Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Christine Rankin would have been representing "For the Sake of Our Children" (umbrella group). Just before one PR opposing the bill I recall she'd put out another urging the Govt to do "something, anything" about our child abuse record.
Other organisations putting out PR against include Family Integrity, Family First (the 'special needs children escpecially need beating' guy) and sundry individuals. Please note in counting these that, if I were compiling a similar list (by glancing at Scoop coverage) for the pro lobby it would be shorter than Riddley Walker's. But longer than three.
I'm sorry for flogging the serious arguments, Damian. I've been a bad, bad boy. -
In the context, I should probably add that I used "eating soemone" in the sense of cannibalism.
-
I can't recalling hearing the verdict in that German case, but I assume that they found that, when it comes to eating someone, having their consent is no defence.
-
I'm increasingly of the opinion that there comes a point - fairly early on - where one has to trust the scientists about science, in much the same way you listen to experts about your car or your ailments. Or slightly more.
The trouble for the layman is spotting the scientist and the science if somebody decides to start an argument.
Scientific consensus, or at least the overall body of research, is actually part of the scientific method and I imagine often the people in the debate will agree on what that is, with one an admitted outsider or both saying there's room for debate. Unless they're deliberately muddying the water, which we might siggest applies in this case.
I've seen it suggested that reporters should report the consensus as well as the tedious 'for' and 'against' opinions. In fact, where I heard it I heard that reporters though it was a good idea, then immediately went back to the tedious way in practise.
-
... but I understand it would be just fine if if it was to prevent the spankee engaging in 'offensive behaviour'.
"Stop that! Oh, stop! I said stop that!..."
But to return to the humourlessness, this does bring us back to the point (I'm not saying it's a complete or unbeatable argument) that there are other defenses for assault and some threshold for prosecution exercised. The analogy isn't perfect, but parents don't get charged with kidnapping their children, and there's no special clause for that. -
I'm not sure how fortunate the choice [Singer's] of 'Darwinian' as an adjective was. As in, I actually don't know because I haven't read the book.
For me, 'Darwinian' in the context just made me think of some evolutionary psychology which fits more into the 'sociological wishful thinking' (or at least unfalsifiable speculation) camp.
-
Sophisting is against nature...
You'd be amazed what you can find on the internet, though.
-
Oh and journalists and statistics... so tragic. It might be amplified by the way it can sometimes only takes one person in a medium sized chain. For example, if the guy who decides what's newsworthy has no grasp of statistical significance, he probably won't be told.
-
Do you break out in a rash when close to Stephen Franks?
That give me an idea - perhaps an elimatination diet, Russell? I mean, is it the dialectic, the poststructuralism ...
I would suggest you started by avoiding sophistry, but they put that stuff in everything these days.
-
best breed ever: Maine Coon. there is NO comparison
My good lady would, I think, agree even more than I do. So much more than a spectacular tail. Mind you, round our place the only competition's a geriatric moggy whose age has finally caught her.