<p>someone's getting mad...for nothing lol</p>
<p>galosien, that is true, but why even use something like rape to do it...considering how its a touchy subject in our society? Anyway, yikes I'm helping keep this thread going...but its to be expected of cheating threads on CC.</p>
<p>"If I say that enjoying the act of picking the wings off a live fly and enjoying the act of torturing another human fall into the same category in that both incidents show a character flaw, I do not think I am doing injustice or insulting the millions of people who regularly get tortured by their governments each year."</p>
<p>First off, I don't necessary believe the former is indicative of a character flaw. What if that person hates flies? Many people do. Along with mosquitos, they are the most common disease-spreaders. If it were a puppy, then I might agree.</p>
<p>Second of all, and most importantly, "enjoying torture" of two different species are much more closely related than "cheating in school" and "raping another human being". The former MAY occur repeatedly from a character flaw, but a one-time thing may be a lapse in judgement (as others have stated). You have no right to decide or judge this as you have in your previous posts. Even if the OP does suffer from a character flaw, the discrepancy of that flaw compared to the flaw one would need to commit rape is incomparable. </p>
<p>Seriously, who do you think you are fooling with your huge bolded attempts to prove your previous statement? Just man up instead of continuing to drag these posts out with analogies that are totally different from your previous analogy. Also, stop patronizing us and get rid of the 32 bold font or whatever you have. None of us need it to read your asinine posts.</p>
<p>Anyways, this thread has gone on way too long. The OP has been punished and if adcoms believe he is not suitable (who actually have the right to judge him in this case) then he will be rejected and all is well. The system works. I hope you don't make such brash controversial statements through erroneous logic at UVA. Your peers will tear you apart. But of course, I doubt you would. An online message board is the perfect remedy for your reservations.</p>
<p>BAM! </p>
<p>lol, I hate having to come back to this thread and keep reading these dumb arguments. Galoisien, just give it up, you lost it a long time ago IMO.</p>
<p>"First off, I don't necessary believe the former is indicative of a character flaw. What if that person hates flies? Many people do. Along with mosquitos, they are the most common disease-spreaders. If it were a puppy, then I might agree."</p>
<p>Fine, pick an example of something that IS indicative of a character flaw. Once again, you're missing the actual point here. Galoisien is saying that you can compare very different things in a particular aspect. Have you ever heard of the "Hitler mustache?" It's one that looks like Hitler. Is that incredibly offensive to anyone? Probably not. Because the characteristic being compared is innocuous. We're not saying that the person was in any way a terrible person like Hitler. We're comparing one characteristic and not commenting at all on the others.</p>
<p>Analogously, galoisien said that you must cross ethical boundaries in order to rape someone, and in order to cheat. Uh...That's true. Did he ever said that cheating was the same or just as bad as rape? No.</p>
<p>"Second of all, and most importantly, "enjoying torture" of two different species are much more closely related than "cheating in school" and "raping another human being"." </p>
<p>Duh. Galoisien said that too. Please understand the value of analogies and comparisons here. I don't think that you are understanding what he is actually saying at all.</p>
<p>"Seriously, who do you think you are fooling with your huge bolded attempts to prove your previous statement? Just man up instead of continuing to drag these posts out with analogies that are totally different from your previous analogy. Also, stop patronizing us and get rid of the 32 bold font or whatever you have. None of us need it to read your asinine posts."</p>
<p>I love the last sentence in particular. You know, mainly because you STILL have failed to grasp a concept that galoisien has made very clear. Obviously, you do need the huge font to understand what he's saying because you still are not even close to representing his argument correctly.</p>
<p>My question is not of logic, it is emotional. Why even mention rape? There are many other crimes that require a character flaw, like I don't know, stealing? Regardless of how galosien intended to use rape to convey his point, it's totally unwarranted and belittling the seriousness of rape when we are talking about high school cheating. galosien ought to apologize and recognize that he never should have mentioned the two together.</p>
<p>Baelor: I understand his point very well. The discrepancy between character flaws are incomparable between the two so his "proof of contradiction" is void. I don't think you are understanding my point seeing as how you left that part out. So I guess he just likes wasting time if he understands everything I said but continues to use erroneous analogies anyways?</p>
<p>When your first @me part is "@Collegeguy, who says that cheaters are just having a good time: Nice try. Cheating is wrong. Period. If you do it then you are committing an unjustifiable, unethical act. Period." </p>
<p>You have clearly failed to understand my points from the very beginning. How you even come to this conclusion as well as later conclusions from what I have written is beyond me.</p>
<p>Galoisien is doing the same thing as he was during that controversial "I hate state governments and the U.S. even though they allowed me to go to UVA blah blah blah" thread. The logic and arguments he used didn't work then and they don't now.</p>
<p>PS: Try to understand the context of what I mean instead of using your current stance to twist things around. I can do the same with something like this "Drinking is illegal in the US. If you break the law, you should be arrested and fined. The end!" - Baelor.</p>
<p>Drinking is not illegal in the U.S., but underraged drinking is and so is drinking while/under the influence. However, I'm pretty sure you already knew that. Because of my education and line of work, perhaps I rely on implications and contextual meanings too much but it is still regrettable you could arrive at your conclusions from what I have written.</p>
<p>" No matter what you do, your parents will always be the first ones to back you up. "</p>
<p>That may be true for some people's parents, but I'm not among the parents who raised my kids to think that I'd back them up if they did something unethical. In fact, I specifically told them that I would not back them up such as lie for them if they did something unethical.</p>
<p>I'd still love them, but that's not the same as making excuses for them or lying for them.</p>
<p>@Cervantes: It's not at all. I think that the comparison was unneeded, but galoisien did nothing that deserves an apology, in my opinion. If he wants to give one, that's obviously his choice. There were better examples to use for the sake of his argument, but in no way did he belittle rape or say that it's the same as cheating.</p>
<p>"Baelor: I understand his point very well. The discrepancy between character flaws are incomparable between the two so his "proof of contradiction" is void. I don't think you are understanding my point seeing as how you left that part out. So I guess he just likes wasting time if he understands everything I said but continues to use erroneous analogies anyways?"</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Someone either has a character flaw or does not have a character flaw. The categories are mutually exclusive. I don't recall him ever saying that rapists have a flaw of the same magnitude as a cheater. He simply said that rapists have flaws. This implies that cheaters also have flaws. That part of the argument, namely the actual point, was entirely valid. You have not demonstrated that there is fallacious logic because you are strawmanning him. You are saying that the example is illogical because rape isn't the same as cheating. First, he never said they were the same. Second, that fact is actually irrelevant to the point he is making. He's not making judgments about how bad the flaws are. He's just saying that they are there. I didn't leave any part out.</p>
<p>"You have clearly failed to understand my points from the very beginning. How you even come to this conclusion as well as later conclusions from what I have written is beyond me."</p>
<p>You accuse me of misquoting and ignoring your posts when I literally wrote a paragraph explaining what I meant by this? You trivialized cheating, and said that there were many cheaters at UVa, and that some of his classmates were cheaters. You then said that these college students were just having a good time in college. That is what I meant to convey. In no way did I mean to misrepresent you. However, I disagree with your trivialization of cheating. After that last part of your post, I wonder whether you have actually been reading what I'm saying. It doesn't seem that way, otherwise you wouldn't have responded in the manner you just did.</p>
<p>On top of that, your "point" was already discredited by others.</p>
<p>"Galoisien is doing the same thing as he was during that controversial "I hate state governments and the U.S. even though they allowed me to go to UVA blah blah blah" thread. The logic and arguments he used didn't work then and they don't now."</p>
<p>Hmmm...Two for the price of one! First, an ad hominem attack, to start us off. Obviously, because Galoisien's views are seemingly bad in an entirely unrelated argument, he is unable to form a good argument anywhere! Second, a fallacy of relevance that is close to the personal attack: His views in the other thread are not at all related to his here. I suggest you come up with actual reasons why his points are invalid. </p>
<p>"PS: Try to understand the context of what I mean instead of using your current stance to twist things around. I can do the same with something like this "Drinking is illegal in the US. If you break the law, you should be arrested and fined. The end!" - Baelor."</p>
<p>You actually didn't misrepresent me. That is exactly what I believe for those who are under-aged and those who drink and drive. There is a law. Follow it. The end! -Baelor</p>
<p>By the way, I would love to see all the incidents where I misrepresented you. If there are any, I would be more than happy to retract/correct my posts.</p>
<p>I already listed them on the previous pages. You also missed my point again and so did your entire post along with what I meant by quoting you. I know you are against underage drinking and so am I, but in the post you wrote that all drinking is illegal in the US. My point was to not take statements purely at face value. </p>
<p>Also, I think it is you+galoisien's posts that have been in the minority and have been argued against and proven erroneous in these past 8 pages. I am even suspecting you two might be related or the same. College with do the both of you good and perhaps expand your world in terms of reality and perception of others. </p>
<p>We're getting nowhere and I'm not invested enough in this topic to keep arguing as it seems a theme of misunderstanding is present here. The rape analogy was misguided and the OP was wrong to cheat, but most people (not all) do believe and deserve in second chances. Judging others via message board is quite hypocritical and cowardly especially with what I know of galoisien's history.</p>
<p>With that said, good night.</p>
<p>888z, I hope the officers of admission accept the fact - nobody is perfect. We all learn from our mistakes. However, you should write a good essay to explain why this cheating happed and what have you learned from this mistake; The suspension may or may not hurt your application , so you should consider applying some safety schools in case you couldn’t enter your dream schools.</p>
<p>Below is Admissions Expert's opinion about suspension. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate state governments and the U.S. even though they allowed me to go to UVA blah blah blah
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please characterise my argument correctly.</p>
<p>I am a libertarian / minarchist / anarchist-leading. I am inherently distrust ful of any State, any government. I try not to be ungrateful to the people who have made my life possible, but the institutions people partake in are another matter.</p>
<p>Why don't you call Milton Friedman, Nozick (author of Anarchy, State and Utopia), and every American who identifies with the Chicago and Austrian School of Economics traitors too?</p>
<p>Libertarians support open immigration with several exceptions. I do not think I am ungrateful when I support their platform.</p>
<p>ok, unsubscribing from this thread as of.....Now!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The discrepancy between character flaws are incomparable between the two so his "proof of contradiction" is void.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument doesn't make sense. The character flaws shown yes, are quite different, but that doesn't disprove anything I said -- not at least, that there is a [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism%5Dhomomorphic%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphism]homomorphic[/url</a>] relationship between each case of a special type of incident and its respective character flaw. So what if one character flaw is vastly different from another? That doesn't disprove the fact that the homomorphism exists.</p>
<p>Let's do a bit of math analogy:</p>
<p>X and Y belong to set P.</p>
<p>Elements of set P are characterised by being of structure S, such that set P is monomorphic (injective homomorphic) to set Q, so every X and Y has a counterpart in Q, e.g. U and V.</p>
<p>X and Y may differ vastly in properties from each other -- not just in quantities, but in algebraic properties. For example X may belong to set F but not G, while Y may belong to set G but not F. The fact that U and V may have different set memberships and different algebraic properties doesn't change the fact that U and V are still members of Q, and that X implies the existence of U, and that Y implies the existence of V.</p>
<p>Someone said that "a single incident does not show a character flaw". I argued otherwise by providing an extreme counterexample -- for clarity, because that is the most <em>clear</em> counterexample. Nothing you have said in this thread has adequately defended the original statement that a single incident <em>NEVER</em> shows a character flaw.</p>
<p>So if you say that a single element of P never implies a homomorphic correspondence in Q, that has been disproven. Never mind that X and Y may be vastly different, along with the implied correspondences with U and V; it doesn't change the set memberships, and that between X and Y, and U and V there is a common membership of a set and all the equivalent algebraic properties that come with membership.</p>
<p>You really have to pardon me for using an algebraic analogy, but that's the only way to represent my logic in the most purest form without you misinterpreting it up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I think it is you+galoisien's posts that have been in the minority and have been argued against and proven erroneous in these past 8 pages. I am even suspecting you two might be related or the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Irony++</p>
<p>Your camp fails at making logical arguments.</p>
<p>As for the last accusation, that is so ridiculous that I am willing to show my IP if you want. Baelor is probably going to an entirely different school too. Want to exchange SSNs? Look us up? You can google me, find my blog. Oh puh-leese. If you think I am sockpuppeteering there are so many better things I can do. </p>
<p>Please, Mr. Psychoanalyst, do an analysis of our writing samples and you can see that our writing styles are quite different. Do you ever think??</p>
<p>Ask this in the parents' forum -- many or even most parents will agree that cheating is never merely a lapse in judgment.</p>
<p>This doesn't mean the OP is redeemable, but he has yet to show his redemption is genuine! </p>
<p>If he has truly changed, then I am sorry for causing such a huge fuss. But in either case, the way to redeem his application is to ask for letters of redemption from his wronged teachers and to demonstrate other ways of genuine change.</p>
<p>Sorry, I meant to say, "this doesn't mean the OP isn't redeemable."</p>
<p>"I already listed them on the previous pages. You also missed my point again and so did your entire post along with what I meant by quoting you. I know you are against underage drinking and so am I, but in the post you wrote that all drinking is illegal in the US. My point was to not take statements purely at face value."</p>
<p>Yeah, not really. Plus this is a convenient way not to have to back up your argument here. I am against underage drinking, obviously. I made a typo. I keep "missing your point," but you keep not even having a tenable one. Why don't you actually use specifics instead of making broad statements that do nothing except demonstrate your inability to support any of your positions?</p>
<p>"Also, I think it is you+galoisien's posts that have been in the minority and have been argued against and proven erroneous in these past 8 pages. I am even suspecting you two might be related or the same. College with do the both of you good and perhaps expand your world in terms of reality and perception of others." </p>
<p>Wow. I thought that I had seen the most unbelievably arrogant people elsewhere on the board, but this definitely takes the cake. So, because we have an opinion that is different from yours and of some of the other posters in this thread, we must be related? Yeah, that doesn't follow at all. Oh, did I mention that it shows your utter closed-mindedness and ignorance? Again, your argument to numbers doesn't hold up. Also, we are not even in the minority. Read the posts, many don't even express opinions of the issue (as they shouldn't. Alas, when I am drawn into such an argument, my compulsion compels me to continue). </p>
<p>And suddenly, magically, you know my circumstances and my environment? You know, obviously, that I have spent years in a school where by beliefs are shared by less than one percent of the population? You know that I am the leader of one of the clubs that fosters discussion between different viewpoints? You know that I get insulted and ridiculed for having beliefs different than others? Hmmm...Maybe I'm not the one who needs to open up his mind. And my favorite part is this: You tell me that I need to expand my mind because I actually am opposed to something illegal... I'm sorry, but you are far more arrogant than I, and I do admit to being arrogant. Get a reality check. Realize that not everyone has your views. I've gotten used to it. That doesn't mean that I have to condone cheating and theft because other people do it. You're mistaking exposure and tolerance for total acceptance. That's a huge mistake.</p>
<p>"We're getting nowhere and I'm not invested enough in this topic to keep arguing as it seems a theme of misunderstanding is present here."</p>
<p>I'm glad to see that you recognize your error. ;)</p>
<p>I personally know that 70-80% of the top students at my school cheats, and I'm sure that other schools have similar morality issues at their schools. It wasn't a "lapse in judgment" or a "character flaw". It's just how kids are these days, doing whatever methods possible to improve their grades. I doubt that all the kids going to Harvard or Yale are flawless, pure, and hard working students that have never cheated in high school because of their rock solid morality.</p>
<p>Well how about this.</p>
<p>Let's say "Johnny" is overwhelmed with college admissions. On a visit to Harvard after submitting his application he is wandering the halls and sees the door to the admissions office open. After checking if the coast is clear, he goes inside, just to see what looks like. </p>
<p>Once inside he sees on the table a pile of admitted applications and a tower of denied applications, waiting for letters to be sent out. When he gets closer he sees his application...on the top of the denied pile. </p>
<p>He is in complete panic, hyperventilating and everything. Harvard was his dream school and he worked for it his whole high school career. In a moment of desperation he moves his application from the top of the deny pile to the middle of the admit one.</p>
<p>Was that a single incident or an indication of character flaw?</p>
<p>What if he then moves one application from the top of the admit pile into the deny pile, so it will balance in case they kept track of their admit numbers and that person will probably get into a great college somewhere else. </p>
<p>Is that a single incident or and indication of a character flaw?</p>
<p>What if the person in the deny pile was an impoverished immigrant who had to slave for weeks cleaning bathroom floors to pay for her Harvard application, the only college she applied to. </p>
<p>Is this a single incident or an indication of a character flaw?</p>
<p>If Yale who admitted Johnny found out about this incident, should they reject him or keep him</p>
<p>All incidents are character flaws. Perhaps the first is able to be debated, but the second isn't. If you are willing to think about the situation enough to put an admit into a reject in order to cover up your scheme, then you are obviously despicable.</p>