This
I believe that says "nearly 100%"
Wait. Let me check.
Ah yes, yes it does.
This
In science, to do a proper statistical analysis, you're supposed to choose the cutoff for your decision prior to looking at the data. Otherwise the data can influence and bias you when you go to make your decision. (At least that's what we statisticians keep telling experimentalists, but do they ever listen? Noooo.) This is the way we apply statistics to all sciences, including the business and social sciences. When you go to look at the data, no matter what it is, you can end up saying "see, this is too much!" I want to get an idea of what you think is an appropriate cutoff before you look at the data.
My political science professors would be appalled by this statement. We were taught to be quite rigorous in our use of statistics, thank you very much.Theoretically. But I'm talking about looking at a real problem, not making a completely theoretical scientific analysis. I'd like to see the general trends in the data before choosing exactly how to approach it. It doesn't have to fit all cases of similar data sets, remember. It's more of a business or social science approach.
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."
I think there is a middle road here, depending on how men flying feel about it, yes.
I believe that says "nearly 100%"
Wait. Let me check.
Ah yes, yes it does.
My political science professors would be appalled by this statement. We were taught to be quite rigorous in our use of statistics, thank you very much.
I think society is paranoid. I think this whole business is paranoid.Are you actually calling me paranoid?
Ah of course, nearly. What is that, 99.9, 99.8?
Man =/= child-molester.But worldwide, don't men earn it?
It's more "there is no evidence that it has ever occurred but it is not physically impossible."
No evidence that a woman has sexually abused a child, or just not on an airplane?
Yup, I agree."The problem is it puts men in the position of either accepting the nasty accusations/assumptions that their maleness makes them sexually crave and violate children, or refusing to put precious, vulnerable children ahead of their own pride. It's a lose-lose proposition for them.
Further, it teaches children (by example) then men simply cannot be trusted and want nothing more than to be allowed in close proximity to them so they can take advantage in sick and twisted ways.
And even further, it sticks women in the role of unwitting caretakers of stranger's children on planes.
In other words, it's fucked up.
missesdash;752256 Take a wild guess[/QUOTE said:No guessing allowed. But I assume you agree they exist, and at some point they will probably fly to... wherever pedophiles fly. So then it's just a matter of time.
the last time, an apparently reached-the-end-of-her-tether mother in my seat row handed me her endlessly screaming baby and walked away.
The risks I see are discriminating against men. If men were OK with that to a certain percentage, it reduces the number of cases needed to make that decision.
I'd have to survey flying men to begin to do a real analysis.
It really bothers me to lump an entire gender into a criminal category. The rule goes too far, I believe. I hope guys don't think that all women believe men are going to molest children. I certainly don't.
Besides, whose to say women are any safer?
Best to teach our kids to scream, kick, and punch if someone ever touches them inappropriately.
If studies showed certain races were statically more prone to certain crimes, it wouldn't justify racism.