Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: I have to chuckle at AA  (Read 9284 times)

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2006, 08:33:51 PM »
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?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.

guyminuslife

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Fascism -- @#!* Yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2006, 08:34:55 PM »
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.

FossilJ

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2006, 08:44:22 PM »
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?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.
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 #33 on: November 28, 2006, 08:50:39 PM »
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?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.


No,, you're wrong.

This is the portion of "halfie's" post that I was responding to:

"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."

Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor. People with money can afford to live in wealthier areas with a larger property tax base and better schools. I was saying that race is indeed a social factor but there are other significant ones as well, and that it would be fairer to everyone if the focus focused on non-racial social and economic attributes.

As for your LSAT question, I have not taken it yet. But if you must know, my strongest sections are the LR sections(I am very good at these) and my weakest section is the LG section. And obviously logic games have nothing to do with this discussion. Your post would still be construed by most as a personal attack, an AD HOMINEM fallacy. So do not talk to me about fallacies and do not talk down to me.

FossilJ

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2006, 09:08:49 PM »
Quote
Quote

Did you fail the LSAT?


Wow, a personal attack really does wonders for your argument.


No.  It's a pointed question.


I ask because you either made an unwarranted assumption about halfie's claim, or you're attacking a strawman.  Either way, these are classic fallacies that even a bit of preparation for the LSAT should've enlightened you to.


No,, you're wrong.

This is the portion of "halfie's" post that I was responding to:

"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."

Money can be a social factor as well as an economic factor. People with money can afford to live in wealthier areas with a larger property tax base and better schools. I was saying that race is indeed a social factor but there are other significant ones as well, and that it would be fairer to everyone if the focus focused on non-racial social and economic attributes.

As for your LSAT question, I have not taken it yet. Your post would still be construed by most as a personal attack, an AD HOMINEM fallacy. So do not talk to me about fallacies and do not talk down to me.


No f-ing *&^% it's an ad hominem fallacy.  Only I didn't misrepresent your argument -- I let you @#!* it up twice, yourself.


You're making a mistaken reversal.  Halfie argues that if race is present, then socio- must be present.  You're interpreting him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio- must not be present.

This means that you're either putting words in his mouth, or you're attacking a strawman.


If this is the sentence you had trouble with:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables..."

then you're still hijacking his point for your own purposes (or just being irrelevant), since he clearly states that economic considerations are based on money.  That may be obvious, but that's exactly his problem (and mine): why would people argue for purely economic considerations -- as they often do, but not as you do -- and then call them "socioeconomic" considerations (which may still suggest connection to race).


Halfie's argument is far more refined than you assumed, and yet you jumped all over it like a bulldog on a kitten.  I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm saying your points are beyond the scope of the debate, and do a disservice to the person you're addressing.

 
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 #35 on: November 28, 2006, 09:27:29 PM »
Quote from: MaraudingJ


No f-ing sh*t it's an ad hominem fallacy.  Only I didn't misrepresent your argument -- I let you @#!* it up twice, yourself.


You're making a mistaken reversal.  Halfie argues that if race is present, then socio- must be present.  You're interpreting him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio- must not be present.

This means that you're either putting words in his mouth, or you're attacking a strawman.


If this is the sentence you had trouble with:

"If you want race removed from the equation and you want it based on money, you want consideration of economic variables..."

then you're still hijacking his point for your own purposes (or just being irrelevant), since he clearly states that economic considerations are based on money.  That may be obvious, but that's exactly his problem (and mine): why would people argue for purely economic considerations -- as they often do, but not as you do -- and then call them "socioeconomic" considerations (which may still suggest connection to race).


Halfie's argument is far more refined than you assumed, and yet you jumped all over it like a bulldog on a kitten.  I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm saying your points are beyond the scope of the debate, and do a disservice to the person you're addressing.

 

So you just admitted to using an ad hominem fallacy to attack me, while admonishing me for supposedly using logical fallacies when presenting my argument. Did you fail the Hypocrite test?

Half attacked my post by quoting it and asking while people make an apparently common mistake by including money as a social factor. Halfie is wrong because income is considered by sociologists to be both a social and economic factor, as I've already shown. So it makes perfect sense to say that you want AA to have a socioeconomic focus. Right now it has a racial focus, and while race is a social factor, it's only one of many. Families and incomes are two others. He/she took a very simplistic view of the entire matter and now you are launching ad hominem attacks at me.

You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined.

Here is a portion of Half's post:

"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."

In no point in his/her post does Halfie make the point that money(income, etc) can be a social variable AS well as an economic variable. So there is nothing wrong with me saying that I want AA to have a socioeconomic basis. Right now it does not.

I am not attacking a straw man. I made it clear in my original post in this thread that I want the focus to move to other social factors besides race, and I want it to include economic factors as well.

As for why I'd argue for purely economic considerations and call them socioeconomic, well I never argued for purely economic considerations; I merely gave one example in my original post of what I think should happen with AA in the future. I believe in wider diversity in academia.

I am happy to have this discussion with you but please stop swearing at me and personally attacking me. I have not intentionally disrespected you so there is no reason for you to intentionally disrespect me. That said, I have not screwed anything up, and most people who read this thread will realize that I am in the right.

FossilJ

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Carbon-date THIS, biznitch!
    • View Profile
    • Cricket Rules!
    • Email
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2006, 09:29:53 PM »
*shakes head*
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 #37 on: November 28, 2006, 09:32:14 PM »
*shakes head*


You're going to  have to do better than that. How about rebutting the points in my post? You may regard me as an intellectual lightweight and a dunce, what with your question that you posed to me pertaining the LSAT. Well, fine. If that makes you feel better about yourself then go right ahead.

I also am curious as to why you removed my detailed comments about my LSAT practice experience from your post that quoted mine: "But if you must know, my strongest sections are the LR sections(I am very good at these) and my weakest section is the LG section. And obviously logic games have nothing to do with this discussion". They appear to be the only sentences that you ommitted.

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.

guyminuslife

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Fascism -- @#!* Yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2006, 09:54:18 PM »
Maurauding J v. JTG (2006)

[ten pages of irrelevant notes]

The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the defendant submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the defendant notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim. Therefore, we conclude that the word "socioeconomic" was properly used in the instant case.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the defendant in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action. The Court will not delve into this matter today. Remanded for further review.

JTG

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: I have to chuckle at AA
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2006, 09:57:10 PM »
JTG v. Maurauding J (2006)

[ten pages of irrelevant notes]

The Court rules that the subcomponent "socio-" in the word "socioeconomic" does not pertain solely to race. On the other hand, it does not, for our purposes, accept that it may be ruled to apply to purely economic substance as the plaintiff submits; this would, in our opinion, reflect an overly redundant usage of the term which would necessitate, for purposes of clarity, the substitution of the unmodified term "economic." However, the plaintiff notes myriad other potential meanings for the subcomponent, such as family and location, and we are sympathetic to this claim.

This ruling should in no way connote substantive agreement with the plaintiff in regard to the specific issue of affirmative action, which the Court will not delve into today. Remanded for further review.

This was amusing to read, but I never stated that I believed that the term "socioeconomic" should be applied to "purely economic substance". In fact, I said quite the opposite. So please don't put words in my mouth, Your Honor.

Earlier quote from plaintiff affirming his position:

"You stated that I interpreted him to mean that if race isn't present, then socio must not be present. I never said that socio must not be present if race is present. OF course it must be present! Race is a social factor, after all. MY problem with his post was that he fails to realize that money can be both a social and an economic variable, because social and economic factors are often intertwined."

Edit: Oh my god. You just changed your entire poster, Zen. You switched me from plaintiff to defendant. Wtf?

I never submitted that socioeconomic should apply to purely economic substance because as I stated NUMEROUS TIMES in this thread, I want other social and economic factors to be examined as well.