The Glade 4.0

I believe it's http://gladerebooted.boardzero.com/post78033.html#p78033, but good luck getting that to load anything. Date and time was 6/17/2009, late morning to early afternoon.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Well, I guess we know the fate of boardzero now :p

I have no problem admitting that Khross' reading of my sentence might be technically correct. I honestly don't know if it is or not - I remain skeptical, but I just don't care enough to go research the rules of grammar to be sure one way or the other. Technicalities aside, however, I simply don't agree that my meaning was unclear to anyone reading in good faith and without their own excessive bias coloring the matter. Communication is a two-way street.

Out of curiosity, why are you so intent on getting a mea culpa?

Except, there's no excessive bias here, RangerDave. Given your posting history since finishing law school, why would anyone on this forum think you trend to a "temperamentally conservative" political position or sources?

_________________

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.

You frequently mention law school as an inflection point in my posting history, Khross, but other than having a better understanding of Constitutional interpretation and thus arguing more firmly on that topic, I honestly don't see it. If anything, I think I've become more libertarian in the last few years.

You failed every time you've tried to demonstrate an excessive political bias at the Glade or with specific posters. In fact, I think we're all still waiting for you and TheRiov to explain exactly how you arrived at your conclusions on the matter. That said, thanks again for demonstrating you're just another troll. Lex makes more good faith posts than you.

_________________

It is an inflection point. The nature and tone of your posts changed. The method of your posts changed. Your general forum behavior changed. And nothing about your recent behavior supports the statements you're currently making.

_________________

Well, I suppose truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but from my perspective that's not the case. In my view, it's your tone (and to a lesser extent the tone of the forum as a whole) that changed. I think you, and the forum generally, became much more strident during the last Presidential election and the subsequent Obama years, just as the conservative wing of the electorate did (and just as the left did during the Bush years). As a result, someone standing relatively still (i.e. me) appears to you to be careening leftward when in fact it's you who is rushing to the right (using "left" and "right" in the loosest sense of the terms).

In addition to that phenomenon, I think Monty's presence or absence has a lot to do with your perception of my tone and position. When Monty was here on a regular basis, he defined the left-most boundary of the forum, so I appeared reasonable and centrist by comparison. Indeed, people often explicitly pointed to me as a counter-example when arguing with him. Whenever he was away on a suspension, however, I noticed that ideological tension/irritation (generally from you) started to come my way much more frequently. Then Monty would come back, and I would again be the "reasonable liberal". As Monty's absences began to outlast his periods of involvement, and certainly once he was gone entirely, Aizle, TheRiov, and I became the leftward boundary of the Glade and the thorns in your ideological side, so to speak.

In short...relativity...reference points...and so on.

I'm not, I find the arguing over two or three pages nuts when an "oops, my bad" stops the whole thing.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I've noticed a change in you since law school as well RD. Its what I expected though, seen it happen to lots of friends.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That's not an argument you'd have made before law school, RangerDave. Indeed, it's little more than an overly verbose tu quoque fallacy. I've never denied that my posting habit changed. I spent 5 years typing exceedingly long, well cited posts. And those posts were responded to with vitriol and derision by some of the parties now accusing myself and the forum of an excessive right-wing bias. It seems to me that you're simply looking for an excuse to say we've changed instead of you. In reality, everyone changes. Most human beings are dynamic entities.

Have I rushed to the "right"? Probably not.

Have I rushed further to the "government is the problem" position? Almost assuredly.

Do I think Obama is a bad president? Yes.

Do I think he's doing a better job than his predecessor? No, but what's the difference between absolutely abysmal and almost absolutely abysmal?

_________________

Rangerdave used to be more moderate and have less biased opinions.
Now about myself, I am able to make well thought out and researched arguments, and have some times in the past, but I generally choose not to. The environment here just doesn't encourage it.

Well at any rate, let me just say that to whatever extent my tone in recent years has become more combative and/or my mind more closed, that was unintentional and unrecognized on my part, and I will be mindful of it in our future conversations.

What detrimental (or at least off-putting) habits of mind do you guys think law school encourages?

So you didn't change, everyone else did... gotcha...

1. An acceptance and encouragement of appeals to tradition.
2. A more compliant attitude towards authority.
3. A belief that words do not mean what they say and that they can and should be manipulated in whatever way any person desires.
4. An increased rejection of the ideas that law is for the everyman and jury nullification.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I agree that all of those are potential pitfalls for law students. However, I do have a few comments in response:

1. An acceptance and encouragement of appeals to tradition.
There's a difference between an "appeal to tradition" as a logical fallacy and either (a) noting that a precedent is binding or (b) arguing from the principle of stare decisis.

2. A more compliant attitude towards authority.
I think a lot of people go into law school with a bit of a know-it-all attitude, but after they actually study the law for a while, they realize that most opinions, doctrines, etc. are well-reasoned and firmly grounded. As a result, people tend to emerge from law school with a greater respect for the law and the rationales behind it (though they may still disagree with it). That can look like a "more compliant attitude", but respect and compliance aren't the same thing.

3. A belief that words do not mean what they say and that they can and should be manipulated in whatever way any person desires.
It's true that law school cultivates the ability to see both sides of an issue, consider context, reason by analogy, make nuanced distinctions, etc., but whether those skills are used to manipulate or illuminate is entirely up to the individual.

4. An increased rejection of the ideas that law is for the everyman and jury nullification.
I agree that law school, like any specialized training, can engender an attitude of superiority and exclusivity. In my experience, though, lawyers actually tend to be less guilty of this than members of many other professions. Question a doctor's medical judgment, argue a tech issue with an IT specialist, or *ahem* challenge an English professor's grammar, and see how open they are to your layperson's opinion!

The funny thing is that every person is already an expert in grammar because they spend all their lives communicating.

I just want to say, from an observer who tends to agree more with Khross and Elmarnieh (with far less alarmism and doom and gloom) than RangerDave, RangerDave is presenting the more reasonable and open argument than any of the rest of you. He's arguing this logically, on its own merits, without outside baggage from previous debates, without charged or partisan language, and without personal attacks. Khross and the rest of you should take a lesson from him. Open minded centrist views (leaning slightly on the libertarian side of the center point) does not make RD a communist obama-loving patsy just because his views aren't in line with someone on the far extreme end of things.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's true. RD's behavior is really pretty impeccable in this thread. He may have made a mistake expressing himself, but he's clarified it since then, so this insistence on debating the grammatical issues and howling for an admission of error strikes me as irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

QFT. I agree much more with both Khross and Elmo generally, but I think RangerDave has taken the higher road in this thread.

I appreciate the moral support folks, but I think it's best to let this go. And to be fair, I took my share of shots at Khross here, and my initial post was kind of a shot at Elm, so I am guilty of throwing mud too.

Well, it needed to be said.

One thing I appreciate about your posts, RD, is that you see both (multiple?) sides of an issue, and if only one side is being adequately presented, it doesn't matter which side you personally agree with, you'll present arguments that are not being made to ensure they are considered. You are intellectually honest and fair. You bring something to these discussions that is often missing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Thanks, Taly; much appreciated. I always enjoy your posts as well.