Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Must not bitch
Wellington was hopelessly spoiled - they cancelled the non-Ian Seagull for and extra Ian Lear.
I keep thinking I should write them up even after all this time. Anyway, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
-
Lipstadt?
-
But I'm holding out for the possibility they like pendants too ...
Or there's a lot of danglers.
-
Less sinister: Tory Party: warthogs 'smell of poo'
On another note, I'm not really a brewer, but I can't help thinking using brewers yeast rather than growing their own sacrificed some authenticity (admittedly perhaps on the altar of non-poisonousness).
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4157460a11.html
Such sentences had worked to discourage drink-driving, and they would work to cut rates of child abuse too, Mr McVicar said.
Did we not recently have some bad news about drink driving stats?
Actually I'd been thinking that if you wanted an prime example of crime where the perpetrators are almost guaranteed not to have evaluated the risks of getting caught and going to jail first, bashing kids would be pretty high on the list.
-
(as suggested by Family First NZ, For the Sake of Our Children Trust, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust)?
I really would have considered it if the suggestion had come from someone else. With late support from David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, the guy organising the smacking referendum petition and the Vision Network.
Though, as a family member of mine apparently remarked, at least they'll shut up for three minutes.
Actually Scoop also had releases from Barnados, the prison fellowship and Nelson Cathedral supporting the idea, which helps make the event more about everyone's reaction than the organiser's agenda.
Which agenda, I'll add, appears this one time to actually have elements of usefulness to it.
And yes, I would have thought it might be better for everyone to stop what they were doing and talk to each other.
Actually, we did get one pr opposing the action, sugesting people make some noise instead.
-
child abuse being called our problem, since it is clearly a Maori problem
Seeing as nobody else has said this here that I notice...
A factual problem with that is that it's not just a Maori problem and any group claiming to be immune is flying in the face of statistics.
Further, I haven't looked, but if it's anything like other crime stats, then the racial component of one's offending risk - as opposed to other factors like economic status and history and so on - will be small enough not to bother with.
Tangential to some other discussion, one of the results that came out of the Otago multidiscipilinary study was one the question of why a lot of abused children grow up to be normal adults and some don't. Apparently there's a gene that accounts for much of the variation. I don't really know what to make of that but it isn't of course to say there's nothing to be done.
-
Sorry folks, won't be a moment...
"Suppose you had an irrational belief that all your beliefs were irrational and false?"
I think I was after "Person x has an irrational (and false) belief that any one or more of their beliefs were irrational and false." I was indeed trying to construct something that is a parseable sentence but isn't a proposition.
I'll have to tip my hat to you and continue to differ.
-
Actually I was defining delusional as having an irrational belief which is false. So...
If you wrong about being delusional, then (since your belief you were delusional is false) you would be deluded - so you'd be right.
If you were right, then, your belief being true, you'd be wrong.
<whatever the opposite of QED is>
I think the critical think about that example is that's it may not be actually possible.
The point with the knowing is loosely that (on some definitions, I'm not sure it does actually apply to the one I gave) to know you know something, you also have to know you know you know it and so on.
Then there's the uncertainty-theorm-esqe limits of the mind to know itself and the whole question of what constitutes sufficient evidence.
What does one plus one even mean?
-
I think you can share with a friend, but only for non-concurrent use.
At university we had a network. We rapidly discovered there was a limit to how many could share at the same time.