Do you have access to research journals?

strawman

strawman

I'm interested in reading an article just released by the Review of Economics of the Household titled "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households":

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y

But I'm not so interested if I have to pay $40 for it.

Is there anyone here with current access to research journals that might have access to this and can get a copy of it for me?
 
MindDetective

MindDetective

My institution doesn't seem to have access to that journal beyond 2011, I'm afraid. I checked the author's website but he doesn't post his articles for download. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
 
tegid

tegid

I expect I'd have access, I'll check tomorrow morning at work (that's in a little less than 10 hours).

Enviado desde mi GT-I8190 usando Tapatalk now Free
 
Krisken

Krisken

Bowielee said:
It's not an unreasonable assumption based on his previous posts on the subject.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm being naive in wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Still seems a little jump-the-gun to come out and label the guy with a scarlet B with no context given.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Krisken said:
Maybe I'm being naive in wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Still seems a little jump-the-gun to come out and label the guy with a scarlet B with no context given.
Click to expand...
well, scarlet H but I get your point.
I do, however feel it's a bit hypocritical to call Charlie out in this when every post Charlie makes is pretty much always dismissed as a troll.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Bowielee said:
well, scarlet H but I get your point.
I do, however feel it's a bit hypocritical to call Charlie out in this when every post Charlie makes is pretty much always dismissed as a troll.
Click to expand...
I'll call out the next person who does it to him, too :)
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Even assuming stienie's a bigot, it's still a stupid thing to say. People looking for information on a subject to learn more about it? Quick, dismiss them and their views and make fun of them! They might soon have facts or figures on their side! Or, God forbid, they might change opinion or become more moderate in light of new info! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

(I don't think he's a bigot, by the way - his views are more conservative than many here, and are influenced more by religion than that of many here, but neither makes his opinions suddenly less valid or thought out.)
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Charlie Don't Surf said:
hmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...
Assuming "religious" means "not thought out or reasoned out", or valuing someone's opinion lower because of their religion, is either a severe prejudice, or downright discrimination based on religion. One goes against what you stand for, the other as well and is technically illegal to boot. Congratulations!

(As an aside, people dismissing posts of yours because they're yours, while it annoys me greatly, is not exactly the same - assuming A will rob me because M and Y have robbed me in the past is racist, assuming A will rob me because A robbed me in the past can be sensible. It's not discrimination if it's no extrapolation from a minority to a group. It's still a prejudice, though, and if it's applied to "all those leftist hippies", it's just as bad. if it's "jsut against Charlie", it's technically not discrimination)

Remember: being intolerant against the intolerant is still intolerance. Being intolerant towards a group because of an extrapolated idea based on personal experience with members of that group is intolerance. Claiming stienman isn't smart or doesn't think is plain wilfull ignorance on your end (which is something entirely different from agreeing with him - I disagree with him on most ethical or religion-affected subjects)
 
Dirona

Dirona

Bubble181 said:
Assuming "religious" means "not thought out or reasoned out", or valuing someone's opinion lower because of their religion, is either a severe prejudice, or downright discrimination based on religion. One goes against what you stand for, the other as well and is technically illegal to boot. Congratulations!

(As an aside, people dismissing posts of yours because they're yours, while it annoys me greatly, is not exactly the same - assuming A will rob me because M and Y have robbed me in the past is racist, assuming A will rob me because A robbed me in the past can be sensible. It's not discrimination if it's no extrapolation from a minority to a group. It's still a prejudice, though, and if it's applied to "all those leftist hippies", it's just as bad. if it's "jsut against Charlie", it's technically not discrimination)

Remember: being intolerant against the intolerant is still intolerance. Being intolerant towards a group because of an extrapolated idea based on personal experience with members of that group is intolerance. Claiming stienman isn't smart or doesn't think is plain wilfull ignorance on your end (which is something entirely different from agreeing with him - I disagree with him on most ethical or religion-affected subjects)
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said here, but want to question something.

"being intolerant against the intolerant is still intolerance." I see where you're coming from here, I really do. But being intolerant of someone/group because they very vocally work to discredit you and/or make your very existance illegal or worse is self-preservation. Politeness only goes so far agaist people who don't even view you as human. (Note: I am not saying Steinman is in this category!)

Anyways, all this is totally aside from the original request.
 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't think someone's a bigot because they're Christian, I think someone's a bigot when they explicitly say homophobic things
Click to expand...
Wondering about the graduation rates about children in same-sex households isn't explicitly homophobic, though, is it? I mean, there are lower graduation rates and more poverty among children of single-parent households than dual-parent households; this information is useful to society, not used (well, I'm sure there are exceptions) to spurn and hate single-parents.

Suppose that the graduation rates of children of same-sex households are lower, or higher, or the same: this demographic information doesn't mean that we should dislike, support or be apathetic about same-sex households, but it would tell us that children in certain demographics may require different kinds of investment educationally.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

This is my magical anti-tiger stick. Every time I've carried it, I've not been attacked by a tiger. Therefore, something or other about gay people.

Wait, that doesn't work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top