|
babies behave dishonestly before they can talk
One would have thought this obvious to a moderately introspective pigeon.
“Most psychologists have believed that children cannot really lie until about four years of age. But after dozens of interviews with parents, and years spent observing children, Dr. Reddy has determined that infants as young as seven months are quite skilled at pulling the wool over their parents' eyes.
“Rather than being a sign that your child is the next James Frey or Richard Nixon, Dr. Reddy says, baby lies are simply part of learning social interaction.
“Long before children can understand complex ideas about truth and deception, Dr. Reddy writes in the April issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, "they are engaging in subtle manipulations of their own and others' actions, which succeed in deceiving others at least temporarily."”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#baby_honesty_080707
|
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
|
|
inflation and entrepreneurs in india
But but it’s ‘illegal’ they whine.
“ "Our one rupee coin is in fact worth 35 rupees, because we make five
to seven [razor] blades out of them," the grocer allegedly told the
police. "Bangladeshi smugglers take delivery of the blades at regular
intervals." ”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#india_entrepreneur_280607
|
|
how one legal family disrespects the law - despite the wonderful constitution, the american legal system is a thorough going disgrace
how one legal family disrespects the law
“Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo`s wife has an outstanding
warrant for her arrest for failure to appear in court, officials
confirmed.”
Who, I hear you cry, is Rocky Delgadillo?
Well, he’s the one who said Paris was getting special treatment after being released early from jail, where she was put for violating her probation in a drunken-driving case.J
Delgadillo speaking about Paris Hilton:
“If law enforcement officials are to enjoy the respect of those we are
charged with protecting, we cannot tolerate a two-tiered jail system
where the rich and powerful receive special treatment. We must ensure
that in our city, in our nation, and under our Constitution, justice
remains blind.”
[Quoted from americanchronicle.com]
Special treatment??
“[...] include his admission Tuesday to reporters that his wife had been
driving his city-owned vehicle on a suspended license when it was
damaged in a 2004 accident and later repaired at taxpayer expense.
“He also acknowledged he drove for more than a year without automobile
insurance required of all California drivers and that his wife was
uninsured when she left the scene of another 2004 accident involving
the couple's personal car.” [Quoted from xinhuanet.com]
“Michelle Delgadillo failed to appear almost nine years ago to face
charges of driving without insurance, with a suspended license and in
an unregistered car, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
“Michelle Delgadillo said in a statement released by her husband`s
office that she was 'very embarrassed to find myself in this situation
today.' She said she is seeking to address the issue 'as quickly as
possible.'
“'I will do whatever the court instructs me to do. I apologize for any
embarrassment this has caused my husband and family,' she said. 'It is
completely my mistake.'
“Documents also indicate that the Delgadillos were severely late in
paying at least five parking tickets in the past three years,
documents showed. A spokesman for the city attorney blamed the tickets
and late payments on Michelle Delgadillo.”
Much of this is because prosecutors and even judges are often elected
by idiots and, therefore, the electees seek controversy and thereby publicity. Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong is a recent disgraceful example.
And here is more on Delgadillo, who vies for public prominence.
“Termed out of office, and thrashed in his attempt to become state
attorney general, Delgadillo needs to unseat incumbent District
Attorney Steve Cooley to preserve his political career. That would
take a miracle.
“Enter Paris. By making a cause celebre out of this causative
celebrity, Delgadillo was able to (briefly) become the grand defender
of justice in L.A.” [Quoted from presstelegram.com]
“On the personal use of city vehicles:
- Rocky Delgadillo (Audio): "As an elected official, I believed
that city policy allows for personal use of the vehicle."
- "Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 63.106(d) specifically
prohibits the use of City vehicles for any purpose other than for
official City business. A few examples of uses that are not permitted
are:
- Using a City car to attend campaign/political events.
- Using a City car to drive a child to Little League practice
after work.
- Allowing family members to use a City car for personal
business, such as a trip to the market to buy groceries."
(Newsletter of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission Volume 6,
Issue 1, Winter 2001)
“On why Ms. Delgadillo had a suspended license:
- (Audio) Rocky says his wife was involved in a minor crash with other
car and didn't provide proof of insurance.
“Standard procedure when involved in a vehicle accident, according to
the DMV:
“If you are involved in an accident, STOP. If you don't stop, you may
be convicted of hit and run and could be severely punished. Someone
could be injured and need your help. You must show your driver
license, registration card, evidence of financial responsibility, and
current address to the other driver or persons involved, or to any
peace officer.”
The California Department of Motor Vehicles” [Quoted from dailynews.com]
Despite the wonderful constitution, the American legal system is a thorough going disgrace.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#disrespect_law_220607
|
|
on closed minds
“The researchers relying on work by social scientist Aaron Wildavsky
divided Americans into four cultural groups with regard to risk
perception: hierarchists, individualists, egalitarians and
communitarians. Hierarchists trust experts, but believe social
deviancy is very risky. Egalitarians and communitarians worry about
technology, but think that social deviancy is no big deal.
Individualists see risk as opportunity and so are optimistic about
technology.
“Egalitarians and communitarians, for example, tend to be sensitive to
claims of environmental and technological risks because ameliorating
such risks justifies regulating commercial activities that generate
inequality and legitimize unconstrained pursuit of self-interest,"
claim the researchers. "Individualists, in contrast, tend to be
skeptical about such risks, in line with their concern to ward off
contraction of the sphere of individual initiative. So do
hierarchists, who tend to see assertions of environmental
technological risks as challenging the competence of governmental and
social elites."
“Not surprisingly, the researchers found that people who were concerned
about environmental risks such as global warming and nuclear power,
were also concerned about nanotechnology. However, the Yale Cultural
Cognition researchers made another more disheartening discovery. In
their poll they gave a subset of 350 respondents additional facts -
about two paragraphs -- about nanotechnology to see if more
information would shift public risk perceptions. They found that it
did. In this case, the more information people had, the more they
retreated to their initial positions. Hierarchists and individualists
thought nano was less risky, while egalitarians and communitarians
thought it was more risky.
“ "One might suppose that as members of the public learn more about
nanotechnology their assessments of its risk and benefits should
converge. Our results suggest that exactly the opposite is likely to
happen,” ....
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#closed_minds_140607
|
|
old.new.old’s idea of ‘education’ - violent britain
“Some 42% of children have been kicked, punched or hit at school,
according to the results of a survey carried out by the children's
charity the NSPCC, published today.
“Just under 10% of pupils said the attack involved a weapon or other
object at school and 22% admitted they go to school worried that they
might be subjected to a similar violent attack while there, it
revealed.
“The snapshot survey of 1,172 children aged between 11 and 16 also
highlighted the extent to which bullying goes on at school, with 75%
admitting they have been bullied.
—
“One in four of the young people revealed they had witnessed domestic
violence - 47% of these cases involved a physical assault or the use
of a weapon. In 32% of incidents the perpetrator of the attack had
been drinking or taking drugs, the young people said.
“The children were also exposed to violence on the streets - 16% of
them revealed they had been hit, punched or kicked on the street and
7% of the attacks involved a weapon or object.”
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#uk_education_violence_230507
|
|
which is more dangerous - a dog, or a parent?
Parents should be kept on a lead at all times.
Think of the children.
“In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about
nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are
killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes
that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be
killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog." ” [Quoted from la-spca.org]
nice doggie, or man’s best friend?
I saw some figures a while back saying that the highest number of dog
attacks was by labradors; but in killings, pitbulls, rottweilers and Alsatian-type dogs are the perpetrators in two-thirds of killing by dogs. Of course, there are far more labradors and poodles in the world than rottweilers.
There are hundreds of thousands of dog attacks a year in the USA, and this number has been rising for many years. Dog attacks are the second most common reason for children being taking to a hospital emergency room, after baseball accidents.
Seventy percent of dog attacks are to the face - do not pet strange dogs. If you are a mailman, dogs are far more likely to attack your legs and behind, as any good cartoon will prove. Two percent of adults in the USA are attacked by dogs every year, and so approximately one third of insurance payments may be attributed to that risk.
No young child should be considered safe with a dog. I’m told by those who should know
that a dog has an instinct to ‘attack’ when a child falls down.
In general, the older you are, the less likely you are to be attacked by dogs. Good to find one area where wisdom and experience pays off.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#dogs_or_parents_130507
|
|
on defining ‘god’
I have heard large numbers of people get themselves into a great argumentative kerfuffle when
discussing ‘god’. As a logician, my natural inclination was to find out what all the fuss was about.
Therefore, for a goodly while, each time I came upon a person expounding on ‘god’ (and I made the judgment
that they were not completely unhinged), I set about trying to determine exactly what they thought they meant by the
word ‘god’.
What particularly interested me was the very wide range of meanings the individuals were
attributing to this word, and yet here they were merrily arguing, and even moving towards blows on the basis of a word
that they were usually using with considerably different meanings.
Some definitions are perfectly satisfactory to me, the definitions are always
individually idiosycratic, but I will divide them into some
vague categories.
- When people use the word ‘god’, I have a long-time
habit of questioning them in detail to work out what they mean. Very often
they do not know. In fact, they get into a soliptic muddle, which I then bring
to their attention.. For reasons not quite clear, this often inclines them
to become unusually angry.
- Others eventually decide they mean something like ‘the
flowers are pretty’. At which point, I tend to ask them why they did
not say that instead half-an-hour ago. That lot usually look sheepish.
- Their explanations amount to, this is a bucket into which I dump anything that
I don’t understand.
- Then there are the more intellectually sophisticated
who take up various forms of pantheism, and use the term ‘god’
as a form of shorthand for ‘god’ is an intrinsic in the real world.
These give me little concern.
- The most ‘advanced’ tend to the view that
man is too undeveloped to be able to say much about ‘god’ of great
moment or significance they tend to the view that the world is vastly complex
and wondrous beyond human understanding; and that making pronouncements on
the nature of ‘god’ varies between fatuity and arrogance. I find
myself in reasonable accord with such views, and not be much troubled by even
2 or 4.
Hey, let’s not keep this too narrow. This analysis works with all the other words as well. You could try it with ‘spirit’, or ‘the workers’, or even ‘rhubarb’ ... or even ‘is’.
the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/behaviour0705.php#on_god_050507
|
|
|
