[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah, like you're the epitome of rational debate.

Well, thank you.

If vmarks for gunning for you, you would probably have 2 separate infractions now just in this thread.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, thank you.

If vmarks for gunning for you, you would probably have 2 separate infractions now just in this thread.

I have my share of warnings and infractions for being rude, but unlike some people (you), I'm not known as a partisan dick.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I have my share of warnings and infractions for being rude, but unlike some people (you), I'm not known as a partisan dick.

A dick is a dick, whether the person is a partisan or not. Is a partisan dick worst than a dick?

Saying you are not a partisan dick somehow makes you better, is like saying you might be a rapist, but you are not a partisan rapist. You go both way.

Because you go both ways, it makes it better?

If you are a Republican, you are partisan.
If you are a Democrat, you are partisan.
If you are a Christian, you are partisan.
If you are a Muslim, you are partisan.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

A dick is a dick, whether the person is a partisan or not. Is a partisan dick worst than a dick?

Saying you are not a partisan dick somehow makes you better, is like saying you might be a rapist, but you are not a partisan rapist. You go both way.

Because you go both ways, it makes it better?

You're assuming I consider myself a dick.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're assuming I consider myself a dick.

It doesn't matter if you consider yourself a dick.

It only matters if others consider you're a dick.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think they are a danger, yes. I did not feel exactly the same way about them when I was 16, 17, 18. If I was writing about this period of my life, it might very well seem that I had a "cavalier attitude" toward them at the time.

Well... for what it's worth, you sound like you'll make a fine father. Considering the likelihood that Jennings remains, I hope he does a great deal of good from his position. I just have fundamental problems with an appointment that seems more gimmickry than genuine. We're looking at the same information and coming to two different conclusions. I hope I'm wrong.

This is a relatively low-level appointment. If we were to dramatically expand the number of appointments that require confirmation through the Senate, it could literally take a president's entire term to get the administration in place. As it stands, it already takes almost 2 years. And while Senate confirmation is an important check on presidential power, I think extending it too far creates a situation that is too lopsided in the other direction. The president needs some latitude to staff their administration.

I think the above sums up what bothers me most about this. I don't believe it's necessary to "dramatically expand the number of appointments..." period. The number of appointments made in the past 8 months is equal to the prior Administration's 8 years (itself unprecedented). I disagree with them being "low-level" in light of the fact that you've got Harry Reid giving credit to the Appollo Alliance for having written the stimulus bill. A bill with provisions for more czars. I don't like it because it lacks representation and subsequently, transparency. IMHO, it feels like a subversion of powers because it is. They're more than advising, they're drafting legislation. This tips the balance of power too far to the Executive for my liking.

That's fine. All else being equal, the absence of a negative is preferable to a negative. But in this case I suspect that Arne Duncan and others in the Obama administration feel that Jennings brings something positive to the table.

Perhaps so. I hope they're right.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Would you care to restate it then? I looked through the thread again and I can't find where you convincingly argued that it makes logical sense to draw an absolute conclusion based on a single anecdote.

It makes total logical sense to draw a conclusion about whether the incident in question shows poor judgement on the part of Jennings. Here are the possibilities:

Jennings was faced with a student who told him he was engaging in dangerous behavior and was possibly the victim of rape.

A. Jennings simply told the student to be sure to wear a condom, which is the only advice Jennings has shared that he gave the student. Most people would agree that doing only that would be pretty irresponsible and not at all in keeping with a person who should be given a leadership role regarding "student safety".

B. Jennings decided not to share additional information in telling the story which would make it clear that he admonished the student to stop cruising bus stops for sex and notified his parents that he might be the victim of rape. Not explaining that he did the "right" thing shows poor judgement on the part of Jennings since he willingly shared information OVER AND OVER that made himself look like a really irresponsible individual. He has still chosen after his behavior has been called into question, not to share any additional actions he took in order to try and keep the student in question out of harms way.

Either option paints Jennings as a guy who really doesn't have very good judgement, about students, or about his own reputation for doing the right thing. While that might not paint him as some kind of horrible monster never to be allowed near children in the future, it should paint him as likely not the best candidate for a job were he would be in charge of the thing he's shown poor judgement on in the not so distant past.

This coupled with his willful sharing of his lax attitudes regarding drug and alcohol abuse (and no sharing of information where he's made a 180 degree shift in position and action in this regard) would seem to paint him as a guy who is more concerned with the emotions of students than actually keeping them "safe".

That's my opinion based on that evidence. You may disagree, but doing so doesn't make me dishonest or mean you win the debate. Suggesting as much is silly.

We had reached an impasse wherein you proved unable to back up your assertions (as opposed to simply restating them over and over), leaving me with no alternative but to question your motives. Anyone would, given your history.

This coming from the guy who bases his argument on some kind of action of conversation he THINKS Jennings might have had that only exists in his own head?

Which is of course not really what you began arguing at the time (although I admit you eventually got around to it). I don't think it matters though, because the article clearly makes the point early on that the survey sample skewed Democrat and was not some nationally representative sample, cautioning the reader to discount the results accordingly. It's not hiding anything.

I disagree. I think that the actual sample representation paints the full picture. I just illustrated why above. It was explained to you how the entire story was pretty much "invented news" and from the top to bottom was confusing and didn't even explain the skewed sample until past the point most readers skimming wouldn't even see it. This isn't about the one disagreement about the importance of the actual numbers. It was about the poor reporting as a whole. The fact that you chalk up the difference of opinion on this topic as "lying" paints you as an intellectually lazy poor sport not really worthy of debating.

My judgments are based only on your arguments.

Your judgements are based on things you imagine in your head. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to jump to the conclusions that you do.

Not agreeing with my argument, and believing in something where there's no evidence in existence, then accusing me of dishonesty really is what this is all about.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I beginning to suspect you weren't serious.

I've tried to put the words "pro-rape" in my sig.

However, I got a warning from ghporter saying it was too political and inflammatory to be in the sig on a family friendly, family values website, which I understand.

Don't say I didn't try.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It makes total logical sense to draw a conclusion about whether the incident in question shows poor judgement on the part of Jennings.

I agree. What does not make logical sense is to draw a conclusion that "overall safety isn't and has never been a big concern of [Jennings]" unless you have more comprehensive information about Jennings' worldview based on other incidents. That is the conclusion that I am asking you to justify. You continue to prove unable to, so please don't pretend to be offended when I call you out on it.

Jennings was faced with a student who told him he was engaging in dangerous behavior and was possibly the victim of rape.

To be clear, what we know is that the student told him he had met a man in Boston. The evaluation that Jennings might have made was that this was dangerous behavior and possibly statutory rape.

A. Jennings simply told the student to be sure to wear a condom

(Emphasis added)

We do not know this.

B. Jennings decided not to share additional information in telling the story which would make it clear that he admonished the student to stop cruising bus stops for sex and notified his parents that he might be the victim of rape. Not explaining that he did the "right" thing shows poor judgement on the part of Jennings since he willingly shared information OVER AND OVER that made himself look like a really irresponsible individual. He has still chosen after his behavior has been called into question, not to share any additional actions he took in order to try and keep the student in question out of harms way.

Either option paints Jennings as a guy who really doesn't have very good judgement, about students, or about his own reputation for doing the right thing. While that might not paint him as some kind of horrible monster never to be allowed near children in the future, it should paint him as likely not the best candidate for a job were he would be in charge of the thing he's shown poor judgement on in the not so distant past.

Your interpretation seems to rest on the belief that Jennings' should have been aware that he was at some point in the future going to be a candidate for a position leading DOE programs on "safe schools." Given that the audience he was addressing when relating this incident was understandably concerned about another issue, I find it unrealistic to expect that he would have addressed this concern of yours that he appeared "irresponsible," given that he may have had no expectation of public office. And as we know now from statements that "Brewster" has made, there may in fact have been no actual reason for concern at the time that the student was engaging in sexual activity. Please reconcile.

That's my opinion based on that evidence. You may disagree, but doing so doesn't make me dishonest or mean you win the debate. Suggesting as much is silly.

So far I am winning the debate. If you think that "debate" means that discussion is based entirely on the subjective viewpoints of the participants at the expense of all rational evaluation of what the evidence presented can objectively support (which then justifies a particular interpretation of the objective conclusion) than you do not belong in debate.

This coming from the guy who bases his argument on some kind of action of conversation he THINKS Jennings might have had that only exists in his own head?

I did not make an argument for a particular interpretation. I created a hypothetical that contradicts your argument in order to demonstrate that the evidence available supports both conclusions, to show that your argument is not the only "logical" one.

I disagree. I think that the actual sample representation paints the full picture. I just illustrated why above. It was explained to you how the entire story was pretty much "invented news" and from the top to bottom was confusing and didn't even explain the skewed sample until past the point most readers skimming wouldn't even see it. This isn't about the one disagreement about the importance of the actual numbers. It was about the poor reporting as a whole. The fact that you chalk up the difference of opinion on this topic as "lying" paints you as an intellectually lazy poor sport not really worthy of debating.

Again, your specific accusation was that the story covered its "bias" by hiding particular details at the end of the story. On the contrary, the story explained in the beginning of the story the very bias you accused it of covering up. The fact that you continue to deny this clear and simple fact based on any reasonable reading of the article speaks volumes to your intellectual laziness and poor "sportsmanship." Man up and admit you were wrong or you will continue to be a liar on the subject. Difference of opinion is fine, but it has to be based on objective fact. The facts here are clear.

Your judgements are based on things you imagine in your head. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to jump to the conclusions that you do.

Not agreeing with my argument, and believing in something where there's no evidence in existence, then accusing me of dishonesty really is what this is all about.

You clearly do not understand the actual argument I have been making. I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am calling your conclusions into question.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've tried to put the words "pro-rape" in my sig.

However, I got a warning from ghporter saying it was too political and inflammatory to be in the sig on a family friendly, family values website, which I understand.

Don't say I didn't try.

No, I'll say you didn't understand what was being said. You were supposed to use the quote by ebuddy as your sig.