻挠110执法房市有问题,建议三四年后再买房。——万科董事局主席王石解读房市     

世界充满声音，声音充满智慧

那就后退一步叫叫‘大师'吧。——大师余秋雨笑称大师比老师低一级我上学,我缴费,我成材,我快乐。——海南大学挂横幅催缴学费我是警察,不要报警。——香港一警长小店内偷安全套     

世界充满声音，声音充满智慧

穿的白衣服,胸前都被摸黑了。——伴娘遭多名男宾乱摸气愤报警我不喜欢城管只是更讨厌农民工。——网友称农民工比城管更可恶遭炮轰自己能照顾自己。——广州7旬阿婆捡吃垃圾桶里盒饭12年拍美女,就是为了防止近视!——草根摄影师自称非美女不拍2020年,买票难乘车难将成为历史。——铁道部发言人谈春运我们不是价格上涨最快的。——国家统计局称俄罗斯等价格上涨更快我们不负责管理指数。——证监会否认救市     

声音·花絮

声音"就算我们老两口没了,他不还有3个姐吗!家里也不能让他委屈着。现在的孩子成熟都晚,不会攒钱,慢慢成了家,过上日子就好了。"——富二代的父母对孩子今后生活的安排。     

声音.花絮

声音一毛钱能买什么东西!———因为对方只给了一毛钱,乞丐接过之后就将钱撕成了两半。就算离婚,现在还是夫妻,不好管。——26岁的北京女子董珊珊被丈夫王光宇虐待致死,案发前她曾8次报警,却因警察的无奈最终没逃过劫难。     

声音·花絮

声音"中国环境不好,灰尘过大。"——苹果公司对使用不到3个月、价值万元的苹果电脑iMac屏幕就出现了"灰斑"的原因的解释。"我有的是钱,我打死你们,我把钱给你们……"     

声音·花絮

声音可以绕行,没必要非在其上面走。——市民在哈尔滨市政府网站反映南岗区政府门前的大理石步道板雨雪天气湿滑难行一事,却得到这样的答复。     

声音

“假钞连部分验钞机都可以骗过，普通百姓哪有能力去鉴别啊？”     

声音

“这是自己浮躁和自负的结果，我愿意接受社会的谴责和法律的制裁；我愿意最大诚意地赔偿全部损失；我愿意终身做义工宣传不要酒醉驾驶，我愿意义务拍摄宣传片，告诉朋友：酒令智昏，以我为戒。”     

声音

"没有礼貌的中国人!人家一家三口普普通通吃午饭,你们不停拍拍拍!问一声也没有,不懂尊重别人!"——歌手陈奕迅一家三口在温哥华某拉面馆吃饭期间,其妻子怀疑被当地华人偷拍,一怒之下反拍对方清晰照上传至微博,并写下了以上的话。"真是为了避暑,不惜挥金如土啊!"——近段时间,南京高温,催热了跑腿业务,什么稀奇古怪的跑腿要求都有,甚至有人在家烧     

声音

"严禁人畜入内,违者责任自负。"——贵州毕节在少年被闷死垃圾桶事件后,将该警示语印在垃圾桶上。"我也觉得这样申请索赔有点儿牵强。但是,老板指示我按这个理由起诉,我也没找到太多证据,只找到这条微博,就只好照写了。"——厦门一员工发微博讨薪被老板告"泄密",反遭索赔96000元,该公司人力资源部经理在接受媒体采访时说出了这样的话。"严禁年底滥发补贴奖金与利用公款拜年。"——中央纪委监察部发出以上通知,要求党员领导干部在2013年元旦、春节期间,     

声音

美国大选所研究的堕胎、就业、同性恋、医疗保险、加税减税、要不要禁止私人拥有枪支、军费开支要不要增加等问题,在我看来都是些枝节问题、不是问题的问题、无病呻吟的问题、吃饱了撑的的问题。——司马南谈美国大选中的议题。     

声音

“有必要制定法律保护我国的珍贵遗产。”     

声音

“秦桧坐像是制作公司做的，我们当时没有想太多。秦桧虽是江宁人，但我们没有为他平反的意思。”     

声音

＂真的,平时只能游20米。跳下去救人时,没想到那么多。现在回想起来也不害怕。我身体好,又是学跳舞的,我相信自己能救起那个小男孩儿。＂ ——贵州大学艺校舞蹈系女孩儿向欣园救起落水男童时说。     

声音

"老百姓买不起房是因为他们没本事。大学毕业生不是买不起房,而是老家有房不回去住。"——"80后"河南省政协委员卢一博在河南"两会"上雷语不断。身为企业老板的卢一博曾资助4000余名贫困大学生,向社会捐助财物约2800万元。"(小姐)卖淫行为应该不予追究,因为我们没法儿区别小姐和二奶,因为二奶和小姐是批发和零售的关系,二奶是     

A Retributive Argument Against Punishment

This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to be an argument only against retributive justifications of punishment, and so leave open the possibility of a sound non-retributive justification of punishment. Punishment cannot be justified, the paper argues, because it cannot be demonstrated that any punishment, no matter how minimal, is not a disproportionate retributive response to criminal wrongdoing. If we are to hold onto proportionality—that is, proportionality as setting a limit to morally permissible punishment—then punishment is morally impermissible. The argument is a retributive argument against punishment insofar as a just retributive response to wrongdoing must be proportionate to the wrongdoing. The argument, that is, is concerned with proportionality as a retributive requirement. The argument against punishment is set out on the basis of a familiar version of the ‘anchoring problem’, according to which it is the problem of determining the most severe punishment to anchor or ground the punishment scale. To meet the possible criticism that we have chosen a version of the anchoring problem particularly favourable to our argument, various alternative statements of the anchoring problem are considered. Considering such statements also provides a more rounded view of the anchoring problem. One such alternative holds that the punishment scale must be anchored not just in the most severe punishment, but in the least severe punishment as well. Other alternatives hold that it is necessary and sufficient to anchor the punishment scale in any two punishments, neither of which needs to be the most or least severe punishment. A further suggestion is that one anchoring point anywhere along the punishment scale is sufficient, because it is possible to ‘project’ from such a point, so as to determine the correlative punishments for all other crimes, and so derive a complete punishment scale. Finally, the suggestion is considered that one can approach the issue of a punishment scale ‘holistically’, denying any distinction between anchoring and derived (or ‘projected’) punishments.