lsat makers should remove LGs

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:37 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron




This post is EXTREMELY offensive. I wasn't familiar with the term "cockasian", so I wanted to expand my horizons and try to see your point I googled cockasian. You are sick. Please stay on topic and keep that depravity to your xnxx forum.

Thanks.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:47 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
Oh? Now it's just "another" forum? I thought it was a specific forum... The URM one perhaps....

Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.


It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron


lol

<--------- facepalm.

the level of stupidity in some of these arguments makes it clear why the legal profession is suffering so terribly.


Patriot1208 responds to Tainted_Praise's post by:

A) Attempting to diminish the value of the post, instead of addressing the actual content
B) Assuming that his/her opinion serves as sufficient reasoning
C) All of the above

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:52 pm

:oops: I'm sorry you're right. I feel like such an idiot and such a jerk. We should just be able to have a giant melting pot of forums. I

mean why can't all the forums be discussed together in one mega Utopian forum where we all live in harmony? In a free world without

discrimination we would be able to discuss LSAT in the URM forum and take the lounge into the "what are my chances?" forum.

Why not discuss Illinois in the Iowa thread and GULC in the WUSTL thread and so on and so on...

It's exactly the sort of narrow minded thinking that I'm taking part in that led to the Klan, Hitler and so much more...

I've PMed you a heartfelt apology. I hope you will accept.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:56 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.


It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron


lol

<--------- facepalm.

the level of stupidity in some of these arguments makes it clear why the legal profession is suffering so terribly.


Patriot1208 responds to Tainted_Praise's post by:

A) Attempting to diminish the value of the post, instead of addressing the actual content
B) Assuming that his/her opinion serves as sufficient reasoning
C) All of the above


lol. Stop posting in some sort of question form. God that is annoying. Each forum is meant for a specific purpose. This is not a hard concept. Saying that someone is clearly racist and it is disadvantaging to minorities because they express this sentiment is not only wrong, but stupid.

Furthermoe, this type of oversensitivity and need to pick fights over race actually hurts the cause of bringing greater equality and the ability for people to look past race. If you want to accuse everyone of being racist for not wanting to discuss race you immediately alienate all races from each other.
Last edited by Patriot1208 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:57 pm

naterj wrote::oops: I'm sorry you're right. I feel like such an idiot and such a jerk. We should just be able to have a giant melting pot of forums. I

mean why can't all the forums be discussed together in one mega Utopian forum where we all live in harmony? In a free world without

discrimination we would be able to discuss LSAT in the URM forum and take the lounge into the "what are my chances?" forum.

Why not discuss Illinois in the Iowa thread and GULC in the WUSTL thread and so on and so on...

It's exactly the sort of narrow minded thinking that I'm taking part in that led to the Klan, Hitler and so much more...

I've PMed you a heartfelt apology. I hope you will accept.


Your 3rd grade level sarcasm is far from humorous.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:58 pm

How is this thread going?

A. Well
B. I
C. B
D. T
E. L

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:00 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote::oops: I'm sorry you're right. I feel like such an idiot and such a jerk. We should just be able to have a giant melting pot of forums. I

mean why can't all the forums be discussed together in one mega Utopian forum where we all live in harmony? In a free world without

discrimination we would be able to discuss LSAT in the URM forum and take the lounge into the "what are my chances?" forum.

Why not discuss Illinois in the Iowa thread and GULC in the WUSTL thread and so on and so on...

It's exactly the sort of narrow minded thinking that I'm taking part in that led to the Klan, Hitler and so much more...

I've PMed you a heartfelt apology. I hope you will accept.


Your 3rd grade level sarcasm is far from humorous.

Okay, I apologized and sent you a PM and you're still attacking me. I'm starting to think this is something personal against me...

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:01 pm

Patriot1208 wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.


It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron


lol

<--------- facepalm.

the level of stupidity in some of these arguments makes it clear why the legal profession is suffering so terribly.


Patriot1208 responds to Tainted_Praise's post by:

A) Attempting to diminish the value of the post, instead of addressing the actual content
B) Assuming that his/her opinion serves as sufficient reasoning
C) All of the above


lol. Stop posting in some sort of question form. God that is annoying. Each forum is meant for a specific purpose. This is not a hard concept. Saying that someone is clearly racist and it is disadvantaging to minorities because they express this sentiment is not only wrong, but stupid.[/quote]

It is annoying to you because it clearly highlighted the flaws withing your post. If I was you, I would be annoyed as well. And when was I ever in favor of what is highlighted in red? Please, show me the post. I'm waiting. In the meantime, please refrain from mixing up my viewpoints with another posters argument.
Last edited by Tainted_Praise on Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:02 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:FUCK YOU NATERJ, GO TO HELL YOU PIECE OF SHIT



ok, you need to calm down.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:03 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:How is this thread going?

A. Well
B. I
C. B
D. T
E. L

:( this thread had potential

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Adjudicator » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:03 pm

You could argue that they should remove LGs, but the real reason is that it is highly learnable and doesn't really show anything innate. Then again, perhaps they want to test peoples' ability to learn?

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:05 pm

Adjudicator wrote:You could argue that they should remove LGs, but the real reason is that it is highly learnable and doesn't really show anything innate. Then again, perhaps they want to test peoples' ability to learn?

We're discussing race in here. If you want to talk LSAT please go to the LSAT forum!

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Adjudicator » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:06 pm

naterj wrote:
Adjudicator wrote:You could argue that they should remove LGs, but the real reason is that it is highly learnable and doesn't really show anything innate. Then again, perhaps they want to test peoples' ability to learn?

We're discussing race in here. If you want to talk LSAT please go to the LSAT forum!


Oops, my bad. Wrong thread!

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:06 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Patriot1208 wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:lol

<--------- facepalm.

the level of stupidity in some of these arguments makes it clear why the legal profession is suffering so terribly.


Patriot1208 responds to Tainted_Praise's post by:

A) Attempting to diminish the value of the post, instead of addressing the actual content
B) Assuming that his/her opinion serves as sufficient reasoning
C) All of the above


lol. Stop posting in some sort of question form. God that is annoying. Each forum is meant for a specific purpose. This is not a hard concept. Saying that someone is clearly racist and it is disadvantaging to minorities because they express this sentiment is not only wrong, but stupid.


It is annoying to you because it clearly highlighted the flaws withing your post. If I was you, I would be annoyed as well. And when was I ever in favor of what is highlighted in red? Please, show me the post. I'm waiting. In the meantime, please refrain from mixing up my viewpoints with another posters argument.

It's annoying because it's childish, it makes you look like a douchebag, and when adults are talking the don't want to have to shift through a coloring book full of bullshit. And you did imply those things, he said we should talk about race related issues in the URM forum, you said that this is the sentiment that is stoppint the country from moving forward. Playing semantics doesn't change the intent of the post.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby kazu » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:08 pm

naterj wrote:
Adjudicator wrote:You could argue that they should remove LGs, but the real reason is that it is highly learnable and doesn't really show anything innate. Then again, perhaps they want to test peoples' ability to learn?

We're discussing race in here. If you want to talk LSAT please go to the LSAT forum!

Noooooo remember? We're supposed to do Giant Melting Pot Forums from now on! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:11 pm

Nightrunner wrote:What's all this, then?

IATL

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7970
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Pleasye » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:12 pm

Nightrunner wrote:What's all this, then?

Just good clean fun, you know.

User avatar
chup
Posts: 23652
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby chup » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:19 pm

This thread turned into a giant bucket of stupid.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:21 pm

chup wrote:This thread turned into a giant bucket of stupid.



true but tbf, it was at least a medium sized bucket of stupid after one post



jd20132013 wrote:i feel like they're so irrelevant to anything you could possibly do

but they're my worst section so I'm biased

if they were replaced with a LR or RC id probably be getting 177s

User avatar
shanemahsa
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:46 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby shanemahsa » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:33 pm

IAFG wrote::( this thread had potential

I disagree.

User avatar
beleaguer
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby beleaguer » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:39 pm

..i laughed. so to me, not a huuge bucket

nStiver
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:15 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby nStiver » Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:44 pm

LGs are fun! I used to blow a big fat johnson at doing logic games. I think I got +5 on my first section. After literally doing every single LG, many multiple times, I can usually get em all right. I think I did well on them on the October 9th test. I at least know that I finished with a minute or so to spare.

I don't know how well they test potential for law school. All I know is that they made LSAT studying much more entertaining.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby incompetentia » Sun Oct 17, 2010 11:51 pm

Hey guys, I really like LG. Their electronic are good and they are very interest

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby d34d9823 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:29 am

What's with the influx of morons lately? Do they come here for three weeks after the LSAT before they get their hopes crushed?

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby kazu » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:30 am

d34dluk3 wrote:What's with the influx of morons lately? Do they come here for three weeks after the LSAT before they get their hopes crushed?

And then they stay to crush the dreams of others.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media, onlyhere4fun and 3 guests