[gleenn]

I feel like all the people who are involuntary organ-donors might disagree if they weren't dead. China has a way of disappearing people who don't like it. I wonder how many people would come out more vocally if you weren't disappeared for disagreeing or even being outspoken.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/the...

[jjcc]

Give you some hint: According to Godel theorem, a system in higher order is necessary to judge the truth in current system. So self claim the story is true implied the story teller (i.e. the author of the news) is not quite intellegent and maybe very naive to mix fact and belief.

I totally respect your strong belief about the story. But don't enforce others accept your personal opion by imply your personal belief is truth. It's quite insulting.

[legacynl]

> I totally respect your strong belief about the story. But don't enforce others accept your personal opion by imply your personal belief is truth. It's quite insulting.

Are you Chinese? You being offended by his post makes me feel like you are. He wasn't forcing his oppinion on you.

Also godel's theorem doesn't have anything to do with this, as godel's theorem is about mathematical systems.

[jjcc]

Legally I'm not Chinese but it's not relevant in this context. You have a wrong assumption about the cause. Another wrong assumption is I'm offended which I’m not. Here's the subtle difference: A person's behaviour is insulting meanings he/she could offend some (not all) people who follow some rules, which might be: reasoning process should base on relative facts/axioms within the same axiomatic system.

Let me explain a little more about where the insulting comes from. During daily conversation people usually omit many relevant consensus details: context and premises. Otherwise communication would be extremely redundant.

One thing is important is: anything put into premise that other conclusions can drawn from, should be relative facts which all the parties agree. By providing personal belief as premise to draw other conclusion without explicitly stating that’s just personal belief means the “evidence” provider cannot tell the difference , unintentionally and implicitly force others reasoning within “evidence” provider’s own axioms system, without knowing there’s totally different axioms system with other premises exist.

In short: There's no problem at all to express personal opinions. However put personal opinion into a premise to draw other conclusions during reasoning without explicit emphasise is not good.

About Godel theorem, strictly it’s only about Math. You are right on that. I’m half joking but it’ an analogy. In sports field there’s a referee because if one team can act as authoritative way to claim they own truth implicitly gives the other team the same authority which will lead to chaos. There’s a parallel relation here.

EDIT: typo and grammar fix

[gleenn]

Godel has nothing to do with this. Chinese organ donation is well documented across many news organizations. There are some crazy facts regarding how quickly you can get a new liver, for instance. It can take people months or years in most cases to find an appropriate liver, but in China you can get one in weeks. They execute prisoners and extract their organs. Chinese doctors have even admitted this. [0]

'In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry. An initial investigation stated "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners".' [1][2]

'In December 2005, China's Deputy Health Minister acknowledged that the practice of removing organs from executed prisoners for transplants was widespread.' [3]

'China Daily reported in August 2009 that approximately 65% of transplanted organs still came from death row prisoners. The condemned prisoners have been described as "not a proper source for organ transplants" by Vice-Health Minister Huang Jiefu...' [4]

[0] Matas, David (2011). Steven J. Jensen (ed.). The Ethics of Organ Transplantation. Catholic University of America Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-8132-1874-8. [1] http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ [2] http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00... [3] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article2612313... [4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8222732.stm

[bigbluedots]

Being insulted by someone who is expressing what they believe to be true is not very conducive to participating in a rational discussion of anything.

[bigwavedave]

Being insulted is not a choice, being offended is.