141–150 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Wikipedia, Mao's concept is different, despite the similar name. The term "Third World" comes from 1952 and was used to refer to countries not aligned with either the US or USSR, which would not have included China at the time.
But when Mao made his speech in 1974, that was way into the sino-soviet split.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some burdens are simply too severe to levy on a single person for an accident. These should be borne by a combination of insurance, the community, and/or the state.
The language "accident" (and the associated story) implies that one cannot control whether they injure someone with their 2000lb death machines. That is not true.
Why should I trust an article like this? Outrageous claims. No sources. pageviews.exe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general culture of the Central and South America is actually pretty similar to China and other Asian countries.
Did you mean "general disregard of the law" by "culture"? Because the cultures are light years apart.
Forgetting the laws, what sort of people can so casually kill like this? There are basic human instincts not to hurt people. Armies have to train soldiers to ignore these feelings because without training most won't kill even under combat situations. So when I see someone kill so casually I have to believe that they have rehearsed the scenario in their head beforehand. That means a large number of chinese people driv…
This just seems like a logical progression of cars in the US to cars in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, there is insurance for that. Then being responsible means having the insurance. Not having the insurance is being irresponsible.
That's why having insurance is a requirement for driving in most countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's the same in many states in the US... for example, if you are going to shoot someone, make sure that you kill them, if you don't want to go to jail...
Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?? Or are you speaking less formally: that you might never get caught for the kill if there's nobody to turn you in?
Yes.
If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.
It's entirely possible to be acquited of murder, but convicted in civil court and ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a burglar's family.
Not to mention the fact that in a criminal trial, if the guy is dead he doesn't testify against you.
"Dead men don't sue" is a thing.
Forgetting the laws, what sort of people can so casually kill like this? There are basic human instincts not to hurt people. Armies have to train soldiers to ignore these feelings because without training most won't kill even under combat situations. So when I see someone kill so casually I have to believe that they have rehearsed the scenario in their head beforehand. That means a large number of chinese people driv…
Forgetting the laws, what sort of people can so casually kill like this? There are basic human instincts not to hurt people. Armies have to train soldiers to ignore these feelings because without training most won't kill even under combat situations. So when I see someone kill so casually I have to believe that they have rehearsed the scenario in their head beforehand. That means a large number of chinese people driv…
From what little I know about this, which is listening to locals and some foreigners, this comes from the perverse incentive where maiming costs more than the manslaughter payout. It's from advice of prior extortion victims, accounts from the news, hearsay from friends, etc. The incentive is that trying to help a maimed person can cost you dearly. This same thing is why you don't see "good Samaritans". Good Samaritan…