This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - The F-cktard Express
« on: September 10, 2007, 01:35:52 PM »
You know for a Kappa you are not so bad.
I was actually going to address what you(burning sands) brought up in another thread, but no big deal.
I find it puzzling the energy devoted to race based AA. Take this into consideration. Of the top 14 law schools, better yet make it top 20, URM make up on average 10-15%. Blacks specifically make up on avg 5-9% and Hispanics typically make up half that. All these schools publish their median LSAT and GPA ranges 25-75%. Lets assume each and every URM is in under the 25% threshold statistically in terms of LSAT and GPA. This still leaves at least 10% of the student body admitted with numbers below the median. The question I raise to those who hold a position opposing AA is who makes up this magical 10%.
Hint: It sure as hell isn't Asians.
The situation above relies on the ridiculous assumption that no URM is qualified, yet 10% of the student body has numbers below the median. Consider that. I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume this 10% might come from very priveledged and well connect backgrounds, but what do I know.
Please resume contemplating your navel
Look, the point is that most schools would like to have as many minority students as they can get. Too often that number settles around 10-20%; less so for black students.
If the top schools admitted strictly by numbers, minority (and especially black) representation would probably be down to 5-10%, again with even fewer blacks.
So to meet the desired goal of minority students top law schools have to pull from the best of the minority applicant pool - this means reaching down further into the pool (by the numbers).
It's not a hard concept, and frankly I don't see what's so controversial.
What should be controversial is not that schools reach further down into a minority applicant pool, but WHY are minorities scoring worse on these standardized tests.
It seems to me there are three scenarios:
1) Minorities are just less intelligent: this seems to be the position that many of those in this (and other) threads are hinting at, but are too female private part to come out and say.
2) There is something inherently racist in these exams which cause minorities to score less
3) There is a deeper cultural/environmental problem that is by and large affecting minority races far more so than white and asian students - this is something that more than likely begins at birth and continues throughout a person's educational experiences.
Now, I think most sane people would lean towards #3. Which means we have deep systematic problems that are generations away from noticing any progress. We need to work on this, for sure, but WE NEED RESULTS NOW. We can't let entire generations of otherwise qualified students keep slipping through the cracks.
As it has been stated many times before, AA is simply a band-aid until the larger problem is fixed.
« on: August 30, 2007, 05:00:33 PM »
Go easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault
their they're all in jail.
And maybe they just don't want to attend law school. No reason for you to get upset with them. People have different goals.
fixt by literate jail bird darkie.
Oh, honey, you can't fix ugly.
Shhh. I'm sure Limburger is fixing up a way to include looks into his affirmative action plan. Uggos should get similar preference to darkies.
Or something like that. But just thank goodness deformed people aren't applying to college.
« on: August 30, 2007, 04:57:59 PM »
Whites aren't facing the same obstacles as blacks, despite how similar their economic or educational situation may be. Likewise, whites aren't facing the same obstacles as Hispanics. Or Hispanics the same as blacks, or Asians the same as Puerto Ricans.
It's just all so confusing, isn't it? I mean, looking at each racial and ethnic situation differently. And then on top (or bottom?) of that, looking at each educational situation, in regard to each racial/ethnic situation, differently?
And OMIGOSH, don't tell me we have to start considering every economic situation differently as well? And geographic, too?
And then looking at them all in context with one another?
I think I'd rather go study quantum physics. I'm glad you have all of this sorted out, Limburger.
« on: August 30, 2007, 04:52:42 PM »
racial and gender equality are utopian.
In other words unattainable?
yep and so is the American Dream. Just because it's utopian doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Except, of course, that most Americans appear to be living the American Deam (high standard of living, personal freedom, etc.). Which is presumably why millions of immigrants from around the planet strive to come here.
If you believe the other thing, however, is unattainable, it's stupid to waste time pursuing it.
What might be worth pursuing (and is far more attainable), however, is a general equality of opportunity. Maybe we should therefore strive for that.
Outside of your gated community it's a slightly different world. I mean, our poor comparatively
aren't at the same level as many African or Latin American communities, but that doesn't mean they're still "living the American dream."
I'm glad you support equality of opportunity, though. It's too bad the rest of your rhetoric doesn't quite gel with that.
« on: August 30, 2007, 04:49:43 PM »
b]My point, is that there is racism in America but not to the extent that people make it up to be.[/b] And what racism there is goes both ways. A lot of the problems that black America has is related to poverty (which are the same problems that other poor ethnic groups have as well). Slavery and racism undoubtedly led to poverty among blacks several decades ago, however not so much anymore. Evidence?
And you know this how?
Are you a white man?
Immigrants from Asia have gone from lower class and speaking no English, to upper class, highly educated, and completely fluent in English within a generation or two (this includes internment camps and such). So don't say that poverty is STILL the result of racism.
A entirely different ball of wax, dear.
Looking a racism in such a holistic way is surely the mark of a tool and a douchesack. What applies for one group doesn't apply for another. Even what applies within one group doesn't apply universally to everyone in it.
The elephant in the room that no one is addressing is that you're all guessing as to what affirmative action entails. You're all thinking in simplistic terms: black = 10 point boost on LSAT, gets into top 10 school.
I doubt it's that simple, and that admissions counselors treat is so. A black person, irrespective of her economic situation, may get a bump in admissions because of her simply being black - because there are special circumstances that a black person faces (directly or indirectly) simply because their skin is black. But I'm sure that bump is no more significant than the one a poor ass white boy might get. Surely the poor ass black kid probably gets the biggest bump, but again, this is all speculation on my (and your) part.
Is this really that big of a deal. I mean, do the 10 black kids that are in my 1L class really represent that much of a threat to you all? You'd think that law schools across the country were being infested with black kids - black kids here, black kids there, every-f-ing-where I turn all I see is a black kid. It's like Invasion of the
Black Affirmative Action Charity Case.
Yeah, not quite.
Your conservative, middle class white way of life is not quite in the danger it's being made out to be.
« on: August 30, 2007, 04:39:24 PM »
You bring up MLK and Obama and none of the AA supporters have anything to say. I love it. I see their chiming in on other threads saying of course we should make disadvantage a factor but being a minority, even a very priveleged minority, is the trump card, baby.
Why should the opinions of two more people fly in the face of anything that's been argued presently?
I'd say that the attempt to defeat the AA argument by invoking two prominent black figures is the very definition of using a "trump card," though it doesn't change the conversation in the slightest.
Unless you're so ridiculous as to believe that all black people do, by necessity, support affirmative action.
« on: August 21, 2007, 01:20:40 PM »
Look twinkle toes, this isn't that difficult.
As a "race" black people are only a few hundred years behind
in assimilating to the (typically) white mainstream culture, including education, by the way. And, I mean, what’s a few hundred years when it comes to education, culture, and identity, right?
But why the entire race, you may ask? After all, certainly there are middle and upper class blacks that are “unfairly” taking advantage of AA. Why not just look at socioeconomic status for affirmative action?
Well, easy. Because the entire race
(or more properly, almost anyyone with a darker skin color) was subjected to slavery and oppression
, by the white man and because of white men. This cultural/educational disparity is not something that can be "made up" in a few generations either, despite the impressive efforts of many that are closing that gap. It’ll take some time, and to help close that gap more effectively and expediently, we have affirmative action.
Furthermore, education begets education, privilege begets privilege. Blacks have been on the wrong side of this equation for far too long. It's not like blacks are swarming into top schools like a plague, stealing all the spots from otherwise talented whites. Look at the data - there is a glaring dearth of black students at just about every law school. Worry not - your place in the law is certainly not in jeopardy.
This thread is a joke anyway. Surely there are those blacks that have been able to gain admission to schools on their own merits, without the assistance of affirmative action – I know several of them. Yet you call out an entire race as if no blacks are capable of succeeding without “help.” So from the outset you’re engaging trollish, racist views. And you wonder why H4CS hasn’t taken you seriously?
« on: August 08, 2007, 12:20:55 AM »
Just ignore waitlisted - he only got into GULC, and he has some festering, pus-filled STD that makes him a pretty bitter dude.
« on: July 17, 2007, 02:49:32 PM »
Those are all problematic as well, but when it comes to police I think there is a difference in that the service police provide could only rightly be provided by government--monopoly on legitimate use of force and all that.
Your problem here is one of perspective - you say that the difference is that one service, the police, could only be rightly provided by government, yet for some reason you think that the other service, health care, couldn't or shouldn't.
You don't explain why. But let me help you - you don't need to. You're just used to police being a function of the state, and health care being a private and individualized endeavor. Try thinking a little outside the box.
Captain Emory has still dodged every question asked of him.
« on: July 17, 2007, 01:06:14 AM »
These separate taxes are too low; they are, again, built on the assumption that there are 3-4 young people for every old person and that there are a hell of a lot more healthy people than sick people. These assumptions worked when the Great Society was instituted, but clearly they don't fit our current demographic forecasts. We are aging as a population and getting much more unhealthy.
In addition, we have, since then, developed more expensive medical treatments (bypass surgery, etc) that everyone feels entitled to have. Of course, these treatments cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You mean to tell me that somehow people can pay $30,000 into the health system over their lifetime and get $200,000 in benefits. In order for you to have that, you need a massive population of very young people to support you.
Looks like to me that the ridiculous capitalist notion of growth and progress is starting to bite itself in the ass.
So now we need to encourage people to start breeding more so we can create a larger younger tax base to pay for the aging population. Talk about a sustainability.
Except, with the welfare state we are building, none of those young people will actually ever have to work, meaning we'll still be screwed, but hey, we can always just raise taxes. That always works, right?
That's indulging in a little hyperbole, isn't it? It's almost McCarthy-esque.
You still didn't address my point.