Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: I have to chuckle at AA  (Read 9896 times)

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #50 on: November 28, 2006, 11:27:37 PM »
This is precisely the issue.


You're STILL fighting this strawman.  I'm telling you, this is going to get more viciously circular the more we talk about it.  You'll continue to beat your dead horse, and I'll continue to tell you it's a dead horse, to which you'll respond, "IT'S NOT A DEAD HORSE, YOU DON'T KNOW ME," while still beating it. 


1.  "We" did not attack your use of the word.  Until you misread Halfie, there was no attack whatsoever.
2.  If you think a joke barb like "did you fail the LSAT" constitutes "criticizing" your "intellectual capacity", then you need to grow a thicker skin.
3.  Don't use words that you don't understand.


1. How did I misread? Halfie's post, again:

"Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!"

Halfie was addressing ME. He did quote my post in his response to the thread, after all.  He said that if you want it based on money, and want to remove race from the equation, you want economic variables. When he asked why people constantly do "this", he was referring to me using the term socioeconomic in the fashion and context that I DID. He obviously views this a mistake. It is not a mistake, as I've pointed out, because money can be both a social and an economic variable. Furthermore, by saying I want it "based on money", he's not-so-subtly implying that this is the only subvariable I want AA based on, which as I've already proven is not the case.

2. Considering my interactions with some people on this board(namely you), I'd tend to agree with your recommendation.

3. What words don't I understand?

guyminuslife

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Fascism -- @#!* Yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2006, 12:09:54 AM »
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.

FossilJ

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2006, 12:11:20 AM »
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.
Pish, J only wants to waste YOUR time.  Get wise.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2006, 12:18:24 AM »
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.


please answer the points in my previous posts.

FossilJ

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2006, 12:22:27 AM »
Pish, J only wants to waste YOUR time.  Get wise.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2006, 12:31:34 AM »





Even if she is dead. But I don't think she is, because we never resolved our argument. If you're going to accuse me of beating a dead horse then you should apologize for being wrong about what I said, and then we can consider it closed. Until then, this isn't done.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2006, 01:16:55 AM »
Simply put,

I objected to Halfie taking offense at my post when he clearly doesn't understand that money can be both a social and economic factor.

I object to your continued existence in my universe, but you don't see me whining about it, do you?

Also, what J said.

Awww halfie. Makes a little appearance not to refute any points, but just to attack. Sorry halfie.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2006, 01:40:37 AM »
Simply put,

I objected to Halfie taking offense at my post when he clearly doesn't understand that money can be both a social and economic factor.

I object to your continued existence in my universe, but you don't see me whining about it, do you?

Also, what J said.

Awww halfie. Makes a little appearance not to refute any points, but just to attack. Sorry halfie.

You seriously think you've said anything here that needs and deserves refuting?

Yes, Haffeee. You totally misinterpreted my words and perverted the intentions of my post. You then did not return to explain yourself except to personally attack me. pathetic.

guyminuslife

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Fascism -- @#!* Yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2006, 02:33:00 AM »
It's refreshing to see a flame war between two people who aren't me.

I wonder how much real judges get paid. Not counting bribes, I mean.


This is way too lame to be a flame war.


It's kind of funny how this thread has been hijacked, though, by a minor definitional issue. And then suddenly everyone's screaming at each other. You'd think that on an AA thread it would at least be screaming over unfair advantages.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2006, 05:42:05 AM »
I personally think that AA should be solely based on socioeconomic variables, and without as much of an emphasis on race.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why people constantly do this?

If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables; if you want race considered, you need the socio- in socioeconomic.  Right?  What am I missing?  Race is, by definition, a social factor, and the word socioeconomic is formed by combining social + economic.

Explain please!

Sorry but you're wrong. You're right that race is a social factor but it is by no means the only social factor. Families, peers and schools are social factors as well. If a white kid grew up in foster homes with abusive parents and went to poor schools then it is clear that he had a disadvantaged childhood. If a black kid grew up in Beverly Hills with a spinal surgeon father and an attorney for a mother, chances are he didn't have a very disadvantaged childhood. Obviously these are extreme examples. So when I say that I want it to be based on social variables with a racial exclusion, there's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of racial minorities will still be helped since they tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Did you fail the LSAT?


@#!* all of ya'll, I made an A+ on my LSAT, and with the bonus questions, I got a 120. Suck it.

I wonder if anyone actually does get a 120 on it. I'm sure some must but damn. I mean getting  15 questions right still gets you the lowest score possible on the test. Kinda ridiculous.