Baby Signs are really catching on!

By Rachael Anne -

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy4:26 PM

    Oh wait don't tell me, I remember this one. It means that the recipient needs a diaper change, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rachael Anne3:54 PM

    Right now, it's a very trendy parenting thing to teach infants sign language so that they can communicate before they can speak. This photo shows a mother and child doing a sign that I can assure is not in any Baby Signs book. Make more sense now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon7:10 PM

    Australopithecenes cannot reasonably expect to insert themselves into the flow of time far from where they were conceived.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:21 PM

    Trendy? Where?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rachael Anne3:45 PM

    Anon:

    I know of at least 3 separate books demonstrating different methods and signs for parents to use with their babies. Mainstream parenting and pregnancy magazines carry articles favorably describing the practice. If you ask new or expecting parents, chances are they've heard of it, and chances are they know someone who does it/did it with their kids. It's a relatively recent thing. I'd call it trendy, although I doubt it will fade from popularity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous7:04 PM

    Earlier today my kid asked if he could have a sip from my can of Dr Pepper. I let him take have some.

    He looked up as he handed the can back to me and said, "I know how to make the sign for friends." He made an interlocking gesture with his index fingers.

    I thought this was pretty cool, but I don't know anything about signing. It wasn't trendy when I was a kid.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:04 PM

    That was not anonymous, the last quote came from Woody with keyboard butterfingers.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more