I’m not talking about theoretically dry. I mean actually dry: even 21-year-old members residing in the houses aren’t allowed to keep alcohol in their rooms.
You had an account for buying alcohol? We couldn’t even do that- we just passed the hat before a party.
Yes, because I didn’t mention the other possibility at all. :rolleyes:
Sorry for not noticing you edited to add it while I was posting. The post I replied to said there was “always somebody older and wiser to say, ‘okay, he’s had enough’.” (emphasis added).
And that is total bollocks. I never saw it. I am sure it happens in the perfect world of fraternity responsibility that outsiders are excluded from. But in the world of drunk dicks making it difficult for me to take my son to a football game, it wasn’t the universal presence you promise.
[douche voice]You DIDN’T have an account? What kind of fraternity are you? How did you afford to pay for standard loading pallets of Natty Light?
[/douche voice]
I didn’t go to other fraternities’ parties, although I did go to parties at other chapters of my own, so I can’t speak for other fraternities at other colleges.
I think you referenced UVA or VA Tech, both of which are much older campuses, and therefore drunker. ISTM that the older a college is, the stronger the binge drinking culture.
Perhaps we were too drunk to fill out the paperwork.
Please - Meisterbrau in a keg was the cheap swill of choice for our formal events.
The account meant that we only passed the hat once per term, instead of tracking guys down before every tapped keg on a Thursday night.
Here’s a reason. You may not have been previously aware that private schools also utilized standardized testing. Upon becoming aware of this fact, you appropriately change your response to, “I dislike public and private schools because the use standardized tests.”
I think this is ultimately a faulty analogy, though. Several posters have already questioned the premise that this behavior is exhibited in equal proportions among fraternity and non-fraternity members.
They may question the premise that this behavior is exhibited in equal proportions among fraternity and non-fraternity members - but they should cite something other than, “I saw some douchebag fratboys last week.”
*Douchebaggery *knows no boundaries of gender, income or group association. I can find examples among every group of humanity. Greek letters only made ID easier.
I must have missed where those posters offered up any evidence for their questioning.
Remember how Google Scholar was mentioned?
I think your post is your cite
Whether or not other people are jumping off a bridge too is irrelevant to the above claim. Have you offered up any evidence for your statement that all things are equal?
Since the thread revolves around an unproven premise- that “frat boys” are inherently more likely to be naughty boys, apparently- it would seem that the onus is on people who hold to that belief to prove it.
Yes. :rolleyes:
Hint: a cite is not “look it up yourself.”
In fact, I responded to that quoted post rejecting the notion that I’m somehow responsible for providing cites for my opponents’ assertions.
No.
But the burden of proof lies on those making the claim. You cannot, as an initial assumption, assume anything OTHER than all things are equal; that impermissibly shifts the burden.
:dubious: Now wait a minute. Didn’t you start this thread? Why aren’t you responsible for proving your own assertion first?
Bricker, I usually side with you when it come to GD discussions, but not this time.
The very first article in a Google Scholar search provides a citation that cheating is more rampant in fraternities than outside of them. One could object by saying, “But you didn’t actually cite the article! You just said that a five-minute search would support your claim!” That strikes me as a rather petty objection though, and certainly not something that is ultimately damaging to your opponents.
Because my OP is not an assertion. It’s a question: is there evidence that supports this reputation?
That link is not to the study; I have no way to understand how the study was conducted, other than it “Compares the self-reported cheating behaviors of fraternity and non-fraternity members and the relation between student cheating and the overall level of greek membership on campus.” It wasn’t (apparently) a peer-reviewed study and it also contains this second line in the abstract: “Fraternity and sorority members cheat more than non-members but cheating would not change dramatically if fraternities or sororities did not exist on campus.”
Now, I could adopt your apparent approach and argue that this second line shows that it’s not correct to blame fraternities for cheating, but in reality I have no idea how to interpret that line or, indeed, the whole study. That link is useless.
Again, your post is my cite.
sigh
OK, good point.
I can either withdraw the assertion, or I can accept it without requiring any particular proof – in other words, if this is a debate, I can concede that point. If anyone else wishes to challenge it, I will withdraw it as unproven.
On what evidence do you base that assertion?