I think you're getting defensive by thinking I was implying you're any of those things. I was not.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I think you're getting defensive by thinking I was implying you're any of those things. I was not.
I said getting into college, not graduating. As for the quotas, I used that in reference to jobs, not colleges. I used the manipulation of SAT scores to emphasize my point about colleges. Just because more whites still get into college doesn't mean that they don't have a tougher route than blacks do.
You're basically saying whites work harder in college so they graduate and rise above their black peers even being in tougher circumstances.
That's a really hot take.
Okay, so the paper doesn't take into account legal counsel. Also, earlier in the paper it talks about areas in which more blacks are arrested tend to have harsher sentences, not just for them, but for everyone. Yet this isn't even mentioned in the conclusion. What gives?
Hey, at least I can support my arguments. Calling people simple-minded really isn't much of an argument.
Weren't you saying that you don't have reading comprehension issues? Or were you just hoping I hadn't read the paper?...
Another possibility is that race is correlated with unobserved characteristics of the defendant rather than the case that influence prosecutorial choices. Candidates include poverty and, relatedly, defense counsel quality. But the inclusion of counsel type and other socioeconomic controls education, marital status, and county characteristics does not reduce the estimates of racial disparity in charging or sentencing. This is less surprising than it may appear, given the high quality of federal public defenders see Posner and Yoon 2011Þ.
What makes anyone a racist. I mean, what's the slightest example. A KKK membership is obvious. But, racism is also very subtle. I think we're all racist on some level because the culture teaches us to be racist and tribal.
How do they figure that the competence of an attorney doesn't make a difference? Are we to really believe that public defenders are as good as private attorneys? That's a hard pill to swallow, don't you think?
Edit: And why isn't any of this stuff mentioned in the conclusion? They mention other variables, but not these?
He asked why were they oppressed.
I even added a much more detailed assessment in my comparison with the Asians that he decided "should be more oppressed."
Here is how this works...
If you choose to believe that whatever suffering, injustices, prejudices, and codified inequalities of "the past" is now in the rear-view mirror and has no business being in the present-day discussion, or future discussion, then you're choosing ignorance. Those indignities are necessary and must be acknowledged in every, single, new generation. If for no other reason than to make sure it never happens again. It's a constant vigilance. That's not even considering how it is still present in our current society. Even though you insist that it's long-gone, or would be if guilty white people would shut up, that doesn't make it true. I'm sorry if it's a pain-in-the-ass reminder for you, or anyone else, but you'll manage. That will be far easier to do than the people who endured it, and the descendants of those people. It can always be better. You needing someone to remind you of what took place (or show your work) is evidence that there is more work to be done.
Do you not know what a control variable is? They controlled for counsel quality. That doesn't mean they said it has no effect.
Apparently you need to go back and take stat 101.
Probably because only idiots skip straight to the conclusion. The important part of a study is the methodology and results.
Yeah, but it doesn't take into account what the weather was that day and what kind of car the judge drives. This makes your source completely invalid.
I read part of that as well. How do you think I knew about the blacks generally being arrested in areas with harsher punishments? I just had some questions to this point and you aren't doing a very good job of answering those questions. All I did was ask said question and you got really defensive all of a sudden. That doesn't speak very well about your argument.
You didn't just pass from some parallel membrane into this reality, did you? If you were born into this world, you're NEVER completely an "individual." You're a reflection of your society and your understanding of OTHERS and their impact on you, and how you react to everything around you.
Funny, but you don't think legal counsel plays a part in convictions and time served? You can be as sarcastic as you wish, but it doesn't make you sound overly objective or educated.
Well, you have a blind spot the size of Montana. Anytime anyone argues with YOU it doesn't speak well about their argument because you're in a fishbowl.
You realize that I'm talking about individual rights, right? I figured you would have gotten this since you claimed to have been a Ron Paul supporter.
Okay, so why am I in a fishbowl? What did I say that would make you think this? Is it the part where I don't believe all legal counsel is the same? More accusations with few examples.
You don't figure very well. You should practice figuring more and then come back.
I would say we are all prejudiced at some level, not racist. Racist to me means you think a certain group is somehow less of a person than you based on nothing but their race regardless of facts.
I could probably figure you out better if you made any sense. All you want to do is speak in platitudes.
LMFAO! All I asked for was an explanation. Now you're trying to force the victim card on me? I have to admit, I don't feel like much of a victim.
Okay, I can agree there. Prejudice between two different races is often called racism, however. That's unfortunate, but I guess the abundance of racism that has been in the culture has resulted in that occasional misnomer.
You're asking me to explain to you how you're totally self-unaware so that you are AWARE of it. I'm not a magician or a therapist.
Well, it makes perfect sense to me. Explain to me how I don't make any sense to you, to me.
Did I say it didn't play a part? You can put words in my mouth if you wish, but it doesn't make you sound overly objective or educated.
Well, you were making fun of my argument, and that was my argument. So, what was I supposed to think?
I'm asking you for an example of why you would say that I'm self-unaware. I'm not asking you to explain the concept to me.
That's part of his shtick. When the battle is lost, pivot to something he claims you meant or should have known, even if it's not relevant.
Well, toke on good buddy. Continue on with whatever this quasi zen-like Buddhist deal is.
I’m not insulting you because I’m being defensive. I’m insulting you because you argue like a fukking idiot.
We’ve already established the fact that they controlled for quality of legal counsel. It’s right there in the quote I gave you. That should’ve answered your “question” but you’ve already reverted back to pretending like they ignored the quality of counsel.
There’s no point in anyone debating anything with you. You are completely possessed by your ideology and will never change your mind about anything. You get presented with evidence, and immediately start looking for how you can possibly dismiss it. That is neither objective nor is it intelligent.
Wasn't relevant? He was making fun of the argument. Holy Horus! This is getting hilarious!
Is that an insult? Is that a claim that my perception is inferior? That doesn't make your argument very valid.
