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 - 2 young 2 be in debt

Pages: [1]

Don't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,,33732.0.html

As I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it! ;)

Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner  - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?

Meria, in all due respect, I'm trying to think what is it that you're really thinking?! You say, "it's 'just' that he does not go with women" - I mean, what's that supposed to mean - for this kind of thing, going with women really matters!

Just take a look at the date the electronic article was posted on BBC - more than 10 years ago - doesn't that make you think they're not making their "best efforts" on that?!

spillover - as the other poster advised you, I think you should be more careful and try to maintain the boundaries a lil' bit better - you can't go ahead and try to put people down just like that!

Current Law Students / Re: Psychopath attorneys
« on: January 15, 2012, 12:07:24 AM »

[...] People have no rights and he, the psychopath, has no obligations that derive from the "social contract." The psychopath holds himself to be above conventional morality and the law. The psychopath cannot delay gratification. He wants everything and wants it now. His whims, urges, catering to his needs, and the satisfaction of his drives take precedence over the needs, preferences, and emotions of even his nearest and dearest.

Consequently, psychopaths feel no remorse when they hurt or defraud others. They don't possess even the most rudimentary conscience. They rationalize their (often criminal) behavior and intellectualize it. Psychopaths fall prey to their own primitive defense mechanisms (such as narcissism, splitting, and projection). [...] The psychopath projects his own vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and shortcomings unto others and force them to behave the way he expects them to (this defense mechanism is known as "projective identification") [...]

As to the mechanism you mention - I have read about a similar concept in social psychology - that of self-fulfilling prophecy, a process in which we find confirmation and proof for our stereotypes by creating stereotypical behavior in out-group members through our treatment of them. Word, Zanna & Cooper in 1974 conducted a set of experiments that shows such. In the first study, they asked white students to interview job applicants who were either white or black. The students tended to display discomfort when interviewing the blacks; for instance, they sat further away, stammered, and ended the interview earlier. In a second study, the researchers varied the behavior of the student interviewers so that the latter acted towards a job applicant either the way that the interviewers had acted towards whites or the way they had acted towards blacks in the first study. They found that those applicants who had been interviewed in the way that blacks had been interviewed were judged to be more nervous and less effective than the others.

Great post, Violet Bear!

My dear Figaro - I'm sorry but Violet Bear's post can not be that "great," for the fact that it refers to an experimental study of dubious value - I was reading the other day Leon Festinger's experimental study on cognitive dissonance and I could not help but be skeptical of his method and assumptions. Here it is for y'all to draw your own conclusions, in case mines appear not persuasive enough to ya :)

In Festinger's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favor. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an actor/confederate) trying to persuade them that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (inflation adjusted to 2010, equating to $150) for this favor, while another group was paid $1 ($7.50 in 2010 dollars) - the control group was not asked to perform the favor at all.

After someone has performed dissonant behavior, they may find external consonant elements. Par exemple, a snake oil salesman may find a justification for promoting falsehoods (let's say, a large personal gain) - but may otherwise need to change his views about the falsehoods themselves.

When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups.

This was explained by Festinger as evidence for Cognitive Dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, experienced less dissonance, thus did not force themselves to internalize.

Current Law Students / Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
« on: January 15, 2012, 12:06:06 AM »

Here it is the post by kaps I was talking about - I'm posting two screenshots as the original thread has been suspended

Which posts, L Liberti, the ones commenting on the anal thing? These ones?


Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. [...]

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. [...]

[...] In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind, an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavored to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome. Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires.

So basically,

money = * & ^ %
capitalism = anal

Wow - it's unbelievable how much you learn on these boards!

For the sake of truth, there's more to the story, appropriate! When anality becomes a perversion in an individual it can result in a danger to that individual, and as a cultural phenomenon, to humanity. There is a clearly defined link between the anal-sadistic phase of sexuality and cruelty. An "instinct of cruelty" appears in Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," stating that there is an intimate connection between cruelty and the sexual instinct; whether active or passive, it also stems from the drive for mastery. Like mastery, cruelty involves the use of the object simply as a means of satisfaction. Sadism involves a pleasure derived from the object's suffering. The deriving of sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.

After the introduction of the death drive in 1920, the drive for cruelty gave way to the "destructive drive," understood as an external deflection of the death drive and described as aggressive when directed at objects. If it is taken up by the ego, the ego itself becomes cruel or sadistic. The ego then risks not only losing the object's love but also being subjected to the reprimands of the Superego. This agency, which equates with moral conscience, can demonstrate an extreme cruelty, according to the need for aggression aroused by present/past frustrations. Rebellious by nature towards what is nevertheless the necessary process of civilization, the human being is always able to display a "cruel aggressiveness" if circumstances allow it.

Contempt, indifference towards the object, cruelty, as well as false emblems of masculinity, faceless bureaucracy, violence, torture, the jackboot and the whip. Freud described the psychosexual development of the child, how he progresses from the anal-sadistic phase to the phallic (genital) one, at the end of which the Oedipus complex finds resolution. It is the smashing/destruction, a developmental arrest at the anal-sadistic phase, as opposed to resolution of the Oedipus complex, that characterizes Western culture.

Current Law Students / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: January 14, 2012, 11:59:34 PM »

First of all, let me address the issue of a possible "set-up" that several people mentioned to me when discussing this case. They argue that it was because they wanted Craig to resign, why they used his being gay (the rumor was circulating for years) to make him give up the Senate spot. They talk about Karsia (the undercover police officer who arrested him) being on the take as a Democratic operative, and that what happened was an elaborate plan, with Craig being set up in a carefully studied operation. If that's the case, please apply what I'll be saying about Craig's case specifically to plain gay guys who get busted all too often for this kind of thing.

That said, as an Italian woman, having been in the States for a while, I found Craig's arrest scandalous. Not that I feel sorry for Craig, who was a hypocrite having had voted consistently against gay people's rights. After all, Craig probably considered himself to be "straight," just having a quickie with a stranger miles and miles away from home, something that hardly made him gay.

What is appalling to me is the actual arrest procedure, the kind of thing that happens everyday to gay people in this country. According to the police report, the incident began with Craig's peering into the Karsia's stall several times through the crack in the door. Then, Craig entered the stall to the left of Karsia's and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door. Once seated, Craig tapped his right foot - a signal, according to the police report, used by people wishing to engage in lewd conduct. After Karsia moved his own foot up and down (LOL!) - Craig, moved his right foot so that it touched the side of Karsia's left foot under the stall divider. Craig also swiped his left hand under the stall 3 times before Karsia held his badge down by the floor so Craig could see it.

Now, to me, this whole story is a nightmare of out-of-control police. Craig was simply the innocent victim of a banal set-up by the MN airport police - one that Joseph Stalin would have admired. There was no sex act of any kind. The idiotic cop - who appears to spend his entire work day sitting on a toilet in smelly airport bathrooms - walks him off, provokes him, and arrests him for lewd conduct. All this for tapping his foot in a public bathroom. This is insane! 

In my country - as it is also the case in other European countries - sex sting operations utilizing undercover police officers are illegal. Such an operation would be considered entrapment by the police, enough reason to drop the case per se. (Funny how these officers actually believe they are not themselves gay - to them, spending a few minutes peeking at gay men hardly makes them gay - after all, they are there to bust gay guys, not have fun with them!).

The other thing that irks me is the way the GOP tossed Craig overboard as if he were a terrorist. Even if turned out that Craig was gay, so what?! There are a lots of fine gay public servants. His party should have been rallying in his defense, not make him walk the plank. In Europe printing in media the sex stories of politicians is frowned upon - let alone taking stories of this kind to court!

So much for SuperFace!

Don't be so scandalized, Italian woman! In this country everyone is so uptight about sex - I remember some years ago when Jay Leno commented on how the video games industry changed the ratings of the game "Grand Theft Auto" to an adult-only rating after pressure from media watch dog groups and politicians because the game had hidden sexual content. Politicians felt the sex would have a negative effect on the children.

Apparently, a game when you're stealing cars and killing cops is okay - it's the sex we're worried about.

Pages: [1]