Jump to content

China Releases Human Rights Report On US


f0xx

Recommended Posts

"Wielding "the baton of human rights," it (the US) pointed fingers and cast blame on the human rights situation in many countries while paying no attention to its own terrible human rights problems."

 

[edit] Btw, this report was released 1 week after the US released their own report on human rights, which was largely condemned by the international community as a tool to further US foreign policy interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a sarcastic remark, you made a conversation about it.  Takes two to tango my friend. ;)

 

Insults are a big deal in foreign affairs - national image and prestige are not laughing matters.  Wars have been started over badly chosen words. Edit: also, having a blatantly racist president doesn't help our national image at all either, nor does it serve us any favors domestically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on topic.

There is a lot of verifiable information in the post. To claim it is all misinformation is just false.

However,

How many of your characters refuse to sheathe in town? This is VERY much akin to the US citizens views in their second amendment right.

In America we walk a path of danger true, but we walk that path with the knowledge we were given the right  to defend our life and property at all cost. #standyourground

Truth, when presented so biasedly, will likely never be accepted by those of opposing bias.

For instance, that report @f0xx shared does not count paramilitary attacks on civilians, such as we watched in the middle east for the last 2 years as "mass shootings". What do I mean? Well, assault rifles are only accessible to military personnel in many parts of the world. So these mass shootings will only happen in those countries by soldiers under orders, so we do not call them mass shootings, but official missions. If we counted these types of mass shootings, the USA would still likely be the leader on the board, but the gap to second place would not be as large. In the end they will argue its apples and oranges, not to blur the line between military activities and civilian crimes, but the dead were all human beings who probably did nothing to deserve their fate..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

How many of your characters refuse to sheathe in town? This is VERY much akin to the US citizens views in their second amendment right.

The two are nothing alike.

What would be more accurate is if your character was required to disarm completely while in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

Didn't say all of it was untrue. But enough in the forward for me not to bother reading it all.

 

On 13/01/2018 at 8:01 PM, Manual Labour said:

Wow there is so much bullshit in that report I couldn't even get past the forward.

Talk about a lot of misinformation and uncredible sources.

 

*shrug*

I am curious to hear what you think is not true.

I do agree there are some parts that are exagerrated and untrue or irrelevant (like the one that claims women make less than men), but most of the claims, even in the forward, easily checkable.

What's funny is the the report is written in a typical "USA style", where the country who created the report is the one who takes the moral high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

How many of your characters refuse to sheathe in town? This is VERY much akin to the US citizens views in their second amendment right.

In America we walk a path of danger true, but we walk that path with the knowledge we were given the right  to defend our life and property at all cost. #standyourground

It is worth noting that not all Americans consider this an acceptable trade, nor do all of us think stand your ground laws are a good thing.  In fact, the vast majority are in favor of tightening gun laws to some degree, with broad agreement on improving background checks (96%), enacting a 30-day wait period for gun sales (75%), and requiring guns to be registered with the police (70%) - other polls have pretty consistently found similar numbers.  Stand Your Ground laws have been found to result in an increase in homicides with no appreciable decrease in crime overall, and racial bias has been repeatedly found to play a role in their application.  

 

I also fail to see how claiming that America wouldn't stand out as much on the gun violence front if we also counted areas in the middle of civil wars the same way is much of a defense of our numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, f0xx said:

I am curious to hear what you think is not true.

The pay gap is misleading because of how they calculate it.

The 20% Sexual Assault stat is very misleading because of the definition. 1 in 5 college girls is NOT raped on campus, not even close.

Racism in America is probably at an all time low (not counting hate towards whites).

Nuts who go on killing sprees isn't a gun problem IMO, it's a psycho problem. This also isn't really a human rights issue exactly is it?

Anyway that was enough for me not to look at page 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

Nuts who go on killing sprees isn't a gun problem IMO, it's a psycho problem.

Very few mass shootings are carried out by someone who has a history or displays signs of mental illness.  You don't have to be psycho to decide to kill a lot of people, you just need to have a grudge against society and an ideology that justifies your actions.

 

40 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

The 20% Sexual Assault stat is very misleading because of the definition. 1 in 5 college girls is NOT raped on campus, not even close.

How is it misleading?  Rape is a subset of sexual assault crimes, not the entirety of it - if someone reads "sexual assault" and thinks "rape", then they're as ignorant as someone who reads "violent crime" and thinks "murder", but that doesn't make the words misleading.

 

40 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

The pay gap is misleading because of how they calculate it.

This I agree with, at least partially.  The 78% ratio is the overall salary ratio which takes the salaries of all women, the salaries of all men, and compares the means.  What this reflects, however, is mostly that women are less likely overall to hold high-paying jobs; when this and other factors like hours worked, unpaid time off, and so on are controlled for, the gap for men and women working the same job for the same hours shrinks to between 5-7%, which may well be mostly the cumulative result of individual decisions rather than sexism directly affecting salaries.  The question of why women don't hold as many high-paying jobs is its own can of worms, and while sexism likely plays some role in hiring and promotion for high-end positions, it's misleading to call this a pay gap rather than a position or promotion gap, and in any case this is an area that is rapidly improving all on its own without much in the way of govt. intervention seemingly needed; the stats are already headed in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people like to plough through a bunch of pedestrians with a truck, others throw acid, some like knives or even explosives. My point is that the tool being used to harm people is in itself not the problem. It is the person causing the harm that concerns me. Arguing whether someone who kills a bunch of others is a psycho or a guy with a grudge is besides the point.

I still don't think 1/5 women is sexually assaulted, I know it doesn't just mean rape, I think the term is watered down which means almost anything  can be construed as sexual assault. Then because almost anything can fall into that category they can wave this 20% stat around like there is actually some kind of dangerous epidemic in colleges. That is why I find it misleading, it creates unnecessary fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

Some people like to plough through a bunch of pedestrians with a truck, others throw acid, some like knives or even explosives. My point is that the tool being used to harm people is in itself not the problem. It is the person causing the harm that concerns me. Arguing whether someone who kills a bunch of others is a psycho or a guy with a grudge is besides the point.

None of your alternatives are nearly as effective weapons of mass slaughter, nor are they as reliable; the available tools do indeed make a difference in the outcome.  And no, whether mental illness or societal disfunction are causing the problem is not beside the point - accurately determining the root causes of American violence is an absolute necessity for properly addressing the problem, and entirely different means are needed if the issue is mental illness, social disfunction, the prevalence of firearms, or any combination of the above or other factors.

 

6 minutes ago, Manual Labour said:

I still don't think 1/5 women is sexually assaulted, I know it doesn't just mean rape, I think the term is watered down which means almost anything  can be construed as sexual assault. Then because almost anything can fall into that category they can wave this 20% stat around like there is actually some kind of dangerous epidemic in colleges. That is why I find it misleading, it creates unnecessary fear.

Watered down how?  What do you think is being construed as sexual assault that shouldn't be?  And how is it not a concern that 20% of women report that they have been victims of sexual assault?  Even if you don't agree with the definition being used to determine it, don't you think there's something worth addressing if 20% of women who go through college perceive that they have been assaulted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole poll that led to the 20% number is well documented as being misleading. The women were asked if they were ever made uncomfortable or something similar, so cases of unwanted advances ended up being construed as sexual assault. This is why I think it is a misleading number that leads to a false sense of danger. Sure the world is not safe but the vast majority of men aren't going around assaulting women, even when they are being rejected.

I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun. I don't even like guns. I wish they had never been invented to be honest. I still don't blame the gun for the person firing it. To me "prevalence of firearms" is not part of the root cause of American violence that's why I compared it to other means of violence. Sure guns are very efficient, but some prefer to hijack planes, you gonna tell me that wasn't as bad as a mass shooting? And why stop at American violence? Why not figure out the root causes of human violence in general? After all America is so diverse now that violence in it must stem from more than just American roots right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manual Labour said:

The women were asked if they were ever made uncomfortable or something similar, so cases of unwanted advances ended up being construed as sexual assault.

There are more than one report that came to similar numbers - the 1987 study by Koss, Gidcyz and Wisniewski did have issues with its questions, but others don't suffer the same flaws, and still find numbers in the same range. Here is a US Dept. of Justice report from 2006, and another from the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2016 that defines things very clearly:

Quote

For the CCSVS, three key types of sexual victimization were measured: sexual assault, rape, and sexual battery. Sexual battery was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved forced touching of a sexual nature, not involving penetration. This could include forced kissing, touching, grabbing, or fondling of sexual body parts. Rape was defined as any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved a penetrative act, including oral sex, anal sex, sexual intercourse, or sexual penetration with a finger or object. Sexual battery and rape are mutually exclusive categories (e.g., a victim or a sexual victimization incident would be counted as one or the other, but not both). Sexual assault is the term used to describe any unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact that involved either sexual battery or rape. It does not include sexual harassment or coerced sexual contact, which were measured separately.

"The sexual assault victimization incidence rate for completed sexual assault, averaged across the nine participating schools, was 176 per 1,000 undergraduate females, and ranged from 85 at School 2 to 325 at School 1."  Per year.

 

1 hour ago, Manual Labour said:

To me "prevalence of firearms" is not part of the root cause of American violence that's why I compared it to other means of violence. Sure guns are very efficient, but some prefer to hijack planes, you gonna tell me that wasn't as bad as a mass shooting?

Hijacking planes is extremely difficult, and a one-off event that killed 3,000 doesn't compare to a constant loss of 10,000+ every year to firearm homicides.  And you bet that it is American violence, and very specifically so - the US has a homicide rate of ~4.9 per 100,000 per year, while Canada has about 1.6 per 100,000 per year, and the worst of the rich European countries is France at 2.7, while many like the UK don't even hit 1.  We are FAR more violent to our fellow citizens than the populaces of other rich Western nations are.  edit: And our rates of gun murder are 25 times higher than those of such nations as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...