• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chinahand last won the day on July 12 2016

Chinahand had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,898 Excellent

1 Follower

About Chinahand

  • Rank
    MF Veteran
  • Birthday 07/12/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    IOM, but then again ... could be China

Recent Profile Visitors

5,220 profile views
  1. @maynragh: The logic living tissue is begotten from living tissue does not produce the conclusion living tissue cannot die. I think you do understand this. However I think we've agreed no amount of scientific definitions are really going to help answer this issue - it is a social question. And the social question is basically about the State's ability to use coercion to force people to do things they do not wish to voluntarily do.
  2. Erm - is that meant to be a serious question? There is no logic to justify what you've written, no. Whether life is passed on or not isn't the issue - it is whether a person should be coerced into preserving that life against their choice. Why is it wrong to take life - because it removes someone's autonomy. If life has no autonomy individuals and the state can do many many things to try to maintain that life, (health care, fostering, etc etc) and that is good - because life is important. But they can't put the autonomy of that life before the autonomy of another's and force another to coercively sacrifice themselves for another. It should be a voluntary thing.
  3. More on Cassini:
  4. Really good long read article from Ars Technica showing how the interaction between observation and theory very strongly indicate dark matter exists and is the best explanation for the Bullet Cluster.
  5. I have two comments. Firstly everyone has a temptation to view this issue through the lens of their personal morality. But we aren't discussing what you would do in these circumstances, we also aren't discussion whether we think something is "bad" behaviour. What we are discussing is whether the state should use its coercive power to stop people doing something. We live in such a regulated, government funded world that it isn't obvious that what we are discussing is a medical professional being told they cannot help a woman when both the medical professional and the individual involved voluntarily wish to proceed - and when, in something like 80% of the cases, all that is needed is prescribing a hormone. In this context we aren't talking about personal morality - we are asking what things the state should stop and control - what rights the state has to interfere with the private decisions of a woman and her doctor. Secondly, I do find the insistence that "life begins at conception" a very unconvincing argument. At no stage since the first stirring of LUCA (last universal common ancestor) has life been created. Every time, living tissue passed onto living tissue and so on for eternities of generations. Put living tissue in the right environment and it will continue its life. Put it in the wrong environment and it will die. Take a swab of my nose cells and put them in the right environment and they will form a human being - one, due to the natural mutations which life is prone to, which will be different from the DNA which initially created me. That nose cell could even be put in an environment where its DNA will split allowing it to merge with an egg cell to create a totally different being, rather than a semi-mutated clone. A sperm is living tissue, an egg is living tissue, your liver is living tissue - and most fascinatingly a cancer tumour is living tissue; and all of them can take their genetic inheritance and pass it on. Infectious cancers of dogs and Tasmanian Devils are some of the most incredible examples of how life will out - a cancer which has mutated enough to be able to jump from animal to animal effectively changing from a tumour on a dog to a parasitic animal. Should society coerce a woman to put some living tissue before her life, her health, her career? If she chooses to not provide that living tissue with the environment it needs to survive, it will die. This is actually not a uniquely female dilemma - many people are faced with making a choice - should they offer their kidney to their sibling, or their bone marrow to a parent. If they do not provide them with the living tissue they need they will die - lacking the environment they need to live - an environment another could have provided. Again, I want to reiterate we are not asking what is good or bad, or what we would do ourselves - and quite definitely I admire people who offer to sacrifice their kidneys or whatever so another can live. What we are asking is whether the state should coerce someone to provide that succour if they decide this is a burden they do not wish to carry. The state does not force siblings to provide their living tissue to allow the living tissue which makes up a brother or a sister to continue living. I do not think the state should force a women to carry within her body living tissue if she does not wish to take on that burden. If that life is viable and can live without the sustenance of the women - then the state can take the burden on itself and adopt the baby into care, but until that time I pretty strongly think the decision is solely with the women, just as it is with a parent, or a sibling wondering if they should donate a part of their bodies to help a loved one live. What is the difference? Do we want to have such a coercive state?
  6. You are a very strange person.
  7. Bank of England has a trade weighted index This is it upto August: In the last week it went up from 75 to 78 ... gosh, wow. It was higher in May.
  8. The article doesn't really mention left or right wing - and I'm sure someone will quote Zhou Enlai, but 1789 is a relatively long time ago. The terms have some use in a society dominated by the nation state and monopoly capitalism, and that, and their institutions, are now pretty long in the tooth and reasonably dominant political entities. I also don't think it is particularly useful to analyse it as though it was a part of continental philosophy, and the instant dismissal that it is ridiculous ... well, oh, so to type. I'd summarise the article as saying: Good ideas can come from various locations. Most people are cautious and so sweeping changes are difficult to be brought about with the consent of the governed. Getting good ideas done can involve lots of diverse people contributing. There is a genuine risk when small groups of individuals (650 MPs) control institutions that can affect millions of people that they can do genuine damage, hence caution is a reasonable starting point. Be aware you could be wrong - look and respect the data. People have multiple identities and viewing them in only one way is limiting. Be cautious of group think. Be ready to walk a mile in another person's shoes. I don't see much Hagel, and to call the article ridiculous ... well ... typical, hey.
  9. Nice illustration from Scientific American concerning gender development: More info here.
  10. You're channeling Terry Pratchett there Paswt.
  11. Resurrecting this thread to post a link to an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times laying out the politics of moderation. It captures something of my political beliefs.
  12. You are such a sassy troll. We should get the guy who does sassy trump to read that post.
  13. I wonder how many hour of CCTV have been viewed since then and how many people are doing it. I also wonder how many doors have been kicked in too. I imagine there is a certain amount of frenetic activity going on at the moment.
  14. Farewell Cassini. You've had quite a mission! Getting there: Oribiting Saturn: And taking some great images along the way:
  15. So will he do a deal with the Dems and give the Dreamers a path to citizenship? For once his tweets made sense to me: