Huashan Park Murder in Taipei

@discobot quote

:left_speech_bubble: If we look at the world with a love of life, the world will reveal its beauty to us. — Daisaku Ikeda

1 Like

It means what it means. :2cents: :slight_smile:

History of military conscription in Taiwan:

Before the Japanese, Dutch, Spanish and Qing recruited locals to fight when they were needed but didn’t employ conscription when it came to the military. Conscription mostly came in the form of manual labor.

At first the Japanese also recruited for local soldiers. That was the case until WW2 took a bad turn for the Japanese. By 1942, they began the so called “Special Volunteer” recruitment in Taiwan. What’s so special about these volunteer Taiwanese troops was that they weren’t really all volunteers. First hand accounts such as this recalls being forced to sign the volunteer papers. However, the Japanese could still afford to be picky back then, and turned back those who they found unqualified.

The Japanese began full scale conscription in 1945. By the end of the war, more than 80,000 Taiwanese served in the Japanese armed forces, with an additional 127,000 laborer in the front line working to supply the Japanese army. At least 30,000 Taiwanese perished in WW2

After KMT illegally declared Taiwan as ROC’s own territory, it began conscription in 1947, during the height of the Chinese civil war. During that period, KMT conscripted 15,000 Taiwanese to fight in the Chinese civil war, only 2,000 made it back to Taiwan after the CCP crushed the KMT. More than 10,000 died during the civil war, many were left stranded in China.

After Chiang escaped to Taiwan, KMT declared full scaled conscription in 1949.

Safe to say, none of these required much input from the legislators. They just chuck it up to Article 20 of the constitution.

1 Like

Thanks for the info. You wouldn’t happen to know what happened to the Taiwanese who served in the Japanese forces once KMT came over? Were they incorporated in to the ROC military, or ?

Of course you do. :roll:

It’s not a tiny minority of deranged nutcases.

The discussion in this thread is appalling.

2 Likes

Sure.

I was going to write a longer response but I’m busy at the moment making soup with my now dead wife.

3 Likes

Do you need help hiding any evidences ? Bros before hoes, yo!

You mean you’re hungry?

1 Like

Um … like really? You’re actually going to assert that there are a significant number of men who secretly wish to murder and dismember their girlfriends? Do you have any evidence at all to support that? Because if you do, I’m f’ing out of here. I’m getting as far away from Taiwan as possible, and I’ll be writing to Prez Trump to nuke the place, for the good of humanity.

1 Like

Not really, but as a cisgender white male it’s my duty to help a fellow member of the white Euro-centric patriarchy, especially when it comes to hiding the evidence of a crime against women or any minority.

That’s utterly sick, but it made me LOL. The most likely explanation is that I’m a psychopath.

1 Like

I’m going to assert that there is, in fact, toxic masculinity. If not, then why are all these victims female?

It’s absolutely pathetic that when someone tries to make a point about patriarchy and the dilemma women face, they are instantly written off as feminist, as if it was a bad word.

1 Like

really makes you think, eh.

1 Like

See? Now you’re comparing islamphobia with feminism.

I’ve never thought it would be fair to judge a whole group of people based on the actions of the few, but if you find it reasonable to do so when it comes to men then don’t act like a moral authority when people do the same with other groups, such as Muslims.

1 Like

Well said. “x number of cases where women were killed by men = toxic masculinity exists” just doesn’t make sense. Obviously no one should kill anyone (in general.) You need to define what TM is and where it applies. It’s exactly these kind of blanket assignations that are the problem. “Whenever a man kills a woman it’s toxic masculinity” doesn’t tell us anything.

2 Likes

In broad terms - statistically speaking - the majority of victims of ultra-violent psychopathic males are other males (roughly a factor of two). So your basic premise is wrong to start with.

Of course it is true that 100% of women murdered by men are female. Perhaps that’s what you meant? :roll_eyes:

The murder of females tends to get more media attention simply because it’s considered more depraved. In other words, it sells more newsprint.

To preempt your next question - so why are the murderers always male? - it’s because having a Y chromosome (or more than one Y chromosome) makes you more likely to be an ultraviolent psychopath. This does not prove that there is such a thing as “toxic masculinity”. It simply proves that, of the very small subset of deranged human beings known as “psychopathic murderers”, more of them are male than female. Can you explain how this has implications for the much larger subset of males who are NOT deranged?

1 Like

There’s still some hope! You are slowly getting to talk sense!

You know I always talk sense.