China Bashing

[Phil1977]

and if you actually read my posts, you would see that I did compliment the quality of the gearing and internals of the screw driver in the thread you mention and the micro drill (other then minor wobble) and micro polishing tool in my other threads. I said the scam is with the accessories, they try to give you a complete set to look like its a great deal, but my reality is that the tool is of good quality but you need to spend double to get the proper accessories for it.

Thanks for your statement! I explicitely didn't cite you with name because I didn't want to discredit you personally or anything around it. It was just this "all other countries use precision CNC and China throws crap into frying oil" that was already nearly satiric, but it somehow was in line with many "stop chinas exports to save the world" paroles.

It´s just fair to discuss human rights, environmental damage, globalism in general, quality of junk sales, etc... I just wanted to say the world is doing extremely much trade with china and very often gets a very reasonable quality, and replies to the original posting show that's also quite common opinion!

With this clarification and from this point of view everything thing is okay. It´s perfectly okay to hear some "strong" or biased opinions as long as most people are modest and calm.

[RJSV]

   If it's fair to discuss human rights, should be fair regardless of country getting the criticism.
First thing comes to mind, here in U.S. is the whole mask / VAX mandates, that specified loss of job, school expulsions, etc.
   Those rights violations were arbitrary, and sometimes laden with completely inappropriate 'agendas', and enforced in tyrannical manner.
Yes, I know maybe no 'executions'. 
   But for sure, we had to endure many arbitrary 'enforcements and arrogant declarations of self-superiority.
   Not you, sorry;  that's just first thought, after hearing about China's flaws.

[Buriedcode]

   If it's fair to discuss human rights, should be fair regardless of country getting the criticism.
First thing comes to mind, here in U.S. is the whole mask / VAX mandates, that specified loss of job, school expulsions, etc.
   Those rights violations were arbitrary, and sometimes laden with completely inappropriate 'agendas', and enforced in tyrannical manner.
Yes, I know maybe no 'executions'. 
   But for sure, we had to endure many arbitrary 'enforcements and arrogant declarations of self-superiority.
   Not you, sorry;  that's just first thought, after hearing about China's flaws.

And.... here comes the thread lock.  The US didn't violate human rights during the pandemic - at least not the rights of US citizens.  But this is thread is about percieved anti-China sentiment that is in *some* threads.  Given this is a forum about electronics, I assumed the thread was about anti-China bias regarding their manufactuered products - not every aspect of the country.  Lets at least try and keep it somewhat technology related?

[coppice]

The US didn't violate human rights during the pandemic - at least not the rights of US citizens.

The Nuremberg Code says otherwise.

[zilp]

First thing comes to mind, here in U.S. is the whole mask / VAX mandates, that specified loss of job, school expulsions, etc.
   Those rights violations were arbitrary, and sometimes laden with completely inappropriate 'agendas', and enforced in tyrannical manner.

So, how were they arbitrary?

[zilp]

The US didn't violate human rights during the pandemic - at least not the rights of US citizens.

The Nuremberg Code says otherwise.

Why do you think that the Nuremberg Code is relevant for determining whether human rights were violated, given that the Nuremberg Code is not even a legal document?

[jpanhalt]

Why do you think that the Nuremberg Code is relevant for determining whether human rights were violated, given that the Nuremberg Code is not even a legal document?

While not codified in law, the US is on record as requiring human experimentation to be ethical:
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

Informed consent is a basic pillar of that and mandated participation is the opposite.

EDIT: In Germany, it is apparently the law: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

[zilp]

Why do you think that the Nuremberg Code is relevant for determining whether human rights were violated, given that the Nuremberg Code is not even a legal document?

While not codified in law, the US is on record as requiring human experimentation to be ethical:
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

Informed consent is a basic pillar of that and mandated participation is the opposite.

EDIT: In Germany, it is apparently the law: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

So, you are saying that coppice's argument was bullshit, then?

If you want to make a new argument, ok, fine, make a new argument, but I can't stand people just shifting the goal posts when you point out how their argument is nonsense, but never acknowledging that the previous argument was bullshit, and instead pretending like I am the problem when their arguments don't hold water.

Also, if you want to make a new argument, please spell it out in full and don't let me guess which parts of the previous argument you are shifting around and which ones you are leaving alone.

[RJSV]

Zilp:   Thanks for your view, on people staying on the current line of argument.  I agree as I also get frustrated at the 'flakey' interactions (without stepping on any of the folks here, immediately).

   It's a form of immaturity, and I've wondered about the High School debate clubs, and what the opinion would be there.

   It's maybe a metadata issue;  meaning that, whatever the topic, it's this 'shift', or quick pivot, that is problem.
For example, when arguing with doctor, back and forth, with opposing views, and the doctor pivots to say something like:
   "...Well I understand that the nutritional aspects aren't super-good", when meanwhile you had been arguing about an almost completely different aspect, like which type of broken leg cast is effective.

   If I'm stating that right, the doctor, in the arguments, suddenly throws out that (example) comment, that nutritional guidelines aren't being followed.   It's off-setting, or causing a loss of MOMENTUM as argument progresses.

   Now, I don't exactly have a compact term for that, but it can be infuriating and disruptive, to the parties involved in any discourse relating to specific topic.

- - thanks.  Rick

[RJSV]

(continued)
   One sort-of street term for this is:
   "OK, don't try to Slime Out of it".
Which refers to attempting to wiggle out, when proved wrong, in arguments.

   Often, at least in my experience, the other party is a family member, job boss, or other untouchable figure, and so we tend to just shrug and give them a break...the out that they seek.
   But, in some settings there is the option of 'pre-empting' some person that has done this wiggle-out.   I've used THAT verbal self-defense method, saying something like:
   "We discussed that, yesterday, and you kept changing the subject...".

Response comes, (still unacceptable), that they 'stayed on-topic', but you maybe just have to insist:
   "No, ....it's a waste of time, to debate when you respond like a small child.   Come back when you are willing to stick to the original issue...".

   Relatives do the 'topic shift', in what I learned to call a 'Drive-by'.   That's a label borrowed from gang warfare, but verbally a relative would fire off some typically political smear / insult, but then suddenly retreat into territory of 'polite' where you (feel) obligated to drop any possible defensive response.   That's why I call that a 'Drive-by', as the setting is suddenly in territory of being civil.
Very frustrating, when it's a relative, commenting about an overweight issue, for example!

[Nominal Animal]

   One sort-of street term for this is:
   "OK, don't try to Slime Out of it".
Which refers to attempting to wiggle out, when proved wrong, in arguments.

The other common ones is to label the opponent somehow evil, or the entire argument as so obvious and all opposition so preposterous they are conspiracy theories and misinformation.  I find this extremely common in all fields of human life.  And it is not new: old-timey kings didn't need fools that much for entertainment; they really needed someone to tell the truth when nobody else dared to.  Similar social mechanisms and roles still exist, and are confused with racism, for example the japanese "Loud American" role, exactly because all this is so very human and nothing new.

The sad truth is that most humans "think" with their instincts and emotions, not with rational logic.

[Andy Chee]

Informed consent is a basic pillar of that and mandated participation is the opposite.

Was vaccination mandated in the USA? 

I was of the understanding that one could freely refuse vaccination, though as a consequence, one may lose employment because of refusal, or be restricted mobility around the city.

In which case, it's not the vaccination that is violating human rights, it's the employment dismissal for vaccine refusal that is violating human rights, and restricted movement that is violating human rights.

[ebastler]

In which case, it's not the vaccination that is violating human rights, it's the employment dismissal for vaccine refusal that is violating human rights, and restricted movement that is violating human rights.

Or it might have been a decision which balances the individual's right to free movement and free career choice vs. the health of their co-workers and of the general public.

Sheesh; if we don't manage to get this thread locked based on the China angle, I am sure we can get it done with some Covid anti-vax discussions.

[Halcyon]

In which case, it's not the vaccination that is violating human rights, it's the employment dismissal for vaccine refusal that is violating human rights, and restricted movement that is violating human rights.

Or it might have been a decision which balances the individual's right to free movement and free career choice vs. the health of their co-workers and of the general public.

Sheesh; if we don't manage to get this thread locked based on the China angle, I am sure we can get it done with some Covid anti-vax discussions.

It's not even about getting a random thread locked on the internet. The "anti-vax" movement has been debunked a number of times, including with respect to the COVID vaccines. The science is out on that. For the vast majority of human life, vaccinations are beneficial. Aside from edge cases, that's really all there is to say about the matter.

[zilp]

In which case, it's not the vaccination that is violating human rights, it's the employment dismissal for vaccine refusal that is violating human rights, and restricted movement that is violating human rights.

Or it might have been a decision which balances the individual's right to free movement and free career choice vs. the health of their co-workers and of the general public.

Technically, that is not a contradiction. When balancing one legally protected right against another, you are still violating at least one of those rights. But if that balancing is required because of a collision of those rights (i.e., if you are resolving a situation where it is, as a matter of empirical reality, not possible to enforce both rights at the same time), then that is not necessarily a contradiction with the rule of law. It only becomes incompatible with the rule of law if proportionality is not maintained, i.e., if measures are taken to enforce right A that violate the colliding right B in a manner that exceeds what is actually necessary in order to enforce right A, or if, all thing considered, the damage caused by violating right B exceeds the benefit of protecting right A.

[Andy Chee]

Correct.  The human rights charter does not imply any hierarchy of importance.

For example, Article 3 (right to life) is NOT higher ranked than Article 13 (freedom of movement).  All rights are equal importance and value.

Unfortunately in the real world, such equality poses severe practical limitations when rights conflict.  Inevitably a court may decide which right takes priority (not internet keyboard lawyers).

[zilp]

It's not even about getting a random thread locked on the internet. The "anti-vax" movement has been debunked a number of times, including with respect to the COVID vaccines. The science is out on that. For the vast majority of human life, vaccinations are beneficial. Aside from edge cases, that's really all there is to say about the matter.

That's all true, and some of what has been said on this thread smells a bit like anti-vax propaganda, but in the context of Covid19 in particular, I guess you can steelman the position critical in particular of vaccination mandates by considering that, in the end, all vaccines turned out to be pretty bad at inducing sterile immunity, i.e., at preventing the vaccinated person from infecting others, which at least is a critical component of a justification for vaccination mandates. After all, it absolutely is a protected right to refuse medical treatment, no matter how safe and beneficial it objectively is, and if your vaccination status makes no difference to the health of other people, there might just not be any basis for violating that right, because doing so does not in fact protect other, colliding rights.

The problem with that position tends to be that (a) people often ignore the state of knowledge at the point when vaccination mandates were suggested or possibly even enacted and enforced (i.e., the low efficacy at causing sterile immunity was not known, and also apparently was rather surprising for the experts in the field when later discovered), (b) the low efficacy at causing sterile immunity at least in part was the result of later mutations, which, of course, also weren't known at the time, (c) it often seems to be ignored that even without sterile immunity, the virus load and thus the probably of infecting other people still might be reduced, and (d) it often seems to be ignored that the potential benefits for society at large of wide-spread immunization go beyond sterile immunity, in that, for example, wide-spread immunization in a situation like the Covid19 pandemic, can help prevent overload of the health system, and thus also protects the health of other people indirectly, in that it ensures that there are sufficient resources to provide medical help to those who need it.

[magic]

people often ignore the state of knowledge at the point when vaccination mandates were suggested or possibly even enacted and enforced (i.e., the low efficacy at causing sterile immunity was not known, and also apparently was rather surprising for the experts in the field when later discovered)

Right, and neither was a high efficacy or any sort of effectiveness known at the time, it was simply a medical experiment conducted on whole populations with no regard for research standards or ethics, because it was novel technology with big money making potential and some people with enough $$ wanted to see the results right now.

[jpanhalt]

Why do you think that the Nuremberg Code is relevant for determining whether human rights were violated, given that the Nuremberg Code is not even a legal document?

While not codified in law, the US is on record as requiring human experimentation to be ethical:
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

Informed consent is a basic pillar of that and mandated participation is the opposite.

EDIT: In Germany, it is apparently the law: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

So, you are saying that coppice's argument was bullshit, then?

If you want to make a new argument, ok, fine, make a new argument, but I can't stand people just shifting the goal posts when you point out how their argument is nonsense, but never acknowledging that the previous argument was bullshit, and instead pretending like I am the problem when their arguments don't hold water.

Also, if you want to make a new argument, please spell it out in full and don't let me guess which parts of the previous argument you are shifting around and which ones you are leaving alone.

Your interpretation of what I said is yours alone, not mine.

Coppice said the US violated human rights during the pandemic.  I agreed.  It was claimed to be allowed under "emergency powers."
Limits on such powers have not been defined clearly in America, but past exercises have been challenged as excesses (e.g., FDR's internment of Asians).

Nuremberg is relevant.  Read the legislative history behind current laws and regulations.  Human rights and ethical research are inextricably linked.  Many people use "Nuremberg" in casual conversation to describe the subsequent laws and regulations.

No goal posts have been shifted.  It is you who needs to study the subject, particularly with respect to what constitutes human experimentation in the US and mandated procedures for doing that, including the definition of informed consent.

[zilp]

Right, and neither was a high efficacy or any sort of effectiveness known at the time, it was simply a medical experiment conducted on whole populations with no regard for research standards or ethics, because it was novel technology with big money making potential and some people with enough $$ wanted to see the results right now.

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that no clinical trials were conducted with the Covid19 vaccines used in "western" countries before they were made available to the general public?

[Postal2]

... because it was novel technology with big money making potential ...

I completely agree.

[zilp]

Your interpretation of what I said is yours alone, not mine.

No, I am reading what you wrote in context. If that is not what you meant, then your response was simply irrelevant.

Coppice said the US violated human rights during the pandemic.

No, he specifically said that this could be determined based on the Nuremberg Code. Which is what I asked to be justified. Which you didn't.

I agreed.

OK, so, how is the Nuremberg Code relevant here?

Nuremberg is relevant.  Read the legislative history behind current laws and regulations.  Human rights and ethical research are inextricably linked.  Many people use "Nuremberg" in casual conversation to describe the subsequent laws and regulations.

He didn't loosely speak of "something to do with Nuremberg", he specifically referenced a particular document, the Nuremberg Code, as if it were a legal document that could be used to determine whether rights were violated.

No goal posts have been shifted.  It is you who needs to study the subject, particularly with respect to what constitutes human experimentation in the US and mandated procedures for doing that, including the definition of informed consent.

No, none of that is relevant for the claim that the Nuremberg Code is a legal basis for determining whether human rights were violated.

I never disputed that human rights werre violated, that is in fact just you shifting the goal posts.

[Phil1977]

I thought this goes into a reasonable, modest direction.

But this Anti-Vax discussion seems even far worse than anything regarding china. Bringing the "Nürnberger Prozesse" regarding crimes against humanity in context with medical actions to keep a pandemic under control is blood-curdlingly stupid incitement.

[zilp]

I thought this goes into a reasonable, modest direction.

But this Anti-Vax discussion seems even far worse than anything regarding china. Bringing the "Nürnberger Prozesse" regarding crimes against humanity in context with medical actions to keep a pandemic under control is blood-curdlingly stupid incitement.

No, you must understand, being provided a vaccine that had been tested on volunteers and determined to be very low risk in comparison to the risk of the illness that is also was determined to be very effective at reducing the risk of, is basically the same thing as this shit.

Let me quote, to make sure noone here really is unaware what the comparison is that they have difficulty finding the difference in:

In these experiments, subjects had their bones, muscles and nerves removed without anesthesia. As a result of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony, mutilation, and permanent disability.

And just to be clear: These subjects were people who were violently removed from their homes, and who were not asked for consent. And no, they also did not have the option to not go to work in order to avoid this fate.

[magic]

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that no clinical trials were conducted with the Covid19 vaccines used in "western" countries before they were made available to the general public?

No, you repeatedly seem to struggle with understanding people correctly