Newsgroups: soc.college
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:17:49 -0400 
From: Erik Warren Selberg <es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: fraternities
	<1992Apr14.172812.1816@cbfsb.cb.att.com>

weird@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (john.t.erhardt) writes:
> But you are X number of times more likely to rape.  I dont know

Do you know me?  Do you know who I am, what I think, and how I view
life?  I don't think so.  Therefore, I don't think you can say that
I'm X number of times more likely to rape someone than yourself.

> much about statistics but they do seem to quatify those things in life
> that are easily generalized.  As long as the statistical analysis is done
> by a reputable firm, professor, or committee, we should have good reason
> to believe their findings are true.  And since history repeats
itself,

No, reuptable firms, professors, and committees (a) make mistakes and
(b) aren't necessarily modeling the true state of things.  I happen to
know a statistic that says in 1990 Utah spent the highest percent of its
local income tax on education.  This might imply that Utah spent the
most on its students, that it had good schools, or all sorts of
things.  The truth is it did, but because Utah has so many students,
it ends up spending the LEAST AMOUNT PER STUDENT in the 50 states.
But the original statistic still sounds like a good supporting
argument for why you should move to Utah.

> I conclude that as fraternity members have raped in the past, they will
> rape again.

Good logic here.
I conclude that as we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, we will do
so again.

I conclude that as we were at war with the UK TWICE, we will do so
again.

I conclude that as we once captured Africans and put them into slavery
that we will do so again.

(by the way, if this wasn't sarcastic enough:)
I conclude that random schleppies like yourself off the street have
raped in the past, they will rape again.

> We're not generalizing here, we're (at least I am) basing our conclusions
> on evidence.  This includes the the university of Illinois study which 
> I heard on a documentary.

Yes, you are.  You're stating that ALL FRATERNITY MEMBERS are more
likely to commit rape.  The all is the generalizing agent.  What
you're doing is using a model which may or may not be correct and
trying to fit it to everything.  The simple truth of the matter is
that any given fraternity member is not anymore likely to rape someone
than anyone else.  Reason?  The only thing that anyone has suggested
to be a cause for a higher probability of rape is a "gang-mentality"
attitude, you know, the kind usually found in gangs.  Thus, any
organization that banded together (ie clique) could be considered in
the same light as a fraternity.  Thus, if you are in a group of close
friends, by the logic used on fraternities, you have a much higher
probability of raping someone than some independent schleppy, as you
are subject to peer-pressure and all that other great stuff.

Yes, fraternity members rape women.  However, there is no causal
evidence to support that a fraternity member is a rapist.  Therefore,
I ask again that you stop calling us such.

enjoy,
	Erik


for a good time, call                       _____            __   ___ 
(412) 268-5534 (CMU-5-KEG)                 /__    /   /  /  /_/  /__
$5.00 / min., $25 minimum                 /      /_  /__/  /    ___/ @cmu.edu

Xref: sparky soc.college:1794 soc.net-people:528 news.answers:1005