The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class

BobH · March 16, 2009, 02:06 PM

That's the only way I can describe the dismissals by both Vanya and Glenn. To take the 1% of similarity between the two incidents and use that 1% to equate them is ludicrous. Yes, the imams probably thought they were treated unfairly but they provoked the situation and thus the treatment. We have no evidence that the student felt he was treated unfairly and he DID NOTHING PROVOCATIVE! Where is your evidence that there is any equality of concept in the comparison? Your argument - a very, very weak and ill-considered one IMO - has no traction. It doesn't give credence to all of the variables at play but chooses only one tiny aspect. That's not just poor logic and bad debate technique (grade=F or "Fail" if Pass/Fail grading), it borders on dishonesty (to the same extent and in the same manner as misdirection in advertising, political campaigns, etc. do).

If you two can't produce more compelling arguments than those proposed so far, fold your tents and steal quietly away in the night. Your arguments are as specious and perverted as those who would attack the SA. We deserve better from you. You do yourselves grave injustices by the narrowness of your argument and the speciousness of your views.

A word to the wise: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!"

March 16, 2009, 02:06 PM	#96
BobH Member Join Date: March 4, 2009 Posts: 26	Gagging on a Gnat and Swallowing a Camel That's the only way I can describe the dismissals by both Vanya and Glenn. To take the 1% of similarity between the two incidents and use that 1% to equate them is ludicrous. Yes, the imams probably thought they were treated unfairly but they provoked the situation and thus the treatment. We have no evidence that the student felt he was treated unfairly and he DID NOTHING PROVOCATIVE! Where is your evidence that there is any equality of concept in the comparison? Your argument - a very, very weak and ill-considered one IMO - has no traction. It doesn't give credence to all of the variables at play but chooses only one tiny aspect. That's not just poor logic and bad debate technique (grade=F or "Fail" if Pass/Fail grading), it borders on dishonesty (to the same extent and in the same manner as misdirection in advertising, political campaigns, etc. do). If you two can't produce more compelling arguments than those proposed so far, fold your tents and steal quietly away in the night. Your arguments are as specious and perverted as those who would attack the SA. We deserve better from you. You do yourselves grave injustices by the narrowness of your argument and the speciousness of your views. A word to the wise: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!"