I Pit LHOD and his thread re: AA in schools

[Cisco]

So your topic is really a disguised rant about people not supporting their arguments with cites?

[Rand_Rover]

@Dangerosa

I’ve seen the evidence. I don’t have to trust LHOD because we’ve just been through this with my school district and LHOD isn’t telling me information I haven’t gotten from other people I trust.

Which puts you firmly in the fundy camp. Thanks for playing.

[Rand_Rover]

@Cisco

So your topic is really a disguised rant about people not supporting their arguments with cites?

The only thng disguising it is your hatred of my success.

[Dangerosa]

@Rand_Rover

Which puts you firmly in the fundy camp. Thanks for playing.

And proud to be when Fundy means talking to experts in the field about a subject that happens to impact my kids and taking their word on race, gender and education over that of a tax attorney.

[Miller]

@Rand_Rover

So LHOD had me specifically in mind when he didn’t cite anything in the OP? I realize I’m popular here, but you are taking it a bit too far.

Nice job at shifting goal posts there, chief. But that’s not what I said. You claimed LHoD refused to discuss the subject. I pointed out that all he’d done was refuse to discuss it with you. Not wanting to talk about a subject with a person who has a demonstrated history of unnecessary hostility and intellectual dishonesty is not the same as being unwilling to talk about a subject at all. If someone else had raised the subject, or if you (by some miracle) had managed to raise the subject without coming across like a complete prick, I expect he’d be more than willing to discuss it.

[Cisco]

@Rand_Rover

The only thng disguising it is your hatred of my success.

Lol, what?

[WordMan]

@Cisco

So your topic is really a disguised rant about people not supporting their arguments with cites?

That feels about right to me, disguised or not, given **RR’s **response to my post.

@Rand Rover

I’m pitting LHOD for making assertions in GD that he doesn’t even attempt to support. The substance of those assertions are secondary.

Okay - you have pitted LHoD for lacking a cite.

• I suspect **LHoD **didn’t include a cite because he felt the assertion was accepted conventional wisdom - kids are more likely to look up to role models they can relate to.

• You, RR, called LHoD on this assumption - you, in effect, called “cite?” Cool - that’s fine, this is the SDMB - we all know how to play the game

• But now those cites have been offered by other posters to this thread…

[Guinastasia]

@Rand_Rover

The only thng disguising it is your hatred of my success.

@Cisco

Lol, what?

His success at being a total shithead, one supposes.

[nameless]

@Rand_Rover

:rolleyes: We have a link to one study indicarting that (which was not provided by LHOD, BTW). What we don’t have is any indicartion that a race and gender matched teacher is beneficial. You can’t just take that study and slap omn your own definition of role model and declare victory.

Fine.
[

Models of student achievement indicate that a 1-year assignment to an own-race teacher increased the math and reading achievement of both black and white students by roughly 3 to 4 percentile points. Notably, the estimated achievement gains associated with a same-race teacher exist for nearly all groups defined by race and gender. (Contains 11 tables and 28 references.)

](http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED464172&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED464172)Now I suppose this shifts to your backup argument that even if there is a benefit to racial bias in hiring it’s unethical. Whatever, I don’t care, LHOD’s claim has merit.

[Rand_Rover]

@WordMan

• But now those cites have been offered by other posters to this thread…

Where? The cite in post 6 does not support LHOD’s assertion.

[Morbo]

@Rand_Rover

The only thng disguising it is your hatred of my success.

Every time I happen to come across a thread in which you whip out your fiscal penis, I’m going to reply with this. Just so you know.

[elucidator]

Fave line: “I may be a little coward, but I’m a greeeeeedy little coward!!”

[WordMan]

@Rand_Rover

Where? The cite in post 6 does not support LHOD’s assertion.

Really? I saw a few, by **Weird One **and a few others…including the one from **nameless **a couple of posts above yours…

[FinnAgain]

@Morbo

fiscal penis

Might I suggest, instead, “pecuniary pecker?”
Or, barring that “dollar dong”, “savings schlong” or “monetary member”?

[nameless]

Alliteration is overrated. Although a diversity of terms, perhaps introduced by a sort of biased adoption process, will lead to a richer environment of mockery that will benefit all of us.

[Jack_Batty]

Feduciary Fuck-Stick?

[Fear_Itself]

@Rand_Rover

Thanks for playing.

Apparently this is *trés *clever in Rovertopia, because you’ve used it three times in this thread alone.

[foolsguinea]

@Rand_Rover

I’m a white male. I can’t think of a single person in my life growing up who I would consider a “role model.”

Well, that could explain a lot.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Just saw this thread. I’ll do a few replies together, mostly or entirely from folks who have made good points.

@Bricker

The intent of the program, though, in this case is not to give an advantage to the job applicant – it’s to get a job applicant with a particular set of characteristics.

Precisely. For those who may have missed the point, I don’t believe any such program would be of much benefit to adult black males who would be qualified to be teachers, and any benefit to them would be secondary: the benefit I’m looking for is for black male children. That’s different from most affirmative action programs, and it’s why I think that folks normally opposed to AA might support such a program.

@Clothahump

I personally think that every adult is obligated to live their life in such a manner that any child would want to be like that adult. In other words, you’re a living example of being a decent human being.

Dang, I think this is the first time on these boards that I’m close to agreement with you! I’d modify this to say that adults who spend any time around kids are obligated to live in a manner that shows children around them what a decent human being is like. I have a pretty boring job, the job of teaching (well, “boring” is the wrong word: “unglamorous” is better). But I have kids who want to be teachers, by dint of the fact that they see me doing good work. I see that as a pretty big obligation: the day none of my students want to grow up to be teachers is the day I need to do some serious introspection. Adults who spend less time around kids than me have correspondingly less of an obligation.

@Miller

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. It’s not that LHoD isn’t interested in having that discussion, it’s that he’s not interested in having that discussion with you. If someone who was not a raging asshole had raised the subject, I have little doubt that he’d be willing to entertain it.

And that’s precisely accurate. Once again I find myself wanting to buy Miller a beer.

Rand Rover, given both my previous encounters with you and your approach in that thread (and now in this thread), I consider you beneath contempt. I’m not obligated to continue the discussion with any jackass who shows up in it. That’s why I cut Blake off: he started off with a civil disagreement with me, one I was happy to engage with, and then got nasty and uninteresting. I have no interest in wasting my time on stupid assholes.

If someone interesting decides to argue with me, from a civil, honest, respectful position, I’m delighted to take them up on it. That’s why I posted the OP. But I won’t waste any more time on you after this one post.

[mswas]

@Cisco

That’s a great argument.

When something is idiotic there is no good argument to rebut it with. It’s just stupid. The difference between casting a black man to play a black man and affirmative action should be obvious to anyone. So if you want an argument to respond to something that should be blindingly obvious.

The color of his skin is relevant to his proper performance of the job for an actor playing Michael Jordan. If his skin is NOT black, he cannot perform the job as capably as an actor whose skin IS black.
:rolleyes: