Republican Senator Tom Coburn has issued a report on waste in government — a two hundred page report of excessive spending in the millions and as small as $300. As a former intern for Sen. William Proxmire (D., Wis.) who used to issue his Golden Fleece Award, I always find such reports interesting. However, one small item caught my eye: $30,000 to the University of Washington and Cornell University for a study that proved that “Gaydar” actually exists. Of course, you might ask why the government has an interest in such a study but do not be surprised if the next DoD budget has $30 billion in research and development of a stealth gay project for the evasion of Gaydar.
The National Science Foundation contributed $30,000 to fund a study done by the University of Washington and Cornell University to measure “Gaydar.” They found it to be 60 percent accurate. That is only 10 percent over a random 50-50 bet, it would seem. However, the result were considered significant. According to the Science Daily, the study found “After seeing faces for less than a blink of an eye, college students have accuracy greater than mere chance in judging others’ sexual orientation.” The authors argue that this may assist in establishing the basis for discrimination claims.
The study involved 129 college students who were given 96 photos each of young adult men and women. Notably, the selection of gay women showed a higher percentage of accuracy: 65 percent. Even when the faces were flipped upside down, participants were 61 percent accurate in telling the gay and straight women apart. That means, that we can still peg the sexual preference of “Silly Sally” even after she “Went to Town Walking Backwards Upside Down.”
For men, the accuracy rate was only 57 percent. So there you have it. I am just not sure what it is except that I am pretty sure we could have used the money better in adding more science books in one of our struggling public schools. This is particularly the case when the limitations of the study are considered. Even assuming that this is a valuable exercise for federal funding, the subjects were shown simply still pictures of individuals. These pictures were further made more uniform by removing facial hair and other characteristics. I am not sure how such a display offers a real measure. Of course, the researchers could note that the percentage of accuracy is all the more remarkable given the lack of such distinguishing characteristics or the use of moving images.
Here is one serious concern that I have. The study actually shows slightly over random selection for males and a bit better for women. However, while I see the marginal value for a discrimination lawsuit (though I am skeptical of its admissibility in a given case), it also will likely reinforce the belief of many (including many homophobes) that they can tell someone is gay. Such suspicions are often wrong and based on stereotypes. From secondary school to employment environments, people are often subject to such rumors or harassment. I take from this study that there is actually a high level of inaccuracy in such assumptions.
I do not object to the universities pursuing such research. This is a major social and political segment of our population and the perception of the sexual orientation of individuals has, as the authors note, significance in a variety of different contexts. However, there is a legitimate question of whether public funds are justified.
Source: Townhall
Someone else on this blawg posted this first but it’s always worthy of re-posting just in case we non-lawyers need a refresher on the subject.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Mike,
As Mr. Vonnegut said, “So it goes.”
Gene H:
rah, rah, ree kick em in the knee, rah rah rass kick em in the other knee.
Gene,
Another schmuck who threw a ten yard interception and thinks he threw a ninety yard touchdown pass. 🙂
Enoch,
Just because you have a book doesn’t mean you understand what it says. Go read Murray on Contracts and then we’ll discuss what you don’t know about privity and its place in analytical legal frameworks.
“Rawls notion comes down to, instead of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, the greatest good for the greatest number (he doesn’t use that formulation, but that’s what he comes down to). There are all sorts of problems with that notion.”
If you’re simply going to go over that tired old anti-democratic trope? And that is what it is if you advocate any form of government that doesn’t work for all citizen’s benefit? Again, this topic has been addressed previously here. The Constitutional mandates to establish justice and promote the general welfare are inexorably tied to utilitarianism. As that referenced column makes the case specifically soft rule utilitarianism being the best form in analysis and application of laws. The prime axiom of utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number so your attack in not just going to be critical of utilitarianism (and what criticisms were not addressed in that previous thread can all be addressed, but there aren’t many) but against key principles underpinning the Constitution itself, namely justice and promotion of the general welfare.
Now go get that tail, dog!
I’ll probably choose to do something other than watch you play with yourself over a topic this blog has already dealt with.
All in all though, you really aren’t worth taking seriously. Just another of the Libertarian bent who has no real idea about what the Constitution says, what government should and can do, and the jurisprudence surrounding the entire issue. And you’re still a jackass on top of it all.
You’ll probably have Bron cheerleading you though. So you got that going for you. Which is nice.
Gene,
“You’ve only asked loaded questions and spouted trollish gibberish”
The cut-and-paste function works. Show me.
From the Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955 ed.,: “privity – 5. law; Any relation between two parties recognized by law.” (does it get old, this always being wrong when you push me to my bookshelves?) If you read more, you’d know more.
And I don’t doubt you are passionate playing with your food. You’ll get over it, though, when you learn to eat with flatware, like the big boys do.
I really am off to supper now. These were just too easy to let go by.
Bron,
Oops. I can’t sit down to eat with this hanging: Rawls notion comes down to, instead of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, the greatest good for the greatest number (he doesn’t use that formulation, but that’s what he comes down to). There are all sorts of problems with that notion. Rbt. Nozick wrote a book (“Anarchy, State and Utopia”) addressing quite a number – but not all.
More tomorrow, but that’s a start.
enoch,
You’ve only asked loaded questions and spouted trollish gibberish and proven that you don’t know about the subject matter you attempt to address well enough to even use the proper terminology.
And if you think passion counters reason?
Get to work proving that what I said about your use of commercial contractual analysis and specifically privity in relation to the social compact is wrong.
What you think you see as passion is me playing with my food.
Your delusions that I’ve “suffered”? Are just that: delusions. All you’ve effectively demonstrated is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and that you’re just as big a jackass as your original post indicated. Probably bigger.
That you’re proud to be a redneck is just really funny though. I see I overestimated what kind of jackass you are. You read a book once so now you think you’re an expert. To be clear, I have no issue with rednecks. One of my best friends is not only a redneck but a biker and a former farmer. We’re brothers from other mothers. What he isn’t though is a jackass.
Also your attempt to somehow insult my intelligence assumes that I have some sort of intellectual inferiority complex. Nothing is further from the truth. But you? That’s apparently another matter. What’s next though on your hit parade? You going to say I have a small pecker? My feet stink and Jesus don’t love me? Good luck with that. Confidence and a realistic assessment of my skills that are based on metrics far more valued and reliable than your opinion are not things that I lack.
You better get back to hoeing that row, Enoch.
Argumentation is something you may enjoy, but you do indeed suck at it.
Bron,
Yes. Rawls constructs and extension of Bentham’s utilitarianism. I’m off to supper, but I wake early, so look for more in the morning.
Gene, perhaps you’ll remember the post in which I wrote, “Ad hominem commentary is a common device at law, where what the truth is may sometimes lie secret in a witness’s mind, and his probity is central to whether or not the truth he alleges is the real truth”.
Thank you for finally admitting I was right. In logic, however, the ad hominem is still a fallacy. Take it up with Oxford if that doesn’t suit you.
For the rest, talk about red herrings….and straw men to boot!
You see, Gene, I haven’t offered any conclusions. I’ve only asked questions – “At what point…?” All your squealing ans screeching has offered light entertainment, but you haven’t begun the inquiry into degrees. We understand society (the social contract) may impose limits on choice, on property rights, etc., …but to what extent?
Reread my posts, Gene: I haven’t even started suggesting that “x” much is too much (or too little, for that matter).
Your reflex, your passion, have been on display – to the absolute overwhelming of any claim you might have had to reason.
It will soon be my supper time. Please, I would be happy to have another go-round with you: these have been fun, relieving me of the tedium of arranging for a surgery I do not look forward to in the least. But I’ll ask you to wait until tomorrow morning for my reply.
enoch:
Isnt Rawls a little sketchy on individual liberty? Isnt it a contingent liberty?
oh, and, Mike, one more thing. Perhaps YOU should reread the definitions of “ad hominem”. They all go to what Engle calls, “fallacies of relevance.” Simply calling names is NOT argumentum ad hominem (the full and technical expression for the fallacy you did not commit, having offered no argument or rebuttal at all).
If Rawls nailed anyone, it’s you. Do you spell Plato with an X too? “You are not capable of establishing more than what passes for your thought that I’m an objectivist,”
I’ve already stipulated that you may not be an Objectivist but that your use of privity puts your arguments on the social compact in the same category as theirs: premised on the supremacy and/or absoluteness of property rights. See the paragraph ending ” Thank you though for illustrating that you can reach a wrong answer by multiple paths. That your path was philosophically and ethically less odious than the path of Objectivism is nice and consequently deserves less derision than the tenets of Rand’s deranged and ethically bankrupt pseudo-philosophy, but ultimately irrelevant to the conclusion reached by applying commercial contractual theory to social compact theory. They are, after all, different areas of study for a reason.”
“and you haven’t answered the question.”
Yeah I did. You just didn’t like the answer so you served up a big ol’ dish o’ red herring.
However, as a(n) (a)side to go with your red herring, I suggest you consider the Federal Rules of Evidence sec. 607-609, 613. It’s got a robust flavor and body that goes well with fish. It also allows for five basic types of impeachment evidence (four of which are ad hominem in nature).
(1) bias or interest
(2) sensory or mental defects
(3) character for untruthfulness, which includes impeachment by reputation, opinion, prior convictions, and prior untruthful acts
(4) specific contradiction
(5) prior inconsistent statements/self-contradiction.
So apparently ad hominem attacks have probative value. So much so that the FRE has taken them into consideration. They can also be funny.
As for my ad hominem use on you? Attacking your sub-standard knowledge of the subject of the social compact as evidenced by your attempt to address it with the framework of commercial contracts is perfectly valid. Argument from ignorance is a local fallacy all the time. The superfluous parts of it are just because I opine you’re a jackass. Probably of the Philosophy major sort. You manifestly don’t know what you are talking about regarding law, jurisprudence and political science.
As to impeaching me? That’s pretty funny. All you’ve proven is I’m a vicious sarcastic b@stard when someone such as yourself rightly deserves it. That’s hardly a secret – ask any regular poster and/or reader here – and it does not go to veracity or merit of/content of argument. Only to style. And why would I care what someone who can’t even spell his source’s name correctly and misapplies technical terms of art in their analysis? The one and only answer is “I don’t.”
Run along now. I’m sure someone is waiting for gas on pump #3 or wants fries with that. That is what a degree is Philosophy prepares you for unless you opt to teach the subject.
Mike, answering me without answering me – by simply calling names – is what school children do when they can do no better. It was pathetic enough if I misconstrued such behavior as a mere logical fallacy. In proud admission of immaturity, you say worse of yourself than you ever could of me.
Enoch,
Thinking that people here would think less of you being a farmer is typical of people with stereotyped thought processes, as is thinking that advanced degrees makes someone smart. It was your first comment that gave you away. Also where I come from in the South the only people proud to call them selves Rednecks are racists. Call me childish if you will since your own word show why your opinion is of little matter.
For the general readership,
A fellow posting under the name of Gene and I have been exchanging posts. Now informed that his opposite is just a farmer, watch for Gene to adopt a pretense of superiority such that further comments/replies are beneath him. Now, more than ever, he cannot afford to be revealed as intellectually impotent by any such as I.
Oh; and, Gene, did I tell you that you’ve suffered all of this from a real live, tractor-driving, NRA Life Member, cowboy-boot wearing red-neck?
Sorry Gene, Rawls nailed you, and Oxford and Engle demonstrated the pathetic paucity of your learning. You are not capable of establishing more than what passes for your thought that I’m an objectivist, and you haven’t answered the question.
And if I borrowed a term from contract law without permission, you did know what I meant: your reply proves it.
You find yourself impeached and now quite open to well justified ad hominem attacks yourself, and you want to dodge and hide. Well, as I suggested to Bron, you’d find better cover beneath claims of incapacity and the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Red herring. It’s what’s not for dinner. You’ve said nothing worth addressing let alone anything salient in defense of your now dismantled loaded question about privity.
Try again.
Bron – Thank you. This may turn out to be fun (if Gene doesn’t try to hide behind the ADA).
Gene,
“A Theory of Justice” (27th printing, 1997, The Belknap Press of Harvard [etc.]), page 60, begins (at the top of the page), “and who deny with contempt the rights and liberties if others, are not likely , it is said, to let scruples…interfere with their interests…”.
Clearly. If you’ve read Rawls (I admit the mistake, but a bad memory is good evidence that I’ve read him: such a mistake would be less likely if I had been looking at Wikipedia….perhaps as you were?), you’ve taken the wrong things from him.
As for your insistence on misconstruing the ad hominem, this is what the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford/NY Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 7) has to say: “ad hominem. For Aristotle (Risus sophisticus), a fallacy in which ‘persons direct their solutions against the man, not against his arguments’ (Sophistical Refutations, 178b17). Locke sees it as a ‘way to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions’ (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, iv, xvii. 21). Locke’s ad hominem, though he does not describe it as a fallacy, is not a proof ‘drawn from any of the foundations of knowledge or probability’ [in other words, a fallacy].”
But perhaps Oxford is a bit above your speed. “With Good Reason” (5th ed., S. Morris Engel, York university, St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1994) makes it a bit clearer for the novice:
“Argumentum ad hominem means in Latin, literally, ‘argument to the man.’ It is also translated as ‘against the man,’ a form of emphasizing the fact that this fallacy shifts the attack away from the question and places it on the person who is making the argument. (In its sense of of an argument TO the man, the ad hominem argument has come to stand loosely for all fallacies of relevance that appeal to our emotional natures rather than out powers of reasoning. In this text, however, we shall restrict our use of fallacies of personal attack against a particular individual or individuals.)”
At this point, I should descend to your own level, observing how poor your grasp of reason is and resting the remainder of my reply on the inadequacies either of your education or understanding. That would be just, but wrong. Rather, I’ll ask you demonstrate why I am an “objectivist” in fact, and not only in whatever processes you employ in lieu of a mind.
After that, you may answer the original question.
Enotch,
Clearly your reading comprehension is faulty. Look at the definitions you supplied and then at what I wrote. I was clearly attacking you (the man) and not your argument, which clearly meets the definition of ad hominem. I.admitted it purposely to let you know I felt debating you would be a fruitless bore. Your further comments have shown that my assumption was correct.