Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: This is why affirmative should remain in tact  (Read 26745 times)

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #90 on: August 30, 2007, 03:01:59 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come one. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)

Yeah, I would provide the source, but I don't have the book on me. Sorry :)

(I'm only trying to show you that an alternative explanation exists for this disparity. Since the explanation is supported by evidence that I can't provide right now, I can't fault you for questioning the validity of the study.)

H4CS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #91 on: August 30, 2007, 03:06:29 AM »
Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site?  It just shows the text of what he wrote.  Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass.  And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut.  Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #92 on: August 30, 2007, 03:09:58 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come on. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)

Yeah, I would provide the source, but I don't have the book on me. Sorry :)

(I'm only trying to show you that an alternative explanation exists for this disparity. Since the explanation is supported by evidence that I can't provide right now, I can't fault you for questioning the validity of the study.)

well, thanks.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #93 on: August 30, 2007, 03:19:13 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #94 on: August 30, 2007, 03:22:07 AM »
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.

Do you define a "confining" decision as one that can't be reversed by the person making the decision? Because I've been defining a "confining" decision as one which limits your alternatives, not by irreversibility.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2007, 03:30:18 AM »
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.

Do you define a "confining" decision as one that can't be reversed by the person making the decision? Because I've been defining a "confining" decision as one which limits your alternatives, not by irreversibility.

Confining meaning you're stuck with it.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #96 on: August 30, 2007, 03:31:42 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?

Well, if someone has a motive to say an untruths, that doesn't necessarily mean that any statement they make concerning the area in which they have a motive to state the untruth about is false. They may say an untruth, or they may be telling the truth.

What's important is evaluating whether their statements are true or false.

However, if I'm accurately characterizing Media Matters, that website was set up not to point out specific instances where non-leftists have spoken untruths, but to show that they have a motive for saying untruths, and insinuate that motive is sufficient grounds to disregard all their statements as untruths.

But as I mentioned above, just because someone has a motive to say something that isn't true doesn't mean that whatever they're saying is false. To catch a falsehood, you need evidence that proves what they're saying is untrue, not mere insinuations that they've said something false because they have a motive to do so.

H4CS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2007, 03:36:31 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.
Quote

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.
Firstly, you would think you could figure out how to quote text.  

Secondly, your evasiveness is astounding.  Here's the original article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp  Mediamatters is right in that Sowell clearly intends to portray AIDS as something that only concerns homosexuals.  He describes AIDS education as promoting homosexuality and claims it teaches people local homosexual hangouts.  It's this kind of tripe that makes him so laughable.  

Media Matters is correct in that he clearly suggests that AIDS is something that is exclusive to homosexuals.  His rhetoric is the same as that used by members of the Bush administation to tie Iraq to 9/11 in the build-up to the war.  Were you to ask him point blank, he'd deny that AIDS only affects homosexuals.  But he's certainly going to imply that again and again with ridiculous assertions like the one in that article.

Read the whole piece.  If you still think he's a serious thinker, then I have the number of a great lobotomist.  And nowhere in that article is there any support for your assertion that Sowell believes AIDS disproportionately affects gays.  Nowhere.  Jackass.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #98 on: August 30, 2007, 03:43:55 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?

Well, if someone has a motive to say an untruths, that doesn't necessarily mean that any statement they make concerning the area in which they have a motive to state the untruth about is false. They may say an untruth, or they may be telling the truth.

What's important is evaluating whether their statements are true or false.

However, if I'm accurately characterizing Media Matters, that website was set up not to point out specific instances where non-leftists have spoken untruths, but to show that they have a motive for saying untruths, and insinuate that motive is sufficient grounds to disregard all their statements as untruths.

But as I mentioned above, just because someone has a motive to say something that isn't true doesn't mean that whatever they're saying is false. To catch a falsehood, you need evidence that proves what they're saying is untrue, not mere insinuations that they've said something false because they have a motive to do so.

I wonder if you hold Fox News in that same regard?

Media Matters is a self-proclaimed progressive organization. Can you give an instance where Media Matters has given false statements? I gotta million for Fox.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #99 on: August 30, 2007, 04:26:08 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

The Media Matters website makes an egregious jump in logic in their representation of Sowell's statement.

This logical flaw is located in the following excerpt:

Quote
In his December 31 nationally syndicated column, which the Washington Times published January 5 as a "Commentary" column, economist Thomas Sowell claimed that rather than marriage rights, what "homosexual activists" really desire is "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Sowell continued: "They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called 'AIDS education' or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality."

He also wrote that homosexual activists have received "special privilege" through equal-rights claims because "[t]hey have already got far more government money earmarked for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people."

Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate.
Quote

Despite what Media Matters asserts, nowhere does Sowell actually assert "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals."

The quoted passage ("the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era") suggests that Sowell believes that the risk of AIDS is higher in homosexuals than non-homosexuals, and this risk is large enough to be characterized as a "deathstyle."

The quoted passage does not show that Sowell believes that AIDS is a disease that "exclusively afflicts homosexuals," only that it afflicts homosexuals at a higher rate than non-homosexuals, and that he considers that rate to be very high.

Media Matters has mischaracterized Sowell's statements to portray him as out-of-touch with reality, since AIDS is obviously not a disease exclusively affecting gays. Arthur Ashe and Magic Johnson are not gay, but both are/were afflicted by AIDS.

Incidentally, what Sowell asserts may be true (although since I don't have the relevant data, I can't say for certain).

You know, for a Harvard boy, you think you'd spot the logical flaw a lot faster than a 0L.
Firstly, you would think you could figure out how to quote text.  

Secondly, your evasiveness is astounding.  Here's the original article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp  Mediamatters is right in that Sowell clearly intends to portray AIDS as something that only concerns homosexuals.  He describes AIDS education as promoting homosexuality and claims it teaches people local homosexual hangouts.  It's this kind of tripe that makes him so laughable.  

Media Matters is correct in that he clearly suggests that AIDS is something that is exclusive to homosexuals.  His rhetoric is the same as that used by members of the Bush administation to tie Iraq to 9/11 in the build-up to the war.  Were you to ask him point blank, he'd deny that AIDS only affects homosexuals.  But he's certainly going to imply that again and again with ridiculous assertions like the one in that article.

Read the whole piece.  If you still think he's a serious thinker, then I have the number of a great lobotomist.  And nowhere in that article is there any support for your assertion that Sowell believes AIDS disproportionately affects gays.  Nowhere.  Jackass.

You're reading your own biases into the interpretation of the article. Nowhere in the article does he claim that AIDS *only* affects homosexuals. It may be inferred that he thinks AIDS *disproportionately* affects homosexuals (since the homosexual choice is a "deathstyle" due to AIDS, choosing that option implies that it provides you a higher risk of dying from AIDS than choosing other options), but that isn't the same thing as saying that AIDS *only* affects homosexuals.

You're offended by his rhetoric, but you don't address the substance of his argument. This is a question of reasonable interpretation of a statement, not one of rhetoric.

I'm touched that your sense of propriety is so easily bruised by the style and tone of the man's words. Now pretty please, with a cherry on top, address the substance of his argument. And don't bring in an irrelevant tangent such as the rhetoric of the Bush Administration.

Let me guess, you majored in Critical Gender Studies? If I wanted a lobotomy, I could probably get one by enrolling in such a program.

You know, Alberto Gonzales also enrolled at Harvard Law School. He didn't turn out to be a very good lawyer.