If you spoke with six people and one of them had won the lottery, would it be logical to conclude that one in six people will win the lottery? This is precisely how and why probability doesn't work on a small scale. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the result. It gets misapplied in such situations, because fractions are often reduced in such situations. This is not the purpose of reducing the fractions. Rather, it's because 1/6 is much easier to work with then, say, 874/5244.

Occam's razor isn't applicable because neither scenario ('our sample is representative' vs. 'our sample is not representative') is inherently more complex. One may be more probable, but that speaks nothing to the relative complexity.

Having worked as an Intern for a Rep, let me tell you how it'll go.

An Intern will receive the letter, look up your address, realize you're not a constituent, and toss it.

You feel better now?

By the way, why is a WTC Conspiracy Theorist mentioning the Razor?

How do you account for the approx. 4.7% of recruiters who do something unethical or illegal? (unquestionably much higher if you count the he said/he said allegations)

is that an acceptable rate to you?

So 95.3% of recruiters are doing their job.

I hope you don't look up statistics of dirty cops or negligent doctors anytime soon.

You didnt answer the question.

What is an acceptable rate of unethical or illegal behavior by military recruiters who ask young people to potentially risk their life.

BTW, the stats on police abuse/misconduct are far far less than 1% nationwide, not that it is relevant.

Perhaps UStwo has data on unethical or illegal behavior by dentists, but that would be just as irrelevant.

I was lied to when I enlisted in the marine corps.

I was told to NOT tell them about my drug expirementation with speed or they would discharge me. Well, in my 18 year old fear, I confessed.......and didn't get discharged.

That was it. So yeah, they lied to me.

And when I send 100?
Because I've actually taken the time to do research.

BTW, thank you for the honesty, DK. That's another board member to the tally.

I think it's rather sad that our nation's young folks are so easy to manipulate. Perhaps this should be a wake-up call for us to repeal the 26th Amendment and bump the voting age back to 21. I mean, if they can be easily led around like lemmings by some tricky recruiter who knows what havoc they could bring to our election system once some devious politician realizes that their brains can be molded like putty.

FWIW, my recruiter lied to me. He told me my tools of war would be a screwdriver and a pair of pliers. I had visions of sado-masochistic torture sessions dancing in my head, but was sorely disappointed when all they gave me was a rifle and bayonet.

Intelligence isn't a prerequisite for voting. If it were, our 43rd president would have been able to figure out that OB/GYN's don't "practice their love with women."
So that's 3/6 military officers in this thread.

Did you ever use the rifle or bayonet?

Turns out those things suck, too.

I think you might mean "enlisted military members." I haven't seen anything about officers being lied to.

Though the Air Force guy all but promised my Daughter Officer's Candidates School... if she did well enough in Basic. Whatever "well enough" was he couldn't quite explain. And it was clear it wouldn't be in any contract.

Ah, yes that's what I mean.

Because it gives you a higher % to putz around with :thumbsup:

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

You'll get 100 thrown in the trash.

With 100% getting everything stipulated on the enlistment contract. Nice strawman argument.

The thread is called "Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive methods to recruit youths?"

Now if it were called "Is this reasonable if US military uses blatantly deceptive contracts to recruit youths?"

Then you'd have a point, but it's not and you don't.

Using the word "Strawman" in a strawman argument! How quaint! For the third time, and bigger because you've missed it twice already.

HEY SEAVER LQQK!!! HERE!! HERE!!! HERE!!! SEAVER!!!

The enlistment contract is what you agree to when you sign and thus law. Although often written in legal-ese, it is not (generally) deceptive language. Anybody who believes anything that isn't written on that contract is a dumbass.

Maybe my recruiter told me that I'd become a beautiful fairy princess... but when I was reading the 30+contract... I didn't see any mention it. Hmmm.

And if this thread was about the contract, these would be valid points. It's not. It's about the words coming out of the mouths of recruiters. It's about the fairy princess stuff.

Do we agree that words don't mean shit when a contract is involved?

Yes, but it's not relevant. Kids believe recruiter's words. Many of them don't even read the contract. This thread is about stopping them from verbally lying. No one has a problem with the contract. That's a different subject.

I'm not willing to agree that "words don't mean shit when a contract is involved?"

Many people have been duped into signing things that turn out to be other then what they believe they agreed upon. There's a lot of folks around the US currently facing foreclosure on their homes because a mortgage broker told them one thing and they signed a contract that stated a completely different set of terms. Dumb? I think so. Fair? questionable. Legal? Most likely.

But we're not talking about some slick banker talking some poor old couple into signing a contract they have no way of paying off. We're talking about government officials, people paid by our tax dollars, misleading and out and out lying to young impressionable kids.

Great analogy, I've been toying with it myself.

So we all agree that lying is wrong. Great, how please tell me how you plan to enforce it. I pointed out two pages ago that it boils down to hearsay. Would you be willing to end a person's career on hearsay, mercy to whether or not the person likes the service they entered?

We both know through our military service there is always those people who complain about everything. Give them enough time to complain and the Recruiter always comes up. Whether he actually lied or not, it's a common method of pushing the blame. It's similar to those who blame their parents for acts they do when they're 40, it's just an easy buck to pass. For those people whom we both know, would you be willing to take them on their word and end their career?

Not sure you understand what exactly amounts to hearsay for the purposes of evidence.

"most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005 ed.)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law

So, in very basic terms, hearsay means the person giving the evidence is not the person who directly witnesses something.

From what I've read here that's not what we're discussing. Most examples I've read here consist of people stating, effectively, I was present when the recruiter lied regarding this issue or that. I.E. I was there when the recruiter lied to my daughter. Or the recruiter told me ____ and it turned out to be a lie.

These not examples of hearsay they're examples of eye witness testimony, completely separate legal terms.

I believe you're talking about the credibility of the eye witness testimony. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing the intent of your comments.


All that side, if we agree that lying is wrong and that, in some cases, recruiters are being dishonest with perspective recruits. Then it comes down to, as you put it- how you plan to enforce it. I would start with the UCMJ.

If you really wanted total accountability you could incorporate some type of independent oversight. I have a feeling there's a whole lot of groups and individuals out there willing to sit in on these recruitment efforts and insure there's no misinformation being spread. With a simple administrative rule you could allow interested parties attend, possibly even record, any and all recruitment efforts. These interested parties, by rule, would not be allowed any input during the recruitment effort but would be able to provide oversight. If the recruiters are being honest then there's no problem, if not then there's a record of who said what to whom.

And for the record- no, I wouldn't be interested in ending a good career based on the word of someone if that word is highly questionable. I would be interested in ensuring the youth of the US are not being lied to in an attempt to get them join the military. All the recruiters I've ever known have been Non-Coms. As you well know anyone in the service is sworn to uphold the laws of the US and conduct themselves in an ethical manner. If you've made the rank of E-4 or above you should certainly be held accountable if you're engaging in legal or unethical behavior.

Very nice post Mars, I concede many of your points.

I do recall, as you might with your daughter, a second NCO ask me if what was stated in the contract different from which the recruiter had talked to me. This might be what you were suggesting, but as I was never in that area I do not know their procedures. If you, or your daughter, recall something similar it might already be in place.

Not completely off topic, just love this pic. An unidentified man owns a protester who tried to stop him from entering the recruitment station. Owned:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...s02_181_pc.jpg

Add "you cannot willfully lie to recruits" to the UCMJ or something. Right now, it's allowed. Once it becomes against the rules, it will be far less prevalent. In addition, one could make it legal for people to record the conversations between recruiters and potential recruits.

I don't think there's any reason to add anything to the UCMJ regarding this issue. Article 107 covers "False Official Statements." It's my understanding that 107 covers "official documents and official statements including all documents and statements made in the line of duty." I'm no military law expert but it's my understanding that knowingly making false statements in the line of duty would include lying while attempting to recruit someone.

Now I could be wrong. The UCMJ, like most federal and state statutes, can be difficult for the layperson to interpret correctly. Basically there's a reason the bar exam requires significant effort to pass.

But if I am wrong in regards to Article 107, there's always Article 134. It's basically an end all, catch all article. We used to refer to it as the "don't be an asshole article." I have little doubt that lying in the attempt to recruit someone would be covered by this article.

So, as I see it additional laws and articles are not the issue. It's getting the military to adhere to the standards of ethics already covered. Unfortunately I think there's the serious possibility that, at times, that may not be seen as being in the best interest of the military by the upper level command that would be responsible for enforcing such articles.

So, I agree there could be a logical reason for some type of civilian oversight. How that's done with any reasonable effectiveness is beyond me. But many states have civilian oversight for police, fire, and family services. I know that whenever a child is removed from the home of an Oregon resident the case is not only sent to the citizen's review board but also, at times, a childs advocate is assigned by the court. Perhaps some type of oversight could be modeled after these civilian involvements.

Thanks.

I don't recall any NCO questioning me about what my recruiter did or did not tell me, but that was 25 yrs. ago. I really didn't much care. I was flipping burgers when I joined and was happy to never again have to ask anyone if they "wanted fries with that?" Then again there were no wars going on when I joined, it was a totally different time in history. I was surprised to find out that after my four years were up I would be in the in active reserve and could be returned to duty, no questions asked at anytime during that two years. I remember specifically asking if the fours years was it and my recruiter told me "even if WWIII breaks out you'll be done and out after four years." That was a lie.

It's possible my daughter was asked these questions upon getting to Cape May, really don't know. I didn't think her CG recruiter was attempting to be dishonest with her for the most part. But we also made it clear early on that we been there, done that and bought the t-shirt with the Navy and Air Force. So??? Honestly I don't think the CG is having much difficultly in recruitment. I know I read one report (DoD, can't remember?) last summer stating of the 400 plus applicants from Oregon in 2006 they ended up accepting somewhere around 53.

I think the USMC took about 90% of their applicants during the same reporting period.

I'm sure these numbers are available somewhere.

with this in mind, where are the parents then when these kids are talking to recruiters? Isn't it the parents responsibility to guide their children in realizing what a contract is compared to verbal statements?

Pfft, according to this thread?

Legal, 18-year-old adults ("kids") don't have parents OR read contracts OR understand the "buyer beware" concept.

Good point. All too often the parents in the US have been less and less involved in their children's lives, IMO. I've known parents who seem to expect the schools to be responsible for everything from day care to college planning.

It's a parent's responsibility to get their kid into college, too, but if you're signing up at 18 that probably didn't work or you found the best damn recruiter ever.

Are you saying because my father and mother didn't want to pay for me to attend college that they were shitty parents?

Or that my choice to enlist, have the military pay for school so I could graduate without debt, and attend college afterwards was a bad decision?

...

Man, I wish I was rich.

Come on bro, you know there are people in this thread that know whats better for you than you do. :eek:

I was lied to by my recruiter also, he told me I would be fucking Tichonoy's wife on the Kremlin lawn by 1981, god dam no good recruiters.

Edit to add, After over 4 years of this country being at war, with it plastered all over the media, a kid walks into a recruiters office and he doesn't have a clue where he is going. It might be time for this little hippie town to acess its
public school system becuase they are not college material.

I think Navy recruiters lie the most. :D They have a hard sell.

I mean, who wants to be nut-to-butt with sweaty men for 9 months?

Only time I was ever N2B was in the back of a C130 at 1000' AGL.

I was demonstrating that the responsibility of a parent was subjective. What one person believes to be a parent's responsibility another person will not. I don't think it's a parent's responsibility to baby their 18 year old by following them to the recruiter's office, but DK does.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at in a not-a-genius kinda way.

At 18? You don't have to be a parent anymore. Your offspring is an adult.

Most parents don't stop because they feel a sense of obligation.

Some parents don't see it like that, though. They push you out on your own.

But it is ok for those same parents to follow little maryjane rottencrotch to the admissions office of the local "U" ?

Reread what I wrote. You completely misunderstood it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess many of the post here are from people who either don't have children or at least don't have adult children.

My child is nearly 22 now and at 18 she moved out of the house and was basically on her own. Raising a child is no easy task and no one is exactly right. In fact, IMO, it's much easier to be wrong then right when it comes to parenting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. My position alway was when she was too young to know better I decided for her, period, end of story. As she matured and was able to be more responsible she was allowed to make her own choices, within what I considered to be "reason." When she was 18 she wanted to move in with friends, fine by me with the understanding that my door is and will be always open. But the decisions you make and problems you make for yourself are problems you need to solve by yourself. There was a period of time there where she had all the answers and knew more about stuff then I did. I had all the answers when I was 19 too, wish I did now. By the time she reached 20 or so she was asking more and more for my advice. More then willing to help her decide whats the best deal for a car, where to continue school, what branch of military to consider and so on.

It's not easy, it never ends and I wouldn't have it any other way.

This statement, from this thread, is why I respectfully disagree with you, Halx.

How often do we get to see honest concessions in Tilted Politics? I'd venture a guess that it's rare. Most threads here that are adversarial don't ever get to see a concession on either side. For that reason, I'd call this thread a smashing success.