2005 Campus Outrage Awards

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't need a scietific study to tell me that woman and men are different.  You can disagree with this all you want for all I care.

I don't disagree that men and women are different.  I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that women and men score differently in maths and scientences because of genetic predisposition.

PS formulating a hypothisis from trends is science how ever you want to look at it.

No, it is the beginning of science but good science doesn't end there.

1.  Observe a trend.
2.  Come up with a hypothesis to explain it.
3.  Test the hypothesis through experimentation etc.
4.  If the experimentation proves the hypothesis send it for peer review (see if your results can be duplicated etc.).


All buddy did was 1 and 2.  Anyone can do that, but it's not science.

1.  The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
2.  Therefore the sun revolves around earth.


There I have done science, fear my skillz.

[john9001]

""That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie""

the nazis never marched in skokie, chicago cut a deal with the nazis, the nazis stay out of skokie and they could hold a rally in a chicago park.

[Gunslinger]

..... Dr. Summers cited research showing that more high school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences between the sexes.

Dr. [Richard Freeman, Harvard economist and the conference's organizer] said, "Men are taller than women, that comes from the biology, and Larry's view was that perhaps the dispersion in test scores could also come from the biology."

Dr. Summers said, "I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there's been some move in the research away from believing that all these things are shaped only by socialization."

hmmm.....do they do research in science and the pursuit there of?

Either way I don't have the time to argue simantics.....substance is another story but this really is a waist of time.  This guy is under fire for trying to provoke thought and discussion.  Last time I checked that's what they do at them fancy ivy league scrules.

[bunch]

You'd never read it on this BBS, but the ACLU is exceptionally tight with the NRA, they both a lot of joint litigation.  NORML does a lot also

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
 I'm also farily certain that 99.9999% of the woman I've dated didn't have a noodle.
 

I like that you leave a margin of error there. You ever get drunk overseas?

-Sik

[Charon]

You'd never read it on this BBS, but the ACLU is exceptionally tight with the NRA,

That's news to me. My understanding is that they are pretty much anti-gun and shape their perception of the 2nd amendment to suit that. Here's an excellent, reasoned analysis of their position and its flaws:

ACLU 2nd Amendment

However, they have cooperated on some 1st amendment/patriot act stuff.

Charon

[Sandman]

Considering the fact that the ACLU budget is not limitless, why would they spend any effort on 2nd Amendment issues while the NRA exists?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Charon
That's news to me. My understanding is that they are pretty much anti-gun and shape their perception of the 2nd amendment to suit that. Here's an excellent, reasoned analysis of their position and its flaws:

ACLU 2nd Amendment

However, they have cooperated on some 1st amendment/patriot act stuff.

Charon

Not one line of that article supports the author's definition of the views of the ACLU. He states what he thinks the views are, then he shoots them down. Silly logic. I'm surprised that you thought it was good Charon.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sikboy
I like that you leave a margin of error there. You ever get drunk overseas?

-Sik

that's to account for the many trips to mexico  

[Charon]

Not one line of that article supports the author's definition of the views of the ACLU. He states what he thinks the views are, then he shoots them down. Silly logic. I'm surprised that you thought it was good Charon.

I already knew the ACLU's position, they make it very clear. I found the article above to be a concise rebuttal. From the ACLU itself:

Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. (edit: except there is no mention in the Constitution of the right to "drive automobiles." That is a privilege.)

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

They are extraordinarily silent in their support of the 2nd Ammendment compared to most other constitutional issues. In addition, as the author of the 1st piece notes, their arguments from "collective vs. individual" to "outdated" seem fairly weak. They seem to work very hard at maintaining that “collective” stance when there is significant evidence to suggest that it is inaccurate and not in spirit with the use of “militia” at the time. Perhaps the 1st amendment is also outdated in the era of shock radio and hateful Web sites? Groups like the ADL certainly think so where white supremacist groups are concerned.

From the Yale Law Journal:

I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, [28] is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU...

I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm

For me, it's obvious that to the ACLU some Constitutional rights are more important than others. I have yet to see them make any stand that would be considered "pro-gun," even in some of the more extreme areas of regulation. That, frankly, is distressing since I do agree with their efforts protecting the rest of our individual rights against the "righteous majority." It should cast doubts on the organizations “agenda,” which is unfortunate because it makes it easy to spin against its other efforts.

Here's another good discussion:

http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/

Charon

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Charon
I already knew the ACLU's position, they make it very clear. I found the article above to be a concise rebuttal. From the ACLU itself:



They are extraordinarily silent in their support of the 2nd Ammendment compared to most other constitutional issues. In addition, as the author of the 1st piece notes, their arguments from "collective to individual" to "outdated" seem fairly weak. They seem to work very hard at maintaining that “collective” stance wven if there is significant evidence to suggest that it is inaccurate and not in spirit with the use of “militia” at the time. Perhaps the 1st amendment is also outdated in the era of shock radio and hateful Web sites? Groups like the ADL certainly think so where white supremacist groups are concerned.

From the Yale Law Review:



It is for me, impossible not to conclude that to the ACLU some Constitutional rights are more important than others. That, frankly, is distressing since I do agree with their efforts protecting the rest of our individual rights. It should cast doubts on the organizations “agenda,” which is unfortunate because it makes it easy to spin against its other efforts.

Here's another good discussion:

http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/

Charon

Charon

That lame argument is to assume that one of the "Bill of Rights"
is a right granted to the government to maintain a militia. Why would the government need a "right"? To protect it from itself?
If you use the States rights argument that would mean the States could have private State Armies not under control of the central government. Good luck there, didn't we have a civil war over that a while back. No.... either the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Or we will all lose the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years.

[Charon]

Considering the fact that the ACLU budget is not limitless, why would they spend any effort on 2nd Amendment issues while the NRA exists?

IMO, because you can't pick and choose and be considered credible. You support constitutional rights, both the good and the bad. Even if you think gun ownership is bad, unsafe, counterproductive, etc. you still have to let the Nazi's speak in public, NAMBLA spout their twisted **** and someone own a handgun for self protection in Chicago.

Charon

[Charon]

That lame argument is to assume that one of the "Bill of Rights"
is a right granted to the government to maintain a militia. Why would the government need a "right"? To protect it from itself?

If you use the States rights argument that would mean the States could have private State Armies not under control of the central government. Good luck there, didn't we have a civil war over that a while back. No.... either the constitution says what it means, and means what it says. Or we will all lose the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years.

Read through this link, already posted.


http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm

Assorted snippets (indicated seperations by ...) from the link:

THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT

Sanford Levinson University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659

...A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias.

This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [40] This is not a wholly implausible reading, but one might ask why the Framers did not simply say something like "Congress shall have no power to prohibit state-organized and directed militias." Perhaps they in fact meant to do something else. Moreover, we might ask if ordinary readers of the late 18th Century legal prose would have interpreted it as meaning something else.

The text at best provides only a starting point for a conversation. In this specific instance, it does not come close to resolving the questions posed by federal regulation of arms. Even if we accept the preamble as significant, we must still try to figure out what might be suggested by guaranteeing to "the people the right to keep and bear arms;" moreover, as we shall see presently, even the preamble presents unexpected difficulties in interpretation...



...I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London.

More Constitutionally contemporary definitions of "militia" from my very first link:

"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." George Mason, Virginia ratification convention, 1788.

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." James Madison, Federalist No. 29.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Letters from The Federal Farmer, 1788.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

And yet, the ACLU seems to like to use a much later definition of "Militia." To my satisfaction a militia, as intended, is the people, not an organization in the sense of the National Guard. The right is for us to protect ourselves from our government, should the need arise. [edit: and also the right to individually protect ourselves from harm/criminality/civil unrest] . Something our revolutionary (in all senses of the word) founding fathers understood, since thay had recently done exactly that.

THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT (a few more)

...Such analyses provide the basis for Edward Abbey's revision of a common bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns." [67] One of the things this slogan has helped me to understand is the political tilt contained within the Weberian definition of the state -- i.e., the repository of a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence 6 [68] -- that is so commonly used by political scientists. It is a profoundly statist definition, the product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the populace…

One would, of course, like to believe that the state, whether at the local or national level, presents no threat to important political values, including liberty. But our propensity to believe that this is the case may be little more than a sign of how truly different we are from our radical forbearers. I do not want to argue that the state is necessarily tyrannical; I am not an anarchist. But it seems foolhardy to assume that the armed state will necessarily be benevolent.

The American political tradition is, for good or ill, based in large measure on a healthy mistrust of the state. The development of widespread suffrage and greater majoritarianism in our polity is itself no sure protection, at least within republican theory. The republican theory is predicated on the stark contrast between mere democracy, where people are motivated by selfish personal interest, and a republic, where civic virtue, both in common citizen and leadership, tames selfishness on behalf of the common good. In any event, it is hard for me to see how one can argue that circumstances have so changed us as to make mass disarmament constitutionally unproblematic. [94]

Indeed, only in recent months have we seen the brutal suppression of the Chinese student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. It should not surprise us that some NRA sympathizers have presented that situation as an abject lesson to those who unthinkingly support the prohibition of private gun ownership. "f all Chinese citizens kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the demonstrators... The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is within the constitutional design for a counter to government run amok... As the Tianamen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK 47's fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected by the Second Amendment." [95] It is simply silly to respond that small arms are irrelevant against nuclear armed states; Witness contemporary Northern Ireland and the territories occupied by Israel, where the sophisticated weaponry of Great Britain and Israel have proved almost totally beside the point. The fact that these may not be pleasant examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed.

[NOTE: republican used here refers to the political philosophy, not the current party]
Charon

[lasersailor184]

Contrary to popular belief, I've actually seen the ACLU defend the second ammendment 2 or 3 times.  They won't actively pursuit those cases, but if asked by a person, they will defend him.

[Charon]

Contrary to popular belief, I've actually seen the ACLU defend the second ammendment 2 or 3 times. They won't actively pursuit those cases, but if asked by a person, they will defend him.

That's interesting, and good to hear. What type of cases?

Charon