sounds similar

[Remy]

One can take numbers and use them to prove what it is they want to prove especially if they have an agenda. Studies also show that alcohol is involved more than 30% of the time. Studies like this drive me crazy because they are never broad enough to to get to all underlying factors so that those factors can be understood and addressed.

Exactly! It's the age old marijuana is a gateway drug since 90% of addicts used marijuana before moving to the addictive drugs. Studies also reveal McDonald's restaurants are gateways for drug addiction as well since 90% of addicts have been customers of those restaurants.

 

[I40flyer]

One can take numbers and use them to prove what it is they want to prove especially if they have an agenda. Studies also show that alcohol is involved more than 30% of the time. Studies like this drive me crazy because they are never broad enough to to get to all underlying factors so that those factors can be understood and addressed.

According to your post, alcohol is NOT involved around 70% of the time. I don't believe alcohol "Makes people violent", any more than sport cars make people drive as if they were idiots. The problem with idiots, are they are idiots with or without alcohol. Regarding, taking numbers and Proving what it is they want to Prove, is ridiculous. There are those that present poorly researched data and draw stupid, un-supported conclusions, but this is hardly Proof, it is nothing more than an idiot with a few numbers.

 

[chargervol]

Actual studies contradict your assertion, "That is in no way unique to athletes". Studies of on campus violence has shown that athletes are 10 times more likely to commit violent crimes, to include rape, domestic violence, etc. .

There are those that present poorly researched data and draw stupid, un-supported conclusions, but this is hardly Proof, it is nothing more than an idiot with a few numbers.

Shortened both of your posts to get to the bottom of your idealism.


*Hint: Any study worth it's salt would have to follow a kinda "per capita" approach.
How many more 'encounters' is an athlete going to experience than Ethan the Ukulele artist? And would there be a greater benefit to making a claim? I.e., does Peyton and UT pay Naughright better or Barthalemeus from art class?

I have no doubt people drawn to violent sports have a statistical higher percentage of complicity for violence.
Yet your assertion of "it needs to be addressed" is the equivalent of 'Wal-Mart shoppers are more likely to commit theft than patrons of Saks Fifth Avenue'. While there is a statistical accuracy, shopping at Wal-Mart would be less of a cause than a result of other factors.

 

[I40flyer]

My "Idealism", isn't mine, it is the conclusions of researchers, I am not one, but I have made a point of reading a lot regarding campus violence and sexual assault, due to the situation we have. Regarding your "Per capita" as it applies to sexual encounters, or to how much and how often a given student drinks, I don't know how that would be done, other than questionnaires. I may be wrong, but I think a few responders may exaggerate their sexual prowess-just a little. But the police reports are hard and fixed, they can be counted. While we know, almost all of the claims of rape or sexual misconduct, or domestic violence reported (charged) against athletes is almost always false, usually just money grubbing whores. Nonetheless, these university studies are available to all with access to a computer. Don't attack me, attack the lack of knowledge and professionalism some of the University professors/academics show with their research.
Your example regarding Wal-Mart, the statistical accuracy IS a result of other factors, and those could/should be addressed once they have been ID'd. Just because there are other factors, in NO way makes the statistical probability any the less. This is just common sense.
There is a much higher probability you will be a victim of a crime(s) in various parts of large towns. This is a fact. The reason(s) are not addressed by that statement, it is a fact. For reasons why the statement is true requires more data. But, it is still a fact.