This is not an excuse for China's violation of natural human rights. I'm just putting some attention to idea that Tibet is probably not the most terrified-by-China territory, rather the other way round.

The idea of putting "Tibet" and "human rights" close to each other doesn't look very promising to me based on some historic observations of pre-China Tibet lifestyle http://masterok.livejournal.com/1713489.html (sorry for russian, but hopefully it is pretty simple for automatic translation)

This statement makes sense for some specific ethic systems.

For instance, in almost all modern states there are ideas, which are shared by some majorities and considered unethical in Christian ethic system.

But bad_user seems to imply ethic system which is based on the aggregate citizens vision. With such ethic system opinions of majorities are ethical by tautology.

> Even if the majority wants to suppress minority dissent (or do worse things to minorities), it's not the right thing to do.

Let me follow your definition, say, in the case of Ancient Rome. There is a minority of masters and a majority of slaves. Minority of masters has a dissent (from the slave's point of view, of course) that slaves should stay slaves. So, according to you, it is wrong for them to fight for their freedom, right?