Posts by Shep Cheyenne
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Christchurch has done a couple of things wrong.
That bloody tram is a tourist feature, and there is a mind set that tourist have money = build for tourists.
They're extending the tram (to nowhere).
The touristy city tram in Melbourne is free this one is over $14 & goes nowhere. There is a free bus that's handy.
Key point - the money is in locals & tourist will follow.What's his name who took on the IRD & then made a movie about himself (shrinking violet), developed SOL & did it backwards by building puds first - should have been accomodation first & it would have limited the pub developments/noise etc (& his profit). When he did build the accomodation he didn't use double glazing & so the noise & cold come right inside.
-
Part of the payment for public transport comes from parking tickets.
I'm really pissed that they're giving money back.
This parking on the grass & footpath is ugly & blocks the path for pedestrians & wheelchairs - I want them towed not ticketed.
-
Che - I heard something about development plans for my beloved Newtown, any truth to that?
There's a pub I'ld bowl over but really love the renewal that's happened there.
-
The Airport Bus at Christchurch is $7 each way.
If you have a Metro Card it's $1.90.So if you visit regularly to the Garden City (currently foggy) gat a metro card.
Also you can ride the ferry (Diamond Harbour to Lyttleton) & catch a bus to the city and beyond for under $3 one way.
My thoughts are with the Insp. Fitzgeralds family after being killed while cycling in Wellington. Here in Christchurch we lost the Cr Condon & para-olympian while training in his wheelchair along marshlands road not long ago.
I hope these tragic events to may facilatate parrallel infrastructure.
-
Deborah - "I’m going to do the latter, and embrace the conclusion that my argument for the moral permissibility of abortion does also admit the moral permissibility of infanticide."
Sorry, I don't accept this line of thought & didn't you said you've rejected infantacide.
I also think babies in the womb dream, and reject the need to comprehend others. I know a few people who still can't do that ;-)
"Even then, I will want to place the mother’s health before the fetus’s health. Why? Because I know for sure that the mother is a full human being, and her needs come before the needs of a being that may or may not be a full human being."
I agree with your decision, but for different reasons. The mother is likely to be the more viable life, being stronger etc. There may be situations where this is reversed, but is a triarge situation.
I'm glad you refer to the first stages of life as human. I don't accept the 'full human' line though, we're on a continum of existence and never static in any single human stage, as a continum I see all human life regardless of stage to have the same rights.
The only question where I have agreement with the abortion lobby, is in triage situations.
-
Sorry Deborah - I've missed that - will be back to you again in a bit (gotta run)
-
I might say I'm a little lost on arguements about abortion, but know that it mustn't lead to the justification of infantacide, whether or not that is leagalised.
So I am not offering a solution to the issue but rather asking questions, and pointing out what I see as a major flaw in your argument.
I reject the arguement of 'potential life' as clumsy, it is life of a sort, but again I have no solution to that phrase.
I also see the replaced Patriachy, of the Nanny State to be seriously wanting in supporting women & babies.
Not to mention the neglegent inaction of fathers.
-
This is the key to your confusion.
You state your justification for abortion, would also 'justify' infanticide. You go on to say that you reject infantacide for other reasons.
This still leads to the 'justification' of infantacide.
You need to form an argument to do one, but not the other, which you have failed to do, & fail to see as a problem with in your thesis.
-
Deborah has repeated her confused position on infantacide on her blog here:
http://inastrangeland.wordpress.com/Deborah, to defend abortion by 'justifying' infantacide, through your argument of "full human being" is simply wrong IMHO.
Your stance of 'full human being' has been used to 'justify' T4, the Shoah, 'modern slavery' (USA etc) & Apartheid....
To defend abortion is one thing, to take this stance is quite another.
What puzzels me is that you acknowledge this and still persit, rather than reassess your position.
-
A S - I was trying to parraphrase & I'm still a little lost at what exactly you mean by protection.
1894 was the year of the Great Reduction in liquor licencing, one Hotel in Christchurch was denied a licence for being merely a place of drinking, shock & horror.
Changes to the law to take into account the number of bars/bottle stores in an area, would introduce into the RMA the concept of economic viability, competition etc. This is currently removed from any consideration through the process or the courts.
If allowed it would be a legal means to stop competition. Supermarket X could object to Supermarket Y.
It would allow Motueka to keep McDs & the Warehouse out, as they have been campaigning for. Not toally bad having teased it out a little, but it's gonna change retailing in NZ quite a bit.