>>> Because slavery under Dalai Lama's system was much better right? You seem to think that it was a semi-utopia under Dalai Lama's rule, but it was still a backward, primitive system enforced and governed by religion. <<<

>>> The article didn't present any evidence of genocide. Only organ harvesting was substantiated. <<< (from : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3388828 )

I've been on HN for a long time and this is the most disturbing thing I've ever read. The OP acknowledges that the practice of forcibly harvesting organs is being carried out, but defends the practice through nebulous hand waving.

This sickens me. It's not about politics. It's not about countries. It's not about socio-economic doctrines and ideologies. It's about the extortion of the death of a conscious, living and sentient being. A being which possesses a high amount of self awareness. A being not too different from you and me. A being with strong, deep ties with other beings to form units such as "families". Imagine what the extermination, for this is exactly what this is, of such a being means and imagine the fact that this horror hasn't been carried out once, not twice but thousands of times. Over and over again.

Horrific.

(edit : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8222732.stm )

Wow, I think I'm going to disengage this conversation now. Václav Havel died last week. I was afraid of slow disappearance of the values he defended, but I see the Western pleb has very twisted values already.

I'm not saying what China is currently doing in XingJiang is right, but to deny that overthrowing Dalai Lama resulted in a better standard of life for Tibet's inhabitants is lunacy.

Trying to improve someone's standard of living by force is almost inevitably doomed to fail.

Canada tried that with its native population in the 20th century -- take children away from their backwards and uncivilized parents and raise them instead in residential schools -- and it was an utter disaster.

If anyone is as curious as I am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sch...

Do you know anything about Tibet? Or dGe Lugs Pa? Or anything at all?

Old Tibetan system is exactly how force kids turning into monks and abey the teachings of Dalai Lama (note: not only the 14th).

What the Communist did wrong in Tibet, is not about exile Dalai Lama, but replacing the old ruling ranks without providing more options. So if anything thing went wrong, blame the Communists.

Sure, arbitrary persecution of various ethnic groups is a good standard of life.

Unlike Tibet, there are not only ethnic groups in Xinjiang, but also terrorist groups as dangerous as Al-Qaeda, e.g. East Turkestan group. They are directly linked with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan_Islamic_Movement

It's still much better than being shot and having your organs cut out.

Much better than being executed in America and not have your organs cut out when it doesn't matter anyway. Also did you miss the part about the consent to donate organs? Good thing America's lethal injection poison the whole body and render it completely unusable even if they wanted to donate.

> Good thing America's lethal injection poison the whole body and render it completely unusable even if they wanted to donate.

Are you really sure you want to defend the Chinese system and criticize the American system on utilitarian grounds? Let's run through the general structure.

Only a fraction of the Chinese executions result in organ donations; some will fail, of course, and only a fraction of those donations result in the equivalent of a life, 30 years at the most optimistic the article says. Given the ages involved (younger men being executed for their organs' use in older men), we can expect each execution to save significantly less than one life on a lifespan/QALY basis.

The value of each execution would not be significantly better in the US and the same logic applies.

Wikipedia lists rates of Chinese execution at 5000-10000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Peop...) a year during the 2000s; the estimate is difficult as it is a state secret. It is not in the US, so we have more solid numbers in the 30-50 range for the 2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unite...).

Keeping in mind the previous logic, this indicates the number of lives saved by organ donations from all US executions would be under 30-50.

Now, let's compare that with the Chinese system. At 5000 executions a year, the profit and other perverse incentives in place would need to result in only 1% of prisoners being unjustly executed for the benefits of American organ donation to be completely eliminated.

And actually, remembering the point about QALYs, for every person unjustly executed for their organs, they represent a net decrease in welfare. We all know how many the US incorrectly executes, and that's with the state benefitting not at all from the execution and wasting a tremendous amount of money going through appeals and a strong civil society and many groups opposed to execution like the Innocence Project.

There is no reason to think China does not have a significantly worse false execution rate even before we add in the perverse incentives of organ harvesting.

Consenting to donate organs? And North Korea is best Korea, right?

Even if they were not coerced into consenting (which they were) that would be completely beside the point. They are arbitrary sentenced to death, they necks are tied to they can't speak at their "hearing" and their organs are extracted while they are still alive.

And you have evidence that a Han Chinese man would not receive the same sentence for the same crime?

I am absolutely sure he would, but either way that is again completely besides the point.

It's about how China's political regime treats its citizens regardless of ethnicity. If it doesn't discriminate (which I think it does) and gives everyone the same unfair treatment that doesn't somehow make it better compared to the scenario where it did discriminate. It's the same.

Sure it's a piece in a far right wing magazine with its own agenda to push, but you'll have to substantiate your claim of "complete bullshit". The Chinese government is well known for its supression entire ethnicities.

But surely you'd agree having your organs cut out while you're still alive very much does matter, no? Or is it okay if it's done to particular kinds of people?

If any of the article is true it's horrific.

The Weekly Standard is only far right wing if you think the NYT is moderately right-of-center. You know where David Brooks used to write, yes?

Depends on what scope you're considering. You're right if you're talking about the US alone. But calling the NYT moderately right-of-center isn't far off the mark if you consider the wider Western media.

In the global scheme of things, almost all US press is right-wing, NYT too.

It's "complete bullshit" because the Chinese government uses the same argument used by the US on the war on terror, yet no one accuses the US of genocide.

Also, it's not the first time the Weekly Standard distorts the facts in favor of some right-wing agenda (the very war on terror being such an example)

(like the OP, I'm not defending China's actions here. I'm simply pointing out the double-standard)

The article didn't present any evidence of genocide. Only organ harvesting was substantiated.