I met a certain somebody working for atomic energy agency in Taiwan once and he was very possibly an alcoholic. Not sure if Taiwan guy but doubt it somehow since he seems to still have his marbles.
I don’t even know you, so I can’t imagine what your problem is with me (maybe I clowned you once, and you’ve been holding a grudge ever since?). But you can say what you want about me, but you’re not fit to mention my wife.
Taichung air update: it’s awful tonight. The haze a has enveloped the city.
Hope you don’t have a HTC phone @Gain
I was always aware of that.
And no wonder the company is going bankrupt. Which company wouldn’t under such a feeble-minded cunt?
So stupid, she didn’t even try to make an attempt to be anonymous. They’ve always made good hardware. But design and marketing was so terrible, maybe because they didn’t hire gay people.
I don’t have beef with you.
First, you need more than $100 billion USD just to compensate the displaced humans. (That’s 11 zeros btw. In yen, it’s in the tens of trillions.)
Then there’s the cleanup, also estimated at over $100 billion USD, and no-one knows how many decades it will take. Of course, no-one knows when the next force majeure will occur either.
But there’s always a silver lining.
That would be convenient for anyone wanting to play down the social freedom angle – do your own thing – and play up the economic freedom angle – buy your own thing (if you can afford it) – but it doesn’t add up.
Life, liberty & property was a phrase already in circulation. If they had been satisfied with that, they would have used it. But they didn’t, because they weren’t. If they really just wanted to avoid legitimizing slavery via that one word, they could have chosen a synonym. If the problem was not the word property but the very concept of property, then hey, you can’t have it both ways: either you change it, or you don’t.
The claim some make, that in the 18th century happiness still meant property rather than emotional contentment, does not hold up against the evidence. Etymologically it means luck(iness), but it acquired the modern meaning no later than the 16th century and has never lost that meaning. It hasn’t entirely lost the original meaning of luck (and therefore fortune and therefore wealth), but the rise of the modern sense was well underway by the 18th century.
America was set up based largely on the ideals of John Locke.
You can’t just look up the etymology in the dictionary, what the heck.
You have to understand Jefferson’s thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
Note also that even Wikiland cites the corresponding phrase in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May to June 1776) as the origin of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence:
Tl/dr: Yes, the American founders cared about happiness in the modern sense. Even if they had said property instead of the pursuit of happiness, we could still debate the extent to which they meant property in the narrow sense. But they chose the pursuit of happiness instead of property, which says something about their priorities.
For forumosans interested in a bit of history, the awesome Han Cheung walks us through the winding path of referendums in Taiwan, and how the referendum results from last Saturday would not have been possible before significant changes were implemented in December 2017. It’s a great read!
Everything you cited just proves my point. Happiness and safety are the end, protecting property (that includes religious beliefs and practices, safety and liberty, free choice) is how you get there.
And that is the government’s function.
In other words, “pursuit of happiness” is not the same thing as happiness.
You remind me of the Englishman at Speaker’s Corner in that EFL series by L. G. Alexander.
I bet you also have a fascinating way of explaining the ROC Constitution.
I’m looking forward to see how the new mayor will reduce the pollution that deteriorated under Lin.
If it is so great, since none of the new reactors built since 2010 were ABWR, and of of its kind ever put into operation and all for a short aount of time, it shows that ABWR is no longer state of the art.
As mentioned before, and as listed in the Control Yuan report, Taiwan’s NP4 has numerous critical faults due to poor construction supervision, and hodgepodged control system, making it way too dangerous to go into commercial operation as is. If eventually KMT really push to have nuclear power again, the plant would have to be rebuilt anyway, wasting more ta payer money, and by that point, why not just go with a newer generation of reactors?
UN criticism of Taiwan’s democracy
It’s not a UN criticism. It’s a UN official attending a non-governmental conference’s criticism.
What he said is true though. Just because Australia held a referendum on gay marriage (and passed) doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. See California 2008, or Switzerland.