« on: February 09, 2007, 09:24:26 PM »
guner douches would be a great screen name
The LSAC doesn't need to do anything but aggresively pursue anyone breaking the rules they agree to when they take the test and note any rule breaking in their LSAC file.
If someone wants to break the rules by discussing the test, they run the risk of ruining their chances at getting admitted to law school, and/or getting accepted to the bar. Only a few people need be caught for this to be an effective policy.
So long as LSAC is fair about explaining the crime and the punishment in advance, they will have no problem curbing the discussion they are trying to avoid.
I can't believe I'm going to side with toponepercent on this one, so I'm going to post this and then think long and hard about whether or not I really mean it.
But... this does not stop millions from Internet poker/illegal music downloads.
He handed over the money in an Economist magazine-isn't that magazine always referred to on this site as something to help you with RC?
I wonder if he posts here?
To be perfectly fair, while some things that Hank posts are certainly poorly written I think it's quite a jump to actually call them racist.
I'm with Inspector Javert - it seems like this thread's an overreaction to things Hank has said. I repeat a previous poster's question: OP, what brought this on all of a sudden?
I answered that question.
I will also ask you what I asked Gyges: have you read this thread?
Or are you just cutting Hank slack because you find him "charming"?
No, I'm cutting him slack because 1) he's definitely not PC about his comments, but just because he's not PC doesn't mean he's racist; and 2) online personas are different from real-life, and while you are reacting to what he's posted online, I think you may be taking things too seriously.
My problem with the bolded is that his online personality and the things that i've read that he posted may be the true him, but in public around me or Moni, he may put on a facade and be fake. I rather know that ish up front so I don't have to deal with it or the person.
Hahaha, I guess it makes sense that any logical argument against AA just ends up with the conservative being called a racist and the liberals stroking their egos. Hopefully in law school there will be people who are willing to hear and understand a non-PC argument without just retreating into their respective shells. I'm not going to post here anymore since obviously the liberal value of tolerance is reserved only for ideas which liberals deem tolerable. I'll leave you all with some more facts, and you can judge for yourself how important Ben Carson's separation of a Siamese twin is compared to the massive levels of black failure present today. Ignoring the past and present inadequacies in an entire culture by pointing to a few examples from the top tenth of a percent of all blacks is really pathetic.
--Black marriage rates in 2001 were 46%, compared to 70% the year Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.
--The black teenage birth rate is 8.2%, compared to 3.7% for white teenagers.
--Black Americans today have an average IQ of 85, while white Americans average around 100, American Asians around 104.
--The average black living in a family that makes over $100,000 will score the same on the SAT as an average white who lives in a family that makes under $10,000.
--The leading cause of death for blacks age 15-34 is homicide.
--The fourth leading cause of death for all blacks is homicide, while for whites homicide is not even in the top ten.
--Blacks make up 48% of the inmates in this country, despite the fact they are 12% of the population.
Anyway, I could go on, but my point is obvious, and you can't contradict it: black Americans today are in terrible shape compared to their white counterparts, and the accomplishments of a few black people over the years cannot change that. So what is the cause for this black failure? Racism? Are IQ tests racist? Are SAT tests racist? Does racism cause black people to kill each other? The best explanation for these shortcomings is a shortcoming in culture. If slavery were the cause for these deficiencies, why was the black family in better shape 50 years ago than it is today? Why is there more black crime today than 50 years ago? If poverty is the explanation for black deficiency, how do you explain the SAT gap between rich blacks and rich whites? If it were just about money, shouldn't rich black high schoolers stand to benefit just as much as their rich white counterparts from SAT prep classes, etc?
And as a parting remark, I want to warn you all against the dangers of the sort of cultural/moral relativism of which you are guilty. All cultures are not equal. There is no reason to think the Myans were just as destined for success as the Spanish, or that Native American values were just as good as Protestant values.
So I hope everyone had a happy Black History Month. That's it, I am out.