Just because they are Chinese means they don't deserve basic human liberties? Just because you live in a different country doesn't mean you lose these rights, they may not be recognized but you are still entitled to them.
Furthermore, there's an extremely large cognitive dissonance here. China owns trillions of US national debt... this is debt that the leaders of our country have given willingly, and gladly pocketed the resulting cash. How is that any less treason than alerting our lenders that their systems have been broken into?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Chinese, American, British, Pakistani, Russian, French, it doesn't matter. The targeting of innocents by drones is wrong no matter where you are from, why does the right to privacy and property (or happiness, depending on your school of philosophy) not follow that same logic?
Perhaps we should be more concerned that we are continuing to pick petty fights with our fellow man over ideologies, rather than the fact that one man is perceived to have violated our specific ideology. But I guess my idealist is showing.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can exaggerate your point. China doesn't "own trillions of US national debt" like you suggest. Plus that debt is "given willingly, and gladly" to them because they purchase it. We are after all a capitalist system. If China is willing to pay more for US debt than Japan (who holds somewhere between 80% and 90% of the amount that China holds last time I check), than they should have the right to purchase it. Just because they are Chinese doesn't mean they don't deserve the same basic free market opportunities.
Perhaps we should be more concerned with the issue at hand instead of tangentially mentioning an issue we don't know a whole lot about in the hopes that no one will point out our mistakes.
Let's also not forget why China owns so much U.S. debt. This is the result of many years of amassing U.S. dollars in order to peg the Chinese yuan, in violation of International law. Since spending those dollars on real goods or services would allow their currency to float freely relative to the dollar, they used them to buy treasuries. I would highly recommend watching https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/money-and-b... for a good explanation of what is going on.
The point of this currency manipulation was to artificially keep Chinese goods cheap for export. This is why we have a perpetual trade imbalance with China. This has hurt U.S. manufacturers and cost untold numbers of American jobs.
It's silly to think that we owe China any favors for manipulating their currency for their own advantage and our detriment, and bringing it into this debate to try to make China seem like some poor victim is really, really reaching.
According to the US treasury China held 1.265 trillions of dollars of securities [1]. I't not many trillions, but it is quite a large number and if you follow the link, you'll see that it is also the largest holder.
"China owns trillions of US national debt... this is debt that the leaders of our country have given willingly, and gladly pocketed the resulting cash. How is that any less treason than alerting our lenders that their systems have been broken into?"
A passage like this perpetuates the misconception that China owns a dangerous portion of US debt. It is stretching the facts of the case so it better supports your argument. They own 1.25 trillion, which is not "trillions". It is also less than either the Federal Reserve or Social Security trust hold and right around the last numbers I saw for private US holders. The phrasing you use to explain the transaction makes it seem like the US government shouldn't sell this type of debt to China. In your post you are claiming that the Chinese should have the same level of human rights as us but that we shouldn't provide them the same level of economic rights? Finally it is also disingenuous to say that our leaders "gladly pocketed the resulting cash". That implies some sort of embezzlement, which is just furthered by your comparison to treason.
Selling debt is a critical part of the economic equation for almost all world governments (yes, even China). It annoys me when people state that selling debt to China is somehow destroying this country or causing long term damage.
The NSA committing warrantless wiretapping against US citizens at a large scale is a completely different beast from the NSA hacking Chinese computers. Especially given how China more or less publicly hacks away at the rest of the world, it would be very surprising if the opposite wasn't also true.
Also, there exists no human rights against having your computer hacked by a foreign government. It might be illegal in 10 different ways (actually, I don't even think it is, given the relative novelty of the crime and the slowness of international law), but it's not a human rights issue.
Except these are civilian targets in HK. Collecting arbitrary data on US citizens is no different from collecting arbitrary data on HK and Chinese citizens. Innocent people's privacy is still being violated on a large scale.
Of course the Chinese government also hacks US civilian targets, primarily American tech companies, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I meant from a moral/ethical standpoint, not a legal one. Obviously people who are not US citizens or residents have no legal protection under US law.
What I'm saying is that the effect of either action is more or less the same. The NSA is secretly obtaining the personal information of a lot of people who are in no way a threat to the US. Whether those people are American or Chinese doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
So glad the US is engaged in a worldwide effort to spread the good news of democracy! Look at how her leaders behave! What a vast improvement over those other non-democratic nations! </sarcasm>
Isn't there is a difference between whistle-blowing what you believe to be misdeeds by your government against its citizens, and disclosing what are essentially military secrets to foreign governments? I haven't been following the story as closely as many, but it seems that he has crossed into more turbulent waters.
This is generally how most people I know (both liberal and conservative) feel about it.
They were completely behind him when he revealed the NSA was doing a lot of spying. Now that he's basically given our enemies our playbook, they all think he's a traitor and should be treated as such. This crossing into releasing documents also gives credence to some of the conspiracy people saying he was a Chinese plant from the get go.
Someone brought up an interesting point which is the incredible hypocrisy on both isles. Republicans were ok when Bush got nailed with warrant-less wiretaps and the Democrats lost their minds. Now, it's the Republicans losing their minds and the Democrats seem to be ok with it.
Also, just an FYI, the FISA court has been around since 1978, it wasn't until after 9/11 did people finally know about it. It's also important to note they've never rejected a warrant which was brought before the court:
Everything that an espionage/intelligence agency does against foreign governments breaks the foreign laws of that country, it's the entire point of espionage.
Exactly. This is no different from espionage of the past, except it takes place electronically now. If electronic espionage is wrong, where is the outrage against spies and informants?
What specifically is he claiming that the US did against foreign governments, and what law did this activity breach? At this point, all I can gleam is that the US spies on other countries, as do many others.
He has revealed criminal hacking of civilian infrastructure in Hong Kong.
"Snowden said secret and illegal attacks on Hong Kong computers by the US National Security Agency, which he said had been taking place since 2009, had recorded a success rate of more than 75 per cent. One of the targets he identified was the Chinese University of Hong Kong, home to the Hong Kong Internet Exchange - a central hub of servers that most web traffic in the city passes through."
"Political pressure is mounting on the government to demand answers from the United States over how and to what extent Hong Kong has been targeted by Washington's top-secret cyberspying programme, exposed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden."
"During an official visit to London, Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing became one of the city's first top political figures to comment on the hacking allegations.
"Hong Kong people will feel worried if the allegations are found to be backed by facts," Tsang told the BBC's Chinese Service, adding: "The Hong Kong government should launch an investigation."
"What will the government do to ensure it will not happen again? Will it take action against the US government or demand remedies?"
Do you honestly not see a difference between public debt owned by foreign countries (the US sells debt on a market and China/Chinese happen to buy it, the Treasury does not seek out China) and handing over government/military secrets to another government?
Unfortunately discussions about God in the general tech community are virtually impossible. Prov 29:9 talks about this too.
I agree with you that the Chinese deserve the same dignity and respect that Americans and every other person in the world. That Schaeffer series is really dated, a bit corny, and difficult to get past the production values. But the content is still bang on.
I don't need to believe in gods in order to demand that my government treat people as I expect they should be treated. Nobody does, though if some do, that is fine as well. Arguing that there are no unalienable rights because there is no gods is missing the point, unalienable rights are whatever we demand them to be. As sure as any hypothetical god could demand there be unalienable rights, so can we.
This means that we will never all agree on an unalienable set of rights, but so what? With apologies to Sir Charles Napier, let us all act according to our own sense of morality.
The point that the Christian makes is unalienable rights are given by God Himself, and that no human authority can take them away. You and I are valuable because we are made in the image of God.
Without God, all morality and ethics are completely voluntary.
> If there is no Creator, there are no unalienable rights.
The concept of certain rights being inalienable is a moral proposition that does not require a Creator -- certainly, the existence of a Creator who is also a moral lawgiver and who has defined certain rights as inalienable is a popular explanation for inalienable rights, but its certainly not a necessary condition for such rights.
"If there is no Creator, there are no unalienable rights.
Unfortunately discussions about God in the general tech community are virtually impossible. "
You consider that the creator has to be God. Why?
Imagine that an intelligent, very advanced extraterrestrial form of life created DNA, and life itself in planet earth.
It always amazes me how intelligent people could believe in evolution on earth totally isolated of the trillions of billions of galaxies out there. If you believe in evolution on earth(that just chaos and chance could create life), the probability that life itself was created outside earth is way higher.
Discussions of hard believes(sex, politics and religion) are very hard in any public heterogenous group. I remember when Reddit was occupied by atheist they believed they were free there, but that was only if you were atheist.
Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis (and I would be delighted if we could find traces of life, living or fossilized, on Mars that we could discover shares a common ancestor with us), but I think the reason most people don't generally take it to be a serious hypothesis is because space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space...
Panspermia also has a parsimony problem, it ends up falling to Occam's Razor.
In a sense, I think that, in the absence of evidence that particularly demands panspermia over more local theories of the emergence of life, this is a bigger problem than the "space is big" problem.
Well, to be fully accurate, panspermia doesn't even cover the origin or emergence of life anyway. It still had to start somewhere, panspermia just pushes that somewhere off of Earth (and perhaps to Mars, or perhaps off Mars and onto Earth). Panspermia is a distribution thing, and only an "origin" thing if you limit your focus to a particular planet.
So basically even if you go with "aliens made us", you've still got to have abiogenesis for those aliens, or the aliens that created those aliens, or the aliens that created....
Running to panspermia to avoid the hypothesis of life beginning on earth out of natural processes is just silly. Silly because Occams Razor slices it off, and silly because it doesn't even get you away from life being a natural phenomenon.
Just because they are Chinese means they don't deserve basic human liberties? Just because you live in a different country doesn't mean you lose these rights, they may not be recognized but you are still entitled to them.
Furthermore, there's an extremely large cognitive dissonance here. China owns trillions of US national debt... this is debt that the leaders of our country have given willingly, and gladly pocketed the resulting cash. How is that any less treason than alerting our lenders that their systems have been broken into?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Chinese, American, British, Pakistani, Russian, French, it doesn't matter. The targeting of innocents by drones is wrong no matter where you are from, why does the right to privacy and property (or happiness, depending on your school of philosophy) not follow that same logic?
Perhaps we should be more concerned that we are continuing to pick petty fights with our fellow man over ideologies, rather than the fact that one man is perceived to have violated our specific ideology. But I guess my idealist is showing.
My 2 cents.