Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Correction: His lawyers are using "He was in a hostile environment and that affected his mental state." The sexual preference is tangential to th'fact that the military isn't the best (/healthiest) place to be for someone that's homosexual.

No, that doesn't mean people of non-heteronormative sexual preference should avoid the military -- ideally*, the love of one's country allows the individual to cope with the problems (currently, needlessly) inherent to the situation.

*Triple underlined, bolded, max font size, flashing multiple colors. The situation is not ideal.

[Truean]

Correction: His lawyers are using "He was in a hostile environment and that affected his mental state." The sexual preference is tangential to th'fact that the military isn't the best (/healthiest) place to be for someone that's homosexual.

No, that doesn't mean people of non-heteronormative sexual preference should avoid the military -- ideally*, the love of one's country allows the individual to cope with the problems (currently, needlessly) inherent to the situation.

*Triple underlined, bolded, max font size, flashing multiple colors. The situation is not ideal.

Actually, it isn't without precedent. J.A.G. records indicate U.C.M.J. Court Marshal defenses raising discriminatory status as a factor in disobedience of order cases when racial integration was happening in the armed forces. "Whereby the tried enlisted man was of the {black} race and the commanding officer was of the white race...." In these cases, basically they are arguing that but for the racial friction, the disobedience of order would not have occurred or would have at least been mitigated.

I don't know how tactically sound it is to use that in this circumstance, but you have to say SOMETHING as a defense and if you've got nothing else.... Then again, who knows. Please note that I am not making a judgmental, but rather a tactical point just as I would with any legal defense. This is a technical statement only.

On another note:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Male-cheerleader-gets-team-disqualified-8230-?urn=highschool-wp10098

They should've really just let that poor boy's team compete, along with him frankly.  I honestly don't want to think that him being gay had anything to do with it....

[fqllve]

boys are not allowed to compete on any girls squads in competitive sports where a male option is not offered.

"Schools have adopted this position to preserve participation opportunities for the historically underrepresented gender."

Because its really likely that boys will take all the opportunities in sports where there isn't even a male team.

[kaijyuu]

Violent people will likely play violent video games (assuming they're into video games at all), as it's cathartic. This is fact. But of course, correlation != causation. Banning violent video games won't stop violent people from being violent. In fact it may increase it since they don't have as many "outs."

Short form, and the reason why I emphasized statistical significance -- read, that the correlation being mentioned actually exists in a meaningful way and has the numbers to back it -- that catharsis thing? That is not fact. I'd have to go haul out m'psych book to pull up the citations, but actual (and recent) research into that catharsis theory has shown that there's not actually basis for that assumption. It (actions seen to be cathartic) doesn't have a meaningful influence on whether someone will or will not do something, in most cases. Iirc, it doesn't even reduce stress (in relation to the acts that are supposed to do so.).

Bloody-hell complex, and some stuff is not obvious. Some times what's seen as common sense (and/or the generally held consensus) can be wrong (or at least unsupportable, which is almost as bad in most situations).

I'll absolutely concede everything you said here, precisely because I have nothing to back up my statements.

I'd look up some statistics but I haven't a clue where to find any meaningful ones (and I'd rather not go digging through wikipedia right now). Really, whenever this stuff comes up there's always people asking for statistical backing and pretty much no one provides (and the statistics that are cited are often called insubstantial or corrupted or whatever, regardless of what they say). Honestly, the best I've heard is that the correlation is "inconclusive."

I'd still be surprised if there turned out to not be a correlation, but yes, I have nothing to back up my claims that there is a correlation.

[kaijyuu]

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

[Frumple]

I'd look up some statistics but I haven't a clue where to find any meaningful ones (and I'd rather not go digging through wikipedia right now). Really, whenever this stuff comes up there's always people asking for statistical backing and pretty much no one provides (and the statistics that are cited are often called insubstantial or corrupted or whatever, regardless of what they say). Honestly, the best I've heard is that the correlation is "inconclusive."

I'd have to dig up m'last psych book to hunt up the info myself, or possibly e-mail the teacher. Basically, the research that's been done has consistently shown that they can't show any evidence of a meaningful catharsis effect, especially over any lengthy amount of time. There is (in some cases, but not all) a temporary effect, but the folks (plural, unrelated to each other) doing the studies (same as the folks) found that consuming vs. not consuming so-called cathartic material didn't have a notable difference in incidences of violence.

Basically, violent people are going to be violent regardless of choice of entertainment. Other environmental considerations are considerably more influential (which is to say influential at all.).

Total agreement re: Obfuscation and difficulty of access, though. It's not uncommon for the genuinely important stuff to be buried in a research journal or under mounds of field-specialized language, when it's available to the public at all and not recorded under shit-poor methodology. Of course, things recorded under said methodology tend to be wrong, as well.

 I'd still trust something peer-reviewed and supported by multiple studies than just about any damn thing else, but it can be bloody hard to get to, sift through, and then meaningfully interpret that stuff.

S'a reason an informed constituency is a necessary component to a functioning bottom-up government, but that bloody well doesn't make being one of those (not that I claim to be, bleh) easy

I'd still be surprised if there turned out to not be a correlation, but yes, I have nothing to back up my claims that there is a correlation.

The catharsis thing particularly was one of those things th'psych teacher I had apparently liked to drop on classes to emphasis the importance of research and double checking things that "make sense"*.

*Tangental, but as a philosophy student, "makes sense" is one of the most untrustworthy things in existence. If all you can use to support something is "it makes sense," you're probably making unfounded (or at least unanalyzed, which is almost as bad) assumptions somewhere along the line. I'm always immediately and powerfully suspicious of when I find myself thinking or writing that

[Truean]

*Tangental, but as a philosophy student, "makes sense" is one of the most untrustworthy things in existence. If all you can use to support something is "it makes sense," you're probably making unfounded (or at least unanalyzed, which is almost as bad) assumptions somewhere along the line. I'm always immediately and powerfully suspicious of when I find myself thinking or writing that

It can be abused, but never underestimate this phrase's power and validity. That said, good idea to check your premises.

[Frumple]

It can mean you've got something bumbling about in the subconcious, yeah. Big caveat was "as a philosophy student," especially one on in the states where the analytic tradition is pretty much the big dog; it's not one of those fields where you can get by with naive intuition*. Basically, "it makes sense" is usually met with a smack to the back of the head and a "why does it make sense" (implied: You idiot ). At which point you dig the premises/assumptions up and the teacher may or may not mock you harshly. The 'you idiot' is sometimes no longer left implicit after that point, heh.

It (intuition jumps) is useful, but almost never the point where you stop, especially if you're using th'jump in any discourse outside internal (i.e. to yourself).

Might also be using the term to imply "given the premises" (especially when the people talking share background assumptions, such as a shared trade), but again, the power of the term lines in things outside itself. 'Sense' is being used as shorthand for 'in summation' in that case

Point of clarity, though, if only to keep myself on the ball. The phrase can be powerful and effective (i.e. produces something functional), but it's almost never valid until the 'makes sense' is unpacked. Validity has to do with the truth state of the premise, which can't be evaluated until sense is actually made

That's getting into classical logic, though~ Which I really need to refresh myself on, but validity is one of those things I picked up being really careful about. It's a tricky word.

*However powerful and effective it may be. Considering how much fruitful material I've personally had produced subconsciously, I certainly don't deny its power, heh, just its sufficiency.

[Truean]

Simpler, cleaner, things your professors probably don't get:

"It makes sense/ It stands to reason."

a.) Bullshit cover and excuse not to think,
b.) Axiomatic truth,
c.) Result supported by experience. (needs citation of experience).

[ChairmanPoo]

My orthopedics teacher called that kind of reasoning "Internist logic"

[kaijyuu]

Heh, I cringe whenever someone says "common sense."

Bullshit excuse for the aforementioned reasons, and people don't seem to realize that "common sense" is uncommon because everyone has their own version of it. It's like the ultimate form of unreasonably expecting other people to agree with you, even when it's obvious (and admitted!) that a lot of people don't.

[Truean]

Heh, I cringe whenever someone says "common sense."

Bullshit excuse for the aforementioned reasons, and people don't seem to realize that "common sense" is uncommon because everyone has their own version of it. It's like the ultimate form of unreasonably expecting other people to agree with you, even when it's obvious (and admitted!) that a lot of people don't.

Granted, but the point was simply that it isn't necessarily always bullshit. I fully agree, it often is.

[palsch]

http://news.yahoo.com/mannings-sexual-orientation-raised-hearing-215925641.html

Until this I hadn't felt comfortable discussing the details because, although public, they weren't widely known and are pretty intense.

This is the chat log between Manning and the man (Adrian Lamo) who outed him as a wikileaks source.

It reads like the private - intimate even - conversations of a person isolated, distraught and on the edge of a breakdown. To say the least.

The defence seem to be targeting the supervisors who let Manning end up in this position and didn't act even when warning signs were, shall we say, less than subtle. Like punching a colleague.

And to be clear about the sexuality issues;

(1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for “adjustment disorder” in lieu of “gender identity disorder”

The underlined part was originally published by Wired. The last part was added when they were hounded into releasing the full, uncensored log (with a couple retractions of other people's names and details).

[Truean]

God damn it Fox News, it's called Microsoft Excel and my kid nephew can do it. Your graphs suck.

Who the hell's drunken bullshit made this? National TV News has "standards." How else would we know to break them?  Yes, you read that crap right? It seems 9.0 is above 8.6... sometimes. Other times it is exactly the same level as it. On second thought, now it all makes sense. They're using that "new math." Did you see that shit at the end? 8.6 is right at the same level as 9.... Let's not say the thing has gone down....

Mr. Perry, you've won the biggest douche contest. All further douchery will be for posterity... to make fun of you... like all the rest of it was too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jb9HkcBPks&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Moron Rick Perry, "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."

It unconditionally and categorically does, you oaf. You need freedom FROM other people's religion to practice YOURS, or a lack thereof....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Moron Rick Perry, "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."

Which is also why the Second Amendment mandates that everyone carry a gun at all times. Isn't being completely and utterly beyond any logical thoughts fun?