Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

> Present-day China essentially has no ethics

Source? I lived in China and didn't ever feel like I was in a place without ethics. Different ethics, sure, but it really looks to me like you simply don't know or understand China.

The Great Leap Forward had nothing to do with routing out values, it was about hyper-fast industrialization, and it failed.

There are real problems with modern China, and, separately, with the CCP, for example a lack of separation of powers and a lack of rule of law. But your statements look much more like fear of the other and demonization of what you don't understand that well reasoned arguments.

If you live in China, you'll experience some things that are much better than they are in western countries. I'm not saying there's any comparison really, but the fact is that the reality is far more complex than you're making it out to be.

I mean, people can believe in what they believe in, right? And there are plenty of articles from the media.

That’s interesting to hear. Not trying to troll, but I’d love to hear about what you have found to be better about it.

If you kill political dissidents and harvest their organs as part of an active genocide campaign, you lose any claim at behaving ethically. Ethics are measured by the actions you take that you'd rather not advertise.

I would say the biggest thing is the emphasis on public works. Wherever I went I was awed by the extent of things that were built just for the public. In the city where I lived there they built a new fancy bridge[0], and a massive park with an island and an art center[1], all for public use, and the city hosts massive public celebrations in these kinds of parks with extensive art installations, music performances etc.

The quality of the high speed rail system barely needs mention, and while the hospital system has some pretty glaring faults the cost of care was low and it was easy and affordable to get medical care. Think of this: when I got an X-ray in China I payed upfront and the radiologist _gave me the x-ray_ so I could bring it to more than one doctor if I wanted a second opinion. The transparency there was refreshing.

Again, there are plenty of brutal negatives, but I just want to show that there are some good things that don't get press.

[0] https://www.treehugger.com/infrastructure/lucky-knot-bridge-...

[1] https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/03/zaha-hadid-architects-chan...

Part of my point is that this is being done by the CCP. If you want to say the CCP doesn't have ethics that's a different argument than "China doesn't have ethics", and I don't think that's too pedantic too point out.

Is it whataboutism to mention toddlers in cages here? It seems both governments have their gas chamber moments...

> the radiologist _gave me the x-ray_ so I could bring it to more than one doctor if I wanted a second opinion.

In the US you can always get your medical records just by asking for them and you can always get a second opinion.

Same as when you water-board people.

1) Infrastructure in general is new there - look at a picture of Shanghai even 25 years ago.

2) Getting a second opinion in the US is generally easy - I would guess China has cheaper healthcare however

> The quality of the high speed rail system barely needs mention

China is not famous for the quality of it's high speed tail system. China is famous for two things:

1) throwing huge amounts of money/resources to build their high-speed railway network

2) stealing intelectual property from manufacturers of high-speed railway rolling stock, whether through industrial espionage or hijacking production processes after enticing European companies with contracts to build European rolling stock designs in China.

Also, China's high-speed railway is also infamous for their accidents, particularly by the inhumane way that chinese officials decided to cover them up (i.e., burry wreckage next to crash sites without recovering dead bodies)

Topic is about "ethics".

I think that distinction is already sufficiently implied.

China/<Country's name> == The government of China/<The government of Country>

and

The Chinese == The inhabitants of China

When he refers to "China" he is talking about the government, AKA the CCP.

No it's not. This isn't Reddit where any average Joe thinks whataboutism is the answer to any evidence they don't agree with.

Yes it is, the treatment of children at the border is also horrendous, it also has literally nothing to do with china and ethics.

Nanking was ethical because Manzanar.

Unit 731 was ethical because Tuskegee.

The Opium Wars were ethical because the CCP does nothing to stop the flow of fentanyl overseas.

All of these are as ridiculous as what your comment implies, they're also equally relevant.

> I think that distinction is already sufficiently implied.

No, it's not.

> China/<Country's name> == The government of China/<The government of Country>

> and

> The Chinese == The inhabitants of China

I've had some rather deep political conversations with a few Chinese people, and it's my understanding that education there doesn't stress the distinction between the Chinese nation and the Chinese government. So, using the word "China" to condemn the government can will often be interpreted as condemning the nation and does encourages ordinary Chinese to stand by their government, right or wrong. Don't do that.

If you want to condemn the Chinese government, name the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) in your condemnations, for clarity's sake.

Do the people going to the clinics for life-saving organ transplants know that the organs are coming from prisoners who do not give them up voluntarily?

Where did the CCP get all the doctors and nurses who carry out the vivisections and transplantations?

I don't want to engage in what I call the "calculus of evil".

I wonder how many Americans would fly to China to get organs to save their lives knowing where the organs come from.

And here you see first-hand the decline in the quality of discourse in HN

You claim the organ harvesting means the whole government can't claim to have ethics, I think that's just stupid absolutism (the world doesn't work with Boolean logic), and my counter-example is to ask if the US government can claim to be ethical given that we know they've put toddlers in cages.

I can probably give out examples of "unethical" behavior for every government on this planet, and then no one will be ethical any more. What then?