From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:56:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.151507.9098@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>>>But it's a safe bet that every law student took the SAT, and scores have
>>>declined.
<text deleted>
>I know of no studies concerning law student's SATs; why don't you
>present some?

Reminder: It was you who adduced SAT scores in support of some point or
another. If you don't actually have any relevant data about them, why cite
them?

>Yes, SATs may show a decline owing to
>increased access to law school, but white male SATs have declined along
>with all others, leading me to conclude that white male law student SATs
>have also declined.

Since you claim to be a teacher of logic, I have to wonder what kind of
logic you teach if you reach conclusions in this manner. Your final
proposition does not necessarily follow from your premises.

>>I asked you about accounts of Stanford Law School. Turow went to Harvard.
>
>This excessive focus on irrelevant detail makes me believe that Mike
>Godwin is in reality a sophisticated instance of Eliza, configured as a
>cross examination machine.

It's hardly irrelevant detail if, when challenged to specify the sources
you claim to be relying on, you fail to do so. It seems clear to me that
you invent a lot of your "sources."

>I'll get you the reference, from an article
>on Stanford in the New York Times, ASAP, in which the author states
>clearly that Stanford students "coast" because their union card is
>admission to Stanford law.  As one who has friends struggling to work
>their way through John Marshall, this pissed me off.

Is Stanford the same as all elite law schools? What's your basis for
concluding that Stanford in 1992 is the same as Harvard in the early '70s
(when Turow wrote ONE L)?

I think it represents elitism on your part to suppose that, even if
something is rotten at the elite schools, we can generalize about all
lawyers from this. Only a minority of lawyers attend elite law schools.

>Nor are we in a court of law, so quit cross-examining me.

Start telling the truth, and you needn't fear harsh questions.

I don't mind comparisons with Eliza, given that Eliza shows both greater
consistency and logic in "her" responses than you do, and is far, far 
less dissembling.

I'm much happier being compared to a computer program than I would be if
someone compared me to Ed Nilges. But it's worth noting that you use this
rhetorical strategy in order to avoid answering several questions about
the bases for your assertions here. Why not just be honest and admit that
you're more or less making all this up as you go along?

>My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
>because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.

This reminds of the old joke about the kid who says he's glad he doesn't
like spinach. If he did, he'd eat it all the time, and that would be
terrible because he *hates* it. Same logical principle at work.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal