Kinda wish these law school numbers sites didn't exist

[wallaby]

haha . . .what? using nifty catch phrases stolen from the margins of english lit 101 papers does not constitute an effective mode of argument?   

your honor, in responding to the prosecution's arguments, i say: decontextualized!

Lest ye forget many many people score below 150 on the lsat, to them his musings are dazzling, like magic!

[FossilJ]

Actually, I have no PC doctrine.  This is an unsupported ad hominem.

Yeah, believe what you will, but so far I've only heard you argue from the position of what is considered standard among liberal elites.

Will address shortly.

I don't see how this argument (or any of my arguments) is part of an agenda of political correctness.  Non-absolutism, definitely.  Critical perception of power constructs and the narrative construction of history (as fact-based mythology), also definitely.  But political correctness?  Nah.  You're not protected from my ire just because you're part of some particular group.

Notions of non-absolutism, power constructs and narrative construction of history are all liberal PC constructs themselves. You may not know that a world exists outside of liberal elitism, but I assure you it does.

Also to be addressed.

I don't like to polarize like you seem to enjoy doing.  I don't see issues in black and white (excuse the pun).  I don't see anything as an issue of "us versus them"; rather, it's one of "these terms versus those terms".  Solutions usually lie in the grey area somewhere in the middle. 

We couldn't disagree more. Now we are talking philosophy. I personally feel that Plato was right, that there is a difference between belief and knowledge. I derive my conclusions based on hard data, knowledge- I'm not sure how you derive your's, but it seems that you avoid conclusions altogether and prefer to retreat into the relativism of modern liberalism.

Also to be addressed.

You make this mistake quite often.  I did not imply he is racist.  I implied his line of thinking is racist.  It was an addressal of the premises, not the person.  If you read the full debate, this should be clear to you.

Im dazzled by your shell game. Remember Bill Clinton trying to call into question the meaning of "is"?

Actually, I don't.  Also, please address my argument before you attempt to caricature it.

The irony of this statement of yours, of course, is that, just like the previous one, it's pure ad hominem.

Ad hominems are necessary when an out of control liberal whacko calls someone a racist for no reason.

Ah, I see.  Also to be addressed.

Decontextualized.  This issue was specifically addressed.

No, it isn't, and no it wasn't.

Yes, it is, and yes, it was.  For your benefit, this is the relevant link:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26271.msg822513.html#msg822513

Oh, also, Warpig, you still use words you learned in elementary school, right?  So what's wrong with them?  Nothing, when they're the correct terms.  Also, quit jumping on the bandwagon of those who are clearly superior to you.

Right.  Which is why propounding those factors to someone who may not be aware of them is necessary.

Not sure why you would bother doing so, noone had taken the position that intelligence was measured by academic acheivement.

Actually, they did. 

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26271.msg822202.html#msg822202

This seems like an odd comment given what I just addressed before it.  In any case, I debate for two reasons.  First, I'd like to provide an opposing view, in the hope that we can find an enlightening middle ground.  Second, I like to debate because I think I'm fairly decent at it.  That gives me an ego boost.  So yes, mild megalomania perhaps.  Still, why the need for the ad hominem?

Because I dont think playing devil's advocate for the sake of argumentation and as a method of combating "absolutism" is prestigious.

Nor do I.  But I think it's fun, and I think it's important.

I think your motives are purely narcissist and obnoxious. Just because you are smarter than 99% of the world does not mean that they aren't right.

Very true.  Funny that you accuse me of being a pure relativist, and then you tell me to stop being such an absolutist.

You should try actually taking a position and then debating it, rather than just trying to punch holes in everyone else's position. You may impress a few plebs, but critical thinkers see your efforts for what they are, sometimes peripherally informative but otherwise gratuitous showboating.

Actually, this method is a part of debate.  In any case, I'm not this caricature you're portraying.  Again, to be addressed.

Thanks.

You are welcome, now grow up and start contributing substance instead of forcing people to sift through your impressive rhetoric to uncover the fact that you dont have any views of your own. 

Again, the ad hominem and caricature.  Why, I'm not sure.  In any case, it's to be addressed. 

[zacharyl20]

I must admit that it is sad to see White americans jealous of URM's. When you think about life in general whites have a much better life than URM's. Many URM's went through very extreme circumstances. Many of us (URM's) have been discrimanated aganist, went to less than desirable pulic schools for our formal educations, etc. Many of us also have single parents who are not highly educated or wealthy. Many White americans went to great high schools in their neighborhoods, they have educated parents who are financially stable, etc. So on average whites have a much better quality of life in America. There is also a psychological problem that minorities must face in America. I challenge any white American to walk into a department store and have a security guard follow them everywhere they go. What do you think that does to minorites psychologically? Minorities have an advantage in one aspect of life and whites are jealous. It is extremely sad and ignorant for anyone to be aganist affrimative action.  Especially, when you consider that African Americans received no reparation for slavery in America. Can whites at least compensate minorites with an opportunity to get a education. It is somewhat comical, whites don't want to support minorites when it comes to social programs and they also don't want to support minorities when it comes to education. One of the ways to help alleviate the amount of money spent on welfare and other social programs, is to give minorities the opportunity to secure a education.

[FossilJ]

Dude, is this a flame?

Did you read some of the AA threads on this board?  All your points have been addressed numerous times. 

It is not ignorant for anyone to be against affirmative action; there are real reasons to oppose its legality.

However, as an ideal, and as a pragmatic program for change, affirmative action remains a positive contribution to society.

I won't beat this any further than I already have.  I just suggest you bother reading some of what's already been said.

[zacharyl20]

Dude, is this a flame?

Did you read some of the AA threads on this board?  All your points have been addressed numerous times. 

It is not ignorant for anyone to be against affirmative action; there are real reasons to oppose its legality.

However, as an ideal, and as a pragmatic program for change, affirmative action remains a positive contribution to society.

I won't beat this any further than I already have.  I just suggest you bother reading some of what's already been said.

No my post was not a flame. I could not understand if you were arguing for affriminative action or not. Actually, I did not understand the reason for your post at all. The only argument that I received from your post was that my points were addressed numerous times. Are you implying that because others have suggested my points that I do not have the right to state them. That is clearly aganist my constitutional rights. If you are interested in attending, or if you go to law school I suggest that you get familiar with the constitution. Amendment one gives me freedom of speech, so I can post whatever I want. It does not matter if someone stated it already or not. Your ignorance is blatantly shown in your post.

[FossilJ]

 

If you want to be redundant, that's your problem.  I'm just letting you know you're not really contributing to the debate, since it really has been discussed numerous times.  It's more a warning than anything else.  Your points have seen a myriad cogent counterarguments on this board.  I'm just saying you should probably look through some of them before someone who does oppose AA jumps all over you.

If you're being sincere (and it appears you are), I should let you know that my initial retort was more aimed at provoking a flame-baiter.  Since you don't seem to be that, don't take any of it to heart.  I'm fishing for trolls, and you're not a troll, so it's all good.

The only point in your post which I do take exception to (if you really want to debate something) is this:

It is extremely sad and ignorant for anyone to be aganist affrimative action. 

This just suggests that you're not taking the validity of "the other side" seriously.  And, while I do support your end of the argument, there are strong and legitimate arguments opposing affirmative action.  You can't just summarily dismiss them by calling them ignorant if you don't address them.

Also, one more thing.  I don't know how you jumped to this conclusion:

Are you implying that because others have suggested my points that I do not have the right to state them. That is clearly aganist my constitutional rights.

No.  This is a debate.  I am telling you that you're being redundant.  I'm telling you that you're open to a variety of counters to which you seem brutally exposed right now.  Furthermore, I don't know why you would invoke your constitutional rights when I have absolutely no coercive power over you.  Why be so over-defensive?  How does this have anything to do with rights?  It's simply a conversation.

Anyway, if you do feel like debating AA, start a new thread.  dwtraybi or whatever his name is and I pretty much hijacked this one.  I'd be happy to converse in a "clean" environment.  hahahaha

Hope none of this smacks of aggression.  I'm truly only discussing this. 
 

[Jontor]

When I got my score, 166, I danced around the living room in my underwear.  However, after spending time on this site and LSN, I feel like a moron.

I totally agree with you...feel the same

[jorge]

This article also digs waaaay back into history to try and prove it's "aa for whites" theory. What's prevented any minority of the last generation from getting a good job and owning a house?

Wealth differences (not necessarily income differences) produced by years of discrimination, specifically and recently red-lining and the commensurate divestment from urban areas/investment in suburban areas, blockbusting, etc. etc. Lots of things involving mortgages, real estate, and public housing.

[gameswizard]

you could be like Michael Jackson, I mean there is always surgery.
to the OP
If you are really adimitt about anti-AA then you would prob. agree that the schools are only hurting themselves by not taking an equally or more qualified canidate like yourself.  Afterall future job placement and success helps determines a school's ranking.  Anyway don't be mad at the individual, this post warrants  that you would not agree with these school's policies anyway.  Why would you want to attend?

[ImVinny!]

I guess in the end it all comes down to wanting to get into the "best school" but even that is different among individuals.