the official mrswdk "china this, china that" thread

[notyou2]

China’s Crackdown on Rumors Will Only Hurt Its Economy [NY Times Editorial]


--Andy

Interesting article Andy. Too bad Mrs is unable to comment. I wonder what she would say.......

[khazalid]

I wonder what she would say.......

you are a poor liar

[Army of GOD]

china this, china that

[mrswdk]

China’s Crackdown on Rumors Will Only Hurt Its Economy [NY Times Editorial]


--Andy

I would be interested in reading a good article about any relationship between levels of free speech, lack of transparency and the economy, but unfortunately this NYT article is very, very far from being that good article.

If you want to read balanced, credible and substantive articles about China then The Diplomat is a good source of information about Asian geopolitics.

[notyou2]

China’s Crackdown on Rumors Will Only Hurt Its Economy [NY Times Editorial]


--Andy

I would be interested in reading a good article about any relationship between levels of free speech, lack of transparency and the economy, but unfortunately this NYT article is very, very far from being that good article.

If you want to read balanced, credible and substantive articles about China then The Diplomat is a good source of information about Asian geopolitics.

No thanks,we wish to continue in our preconceived ideas and unsubstantiated notions with the occasional whim thrown in.

[GoranZ]

Why there are so many fatalities in traffic accidents in China?

[khazalid]

because nobody gives a f*ck about adhering to traffic laws. the main roads do have lanes, for instance, but you wouldn't know it.

[mrswdk]

Why there are so many fatalities in traffic accidents in China?

The Chinese legal system puts a lot of weight on 'persistent detriment caused', so injuring someone for life is actually treated as a graver offense than killing them outright. If you could convince the police that you had killed the person during the initial collision, then your sentence would actually be 5 years shorter than the sentence for disabling them for life.

For the same reason you will also tend to be punished more severely for killing a father (traditional breadwinner) than a mother under identical circumstances.

[muy_thaiguy]

"Oh no! I just hit someone! I better go back and make sure I kill them so I don't have to do as much time!"

That about hit the nail on the head?

[degaston]

"Oh no! I just hit someone! I better go back and make sure I kill them so I don't have to do as much time!"

That about hit the nail on the head?

Pretty much:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-drivers-kill-pedestrians-intentionally-2015-9

[mrswdk]

"Oh no! I just hit someone! I better go back and make sure I kill them so I don't have to do as much time!"

That about hit the nail on the head?

A friend of mine once hit someone while driving drunk, and his friend who was following swerved over the person to make sure they died during the accident.

In that case it was deemed too difficult to comprehensively prove which collision killed the pedestrian, and the friend was very well connected, so both were charged with reckless driving, paid a fine of about $1000 and then walked free.

[Metsfanmax]

"Oh no! I just hit someone! I better go back and make sure I kill them so I don't have to do as much time!"

That about hit the nail on the head?

A friend of mine once hit someone while driving drunk, and his friend who was following swerved over the person to make sure they died during the accident.

And you are still friends with this person?

[mrswdk]

He's one of my best friends in China.

Even if you want to sit around judging them for that story, his friend's the one who ran the pedestrian over in order to finish them off, not him.

[Metsfanmax]

He's one of my best friends in China.

Even if you want to sit around judging them for that story, his friend's the one who ran the pedestrian over in order to finish them off, not him.

I'm judging them for the driving drunk part. Obviously he was impaired and that was probably a significant factor in hitting a pedestrian. But if you're going to be drinking, you should have the good judgment beforehand to make sure that you won't be driving afterward.

[riskllama]

asians should not be allowed to drive, period.

[mrswdk]

He's one of my best friends in China.

Even if you want to sit around judging them for that story, his friend's the one who ran the pedestrian over in order to finish them off, not him.

I'm judging them for the driving drunk part. Obviously he was impaired and that was probably a significant factor in hitting a pedestrian. But if you're going to be drinking, you should have the good judgment beforehand to make sure that you won't be driving afterward.

Drunk driving is over-hyped imo.

That said, nothing I have said in this thread since GoranZ's weird jpeg has actually been true. I was just clowning him for posting something that is so clearly BS.

[Dukasaur]

He's one of my best friends in China.

Even if you want to sit around judging them for that story, his friend's the one who ran the pedestrian over in order to finish them off, not him.

I'm judging them for the driving drunk part. Obviously he was impaired and that was probably a significant factor in hitting a pedestrian. But if you're going to be drinking, you should have the good judgment beforehand to make sure that you won't be driving afterward.

Drunk driving is over-hyped imo.

That said, nothing I have said in this thread since GoranZ's weird jpeg has actually been true. I was just clowning him for posting something that is so clearly BS.

Yeah, it's actually Tennessee that rewards you for finishing off wounded pedestrians.

[mrswdk]

And you get points for killing hookers.

[mrswdk]

I remember a completely scandalized middle-aged woman once telling me about how in the new Grand Theft Auto you got points for raping people. That amused me.

[Metsfanmax]

That said, nothing I have said in this thread since GoranZ's weird jpeg has actually been true.

Well the situation you described of China actually is an interesting thought experiment in utilitarianism. Killing someone removes all future value they can add to society, while maiming them probably only makes it much smaller instead of removing it completely. As long as they make enough money over their lifetime to pay their medical bills. However if the medical cost they build up is higher than their lifetime wages (which is possible when insurance is involved I suppose) then killing them might be a net utility boost to society. If all you're interested in is economic output from the individual, anyway. Although I'd be suspicious of such a calculation because medical bills are widely acknowledged to not really reflect actual real economic costs (at least in the US).

[2dimes]

It's your turn. How about you run over Saxi and perhaps I can drive behind you and finish him off?

[muy_thaiguy]

He's one of my best friends in China.

Even if you want to sit around judging them for that story, his friend's the one who ran the pedestrian over in order to finish them off, not him.

I'm judging them for the driving drunk part. Obviously he was impaired and that was probably a significant factor in hitting a pedestrian. But if you're going to be drinking, you should have the good judgment beforehand to make sure that you won't be driving afterward.

Drunk driving is over-hyped imo.

And yet your friend, while drunk, still hit a pedestrian. Doesn't sound all that "over-hyped" if you ask me. And that's only 1 example.

[mrswdk]

And yet your friend, while drunk, still hit a pedestrian. Doesn't sound all that "over-hyped" if you ask me. And that's only 1 example.

nothing I have said in this thread since GoranZ's weird jpeg has actually been true.

[Metsfanmax]

It's funny because that wasn't even a different post. It was literally the next line in that same post.

[Army of GOD]

And you get points for killing hookers.

That's patently ridiculous. You don't get "points" at all in GTA.