Even if some do not agree that hanbok is the traditional dress of the Han Chinese people, but scolded hanbok is a birthday suit is a eunuch suit is to destroy national unity wearing hanbok

Of course it is very wrong!

This issue can actually be compared to the provisions of the freedom of religious belief:

China's laws provide for the freedom of religious belief, that is to say, citizens have the freedom to believe in a religion or not to believe in a religion; they have the freedom to believe in this kind of religion or that kind of religion; they have the freedom to believe in this denomination or that denomination of a religion; they have the freedom to believe in a religion or not in a religion but now believe in a religion or not in a religion; they can believe in a religion or not in a religion but now believe in a religion or not in a religion or not in a religion or not in a religion. freedom to be unbelievers and now believers, and freedom to be believers and now unbelievers.

In short, the freedom granted to citizens by our laws is the freedom of choice you have, and the freedom of others not to have their choices interfered with by you.

Back to the issue of hanbok.

Support for Hanbok is the national costume of the Han people, which is the Hanbok gowns as Chinese citizens are constitutionally given the right to freedom. As long as the propaganda activities of Hanboks are legal, they are protected by the law to express their opinions, regardless of whether they are to the audience's taste or not.

In turn, the view that does not support the Chinese dress is part of the normal expression of citizens. But the view that does not support ≠ abuse, legal and reasonable expression of their opposing views is a civil right, but abuse, verbal violence, personal attacks and even more terrible human flesh, etc. is not a legal right!

The fact that one can only rely on this kind of vulgar language to build up one's own prestige precisely reflects the speaker's inner powerlessness and panic. Because he was unable to support his point of view with clearer and more indisputable arguments, he was left with no choice but to break into foul and abusive language. On the one hand, he tries to use profanity and swearing to strengthen his anger and intimidate his opponents, but on the other hand, he loses the last two layers of moral and legal cover because of the use of cyber violence. In the end, the brain can only curse the more panic, the more roar the more weak; no brain will be transformed into a mountain ape, head shell mouth are dirty and vulgar material is still happy.

Parents, for this kind of "other side of the defense", you still bother what?