Law School 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 - The ZAPINATOR

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 586
Law School Admissions / edit
« on: December 28, 2004, 02:09:26 PM »

General Off-Topic Board / edit
« on: December 28, 2004, 01:24:06 PM »

The majority of the country, though, is "pro-choice", depending on your definition. (The majority of the country is also perfectly comfortable with limiting abortions through such measures as requiring parental notification, for example.) What people are uncomfortable with in the way you suggested, I think, is abortion itself as opposed to its legality.

Really, as pro-choice goes, there are a lot of people such as myself who consider ourselves pro-life, yet who favor legal abortion in special cases.  So this inflates the pro-choice numbers artificially.  Of course I think there are situations where it is unavoidable... I just don't think it should be on demand.  Does that make me pro-choice?  Probably on paper, when a pollster asks me "do you believe that any abortion should be legal?".  Now, I think everyone here would consider me pro-life; I certainly consider myself to be.  But for the purposes of polling, I'd probably come across as leaning moderate, somewhat pro-choice.

I know you make a valid point.  But it does depend, as you said, on how pro-choice is defined.  I think that on a fundamental level of principle, this country is pretty staunchly pro-life, with a sizable pro-choice contingency.  When it comes to exceptions and such, when abortion needs to be legal in special cases, I think you'll find that these same basically pro-life people have a "nuanced" position on it (all but the most extreme people).  Nobody wants to see a woman die just because she was pregnant (life of the mother), and nobody wants to see young girls raped by their uncles bleeding to death with coathangers in dark alleys.  Yet, there's certainly the overall point, which is not overcome by the exceptions: those same people are against abortion on demand, and especially against it when the statistics show (as they do) that the privilege is being grossly abused.

There are grey areas in abortion, like everything, which would make me somewhat pro-choice on paper.  Does that mean I'd vote for a Democrat who wants to protect the privilege of abortion on demand?  Not so much.  


If the Democratic party were more lenient on abortion I am sure they would pick up another 20% of the Evangelical Christian vote at least.  I personally know dozens of Evangelical Christians who are generally left wing in regard to taxes, welfare, the Iraq War, etc., but are also pro life.

I know very many people like this too.  These are the ones I was referring to.  Heck, being a Christian, it's hard not to want to care about equality and the poor, and it's hard to really be a huge war hawk, without having a heavy heart about it.  If the Democrats came to the center on issues important to evangelicals, I feel it would be possible to cut into the Republican base.  I think, though, that the main problem then would be that the left wing of the party wouldn't want anything to do with evangelical types being under their tent.  Which would cause division in the party.

Really, it's the radicals in both parties who keep the parties more of less irrelevant to the majority of typical Americans.  As long as people feel like they're voting for the lesser of two evils, that's a huge problem.  Most Americans are moderate, not at all radical.


I think you're wrong.  I think the pro-choice movement has gone as far as it's going to go.  A substantial number of people are pro-choice, but even they are uncomfortable with it and don't really like it.  It's more that they feel its a necessity.  I really don't think this is the issue to be trying to win elections with for pro-choicers, simply because it's a really tricky subject and it's hard not to come across as immoral or inconsistent.  It's possible, granted, but it's hard.

Then again, the Republican party embraces pro-choice Republicans (look at Arnold) so the Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't welcome pro-lifers like me into the party.  There are a number of people who agree with several key Democratic ideas, yet are strongly opposed to abortion, and for that reason cannot bring themselves to vote (or run) Democrat.


General Off-Topic Board / Re: Anti-semitic potpourri bag?!
« on: December 17, 2004, 09:25:56 AM »
Yeah, evangelicals are the ones with the big emphasis on conversion, missionary work and outreach.  At least that's how I understand it.  Thus, some denominations may become more or less evangelical over time.


On a slightly different note...

There are evangelical Christians.  Are there non-evangelical Christians?  Is the distinction more or less that they do/don't evangelize?  Or do they have a different take on certain beliefs within Christianity?  Also, how do the various different protestant denominations factor into this?

I feel like I should know all this, but I don't so I thought I'd ask.   

Canadian Law Students / Re: Oasis
« on: December 17, 2004, 09:06:48 AM »
You gotta roll with it, you gotta take your time,
you gotta say what you say, don't let anybody get in your way
Cause it's all too much for me to say.

Backbeat the word is on the street that the fire in your heart is out
I know you've heard it all before but you never really had a doubt
I can't believe that anybody feels the way I do about you now.

Is it my imagination, of have I finally found something worth looking for?
I was looking for some action, but all I found were cigarettes and alcohol.


Someday you will find me
caught between a landslide
and a champagne supernova(r) in the sky.




Law School Admissions / Re: DOWNY is thankful
« on: December 17, 2004, 08:35:23 AM »
I don't know who norman vincent peale is, but he sounds like a feminine hygiene product.


He wrote the Power of Positive Thinking, HTH

BTW, DOWNY, I seem to recall you wondering if I could even get into Cooley in another thread.  It should frighten you to no end to know that it is now a realistic possibility that I could be joining you at University of Minnesota with money.


I wondered when you would respond to that. (I know you can get into Cooley).

Congrats on UMN. It's frigid here, though, just so you know.


Yeah, I knew you knew I could get into Cooley, but I didn't know if you knew I'd been accepted to the frigid weather or Minnesota.

But despite the cold, I hear the chicks are really gorgeous.  This balances out in my book.


Politics and Law-Related News / Re: Should This Man Still Have a Job?
« on: December 17, 2004, 08:21:16 AM »
This guy is ridiculous, he displayed a lack of judgment about how others would perceive him at the very least.

The sociology course is just as ridiculous.

I agree with Lobe.  This was a case of people in the judiciary licking their wounds, and making him a scapegoat for his bad judgment, in order to make the rest of themselves look good and racially sensitive.  I'd guess this guy wasn't any more racist than many on the bench who will stay right where they were (and who may have voted to censure him), and yet he wasn't as savy at hiding it, so he takes the fall.

Just another example of the culture of appearances and perception.  I think perception over reality, in the world of "professionalism", is the rule.  And it's sad.  Whatever happened to sincerity?  Why do we straitjacket ourselves over time into our societal roles that we force-fit ourselves into an unnatural sincerity over time?  I mean, obviously some level of sophistication is needed so as not to be savage, but how far do you take that?  Do you attempt to completely force-fit yourself into something you're not for polite company?  Would this man have been any better if he hadn't worn the facepaint?  No.  But he'd still be sitting on the bench.

I say keep him on the bench, as a message to all the poseurs out there.  We're onto you, and behind your pretty facade you're acting.  The only reason you censured this guy was because of embarrasment, and not because of any deep inner conviction about right and wrong.  And what an awful legacy, to crucify your own colleague on the cross of public opinion!

OK, maybe I don't really believe all of this, but it is my gut reaction.  I hate professionalism, because I think it's a clever facade that helps people get away with having a lack of integrity.


General Off-Topic Board / Re: Anti-semitic potpourri bag?!
« on: December 17, 2004, 07:35:41 AM »
What the heck is WRONG with people at my school?

Right before I enter work today, I take a quick scan of the bulletin board outside our office and notice a cute little hand-made potpourri bag pinned to the board.  In glittery glue blue and green letters it reads:

"I know what a Jew is.  Someone who killed our LORD."

Okay, WTF?  Someone went through all the trouble of hand-stitching a potpourri bag and then glitter-glueing that phrase on it?

It's finals week, and people STILL have enough time on their hands to do stupid darn like that.

So, this is the least threatening thing that could've shown up on our bulletin board, but it's getting tiresome, since Jewish professors in our department have been getting anti-Semitic literature in the mail (one even got two videos), and last August, a group of older people (who apparently didn't go to our school even) cornered one of the Hebrew teachers in her office and started harassing her.

Now that's scary.  But a potpourri bag with glitter glue?  Not so much.  People are stupid.  :-\

/end mini, cold pill induced rant.

Could you explain to me how this is different than the blockbuster movie, "The Passion"? It is a central tenet of Christianity that we are responsible for killing JC. There is no ambiguity as far as the scripture is concerned. Naturally anyone who believes that the scriptures are divine will follow also this teaching. Sometimes it appears in a backpack, sometimes in movies, sometimes in people's comments, etc..

Not to get all theological on your ass or anything, but that's not a central tenet of Christianity.  The central tenet of Christianity, around which the entire faith revolves, is the concept that God so loved us that he sent his son into this world to be an atoning sacrifice for the sins of all who will accept the sacrifice.  Furthemore, Jesus had to die because it was part of the plan of salvation, there was no other way, so the Jews are not to blame.  It is true that Jews killed Jesus, yet they're not responsible for his death; it had to happen.  Instead, ALL humanity is responsible for his death.  Through our sins, we made his death necessary for our salvation.  So any and all anti-Semitism in Christianity relating to Jesus' death is a misconstruction of what his death means in Christian thought.  It doesn't make any sense to blame Jews for it, because ultimately we're all responsible for his death on the cross. 

Besides, even if you were to hold "Jews" responsible, it would obviously be only those Jews who lived then, not Jews today, and at that only the Jews that specifically killed him (as, you'll recall, most of his early followers were also Jews). 

On top of this, Jesus forgave the Jews from the cross that killed him.  "Father, forgive them, for the know not what they do".  And in his death, that forgiveness was extended to all of us for our sins, contingent upon our acceptance of it.

So basically, anti-Semitic Christian misunderstand the most central tenet of their faith.  I would argue that these people aren't really true Christians, if they don't even understand what the death of Jesus meant from a Christian standpoint.  Of course, that's an assessment for every person to seek his or her heart and find true of false.  I am not the judge, God is. 


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 586