Is there an option D - Tail's horribly underinformed about pretty much all topics and this is just one more example?

I did 2 minutes of looking at what this is supposed to be about, and you conveniently ignored the primary reason the students wanted him removed, relating to his conflict in both defending a professor against a couple title IX complaints, and acting as the dean of the department (or something like that).

But I'm sure you would rather it be about harvard students not understanding law. That makes you feel better about yourself.

victor809 wrote:

...and that's the way the world works!

rfenst wrote:

Is there an option D - Tail's horribly underinformed about pretty much all topics and this is just one more example?

I did 2 minutes of looking at what this is supposed to be about, and you conveniently ignored the primary reason the students wanted him removed, relating to his conflict in both defending a professor against a couple title IX complaints, and acting as the dean of the department (or something like that).

But I'm sure you would rather it be about harvard students not understanding law. That makes you feel better about yourself.

victor809 wrote:

A woman and her husband go to the doctor because the woman is complaining of shortness of breath.

After fifteen minutes, the woman comes out into the waiting room and says, "Apparently, my problem is that I have a nice cooter."

"Excuse me?" says the husband.

"That's what the doctor said. My problem is that I have a nice cooter." The husband is a bit angry and goes in to talk to the doctor.

"What's this about my wife having a nice cooter? I need a damn good explanation."

"That's not what I said," replies the doctor. "I said she has acute angina."

teedubbya wrote:

Yeah.
that's the real reason.

If that professor was defending or prosecuting a cause that the students believed in, would there be a protest over his ability to properly act as Dean?

Just stop it.

tailgater wrote:

good to know you don't just use that asinine arguing technique with me. You also use it on people you've never met and the only information you have is from an article, which either left out their own words, or you chose to ignore.

But sure tail. whatever.

The funny part is that I don't know whether this is a better example of you telling someone else what they are thinking so you can argue against it, or if this is a better example of you moving goalposts....

I mean... your first argument was that these students "DIDN'T UNDERSTAND"....
Well, I provided you quotes as to what reasons they gave for their protest. These are reasons which contradict your accusation that they don't understand the law.

Now you've moved the goalposts. You're now saying that they are just protesting his inability to properly act as dean because he's defending an unpopular cause. So you're now saying they understand what's going on, and using a technicality as a smokescreen to eject a dean they don't like.

Of course, the above requires you have some innate understanding of why they're doing this. An innate understanding based on.... absolutely nothing. Despite their quotes saying why they are protesting.

whatever tail.

weak sauce.

victor809 wrote: