| Author |
Message |
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 11:35 am 
Kitt,
This is what I said in my post just prior to yours:
And yes, you are correct, you must look at how the study was done, the methodology, to see how reliable it is.
And yes, I have done that with these various studies. In fact, I have even posted at times where I say there may be some flaws.
So, I fail to see where I was saying that wasn't so.
In fact, the number I used (50%) was one of the LOWEST of the various studies I looked at. They ranged from 40% to 73% for sibling sexual activity. However, in my review, it was the most reliable of those studies, because it was a review of pediatricians reporting based on *regular* pediatric checkups. Not social services. Not a disadvantaged population. Not a specific religious group.
And don't misunderstand the words "sibling sexual activity", it includes everything from playing doctor to inappropriate behavior to abuse.
I'm sorry if I"m testy, but I get a bit neurotic on those rare occasions where I think I am being quite clear, and still misunderstood. 
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 11:35 am
Thanks, OG! 
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 12:34 pm
It was your post to Mambatsy, Kar. Your "So, trust it but don't trust it? I"m sorry, that makes no sense to me" when, to my reading, Mambatsy was saying that you trust the maths/science but don't trust the people part of statistics. You seemed to disagree or not understand what she was saying, so I was elaborating on her point in the hope of clarifying.
Anyway, no matter.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 1:31 pm
Yes, Kitt, that was the exact same post I just requoted.
Mambatsy was saying that you trust the maths/science but don't trust the people part of statistics.
I understood completely what she was saying.. and I rejected it, because she originally said it was all a lie (statistics lie... plain and simple). You shouldn't blindly trust either one frankly. People manipulate the math and the science, if they have motive to do so. But my experience in University, is that the majority of people do not do that, and at least at my University there were many safeguards in place to prevent it. And finally, regarding this particular issue, it defies common sense to say that on any significant scale, people would lie and say there WAS sibling sexual activity if there wasn't. In fact, the opposite is more likely true, that people would deny it when it did exist.
My overarching point, throughout my posts here, for days now, has been that personal experience is valid and interesting, but it CANNOT be extrapolated to the population, as people are often naturally inclined to do.
If you are going to make statements regarding the population, you need to be versed in the actual research, as well as evaluating particular research for its own validity, ie, not all research is valid. But overall, research is more valid than imposing your personal experience as it if were true in all cases.
And also, that is perfectly acceptable to reject an opinion as being representative when it contradicts the research and current understandings of the professional community.
And... finally, the professional community as well must be evaluated. As I've noted, the trend in all treatment tends to be to ignore something until we can't ignore it any more, and then the pendulum swings to an over-reaction before it becomes more balanced.
Because sibling incest has been virtually ignored for decades, now that it is coming more to light, some of the professional community has swung to an over-reactive mode - where perpetrators are pedophiles (which is entirely the wrong word), and deviant and ought to be on the sex registry, without bothering to do a serious consideration of individual cases; and ignoring that teen sex offenders are highly unlikely to re-offend as they get older.
It's damaging, and a horrific way to treat families.
|
Dogdoc
Member
09-29-2001
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 1:39 pm
Duality as in; "Is an electron a wave or a particle?"
"Yes" and "Yes"
"Trust but don't trust"
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 2:18 pm
LOL, Dogdoc. Perhaps.
|
Dogdoc
Member
09-29-2001
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 3:23 pm
I am trying to sound intellectual. lol
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 3:28 pm
Works for me! 
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 3:32 pm
You all sound pretty darn smart and well educated to me. My heroes! And yes, Hero was a woman.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, June 15, 2015 - 6:11 am
On People Magazine's site there is a sweet video of Baby Sewald's (Jessa) ultrasound. He is opening his little mouth in what looks to be a yawn.
|
Rehtse
Member
08-17-2005
| Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 6:05 pm
So Josiah is courting already? I thought he was going to college? Would he still be able to if he marries?
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Saturday, June 20, 2015 - 11:49 pm
Like I have posted before. They have 9 kids old enough for college. Not a single one has gone to college other than online classes.
|
Muffin
Member
08-29-2007
| Sunday, June 21, 2015 - 11:32 pm
They follow a completely different teaching which is focused on the bible, and therefore I don't think they would have the proper skills to get them into a regular university. It's too bad. And I'm sure their parents won't let them go to any university that is not Christian based. They obviously don't trust their own children to stay on the path that was set out for them if they were to get into another university.
Without their show on TLC, they won't be able to travel as a family of 29 people. That can get quite pricey. Their world crashed down around them, and they might not recover from that.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 5:57 am
The show might not recover, but the family definitely will.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 6:49 am
I would hope some of the kids, at least, might start questioning .. and not want to return to what their parents "allow". Heck maybe one of them will even rebel and do something besides "courting" and becoming clones of the parents.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 7:45 am
That's a pretty tall order Seamonkey for kids who have never been allowed to think for themselves.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 10:16 am
Really? They can't get into a "regular" university because of their religious beliefs? That's just unfounded. Last time I checked, the SATs didn't have any questions based on your faith beliefs.
As for questioning, I will share yet again a story about how a dear friend of mine, raised by a supremacist, isolationist family, rejected those beliefs and is one of the most compassionate people I know.
These are human beings, they have their own minds, and believe it or not, they may *choose* the way they have been raised, or they may *choose* differently.
We don't know, and none of us know *any* of them well enough to say.
|
Sadiesmom
Member
03-13-2002
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 10:28 am
I think the comment was that they would be unprepared to have the qualifications to get into regular university.
remember they are learning creationism instead of even hearing about evolution. Their science creds are probably pretty low. I am sure they have good English lessons but would not be exposed to literature that is common in high schools in this country. I have no idea about their abstract math skills. I am sure their history lessons are quite skewed. I sure have seen some outlandish history comments about the recent past come from some fundamentalists lately - like say the attacks in Charleston were persecution of religion had nothing to do with racism. Don't even start me on sex education.
So while they may have some advanced skills, they may not have the overall skills for non-religious college.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 10:34 am
Uh, the SATs don't have a science section. Nor does it have a history section. Perhaps you might look into the entrance requirements of colleges.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 10:51 am
A love for you, Kar. 
|
Kitt
Member
09-05-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 10:56 am
Most decent colleges require more than just the SAT, they require set number of years in certain classes, and there's usually a lab course in that, plus another science.
Perhaps that's not the case in some states or some schools in some states, but it's fair to say their options would be limited.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 11:06 am
Thanks, OG.
Kitt, my issue here is that people are assuming that these young people don't qualify. I can pretty much guarantee you that there isn't a community college in the country that requires you have a science lab course. Are those not "regular" universities? Are we downgrading the value of community colleges as well?
FWIW, our state requires 3 years of science classes at the high school level for college admission. They do not specify which classes those must be, or what must be taught. Only that the students have taken them, passed them, and obtained a GED or diploma.
Everyone's options are limited when they apply to college. But that doesn't mean a "regular" university or college wouldn't accept them.
And frankly, what's wrong with going to a "Christian" college? I know quite a few young people that have chosen that path, and they are quite delightful, intelligent, human beings.
|
Sadiesmom
Member
03-13-2002
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 11:06 am
indeed - when I went to college I had to write an essay and have an interview and we are going to have our 50th reunion in a couple of years. There were also recommendations from teachers and there were tests to see if you needed remedial anything.
Now there is that college all the politicians speak at, so there are some places where it would not be a problem, but most universities require more.
And I went to a state college, now it is in the state university system, but back then it was an independent woman's college with a reputation far better than the state university.
Community colleges are not universities.
It is not impossible for homeschooled people to be accepted but they must meet minimum requirements and for Rutgers, home schooled students have to submit text book names and sample tests. and a bunch of other stuff to indicate they met the 2 year science requirements
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 11:12 am
Community colleges are not universities.
Wow. Well, tell President Obama that his idea to send our young people to community college first is inadequate then. Because you know, only people who are unqualified go to community college.
A bit elitist, I believe.
They may well have chosen not to go to "university", but to say that they don't *qualify* is not fair. We really don't have any idea, and it's more about disagreeing with their faith, than it is about assessing their abilities.
If you don't like their religious beliefs, that's fine. But just because they have some unusual beliefs, that doesn't make them stupid.
|
Sadiesmom
Member
03-13-2002
| Monday, June 22, 2015 - 11:14 am
It is not elitists to say that most universities have stiffer requirements for admittance than community colleges. it is a fact not an opinion.
This does not reflect badly on community colleges, we are not talking about values of what you learn where we were talking about universities and how they operate,
from dictionary.com
university
[yoo-nuh-vur-si-tee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun, plural universities.
1.
an institution of learning of the highest level, having a college of liberal arts and a program of graduate studies together with several professional schools, as of theology, law, medicine, and engineering, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Continental European universities usually have only graduate or professional schools.
|
|
