Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Basically I agree with the prosecutor:
So, just to be clear, you're agreeing that statements made about people's sexual fantasies in any sort of public forum mean that they should not be able to have someone taken to trial for sexual assault which resembles those fantasies, because no matter the circumstances, they must have been asking for it.
You do see how close this is to the "she's my wife so I couldn't have raped her" argument, right?
-
Ok, I thought, it might average out at 28 days but you have a huge variation between individuals and even when the cycle's the same length, we're not all in sync with any particular moon phase. Big old myth though.
The page I linked to also points out that the lunar cycle is actually 29.53 days, so they're not even the same.
Is it not possible for things to be both 'correlated' and 'causative', without one precluding, or presupposing, the other?
No; because all causative links are also correlated, but not all correlations are due to causation. I imagine you would find it quite difficult to find a causally linked but entirely uncorrelated pair of data sets. But you're right insomuch as correlation does not imply causation unless there is a damn good causal hypothesis.
Well, coming from Canada the correlation is pretty bloody obvious to me... freezing, driving rain and pitch dark... does anyone want to go out and commit crimes? Not really, they'd rather it was balmy, dry and not so dark... like perhaps a moonlit summer night?
And this is why the myth is so pervasive: it's one of those ones that Just Makes Sense because of the *apparent* numerous causal hypotheses. Trouble is that the correlation isn't actually there in the first place.
-
@craig. fine line on causation re: moonlight and lunacy.
police reportedly step up patrols on full moons.
This has been debated for years, but it seems to be pretty well debunked (see here.) Police step up patrols because they've heard of the myth, too, not because of any actual causal link - or even real correlation - anyone can find.
Maybe he had a licence.
I'm pretty sure he did and the police revoked it; they can do that whenever they want, I believe.
-
Also, I've seen no reason to change my view that CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION should be prominently tattooed on the faces of all journalists, politicians, lobbyists and spin doctors. Purely as a public service mental health warning for the rest of us.
In something of the same vein, you may enjoy this.
(That said, there are plenty of causative arguments to be made re: higher murder rates in summer. But it would be nice to see people make them more explicitly.)
-
And just for the record, Sacha, you might want to have a think about the diss on cross-dressers there. I think Harvey Firestein (the original Broadway Edna Turnblad in Hairspray) would have a word or two to say about the charge that his casting was in any waty misogynistic.
I'm pretty sure Sacha was referring to the times when women were banned from appearing on stage, rather than panto dames - hence the Shakespeare reference.
-
And it does seem that Labour is much less inclined to use fear of crime as a political weapon.
Which is, I think, rather refreshing.
(As was hearing Gerry Brownlee on the radio this morning refusing to endorse anything John Banks said about the Auckland power outages.)
-
I think he makes a good point that it took him a long time to get a grip on the show because the writing and style isn't pitched at middle aged men like him (and me).
I was twenty when I first saw it and it has never appealed to me in the slightest, so it's probably not *just* an age thing.
-
Like the law it is simplifying. It not an offence for a woman to rape a woman or for a woman to rape a man. Not because it's not sexual assault (in New Zealand, called "sexual violation"), but because anything a woman could do would not be rape. Indeed, in New Zealand, it's not even possible for a man to rape a man.
...at least we've got sexual violation on the books, but *headdesk*
-
Ooh, thought of an answer: Jaquie Brown
There's some potential there, definitely.
-
I didn't see very much of it (never a whole episode), but their interview with Prince William had an excellent Clarke and Dawe vibe going (I happened to get it for Christmas):
It had highs and lows. Lows included Petra Bagust and her frozen awkwardness whenever the comedy veered near sex and religion, highs included the interviews and John Campbell taking over the last episode ("this is my studio! This is my microphone! No-one ever gave me a live audience, why do you guys get a live audience!"). Not a terrible summer replacement, but they need better ideas and a presenter who can ad-lib comfortably.
Lucy, what I meant was that your discussion could be taken as being about whether these televisual geeks were realistic, and how their particular world view doesn't necessarily mesh with those who don't share their areas of interest.
then when Beyonce came up it seemed like your discussion directly paralleled...oh never mind. It doesn't matter.
I kind of see what you were getting at, but I don't think the discussion was ever about whether their obsessions/world view were realistic? More about whether the consistency and gender essentialism of their presentation was? Which...no, I've lost you there.