Would AA make you less likely to hire a black lawyer/doctor?

[SCgrad]

I would like to point out that i was the first person, before it was so hip, to tell petitdeleter to go @#!* herself.

i never told her to go @#!* herself.  but it is entertaining that she thinks she's someone significant.

i hope she is just a troll and this is all a show.  look at posters like breadboy and bluewarrior, sure they say lots of stupid stuff, but they at least appear to be trying to make sense, however misguided they are.  she was not quite as bad before (never great), but this thread, well, I think she was trying to jump the shark and fell in.

[bass]

Either stereotyping is right, in all cases, or wrong, in all cases. 

Do you really believe that this is how things work?

(I know you don't want to seem like you made a mistake here, so give it a minute.)

Ok, so after thinking about it, is this right?

Right wasn't the correct word.  Substitute justified. 

You think the problem with your original statement is the difference between right aand justified?  How about the fallacy of false dichotomy?

You can't even imagine a world in which there are situations in which stereotyping is justified and situations in which it is not?

This is true of (arguably) any action.  Stealing is always wrong.  Unless of course you are stealing from a theif who stole your *&^% in the first place.  Abortion is always wrong.  Unless of course the baby is in the womb of an 11 year old girl who was viciously raped by her father.  Lying is always wrong.  Unless of course by lying you could save 1 billion lives and harm no one.

Don't quibble with the specifics of the examples.  The point is that the always/never justified dichotomy is, in the case of stereotyping as in the case of many (all?) other actions)  ridiculous.

[bass]

Either stereotyping is right, in all cases, or wrong, in all cases. 

Do you really believe that this is how things work?

(I know you don't want to seem like you made a mistake here, so give it a minute.)

Ok, so after thinking about it, is this right?

Right wasn't the correct word.  Substitute justified. 

You think the problem with your original statement is the difference between right aand justified?  How about the fallacy of false dichotomy?

You can't even imagine a world in which there are situations in which stereotyping is justified and situations in which it is not?

This is true of (arguably) any action.  Stealing is always wrong.  Unless of course you are stealing from a theif who stole your *&^% in the first place.  Abortion is always wrong.  Unless of course the baby is in the womb of an 11 year old girl who was viciously raped by her father.  Lying is always wrong.  Unless of course by lying you could save 1 billion lives and harm no one.

Don't quibble with the specifics of the examples.  The point is that the always/never justified dichotomy is, in the case of stereotyping as in the case of many (all?) other actions)  ridiculous.

No, I don't think stereotyping is on the same level as the others you listed. 

It's not about the examples, it's about false dichotomy in general.

[bass]

Further, I'm very interested to know what is so special about stereotyping that makes it not susceptible to this kind of argument.

[Miss P]

Further, I'm very interested to know what is so special about stereotyping that makes it not susceptible to this kind of argument.

Because as you said, killing can be justified or morally unjustified depending on the circumstances.  I don't see an instance where stereotyping is legitimate, assuming that it is bad in general. 

This seems like such a strange argument for someone as obviously clever as you to make.  So killing is not "bad in general" but stereotyping is?  For one, stereotyping -- making an oversimplified opinion or judgment, usually based on an overly limited set of characteristics -- seems like a much more neutral activity than killing.  Yes, it's always bad in the sense that a stereotype is, by definition, reductive, but by that analysis, all logical fallacies are always bad -- unjustifiable or wrong, in your terms.  Further, isn't there a harm analysis here?  I'm the first one to argue that certain racial stereotypes have important real-world consequences (for instance, I'm currently reading an article titled "Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes"), but killing is killing.  Dead is dead.  Come on!

Stereotyping is much more analogous to another fallacy, like an ad hominem attack, in that it is not the best form of discourse, and it may be truly damaging or assaultive, but it could also be funny or true or justified, depending on the circumstances.  

[Miss P]

Further, I'm very interested to know what is so special about stereotyping that makes it not susceptible to this kind of argument.

Because as you said, killing can be justified or morally unjustified depending on the circumstances.  I don't see an instance where stereotyping is legitimate, assuming that it is bad in general. 

This seems like such a strange argument for someone as obviously clever as you to make.  So killing is not "bad in general" but stereotyping is?  For one, stereotyping -- making an oversimplified opinion or judgment, usually based on an overly limited set of characteristics -- seems like a much more neutral activity than killing.  Yes, it's always bad in the sense that a stereotype is, by definition, reductive, but by that analysis, all logical fallacies are always bad -- unjustifiable or wrong, in your terms.  Further, isn't there a harm analysis here?  I'm the first one to argue that certain racial stereotypes have important real-world consequences (for instance, I'm currently reading an article titled "Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes"), but killing is killing.  Dead is dead.  Come on!

Stereotyping is much more analogous to another fallacy, like an ad hominem attack, in that it is not the best form of discourse, and it may be truly damaging or assaultive, but it could also be funny or true or justified, depending on the circumstances. 

No, killing is not bad in general.  Murder is wrong.  A state sanctioned death penalty, a shooting in self defense, and combat casualties are all killings, but are not wrong. 

Okay, while I would dispute some of your examples, I can accept these terms.  What surprises me is that you can make these distinctions among different kinds of homicides, but you can't do so among different kinds of stereotypes.  On these terms, I don't think stereotyping is "bad in general."  It may be silly, but it is not bad in a meaningful moral sense.

[dbgirl]

I know this thread isn't about Affirmative Action or anything, but I just wanted to share this appalling article I read!
They gave some Mexican girl a scholarship to college. I can't even believe it! Then they had to hide this obviously raced-based freebie with some b.s. about "overcoming adversity."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_3649093

Next thing you know she'll be trying to go to law school.
 

[Miss P]

I know this thread isn't about Affirmative Action or anything, but I just wanted to share this appalling article I read!
They gave some Mexican girl a scholarship to college. I can't even believe it! Then they had to hide this obviously raced-based freebie with some b.s. about "overcoming adversity."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_3649093

Next thing you know she'll be trying to go to law school.
 

It's as if they actually want people like that to go to college and stuff!  What gives?!

[Miss P]

I think the post at Barely Legal on the difference between arguing and arguments lays it out really nicely.  (I've heard the same thing about law school from other sources, just not nearly as elqouently.)

I've just had the chance to read this (blogspot wasn't working on my computer for whatever reason last night).  I think it's rather silly.  I understand the distinction between being argumentative and making good arguments, but this is patently false:

Unfortunately, the ability to make a good argument and the enjoyment of arguing for the sake of arguing are mutually exclusive traits. Those who enjoy arguing cannot be objective about it. They invest a personal stake in the argument, whether its ideology, or more often, pride. Instead of being able to objectively look at both sides of a situation and form a strategy for arguing either one, those who like to argue pick one side and will defend it to the death, no matter how inane or off base their points become.

First, there are plenty of people who enjoy arguing who are very good at it.  At times, I would even include you on this list, Lily.  Yes, some people get caught in certain traps (clever red herrings, ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, etc.) and worry too much about rhetorical flourish, but some people who enjoy arguing actually use the opportunity to hone their skills.

Second, there is a ridiculous slippage here between "enjoying arguing"/being argumentative and "having a personal stake in the argument" or not being "objective."  Since when is having a position or fighting for something in which you deeply believe a fault?  I work at a major civil rights organization, and all of the attorneys here care deeply about the issues our work addresses.  I think, if anything, this has inspired them to be creative in developing their strategies and arguments; it certainly forces them to craft their arguments with exacting attention to detail because they so well understand the stakes.  They are all excellent advocates, and very successful in a legal climate that is hostile to our claims.

[redemption]

Of course.