Monday, July 18, 2011

Daily Links, July 18, 2011

Jul_random17
What's being harvested on the blogs out there?

BLOGS:


MEDIA:


_______________________ 
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

12 comments:

les said...

Taiwan is serious about finning eh?
Lets ask Mayor Who? to explain why his signature appears on the business license of this establishment then eh?
http://www.xingfin.com.tw/

Brand new, high-end sharkfin restaurant in Taichung.

vin said...

"If only there were some theory with 150 years of scientific research behind it, supported by virtually all climate scientists, and all the world's major scientific organizations, that could help us explain the unusual weather....."

Snap! :)

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiiH5sUeSM

Trailer for a Chinese shooter game that follows a squad of PLA special forces as they assault an unnamed island, extract enemy political targets, and terminate "foreign military advisers", besides the usual other FPS missions.

Slick trailer. Think you'll probably find it interesting.

Readin said...

"If only there were some theory with 150 years of scientific research behind it, supported by virtually all climate scientists, and all the world's major scientific organizations, that could help us explain the unusual weather....."

Well, the unusually cold winter we just had could easily be explained by global cooling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling I guess the unusually hot summer can be explained by global warming. If we have an unusually rainy autumn this year we'll explain it by "global wettening", but on the other hand if it is unusually arid we'll call it "global drying".

Or perhaps we should recognize that whether global warming is occurring or not, it is a climatic long-term effect not easily seen in short term weather patterns and that it is silly to cite a hot summer as evidence is for it.

Readin said...

"Inflated abortion figures used to argue that women's bodies should be more strictly policed, lest they make their own decisions."

At what age should it become illegal to kill your children and on what basis?

The Romans let the father kill the child no matter how old he was.

Readin said...

"DPPers accuse each other of consensual sex. If only people were concerned about public policy, and not desperately worrying about what other people are doing in private with their bodies, what a different and better world we'd live in."

It's a character issue. The news article mentions "claims on public television implying he had sexual relations with a married woman"

If a married woman was involved you have questions about whether the candidate believes families are important. You have to wonder about a candidate who is so uncaring that he is willing to ruin another man's marriage. If you'll actively participate in the ruin of another man's marriage for 15 minutes of fun, why would you have moral inhibitions about much lesser crimes like stealing public monies or making decisions to benefit large corporate donors at the expense of other constituents?

Personally, I don't spend much time worrying about candidates' sex lives. I'm cynical enough to think nearly all the candidates are morally reprehensible so it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time worrying about which ones get caught.

But I do understand why many people would care if a candidate is so callous, selfish and cruel as to get in bed with a married woman.

Michael Turton said...

At what age should it become illegal to kill your children and on what basis?

Sorry, what does abortion have to do with killing children?

Readin said...

"Sorry, what does abortion have to do with killing children?"

It depends on when you believe a child is formed. Is there some magic to passing through a birth canal (or being yanked out of an abdomen for C-sections)? If you believe there is something magic or supernatural about the birth-canal or a C-Section that causes the creation of a child, or if you perhaps believe the child comes into existence even later, the I can understand you asking what abortion has to do with children.

Otherwise, abortion involves killing children and if we are to allow it we need to decide when it is acceptable, or we can attempt to decide when a child comes into being inside the mother so that we define the problem away by calling anything prior to that "not a child" and thus ok to kill.

It's not clear to me a that it is only a woman's body that is at stake. There may also be a child's body. Discussions of abortion that fail to acknowledge that possibility are just attempts to avoid discussion by sloganeering.

Michael Turton said...

Readin, even if we assume that a fetus is the same as a child, it doesn't follow that thereby women should turn control of their bodies over to the sex police, which is really what the abortion struggle is about: policing the sexuality of women. The existence of a possible child inside the woman is simply an excuse to police her body. If women somehow decanted blastocysts into mechanical uteri, then there would be some other excuse for making war on women's sexuality.

When I see people on the anti-abortion side actually giving a shit about the health and safety of women and children, then I will take seriously their alleged concerns for the "children" who may be inside a woman's body. Just today the Right has successfully fucked a Planned Parenthood operation in Kansas, meaning that the health of more women and children will now be threatened. Way to go, team!

Michael

Readin said...

"Readin, even if we assume that a fetus is the same as a child, it doesn't follow that thereby women should turn control of their bodies over to the sex police, which is really what the abortion struggle is about: policing the sexuality of women. The existence of a possible child inside the woman is simply an excuse to police her body. "


Since I don't know everything that goes on in the mind of everyone who opposes abortion, I won't argue with you about their motives. But it doesn't follow that if someone has bad motives that you can disregard good arguments. E.G. If China wants to explain to the US that we have to stop wasting money or we'll go broke, and they're doing so only because they want to get paid back for the money they've lent us, it doesn't follow that the US shouldn't worry about wasteful spending.

Similarly, it doesn't make sense to disregard questions about murder simply because you think people raising the questions are worried about sex.

"...child inside the woman is simply an excuse to police her body."

So the sum total of that child's existence is to be "an excuse"? Sorry kid, you don't matter, you're just an excuse.

Michael Turton said...

Readin, of course they are worried solely about women having sex. Why is it that so many make exceptions in the case of rape? Because rape is forced sex. If it is consensual, they advocate no abortion. Clearly they see the child as punishment for sex.

Readin said...

Most also make an exception for incest.

The reason for the exceptions are two-fold. Most people really are unsure about the status of the child/fetus. Only a small number of extremists support unrestricted abortion up to the day of birth. Similarly only a small number of people support banning "morning-after" pills because they cause abortion. Most people are somewhere between the two extremes, and rape and incest are situations where the needs of the mother are recognized as particularly strong when weighed against the uncertainties.

Less talked about is abortion for children who testing has indicated will have mental or physical handicaps. But there I think you would again find that in such situations people are more willing to accept or forgive abortion.

But beyond that there is actually a semi-logical argument for abortion in case of rape. In such a situation the pregnancy can be seen as a continuation of the attack, and the woman has a right to defend herself. It's not completely simple, however, because normally "defending yourself" doesn't include killing innocent who have been forced to unknowingly participate in the attack.

Finally, there is a difference between someone being punished and someone being expected to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

Suppose the woman chooses to have the baby, and then has the courts force the father to pay palimony. Is she "punishing him"? Is this society's way of "policing the sexuality of" men?