Also, don't blast me for relying on google hits for my response. If I can find it for free, I'm printing out the lempert, chambers and blah-blah study out to look over at home.
I agree that it is getting side-tracked, but part of the problem with this discussion is that it's for everyone on both sides to jump around from argument to argument in a not-entirely coherent chain of logic. AA is bad because it creates a two-tier system of qualification! AA is good because racism exists! AA is bad because it perpetatuates negative steretypes! AA is good because it helps correct existing imbalances in representation! Yes! No! Yes! No! Blue! Green!
I missed it too, and it is a good post. But, Red, I think your Socratic-style plays into that; and, in this thread certainly, helps shape the staccato nature of the discussion.You ask questions about seemingly extraneous things that, if you follow the logic back, it eventually may refute the poster's opinion. But then we all wind up stalled on the road to that refutation somewhere. It's almost like you work backwards or leave so much of a gap in the questions that we wind up debating the relevance of your point rather than the point itself. I know you don't like to do this (because asking questions makes trapping someone in your rhetorical net so much easier!), but you may just want to start laying out the logic chain a little more clearly. Also, as much fun as it is to deflate people who strike you as arrogant and/or ignorant (and I've been known to do it too), you reached a level of bitchiness in this thread that totally undermined the attempt at (yet another pointless) discussion of AA. And while we're wrapped up in our arguments about arguing, interesting posts get lost.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.