Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: UNAS on July 09, 2007, 02:00:32 PM

Title: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 09, 2007, 02:00:32 PM
http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Slim on July 09, 2007, 02:39:42 PM
He could run for President!
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on July 09, 2007, 08:07:03 PM
There are a few, extreme situations like this. By no means does it justify setting up massive hurdles for a large segment of the population. Generalizing from individual anecdotes is akin to mere speculation. I'm sure my Jewish friends, who are still the target of anti-semitic behavior, won't mind the hurdles thrown in their way by affirmative action. I know, I know; they've had it easy... the systematic persecution of Jews this past century must've been a boon to them.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 10, 2007, 07:54:18 AM
There are a few, extreme situations like this. By no means does it justify setting up massive hurdles for a large segment of the population. Generalizing from individual anecdotes is akin to mere speculation. I'm sure my Jewish friends, who are still the target of anti-semitic behavior, won't mind the hurdles thrown in their way by affirmative action. I know, I know; they've had it easy... the systematic persecution of Jews this past century must've been a boon to them.

I have strong ambivalence towards these sorts of responses. On the one hand I have an opportunity to defend my argument, on the other they take too much god damn time. I am not sure what you mean by setting up massive hurdles for large segments of the population. I can't speak to the plight of women, Asians and east Indians; what I can speak on is that of Blacks and Native Americans. I am sure I don’t need to chronicle history you have more than likely become familiar with. AA is in no way a massive hurdle for large segments of the population. I will just assume when you say large segments of the population you mean WASPs. In particular, law school on average is made up of less than a 9% African American student body and an immaterial amount of Native Americans. The bottom line is it really doesn’t affect WASPs to the “massive” degree you suggested. I will concede to your argument about generalizing from anecdotes. I don’t understand the Jewish statement and couldn’t interpret your sarcasm. But the world you are living in only seems to be law school centric. Let’s table admission briefly (which quite honestly seems to be your only concern) and talk about corporate America. What kind of mechanism can be put in place to insure less qualified WASPs candidates do not get positions over the more qualified minority counterparts? Additionally, what fast action policies can and should be implemented to combat discrimination at the corporate level that won’t be subject to helixes of red tape and bureaucracy. It is always said you should have another job before quitting your current one. The same holds true with policy. You don’t dismantle a policy because it isn’t perfect especially when there isn’t a seemingly better one on the horizon. It seems you would like to fix discrimination, by opting to ignore its existence. That’s akin to an AIDs patient refusing medical help because he/she knows there isn’t a cure, but only a remedy for his/her symptoms.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on July 10, 2007, 07:22:15 PM
I don't have time to respond to your entire post (dinner bell is ringing), but I would like to take issue with your concluding analogy before I go. It is not a fair analogy. The AIDS patient should get any sort of help possible, because it does not hurt anyone else. However, university admissions are a zero-sum game. While AA gives URMs an advantage, at the same time it must give others a disadvantage. And who are these others? They may not be the well-connected from whose anecdotes you find it convenient to draw generalizations, but maybe lower-middle class (or generally underprivileged) WASP/Asian/Jewish students who are put at a disadvantage strictly because of the color of their skin. Well-qualified (actually, better qualified) candidates are adversely affected by AA.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Judgie Poo on July 10, 2007, 11:06:50 PM
Irish need not apply.

Jewish quotas

Anti-German league.

West coast Asians please sell your business/home/possessions for pennies on the dollar and report to concentration camps.


People get over discrimination.  Blacks do not.

Bedtime reading: http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 11, 2007, 08:49:36 AM
Irish need not apply.

Jewish quotas

Anti-German league.

West coast Asians please sell your business/home/possessions for pennies on the dollar and report to concentration camps.


People get over discrimination.  Blacks do not.

Bedtime reading: http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299

At this point I can no longer dignify this thread with a response. Come on guy, the bell curve.

Thanks to Htowns finest for keeping the conversation intelligent and not reducing the diaglogue to twaddle
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: philibusters on July 11, 2007, 09:55:10 PM
Irish, Jewish, and Germans can blend into society.  One set of my great grandparents (I have four sets) emigrated from Germany in the 1920's, but assimilation was easy, during WWII they merely said they were from Poland.  From their offspring like me, who is only a quarter German, not only could you not tell I had German blood, I can't tell you a thing a German culture (other than they seem to like their beer and are industrious people).  Discrimination flourishes when you can draw lines around outsiders, that was possible in the ethnic neighborhoods of the cities in the past, but not possible in the surburbs of today, race will always allow line drawing.

AA can only be justified on policy grounds, and those grounds are not that it counters cronyism.  However, if cronyism in any way justifies AA its not by pointing out that one group of people is a privilege group over another, thats too big of a conclusion to draw.  It by showing that in tight knit communities like the legal profession "line drawing" is fairly easy cause of the small numbers and that people can easily form cliques and totally discourage others from even attempting to join the profession.  That is what AA is attempted to fight, the face that people who don't fit an ideal standard are discouraged from even joining the profession.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 20, 2007, 12:56:03 PM
Irish need not apply.

Jewish quotas

Anti-German league.

West coast Asians please sell your business/home/possessions for pennies on the dollar and report to concentration camps.


People get over discrimination.  Blacks do not.

Bedtime reading: http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299

Tim Wise

The “science” of books like The Bell Curve is inherently flawed, mostly because the concept of distinct biological “races” that can be studied, compared and found to be “superior” or “inferior” is itself a misnomer. The term race, in biology, properly refers to subspecies (i.e. subpopulations that are sufficiently different in genetic terms to be on the verge of “speciation,” or splitting into entirely new species). So, those who defend the notion of scientific “racial” differences must be able to demonstrate that human subpopulations diverge in such a manner and to such a degree.

Evidence from population genetics has indicated for years that less than 1% of all genes are linked to the transfer of pigmentation and other “racially distinct” characteristics, further limiting the effect of actual “race” on human genetic variation. (Allport, 1956, 1979)


The entire enterprise of books like the Bell Curve is suspect, when one considers some of the group differences it DOESN’T consider, in favor of those it does think relevant (namely those between whites, blacks and Asians). For example, as Hacker has pointed out (1994), while Murray and Herrnstein argue that IQ is a key factor in determining educational success and attainment, and that low black IQ is what explains the generally lower academic achievement among African Americans, they conveniently avoid mentioning or explaining the large gaps between various “white” ethnic/national groups, and what those gaps must (by their own logic) say about THEIR relative IQ’s. For example, according to the Census Bureau:

51% of Americans with Russian descent have a college degree, compared to only:

33.4% of Scots

28.6% of English

27.5% of Swedes

23.4% of Poles

22.1% of Germans

21.9% of Italians,

and 21.3% of Irish

Does this mean that Russian-descended “whites” are much smarter than all other whites, and that Irish whites are the least intelligent? And why has there been no study to explain these differences?


The Bell Curve is, from beginning to end, plagued by an overreliance on questionable sources, with overtly racist motives for their “science,” to put it kindly:

As Lane points out (1994), the book relies heavily on articles originally published in Mankind Quarterly, and individual researchers tied to Mankind Quarterly: a publication founded in 1960 explicitly to counter the influence of the civil rights revolution in the US and “egalitarian” thinking about race and inequality. MQ was founded by Robert Gayre, who remained the editor until 1978. Gayre was an open advocate of apartheid in South Africa, and white rule in Rhodesia. In 1968, he testified as an expert in a hate speech trial of British neo-Nazis, and noted in his testimony that blacks were “worthless.”


Other founders of MQ include Henry Garrett, who was a pamphleteer for the White Citizens Council; and Corrado Gini, a leader of Italy’s eugenics program under Mussolini.


Since 1978, MQ has been run mostly by Roger Pearson, who was a founder of the neo-Nazi Northern League in 1958, and once bragged that he had helped hide Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele. In the 1960’s, Pearson hooked up with notorious racist and anti-Jewish activist Willis Carto, to publish Western Destiny, where he would rail against the “Jewish culture distorters,” who were seeking to “capture the minds, morals and souls of our children.” The year that he took over at Mankind Quarterly, he was the conference chair at the national convention of the World Anti-Communist League, where his conference assistant (also a staffer at Pearson’s publishing house) was a former stormtrooper in the American Nazi Party.

During his tenure as Editor, he has published articles by Ralph Scott and Donald Swan, two Americans with open connections to neo-Nazis. In 1966, Pearson himself argued: “if a nation with a more advanced, more specialized, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide.”


In the Bell Curve itself, the authors cite 13 “scholars” who have had their work funded by Pioneer. Among these is Phillipe Rushton of Ontario. Rushton is cited eleven times in the Bell Curve, and Murray and Herrnstein go to great lengths to ensure their readers that Rushton “is not a quack.” This despite the fact that Rushton’s “scientific methodology” has included approaching shoppers at a Toronto mall (one-third black, one-third white, and one-third Asian) and asking them “how far can you ejaculate,” or “how large is your penis?” He has also said, that intelligence is inversely related to penis size, because “it’s more brain or more penis. You can’t have everything,” and has claimed that the success of the Nazi army was due to its Aryan genetic purity.

Interestingly enough, Rushton’s data on penis size all comes from one study, conducted in 1898 by an anonymous French Army surgeon who traveled through Africa and recorded the size of African penises, and from a second study comparing the penises of Nigerian medical students to Czech army officers. In this study, it turned out the Nigerians penises were longer, and the Czech’s had greater circumference. So why is length more important in effecting brainpower than girth? Who knows? Neither the original study, nor Rushton, explains this point.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 20, 2007, 12:59:50 PM
Rushton’s arguments on brain size are based on the genetic distance studies of Dr Allen Wilson, from the University of California. Yet Wilson, having reviewed Rushton’s work, notes that those scientists using his work to argue for innate racial differences, let alone superiority or inferiority in intelligence, have “totally misrepresented” his findings. Furthermore, respected anthropologists like Christopher Springer at the British Museum have noted that Rushton’s brain size and head size data is completely without merit.

Rushton’s claims that blacks have higher levels of testosterone, thereby explaining higher rates of aggression and violence, and that the difference is racial, not environmental, ignore three commonly understood, entirely non-genetic factors that influence testosterone levels: diet, exercise and emotional state. (Hoberman 1996). Higher testosterone levels also could result from higher stress levels prior to giving blood, which in turn could easily result from the general uneasiness many black folks feel about a largely white medical establishment, and their interactions with health care providers.

The Bell Curve also relies heavily on the research of Richard Lynn, described by the authors as “a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences.” As one example of Lynn’s scholarship, consider this quote, cited in Newsday, November 9, 1994:

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of ‘phasing out’ such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.”

Lynn has also explained, that in his opinion, “…the poor and the ill are weak specimens whose proliferation needs to be discouraged in the interests of the improvement of the genetic quality of the group, and ultimately of group survival,” and that “the Caucasoid and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contribution to civilization,” leading one to wonder where Lynn—obviously no historian—would place the Ancient Egyptians among these two racial groups.

The Bell Curve references Lynn’s work in an effort to “prove” the following propositions that are central to the book’s arguments:


1) African Blacks have IQ’s substantially below the African American average;

2) East Asians have higher IQ’s than any other group; and,

3) Immigrants of color to the US have sub-par IQ’s

Taking a look at his “evidence” on African IQ, there is little doubt of its intellectual vacuity. Lynn’s “proof” was based heavily on a 1988 review by three South African psychologists who looked at Black South African test performance. But the authors of this study concluded the OPPOSITE of Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein. In fact, when presented with Lynn’s interpretation of their work, they responded with the following:

“It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid measures of intelligence among non-Westerners. The inability of most psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own cultures has led to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the ‘simplicity’ of African mental structure and ‘retarded cognitive growth’.”

The main source for the Bell Curve’s claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the “best studies” on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the “best” was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study’s author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was “not at all” evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.

Another of the “definitive” studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to “prove” such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.

As for the East Asian IQ superiority, this “evidence” was as weak and uncompelling as that regarding African IQ’s. The data on this issue in the Bell Curve relies heavily on a Lynn article from 1982 in Nature magazine, in which he claimed the Japanese have a 10-point IQ advantage over European whites. In 1983, Lynn’s piece was dissected completely in the pages of Nature by two American psychologists who noted that Lynn’s study sample was made up of Japanese kids from well-off urban parents, likely to have higher IQ’s than the more mixed group of Europeans against which they were compared. Murray and Herrnstein only make mention of the Nature rebuttal to Lynn in a footnote, and even there, refuse to discuss its contents.

Two other studies cited by Lynn to “prove” higher Asian IQ’s are equally bogus. The first used samples of American, British and Japanese students on a test of abstract reasoning. On this test the Brits and Americans did far worse; and the second study found that 9-year-olds in the UK did worse on the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices than 9-year-olds from Japan and Hong Kong. But if you check the footnotes for this “evidence,” you find that the author Lynn was citing for both of these studies was himself. And if you look up the studies, it doesn’t take long to notice the flawed methodology involved in both: The first of these studies consisted of a test given to 178 Japanese children that did not reflect the demographic makeup of the nation as a whole, economically, culturally, or in terms of gender. The testers showed up at two schools, one urban and one rural, and gave the tests to whomever was present that day. Lynn then took the results of this test and compared it to a test that was thirteen years old, had been given to 64,000 American children, and had been pre-screened for representativeness; he then compared the Japanese results to a similarly pre-screened sample of 10,000 British children who had been given a similar test in the previous decade.

In the second study, Lynn claims to have found a substantial difference between Japanese and Hong Kong student IQ’s on the one hand, and those of British children on the other. Yet this study looked only at 118 9-year olds from Hong Kong, 444 children from Japan and 239 British children, and involved no known controls for environmental and demographic representativeness.

Finally, in the section on “immigrant IQ,” meaning, to the authors, the IQ of mostly Latino immigrants to the U.S., Murray and Herrnstein claim that the mean Latino IQ is 91—about 9 points below whites, 14 points below Asians and 7 points above blacks—but provide absolutely no source for this claim whatsoever. And of course, there is no meaningful racial category known as “Latino” anyway, as the term refers to an ethnic/national/regional heritage group within which skin color and racial phenotype varies dramatically. The evidence from Lynn that they provide on “immigrant” IQ’s, which they claim indicates an IQ in the 90-95 range, takes no account of the fact that 11% of all immigrants in the period they studied were South Asian and Middle Eastern, not Latino, and many more were East Asian—the very group they have claimed to be

Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on July 20, 2007, 03:58:30 PM
Discrediting an arguably racist tract in no way justifies AA. Off-topic flame wars detract from the real issue.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on July 21, 2007, 01:46:42 AM
Discrediting an arguably racist tract in no way justifies AA. Off-topic flame wars detract from the real issue.

I AGREE WITH you whole-heartedly

It was just something I felt obligated to do.

But the question I have for you my formidable friendly foe is how do you combat hundreds of years of systemic and institutionalized racism. What method would you suggest beit a quick fix or shot in the dark? I would appreciate any dialogue you can give in respect to remedying AA and racial and gender discrimination?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: gillesthegreat on July 21, 2007, 08:28:37 AM
Quote
People get over discrimination.  Blacks do not.

Yes, the interned Japanese certainly got over it; they got over it so much that they never asked for and received a formal apology and reparations. Wait ... what? Oh.

And the South has certainly 'gotten over' the civil war. Just visit the really rural parts of Alabama. Or heck, just mention the name Sherman in Georgia. Yeah, these people certainly got over it.

You're very right. Why can Blacks in this country not just 'get over' the fact that they were disenfranchised as a group for roughly 200 years of systeatic and organized oppression. Why can they not also get over the still pervasive racism and discrimination, the same kind that requried a special federal intervention in the 60s to double-garantee the really silly rights they were supposed to already have, like voting. Or the discrimination that makes them more likely to be arrested, and more likely to get convicted, and receive longer sentences for similar crimes. Adn really, really now, why can they just not get over and forget the discrimination that will happen to them in the future. Really, that would just make it much easier for everyone. Well, except them, but who cares. Come on people. I'll oppress you tomorrow, but you should really have gotten over it by now.

Jacka$$.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: TinaTina on July 22, 2007, 07:09:51 PM

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

You can't be serious.  But if you are, can you tell me which of the following beliefs is driving your thought process?
1)most of the 30+ million black people in America are immigrants of recent vintage
or
2)some black people came on a party cruise in the 1800s and liked the place so much that they decided to stay.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Leo on July 22, 2007, 07:52:42 PM
My response is somewhat "too simple."  My family was not here during slavery.  My family came in the 1930s as poor Sicilian immigrants who had nothing and wanted just a small bit of something.  They never stepped on anyone or prevented anyone from doing anything because they had nothing - they were the downtrodden.

Why should I, then, have to bare the burden of rectifying some large scale racism of which I - and my family - was never a part?   Why must I constantly hear only that one justification to AA: that it rectifies past discrimination?  Even people who think AA is a great thing need to realize that not all of our families were here to hurt yours at that time.  Mine was making wine in Sicily - they didn't have slaves, they didn;t even have a house as one would recognize one.

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

You seem sincere, and I'm bored at work, so here goes.

Neither you nor your family are responsible for anything. You also don't bear any burden. In fact, if AA were eliminated today, your chances of admission at any given school would be virtually the same. So the question you and others are really asking is, why can a (probably black) URM be accepted with numbers that would mean rejection for me?

There will never be an answer to that question that you'll find acceptable. Affirmative Action is a flawed social policy that attempts to make up for America's past and present caste system by creating equality of outcome, when all that political energy would be better spent creating real equality of opportunity. Many people see AA as a form of reverse discrimination (which it is). Many people, like the OP, would rather have a flawed policy than none at all.

I hope you and others might some day realize that AA is a policy concerned with groups, not indiviuals, and that it should be assessed at the aggregate level, not the anecdotal. I'm sure no one in your family has ever discriminated on the basis of race or gender, but America as a whole has and still does. AA is an attempt to address that. I didn't say it was a perfect attempt, but it is an attempt nonetheless.

Of course, for years to come you'll have people pointing out some unqualified URM on LSN who supposedly got into harvard with a 155 as proof that AA is the greatest threat facing America. Or the hypotheticals of some undeserving rich black kid, or some poor, starving white kid. Or my favorite, [insert ethnic group here] overcame discrimination so why can't you people.

While all this is going on, we'll continue to ignore the real question: how much value should this country, as a whole, place on diversity? Maybe you should start thinking about that instead

That's just my 2 cents, anyway
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on August 01, 2007, 08:06:31 AM

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

You can't be serious.  But if you are, can you tell me which of the following beliefs is driving your thought process?
1)most of the 30+ million black people in America are immigrants of recent vintage
or
2)some black people came on a party cruise in the 1800s and liked the place so much that they decided to stay.

What I was trying to illustrate with my point is that many people choose to justify AA by citing a long history of racism in the US going back to slavery.  THAT is a justification with which I cannot live.

Now, the point that Leo makes is a valid one and one to which I want to respond.  I do not think MY personal chances of admission at any given program would be changed if AA was abandoned, and it is not for that reason that I want it disolved.  I simply think that, on a whole, if we are to REALLY ever become a society that is free from all forms of racial prejudice, AA needs to go away.  It is - for better or worse - one more system that classifies people based on something they CANNOT help: who they were born.

Also, AA is less an issue with admission to larger programs, such as Law or Med schools, than with small programs (PhD, for example).  If dept X at school Y only has 4 open PhD slots for a given year and they utilize AA, there is a greater chance that the overall effect on the applicants will be greater.  I have experienced this firsthand in my own graduate fellowship applications.  It is not that these students are not deserving, nor is it that I am blind to the greater societal concerns.

Will I EVER understand what it is to be a URM in the US?  No.  And that is my point.  Responses such as Leo's serve to foster actual debate without frivolity while those of TinaTina seem flippant in the context of this important issue.

I just feel - with all my sincerity and heart and mind - that if we are EVER to be free from prejudice we need to eliminate ALL vehicles for that prejudice.  AA is a policy of racial prejudice, and it is one of the few institutions that actively fosters a distinction by race.  For us to all be equal, we need to ALL be equal.  And it may be idealistic, but I think that things such as AA hurt this end more than help it.

Naive Naive Naive. Why must the first step in removing all vehicles for prejudice involve the extirpation of AA, a program that by and large does not affect a material portion of whites? It’s almost like white folks have never even “casually” examined the demographic breakdown of law schools, let alone top law schools. Which by the way are typically less than 8% Black. As I said in my earlier post, it takes almost no kilocalories of brain energy to cite the removal of AA as a means to deal with all discrimination. The challenge lies in creating an effective strategy to deal with discrimination, racism and other forms of prejudice that exceeds the performance of what we have done in the past. Easier said then done. First step to combating discrimination…level the playing field. Come on guys that’s a softball. Give me a couple ideas we can theoretically employ to level the playing field.

Don’t mind me I will just grab a chair and rest these old bones in the meanwhile so I don’t interfere with the great meeting of the minds
Quick hint…it starts on an individual level.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on August 01, 2007, 09:59:51 AM

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

You can't be serious.  But if you are, can you tell me which of the following beliefs is driving your thought process?
1)most of the 30+ million black people in America are immigrants of recent vintage
or
2)some black people came on a party cruise in the 1800s and liked the place so much that they decided to stay.

What I was trying to illustrate with my point is that many people choose to justify AA by citing a long history of racism in the US going back to slavery.  THAT is a justification with which I cannot live.

Now, the point that Leo makes is a valid one and one to which I want to respond.  I do not think MY personal chances of admission at any given program would be changed if AA was abandoned, and it is not for that reason that I want it disolved.  I simply think that, on a whole, if we are to REALLY ever become a society that is free from all forms of racial prejudice, AA needs to go away.  It is - for better or worse - one more system that classifies people based on something they CANNOT help: who they were born.

Also, AA is less an issue with admission to larger programs, such as Law or Med schools, than with small programs (PhD, for example).  If dept X at school Y only has 4 open PhD slots for a given year and they utilize AA, there is a greater chance that the overall effect on the applicants will be greater.  I have experienced this firsthand in my own graduate fellowship applications.  It is not that these students are not deserving, nor is it that I am blind to the greater societal concerns.

Will I EVER understand what it is to be a URM in the US?  No.  And that is my point.  Responses such as Leo's serve to foster actual debate without frivolity while those of TinaTina seem flippant in the context of this important issue.

I just feel - with all my sincerity and heart and mind - that if we are EVER to be free from prejudice we need to eliminate ALL vehicles for that prejudice.  AA is a policy of racial prejudice, and it is one of the few institutions that actively fosters a distinction by race.  For us to all be equal, we need to ALL be equal.  And it may be idealistic, but I think that things such as AA hurt this end more than help it.

Naive Naive Naive. Why must the first step in removing all vehicles for prejudice involve the extirpation of AA, a program that by and large does not affect a material portion of whites? It’s almost like white folks have never even “casually” examined the demographic breakdown of law schools, let alone top law schools. Which by the way are typically less than 8% Black. As I said in my earlier post, it takes almost no kilocalories of brain energy to cite the removal of AA as a means to deal with all discrimination. The challenge lies in creating an effective strategy to deal with discrimination, racism and other forms of prejudice that exceeds the performance of what we have done in the past. Easier said then done. First step to combating discrimination…level the playing field. Come on guys that’s a softball. Give me a couple ideas we can theoretically employ to level the playing field.

Don’t mind me I will just grab a chair and rest these old bones in the meanwhile so I don’t interfere with the great meeting of the minds
Quick hint…it starts on an individual level.


She didn't say it would be the first step.  And I think her point is not how AA affects whites (even though I disagree with you that it affects an immaterial number of whites), but just the principle of it.  For me, AA just seems wrong.  Like Tina, it just seems to me so inherently awrong to discriminate on the basis of race that there better be a pretty good justification for it, which there very well may be.

For example, UNAS, if I'm thinking of the right person, (if not, sorry) you did pretty well on the LSATs (mid 160s or so?), but had a sub 3.0 GPA because you partied a lot in college, and you were talking about your chances for T14 or T25 schools - this just strikes me as so wrong, that you have a legitimate chance at these schools, just because you get to check a box, whereas a white person with your stats would not even dream of these schools.  I don't have any jealousy toward you, nor anger, and I don't think I was rejected from any schools because of AA, but the principle that a slacker can accomplish the same thing by checking a box that someone else achieved by 4 years of hard work, just seems really wrong.  It just seems to me to undermine the whole academic process.

I'm still on the fence about AA, and of course there are so many benefits of it that people have already mentioned a million times, but I guess I still need more convincing that the benefits outweigh the negative aspects.  I agree with your main point though, that it's easy to say that eliminating AA is a way to deal with discrimination, but much harder to actually think of a way to deal with discrimination.  As far as trying to lessen discrimination, I suppose AA is a decent attempt.

You are correct I am the same UNAS. A MBA and 5 years of job experience should be able to offset a 4 year social excursion for anybody black white or otherwise, but I know Adcoms don't always look at it that way.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: leostrauss on August 01, 2007, 10:11:12 AM
I have an idea to eliminate discrimination that I believe will work better than AA. Now, I am an ardent conservative, and I admittedly have trouble being comfortable with the idea of social programs. I don't see it as the govt's job to solve these sorts of problems. However, if reform programs are the flavor of the day, I'll give one a shot.

Why not just promote interracial dating? If everybody dated everybody else, it would ease tensions among the races (though we would probably take two steps back before we started taking steps forward), and we would eventually have no way of telling who is "black", "white", etc.

Another idea, while the govt is fixing all of our problems, why not have the govt. control adoption in such a way as to assign babies blindly and randomly to couples. So, white couples might have an Indian baby, a black couple might have a white baby, a white couple a black baby etc. This, would balance out the socio-economic differences that are correlated with race . . .

I don't know, I'm half joking, but I'm half serioius. I don't like ANY of these policies, AA included, not because I don't think they're good ideas, but because I think govt. oughtn't be involved in this stuff.

The real solution is for ppl to get over it in general. We all need to recognize these disparities and the WASP ceo needs to hire a young black woman; the Black CEO needs to hire an asian guy; the republican senator needs to demand inner-city black interns (be he/she white or black - the senator I mean). We just need to get together in our neighborhoods, churches, etc and talk about all of this. We need to encourage our kids to - or at least not discourage them from - dating across race etc.

It's about changing our mindset. No government policy can change ppls minds. Racists don't suddenly become less racist because of AA or anything else - in fact, these policies likely make them more hostile in their racism. I don't know . . . now I'm rambling. Let's fix this problem though. Hopefully our generation will make a difference. I think the best arg for AA is stereotype threat. done
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on August 01, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
One of my best friends growing up was and still is a staunch republican. He only really cares about the right to bear arms though. I appreciate your thoughts.
One of the biggest issues we face with discrimination, racism, prejudice and the other isms is our refusal as Americans to engage in dialogue. My hope gets stronger with every generation, but there needs to be a substantial amount of top-down leadership taking place. Diversity needs to be encouraged on the grandest scale possible. Commingling of races and religions will breakdown mental obstructions that have been erect for 400+ years.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Leo on August 03, 2007, 07:37:18 PM
For example, UNAS, if I'm thinking of the right person, (if not, sorry) you did pretty well on the LSATs (mid 160s or so?), but had a sub 3.0 GPA because you partied a lot in college, and you were talking about your chances for T14 or T25 schools - this just strikes me as so wrong, that you have a legitimate chance at these schools, just because you get to check a box, whereas a white person with your stats would not even dream of these schools.  I don't have any jealousy toward you, nor anger, and I don't think I was rejected from any schools because of AA, but the principle that a slacker can accomplish the same thing by checking a box that someone else achieved by 4 years of hard work, just seems really wrong.  It just seems to me to undermine the whole academic process.

What bothers me is that you don't get why this paragraph is irrelevant
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Def Leppard on August 05, 2007, 08:24:04 AM
Check out this article:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,90739.msg2370306/topicseen.html

Please don't assume I am bashing AA, or diversity. I just thought some of you posters may find this article interesting.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: philibusters on August 05, 2007, 09:35:37 AM
Check out this article:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,90739.msg2370306/topicseen.html

Please don't assume I am bashing AA, or diversity. I just thought some of you posters may find this article interesting.

Wheres the link to the article?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Leo on August 05, 2007, 04:07:23 PM
For example, UNAS, if I'm thinking of the right person, (if not, sorry) you did pretty well on the LSATs (mid 160s or so?), but had a sub 3.0 GPA because you partied a lot in college, and you were talking about your chances for T14 or T25 schools - this just strikes me as so wrong, that you have a legitimate chance at these schools, just because you get to check a box, whereas a white person with your stats would not even dream of these schools.  I don't have any jealousy toward you, nor anger, and I don't think I was rejected from any schools because of AA, but the principle that a slacker can accomplish the same thing by checking a box that someone else achieved by 4 years of hard work, just seems really wrong.  It just seems to me to undermine the whole academic process.

What bothers me is that you don't get why this paragraph is irrelevant

Enlighten me please.

Assuming the story you told about UNAS is true, choose the option that best describes you

A. I think UNAS's story is representative of most AA recipients (I'm a bigot and my post should be ignored)
Or
B. I do not think UNAS's story is representative of most AA recipients (my post should just be ignored)


Once again
I hope you and others might some day realize that AA is a policy concerned with groups, not indiviuals, and that it should be assessed at the aggregate level, not the anecdotal.

Now I'll admit that my reasoning could very easily be off, but this is the impression I've gotten after countless AA debates
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Leo on August 09, 2007, 05:09:07 PM
hmmm... let's just take this bit by bit

I don't think his story is representative of most AA recipients, so I guess I'll go with option B.  But I think it's common enough that it's worth mentioning.

You believe it's common for AA recipents to have slacked off in college? On what do you base this belief? Research? Ethnographic study?


Quote
But I completely agree with what you're saying, that AA should be judged based on aggregate effects, rather than individual.  My logic wasn't UNAS's story exists, therefore AA is bad.  I'm just saying, this is one example of the many problems with AA, which may or may not outweigh the benefits.  Like I said earlier, I'm still unsure how I feel about AA.  I see the benefits, but also the drawbacks.

I can agree with you here for the most part. I don't think the system is as vulnerable to exploitation as you seem to believe, though.

Quote
As a side note, I think part of the problem with AA debates on this board is people like you being so quick to be hostile and to throw around words like "bigot" and "racist."  I mean the way you use it in option A is that someone who is misinformed about AA statistics is a "bigot."  All I said was that UNAS's story seems wrong to me, and is therefore worth mentioning as a problem associated with AA.  I'm not sure what's so wrong with this that it warrants hostility on your part.  That said, I appreciate your views on AA.

If it makes you feel better, that was the first time I've used that word here, precisely because I think terms like that are overused. No, I don't think someone who is misinformed is a bigot. I think someone who makes misinformed opinions about an entire group of people is a bigot. You admittedly didn't do that, so the term doesn't apply to you.

And the problem with this board, as I exit, appears to be attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 09, 2007, 11:13:43 PM
My response is somewhat "too simple."  My family was not here during slavery.  My family came in the 1930s as poor Sicilian immigrants who had nothing and wanted just a small bit of something.  They never stepped on anyone or prevented anyone from doing anything because they had nothing - they were the downtrodden.

Why should I, then, have to bare the burden of rectifying some large scale racism of which I - and my family - was never a part?  Why must I constantly hear only that one justification to AA: that it rectifies past discrimination?  Even people who think AA is a great thing need to realize that not all of our families were here to hurt yours at that time.  Mine was making wine in Sicily - they didn't have slaves, they didn;t even have a house as one would recognize one.

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

Affirmative Action also promotes women and other minorites as well...you do realize that black people aren't the only ones?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 10, 2007, 06:16:57 AM

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

You can't be serious.  But if you are, can you tell me which of the following beliefs is driving your thought process?
1)most of the 30+ million black people in America are immigrants of recent vintage
or
2)some black people came on a party cruise in the 1800s and liked the place so much that they decided to stay.

What I was trying to illustrate with my point is that many people choose to justify AA by citing a long history of racism in the US going back to slavery.  THAT is a justification with which I cannot live.

Now, the point that Leo makes is a valid one and one to which I want to respond.  I do not think MY personal chances of admission at any given program would be changed if AA was abandoned, and it is not for that reason that I want it disolved.  I simply think that, on a whole, if we are to REALLY ever become a society that is free from all forms of racial prejudice, AA needs to go away.  It is - for better or worse - one more system that classifies people based on something they CANNOT help: who they were born.
Also, AA is less an issue with admission to larger programs, such as Law or Med schools, than with small programs (PhD, for example).  If dept X at school Y only has 4 open PhD slots for a given year and they utilize AA, there is a greater chance that the overall effect on the applicants will be greater.  I have experienced this firsthand in my own graduate fellowship applications.  It is not that these students are not deserving, nor is it that I am blind to the greater societal concerns.

Will I EVER understand what it is to be a URM in the US?  No.  And that is my point.  Responses such as Leo's serve to foster actual debate without frivolity while those of TinaTina seem flippant in the context of this important issue.

I just feel - with all my sincerity and heart and mind - that if we are EVER to be free from prejudice we need to eliminate ALL vehicles for that prejudice.  AA is a policy of racial prejudice, and it is one of the few institutions that actively fosters a distinction by race.  For us to all be equal, we need to ALL be equal.  And it may be idealistic, but I think that things such as AA hurt this end more than help it.

That's the problem though. It is always minorities who have to make the sacrifice.Look, the forefathers should've thought about that before they decided to make it an issue. Whether or not you or your family had any part of supporting slavery/Jim Crow/racism is irrelevant. If you are white, you are benefitting from that system today. Even if you had no part in it, you do get some of the benefits.

One way to eliminate prejudice is not to just abolish an important vehicle for allowing minorities to get the same opportunities as whites. The way I look at it is not that abolishing affirmative action will help eliminate prejudice, but will simply re-distribute even more scarce resources to the majority at the expense of the minority under an inherently arbitrary definition of "merit." You might look at abstract concepts of equality and use them to justify your opinion, but the promise of America is equality of opportunity and unfortunately, pretty serious human rights violations have left minorities in a position where they cannot reasonably compete (as a whole) without initiatives that recognize the impact of those violations. And it has nothing to do with "merit" or an inherent inability to do the work.

Look at it this way, affirmative action is not reparations. You keep whatever benefits you unfairly received as a result of the historic subjugation of minorities in this country. It's like free money, baby. It's yours. Affirmative action simply tries to provide some semblance of equality of opportunity to a few promising minorities each year at each school/job. If you're angry that these few spots are taken up by holistic considerations including race, then you're selfish. You can't have all the resoures. If you're mad that you can't compete with affirmative action in place, what makes you think you would've been able to compete if these minorities had started off on a level playing field?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Butters Stotch on August 10, 2007, 10:11:27 AM
My response is somewhat "too simple."  My family was not here during slavery.  My family came in the 1930s as poor Sicilian immigrants who had nothing and wanted just a small bit of something.  They never stepped on anyone or prevented anyone from doing anything because they had nothing - they were the downtrodden.

Why should I, then, have to bare the burden of rectifying some large scale racism of which I - and my family - was never a part?  Why must I constantly hear only that one justification to AA: that it rectifies past discrimination?  Even people who think AA is a great thing need to realize that not all of our families were here to hurt yours at that time.  Mine was making wine in Sicily - they didn't have slaves, they didn;t even have a house as one would recognize one.

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

Affirmative Action also promotes women and other minorites as well...you do realize that black people are the only ones?

Is that really so?  I wasn't aware that, for example. women were allowed to declare themselves as URM's for purposes of, for example, law school admissions.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 10, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
My response is somewhat "too simple."  My family was not here during slavery.  My family came in the 1930s as poor Sicilian immigrants who had nothing and wanted just a small bit of something.  They never stepped on anyone or prevented anyone from doing anything because they had nothing - they were the downtrodden.

Why should I, then, have to bare the burden of rectifying some large scale racism of which I - and my family - was never a part?  Why must I constantly hear only that one justification to AA: that it rectifies past discrimination?  Even people who think AA is a great thing need to realize that not all of our families were here to hurt yours at that time.  Mine was making wine in Sicily - they didn't have slaves, they didn;t even have a house as one would recognize one.

I realize there was a systematic demoralization and abuse of certain people in early America.  I realize it was NOT fair.  But show me one person who descends from a slave family and I will support his admission over he who was from a slaveholding family.  Aside from that, I find it hard to swallow a pill that makes me - whose family was not here until 1934 (and whose family faced "Italians Need Not Apply" signs when they got here) - "responsible" for enslaving people in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia.

Affirmative Action also promotes women and other minorites as well...you do realize that black people aren't the only ones?

What I meant to say.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: blondngreen on August 10, 2007, 05:02:53 PM
This is a serious question, so no scoffers, please.  Although not a minority, I get an awesome tan.  It has been pointed out to me that I could pass as Mexican pretty easily.  I got a 168 on June's LSAT, but was thinking about retaking.  Why though?  AA is all about skin color, it isn't about the education you received, nor is it about where you grew up.  As a person with great tanning ability shouldn't I be able to take unfair advantage too? 
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Slim on August 10, 2007, 05:08:38 PM
This is a serious question, so no scoffers, please.  Although not a minority, I get an awesome tan.  It has been pointed out to me that I could pass as Mexican pretty easily.  I got a 168 on June's LSAT, but was thinking about retaking.  Why though?  AA is all about skin color, it isn't about the education you received, nor is it about where you grew up.  As a person with great tanning ability shouldn't I be able to take unfair advantage too? 
Yes, but I don't think there is a Law School for individuals with special needs.   ::)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: blondngreen on August 10, 2007, 05:10:41 PM
You're right, I do have special needs...A tanning bed.  Please be serious, and address my question.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Slim on August 10, 2007, 05:18:24 PM
I am serious.  You're retarded or something.   Probably a savant since you did well on the lsat.   I doubt you have the ability to interact effectively in a human social environment.  I say you should try it it, and if they don't accept you try to tie in a  limited intellect thing. It suits you. 8)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: blondngreen on August 10, 2007, 05:20:21 PM
So basically you're telling me that when I get into UVA, having checked the URM box, my tan will make me a social outcast?  Do you and I need a spa day?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 10, 2007, 10:04:19 PM
This is a serious question, so no scoffers, please.  Although not a minority, I get an awesome tan.  It has been pointed out to me that I could pass as Mexican pretty easily.  I got a 168 on June's LSAT, but was thinking about retaking.  Why though?  AA is all about skin color, it isn't about the education you received, nor is it about where you grew up.  As a person with great tanning ability shouldn't I be able to take unfair advantage too? 
Yes, but I don't think there is a Law School for individuals with special needs.    ::)

 :D :D :D classic.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on August 13, 2007, 02:49:17 AM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on August 13, 2007, 08:28:48 AM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

if you wanna beat me up over a malapropism feel free to. My sole purpose is to make you feel better about yourself.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Def Leppard on August 13, 2007, 08:53:17 AM
Here is that article. I have no idea why it didn't post earlier:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?p1=email_to_a_friend

Again, not trying to flame anyone here. I just thought this would add to the healthy debate.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 11:48:38 AM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: MahlerGrooves on August 13, 2007, 12:05:16 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

I have a shirt with your Avatar on it.  It always gets a laugh.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 12:12:33 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

I have a shirt with your Avatar on it.  It always gets a laugh.

I laughed for a day straight when I saw it.  :D
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 12:50:06 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

I have a shirt with your Avatar on it.  It always gets a laugh.

I laughed for a day straight when I saw it.  :D

I don't think your comeback really makes sense, but yeah, your avatar is pretty funny.  ;)

It makes perfect sense because it parallels with the previous posts. White and Male supremecy are to affirmative action as white is to other minority.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 12:52:21 PM
It makes perfect sense because it parallels with the previous posts. White and Male supremecy are to affirmative action as white is to other minority.

actually, i would say that it's more the legacy system. 

a legacy system based on what? Male and white supremecy.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 01:00:47 PM
It makes perfect sense because it parallels with the previous posts. White and Male supremecy are to affirmative action as white is to other minority.

actually, i would say that it's more the legacy system. 

a legacy system based on what? Male and white supremecy.

legacy system also benefits female children of alumni.  ;)

i'm just splitting hairs really.

Yeah, you are. And only until a recent time ago did legacy systems guarantee benefit for women. That might explain why women are underrespresented in math and science diciplines.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 01:04:33 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

I have a shirt with your Avatar on it.  It always gets a laugh.

I laughed for a day straight when I saw it.  :D

I don't think your comeback really makes sense, but yeah, your avatar is pretty funny.  ;)

It makes perfect sense because it parallels with the previous posts. White and Male supremecy are to affirmative action as white is to other minority.

Well, I was just talking about the illiterate part.  Unless I missed something and Htown has shown himself to be illiterate.  For example, by misspelling intact or supremacy.  ;)

ah you got me. I'm illiterate because I misspelled supremacy and also, discipline.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 01:05:47 PM
Yeah, you are. And only until a recent time ago did legacy systems guarantee benefit for women. That might explain why women are underrespresented in math and science diciplines.

meh.  i think it's more likely that women are discouraged from doing math and science due to stereotypes about ability.

in any case, if you want to give an example of how white supremacy is perpetuated, legacy is probably the most obvious one.

probably the more influental underlining cause.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 13, 2007, 01:16:55 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

I have a shirt with your Avatar on it.  It always gets a laugh.

I laughed for a day straight when I saw it.  :D

I don't think your comeback really makes sense, but yeah, your avatar is pretty funny.  ;)

It makes perfect sense because it parallels with the previous posts. White and Male supremecy are to affirmative action as white is to other minority.

Well, I was just talking about the illiterate part.  Unless I missed something and Htown has shown himself to be illiterate.  For example, by misspelling intact or supremacy.  ;)

ah you got me. I'm illiterate because I misspelled supremacy and also, discipline.

Haha, nah I wasn't saying you're illiterate...I was just wondering why you called Htown illiterate.  :P

To show absurdity in believing that affirmative action gets illiterates into college. If anything it helps bad spellers.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on August 13, 2007, 01:37:16 PM
spelling's overrated anyway.

amen

Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on August 13, 2007, 08:23:43 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

Link?

Honestly, you'll get in everywhere you apply.

And who's to say I'm a male.. or white for that matter?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on August 13, 2007, 08:33:37 PM
This is why affirmative action should remain in tact (sic)!

Selfpwnage. I guess AA is good for getting illiterates like the OP into college.

And I guess male and white supremecy are good for getting illiterates like you into college.

Link?

Honestly, you'll get in everywhere you apply.

And who's to say I'm a male.. or white for that matter?

i am.  you're a male and white.

You're one for two.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: HtownsFinest on August 13, 2007, 10:36:57 PM


i am.  you're a male and white.

You're one for two.

i don't care.  i say i'm two for two and since this is the internet, there's no way to prove otherwise.

whatever.  damned message boards.

Well given that I am the only one with access to the truth of the matter, my judgment trumps yours. 1 for 2.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: reverendT on August 28, 2007, 08:25:23 AM
http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs
It's funny that you call out WASPs on this issue.  A demographic breakdown will reveal that the most over-represented group at top law schools (and at Ivy League schools in general) is jewish people.

They have been a repressed minority, and have overcome it.  Just like the Asians, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.
The American dreamed must be earned, not handed out.   
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 08:32:16 AM
http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs
It's funny that you call out WASPs on this issue.  A demographic breakdown will reveal that the most over-represented group at top law schools (and at Ivy League schools in general) is jewish people.

They have been a repressed minority, and have overcome it.  Just like the Asians, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.
The American dreamed must be earned, not handed out.   

That doesn't explain gender discrimination and why women on average are paid 70% of what men are paid. Also, none of the groups ever experienced slavery or segregation. We're only 43 years out of legalized segregation and that's if you don't count transition and subsequent court challenges.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 09:47:15 AM
http://www.thecrimson.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ref=513563

gotta love cronyism

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html

Though not a solution, affirmative action offers the only current practical remedy for race, sexual preference and gender based discrimination. I am not condemning this decision I am simply saying the same opportunities should be forwarded to people who face abnormal amouts of barriers and hurdles in comparison to typical WASPs
It's funny that you call out WASPs on this issue.  A demographic breakdown will reveal that the most over-represented group at top law schools (and at Ivy League schools in general) is jewish people.

They have been a repressed minority, and have overcome it.  Just like the Asians, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc.
The American dreamed must be earned, not handed out.   

That doesn't explain gender discrimination and why women on average are paid 70% of what men are paid. Also, none of the groups ever experienced slavery or segregation. We're only 43 years out of legalized segregation and that's if you don't count transition and subsequent court challenges.

Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours. Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 11:39:23 AM
Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours.

In other words, men earn more because they work more, but even if you just consider the labor hours for men and women who just work 40 hours, disparities still exist. And those disparities contine to widen between men and women who work 40 hours or more.

Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

True, and all the more reason to allow Affirmative Action programs to correct this disparity.

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

Even when you consider only those contributions to "production labor," women still earn less than men on average. For example, in 2004, female accountants with 1-4 years of experience earned 72,534, while equally experienced men earn 94,314.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.

According to the AAUP, which measures gender equity for faculty at over 1400 universities in the U.S., female full-professors with doctoral degrees earned 9.1% less than full male professors with doctoral degrees. Overall, female faculty with doctoral degrees in all ranks earned 78.1% of their male counterparts salaries. <http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/63396944-44BE-4ABA-9815-5792D93856F1/0/AAUPGenderEquityIndicators2006.pdf>

Additionally, I think it's telling that a single female professor is comparable to (I'm assuming because your post doesn't clarify) "single and married" male professors. What are the stats for female professors who are married? I mean women aren't married to themselves. Are these disparities transferrable to married men as well?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: reverendT on August 28, 2007, 11:48:55 AM
Why does a disparity need to be corrected in the first place, as long as the opportunity is there for all who wish to embark on a chosen career.
If less women are CHOOSING scientific careers, for example, then it seems perfectly acceptable for less women to be employed in such a field.

Equal CHANCES for all does not always mean equal OUTCOME.

Everyone should have the same chance if possible.
We should not always expect equal outcome.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 01:53:57 PM
Why does a disparity need to be corrected in the first place, as long as the opportunity is there for all who wish to embark on a chosen career.
If less women are CHOOSING scientific careers, for example, then it seems perfectly acceptable for less women to be employed in such a field.

Equal CHANCES for all does not always mean equal OUTCOME.

Everyone should have the same chance if possible.
We should not always expect equal outcome.

No one said anything about equal outcome. Fewer women are pursuing degrees in math in science. Why? Is it because women have been historically been confined to positions tradionally held for women? Is a career in math and science as accessible to women as it is for men? A gender-neutral policy won't yield equal chances for men and women.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 08:13:01 PM
Women are paid less on average because the distribution of female labor-hours amongst occupations is different than that of male labor-hours.

In other words, men earn more because they work more, but even if you just consider the labor hours for men and women who just work 40 hours, disparities still exist. And those disparities contine to widen between men and women who work 40 hours or more.

No, men earn more because they work in different occupations with different pre-requisites. And men don't have their careers delayed because of pregnancy or childbirth.

Anecdotal evidence from various business publications I've read also suggests that men are more willing than women to negotiate and play different offers against each other, which would also yield a higher salary. I have no idea how big of an effect this might be, though.

Fewer women than men study mathematically-heavy majors such as engineering, physics, and economics, and since study in these fields often correlates with higher pay relative to study in other fields, the presence of fewer women in these fields pulls down the average pay of women.

True, and all the more reason to allow Affirmative Action programs to correct this disparity.

Fewer women than men play professional football, and since entry into this profession correlates with higher pay relative to the pay in MANY other fields, the presence of fewer women playing professional football pull down the average pay of women relative to that of men.

Should the government or the NFL enact AA programs to correct this disparity?

Furthermore, the careers of many women are delayed due to childbirth (which usually correlates with marriage). A busy female executive's climb up the career ladder will be substantially delayed if her peers need to cover her responsibilities when she's on maternity leave. Careers delayed, or contingency plans made, due to childbirth also pulls down the average pay of women.

Even when you consider only those contributions to "production labor," women still earn less than men on average. For example, in 2004, female accountants with 1-4 years of experience earned 72,534, while equally experienced men earn 94,314.

That doesn't take into account the pregnancy effect.

For that matter, that statistic doesn't take into account the effects of differential sex ratios according to region, school, GPA, and probably a few other factors that might influence pay.

When you control for field of study, level of degree (bachelor's, master's, or doctorate), field of work, years of experience, and marital status, I'd bet you'd find that a woman's pay is no different than man's pay (at least in the United States). To give you an idea of what I mean by this, I remember reading that single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts.

According to the AAUP, which measures gender equity for faculty at over 1400 universities in the U.S., female full-professors with doctoral degrees earned 9.1% less than full male professors with doctoral degrees. Overall, female faculty with doctoral degrees in all ranks earned 78.1% of their male counterparts salaries. <http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/63396944-44BE-4ABA-9815-5792D93856F1/0/AAUPGenderEquityIndicators2006.pdf>

Additionally, I think it's telling that a single female professor is comparable to (I'm assuming because your post doesn't clarify) "single and married" male professors. What are the stats for female professors who are married? I mean women aren't married to themselves. Are these disparities transferrable to married men as well?

In which fields did the professors in the AAUP study earn their degrees in? A professor with a PhD in advanced engineering physics will earn more than one with a PhD in English, no matter what sex the professor is.

Furthermore, were the professors married? Pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing responsibilities have historically been the domain of the wife. Even if you disagree with this norm, you must agree that these responsibilities, if adhered to by a female professor, will affect her career advancement. (For example, my Genetics lecturer, who was a phenomenal teacher, gave up on pursuing a full professorship because she wanted to spend time with her two kids, and the amount of research she would have to do in order to maintain her position would prevent her from spending as much time with them as she wanted to. Her husband, on the other hand, was content to fulfill the full responsibilities of professorship.)

I honestly don't remember too many specifics about the study I mentioned (the one which examined average salary earned when marital status, field of study, and level of degree were held constant between the two sexes of college professors), so I can't tell you off the top of my head whether the comparison was between single female professors and male professors or single female professors and single male professors. I'd wager the difference between the former case and the latter case wouldn't be very pronounced, because of the historical expectation that women, and not men, are primarily responsible for childraising. (Not saying I agree with this, but it IS an effect other than discrimination that would account for the pay disparity.)

(You can ding me for my faulty memory if you want; I had merely been browsing the book in which I found the study, and so I only remember the more memorable parts of that book.)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 08:19:35 PM
No one said anything about equal outcome. Fewer women are pursuing degrees in math in science. Why? Is it because women have been historically been confined to positions tradionally held for women? Is a career in math and science as accessible to women as it is for men? A gender-neutral policy won't yield equal chances for men and women.

Larry Summers thinks that one plausible (but unstudied) explanation is that there are fewer women than men who are intelligent far beyond the norm, because the standard deviation of female test scores tends to be smaller than that of men (conversely, if this holds true, there are fewer women than men who are stupid far beyond the norm). This explanation could merit additional study; unfortunately, the Harvard feminists instead asked for Summers' head on a platter, and got it.

FWIW, anecdotal evidence suggests that women are interested in different subjects than men. Again, this explanation is another non-discriminatory factor that would account for the difference in sex ratios in students studying math and science.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 09:22:53 PM
All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 10:13:01 PM
Lindbergh already said much of what I wanted to say, so I'll address the points that you brought up which I don't think he adequately addressed.

A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)

I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 10:21:47 PM
All your arguments depend on stereotypical roles for working mothers. It doesn't matter if a women's career is delayed by childbearing. A women who works 2 years, takes 1 off for childbirth, then works 2 more years should equate to a man who has worked 4 years.


This competely ignores the reality of business.  You can't expect someone who takes time off to be in the same position at the end of 4 years of (disrupted) work, especially if they're devoting less time per week to the job (which is usually the case).

You can argue that traditional gender roles are "stereotypical", but they're still the reality, and they logically impact success outside the home.


A Harvard study suggests that "when men were evaluating female job candidates, they were significantly more likely to want to work with a woman who accepted her compensation offer without comment. They perceived the women who attempted to negotiate as less nice and overly demanding." That in itself is discriminatory because it relies on the steretypical attidudes for women. (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/update/winter2006/stories/q_a.htm)


Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure.


These constant sports analogies (Whites and the NBA) are not analogous. Football player salaries are also largely dependent on marketability. The sports public is not majorly interested in seeing women play football.


Because women can't really play football very well.  Just like women who are focused on the home can't devote as much time to their career, and usually end up being somewhat less successful as a result. 

Also, "production labor" does take into account the so-called "pregnancy affect," as opposed to "reproduction labor," which is the number of childbearing years. Production labor is the contribution to paid labor as mentioned before.


???? 

What about the fact that women often focus on the home more even after they return to work?


Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.


See above.


Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

Again, women focus more on the home than men.  You can argue that this is wrong, or blame the husbands, but it doesn't change the reality.  And this is the primary reason women end up achieving less (on average) at work.  I imagine women who devote as much time to the office as men do achieve far more comparable results. 
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 10:27:28 PM
I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.
[/quote]

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 11:22:06 PM
I've read a blurb on that study. If the female candidate does a good job in negotiating by fielding her competing offers, and makes a convincing argument on why she should earn a higher salary, then I think any company who decides against her for this fact is making a big mistake because well-prepared negotiators and convincing presenters/arguers are a rarity.

However, HR professionals are accountible for the impact of their hiring decisions on the company, while I am not, so my judgment in this matter isn't necessarily the best substitute for every case on hand. Similarly, that's why applying AA to this case makes little sense; there are too many other unknowns (such as company culture, type of role - good negotiation skills are probably valued more in corporate law or sales than in customer service or tech support) that can't be controlled for.

It might not make sense using quotas, but it makes perfect sense for AA.

If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

Read the report for the different statistical shortcomings, but the fact is that women professors with doctoral degrees are paid far less than their male counterparts on average.

Proof by example is logical fallacy. Giving one or a few examples does not disprove the general statement. The fact that female engineering professors earn more than males doesn't strengthen your argument. Also, comparing salaries of engineering and english professors says nothing to male/female salary disparities. Apples and oranges.

I never said that female engineering professors earn more than males. I said that engineering professors make more than English professors. Since the ratio of men to women is different between engineering professorships and English professorships, presumably because fewer women than men want to study PhD-level engineering than PhD-level english, this difference in distribution is a non-discriminatory cause of the pay difference.

You did say that in a prior statement: "...single female economics professors with a PhD actually earn a little bit more than their male counterparts."

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 28, 2007, 11:31:46 PM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 11:36:28 PM
If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 11:40:55 PM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 28, 2007, 11:50:37 PM
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?


Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 
[/quote]

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 29, 2007, 04:26:33 AM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  


Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 29, 2007, 04:27:11 AM

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.


I think it is.

I don't doubt u do.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:36:16 AM
If the AA policy causes the company to lose business or competent staff, then it won't be the proponents of AA who suffer. As the proponents of AA are not accountable as a company's management (and shareholders) for the consequences of their policies, it is unwise to substitute their preferences for those of the hiring staff.

One my favorite misconceptions about Affirmative Action. You do have to have to be comptent to benefit from AA. Any other system is a quota.

Candidates for positions in a company will always be a mixed bag, and different HR departments will have a different idea what qualifications are most important for the role that the candidates are competing for.

The HR departments will have a better idea what qualities are desired and what are not, and in what proportions, than someone who is pressuring the company to pass an AA policy.

It may very well be that the culture of a company is such that hiring any woman would disrupt the group dynamic. One example of this would be hiring for Chippendale dancers, although I'm sure there may be others. It's better to let the company's management, rather than an unaccountable 3rd party, decide which candidates could best contribute to their bottom line.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?

Even though my assertion can't be deductively proven, most assertions cannot be deductively proven, so that point doesn't weaken my assertion in particular. Most assertions are given as knowledgeable due to the preponderance of evidence that supports the assertion, not because they are deduced from relationships to other assertions.

For example, if I came across a man holding a bloody knife and standing next to a dead woman lying on the ground with a bloody knife wound in her throat, that observation doesn't deductively prove that the man killed the woman, but it would strongly support an assertion that he did.

This is clearly not the same type of reasoning that characterizes the argument "All dogs are mammals. Since Spot is a dog, Spot is a mammal."
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:51:12 AM
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:53:53 AM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  


Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 29, 2007, 09:24:46 AM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  


Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 29, 2007, 09:27:58 AM
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:50:43 PM
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  


Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 29, 2007, 07:55:48 PM
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.

I didn't quote a study, I mentioned a study that I found in a book. I've already explained this to you.

Since I don't own the book, nor live close to an English-language bookstore, I can't look up the study and provide you an explanation of its details.

If you're interested in reading the details of the study for yourself, I found it mentioned in the book "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy." I'm guessing that the study compared single women to single men, although since I don't have the book in front of me, I can't be sure.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 12:32:22 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 12:46:22 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 12:46:39 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 12:48:21 AM
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 12:57:47 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 12:58:46 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come on. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 01:00:06 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 01:01:59 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come one. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)

Yeah, I would provide the source, but I don't have the book on me. Sorry :)

(I'm only trying to show you that an alternative explanation exists for this disparity. Since the explanation is supported by evidence that I can't provide right now, I can't fault you for questioning the validity of the study.)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 01:06:29 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 01:09:58 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come on. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)

Yeah, I would provide the source, but I don't have the book on me. Sorry :)

(I'm only trying to show you that an alternative explanation exists for this disparity. Since the explanation is supported by evidence that I can't provide right now, I can't fault you for questioning the validity of the study.)

well, thanks.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 01:19:13 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 01:22:07 AM
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.

Do you define a "confining" decision as one that can't be reversed by the person making the decision? Because I've been defining a "confining" decision as one which limits your alternatives, not by irreversibility.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 01:30:18 AM
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.

Do you define a "confining" decision as one that can't be reversed by the person making the decision? Because I've been defining a "confining" decision as one which limits your alternatives, not by irreversibility.

Confining meaning you're stuck with it.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 01:31:42 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?

Well, if someone has a motive to say an untruths, that doesn't necessarily mean that any statement they make concerning the area in which they have a motive to state the untruth about is false. They may say an untruth, or they may be telling the truth.

What's important is evaluating whether their statements are true or false.

However, if I'm accurately characterizing Media Matters, that website was set up not to point out specific instances where non-leftists have spoken untruths, but to show that they have a motive for saying untruths, and insinuate that motive is sufficient grounds to disregard all their statements as untruths.

But as I mentioned above, just because someone has a motive to say something that isn't true doesn't mean that whatever they're saying is false. To catch a falsehood, you need evidence that proves what they're saying is untrue, not mere insinuations that they've said something false because they have a motive to do so.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 01:36:31 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.
Quote

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.
Firstly, you would think you could figure out how to quote text.  

Secondly, your evasiveness is astounding.  Here's the original article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp  Mediamatters is right in that Sowell clearly intends to portray AIDS as something that only concerns homosexuals.  He describes AIDS education as promoting homosexuality and claims it teaches people local homosexual hangouts.  It's this kind of tripe that makes him so laughable.  

Media Matters is correct in that he clearly suggests that AIDS is something that is exclusive to homosexuals.  His rhetoric is the same as that used by members of the Bush administation to tie Iraq to 9/11 in the build-up to the war.  Were you to ask him point blank, he'd deny that AIDS only affects homosexuals.  But he's certainly going to imply that again and again with ridiculous assertions like the one in that article.

Read the whole piece.  If you still think he's a serious thinker, then I have the number of a great lobotomist.  And nowhere in that article is there any support for your assertion that Sowell believes AIDS disproportionately affects gays.  Nowhere.  Jackass.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 01:43:55 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?

Well, if someone has a motive to say an untruths, that doesn't necessarily mean that any statement they make concerning the area in which they have a motive to state the untruth about is false. They may say an untruth, or they may be telling the truth.

What's important is evaluating whether their statements are true or false.

However, if I'm accurately characterizing Media Matters, that website was set up not to point out specific instances where non-leftists have spoken untruths, but to show that they have a motive for saying untruths, and insinuate that motive is sufficient grounds to disregard all their statements as untruths.

But as I mentioned above, just because someone has a motive to say something that isn't true doesn't mean that whatever they're saying is false. To catch a falsehood, you need evidence that proves what they're saying is untrue, not mere insinuations that they've said something false because they have a motive to do so.

I wonder if you hold Fox News in that same regard?

Media Matters is a self-proclaimed progressive organization. Can you give an instance where Media Matters has given false statements? I gotta million for Fox.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 02:26:08 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.
Quote

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.
Firstly, you would think you could figure out how to quote text.  

Secondly, your evasiveness is astounding.  Here's the original article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp  Mediamatters is right in that Sowell clearly intends to portray AIDS as something that only concerns homosexuals.  He describes AIDS education as promoting homosexuality and claims it teaches people local homosexual hangouts.  It's this kind of tripe that makes him so laughable.  

Media Matters is correct in that he clearly suggests that AIDS is something that is exclusive to homosexuals.  His rhetoric is the same as that used by members of the Bush administation to tie Iraq to 9/11 in the build-up to the war.  Were you to ask him point blank, he'd deny that AIDS only affects homosexuals.  But he's certainly going to imply that again and again with ridiculous assertions like the one in that article.

Read the whole piece.  If you still think he's a serious thinker, then I have the number of a great lobotomist.  And nowhere in that article is there any support for your assertion that Sowell believes AIDS disproportionately affects gays.  Nowhere.  Jackass.

You're reading your own biases into the interpretation of the article. Nowhere in the article does he claim that AIDS *only* affects homosexuals. It may be inferred that he thinks AIDS *disproportionately* affects homosexuals (since the homosexual choice is a "deathstyle" due to AIDS, choosing that option implies that it provides you a higher risk of dying from AIDS than choosing other options), but that isn't the same thing as saying that AIDS *only* affects homosexuals.

You're offended by his rhetoric, but you don't address the substance of his argument. This is a question of reasonable interpretation of a statement, not one of rhetoric.

I'm touched that your sense of propriety is so easily bruised by the style and tone of the man's words. Now pretty please, with a cherry on top, address the substance of his argument. And don't bring in an irrelevant tangent such as the rhetoric of the Bush Administration.

Let me guess, you majored in Critical Gender Studies? If I wanted a lobotomy, I could probably get one by enrolling in such a program.

You know, Alberto Gonzales also enrolled at Harvard Law School. He didn't turn out to be a very good lawyer.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 02:28:11 AM
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?

Well, if someone has a motive to say an untruths, that doesn't necessarily mean that any statement they make concerning the area in which they have a motive to state the untruth about is false. They may say an untruth, or they may be telling the truth.

What's important is evaluating whether their statements are true or false.

However, if I'm accurately characterizing Media Matters, that website was set up not to point out specific instances where non-leftists have spoken untruths, but to show that they have a motive for saying untruths, and insinuate that motive is sufficient grounds to disregard all their statements as untruths.

But as I mentioned above, just because someone has a motive to say something that isn't true doesn't mean that whatever they're saying is false. To catch a falsehood, you need evidence that proves what they're saying is untrue, not mere insinuations that they've said something false because they have a motive to do so.

I wonder if you hold Fox News in that same regard?

Media Matters is a self-proclaimed progressive organization. Can you give an instance where Media Matters has given false statements? I gotta million for Fox.

Well, I don't have cable, and have barely watched Fox, so I don't have a complete enough picture of their coverage in order to have a good opinion on whether or not it's biased or full of lies.

I thought I just provided you an instance where Media Matters misconstrued an author's statement.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 02:29:44 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 02:36:09 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.

No it did not.  He called being gay a deathstyle and took every chance he could to associate AIDS with homosexuality.  He is a bigot and your refusal to denounce that article is just sad.  Deathstyle.  This is not the first time he's done so: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3768
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 05:54:34 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.


Dude, anyone who reads more than one of your posts knows you're a lefty wingnut hack, pure and simple.  I may not always agree with pseudo, but at least he bases his arguments on facts and reason, not just knee-jerk bias.

Moreover, Sowell has a PhD from Chicago in economics, and is a senior fellow at Stanford, so unless you have comparable credentials, he's clearly both far more intelligent and far better educated than you.

Just out of curiousity, which one of the following causes you to hallucinate that your perspective is somehow more accurate than Sowell's?   

1.  He disagrees with your sophomoric worldview?

2.  He's black?
I can't think of any other reason you'd even begin to think you're in a position to question anyone with a functioning brain.

No offense.   :)
You would allude to this. We specifically noted Sowell's illusionary articles that suggest that AIDS is a gay disease. That is why we question is authenticity. Plain and simple.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 06:14:33 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.

No it did not.  He called being gay a deathstyle and took every chance he could to associate AIDS with homosexuality.  He is a bigot and your refusal to denounce that article is just sad.  Deathstyle.  This is not the first time he's done so: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3768


I don't agree with Sowell's overall point here, but his premise that AIDS is associated with homosexuality is hardly controversial.  There's no question that the homosexual community has been hit far harder by AIDS than other groups.  (Regardless of what rates are rising or falling, it's the percentage of cases in the community that matters.)

Why regardless? If the fact is that AIDS more likely affects heterosexuals than homosexuals then how can the opposite assetion not be controversial. Don't point to the sun and tell me it's the moon.

It can be factually inferred that the reason AIDS is an epidemic in the gay community is not because gays are more susceptible to the disease, but because of the social stigma that it is a gay disease. That leads into why it's becoming an epidemic with heterosexuals now.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 06:19:42 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.


Dude, anyone who reads more than one of your posts knows you're a lefty wingnut hack, pure and simple.  I may not always agree with pseudo, but at least he bases his arguments on facts and reason, not just knee-jerk bias.

Moreover, Sowell has a PhD from Chicago in economics, and is a senior fellow at Stanford, so unless you have comparable credentials, he's clearly both far more intelligent and far better educated than you.

Just out of curiousity, which one of the following causes you to hallucinate that your perspective is somehow more accurate than Sowell's?   

1.  He disagrees with your sophomoric worldview?

2.  He's black?
I can't think of any other reason you'd even begin to think you're in a position to question anyone with a functioning brain.

No offense.   :)
You would allude to this. We specifically noted Sowell's illusionary articles that suggest that AIDS is a gay disease. That is why we question is authenticity. Plain and simple.


Someone needs to highlight H4CS's obvious racism.

All Sowell said was that the gay community has a major problem with AIDS.  Which they clearly do.  Plain and Simple.

If you don't believe me, go ask a gay person.

"...homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS." Come on now. The most common way to get AIDS is through heterosexual sex. AIDS is a problem for everyone, not just the gays.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 06:29:32 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.

No it did not.  He called being gay a deathstyle and took every chance he could to associate AIDS with homosexuality.  He is a bigot and your refusal to denounce that article is just sad.  Deathstyle.  This is not the first time he's done so: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3768

Allow me to paraphrase the Media Matters article. I've preceded my comments with //'s:

Quote
Sowell: If you are a homosexual, you are likely to die of AIDS.

// is homosexual -> likely die of AIDS

Media Matters: Sowell claims that only homosexuals can get AIDS.

// Has AIDS -> is homosexual

This data shows that the rate of AIDS infections amongst the non-homosexuals has increased and the rate of AIDS infections amongst homosexuals has decreased.

Since non-homosexuals can get AIDS, Sowell is obviously mistaken.

As any reasonable person would infer, Media Matters has completely misconstrued what Sowell actually wrote. They switched his necessary condition and his sufficient condition, and attempted to attribute the mistaken reversal as something he originally stated.

Are you sure you belong at Harvard? I thought conditional reasoning was the prime focus of the LSAT. Or has your ideology blinded you to the proper reading of this article?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 06:47:12 AM
The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 06:55:04 AM
Why regardless? If the fact is that AIDS more likely affects heterosexuals than homosexuals then how can the opposite assetion not be controversial. Don't point to the sun and tell me it's the moon.

Well, you're right. If AIDS is more likely to affect heterosexuals than homosexuals, than Sowell is, at the very least, mistaken, and, at the very most, asserting something that is untrue to grind an ideological axe.

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Without hard data, neither of us can prove the other is false, and will be reduced to appealing to popular belief in the factual status of our assertion. And judging by our arguments so far, we have very different asssessments on the status of that popular belief, which seems reasonable. But at least we're now talking facts and reasons, rather than sliming each other with ad hom attacks :)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 08:03:42 AM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 08:28:50 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.

No it did not.  He called being gay a deathstyle and took every chance he could to associate AIDS with homosexuality.  He is a bigot and your refusal to denounce that article is just sad.  Deathstyle.  This is not the first time he's done so: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3768

Allow me to paraphrase the Media Matters article. I've preceded my comments with //'s:

Quote
Sowell: If you are a homosexual, you are likely to die of AIDS.

// is homosexual -> likely die of AIDS

Media Matters: Sowell claims that only homosexuals can get AIDS.

// Has AIDS -> is homosexual

This data shows that the rate of AIDS infections amongst the non-homosexuals has increased and the rate of AIDS infections amongst homosexuals has decreased.

Since non-homosexuals can get AIDS, Sowell is obviously mistaken.

As any reasonable person would infer, Media Matters has completely misconstrued what Sowell actually wrote. They switched his necessary condition and his sufficient condition, and attempted to attribute the mistaken reversal as something he originally stated.

Are you sure you belong at Harvard? I thought conditional reasoning was the prime focus of the LSAT. Or has your ideology blinded you to the proper reading of this article?

You did a terrible job of summarization to forcibly make Media Matters misconstrue the piece.  That's not hard to do.  Let me summarize your post.

1. I think I'm smart.
2. I'm not.

Most obviously, MM does not claim that Sowell states that only homosexuals can get AIDS but that he suggests it.  And he certainly does want readers to associate the two while hating both. 

You and Lindbergh can jerk off all you want to his credentials but they have no bearing on his legitimacy as a social commentator and this piece is proof.  It's a hateful piece that continues a shameful legacy of trying to tie AIDS to gayness while attacking aids education. 

You seem obsessed about where I go to school but your energy would be much better worrying about what school would possibly accept you.  Let me put this in no uncertain terms: Anyone at a top school would immediately recognize this piece for what it is.  It doesn't matter what your political leanings are, it is entirely clear to any thinking person what Sowell is going for here and it's also clear that this is not a piece worth engaging with or debating.  You and Lindbergh are in a lot of trouble if your ideological blinders have prevented you from seeing the forest for the trees.  Law students, for all their shortcomings, at least can spot something as easy as this.

I guess you don't really know what a good student looks like so you're confused.  Get used to feeling this way, because you're going to be missing a lot of things in law school.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 08:41:51 AM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 08:47:21 AM
Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

So would heterosexuality be a deathstyle then?  Would AIDS education still be about homosexual activists CONVERTING OUR CHILDREN!!!!  Christ almighty, look at what you're defending.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 08:53:05 AM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

And I'm a reasonable person, and I don't believe MM misrepresented Sowell's statements. He implied exactly what he wanted the flock to believe.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 08:57:31 AM
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

It completely misinterpreted what he wrote. Facist pig.

No it did not.  He called being gay a deathstyle and took every chance he could to associate AIDS with homosexuality.  He is a bigot and your refusal to denounce that article is just sad.  Deathstyle.  This is not the first time he's done so: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3768

Allow me to paraphrase the Media Matters article. I've preceded my comments with //'s:

Quote
Sowell: If you are a homosexual, you are likely to die of AIDS.

// is homosexual -> likely die of AIDS

Media Matters: Sowell claims that only homosexuals can get AIDS.

// Has AIDS -> is homosexual

This data shows that the rate of AIDS infections amongst the non-homosexuals has increased and the rate of AIDS infections amongst homosexuals has decreased.

Since non-homosexuals can get AIDS, Sowell is obviously mistaken.

As any reasonable person would infer, Media Matters has completely misconstrued what Sowell actually wrote. They switched his necessary condition and his sufficient condition, and attempted to attribute the mistaken reversal as something he originally stated.

Are you sure you belong at Harvard? I thought conditional reasoning was the prime focus of the LSAT. Or has your ideology blinded you to the proper reading of this article?

You did a terrible job of summarization to forcibly make Media Matters misconstrue the piece.  That's not hard to do.  Let me summarize your post.

1. I think I'm smart.
2. I'm not.

Most obviously, MM does not claim that Sowell states that only homosexuals can get AIDS but that he suggests it.  And he certainly does want readers to associate the two while hating both. 

You and Lindbergh can jerk off all you want to his credentials but they have no bearing on his legitimacy as a social commentator and this piece is proof.  It's a hateful piece that continues a shameful legacy of trying to tie AIDS to gayness while attacking aids education. 

You seem obsessed about where I go to school but your energy would be much better worrying about what school would possibly accept you.  Let me put this in no uncertain terms: Anyone at a top school would immediately recognize this piece for what it is.  It doesn't matter what your political leanings, it is entirely clear to any thinking person what Sowell is going for here and it's also clear that this is not a piece worth engaging with or debating.  You and Lindbergh are in a lot of trouble if your ideological blinders have prevented you from seeing the forest for the trees.  Law students, for all their shortcomings, at least can spot something as easy as this.

I guess you don't really know what a good student looks like so you're confused.  Get used to feeling this way, because you're going to be missing a lot of things in law school.

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on August 30, 2007, 09:06:13 AM
MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 09:14:49 AM
MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

dito.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 1654134681665465 on August 30, 2007, 11:19:05 AM
Seventhson!  I haven't seen you on here for awhile.  How did an AA thread turn in homo hetero death styles? 
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 11:50:36 AM
Seventhson!  I haven't seen you on here for awhile.  How did an AA thread turn in homo hetero death styles? 

LOL!  :D I have a way with these threads I guess.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 12:25:51 PM
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages.  I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

 ;)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 12:43:54 PM
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages. I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

 ;)

Haha, well I just wanted to point out that the article doesn't seem intellectually honest either.  But I guess my main point is that the captain and lindbergh seemed to be arguing past each other, more than arguing with each other.

lol. nah it's cool. those articles are pretty lenghty.

The data was pretty interesting though.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 04:05:55 PM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.


None of this changes the fact that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected gay sex vs. unprotected straight sex, or the fact that you're far more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay, or the fact that AIDS has devastated the gay community. 

(1.  A higher percentage of gays already have AIDS.  2.  AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex.  3.  Anal sex is more common in gay sex.)

This is the reason gay activists are far more vocal on the issue than other groups.  They certainly consider it a gay issue to some extent.  Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous. 

That is only true in the U.S. and certain other regions. In many other countries, such as Uganda, the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same. Can you guess why?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 04:07:45 PM
Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)

Don't play me, playa.  8) I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 04:16:09 PM
Well, I believe Sowell was focusing on the U.S., right?  

I'm honestly not sure that the risks are in fact the same in Uganda, although sexual practices there clearly make straight sex far more dangerous (because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection).  However, age of female partners is also a factor both in Africa and in the U.S.  Younger women are more likely to catch AIDS, and younger women are generally more sexually active, at a younger age, in Uganda.  (There's also probably far more rape, etc.)

I don't believe he clarified his idiotic statements.

These general statements...Old bean, where do you get your facts?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 04:17:00 PM
Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)

Don't play me, playa.  8) I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.


Just stating the facts.  As usual, however, you don't want to accept them.

Whatever.  It's still a free country.   :-*

where? Bill O'Reily is that you?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 10:08:03 PM
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages.  I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

"Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate."

Just to point out why I don't like the excerpts I've seen from the article...Sowell implies that AIDS is a "homosexual disease", but to say that he suggests that "AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals" seems pretty disingenuous, at least based on what's been quoted in this thread.  Those stats also look potentially very misleading

"the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years" - this seems to simply mean that more heterosexual people have AIDs than 15 years ago, not that the per capita rate has increased.

"while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined"  Now here he's using the "rate", which would mean per capita I assume

"along with the overall infection rate" - I'm assuming again that "rate" means per capita infections.  So, in order for the overall infection rate to decrease, the heterosexuality rate is probably decreasing too, unless the homosexuality rate is decreasing at such a high rate that that small percentage of the population is able to counter the increase in the heterosexual rate.  It seems to me pretty blatant that they're trying to make readers think a greater percentage of heterosexuals are contracting AIDs, but in actuality, the rate of AIDS is decreasing, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.  I may be missing something, so no one go crazy if I'm wrong here.

So in sum, Sowell seems like a bigoted idiot, but at least based on what has been quoted here, I don't think that article was good or honest either.

By the way, do a higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS compared to heterosexuals?  This seems to be one of the main sticking points.  Obviously stats like "90% of AIDs cases are heterosexual" don't really help much.

You pretty much covered everything I wanted to say about the reasoning and statistics given in the Media Matters article.

BTW, if Sowell defines "homosexual lifestyle" as any lifestyle where the person has homosexual sex, then don't agree with Sowell, because gay people in monogamous, disease-free relationships don't contract AIDS from their partners.

But if Sowell's definition of "homosexual lifestyle" is one where gay people have promiscuous gay sex, as Lindbergh seems to imply, then I do agree with Sowell, because promiscuous sex is more likely to result in contracting AIDS than monogamous sex, and anal sex is more likely to spread AIDS than other forms of sex, due to the absorbancy of the tissues around the rectum and higher likelihood of tissue tears from that form of sex.

Since Sowell contends that gay activists pass out information on where to find gay bars to kids, and one assumes (as I do) that gay bars are where one goes to find gay promiscuous sex partners, then I think the latter definition is more likely than the former, although because this definition is somewhat ambiguous, I think it's reasonable for people to disagree what he meant when he wrote it.

At least we can all agree that MM wholly mischaracterized what Sowell wrote, right?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 10:14:58 PM
At least we can all agree that MM wholly mischaracterized what Sowell wrote, right?

no! (with extra !)
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 10:18:41 PM
MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 10:20:47 PM
*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

Well, if those statistics showed that Chinese Americans were likelier than other ethnic groups to rape someone, I wouldn't be too happy about it, but I'd concede the point because it'd be true (assuming the statistics were accurate).
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 10:21:49 PM
MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems.  MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article.  Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc.  Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people.  He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people).  He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS.  Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality.  This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.*  He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling.  The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible.  He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals.  If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead.  The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting.  Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.


*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

So basically, you're upset by Sowell's choice of words and read your own interpretations into his statements, rather than what his statements explicitly say. And you're further upset that he didn't mention the rate of AIDS in straight people, even though making such a point wouldn't add anything to his article. And instead of addressing arguments, you blast people who disagree with you with bogeyman words such as "bigot," "snowflake," et al.

Do leftists come off an assembly line? Ad hominem attacks, paying inordinate attention to inconsequential details, projecting your biases onto another person rather than paying attention to what they have actually stated, and asking someone defending an opposing position to defend your position when you would not make the same concession if hell froze over seem to be character traits that all good little leftists possess.

Oh no, have I hurt your precious little ego with my choice of rhetoric? Are you going to tar me as a "hater," a "bigot," a "snowflake," or whatever bogeyman perjorative you can come up with?

Are my insults not nasty enough? Oh please teach me how to be nastier, your highnessness. You seem to be carrying a full load of nasty with that chip on your shoulder; perhaps the professional would be willing to teach the amateur?

It's Sowell's sneaky assertions. It is about intellectual honesty. The facts were available to him and yet, this Stanford grad, chose ideology over substanitive data.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 30, 2007, 10:22:31 PM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 30, 2007, 10:26:06 PM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.

I didn't make the assertion. This is well known in the medical community. You and Sowell just haven't got the memo.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on August 31, 2007, 12:14:31 AM
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

Well, no, I was trying to show you that the conclusion you drew from the statistical data presented was not supported by that data. That doesn't mean that your conclusion isn't true, but that the data doesn't support it.

I wasn't trying to disprove your statistics. I haven't looked at the methodology used to gather them, so I have no means of evaluating their truth. However, whether the statistics are true or not is irrelevant to the conclusion you tried to draw from them.

I didn't make the assertion. This is well known in the medical community. You and Sowell just haven't got the memo.

I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 31, 2007, 07:24:11 AM
I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

The stats I provide include both and specify those transmissions that result from gay sex and heterosexual sex. Click the link...that's why I provided them.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on August 31, 2007, 07:26:18 AM
P.S.:  We've made the facts clear to you repeatedly in this thread, and yet you continue to make sneaky, inaccurate assertions about Sowell, choosing ideology over substantive data.  It appears that you are the nasty, naughty, bad boy here.  :D

Where? lol@the crazy senator reference.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 02, 2007, 12:19:07 AM
I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

The stats I provide include both and specify those transmissions that result from gay sex and heterosexual sex. Click the link...that's why I provided them.

Of the 3 links you provided, only the NIH link provides any statistics whatsoever. And the NIH study does not examine the infection rate within the gay population vs. the infection rate within the non-gay population, which is the relevant point of contention.

For the purpose of evaluating Sowell's argument, which, as Lindbergh pointed out, dealt with issues involving United States school curriculum, can we agree to constrain the data to be examined solely to data involving the United States population?
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 02, 2007, 08:11:14 AM
I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

The stats I provide include both and specify those transmissions that result from gay sex and heterosexual sex. Click the link...that's why I provided them.

Of the 3 links you provided, only the NIH link provides any statistics whatsoever. And the NIH study does not examine the infection rate within the gay population vs. the infection rate within the non-gay population, which is the relevant point of contention.

For the purpose of evaluating Sowell's argument, which, as Lindbergh pointed out, dealt with issues involving United States school curriculum, can we agree to constrain the data to be examined solely to data involving the United States population?

"the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era." - does not provide any geographical scope. He then uses this statement, which lacks geographical scope, to support an unsupported argument against AIDS education in US schools.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 02, 2007, 11:15:26 AM
For what it's worth, it would appear that gay sex is more likely to transmit AIDS pretty much anywhere on the planet.  And again, Sowell doesn't say that AIDS doesn't ever effect straight people -- he's simply saying that it is particularly devastating to the gay community, and has killed many gays -- which it clearly is, and clearly has. However, Sowell, is also clearly focused on the U.S., as indicated by his other statements. 

I certainly support AIDS education generally, as long as it is taught objectively and accurately -- that any unprotected sex can be dangerous, but that certain kinds of sex are more dangerous than others, and that AIDS rates are higher, for whatever reason, within certain communities.  People can then draw truly informed conclusions from that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 02, 2007, 12:27:08 PM
I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

The stats I provide include both and specify those transmissions that result from gay sex and heterosexual sex. Click the link...that's why I provided them.


Please paste the section that shows that a straight person is more likely to catch aids than a gay person.

::sigh::  ::)

U.S.

In 2005, males made up 74% of adults and adolescents diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Of that 74%, gay male sex alone accounted for 67% of new HIV/AIDS diagnosis.

Females accounted for 26% of adults and adolescents diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Of that 24%, 80% was from heterosexual sex.

This does indeed translate into a nearly 50% diagnosis rate for male-to-male sexual contact in the U.S.

(CDC; http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm)

----------------------------------------

With all that said, HIV/AIDS, as you and others are trying to manipulate, is not an American disease. The statistics for rates of infection among demographics varies from country to country. So to limit the scope of data only manipulates the findings, as Sowell so masterfully does. As mentioned prior, "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (NIH; http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm) It is, therefore, disingenuous to even hint that HIV/AIDS is a gay problem or as Sowell suggests, "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

It is problematic, Lindbergh, that you would suggest that the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same in Uganda because "because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection." Why is Uganda far more promiscuous than the States? A reasonably and scientifically proven justification (even though some disagree) for this phenomenon is that circumcision, which is unique on a broad basis in only some nations, decreases the risk of infection from woman to man.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: dashrashi on September 02, 2007, 12:50:58 PM
By the way, it is just as arguable that cars are more dangerous than motorcycles (because of the overall number of fatalities they cause) as it is the reverse (because of different fatality rates). So insisting that AIDS can be construed as more of a problem for gay people in the US because the rate of infection in that population is higher isn't true. You could just as easily say that AIDS is more of a problem for the straight community, because of the vastly larger number of infected people. Therefore, it's intellectually dishonest to insist that one is true over the other. By calling AIDS a gay problem, that's what you are doing.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: dashrashi on September 02, 2007, 12:53:29 PM
The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: dashrashi on September 02, 2007, 07:21:23 PM
The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

The bolded clearly implies that those actions are analogous to the conditions of hetero marriage. Furthermore, it's a question of equality, not utility. Quite obviously to me, the state should only offer civil unions, gay or straight.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 02, 2007, 07:51:20 PM
The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I phrased the statement you bolded that way in order to contrast the choice of monogamy with the choice of the stereotypical "gay lifestyle" of promiscuous sex. I didn't mean to imply that monogamy was a necessary condition for health care benefits and such. Sorry if my original statement was misleading.

Even though not all married couples are faithful, I believe that one primary purpose for the institution of marriage is to promote monogamy between a couple by providing a disincentive for infidelity. After all, infidelity has traditionally been grounds for social condemnation and ostracism in many cultures (although certainly not to an equal extent between cultures and parties).

FWIW, I think it fundamentally unwise for the state to intervene in the insurance market, despite however much such interventions may benefit the careers of the intervening politicians. The distortion of the risk market by those unaccountable (or, at the most, tangentially accountable) for the effects of their decisions will inevitably lead to misallocation of resources.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 02, 2007, 08:04:42 PM
The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

The bolded clearly implies that those actions are analogous to the conditions of hetero marriage. Furthermore, it's a question of equality, not utility. Quite obviously to me, the state should only offer civil unions, gay or straight.

I don't think a principle of equality can be applied to resolving the gay marriage issue. A same-sex union is fundamentally different than a normal marriage because, well, the pairing is not between two members of the opposite sex. Currently, gay people can marry a person of the opposite sex, just as any other person can. A straight person cannot marry a person of the same sex, just as a gay person cannot. The current state of the laws in most American jurisdictions isn't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation on this issue.

However, I think civil unions should be statutorially defined because having this classification does make it easier for people who want to assume the restrictions of rights that marriage current provides for (such as inheritance rights, property rights, etc.) to do so. Defining this legal arrangement as extraneous to the current institution of marriage should neuter complaints that people will conflate the two.

If you were to argue that the state should stop providing benefits for people on the basis of their marital status, I think we could find some common ground.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 03, 2007, 12:08:51 AM
In other words, even though gays are under 10% of the population, they constitute about 1/2 of all cases, and the vast majority of male cases.  Clearly, gay males are are more risk of catching AIDS than any other group, and are far more likely to catch it than straight males.

provide documentation...


and gay sex accounts for 50% of all cases in 2005, not gays.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 03, 2007, 12:36:21 AM
Gays themselves claim that they represent 10% of the population, though others claim this is a exaggeration.  If we assume that 10% is the correct numbers, everything else still follows. 
provide documentation...


So you're saying that straights are the ones having the gay sex?

sure.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: dashrashi on September 03, 2007, 08:54:15 AM
I don't even know what to say to the argument that gays can marry members of the opposite sex. It's so intellectually dishonest that I'm sort of speechless.

Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. That's the underlying motivation in this day and age for getting married, generally speaking. Most straight people I know try to avoid marrying people to whom they are not, have never been, and will never be sexually attracted, because that doesn't make for a good marriage by pretty much anyone's standards. Gay people cannot marry people to whom they are sexually attracted. That's inequality. 

If we separate the state action from the "institution of marriage" which is what right-wingers get all het up (no pun intended) about, then there's no argument that "marriage is historically meant to be this that and the other." The state should perform civil unions (with the normal benefits of civil marriage) for everyone.

And I don't think that the state can really justify performing marriages for the children. Otherwise, why would they so willingly perform unions that won't result in offspring, like third marriages in the old folks' home? Marriage has gone beyond silly little economic calculations, clearly, and attempting to "find a reason" to let gays marry is clearly just hemming and hawing, out of what motivation I can only assume is homophobia.

Oh my god, this is seriously not that hard.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 04, 2007, 10:14:51 AM
I don't even know what to say to the argument that gays can marry members of the opposite sex. It's so intellectually dishonest that I'm sort of speechless.

Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. That's the underlying motivation in this day and age for getting married, generally speaking. Most straight people I know try to avoid marrying people to whom they are not, have never been, and will never be sexually attracted, because that doesn't make for a good marriage by pretty much anyone's standards. Gay people cannot marry people to whom they are sexually attracted. That's inequality. 

I'm sorry, but I believe your argument has no bearing on the issue being discussed.

Polyamorous people are restricted to having one spouse - they can't marry the people they're sexually attracted to.

Necrophiles aren't allowed to marry the corpse they're sexually attracted to.

Zoophiles aren't allowed to marry the animal they're sexually attracted to.

A person's sexual attraction to something (multiple people, a dead person, or an animal) isn't sufficient to justify allowing that person to marry that thing. You could argue that the law is being inequal by prohibiting these types of unions, but I don't think you could convince many people that such a policy is morally unjust.

BTW, I bring up these examples not to equate homosexuality with polyamory, zoophilia, or necrophilia, but to show that the principle that sexual attraction is sufficient to justify a legally-sanctioned marriage between parties will not win many converts. People can call a relationship of whatever basis, on sexual attraction or otherwise, whatever they see fit, but that's not the same as saying that such an arrangement should be recognized by the state as having legal enforceability.

Furthermore, if you define "intellectual honesty" as "providing an argument consistent with his premises and largely undisputed facts," as I believe the term is commonly defined to be, I don't know how you can characterize my statements as intellectually dishonest, either.

If we separate the state action from the "institution of marriage" which is what right-wingers get all het up (no pun intended) about, then there's no argument that "marriage is historically meant to be this that and the other." The state should perform civil unions (with the normal benefits of civil marriage) for everyone.

I could probably agree with you on this point. As a general principle of good governance, I don't think politicians (the state) should attempt to fine-tune its bureaucratic rules to provide certain special interests groups privileges at the expense of other groups, because, while such an approach may earn the politicians votes, it also sets groups against each other for such political favors, and unnecessarily byzantinizes the legal code.

Because I think the abovementioned principle is a wise one, I think we could find common ground if you modified your idea by proposed the stripping the institution of marriage of all statutory and regulatory benefits, and conferring a similar title to gay couples wanting it.

However, an analysis of the cost that the private sector would need to bear in order to re-adjust current marriage-based arrangements would go a long way in convincing me the merit of this approach.

And I don't think that the state can really justify performing marriages for the children. Otherwise, why would they so willingly perform unions that won't result in offspring, like third marriages in the old folks' home? Marriage has gone beyond silly little economic calculations, clearly, and attempting to "find a reason" to let gays marry is clearly just hemming and hawing, out of what motivation I can only assume is homophobia.

One possible reason why the state doesn't regulate marriages on the basis of fertility is because doing such a thing would be an incredible regulatory burden. If such a policy were enacted, a marriage proposal to a menopausal-age woman would require fertility testing in order for the state to validate that marriage; this would be fairly intrusive, and costly for the state.

However, a proposed marriage between two members of the same sex clearly can't produce offspring, so no such process costs are required to be incurred to evaluate whether or not that proposed marriage would be a fertile one.

As I've mentioned before, I support civil unions, provided that they are held as legal arrangements distinct from the arrangement of marriage. Since non-governmental parties, such as insurance companies, may have arrangements based on the assumption that a marriage is between two members of the opposite sex, likely capable of bearing offspring, it strikes me as unfair to usher in same-sex couples into these arrangements by governmental fiat when the assumption that marriage is between a man and a woman has been largely valid for marriage as long as anyone can remember.

As Sowell mentioned in another article, and as I alluded to in one of my responses, marriage is not a "right" as much as a covenant where the state restricts the right of the marrying individual to arrange their life as they see fit. Without a prior arrangement, or, in some cases, regardless of such an arrangement, the state by default automatically confers to a spouse such things as a share in the other spouse's property, inheritance rights, and alimony/palimony in the event of a divorce.

If gay couples want to restrict their private arrangements in a way analogous to how the state restricts the private arrangements of heterosexual married couples, I don't see why anyone should oppose making such an arrangement easier to legally enforce, especially if it discourages the promiscuous lifestyle that had led to the spread of AIDS in the gay male population.

The primary argument against gay marriage is that it would conflate homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, and some people have moral objections to that idea. Making civil union arrangements distinct from marriage arrangements undercuts that argument, since civil unions, while similar to marriage arrangements, are distinctly different.

My opposition to gay marriage is clearly not because I am a "homophobe."

FWIW, some opposition to gay marriage may come from the eagerness of its proponents to say that anyone who opposes their position is a homophobe. Self-righteous ideological zealotry doesn't win many converts, regardless of whether that ideology is religious or secular.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 04, 2007, 10:31:02 AM
So, assuming, just to give dude the strongest case possible, that the rate of HIV infection among gay men is much higher than it is in the general hetero population, and that there was a time in the seventies when risky, anonymous sex was considered acceptable and the norm among certain communities of gay men, and that there is a segment of the population of gay men who may still practice anonymous, risky sex today, do you guys still think it's fair or right to call homosexuality in general a "deathstyle"? Do you really think that will lead to more understanding about the risks of certain types of sexual behavior, and won't contribute to homophobia, and hatred and misunderstanding of gay people who are perfectly responsible about their sexual behavior? Do you think that was a reasonable or helpful word for him to use?

Well, the real question is what Sowell was alluding to when he mentioned "the homosexual lifestyle." Numerous conservative commentators have equated that term with risky, promiscuous sex. I assume that Sowell was using that term in that context, because he mentions that gay activists were referring kids to gay bars. If gay bars are a place to "hook up," versus finding an monogamous partner, then referring kids to gay bars would be propagandizing the risky lifestyle of promiscuous sex.

If the "AIDS educators" are merely providing facts about AIDS, behaviors that contribute to its spread, and proportion of certain populations that are infected, then I don't think anyone would object. But if they are NOT advocating responsible sexual behavior, then you can see that there is reason to object their presence in the classroom.

And if not, why all the quibbling about whether or not there is a higher rate of infection among gay men?

The original point of contention was that Sowell's views are not to be trusted because Media Matters alleged that Sowell thinks *only* gay people get AIDS. However, in Media Matter's analysis, there's nothing in the quoted sections of Sowell's article that suggests he holds this conclusion.

A few posts later, seventhson took exception to Sowell's characterization of the "homosexual lifestyle" as a "deathstyle," assuming that "homosexual lifestyle" referred to practicing homosexual sex in general, and promiscuous sex in particular.

S/he attempted to refute the characterization of homosexual sex as a "deathstyle" by providing statistics showing that the majority of AIDS cases were amongst heterosexuals. However, since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, these statistics don't have as much bearing on her argument as statistics comparing the infection rates amongst gays to the infection rates amongst non-gays.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: t... on September 04, 2007, 11:31:19 AM

And there's a big assumption in there that gay bars = risky sex. People of all sexual orientations do meet people at bars just to hook up, but people also go to bars looking for people to actually date, or to just hang out and have some drinks. I think it's an unfair judgment, and seems based on the stereotype that homosexual = promiscuous, period. Are straight people who pick people up at bars for one-night stands engaging in a deathstyle?

Wait, straight people hook up at bars? Straight people are promiscuous?

::shocked::   :o
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 04, 2007, 12:16:09 PM

And there's a big assumption in there that gay bars = risky sex. People of all sexual orientations do meet people at bars just to hook up, but people also go to bars looking for people to actually date, or to just hang out and have some drinks. I think it's an unfair judgment, and seems based on the stereotype that homosexual = promiscuous, period. Are straight people who pick people up at bars for one-night stands engaging in a deathstyle?

Wait, straight people hook up at bars? Straight people are promiscuous?

::shocked::   :o

straight people don't have sex. They rub their noses together.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 04, 2007, 12:49:39 PM
A few posts later, seventhson took exception to Sowell's characterization of the "homosexual lifestyle" as a "deathstyle," assuming that "homosexual lifestyle" referred to practicing homosexual sex in general, and promiscuous sex in particular.

S/he attempted to refute the characterization of homosexual sex as a "deathstyle" by providing statistics showing that the majority of AIDS cases were amongst heterosexuals. However, since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, these statistics don't have as much bearing on her argument as statistics comparing the infection rates amongst gays to the infection rates amongst non-gays.

Firstly, I would think that the name "seventhson" would easily identify me as a dood. Secondly, you cannot provide statistics as to what amount of people in the world are gay.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the stats show that 90% of HIV/AIDS cases are a result of heterosexual sex, which is distinctly different from claiming that "the majority of AIDS cases were amongst heterosexuals." I tried to show that it is foolish to label a certain disease as a homosexual deathstyle if the most common way of spreading infection is through heterosexual sex. There is no justifiable basis for Sowell's argument. Furthermore, those two statements are distinctly different because sexual orientation is not always an indication of a future sexual act. It is important to distinguish between being straight,gay or bisexual and participating in hetero- or homosexual sex.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 04, 2007, 12:50:17 PM
This is true.  I learned about the birds and the bees from David the Gnome.

I loved this cartoon. Some of the episodes are on Youtube.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: PNym on September 04, 2007, 08:55:09 PM
But that's not my question. My question is, for those of you supporting Sowell, whether you think that was a productive or reasonable way for him to phrase the issue, or if you really think that because he says after the fact that he was referring to some specific subset of the gay community, it's unreasonable for people to interpret his words as bashing anyone who is gay. To call something "the homosexual lifestyle" and then say that it doesn't actually apply to all or most homosexuals doesn't make much sense.

Well, I agree he could have worded his article a little more diplomatically. But at the same time, the point of his article was not to make diplomatic overtures towards homosexuals, but to argue against gay marriage by pointing out the fundamental flaws in the rhetoric used to advance that issue, and the promotion of homosexuality in public schools under the guise of AIDS education.

Anyways, I think the point he makes is significantly more important than the rhetoric he uses. Undiplomatic rhetoric has characterized political debate for centuries. Even today, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum regularly employ blunt language (I'm sure you can think of more than a few lefists who regularly demean people who follow an organized religion). Complaining about choice of rhetoric employed by a pundit doesn't take anything away from the argument s/he is making.

And there's a big assumption in there that gay bars = risky sex. People of all sexual orientations do meet people at bars just to hook up, but people also go to bars looking for people to actually date, or to just hang out and have some drinks. I think it's an unfair judgment, and seems based on the stereotype that homosexual = promiscuous, period. Are straight people who pick people up at bars for one-night stands engaging in a deathstyle?

I guess you do have a point. I thought it could be commonly assumed that such places are full of people looking for easy, promiscuous sex. Gay bathhouses, gay adult theaters, and gay saunas haven't historically been places to look for anything other than easy sex, so I assumed that gay bars would be much the same. After all, straight people also go to bars to look for easy sex (amongst other reasons). But I don't know enough about gay bars in order to say that all people who go to them are engaging in irresponsible sexual behavior, and Sowell probably doesn't, either.

Still, I do agree with Sowell's conclusion that passing out information about these places to public school students is completely inappropriate. Taxpayer-backed promotion or denigration of any lifestyle has no place in a public school, especially if such activity is under the guise of something else (For that matter, I'd feel uncomfortable if a religious group began to proselytize in a high school). That most public school students are under the drinking age makes such activity doubly inappropriate.

And yes, I think that straight people who engage in one-night-stands are engaging in risky behavior, as are people who have sex with prostitutes, take intravenous drugs, etc. etc. I don't know if I'd call such behavior as comprising a "deathstyle," but I do agree that making such choices is inherently riskier than alternative choices.
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 1654134681665465 on September 05, 2007, 08:53:45 AM
I once knew a guy who was straight. 
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: Leo on September 11, 2007, 06:45:42 PM
Wanna hear a scary story?

Some of the people here will become policy makers.

Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: 7S on September 11, 2007, 06:49:41 PM
Wanna hear a scary story?

Some of the people here will become policy makers.



 :D
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: UNAS on September 12, 2007, 12:28:08 PM
Wanna hear a scary story?

Some of the people here will become policy makers.



YIKES, unless of course that was directed towards me ;D
Title: Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
Post by: H4CS on September 12, 2007, 07:11:42 PM
Wanna hear a scary story?

Some of the people here will become policy makers.



The scarier story is that policy is being made everywhere by people this stupid.