The great thing about internet arguing is that if someone else can't prove that the sky is blue, you can often make them really annoyed by deliberately insisting it's purple.One thing that I notice about the LSD boards, relative to many others where I've been on the internet, is that here people tend to prefer to show themselves as non-cooperative. Somehow the concept of cooperation suggests to them the concept of weakness or ineptitude. (This is, of course, a logical fallacy, but that's a different issue.) So, when they're in doubt, they aggressively posture about their own independence, lack of support, and aggression, going out of their way to find the small points where they and everyone else DIFFER. It's very important to them to find difference and then get angry about it. In lots of other locations, people are more sanguine about the notion of creating a field in which we can all work, even if there are differences among the denizens of that field.I suppose it's good practice for the inherently adversarial nature of the law, and it's generally verbally quite accurate to the type of thinking that's required in an LSAT question. People often read my posts as though they were LR or RC questions (another obvious logical fallacy) and then feel they've adequately addressed the issues at hand merely because they've pointed out a weakener, strengthener, or assumption, or found which of the following five answer choices parallels the method of reading in the stimulus above. But it certainly doesn't actually get at the issues at hand, and it tends to prevent people from actually advocating for their own positions.Nobody on this thread who CLAIMS to be advocating that racism in America doesn't exist to any important extent has actually DONE any advocating for that claim. They just keep re-stating that position, then things which are supposed inferences from that position, and then things that are only tangentially related to that position, and then a lot of anger about things like taxes and jobs and abortion and any other hot-button issues they can find. But they don't ... actually ... BOTHER to try to prove their point. And that's definitely not very good practice for the law, is it?
The main partner in their Entertainment Law group went to CLS, but he was Fiske and on LR, so be careful. You don't want to set yourself goals that are too high.
The controversy was about two things (1) whether the officer clearly identified himself as NYPD when he approached (and touched) the car with his gun out and (2) whether Bell was trying to hurt him or was instead just trying to get away. Either way, the police have a policy of not firing into moving vehicles. Even if you believe the police identified themselves clearly and that Bell was trying to hurt them, these facts are insufficient to overcome the clear judgments underlying the policy. It was very dangerous, and we are lucky that no one else was killed or seriously hurt.
I'm not show-offy.
Nice. Four previous juvie raps. Emmit Till he ain't ...
Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who has championed Bell's case, denounced Thursday's decision as "revenge" by the judge and called on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco to intervene.
I'm sorry, Louisiana no longer exists. This just in. Jena, along with Morgan City and New Orleans, has sunk into the Gulf of Mexico, thanks to the Federal Government's negligence regarding wetland preservation and reclamation, prevention of other authorities from performing similar acts, and failure to build suitable levees, as contrary to their own legal restrictions. Pictures at six.Back to you, Fred.
Quote from: final_id on October 12, 2007, 12:11:56 AMNice. Four previous juvie raps. Emmit Till he ain't ...yeah I really wasn't feeling the comparison...or the t-shirts made up that reflected the comparison.
Sorry. I must hazard a rephrase: "we must do better, PEOPLE." It's not just blacks who get fooled into thinking a victim of one racial bias must be himself unblemished.
Page created in 0.746 seconds with 17 queries.