AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-01-31, 13:03   Link #26081
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
No, I don't subscribe to that theory, Saintess. Tennessee has not elected a Democrat as senator since Al Gore, Jr., and the Gores were a powerful political family in the state for decades before that. It also has a slightly whiter-than-average population because of the relatively small number of Hispanics who live there. So I'd argue that Senator Alexander simply represents the opinions of those who vote for him.

I'm not saying that money does not matter in American politics; that would be absurd. What I am saying is that money is not the only thing that matters. Senators do, by and large, represent the opinions of their voters, and when there is a mismatch, as there was here in Massachusetts during the Scott Brown interregnum, it is eventually corrected.

It is also important to understand the vast differences in the electorates that turn out for Presidential and off-year elections. Off-year electorates are more extreme, and more likely to include a disproportionate number of opponents of the incumbent President. Republicans who thought 2012 would be a replay of the 2010 off-year election seemingly either missed or ignored this fact. You might have thought seasoned political operatives like Karl Rove and Dick Morris would know better. Before watching Rove's widely-publicized tantrum on Fox News during the election coverage, I would have thought their absurd predictions of a Romney landslide were strategic in nature and designed to buck up the Republican voters. After that "performance" by Rove I'm no longer so sure.
So you mean that, the garbage he spouted that made him seem like a buffoon in your eyes, is the interests of the majority?

Head, meet wall.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 13:09   Link #26082
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
So you mean that, the garbage he spouted that made him seem like a buffoon in your eyes, is the interests of the majority?
Of Tennessee.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 13:33   Link #26083
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Interesting considering the number of firearms owners is up since 1993.
Does that statistic on the "number of gun owners" adjust for population growth? If not, it's meaningless.

I don't know where that statistic comes from, but it's not supported in the data from reliable survey organizations like the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. As I show in my blog, the proportion of people living in gun-owning households has declined in every generation following the one that came of age after the Second World War. It reaches its nadir among adults who have come of age since the turn of the twenty-first century; only one in five of them live in a gun-owning household, down from one in two among those who reached adulthood in the immediate postwar period.

On the subject of women, they still are less likely to live in households where guns are present, and when they do live in a gun-owning household they are typically not the gunowners themselves. The lowest rates of personal gun ownership occur among women living in households where children are present. Only five percent of unmarried women living in multi-member households with children present own a gun personally. These results are based on my tabulations from the 2010 General Social Survey which I have yet to publish in my blog. I've seen other comments about women taking up guns, but they are largely anecdotal. The presence of a man in the household is one of the strongest predictors of whether there will also be a gun present.

Personally I think the focus on assault weapons is understandable but misguided. The real issue is handguns, but no one is advocating policies that would do much about those.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 14:09   Link #26084
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Newsflash, the media bites, Erin Brunette of CNN to "investigate" the role of video games in violence.

Woohoo another win for the gun lobby...
__________________
"If you educate people, you cannot control them." ~Jacque Fresco
Sugetsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 14:31   Link #26085
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Yes sir, and teh Dems turn guns into the boogey man because like I told Vexx, the real cause of this is a lack of mental health care and the psychotropic drugs most of these shooters were on, or withdrawing from after use.

Why is no one talking about the drug use involved here?
These drugs are DANGEROUS and I am sick and tired of people brushing away this viewpoint so quickly. Maybe they should try being put on these ineffective, mind-altering medications themselves and see what it's like before they decide to quickly discard the notion that they aren't a part of the problem.

I was on Paxil myself when I was in my earlier teens from an anxiety problem I used to have (which I naturally outgrew, by the way, but that option certainly wasn't considered by the overeager crooks in my psychiatrist's office). It made me more anxious, got me into several incidences of violent behavior that never occurred before or after cessation of taking the drug, and threw me into a fit of depression when I had previously only had anxiety and was otherwise quite happy. Thankfully, I stopped taking them when my parents noticed these effects and I recovered completely, but some people aren't so lucky.

A friend of mine was recently married and has also always been a rather anxious person, and his wife was concerned so he was brought in to a psychiatrist, lo and behold he emerges from his 'therapy' with a prescription for an SSRI. After several months of what he calls a 'mindless haze' where he felt completely numbed out of reality on a more subtle and insidious level than any recreational drug, he made the decision to stop and experienced severe withdrawals for nearly two weeks consisting of 'electric shocks,' full body spasms like seizures, paranoia, and gut-wrenching anxiety about inane life events. Sure, my friend's and my experience are just that, our own experiences, but let's not forget the studies that have been conducted and have made definitive, proven links between these abhorrent pills and increased rates of violence and suicide.

Michael Moore's comment from "The Drugging of our Children" is perfect on the subject:



If there's any pocket of modern society that fills me with rage, it's the pharmaceutical industry. These people who have committed suicide while on these pills can't get their lives back. I see it as nothing short of manslaughter, but perhaps even worse given the evidence of cover-ups and the fact that these corporations make profit from the success of their 'medication.' You can spend a whole day reading about the bizarre and frightening reality for people who were put on these pills and then had to live with the horrible consequences of a negligent mental health system. I know I have. Phantom "electric shocks," people developing anxiety where they never had it before, unyielding suicidal ideation, bizarre and lucid behavior. Our mental health system is a JOKE and I can't help but scoff when people try to help someone dealing with a mental health issue by referring them to a 'professional' in that field... Unless they're of world-class caliber, chances are you'll be prescribed one of these dangerous, dangerous pills. This isn't even mentioning other, less harmful side effects like the sexual ones, or the birth defects for mothers taking SSRIs.

My deepest sympathy goes out to children and their parents who are duped by this worse-than-snake-oil money making scheme. That's not to mention my other extreme reservations about the pharmaceutical industry for drugs like statins that also have severe health consequences.

I got into a debate with my doctor about this subject - he used the word 'pharmaceutical revolution,' of the 80's, I told him he should stop being so damn naive and realize this was a product of deregulation and corporate greed, spewing out ineffective and sometimes outright dangerous medications for a whole host of different conditions in the name of profit. Of course there are plenty of medications with real, life-saving uses, but there's no denying the reality that there are also heaps of dangerous and useless medications that are prescribed like clockwork around the country every day of the year. Another one I especially despise is ADD medications being prescribed to children - methamphetamine derivatives being given to developing brains, but I digress...

Yeah, clearly I'm biased based on my own experiences and just my personal outlook/worldview, but people should really do their homework and read up on the subject. I think more people would begin to consider the real dangers these pharmaceuticals can represent if they would only take the time and look into it rather than conveniently overlooking the studies proving their danger. I really don't know why people are so quick to discard the idea that essentially experimental chemical compounds that were invented in a laboratory in the past 20-60 years that have mind altering effects, could be dangerous. We really are living in a pill-popping, medically naive culture.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 14:57   Link #26086
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Let me just add one more comment about Lamar Alexander, one that applies to South Carolina's Lindsay Graham as well. Both these men face re-election in 2014, and both have been marching steadily rightward as a result. Since both Tennessee and South Carolina are staunchly Republican these days, neither of them have much to fear when facing a Democrat in the 2014 general election. What they do fear is being "primaried," losing to an even more right-wing Tea Party style of Republican. Because 2014 is an off-year, the chances for a small, but highly mobilized block of ultra-conservatives could bring about their defeat. Whether such defeats would help the Democratic candidates in the general election as effectively as in the 2012 Indiana and Missouri Senate races is anyone's guess.

While Lamar Alexander decries video games, Lindsay Graham claims outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "got away with murder" over the Benghazi killings. No event in recent memory has occasioned more absurd theatrics among Republicans than the Benghazi killings. First we had the ridiculous pilloring of UN Ambassador Susan Rice by Graham and Arizona's grumpy old man John McCain for having followed the script she was given by the intelligence agencies when doing the rounds of the Sunday-morning talk shows in the aftermath of the murders. Last week's Senate hearings with Mrs. Clinton were another sham, though you could see Rand Paul already preparing for his Presidential run in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton's rehabilitation over the past four years has been stunning.
__________________

Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2013-01-31 at 15:10.
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 14:58   Link #26087
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 30
@ChainLegacy -- Understand personal experience affects outlook, but my only story in response is thus:

Someone very close to someone I love was diagnosed with schizophrenia -- without medication her behaviour was .. erratic to say the least. She would also choose to avoid taking her medication to the point someone would have to watch her .. and she woiuld often times still think of ways to get out of it. Ultimately her mood swings, depression and paranoia resulted in weighing the risks and choosing ECT therapy. That's right, electric shocks .. anyways, her quality of life is much better now.

Now, understanding that this is just another "personal story" let's take a step back. I will be completely politically incorrect here. I will use my cold, calculating, mechanically inhuman "banker brain" to make this statement. There will always be "broken" people out there -- and by broken, I mean people that are maladjusted or destructive, for psychological or physiological reasons and are thus incapable of functioning or are actually detrimental in our "society." Our current social consciousness has determined that as a civilization, X (%, $, whatever) amount of effort needs to be directed at helping and/or salvaging these people. There is a real cost to this with regards to allocating our society's resources. Despite these attempts, as I pointed out previously (mental health, health care, homelessness), there will be failures -- individuals missed by the safety net, flawed science and understanding and other factors I cannot even begin to name. This is the cold, hard, calculating truth of the matter. How much effort do we allocate? How much resources? What is an acceptable failure rate?

tl;dr -- The world be complicated and issues aren't simple. We can always do better .. but society needs to figure out it's priorities.
__________________
Nyaaaan~~
willx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 15:15   Link #26088
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
@ChainLegacy -- Understand personal experience affects outlook, but my only story in response is thus:

Someone very close to someone I love was diagnosed with schizophrenia -- without medication her behaviour was .. erratic to say the least. She would also choose to avoid taking her medication to the point someone would have to watch her .. and she woiuld often times still think of ways to get out of it. Ultimately her mood swings, depression and paranoia resulted in weighing the risks and choosing ECT therapy. That's right, electric shocks .. anyways, her quality of life is much better now.

Now, understanding that this is just another "personal story" let's take a step back. I will be completely politically incorrect here. I will use my cold, calculating, mechanically inhuman "banker brain" to make this statement. There will always be "broken" people out there -- and by broken, I mean people that are maladjusted or destructive, for psychological or physiological reasons and are thus incapable of functioning or are actually detrimental in our "society." Our current social consciousness has determined that as a civilization, X (%, $, whatever) amount of effort needs to be directed at helping and/or salvaging these people. There is a real cost to this with regards to allocating our society's resources. Despite these attempts, as I pointed out previously (mental health, health care, homelessness), there will be failures -- individuals missed by the safety net, flawed science and understanding and other factors I cannot even begin to name. This is the cold, hard, calculating truth of the matter. How much effort do we allocate? How much resources? What is an acceptable failure rate?

tl;dr -- The world be complicated and issues aren't simple. We can always do better .. but society needs to figure out it's priorities.
Actually, I like that you make this post because I feel that it fits in to my viewpoint nicely. There are definitely 'broken' people like you describe, but I think a large swath of people being prescribed medication like SSRIs are not broken at all. Not everyone is going to always be happy. Lots of people struggle with depression. Some people are more anxious than others. Some people have a shorter attention span (the "ADD epidemic"). These are natural traits, the result of variance from person to person, and not every issue can be 'medicated' with a pill. Not every mental health problem has some 'chemical imbalance' behind it. Are there genetic components that spur these differences? I'm sure of it, but it's not nearly as simple as the bullshit 'chemical imbalance' explanation that is thrown around everywhere. Ultimately, I believe in-person therapy (talking about the problems, mental strategies,etc) and proper nutrition and exercise are good ways to work through mental health problems. People need to stop thinking every issue they have can be solved by taking a pill. Further, people need to do their homework and realize the very real dangers these pills can present; making people who may be a little depressed or anxious commit suicide when they otherwise would not.

I do not know if these medications are the driving force behind mass shootings. I think that they're probably a component in some cases, but part of a larger web of issues and not necessarily the only problem. What I do know is there is a proven link between SSRIs with suicide and violence. That needs to stop being overlooked, and people need to break out of this culture of quickly resorting to medication for every mental health consideration. It'd be one thing if they actually worked for everyone with no side effects, but the reality is not so rosy.

As for your friend/relative, I am sorry to hear they suffered through schizophrenia. I think schizophrenia is a different issue entirely that is more severe than most people who are put on SSRIs. And yes, I'm aware that one of the recent shooters was schizophrenic, but this does not detract from the proven link and reality of SSRIs/antidepressants and violence/suicide.

Oh and by the way, I've heard of ECT therapy and I think it's quite interesting. The 'electric shocks' I was referring to are bizarre, seizure like withdrawal symptoms of SSRIs that we don't currently understand the physiological basis of.

Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2013-01-31 at 15:50.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 15:55   Link #26089
TooPurePureBoy
Socially Inept
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Retracing my steps.....
Lets not forget that a lot of people today are abusing opiate/painkillers. I'm not sure how much experience people around here have with that but I can tell you that the withdrawals of that can make you feel arbitrarily suicidal ( by that I mean for no personal reason at all) and also gives you a strong feeling of impending doom. I don't mean a little bit I mean like that's all you can think and feel for about a week of withdrawals.

So combine that info above with a person who already has a negative view of society and their own place in it, mix in a massive sense of disappointment in where they are when society raised them to believe they were special. Then add access to guns and yearning to end it all while going out with a bang....

I think this is something that should be brought up more. The problem isn't just one thing its a mishmash of bad decisions on how we should develop youth in our society and how we live our daily lives (ie. whats important). There is no quick fix.
__________________
"Do what I do in every friendship and relationship, give 5%" - Ron Bennington
TooPurePureBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 16:30   Link #26090
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
In the meantime, the NRA is salivating over the prospect of increased gun sales and membership. Keep up those shootings, kids.

But in all seriousness:


Quote:
Originally Posted by willx
We can always do better .. but society needs to figure out it's priorities.
In America, guns are rights. Healthcare is a privilege.

Someone tell me what is wrong with that?

Last edited by Kyuu; 2013-01-31 at 17:20.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 16:43   Link #26091
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
In America, guns are rights. Healthcare is a privilege.

Someone tell me what is wrong with that?
That was willx who said that, not me, and he wasn't saying it in a healthcare vs. guns sense. He was talking about the limits of a society's ability to help people. I think we do have some obligation, but I agree with him that there are limits, and I'd add my personal caveat that we need to remember human beings are not homogenous and certain 'mental illnesses' as we seem them from a modern perspective are really just different traits from different people (see above post).
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 17:45   Link #26092
AnimeFan188
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
In Salafis wake, charred Malian heritage in Timbuktu:

"The first thing Islamist militants did upon commandeering Timbuktu’s Ahmed
Baba Institute for Higher Learning and Islamic Research last April was change the
locks. Their parting act last week was to burn some of the institute’s medieval
manuscripts."

See:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...gory-storyList
AnimeFan188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 21:25   Link #26093
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
I saw this and looked up at the thread title to make sure I wasn't in the "A Laugh a Day" thread.
don't be ridiculous, if it had been that thread, I'd have posted this.



BEST KOREA STRONG!
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 21:35   Link #26094
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
Does that statistic on the "number of gun owners" adjust for population growth? If not, it's meaningless.
Yes, it comes from Gallup.
Here is it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

Quote:
I don't know where that statistic comes from, but it's not supported in the data from reliable survey organizations like the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. As I show in my blog, the proportion of people living in gun-owning households has declined in every generation following the one that came of age after the Second World War.
That's assuming that correspondants are willing to divulge they own a firearm.
Many, I'd suggest most, probably are not willing to tell a survey they own a gun, so the data is skewed no matter who is attempting to acquire it.

Quote:
On the subject of women, they still are less likely to live in households where guns are present, and when they do live in a gun-owning household they are typically not the gunowners themselves. The lowest rates of personal gun ownership occur among women living in households where children are present. Only five percent of unmarried women living in multi-member households with children present own a gun personally. These results are based on my tabulations from the 2010 General Social Survey which I have yet to publish in my blog. I've seen other comments about women taking up guns, but they are largely anecdotal. The presence of a man in the household is one of the strongest predictors of whether there will also be a gun present.

Personally I think the focus on assault weapons is understandable but misguided. The real issue is handguns, but no one is advocating policies that would do much about those.
The blog you are using is certainly interesting, however, it is far from the only source of information available. Though I do commend his attempt at objectivity, I'd like to know more about his political views in order to get a better idea of where he stands.
I agree on handguns, especially the .22 and .38 caliber pistols since those are still the most commonly used weapons in violent crime.
Considering the FBI criminal data for 2010, hands, feet and fists are potentially used more in murder than rifles (assuming the "unknown guns" don't include rifles, though I'd say the only weapons that would be "unknown" would be zip guns, or shotguns) and of rifles semiautomatic "assault weapons" make up less than 1%.



So clearly the call to ban such weapons is not just misguided it is outlandish.
Therefore the whole idea of banning any firearm for the purpose of reducing crime is an excercise in futility. Revolvers are the most common weapons used in violent crime and there are millions of them out there in the black market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
These drugs are DANGEROUS and I am sick and tired of people brushing away this viewpoint so quickly. Maybe they should try being put on these ineffective, mind-altering medications themselves and see what it's like before they decide to quickly discard the notion that they aren't a part of the problem..... We really are living in a pill-popping, medically naive culture.
Thank you for sharing that ChainLegacy, and I agree with you.
We need to start taking a very serious look at Big-Pharma and the effects of these drugs.
Too many of these shooters were on psychotropics for this to be ignored.
Write, email, or call your congressman and let them know how you feel and that you want them to investigate this.
I'm drafting an email to send to my senators that suggests that (been bugging the hell out of them for weeks ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuu View Post
In the meantime, the NRA is salivating over the prospect of increased gun sales and membership. Keep up those shootings, kids.

But in all seriousness:
I wouldn't trust what a poster like that says due to the fact he/she used an ad hominem at the end of the post. It shows a lack of integrity that someone with 43 (? how did he/she manage that since retirement age is 45 and maximum age allowed is 60, and with 43 years in he/she would be 61 if they enlisted at age 18) years of military experience simply would not do. Also, 25 years in combat arms? No military individual is going to say something like that. They'll tell you what they did: infantry, artillery, etc. I served in the USAF as a thermonuclear weapon specialist, and I cry BS on that post.

That altercation was on school grounds (not inside the school), and was between two students only.
The armed Resource Officer at the school talked down the boy with the gun.
Guess that just shows how to deal with an active shooter on campus, an armed active defender.
Notice that the propaganda piece at Huffpost doesn't tell you what the local news does.

Police: Teen shot by fellow student at Ga. school
http://www.wral.com/police-teen-shot...hool/12050593/

Guess that proves the NRA and Bill Clinton are correct.

Quote:
In America, guns are rights. Healthcare is a privilege.

Someone tell me what is wrong with that?
Healthcare should become a right, but in order for that to happen the constitution must be amended and the right to healthcare must be declared.
Until that happens, it is a privilege, which you and I both seem to feel is wrong.


__________________________________________________ ______________

Back to the situation with Syria.
Does anybody else here think this is starting to get out of control?
Israel wants to "hit them again?"

Israel may feel need to strike Syria again
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-31-17-55-58
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 21:51   Link #26095
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Also, 25 years in combat arms? No military individual is going to say something like that. They'll tell you what they did: infantry, artillery, etc. I served in the USAF as a thermonuclear weapon specialist, and I cry BS on that post.
Lol yea, when I saw that I was like "wtf does that even mean?"

Also calling BS on him staying in for 43 years as an E8 - which reminds me, he should go back to bootcamp and learn how to properly spell his rank.

Actually, I'll just call BS on his entire military credential period.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 22:14   Link #26096
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
The blog you are using is certainly interesting, however, it is far from the only source of information available. Though I do commend his attempt at objectivity, I'd like to know more about his political views in order to get a better idea of where he stands.
Well since it is my blog you can draw whatever conclusions you like about my political opinions.

As for Gallup, I have come to trust them less and less, especially after their poor performance in the 2012 election. (I have some articles about that on my blog as well.) Gallup's sample for the November election skewed older and whiter than the actual electorate, and both of those are characteristics that correlate with gun ownership. Just today I was reading a piece by John Sides that uses the YouGov surveys which report an ownership figure of 35%, much closer to the 33% that the 2010 General Social Survey reports. YouGov's polling was much pretty much on target in the 2012 election. I've been thinking about writing a piece that compares different estimates of gun ownership rates. I would not be surprised to discover that Gallup is an outlier in the positive direction.

NORC conducts in-home interviews for the General Social Survey and draws its sample using multi-stage geographic methods that are the norm in academic survey research. I'd trust them over most telephone-based surveys any day. The GSS is seen as the "gold standard" for measurement of gun ownership rates by most serious researchers in the field.

I also think that respondents are more willing to tell the truth than you seem to believe, especially when they have agreed to speak with an interviewer in the privacy of their own homes. Attacking the validity of sampling methods and respondent behaviors is a common reaction by people who do not like what the data tell them. I'm not saying you fall into this category, but it's not a very persuasive argument to someone like me with years of experience analyzing political and social survey data.
__________________

Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2013-01-31 at 22:54.
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 22:33   Link #26097
Dr. Casey
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tennessee
Age: 26
kyp, Gundam - He might have meant that he was in the army across 43 years (for example, 1950 to 1992). That would make it possible for what he said to be consistent with the maximum tenure of age 18 to 60.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seiji
Attacking the validity of sampling methods and respondent behaviors is a common reaction by people who do not like what the data tell them.
I guess I'm guilty of that, because I've always thought it suspect that, according to polls, 50% of all women are arachnophobic, but only 10% of men are. D: I've always wondered if maybe some of the men are ashamed to admit it or something. It seems weird that an entire half of one gender would be afraid of something, but only one-tenth of the other would feel the same.
Dr. Casey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 22:37   Link #26098
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
My daughter doesn't like spiders either, and she has no explanation for why she feels that way. In fact she finds her reaction quite puzzling. She certainly did not learn it from me, and since her mother did not live with us for most of her life, she didn't learn it from her mom either.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-31, 22:55   Link #26099
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 29
Arachonophobic is perhaps too strong a word since it defines an extreme illogical fear. So, while perhaps you can say that 50% of women don't like or fear spiders, I suspect that much fewer are actually holding a phobia.

Which casts light on the problems regarding biased terminologies used in research. I've encountered a few of that going through medical journals.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-01, 00:13   Link #26100
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
^ Yep, a phobia is way beyond an "ugh, yukie" reaction, I once knew someone who had a phobia to cockroaches and once I witnessed his reaction to one such bug, it was totally irrational, like if his button for run (in the attack or run response) was pressed instantly and HARD.
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.