I’m bringing this up because it’s part of the overall strategy. You literally said that avoiding a pressure cooker environment is what’s needed, and that’s an example of a policy for doing that.
Meanwhile, this idea that the law is going to be used to punish some hypothetical dissidents has zero basis in reality. It’s also fascinating how you’ve arrived at this conclusion based on skimming a single article. You evidently weren’t interested enough to go and look up further details and answers to the questions you pose, and instead simply went with the assertion that there must be some nefarious reason for the law.
Mandating that people have free time and aren’t overworked is literally what laws are for.
I have already said that I’m fine with your context.
You can of course say that the abuse is hypothetical, but that is self-evident until the law has been in place for a while.
Regardless, when discussing laws it is absolutely normal to think about how it would be applied in practice. That is what I have asked from the start. I also comment on the article you provided and stated that there is not a lot of detail, so you telling me that I don’t want to do research seems a little absurd. I also read the other link you provided from china daily, which likewise doesn’t provide much detail and nothing to indicate how the abuse potential of this law is addressed.
Tell me please how you see this law, that you have referenced, being used in practice. I have asked this throughout this conversation and you have not once addressed this. I’m talking about the law in your post, not the other initiatives you referenced.
Also, there are in the west and presumably other countries, plenty of examples where laws like this are abused. Why would this law be different?
I don’t think there’s anything self evident about this to be honest. There’s also no reason to believe that Chinese government all of a sudden needs new laws in order to fight dissent. Especially given that it has massive approval rating after the pandemic.
I suggested that if you are going to have strong opinions on the article then those would require doing further research. I’m willing to take the article at face value until there is tangible evidence that something nefarious is happening.
I see this law used in practice the way the article says it’ll be used. Can you provide examples of similar laws being abused, and what the context for this abuse is?
When judging whether a new law is good it seems normal to think about its intent (what you have been doing) but also about how this law would be enforced (I asked many questions about this above) and how it could be abused (likewise see questions above).
I have no problem with the intent. However. neither the articles nor your comments address any of the enforcement / abuse questions. I think for a law that mandates parenting, this should be absolutely be made totally clear to avoid abuse.
I think you will quite certainly find examples of child protection laws that were used in abusive manner everywhere. In Australia, they took away children from Aboriginals up into the '70s in order to “protect” the kids. Later, from memory in the '00s, they send the army into Aboriginal communities due to reports of child abuse occurring there.
Without having an example at hand, I’m sure you’ll find examples like this in the States and probably most other countries.
Laws can be abused and therefore must be designed in a manner to curb the abuse potential. This law as stated in the article has plenty of abuse potential. I’m asking if you know whether this was curbed or how it was discussed. It’s ok if you don’t of course but that was what I was interested in.
You still haven’t really explained how this law would be abused in practice. Meanwhile, the article actually does give examples of how it’ll be enforced. You’ll have to articulate what specific aspects of this law are that you expect to be abused.
The articles you linked to, do not describe what “excessive academic pressure” is. They also do not say what the consequences are when excessive academic pressure has been applied. Lastly they do no say who makes the complaint and who would judge whether pressure is excessive. The actual law might outline all of this, but based on the links you provided it is absolutely not clear.
“Academic pressure” in reality is very subjective and the definition will vary kid by kid.
The practical concern regarding how to abuse this law would be that some parents could be accused to put “excessive academic pressure” on their kids in order to coerce them to do something or to punish them for past behavior.
So what would the potential consequences of violating the law be? Will kids will be separated from their parents? Will the parents face a financial fine? Prison? Limited career opportunities? Or alternatively, would the consequence be something totally benevolent in that the kid and parents get free counseling without any threat to living conditions and with guaranteed privacy?
Laws just like this have been abused over and over again. I mentioned early on why I think a law is the wrong mechanism for the stated intent. But even if you think it could be a good tool to achieve a positive societal outcome, you still want to make sure that there are legal safeguards in the law that avoid abuse by any state representative. With China being as big as it is, this law potentially could be abused by millions of state representatives on their own account or on the account of the hierarchy above them.
Sorry if my previous responses weren’t clear on what I’m asking. But the abuse potential of such a law are, in my opinion, tremendous.
So, your complaint is that the article doesn’t give enough details. It’s kind of weird to make all the assumptions you made based on that. As I’ve already stated, if these are legitimate concerns you have, then you should find and read the wording of the actual law. Then decide based on that. And I’ll again point out that there is no ground to think that China needs any additional laws to coerce people to do anything.
Basically, you’ve just been making what amount to a straw man argument because you’re not discussing the content of the law.
In what way am I not discussing the content of the law? I’m asking questions, you seem the specialist. If you don’t know the answers, fine, there is no harm in saying so.
The assumptions you mention are just normal things to consider when discussing a law, in any country. Calling it a strawman is, frankly, just lazy. I asked questions that you can address directly. I don’t speak Chinese, so I specifically didn’t comment on the actual law, which I can’t read, but solely on the links you provided.
Also it’s not whether “China needs any additional laws to coerce people to do anything”. It’s about whether a law can be used to coerce people. And the law, the way you presented it, absolutely can.
I further encourage you to read into how child abuse laws have been used and abused historically. I provided prompts to get you started.
You’re discussing an article that talks about the law and doesn’t have any specifics of what the law actually states. I’ve repeatedly stated that I have not looked at the details of the law, but the description in the article seems reasonable to me, and it appears to be in line with other policies intended to make life better for people.
You’re the one trying to create a conspiracy theory here, and so it’s on you to show that there is something nefarious happening.
I’m bringing this up because it’s part of the overall strategy. You literally said that avoiding a pressure cooker environment is what’s needed, and that’s an example of a policy for doing that.
Meanwhile, this idea that the law is going to be used to punish some hypothetical dissidents has zero basis in reality. It’s also fascinating how you’ve arrived at this conclusion based on skimming a single article. You evidently weren’t interested enough to go and look up further details and answers to the questions you pose, and instead simply went with the assertion that there must be some nefarious reason for the law.
Mandating that people have free time and aren’t overworked is literally what laws are for.
I have already said that I’m fine with your context.
You can of course say that the abuse is hypothetical, but that is self-evident until the law has been in place for a while.
Regardless, when discussing laws it is absolutely normal to think about how it would be applied in practice. That is what I have asked from the start. I also comment on the article you provided and stated that there is not a lot of detail, so you telling me that I don’t want to do research seems a little absurd. I also read the other link you provided from china daily, which likewise doesn’t provide much detail and nothing to indicate how the abuse potential of this law is addressed.
Tell me please how you see this law, that you have referenced, being used in practice. I have asked this throughout this conversation and you have not once addressed this. I’m talking about the law in your post, not the other initiatives you referenced.
Also, there are in the west and presumably other countries, plenty of examples where laws like this are abused. Why would this law be different?
I don’t think there’s anything self evident about this to be honest. There’s also no reason to believe that Chinese government all of a sudden needs new laws in order to fight dissent. Especially given that it has massive approval rating after the pandemic.
I suggested that if you are going to have strong opinions on the article then those would require doing further research. I’m willing to take the article at face value until there is tangible evidence that something nefarious is happening.
I see this law used in practice the way the article says it’ll be used. Can you provide examples of similar laws being abused, and what the context for this abuse is?
When judging whether a new law is good it seems normal to think about its intent (what you have been doing) but also about how this law would be enforced (I asked many questions about this above) and how it could be abused (likewise see questions above).
I have no problem with the intent. However. neither the articles nor your comments address any of the enforcement / abuse questions. I think for a law that mandates parenting, this should be absolutely be made totally clear to avoid abuse.
I think you will quite certainly find examples of child protection laws that were used in abusive manner everywhere. In Australia, they took away children from Aboriginals up into the '70s in order to “protect” the kids. Later, from memory in the '00s, they send the army into Aboriginal communities due to reports of child abuse occurring there.
Without having an example at hand, I’m sure you’ll find examples like this in the States and probably most other countries.
Laws can be abused and therefore must be designed in a manner to curb the abuse potential. This law as stated in the article has plenty of abuse potential. I’m asking if you know whether this was curbed or how it was discussed. It’s ok if you don’t of course but that was what I was interested in.
You still haven’t really explained how this law would be abused in practice. Meanwhile, the article actually does give examples of how it’ll be enforced. You’ll have to articulate what specific aspects of this law are that you expect to be abused.
Sorry, I thought I did.
The articles you linked to, do not describe what “excessive academic pressure” is. They also do not say what the consequences are when excessive academic pressure has been applied. Lastly they do no say who makes the complaint and who would judge whether pressure is excessive. The actual law might outline all of this, but based on the links you provided it is absolutely not clear.
“Academic pressure” in reality is very subjective and the definition will vary kid by kid.
The practical concern regarding how to abuse this law would be that some parents could be accused to put “excessive academic pressure” on their kids in order to coerce them to do something or to punish them for past behavior.
So what would the potential consequences of violating the law be? Will kids will be separated from their parents? Will the parents face a financial fine? Prison? Limited career opportunities? Or alternatively, would the consequence be something totally benevolent in that the kid and parents get free counseling without any threat to living conditions and with guaranteed privacy?
Laws just like this have been abused over and over again. I mentioned early on why I think a law is the wrong mechanism for the stated intent. But even if you think it could be a good tool to achieve a positive societal outcome, you still want to make sure that there are legal safeguards in the law that avoid abuse by any state representative. With China being as big as it is, this law potentially could be abused by millions of state representatives on their own account or on the account of the hierarchy above them.
Sorry if my previous responses weren’t clear on what I’m asking. But the abuse potential of such a law are, in my opinion, tremendous.
So, your complaint is that the article doesn’t give enough details. It’s kind of weird to make all the assumptions you made based on that. As I’ve already stated, if these are legitimate concerns you have, then you should find and read the wording of the actual law. Then decide based on that. And I’ll again point out that there is no ground to think that China needs any additional laws to coerce people to do anything.
Basically, you’ve just been making what amount to a straw man argument because you’re not discussing the content of the law.
In what way am I not discussing the content of the law? I’m asking questions, you seem the specialist. If you don’t know the answers, fine, there is no harm in saying so.
The assumptions you mention are just normal things to consider when discussing a law, in any country. Calling it a strawman is, frankly, just lazy. I asked questions that you can address directly. I don’t speak Chinese, so I specifically didn’t comment on the actual law, which I can’t read, but solely on the links you provided.
Also it’s not whether “China needs any additional laws to coerce people to do anything”. It’s about whether a law can be used to coerce people. And the law, the way you presented it, absolutely can.
I further encourage you to read into how child abuse laws have been used and abused historically. I provided prompts to get you started.
You’re discussing an article that talks about the law and doesn’t have any specifics of what the law actually states. I’ve repeatedly stated that I have not looked at the details of the law, but the description in the article seems reasonable to me, and it appears to be in line with other policies intended to make life better for people.
You’re the one trying to create a conspiracy theory here, and so it’s on you to show that there is something nefarious happening.