Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - GiuGiaku

Pages: [1]
Socratic Method / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: January 24, 2012, 02:32:22 AM »

''Ph'' is always pronounced as ''f'', and don't sound...the ''g.''
- Then why are they putting the ''g'', please?

Very funny indeed ... Here it is the entire thing here:

- Phlegm. ''Ph'' is always pronounced as ''f'', and don't sound...the ''g.''
- Then why are they putting the ''g'', please?
- That's a very good question, but ... it's rather difficult to explain.
- Try, Brian.
- lt's just there.
- So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?
- No.
- Then l'm sorry, l cannot help you.

Natalia is so funny throughout the entire movie - here it is another one:

Sally: I saw a film the other day about syphilis. Ugh! It was too awful. I couldn't let a man touch me for a week. Is it true you can get it from kissing?
Fritz: Oh, yes. And your king, Henry VIII, got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear.
Natalia: That is not, I believe, founded in fact. But from kissing, most decidedly; and from towels, and from cups.
Sally: And of course screwing.
Natalia: Screw-ing, please?
Sally: Oh, uh...
Sally: fornication.
Natalia: For-ni-ca-tion?
Sally: Oh, uh, Bri, darling, what is the German word?
Brian Roberts: I don't remember.
Sally: [thinking] Oh... um... oh yes!
Brian Roberts: Oh, no...
Sally: Bumsen!
Natalia: [appalled] Oh.
Brian Roberts: That would be the one German word you pronounce perfectly.
Sally: Well, I ought to. I spent the entire afternoon bumsening like mad with this ghastly old producer who promised to get me a contract.
Sally: Gin, Miss Landauer?

God Bless Sally!

Socratic Method / Re: Social Security Numbers = De Facto National ID Card
« on: January 24, 2012, 02:23:18 AM »

Some people use a made up number, some others actually buy the SS card of somebody else to whom was legally issued to, and some others secure a legal SSN fraudulently via a fake birth certificate.

I find the latter part hard to believe! Presenting a fake birth certificate to the SSA people to obtain a legit SSN?! Do you know what penalties are in place for doing that?! Would you have the balls to actually go some place and ask for that?!

We've sure have heard about people from foreign countries (Mexico, being the obvious example) having an easy time submitting altered birth certificates (not totally fake, they just might have needed to change, e.g., their birth year, so that they'd fall within a certain age-limit in order to qualify for a particular benefit). In these cultures that's something quite 'doable', so to speak, with legal repercussions in case of detection being miniscule.

But not in the States!

General Board / Re: .....
« on: January 24, 2012, 02:09:00 AM »


Now, if my only intention was to get to this country (U'S), would I have left and go back to my native country together with my husband?! There was no guarantee whatsoever that we'd get the immigrant visas from there (we had those stupid issues that you know) and the B-2 visas we used to enter the U'S were single-entry - so we could not get back to the U'S. And yet, we decided to go back to our native country, no matter what the results of the @ # ! * i n g green card interview would be.

Because we did not want to remain illegally in the U'S like b i t c h e s, after our visitor visas would have expired. We said, we're better off in our native country, being full-right citizens, rather than illegally in the U'S.

[...] There was probably enough time for our lottery to be processed from within the U'S (although there were slight chances we couldn't process it from here and we had to go back to our native country - but even if we'd not get the m u t h a @ # ! * i n g green card because of staying here and not going back, we'd still be here in the U'S, albeit illegally). And yet, we went back - and, of course, not because this immigration attorney held a knife to our necks threatening to cut our throats open were we to decide contrary to what he advised us to do!

Incitatus - don't you worry about the b i t c h e s!

By going back to your country - regardless of the fact that you might not be able to come back here again (given the issues with the lottery application) - you made a statement that you did not much @ # ! * i n g care about America!

Too bad for some others who sell their a s s e s just to get a visa like yours to enter this country to be @ # ! * e d the * & ^ % out of!

General Board / Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« on: January 23, 2012, 10:25:19 PM »

opinion, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis raises some interesting ethical issues: German bioethicist Edgar Dahl, for instance, raises and dismisses 5 objections to the future use of embryo screening to choose the sexual orientation of children. He does not mention any evidence for, or controversy about, a "gay gene," but concludes that if a "safe and reliable genetic test" for sexual orientation were to become available, "parents should clearly be allowed" to use it, as long as they are permitted to select for homosexual as well as heterosexual children. Dahl has previously argued that PGD should be allowed for sex selection for social reasons.]

Should parents be allowed to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Extending the application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence, raises serious moral, legal, and social issues. The most challenging ethical issues are posed by the prospect of using PGD to screen embryos for non-medical traits such as gender, height and intelligence. The possibility of using PGD to select the sexual orientation of offspring: if a safe and reliable genetic test were ever to become available, should parents be allowed to use PGD to choose the sexual orientation of their children?

1. The first objection that can be raised might be as follows: PGD is a medical procedure designed to detect genetic disorders. Since homosexuality is not a disease, PGD should not be employed to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. This is a familiar objection in debates over PGD. However, as familiar as it may be, it is certainly not a persuasive one. We have already become accustomed to a medical system in which physicians often provide services that have no direct medical benefit but that do have great personal value for the individuals seeking it. Given the acceptance of breast enlargement, hair replacement, ultrasound assisted liposuction and other forms of cosmetic surgery, one cannot, without calling that system into question, condemn a practice merely because it uses a medical procedure for lifestyle or child-rearing choices.

2. A second objection could claim that a state permitting the use of PGD to ensure a heterosexual orientation in one's children would be open to the charge of discrimination against its homosexual citizens. But this claim is simply untenable. Granting its citizens a right to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children is not the same as placing them under a duty to use PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children. Only a state coercing its citizens into using PGD to prevent homosexual offspring would be open to the charge of discrimination.

3. A third objection might assert that, even though it would not be discrimination on the part of the state, it would certainly be discrimination on the part of the prospective parents if they were to use PGD to prevent the birth of homosexual children. This argument is similarly misguided, though. Preferring a heterosexual over a homosexual child does not in itself in any way betray a negative judgment about the value of gay and lesbian individuals. Admittedly, some parents would certainly seek PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children because they are bigots anxiously adhering to the old clichés that homosexuality is a `disease', a `perversion' or a `sin'. Still, most parents using PGD to select the sexual orientation of their offspring would probably do so simply because they wish to see their children getting married, building a family and having children of their own. And the desire to have children who share the same sexual orientation as oneself is certainly not a morally objectionable interest.

4. A fourth objection may be that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual children will impede the cause of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement as it is likely to lead to a gradual decline of the homosexual population. More precisely, it could be argued that a decrease in the number of gay and lesbian persons will inevitably cause a decrease in the public support for gay and lesbian people. This is, of course, a factual claim for which empirical data must be marshalled. Given the burdens and expenses of the procedure, it is very unlikely that PGD will ever considerably reduce the number of homosexual individuals. More importantly, reducing the number of gays and lesbians does not necessarily imply a reduced concern for the cause of homosexual people, as is evidenced by the case of disabled persons. Although the number of people born with disabilities has decreased, the support for people with disabilities has increased. Hence, it is far from being obvious that using PGD to ensure the birth of heterosexual offspring would inevitably worsen the situation of homosexual people.

5. A fifth objection might point to the fact that PGD generally implies discarding embryos. Thus, it could be argued that the desire to choose the sexual orientation of one's children does not justify the deliberate creation and destruction of human embryos. Whether or not this objection is viable entirely depends on the moral status accorded to embryos. Since this is not the place to review all the arguments for and against the `sanctity of human life', I restrict myself to saying that I doubt that there are sound reasons for granting embryos individual rights. The purpose of individual rights is the moral and legal protection of fundamental interests. Since embryos are too rudimentary in development to have interests there is simply no basis to grant them rights. If at all, embryos might be seen as having some `symbolic value' preventing them from being destroyed for any purpose whatsoever. Since the desire to have children of a particular sexual orientation is a morally legitimate reason, creating and destroying embryos of the undesired sexual orientation would certainly be justified.

As a Mother, I totally understand these objections, and so far as I am concerned, I wouldn't endorse PGD.

And yet, if one takes the stance of the devil's advocate, and reminding people that doctors do not hesitate to apply euthanasia in way too many cases - that is kill people who are alive (well, still alive) - would it be "that" condemnable to kill an embryo (which is not yet a "fetus") - something that for all practical purposes we'd consider "not living"? FYI, here are for you the guidelines medical personal follow when applying euthanasia in the US, as they were presented to me by the medical professionals when my husband was dying:

  • It is active euthanasia that's illegal in most of the United States.
  • Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain (which includes a dose that might be incidentally lethal) at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths
  • Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate.

General Board / Re: practicing law as a non-U.S. citizen
« on: January 23, 2012, 09:53:20 PM »

Some months ago a Russian couple (young professionals who could have had some kind of future in their own country) moved in the apartment building I live in with my family. They are very open people who do not hesitate to tell one some pretty fine details of their life - so there you have it: they told us they came from Russia on temporary tourist visas that they bought $10,000 a piece from the US Consulate people in their country. They sold their house for some $30,000 and used that money to buy two tourist visas and pay for their travel expenses to the US.

Now I understand that the US is considered to be by many people around the world as the place where their dreams will come true and where they will be able to better themselves (in all meanings of the term). But is that really the case? My question is, how do these people decide to go ahead and sell their house to buy a tourist visa to enter this country - and go underground for years working menial jobs, hoping they will be able to "make it"?! (I have heard it may well take some 5, or even 10 years, for illegal immigrants to get permanent residency (green card) - how much are they supposed to pay for it, I'd guess there is another fee to pay to get it, isn't it?) I mean, you have here a lot of American folks who are having a hard time keeping their houses, having to go thru foreclosures - are you trying to tell me these new immigrants are going to have a better life here, although it may take some 10-15 years?!

Even if they do, it's just not worth the trouble to go that route, taken into account the enormous amount of time to adjust to the new culture and establish themselves economically. To me, it's simply incomprehensible that one would pay $10,000 to buy a visa to enter the country, only to subject oneself to a calvary of pain and suffering to make ends meet for years and years on end!

Exactly - Coming to this country in such a manner only makes sense for blue-collar guys who have no real opportunities in their own native countries.

But for white-collar professionals, especially if they're in their 40s or 50s, it just doesn't make sense to immigrate at all (be it legally or illegally).

General Board / Re: The Da Vinci crock
« on: January 23, 2012, 09:40:15 PM »

As early as August 1912, Jung had intimated a letter to Freud that he had an intuition that the essentially feminine-tones archaic wisdom of the Gnostics, symbolically called Sophia, was destined to re-enter modern Western culture by way of depth psychology. This takes us to the Gnostic text the Pistis Sophia. Pistis Sophia is an important Gnostic text. The five remaining copies, which scholars date c. 250­-300 AD, relate the Gnostic teachings of the transfigured Jesus to the assembled disciples (including his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Martha), when the risen Christ had accomplished 11 years speaking with his disciples. In it the complex structures and hierarchies of heaven familiar in Gnostic teachings are revealed. The female divinity of gnosticism is Sophia, a being with many aspects and names. She is sometimes identified with the Holy Ghost itself but, according to her various capacities, is also the Universal Mother, the Mother of the Living or Resplendent Mother, the Power on High, She-of-the-left-hand (as opposed to Christ, understood as her husband and he of the Right Hand), as the Luxurious One, the Womb, the Virgin, the Wife of the Male, the Revealer of Perfect Mysteries, the Saint Columba of the Spirit, the Heavenly Mother, the Wandering One, or Elena (that is, Selene, the Moon). She was envisaged as the Psyche of the world and the female aspect of Logos.

Jung has been called weird by many because of his interest in the occult. Freud, for instance, would write to Jung in response to his letter:

Jung: "My evenings are taken up very largely with astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth. Some remarkable things have turned up which will certainly appear incredible to you... I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge that has been intuitively projected into the heavens. For instance, it appears that the signs of the zodiac are character pictures, in other words libido symbols which depict the typical qualities of the libido at a given moment."

Freud: "In matters of occultism I have grown humble since the great lesson Ferenczi's experiences gave me. I promise to believe anything that can be made to look reasonable. I shall do so gladly, that you know. But my hubris has been shattered." 

Yet, early on Freud himself dabbled in the Kabbala, the esoteric branch of Jewish mysticism. He belonged to a Jewish society called B'nai B'rith and enjoyed weekly games of taroc, a complicated and popular card game which some people think is based on Kabbala. The taroc deck varies in size, but it includes 22 trump cards from the tarot, which are rich in symbolic imagery. The symbolism on these cards may well have set Freud on the path towards his first ideas about the unconscious: it was at this time that he presented his first ideas about dream interpretation. This information has been largely suppresed, probably because it wasn't approved of in Freud's contemporary society, with its rising tide of fierce anti-semitism. Later Freud strongly disapproved in public of what he called 'the occult.'

By the way, in academic circles Freud was often seen as opinionated and rather peculiar so that much of his work was done in what he called 'splendid isolation,' just as it had been from boyhood. He obviously had outstanding intellect, but by his own admission, he had a rather neurotic, obsessive personality and could not imagine a life without work  He wrote incessantly and much of his writing was done on his days off, or even after a busy day seeing his patients. Freud's obsessive personality meant that he was the kind of person who has to do everything meticulously and accurately and he liked to be in control. This can be seen in various ways outside of his work. He was very superstitious about certain numbers -- for instance, he became utterly convinced that he would die at 61 or 62, because of a series of rather tenous coincidencies to do with odd things like hotel room numbers. This kind of thinking is the down side of the type of self-controlled personality that is obsessional enough to produce the astonishing volume of work that Freud did. In extreme cases it can lead to what is known as an obsessional neurosis, where the sufferer is driven by endless compulsive rituals, and becomes unable to function normally.

Freud was a great collector of antiques, fired by his earlier classical studies and his interest in ancient history. He accumulated vast numbers of antique statuettes and other artefacts that are still in display in his study at 20 Maresfield Gardens, Hampstead, London, which is now part of a Freud museum. They are crammed in all over the place, showing that he was not particularly interested in their artistic value, but more in the feeling of connection with the past that they gave him and the sheer pleasure of collecting them. His compulsive streak shows up again in the fact that he smoked cigars heavily nearly all his life and found it impossible to stop, even when he was diagnosed with oral cancer in 1923 and realized that tabacco was doing him no good. It was not until he had a heart attack in 1930 that he finally gave up.

Interesting, three_lotteries, did you find this information online or it's from some book?

Both Freud and Jung were rumored to be total weirdos ... too bad they infected the whole world with their crap!


Ah Acropolis! Such a great place to visit! I've been only once in Greece (my brother used to live there) and I surely did take advantage to visit it! I can safely say that Athens is famous mostly because of Acropolis and its ancient history! When I immigrated to the US (my brother got me and several others to the US on special C visas :) all the people at my work was jealous I had been in Athens!

C visas?! Never heard about such visas - are you sure you have the right letter?

Exactly, surepiro - mimosa doesn't know what she's talking about - unless she's playing the dumbass here!


[...] Some experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the child that drives this behavior, but there is satisfaction gained by the perpetrator in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves. [...]

[...]A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the parent or caregiver to fool and manipulate doctors. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and is very good at fooling the doctors. [...]


If such perpetrators are familiar with the medical profession to manipulate symptoms, how come doctors not suspect a case of MBPS after they learn such a fact? (I am assuming they would have some clue to at least suspect that)

Qircom - doctors are probably not that inclined to think that medical personnel like themselves would go to this extent - just a guess, yanno :)

Pages: [1]