Twice as much as your kid’s worth that’s for sure.
I still don’t think you get it.
No, obviously I don’t. I really do not see what the validity of an actor playing Michael Jordan has to the discussion.
Can someone else explain this to him? I think I’m using the wrong font or something.
Here’s my first post in that thread:
What exactly was uncivil, dishonest, or unrespectful about that? You said “x is true, which causes y harm, and I propose z to stop it.” I said “prove x is true.” Your skin is way too thin if being asked to prove your assertions in GD is too much for you.
Accusing him of racism certainly isn’t at all uncivil or disrespectful.
OK, I’ll do it. Mswas, Cisco and Bricker* are positing that the black male teacher is playing the role of “role model for young black boys.” Therefore, hiring a black male teacher is not an example of affirmative action, it is an example of hiring the only person qualified for the job. It’s like trying to find an actor to play Michael Jordan–it only makes sense to hire a black male, and hiring a black male to play Michael Jordan is not an example of affirmative action.
I argued that the two situations are not analogous for the following two reasons:
(1) It is not necessarily the case that the only person that can be a role model for a black boy is a black male. Therefore, finding a teacher to be a role model for black boys has not been proven to be the same as finding an actor to play Michael Jordan. It could very well be the case that a white male or a black woman or a white woman could also serve as a role model for black boys.
(ii) A teacher isn’t just someone playing the role of a role model. Rather, a teacher also, well, teaches. Therefore, finding a teacher involves more than just finding a role model for the kids. So, to the extent that only a black male could be a role model for black boys, finding a teacher is not analogous to finding a black actor because the teacher must do more than just be black and male–they have to teach.
Neither Bricker nor Cisco has deigned to answer these arguments.
*Well, Bricker made the argument. Cisco just played the role of hype man, essentially, so picture him as the little rat dude by Jaba the Hut or as wearing a large clock around his neck, take your pick.
If the shoe fits . . .
I’m sure LHOD won’t respond to me. He’s too busy thinking up ways to help the poor brown people of the world have a better life (god knows they can’t help themselves and shouldn’t be expected to). This attitude disgusts me.
We’re all very impressed at your cunning impression of someone with a moral sense, I’m sure.
What does that mean?
While watching you flounder in incomprehension at moderately complex sentence structure is always amusing, I do want to take a moment to point out that, once again, you’re moving goalposts. You re-posted your first post from the GD thread, and asked where you had been less than polite to him. When it’s pointed out that you called him a racist, your response is, “Well, he is,” as if the point of contention were whether or not LHoD is a racist, and not whether or not you’d been insulting in your first post.
This sort of behavior is why most people on the boards (and, I imagine, most folks you meet in real life) consider you to be a weasel.
Well, to a certain extent, I’m a *professional *weasel (and, as is well-know, get paid quite handsomely for it).
I guess “you moved the goalposts!!” is your new thing, you keep seeing that ghost under every rock (or something).
Also, I may have called him a racist, but I didn’t say “You racist!” I said what I posted above, which I think is civil, honest, and respectful. That is, I think those adjectives necessarily are concerned with the attitude of the post, not its substance, and the attitude of that post was civil, honest, and respectful.
Here’s a cookie. Thanks for playing.
Edited to delete: Post was days too late. I should read these threads earlier.
Well, ya see…
And this explains why nobody likes you.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” - John Rogers
Meh, it’s not like anything’s really changed.
Yeah, but there are times when I hope to be on top of things. Sure, RR is saying nothing he hasn’t pontificated on before, and I realize I’m often a day late and a dollar short, but ya can’t fault a guy for knowing it. It’s better to fault guys like RR for NOT knowing it. 
I rarely guffaw when I read something on the Internet. There’s always an exception, though…