How can you have someone trained to handle rare/unique cases?
...
You train them to handle rare and unique cases.
I'm not sure how much more I can break it down than that. I'm kind of parsing your question as I would somebody asking, "How does 2+2 equal 4?" That's not meant to be an insult, I'm just having trouble understanding where the disconnect is.
Well like you said, support networks are always going to have limited resources. Maybe I should have said "How can you expect a system to devote as much resources to one person as to one hundred?"
Well like you said, support networks are always going to have limited resources. Maybe I should have said "How can you expect a system to devote as much resources to one person as to one hundred?"
I don't want to get too far into the economics of social support systems because then we'll probably diverge into a welfare state debate, but it basically boils down to a few things: pretty much any case can be handled through a combination of housing & basic needs, medical care, psychiatric care, and drug treatment; all it takes is determining what combination of the above is necessary for any given case. Social services programs scale very very well; it does not take 10x the resources to create a safety net that will support 1,000 as it does to support 100 (even when taking into account the special needs cases like Oboro and I were talking about); and if my country in particular took even a fraction of the amount of money we spent on ohidunno missile defense we could make sweeping improvements to our social safety network except for all the dittoheads screaming "zomg socialism!"
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I really don't think that homosexuals need specific abuse centres.
According to the last census, homosexual males have the least outlets for support when seeking reprieve from an abusive relationship.
How in the world do you measure something like this? o_O
Even then, given that there are simply per-capita less homosexual males and likely therefore less homosexual male abusive relationships, can't this statistic be discarded? It's useless without context.
Feral just stated support services scale well, which means the actual number is largely irrelevant (unless it's trivially small), the only question is whether the need exists in the first place. And apparently it does.
I really don't think that homosexuals need specific abuse centres.
According to the last census, homosexual males have the least outlets for support when seeking reprieve from an abusive relationship.
How in the world do you measure something like this? o_O
Even then, given that there are simply per-capita less homosexual males and likely therefore less homosexual male abusive relationships, can't this statistic be discarded? It's useless without context.
It's not without context. It's a fucking census, the context is the entire population of the United States. And given how many Americans still believe homosexuality is a choice (that's what you get for deciding to be gay hyuck-hyuck) coupled with the whole "ololz men don't cry" thing that doesn't go away just because someone's gay I'm not sure why anyone would have trouble believing that gay men would have very few outlets for support here, varying by city to a degree.
I really don't think that homosexuals need specific abuse centres.
According to the last census, homosexual males have the least outlets for support when seeking reprieve from an abusive relationship.
How in the world do you measure something like this? o_O
Even then, given that there are simply per-capita less homosexual males and likely therefore less homosexual male abusive relationships, can't this statistic be discarded? It's useless without context.
It's not without context. It's a fucking census, the context is the entire population of the United States. And given how many Americans still believe homosexuality is a choice (that's what you get for deciding to be gay hyuck-hyuck) coupled with the whole "ololz men don't cry" thing that doesn't go away just because someone's gay I'm not sure why anyone would have trouble believing that gay men would have very few outlets for support here, varying by city to a degree.
That is not the context I was talking about, but thank you. The context I was referring to was the number of 'outlets' relative to the surveyed population of homosexual males. Unless the figure they're giving us is already a ratio, it is without context and patently useless as anything other than a sound byte.
Also, I'm making the assumption that if the number of 'outlets' was almost zero it would be stated thusly and not just as the least of all possible categorizations of outlets. It's also important to figure out if they are considering outlets which specifically cater to homosexual men as the only valid statistic, or if they are also counting more generic 'outlets' for men -- homosexual or not.
I really don't think that homosexuals need specific abuse centres.
According to the last census, homosexual males have the least outlets for support when seeking reprieve from an abusive relationship.
How in the world do you measure something like this? o_O
Even then, given that there are simply per-capita less homosexual males and likely therefore less homosexual male abusive relationships, can't this statistic be discarded? It's useless without context.
It's not without context. It's a fucking census, the context is the entire population of the United States. And given how many Americans still believe homosexuality is a choice (that's what you get for deciding to be gay hyuck-hyuck) coupled with the whole "ololz men don't cry" thing that doesn't go away just because someone's gay I'm not sure why anyone would have trouble believing that gay men would have very few outlets for support here, varying by city to a degree.
That is not the context I was talking about, but thank you. The context I was referring to was the number of 'outlets' relative to the surveyed population of homosexual males. Unless the figure they're giving us is already a ratio, it is without context and patently useless as anything other than a sound byte.
Also, I'm making the assumption that if the number of 'outlets' was almost zero it would be stated thusly and not just as the least of all possible categorizations of outlets. It's also important to figure out if they are considering outlets which specifically cater to homosexual men as the only valid statistic, or if they are also counting more generic 'outlets' for men -- homosexual or not.
Given that it's a census you can look it up for free if you really believe that gay men have plenty of outlets already.
I don't believe that, and I'm frankly offended that you think I do. All I did was criticize the use of a 'statistic' that has absolutely no value as presented. What I'd really like is for you to look it up, or simply dismiss all of the reasons why I stated what I did -- given that you're the one here attacking my statement, which seems to be the one far more grounded in reason.
I have no desire nor need to look it up. I can pretty well guess where that conclusion came from because I've seen a census before and I have no reason to doubt the claim since it makes perfect sense, and I don't see how casting doubt on the claim can do anything but hurt people. I'm not going to go out of my way to find an argument against providing more means of support to people.
So, we have the least support outlets for homosexual men and you won't be satisfied until there's just as many as there are for every other demographic?
This isn't a strawman. This is simply a translation of what you're saying. And, you know, since you've pointed out the limitations of finite resources in other threads, I think that you'd be aware of them in this one also and why I believe that the statistic cited is without merit until we have some sort of information on how it is represented in terms of a ratio, and as compared to the other demographics for this particular factoid.
Anyway, I'm at the US Census Bureau site and I can't find any information related to anything remotely related to this, but I'll broaden my search to 3rd-party sites that would catalog this sort of thing.
EDIT: I'm not finding anything. Fellhand, if you're still with us, could you cite? I just want more context about what you said.
Fine, statistic thrown out, gay men have plenty of outlets for support. I'm not interested in making your argument for you so I'm just going to drop it.
Anyway, I'm at the US Census Bureau site and I can't find any information related to anything remotely related to this, but I'll broaden my search to 3rd-party sites that would catalog this sort of thing.
I tried finding it on the census page earlier after your reply and tried googling for the article, but came up with nothing. I think the article was from 2002 or 2003.
Edit: I know that two examples of support that were listed in the article were churches and shelters. There were others, but those two are the ones I remember the most and made the most sense to me when I read the article because of religions' take on homosexuality and, as someone mentioned earlier, that homosexuals fall out of the nomal category of "woman abused by her male spouse" for shelters.
This isn't about whether or not they have plenty of outlets, or whether the amount of outlets at present is satisfactory. Again, your insinuation that I'm lashing out against gays or against support outlets for gays is frustrating. I'm trying to get more information so that I can have an informed opinion, while you're content to do nothing more than make accusations and snipe from the sidelines. What you're doing is trolling, plain and simple -- what I'm trying to do is point out a faulty statistic due to its being without context and comprised of vague language, and just get more information.
I don't see why you need to make it into a thing when all I want is more information to help the conversation follow a rational and well-reasoned path.
EDIT: Well, I'm giving up. The only relevant facts I've found are multiple citations of "incidence of abuse is the same in homosexual relationships as heterosexual," but because of the large gap between those two figures -- especially nationwide, as a census would measure -- it is expected and probably proper that more support outlets exist for heterosexuals. Again, this is why I ask for context; it's impossible to glean anything from the facts as we have them.
Since when has the census covered the number of domestic abuse centres? That's the context Oboro was asking for.
It's worth pointing out that the US census doesn't even record sexual orientation. The only data it collects in that sphere is gleaned through noting incidents where a claimed-partner is same-sex.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
If we had abused women's shelters and abused men's shelters, where would you have abused trangendered people go? Would those shelters be reserved for the cisgendered? The binary stratification of services like this is really uncomfortable for me and others in my position, a demographic which also could sorely use them but has a very hard time scaring up the funding on our own -- and when we do get the funding, those centers often close because of lack of use (though even that lack of use is a complicated issue).
EDIT: This is just a question of curiosity for The Cat, and I guess anyone else; sorry if it's a bit too tangential, but we've gone so far astray from the topic I can't really be bothered. ;D
Wherever you felt comfortable, I guess. The gender separation part of DV shelters is just a matter of practicality, since the women in them are so often pursued violently. Anyway, how strict a shelter is about this stuff really depends on who's running it - some just keep names and photos of relatives to watch for, but I've heard of ones that don't even allow male children over a certain age to stay, because a lot of the women in those places are at a stage where they freak out at the sight of a guy, or at least become likely to up and leave because they feel uncomfortable (and then they have nowhere). Getting those women past that stage is held to be a more important use of the shelter's resources.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
A few of the studies I've seen have shown that the incidence rates among female to male violence and male to female violence tend to be within a few percentage points of each other. And you have a few studies on either side that tend to shift in one way or another.
If we had abused women's shelters and abused men's shelters, where would you have abused trangendered people go? Would those shelters be reserved for the cisgendered? The binary stratification of services like this is really uncomfortable for me and others in my position, a demographic which also could sorely use them but has a very hard time scaring up the funding on our own -- and when we do get the funding, those centers often close because of lack of use (though even that lack of use is a complicated issue).
EDIT: This is just a question of curiosity for The Cat, and I guess anyone else; sorry if it's a bit too tangential, but we've gone so far astray from the topic I can't really be bothered. ;D
Wherever you felt comfortable, I guess. The gender separation part of DV shelters is just a matter of practicality, since the women in them are so often pursued violently. Anyway, how strict a shelter is about this stuff really depends on who's running it - some just keep names and photos of relatives to watch for, but I've heard of ones that don't even allow male children over a certain age to stay, because a lot of the women in those places are at a stage where they freak out at the sight of a guy, or at least become likely to up and leave because they feel uncomfortable (and then they have nowhere). Getting those women past that stage is held to be a more important use of the shelter's resources.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you're all assuming these shelters will be majority occupied by gay men. In other threads like this, there've always been posters at great pains to argue that straight men are abused 'just as much' by women as the other way around and thus must have shelter access. The perception from the past few posts, however, seems to suggest a tacit acceptance that men still do most of the physical abusing, and other men will be the victims. Someone care to make a coherent position on this?
A few of the studies I've seen have shown that the incidence rates among female to male violence and male to female violence tend to be within a few percentage points of each other. And you have a few studies on either side that tend to shift in one way or another.
But the public perception is that males are the aggressors and females the victims.
The perception is there for the same reason that we hear more about problematic bull-breeds than terriers (which are batshit) and dalmatians (chemically speaking, dalmatians have problems): men are, as things stand, much more effective damage dealers. This difference is shrinking, as is the difference in incidence, which is, in some ways, encouraging, as the incidence of passage of the violence mark indicates where the average assertiveness and strength is (given a constant standard deviation, of course).
There are kind of interesting stories briefly mentioned in the Boston Globe:
ALTHOUGH GIRLS SEEM to be doing better than boys in school nowadays, there is still a lot of concern that girls are being discouraged from pursuing degrees and careers that boys have traditionally dominated. To see if such a bias could be systematically quantified, an economist analyzed testing data for public high-school students in Israel, where students were given two tests for each of their core subjects. One test was graded anonymously by the state, and another was graded non-anonymously by the student's teacher. The girls got a boost when the grader knew who they were. (They also did better than the boys on the anonymously graded tests, but the margin was smaller.) The bias was widespread and appeared to be a result of teacher-specific attitudes.
Lavy, V., "Do Gender Stereotypes Reduce Girls' or Boys' Human Capital Outcomes? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of Public Economics (forthcoming).
. . .
WE ALL KNOW that sex sells. But a new study shows that it also does something else: it makes men impatient. A team of researchers conducted several experiments where men were either exposed to neutral stimuli or to sexual stimuli, by looking at images of sexy women or just being in the presence of a bra. The men were then asked how much they would trade off a reward - money, or even soda or candy - today for a reward in the future. Men who were exposed to a sexual stimulus were more impatient to get their reward today. The researchers also found that making men feel poor - by forcing them to compare their own wealth against a much bigger benchmark - exacerbated the impatience effect.
Van den Bergh, B. et al., "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Consumer Research (June 2008).
The perception is there for the same reason that we hear more about problematic bull-breeds than terriers (which are batshit) and dalmatians (chemically speaking, dalmatians have problems): men are, as things stand, much more effective damage dealers. This difference is shrinking, as is the difference in incidence, which is, in some ways, encouraging, as the incidence of passage of the violence mark indicates where the average assertiveness and strength is (given a constant standard deviation, of course).
There are kind of interesting stories briefly mentioned in the Boston Globe:
ALTHOUGH GIRLS SEEM to be doing better than boys in school nowadays, there is still a lot of concern that girls are being discouraged from pursuing degrees and careers that boys have traditionally dominated. To see if such a bias could be systematically quantified, an economist analyzed testing data for public high-school students in Israel, where students were given two tests for each of their core subjects. One test was graded anonymously by the state, and another was graded non-anonymously by the student's teacher. The girls got a boost when the grader knew who they were. (They also did better than the boys on the anonymously graded tests, but the margin was smaller.) The bias was widespread and appeared to be a result of teacher-specific attitudes.
Lavy, V., "Do Gender Stereotypes Reduce Girls' or Boys' Human Capital Outcomes? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of Public Economics (forthcoming).
. . .
WE ALL KNOW that sex sells. But a new study shows that it also does something else: it makes men impatient. A team of researchers conducted several experiments where men were either exposed to neutral stimuli or to sexual stimuli, by looking at images of sexy women or just being in the presence of a bra. The men were then asked how much they would trade off a reward - money, or even soda or candy - today for a reward in the future. Men who were exposed to a sexual stimulus were more impatient to get their reward today. The researchers also found that making men feel poor - by forcing them to compare their own wealth against a much bigger benchmark - exacerbated the impatience effect.
Van den Bergh, B. et al., "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Consumer Research (June 2008).
The only problem with your theory is that most of the studies have shown women are much, much more likely to use a weapon in an attack then a male. Weapons are far, far more likely to lead to a fatality then bare hands. Again, it's a matter of perception rather then reality.
The fact is, women make much worse fighter pilots so a matriarch society wouldn't last against a patriarch society. The simple logic is that we men are born with a joystick between our legs and play games with it 3-5 times a day. We just get more practice. It has nothing to do with culture. Therefore roles in society are obviously driven by genetic makeup.
I'm pretty sure that's a joke, but I'm also pretty sure Hembot makes incredibly silly posts.
Care to explain your statement at all, Hembot? I mean... because obviously wanking isn't exactly conducive to flying a jet... and jet aces aren't exactly a major part of the modern military.
Edit: Okay... oddly flat internet sarcasm it is. Good on you, Hembot.
I just think it's obvious that men are more apt to being excellent fighter pilots, butter churners, and any job requiring a good solid grip to succeed.
The fact is, women make much worse fighter pilots so a matriarch society wouldn't last against a patriarch society. The simple logic is that we men are born with a joystick between our legs and play games with it 3-5 times a day. We just get more practice. It has nothing to do with culture. Therefore roles in society are obviously driven by genetic makeup.
Maybe that's how it used to be, but these days wars are won by pushing buttons.
The fact is, women make much worse fighter pilots so a matriarch society wouldn't last against a patriarch society. The simple logic is that we men are born with a joystick between our legs and play games with it 3-5 times a day. We just get more practice. It has nothing to do with culture. Therefore roles in society are obviously driven by genetic makeup.
Maybe that's how it used to be, but these days wars are won by pushing buttons.
The fact is, women make much worse fighter pilots so a matriarch society wouldn't last against a patriarch society. The simple logic is that we men are born with a joystick between our legs and play games with it 3-5 times a day. We just get more practice. It has nothing to do with culture. Therefore roles in society are obviously driven by genetic makeup.
I dunno man, my aunt was pretty hardcore into TIE Fighter. And sex. I bet she's spent more time handling joysticks than I have.
I just think it's obvious that men are more apt to being excellent fighter pilots, butter churners, and any job requiring a good solid grip to succeed.
Men are also adept at working levers.
there are times I wish we had reward cards to give out as well as infraction cards. This is hilarious :P
Although clearly brought up in a humorous fashion, I recall reading somewhere that women who qualified as fighter pilots based on skill and successful training (as with anyone) would have the potential to be even better then many men, based on how their bodies handle the stresses of high G acceleration and maneuvers.
That, of course, may be pure bullshit, and I cannot cite my source. Just something I remember reading a while back.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
Just like gay men and French and Italians can all be more kissy and huggy than a WASP, on average.
It's not universal, but it's hardly a wild outlier.
Well like you said, support networks are always going to have limited resources. Maybe I should have said "How can you expect a system to devote as much resources to one person as to one hundred?"
https://medium.com/@alascii
I don't want to get too far into the economics of social support systems because then we'll probably diverge into a welfare state debate, but it basically boils down to a few things: pretty much any case can be handled through a combination of housing & basic needs, medical care, psychiatric care, and drug treatment; all it takes is determining what combination of the above is necessary for any given case. Social services programs scale very very well; it does not take 10x the resources to create a safety net that will support 1,000 as it does to support 100 (even when taking into account the special needs cases like Oboro and I were talking about); and if my country in particular took even a fraction of the amount of money we spent on ohidunno missile defense we could make sweeping improvements to our social safety network except for all the dittoheads screaming "zomg socialism!"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
According to the last census, homosexual males have the least outlets for support when seeking reprieve from an abusive relationship.
Even then, given that there are simply per-capita less homosexual males and likely therefore less homosexual male abusive relationships, can't this statistic be discarded? It's useless without context.
It's not without context. It's a fucking census, the context is the entire population of the United States. And given how many Americans still believe homosexuality is a choice (that's what you get for deciding to be gay hyuck-hyuck) coupled with the whole "ololz men don't cry" thing that doesn't go away just because someone's gay I'm not sure why anyone would have trouble believing that gay men would have very few outlets for support here, varying by city to a degree.
Also, I'm making the assumption that if the number of 'outlets' was almost zero it would be stated thusly and not just as the least of all possible categorizations of outlets. It's also important to figure out if they are considering outlets which specifically cater to homosexual men as the only valid statistic, or if they are also counting more generic 'outlets' for men -- homosexual or not.
Given that it's a census you can look it up for free if you really believe that gay men have plenty of outlets already.
This isn't a strawman. This is simply a translation of what you're saying. And, you know, since you've pointed out the limitations of finite resources in other threads, I think that you'd be aware of them in this one also and why I believe that the statistic cited is without merit until we have some sort of information on how it is represented in terms of a ratio, and as compared to the other demographics for this particular factoid.
Anyway, I'm at the US Census Bureau site and I can't find any information related to anything remotely related to this, but I'll broaden my search to 3rd-party sites that would catalog this sort of thing.
EDIT: I'm not finding anything. Fellhand, if you're still with us, could you cite? I just want more context about what you said.
I tried finding it on the census page earlier after your reply and tried googling for the article, but came up with nothing. I think the article was from 2002 or 2003.
Edit: I know that two examples of support that were listed in the article were churches and shelters. There were others, but those two are the ones I remember the most and made the most sense to me when I read the article because of religions' take on homosexuality and, as someone mentioned earlier, that homosexuals fall out of the nomal category of "woman abused by her male spouse" for shelters.
I don't see why you need to make it into a thing when all I want is more information to help the conversation follow a rational and well-reasoned path.
EDIT: Well, I'm giving up. The only relevant facts I've found are multiple citations of "incidence of abuse is the same in homosexual relationships as heterosexual," but because of the large gap between those two figures -- especially nationwide, as a census would measure -- it is expected and probably proper that more support outlets exist for heterosexuals. Again, this is why I ask for context; it's impossible to glean anything from the facts as we have them.
It's worth pointing out that the US census doesn't even record sexual orientation. The only data it collects in that sphere is gleaned through noting incidents where a claimed-partner is same-sex.
A few of the studies I've seen have shown that the incidence rates among female to male violence and male to female violence tend to be within a few percentage points of each other. And you have a few studies on either side that tend to shift in one way or another.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Has a referance biblography if anyone wants to do the reading.
But the public perception is that males are the aggressors and females the victims.
The perception is there for the same reason that we hear more about problematic bull-breeds than terriers (which are batshit) and dalmatians (chemically speaking, dalmatians have problems): men are, as things stand, much more effective damage dealers. This difference is shrinking, as is the difference in incidence, which is, in some ways, encouraging, as the incidence of passage of the violence mark indicates where the average assertiveness and strength is (given a constant standard deviation, of course).
There are kind of interesting stories briefly mentioned in the Boston Globe:
The only problem with your theory is that most of the studies have shown women are much, much more likely to use a weapon in an attack then a male. Weapons are far, far more likely to lead to a fatality then bare hands. Again, it's a matter of perception rather then reality.
Care to explain your statement at all, Hembot? I mean... because obviously wanking isn't exactly conducive to flying a jet... and jet aces aren't exactly a major part of the modern military.
Edit: Okay... oddly flat internet sarcasm it is. Good on you, Hembot.
Men are also adept at working levers.
Maybe that's how it used to be, but these days wars are won by pushing buttons.
...and gently squeezing triggers.
I dunno man, my aunt was pretty hardcore into TIE Fighter. And sex. I bet she's spent more time handling joysticks than I have.
there are times I wish we had reward cards to give out as well as infraction cards. This is hilarious :P
That, of course, may be pure bullshit, and I cannot cite my source. Just something I remember reading a while back.