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.
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.