LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time Forum
-
Jack Smirks
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
I'm glad to see the retards are finally fighting back. Good for them.
-
Bildungsroman
- Posts: 5529
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
It's hard to amass an army quickly when you travel by short bus.Jack Smirks wrote:I'm glad to see the retards are finally fighting back. Good for them.
-
paratactical
- Posts: 5885
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
They did manage to write some awfully long posts for people with attention issues.Bildungsroman wrote:It's hard to amass an army quickly when you travel by short bus.Jack Smirks wrote:I'm glad to see the retards are finally fighting back. Good for them.
-
3v3ryth1ng
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:48 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
Lol. Well you know. Mess with one special ed kid, get the whole IEP!Jack Smirks wrote:I'm glad to see the retards are finally fighting back. Good for them.
-
Fark-o-vision
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
Lol at
Taking LSAT= wanting to work in BIGLAW
It takes a special kind of self-centered to automatically assume that everyone IS you. There are any number of reasons he could want to take the LSAT, not all of which involve even going to law school.
Taking LSAT= wanting to work in BIGLAW
It takes a special kind of self-centered to automatically assume that everyone IS you. There are any number of reasons he could want to take the LSAT, not all of which involve even going to law school.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
tedler
- Posts: 3186
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:48 am
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
.
Last edited by tedler on Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
3v3ryth1ng
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:48 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
tedler:
"Inability to focus (if this isn’t compatible with attention deficit, it’s news to me) has nothing to do with intelligence or ability to articulate, and I never said otherwise. Obviously the snide comments like “will they charge half for billable hours” and “will they get extra time for their depositions” are not sufficient arguments on their own, but they do require answers at some point. How does the need for twice the amount of time play out when you enter a profession that requires 80+ hour weeks?"
Obviously they'd just work 160 hours a week. Problem solved. But on a serious note, Inability =/= deficit. If that were the case, they'd call it a learning INability. That's always been your implicit assumption, and it's just flat wrong. And the suggestion that if one needs double time on a multiple choice law school entrance test, they'll need double time on all tasks that involve law is fallacious reasoning. It doesn't require an answer; it's BAD reasoning. But forget people with learning disabilities- I can't figure why YOU think you're cut out to be a lawyer.
tedler:
"I agree with other posters who have stated that some may be looking to go into the academic field, but the overwhelming majority of law school students are aiming for private practice, and I don’t see a reason to believe that number would be much lower among those with ADHD."
You don't have any evidence showing otherwise, so you'll assume what you're trying to prove? (paraphrased from above: "Since most law students want a private practice, and I have no reason to believe law students with serious learning disabilities tend to go into undemanding/academic/non-private practice careers, AND assuming all people with learning disabilities will be unsuccessful in meeting the demands of normal legal employment, most law students with learning disabilities will be unsuccessful"). Wasn't that an LSAT flaw question a few years ago? Well, it should be.
tedler:
"I know a small number of people diagnosed with ADHD, as do most people these days, and one or two of them are very smart. I never suggested that ADHD makes you stupid, nor did I suggest that it made it impossible to succeed. It simply makes success unlikely in a field like law, where dense reading under time constraints tends to be the name of the game. There are a million (please don’t take this literally) other professions out there for which their condition serves as a minor hindrance at most."
You actually DID suggest that it makes it impossible for them to succeed. You even said they were wasting their time and money. But in any case, I'd actually soften your "unlikely to succeed," since you've got absolutely no evidence of that. The most logical position you could take is to just shut up. And yes, I know how the real world is divided into 35 minute segments that singularly call on one innate ability in up to 3 capacities. Accordingly, my boss pays me in A's and B's.
tedler:
"In a court, yes. However, if I was arguing in a colloquial setting and someone responded to a statement that people with severe ADHD won’t make it in private practice with “BUT I KNOW THIS ONE GUY!” I would smack that person upside the head. Obviously, I don’t believe that severe ADHD totally precludes success in law. Few things are that absolute."
You would do that? Just be careful, because she/he/it might hit you back harder, and nothing is more humiliating than getting pwned by a retard. If you got arrested and convicted, you could even lose your law license, if you ever get one. I totally agree though- the only place for logic is in a court. And as long as you're not in a court, you can hop on your bicycle and backpedal all day.
See you in a court! (don't yell though, the other jurors are trying to listen).
"Inability to focus (if this isn’t compatible with attention deficit, it’s news to me) has nothing to do with intelligence or ability to articulate, and I never said otherwise. Obviously the snide comments like “will they charge half for billable hours” and “will they get extra time for their depositions” are not sufficient arguments on their own, but they do require answers at some point. How does the need for twice the amount of time play out when you enter a profession that requires 80+ hour weeks?"
Obviously they'd just work 160 hours a week. Problem solved. But on a serious note, Inability =/= deficit. If that were the case, they'd call it a learning INability. That's always been your implicit assumption, and it's just flat wrong. And the suggestion that if one needs double time on a multiple choice law school entrance test, they'll need double time on all tasks that involve law is fallacious reasoning. It doesn't require an answer; it's BAD reasoning. But forget people with learning disabilities- I can't figure why YOU think you're cut out to be a lawyer.
tedler:
"I agree with other posters who have stated that some may be looking to go into the academic field, but the overwhelming majority of law school students are aiming for private practice, and I don’t see a reason to believe that number would be much lower among those with ADHD."
You don't have any evidence showing otherwise, so you'll assume what you're trying to prove? (paraphrased from above: "Since most law students want a private practice, and I have no reason to believe law students with serious learning disabilities tend to go into undemanding/academic/non-private practice careers, AND assuming all people with learning disabilities will be unsuccessful in meeting the demands of normal legal employment, most law students with learning disabilities will be unsuccessful"). Wasn't that an LSAT flaw question a few years ago? Well, it should be.
tedler:
"I know a small number of people diagnosed with ADHD, as do most people these days, and one or two of them are very smart. I never suggested that ADHD makes you stupid, nor did I suggest that it made it impossible to succeed. It simply makes success unlikely in a field like law, where dense reading under time constraints tends to be the name of the game. There are a million (please don’t take this literally) other professions out there for which their condition serves as a minor hindrance at most."
You actually DID suggest that it makes it impossible for them to succeed. You even said they were wasting their time and money. But in any case, I'd actually soften your "unlikely to succeed," since you've got absolutely no evidence of that. The most logical position you could take is to just shut up. And yes, I know how the real world is divided into 35 minute segments that singularly call on one innate ability in up to 3 capacities. Accordingly, my boss pays me in A's and B's.
tedler:
"In a court, yes. However, if I was arguing in a colloquial setting and someone responded to a statement that people with severe ADHD won’t make it in private practice with “BUT I KNOW THIS ONE GUY!” I would smack that person upside the head. Obviously, I don’t believe that severe ADHD totally precludes success in law. Few things are that absolute."
You would do that? Just be careful, because she/he/it might hit you back harder, and nothing is more humiliating than getting pwned by a retard. If you got arrested and convicted, you could even lose your law license, if you ever get one. I totally agree though- the only place for logic is in a court. And as long as you're not in a court, you can hop on your bicycle and backpedal all day.
See you in a court! (don't yell though, the other jurors are trying to listen).
Last edited by 3v3ryth1ng on Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
3v3ryth1ng
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:48 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
Well, maybe I'm just being unduly charitable, but I sense that that guy was making a joke. I laughed at it. Offensive humor is different from just being offen... nevermind.tedler wrote:Surprised the militant LD PC crew has yet to bat an eyelash at the retard/short bus usage.
-
paulinaporizkova
- Posts: 2489
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm
Re: LSAC gives ADD test-taker 2x time
I WANT TO HAVE ADD SO FUCKING BAD
