Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: This is why affirmative should remain in tact  (Read 27051 times)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #130 on: August 30, 2007, 05:59:22 PM »
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.


Dude, anyone who reads more than one of your posts knows you're a lefty wingnut hack, pure and simple.  I may not always agree with pseudo, but at least he bases his arguments on facts and reason, not just knee-jerk bias.

Moreover, Sowell has a PhD from Chicago in economics, and is a senior fellow at Stanford, so unless you have comparable credentials, he's clearly both far more intelligent and far better educated than you.


Oh wow. You're really going to stand by that rhetoric, are you? Cause you know, it cuts both ways, though I'm certainly not going to make that appeal.

What rhetoric?


But for what it's worth, the Captain is one of the most, if not the most accomplished person on this site. Thanks for playing, though.


Um, sure he is.  Even though he hasn't even started law school yet, and clearly has never had an original thought that wasn't spoonfed him.  I guess in your world, agreeing with you = accomplishment.


I find it somewhat ironic that you, of all people, are calling someone a wingnut hack. That's comedy.

Except that I actually give reasons for my beliefs, while H4 runs around emotionally, screaming about anyone he personally disagrees with.  (And them claims he's a "moderate.")


It's also hilarious that you think Pseudo has "based his arguments with fact and reason." All of a sudden interpretation = fact? And all of a sudden the Captain's links don't amount to support?

Anyone who reads Pseudo and H4 can see that Pseduo is actually thinking and analyzing, while H4 is simply mindlessly regurgitating the pablum fed him in college. 


You're incredible.

Thanks!    :-*

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #131 on: August 30, 2007, 06:05:55 PM »
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.


None of this changes the fact that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected gay sex vs. unprotected straight sex, or the fact that you're far more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay, or the fact that AIDS has devastated the gay community. 

(1.  A higher percentage of gays already have AIDS.  2.  AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex.  3.  Anal sex is more common in gay sex.)

This is the reason gay activists are far more vocal on the issue than other groups.  They certainly consider it a gay issue to some extent.  Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous. 

That is only true in the U.S. and certain other regions. In many other countries, such as Uganda, the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same. Can you guess why?
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #132 on: August 30, 2007, 06:07:45 PM »
Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)

Don't play me, playa.  8) I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #133 on: August 30, 2007, 06:11:49 PM »
There's no question that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay.  

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Do some research.

HIV/AIDS is "primarily spread by heterosexual sex." Directly sourced from (http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/10_myths_about_HIV_AIDS.htm)

Reiterated here: "Most of the new cases of HIV and AIDS are due to sexual contact between a man and woman." (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/hivinfectionsaids/hivi4616.html)

And here: "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm)

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.


None of this changes the fact that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected gay sex vs. unprotected straight sex, or the fact that you're far more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay, or the fact that AIDS has devastated the gay community. 

(1.  A higher percentage of gays already have AIDS.  2.  AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex.  3.  Anal sex is more common in gay sex.)

This is the reason gay activists are far more vocal on the issue than other groups.  They certainly consider it a gay issue to some extent.  Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous. 

That is only true in the U.S. and certain other regions. In many other countries, such as Uganda, the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same. Can you guess why?


Well, I believe Sowell was focusing on the U.S., right?  

I'm honestly not sure that the risks are in fact the same in Uganda, although sexual practices there clearly make straight sex far more dangerous (because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection).  However, age of female partners is also a factor both in Africa and in the U.S.  Younger women are more likely to catch AIDS, and younger women are generally more sexually active, at a younger age, in Uganda.  (There's also probably far more rape, etc.)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #134 on: August 30, 2007, 06:13:58 PM »


Dude, anyone who reads more than one of your posts knows you're a lefty wingnut hack, pure and simple.  I may not always agree with pseudo, but at least he bases his arguments on facts and reason, not just knee-jerk bias.

Moreover, Sowell has a PhD from Chicago in economics, and is a senior fellow at Stanford, so unless you have comparable credentials, he's clearly both far more intelligent and far better educated than you.


Oh wow. You're really going to stand by that rhetoric, are you? Cause you know, it cuts both ways, though I'm certainly not going to make that appeal.

What rhetoric?

Oh come on. Such and such has a PhD, so obviously she's more intelligent than you.

But for what it's worth, the Captain is one of the most, if not the most accomplished person on this site. Thanks for playing, though.


Um, sure he is.  Even though he hasn't even started law school yet, and clearly has never had an original thought that wasn't spoonfed him.  I guess in your world, agreeing with you = accomplishment.

Uh, not quite. But it's funny nonetheless to follow your line, so continue on...

I find it somewhat ironic that you, of all people, are calling someone a wingnut hack. That's comedy.

Except that I actually give reasons for my beliefs, while H4 runs around emotionally, screaming about anyone he personally disagrees with.  (And them claims he's a "moderate.")

He just has more flair than you, but he supports his sh*t just fine.

And with real live studies and links, too (you should try it sometime)!

It's also hilarious that you think Pseudo has "based his arguments with fact and reason." All of a sudden interpretation = fact? And all of a sudden the Captain's links don't amount to support?

Anyone who reads Pseudo and H4 can see that Pseduo is actually thinking and analyzing, while H4 is simply mindlessly regurgitating the pablum fed him in college.

Uh, sure.

::looks around to see if we're somehow back in kindergarten:: 

Is this narcissism and delusion some sort of prerequisite for being a conservative? I mean, because you're tip-toeing into George Bush-like psychosis here.
 
You're incredible.

Thanks!    :-*

Glad to help!


Aside from the name-calling, it appears you've basically conceded my points, which is suprisingly mature of you.  And your reluctant admiration, while delayed, is particularly moving.  Kudos!   :)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #135 on: August 30, 2007, 06:15:59 PM »
Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)

Don't play me, playa.  8) I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.


Just stating the facts.  As usual, however, you don't want to accept them.

Whatever.  It's still a free country.   :-*

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #136 on: August 30, 2007, 06:16:09 PM »
Well, I believe Sowell was focusing on the U.S., right?  

I'm honestly not sure that the risks are in fact the same in Uganda, although sexual practices there clearly make straight sex far more dangerous (because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection).  However, age of female partners is also a factor both in Africa and in the U.S.  Younger women are more likely to catch AIDS, and younger women are generally more sexually active, at a younger age, in Uganda.  (There's also probably far more rape, etc.)

I don't believe he clarified his idiotic statements.

These general statements...Old bean, where do you get your facts?
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2007, 06:17:00 PM »
Good to see you thinking for yourself.  ;)

Don't play me, playa.  8) I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.


Just stating the facts.  As usual, however, you don't want to accept them.

Whatever.  It's still a free country.   :-*

where? Bill O'Reily is that you?
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 #138 on: August 31, 2007, 12:08:03 AM »
Kinda skimmed through the last few pages.  I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads.  Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying?  I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying.  It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot"  "The person writing the article is an idiot"  The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree.  Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

"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."

Just to point out why I don't like the excerpts I've seen from the article...Sowell implies that AIDS is a "homosexual disease", but to say that he suggests that "AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals" seems pretty disingenuous, at least based on what's been quoted in this thread.  Those stats also look potentially very misleading

"the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years" - this seems to simply mean that more heterosexual people have AIDs than 15 years ago, not that the per capita rate has increased.

"while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined"  Now here he's using the "rate", which would mean per capita I assume

"along with the overall infection rate" - I'm assuming again that "rate" means per capita infections.  So, in order for the overall infection rate to decrease, the heterosexuality rate is probably decreasing too, unless the homosexuality rate is decreasing at such a high rate that that small percentage of the population is able to counter the increase in the heterosexual rate.  It seems to me pretty blatant that they're trying to make readers think a greater percentage of heterosexuals are contracting AIDs, but in actuality, the rate of AIDS is decreasing, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.  I may be missing something, so no one go crazy if I'm wrong here.

So in sum, Sowell seems like a bigoted idiot, but at least based on what has been quoted here, I don't think that article was good or honest either.

By the way, do a higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS compared to heterosexuals?  This seems to be one of the main sticking points.  Obviously stats like "90% of AIDs cases are heterosexual" don't really help much.

You pretty much covered everything I wanted to say about the reasoning and statistics given in the Media Matters article.

BTW, if Sowell defines "homosexual lifestyle" as any lifestyle where the person has homosexual sex, then don't agree with Sowell, because gay people in monogamous, disease-free relationships don't contract AIDS from their partners.

But if Sowell's definition of "homosexual lifestyle" is one where gay people have promiscuous gay sex, as Lindbergh seems to imply, then I do agree with Sowell, because promiscuous sex is more likely to result in contracting AIDS than monogamous sex, and anal sex is more likely to spread AIDS than other forms of sex, due to the absorbancy of the tissues around the rectum and higher likelihood of tissue tears from that form of sex.

Since Sowell contends that gay activists pass out information on where to find gay bars to kids, and one assumes (as I do) that gay bars are where one goes to find gay promiscuous sex partners, then I think the latter definition is more likely than the former, although because this definition is somewhat ambiguous, I think it's reasonable for people to disagree what he meant when he wrote it.

At least we can all agree that MM wholly mischaracterized what Sowell wrote, right?

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #139 on: August 31, 2007, 12:14:58 AM »
At least we can all agree that MM wholly mischaracterized what Sowell wrote, right?

no! (with extra !)
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.