LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 56
0 members and 56 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Today, 01:59 PM   #2371
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 5,953
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
The Jewish sorority at your large midwest football school was full of intellectuals?
“Full of”? - perhaps Not.

“Devoid of”? - definitely Not. True, there were more in [redacted name of the other primarily Jewish sorority] (think UWS versus Five Towns), but still.
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:02 PM   #2372
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,863
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
“Full of”? - perhaps Not.

“Devoid of”? - definitely Not. True, there were more in [redacted name of the other primarily Jewish sorority] (think UWS versus Five Towns), but still.
And you know what, how the fuck would someone like you know the run down on who is in the Jewish Sorority? I may try to get paig's to come back and help me ferret out whether this isn't bullshit in the extreme.


edit- I wouldn't have been allowed near the doors of any sorority but especially that one
__________________
like Paigow

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; Today at 02:10 PM..
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:06 PM   #2373
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,917
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
I personally think Hoover is a step down and a nice way to isolate yourself from having to deal with people who disagree with you, but there are plenty of people there who are pretty bright, starting with Condi Rice.

I didn't realize they'd associated themselves with D'Souza. That's a great way to diminish your brand.
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/sta...01188315492353

D'Souza and Ferguson are both there!
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:34 PM   #2374
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,604
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/sta...01188315492353

D'Souza and Ferguson are both there!
Damn, thanks for the reminder that we're all judged based on the people we associate with, even tangentially.

Now I have to go orchestrate another purge of some of my partners, and a couple of the people I sing with in choir.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:35 PM   #2375
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 5,953
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
And you know what, how the fuck would someone like you know the run down on who is in the Jewish Sorority? I may try to get paig's to come back and help me ferret out whether this isn't bullshit in the extreme.


edit- I wouldn't have been allowed near the doors of any sorority but especially that one
I can assure you and Paigow with great confidence that, during my time at Podunkville University, the Five Towns-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted] and the UWS-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted].

And who said I was allowed near the doors of their house? By this point in the process, Ruth* was a sister in name only.

*A composite character based upon the girl who told me that her father was an insurance executive after I ranted about the evils of State Farm at an anti-apartheid rally and the girl in ENG 3797, the Mid-Century American Novel, who borrowed Portnoy’s Complaint on a Friday and returned it on a Monday filled with the joy of righteous rage.
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:45 PM   #2376
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,863
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
I can assure you and Paigow with great confidence that, during my time at Podunkville University, the Five Towns-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted] and the UWS-ish girls tended to pledge [redacted].

And who said I was allowed near the doors of their house? By this point in the process, Ruth* was a sister in name only.

*A composite character based upon the girl who told me that her father was an insurance executive after I ranted about the evils of State Farm at an anti-apartheid rally and the girl in ENG 3797, the Mid-Century American Novel, who borrowed Portnoy’s Complaint on a Friday and returned it on a Monday filled with the joy of righteous rage.
Does the composite have tits intermediate the two, or did you default to the bigger?
__________________
like Paigow
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 05:09 PM   #2377
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 5,953
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Does the composite have tits intermediate the two, or did you default to the bigger?
An earnest young Not Robert would angrily respond that he never even notices that sort of superficial thing, but Not Robert’s Id would explain that that’s because the youngster is more of a leg man.
Not Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 05:18 PM   #2378
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 22,583
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I married an anthropology major, but please -- it's not a science.



Why? If you are trying a tort case, you don't need to consider the intervention of invisible aliens using technology we can't understand, even though it's a potential cause.

What if you just accept that systemic oppression is evil in part because it enlists its victims in their own degradation? Black policemen sometimes shoot young black men for no good reason. Women blame other women's clothes for sexual assault. And so on. You don't need science to acknowledge that. But you do need to explain why you think it matters.
1. It uses the scientific method. It’s a soft science. But the only applicable one here.

2. Invisible aliens are not “potential.” The actual humans involved in these issues, and their actions, are real actors and facts to examine.

3. I do accept that. Who doesn’t? But that has nothing to do with the logical point made. And that members of oppressed groups may also be oppressors is of no moment here.

Stop using “victim blaming.” It’s not a valid construct in any logical assessment. It’s an appeal to emotion and an argument from authority, among other logical fallacies.

I stated my reason for concluding it matters. If blame is to be fully accorded and rigorously assessed, in ANY instance, all potential (non-invisible alien) inputs must be considered. To allow otherwise converts a complaint to a judgment (without mitigating offsets for any comparative negligence).* To allow otherwise is to determine something to finality without assessment all facts. Is that ever wise? If you see no danger in this sort of thing, I can’t discuss this any further.

——-
* True comparative negligence (the liable pay all of their share, with an offset only to the exact % of others’ acts), not that horrible and unfair form used in the bus case. I have always found that sort of arbitrary culpability shifting offensive and unjust.

ETA: You see how an allegation/narrative = judgment/proof dynamic is dangerous, and dangerously authoritarian, I’d add. The ultimate point here actually has little to do with the subject at hand. It’s that if we slide into a world where “credibly accused” becomes a standard against which mitigating factors including comparative liability may not be offered in defense - to allegations against or assessments regarding an indindividual or society at large - we’ve conceded our most essential freedoms. An unpopular view or defense may never be squealched because it’s impolitic. It must be beaten on the merits. That may be annoying, or offensive, but it’s also the only way to be intellectually honest, logical, and preserve freedom.

ETA2: I’m also defense oriented, personally. The same analysis that causes me to conclude our justice system is corrupt, discriminatory, and often rigged, is the same one that causes me to recoil at the suggestion certain logical arguments sounding in defense or skepticism should not be raised. Those are arguments over which the govt’s worst Torquemadas and Roy Cohns salivate. “Limit skepticism and defenses we don’t like.” Could anything be more Trumpian?

I’d die before I’d prosecute. Only the money got me through plaintiff’s work.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; Today at 05:59 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 05:46 PM   #2379
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,917
Re: icymi above

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
1. It uses the scientific method. It’s a soft science. But the only applicable one here.
No. No, it doesn't. Wikipedia helpfully describes the principles of the scientific method:

Quote:
Scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition, which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century, involving careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept; formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental testing and measurement of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
As commonly understand, anthropology does not involve experiments.

Similarly, your notion of "assessing" a group's "responsibility" for its own subjugation is not something that be tested through the scientific method.

Quote:
2. Invisible aliens are not “potential.” The actual humans involved in these issues, and their actions, are real actors and facts to examine.
Now you're censoring me, right?

Quote:
3. I do accept that. Who doesn’t? But that has nothing to do with the logical point made. And that members of oppressed groups may also be oppressors is of no moment here.

Stop using “victim blaming.” It’s not a valid construct in any logical assessment. It’s an appeal to emotion and an argument from authority, among other logical fallacies.

I stated my reason for concluding it matters. If blame is to be fully accorded and rigorously assessed, in ANY instance, all potential (non-invisible alien) inputs must be considered. To allow otherwise converts a complaint to a judgment (without mitigating offsets for any comparative negligence).* To allow otherwise is to determine something to finality without assessment all facts. Is that ever wise? If you see no danger in this sort of thing, I can’t discuss this any further.

ETA: You see how an allegation/narrative = judgment/proof dynamic is dangerous, and dangerously authoritarian, I’d add. The ultimate point here is that if we slide into a world where “credibly accused” becomes a standard against which mitigating factors including comparative liability may not be offered in defense - against an indindividual or society at large - we’ve conceded our most essential freedoms. An unpopular view or defense may never be squealched because it’s impolitic. It must be beaten on the merits. That may be annoying, or offensive, but it’s also the only way to be intellectually honest, logical, and preserve freedom.
Again: you do need to explain why you think it matters. In what actual context in the real world is one of these defenses, "unpopular" or otherwise, relevant? What is it relevant to? You keep using the language of judicial proceedings, but groups are not put on trial in judicial proceedings. Are you talking about discussion of legislation? Cable-tv opinion shows? Elevator conversations? What are you talking about?

To put it differently, where in current discourse is it a problem that a group's responsibility for its own plight is not being discussed?
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 PM.