Setting the direction via a law? How should this work? It doesn’t make much practical sense to me but offers plenty of opportunities for abuse.
How do you define “excessive pressure”? Who would report failure on this? The affected kid? Teachers? Government officials? How would the mediation process work? Would some official entity engage in meaningful ways to help a family balance this? Would this help be mandated? Or would there be no mediation process at all?
Laws like this sound utterly dystopian to me and really more like a racket to keep people from expressing discontent. If you want to avoid a pressure cooker environment for kids, fix the economics of life.
As I’ve already explained, the first action was to curb predatory tutoring services. I certainly don’t see anything at all dystopian about officially stating that children should have sufficient time for minors to rest, play, and exercise.
I have no problem with curbing the predatory tutoring services. I also didn’t comment on those, so not sure why you are bringing this up. If it is to provide context, fine, but that doesn’t address the dystopian potential for the law mentioned in your post.
I do think that the law has at best zero impact. On the other hand the way it is presented here, while quite loose and with little detail, has some clear potential application when it comes to randomly punishing dissidents.
Mandating a better life via law is not a sincere measure, from my point of view.
Re fixing the economics of life: good to hear that things are happening. So why then introducing a law that cannot have any positive effect but can be easily abused?
I’m bringing this up because it’s part of the overall strategy. You literally said that avoiding a pressure cooker environment is what’s needed, and that’s an example of a policy for doing that.
Meanwhile, this idea that the law is going to be used to punish some hypothetical dissidents has zero basis in reality. It’s also fascinating how you’ve arrived at this conclusion based on skimming a single article. You evidently weren’t interested enough to go and look up further details and answers to the questions you pose, and instead simply went with the assertion that there must be some nefarious reason for the law.
Mandating that people have free time and aren’t overworked is literally what laws are for.
I have already said that I’m fine with your context.
You can of course say that the abuse is hypothetical, but that is self-evident until the law has been in place for a while.
Regardless, when discussing laws it is absolutely normal to think about how it would be applied in practice. That is what I have asked from the start. I also comment on the article you provided and stated that there is not a lot of detail, so you telling me that I don’t want to do research seems a little absurd. I also read the other link you provided from china daily, which likewise doesn’t provide much detail and nothing to indicate how the abuse potential of this law is addressed.
Tell me please how you see this law, that you have referenced, being used in practice. I have asked this throughout this conversation and you have not once addressed this. I’m talking about the law in your post, not the other initiatives you referenced.
Also, there are in the west and presumably other countries, plenty of examples where laws like this are abused. Why would this law be different?
I don’t think there’s anything self evident about this to be honest. There’s also no reason to believe that Chinese government all of a sudden needs new laws in order to fight dissent. Especially given that it has massive approval rating after the pandemic.
I suggested that if you are going to have strong opinions on the article then those would require doing further research. I’m willing to take the article at face value until there is tangible evidence that something nefarious is happening.
I see this law used in practice the way the article says it’ll be used. Can you provide examples of similar laws being abused, and what the context for this abuse is?
When judging whether a new law is good it seems normal to think about its intent (what you have been doing) but also about how this law would be enforced (I asked many questions about this above) and how it could be abused (likewise see questions above).
I have no problem with the intent. However. neither the articles nor your comments address any of the enforcement / abuse questions. I think for a law that mandates parenting, this should be absolutely be made totally clear to avoid abuse.
I think you will quite certainly find examples of child protection laws that were used in abusive manner everywhere. In Australia, they took away children from Aboriginals up into the '70s in order to “protect” the kids. Later, from memory in the '00s, they send the army into Aboriginal communities due to reports of child abuse occurring there.
Without having an example at hand, I’m sure you’ll find examples like this in the States and probably most other countries.
Laws can be abused and therefore must be designed in a manner to curb the abuse potential. This law as stated in the article has plenty of abuse potential. I’m asking if you know whether this was curbed or how it was discussed. It’s ok if you don’t of course but that was what I was interested in.
You still haven’t really explained how this law would be abused in practice. Meanwhile, the article actually does give examples of how it’ll be enforced. You’ll have to articulate what specific aspects of this law are that you expect to be abused.
The articles you linked to, do not describe what “excessive academic pressure” is. They also do not say what the consequences are when excessive academic pressure has been applied. Lastly they do no say who makes the complaint and who would judge whether pressure is excessive. The actual law might outline all of this, but based on the links you provided it is absolutely not clear.
“Academic pressure” in reality is very subjective and the definition will vary kid by kid.
The practical concern regarding how to abuse this law would be that some parents could be accused to put “excessive academic pressure” on their kids in order to coerce them to do something or to punish them for past behavior.
So what would the potential consequences of violating the law be? Will kids will be separated from their parents? Will the parents face a financial fine? Prison? Limited career opportunities? Or alternatively, would the consequence be something totally benevolent in that the kid and parents get free counseling without any threat to living conditions and with guaranteed privacy?
Laws just like this have been abused over and over again. I mentioned early on why I think a law is the wrong mechanism for the stated intent. But even if you think it could be a good tool to achieve a positive societal outcome, you still want to make sure that there are legal safeguards in the law that avoid abuse by any state representative. With China being as big as it is, this law potentially could be abused by millions of state representatives on their own account or on the account of the hierarchy above them.
Sorry if my previous responses weren’t clear on what I’m asking. But the abuse potential of such a law are, in my opinion, tremendous.
Setting the direction via a law? How should this work? It doesn’t make much practical sense to me but offers plenty of opportunities for abuse.
How do you define “excessive pressure”? Who would report failure on this? The affected kid? Teachers? Government officials? How would the mediation process work? Would some official entity engage in meaningful ways to help a family balance this? Would this help be mandated? Or would there be no mediation process at all?
Laws like this sound utterly dystopian to me and really more like a racket to keep people from expressing discontent. If you want to avoid a pressure cooker environment for kids, fix the economics of life.
As I’ve already explained, the first action was to curb predatory tutoring services. I certainly don’t see anything at all dystopian about officially stating that children should have sufficient time for minors to rest, play, and exercise.
Meanwhile, China is doing quite a bit to fix the economics of life. This law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Chinese government has recently passed massive regulation on big business and released a a five-year blueprint calling for greater regulation of vast parts of the economy. The government has also openly stated that the era of capital expansion is over and the interests of the majority outweigh the interests of shareholders. All these policies are aimed at improving quality of life for the people of the country. I certainly wish my country had similar policies.
I have no problem with curbing the predatory tutoring services. I also didn’t comment on those, so not sure why you are bringing this up. If it is to provide context, fine, but that doesn’t address the dystopian potential for the law mentioned in your post.
I do think that the law has at best zero impact. On the other hand the way it is presented here, while quite loose and with little detail, has some clear potential application when it comes to randomly punishing dissidents.
Mandating a better life via law is not a sincere measure, from my point of view.
Re fixing the economics of life: good to hear that things are happening. So why then introducing a law that cannot have any positive effect but can be easily abused?
I’m bringing this up because it’s part of the overall strategy. You literally said that avoiding a pressure cooker environment is what’s needed, and that’s an example of a policy for doing that.
Meanwhile, this idea that the law is going to be used to punish some hypothetical dissidents has zero basis in reality. It’s also fascinating how you’ve arrived at this conclusion based on skimming a single article. You evidently weren’t interested enough to go and look up further details and answers to the questions you pose, and instead simply went with the assertion that there must be some nefarious reason for the law.
Mandating that people have free time and aren’t overworked is literally what laws are for.
I have already said that I’m fine with your context.
You can of course say that the abuse is hypothetical, but that is self-evident until the law has been in place for a while.
Regardless, when discussing laws it is absolutely normal to think about how it would be applied in practice. That is what I have asked from the start. I also comment on the article you provided and stated that there is not a lot of detail, so you telling me that I don’t want to do research seems a little absurd. I also read the other link you provided from china daily, which likewise doesn’t provide much detail and nothing to indicate how the abuse potential of this law is addressed.
Tell me please how you see this law, that you have referenced, being used in practice. I have asked this throughout this conversation and you have not once addressed this. I’m talking about the law in your post, not the other initiatives you referenced.
Also, there are in the west and presumably other countries, plenty of examples where laws like this are abused. Why would this law be different?
I don’t think there’s anything self evident about this to be honest. There’s also no reason to believe that Chinese government all of a sudden needs new laws in order to fight dissent. Especially given that it has massive approval rating after the pandemic.
I suggested that if you are going to have strong opinions on the article then those would require doing further research. I’m willing to take the article at face value until there is tangible evidence that something nefarious is happening.
I see this law used in practice the way the article says it’ll be used. Can you provide examples of similar laws being abused, and what the context for this abuse is?
When judging whether a new law is good it seems normal to think about its intent (what you have been doing) but also about how this law would be enforced (I asked many questions about this above) and how it could be abused (likewise see questions above).
I have no problem with the intent. However. neither the articles nor your comments address any of the enforcement / abuse questions. I think for a law that mandates parenting, this should be absolutely be made totally clear to avoid abuse.
I think you will quite certainly find examples of child protection laws that were used in abusive manner everywhere. In Australia, they took away children from Aboriginals up into the '70s in order to “protect” the kids. Later, from memory in the '00s, they send the army into Aboriginal communities due to reports of child abuse occurring there.
Without having an example at hand, I’m sure you’ll find examples like this in the States and probably most other countries.
Laws can be abused and therefore must be designed in a manner to curb the abuse potential. This law as stated in the article has plenty of abuse potential. I’m asking if you know whether this was curbed or how it was discussed. It’s ok if you don’t of course but that was what I was interested in.
You still haven’t really explained how this law would be abused in practice. Meanwhile, the article actually does give examples of how it’ll be enforced. You’ll have to articulate what specific aspects of this law are that you expect to be abused.
Sorry, I thought I did.
The articles you linked to, do not describe what “excessive academic pressure” is. They also do not say what the consequences are when excessive academic pressure has been applied. Lastly they do no say who makes the complaint and who would judge whether pressure is excessive. The actual law might outline all of this, but based on the links you provided it is absolutely not clear.
“Academic pressure” in reality is very subjective and the definition will vary kid by kid.
The practical concern regarding how to abuse this law would be that some parents could be accused to put “excessive academic pressure” on their kids in order to coerce them to do something or to punish them for past behavior.
So what would the potential consequences of violating the law be? Will kids will be separated from their parents? Will the parents face a financial fine? Prison? Limited career opportunities? Or alternatively, would the consequence be something totally benevolent in that the kid and parents get free counseling without any threat to living conditions and with guaranteed privacy?
Laws just like this have been abused over and over again. I mentioned early on why I think a law is the wrong mechanism for the stated intent. But even if you think it could be a good tool to achieve a positive societal outcome, you still want to make sure that there are legal safeguards in the law that avoid abuse by any state representative. With China being as big as it is, this law potentially could be abused by millions of state representatives on their own account or on the account of the hierarchy above them.
Sorry if my previous responses weren’t clear on what I’m asking. But the abuse potential of such a law are, in my opinion, tremendous.