Recently, a case reported by ** has attracted a lot of attention online. The uncle died unexpectedly, and the nephew (Liu) was sued by the aunt to the court, because the nephew had a haircut in the first month, and the aunt thought that the nephew knew the custom of "killing the uncle by the haircut in the first month", and still went to get a haircut, and asked Liu to bear the civil tort liability and compensate 1 million. After trial, the people's court held that the cause of the car accident was an accident caused by drunk driving and had nothing to do with Liu's haircut, and rejected the litigation claim.
People couldn't believe that this was serious news, and it also started a group ridicule on the Internet. Indeed, because of a superstitious statement, someone really went into the court to sue, which is ridiculous.
If you think about it carefully, my aunt's logic is actually "I think", "he is", and "everyone else says so". To put it bluntly, it is the infinite spread of self-centered logic, forcibly associating the uncle's accident with a superstitious statement, and constructing a self-consistent logic - although it is superstitious, it is also a logic, resorting to the folk saying of "shaving his head and killing his uncle in the first month", which is actually the citation method in logic.
This logic inevitably cannot withstand the scrutiny of the law, the law is based on the facts, the law is the criterion, the fact that "superstition harms people" is difficult to prove, and the law has no relevant provisions, so it is not surprising that it was dismissed. This is the mission of the law, which must fight against all superstitious ideas, emotional intuition, subjective assumptions, conformity, excessive associations, etc., and it must defend reason and common sense.
In reality, people need the spirit of the law. Some people enlarge the corner of the subway advertisement and interpret it as a sign of insulting China; There are also people who are keen to spread the privacy of "female teachers cheating on high school students", and disdain the reminders of legal personnel who are "suspected of leaking the privacy of minors": "If you do something wrong, you won't be allowed to say it?" Isn't this an absurdity? It is precisely at this time that the law needs to stand up - logically untenable, legally unfounded, then wrong is wrong, and the law should have its firm judgment on how many surging emotions are on the other side.
People should not underestimate the power of absurdity, not all absurdity is spurned by people, many absurdities are actually believed and insisted on by many people, those "I think", "he is", "others say so" logic, is not uncommon in daily life. Therefore, those flaws will only become apparent when examined within a strict legal framework.
From the movie "Article 20" released during the Spring Festival, we may also get a glimpse of the social reality faced by the law. The movie is shaped with a clear face of good and evil, allowing the audience to quickly complete the choice of sides, and has a judgment that it is natural and should be so. But leaving aside these artistic expressions, we can see that in reversing a verdict, the law may face traditional ideas, popular pressure, social opinions, and so on.
In the face of a hideous-looking and vicious **, you can't defend yourself, which is too absurd. "Maybe that's something the film conveys. But people should also understand that every victory in the face of absurdity is not so easy, and it requires courage, perseverance and even sacrifice.
Of course, the accusation of the "New Year's haircut" was so outrageous that the law seemed to win without much effort, and people overwhelmingly supported it. But in many cases, it's not so easy. If a wrong concept and logic, with a genuine believer, really attracts a huge number of fans, can people still have the patience to look at the analysis based on facts and the law as the criterion? Can the law still make its own judgments without wavering?
In this case, the phrase "too absurd" seems to be summing up, and there is no need to delve into it. But how the law should dissect the absurd, the details and logic, people might as well think about it.
Guangming Net, author Guangming Net commentator).