Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#81

Post by nicoburns »

salawat wrote: post #78
Nitramp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, yes indeed :-)

That's interesting. How would you change it? The Executive having the power to pardon (or to refuse to prosecute) for crimes is meant as a check on legislative power to make life miserable through imposition of bad law. Just throwing that check away seems a bit destabilizing. I mean, I'm with you on the the American justice system being capricious in terms of minor crimes being able to ruin a person's civil standing…

I think it's less about what formal powers the different branches of government have, and more about how they use them in practice. As a parent comment said, the USSR constitution was good on paper, but not so much in practice. On the other hand, here in the UK, the queen technically has supreme power over everything (and even ignoring that, our Prime Minister is head of both the executive and the legislature), and yet in practice this doesn't get abused too much (arguably recently that has changed a little).

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#82

Post by yfzhou »

adrianN wrote: post #14
cltsang wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you mean is those words are lengthy and repeated, that's actually how chinese officials talk and write.

I believe they mean that prohibiting something that is illegal is unnecessary.

If you just say "prohibit trade of wild animals", that would imply China just outlawed all trade related to wild animals while the news is actually about a decision to absolutely enforce existing laws.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#83

Post by the_watcher »

Nitramp wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very important. Both the PRC and USSR constitutions, on paper, arguably provide better freer basic law than that of the US but in practice it’s just words on paper. However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. So mr Xi and mr Stalin (née Jughashvili) get to purge all want-to-be usurpers.

> However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. aka as "the rule of law". From a continental European perspective, the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well, with the president pardoning his friends, or the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing, or elected stat…

While pardoning friends is certainly distasteful, that power is explicitly defined in the Constitution and is plenary. The only potential exception is a self-pardon.

There are plenty of examples of embarrassing pardons, but it's not a rule of law failing.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#84

Post by yfzhou »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #73
nobody0 wrote: post #3

We still don't know where the source is, and who the 0th patient is.

Yeah, we have no idea where the source is. But we do know that China is a country 9,596,961 square km in size. We also know that China's National Biosafety Laboratory, their only Level 4 microbiology lab, is located at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is 278 meters away (as the crow flies) from the Huanan Seafood Market. Said market has previously been speculated to be the source. Is it simply coincidence that…

https://goo.gl/maps/9dzPVq8XBtChHRxJA

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#85

Post by mdemare »

bad_user wrote: post #60
mdemare wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In absence of guns being fired at people, guns are completely safe. There isn't even an association, let alone causation. > And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much. I guess that people could still gorge themselves on potato chips, popcorn... Maybe a few other foods? But surely it's clear that 90%+ of overeating occurs with meat and sugar?

Comparing guns to food is also completely ridiculous. FYI 100 grams of walnuts has 654 kcal, roughly equivalent to 350 grams of French fries, or... 400 grams of chicken breast, which also happens to have 124 grams of protein, which no natural vegan source can match. Or 650 grams of cod w/ 148 grams of protein. Show me the people that got fat from eating boiled chicken breast or cod. Show me the studies that show any…

I have no idea which point you think I'm making. I'm certainly not claiming that boiled chicken breast is unhealthy. Cod is healthy, and not meat.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is a challenge to overeat on a diet that doesn't contain meat or (added) sugar.

And since overeating is a major cause of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, it's fair to say that meat and sugar are responsible. Without meat and (added) sugar, we would not have the current level of obesity in the west.

I'm specifically not claiming that meat or sugar is unsafe in any quantity.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#86

Post by Killes »

blackrock wrote: post #56

There is a lot of stupid and non-sense talk about how the coronavirus was created, because of Chinese people eating bats. There is no scientific evidence to support this! Instead, this exposes the deep-seated biases and prejudices, that Westerners (white people) have of Easterners, and specifically, the Chinese, in this case. It also didn’t help that the Trump Administration went on a negative media assault for the p…

Wherever it may come from, I think many people are happy to have an angle to attack a certain category of Chinese for their perception and treatment of animals.

The hunting and extinction of species due to these ridiculous primitive beliefs is utterly repugnant in this day and age where we teeter on the brink of environmental disaster and mass extinctions with climate and other causes.

Exchanging true fascinating living treasures of earth evolved over millions of years all the way back to this planets creation for some baubles and to satisfy their tummies or supposedly treat some fucking wart, or even save them from a heart attack, really, those selfish beings are worth the torture and extinctions ?

It also simply hurts and inspires rage to truly consider and witness the absolutely mind boggling levels of cruelty shown in the hunting, keeping and processing of these animals. How is one to like humans that think themselves so superior and special over everything else that they may be allowed to do anything? Its the worst of "humanity" and we can be well glad to loose that aspect of it.

Unfortunately may these Chinese with disregard and 0 empathy for animals be a minority or not of, the scale of the country make it too many by far.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#87

Post by stjohnswarts »

someperson wrote: post #24

I can't see how this can be successfully enforced without a massive education campaign and actual enforcement by authorities, including moving the so-called "wet markets" (which are outdoor butchers that are very important to the food supply chain in many areas of China) into modern indoor facilities for improved food safety. Older people in China (the so-called lost generation) are set in their ways: remember that i…

China has the police state to enforce this that's for sure. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#88

Post by stjohnswarts »

edgefield0 wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very important. Both the PRC and USSR constitutions, on paper, arguably provide better freer basic law than that of the US but in practice it’s just words on paper. However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. So mr Xi and mr Stalin (née Jughashvili) get to purge all want-to-be usurpers.

Not for long. The American Constitution is being eroded every day. We're becoming (arguably have become) a full fledged banana republic.

BS. But with the Trump presidency we're definitely taking a step in that direction, and it's a pretty good stride.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#89

Post by pozdnyshev »

cat199 wrote: post #67
pozdnyshev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't see how this can be successfully enforced without a massive education campaign and actual enforcement by authorities >China has plenty of laws including a constitution that defends practicing free speech and religion, but in reality laws mean nothing if there's no enforcement. Are you suggesting that these practices be allowed under "freedom of religion"? In light of the public health concern, that would be…

> a popular party representing backward, anti-scientific POVs Fairly certain that china is ruled by the chinese communist party, last I checked.

Compare the CPC's position on climate change to the oval office's, I'll wait.

Re: China bans consumption and trade of wild animals

#90

Post by LyndsySimon »

Nitramp wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This very important. Both the PRC and USSR constitutions, on paper, arguably provide better freer basic law than that of the US but in practice it’s just words on paper. However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. So mr Xi and mr Stalin (née Jughashvili) get to purge all want-to-be usurpers.

> However, also in practice the faction in power gets to capriciously enforce what it wants selectively, usually to solidify standing. aka as "the rule of law". From a continental European perspective, the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well, with the president pardoning his friends, or the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing, or elected stat…

> the US stance in rule of law seems a bit dubious as well

I think I agree with where you're coming from with this statement, but not necessarily with it being a negative attribute.

Yes, the US is "a nation of Laws, not of Men". That only goes so far, though. Pretty much all of the US system is set up to allow individuals to apply the law in a way that they feel to be fair. This is manifested in everything from prosecutorial discretion to jury nullification.

> the enormous sentences afflicted to people once, but only once, they end up in bad public standing

The US Constitution specifically prohibits laws that apply directly to individuals, i.e. "Bills of Attainder". In theory at least, public opinion should inform the laws that apply to everyone equally. Those laws may be capricious and draconian, but the whole idea of the American system is that laws should represent the will of the people. The absurdity of some of our laws (sentencing in particular) is nothing if not a reflection of that.

> the president pardoning his friends

This isn't an unlimited power; the president is subject to oversight by Congress. That is the implicit rationale behind the impeachment process being very loosely defined:

Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Basically, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means. If they believe the President has abused their power through improper pardons, they can respond by impeaching and convicting them. This not only removes them from office but also bars them from public office in perpetuity.

Note also that the president only has the power to pardon federal crimes. They have no power to pardon someone convicted under state law.

> elected states attorneys incentivize to look hard on crime to their constituents

That's pretty much the nature of US law - "by the People, for the People". If a prosecutor is overzealous, then ostensibly that's the will of the people who elected them. If not, they're free to vote them out of office during the next election in favor of someone who will act in accordance with their wishes. In extreme cases there is usually (always?) a process in place for elected officials to be recalled immediately and a special election held for their replacement.

As a disclaimer, the above is representative of my understanding of US law; it's how I would explain what is, not what I believe should be.

Post reply on HN