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 - Infinity

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 22, 2006, 09:45:27 AM »
"Message (apparently from a TA?) about Weinreb's crim class:

"The class will meet on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, from 8:50 to 10:15 in Pound 107.

For the first class, on Tuesday, September 5, please read Chavez (p. 1), Singleton (p. 7), and pp. 9-21 in Weinreb, Criminal Law (7th ed.)"


What exactly are Chavez and Singleton? Supplemental readings from somewhere?

I'm guessing they're cases at the start of the book (so basically read pages 1-21 is how i understand it)

2
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 16, 2006, 01:07:17 PM »
Ah, I mistyped. I am in section 3. I do remember that you and everyone else is in section 2, but I don't remember seeing anyone else in seciton 3.

I'm in section 3, as well as Infinity, but due to my irregular LSD participation I don't actually know either of you.  :)

Unfortunately I just looked at myplan again and it now says crim is at 8:50 too, so it looks like we will be having early morning classes, oh well.  I suppose I'll see you all bright and early....

3
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 15, 2006, 06:06:36 PM »
Does anyone else have discrepancies between the schedule posted on the registrar's site and the one in myplan?  I'm in section 3 and though it says that I have crim with Weinreb 8:50-10:15 MTW on the registrar's site, on myplan it says 3:00-4:25 MTW.  I'm sincerely hoping it's the latter.

4
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 14, 2006, 05:22:46 PM »
Hmm... I can't get in.  Is that login/pswd the same as for email, or is it something else?

(And is it just me, or does it seem like there are way too many different username and password combinations required by HLS?  I can't keep them all straight.)

You can also try to access it from here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/

Just click on "course evaluations" on the right.  I'm guessing it does require password or pin since it's an internal site.

5
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 14, 2006, 05:04:09 PM »
Found link for the rest of the professors in the sections.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/registrar/2006-07/1L_site_06-07/menu1L.htm

ooh super helpful thanks!  i'm a little dismayed as i hoped i'd have warren (based on last year's section 3 faculty and the fact that she is like the supreme being of the socratic method) but que sera.  i'm also a little disheartened by the somewhat dry ip class taught by weinreb that bass and i attended during the asw, plus the fact that he banned laptops in that class, but hey crim law is one of the more "fun" areas and it's inevitable that there will be a non-laptop class in my future, eh?

not to sound totally lame, but does anyone have like a good resource for finding out info on particular profs' teaching styles etc?


You can see student evaluations of the professors here, including one question on what their style is (socratic with no passing, socratic with passing, all volunteer, etc.):

http://internal.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/bsa/pubs/

6
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: August 12, 2006, 03:50:45 PM »
Section 3 led by Joseph Singer, who teaches Property.  Thankfully, we only got 17 pages of reading.

7
Affirmative Action / Re: Why Does Affirmative Action need Justification?
« on: August 10, 2006, 05:17:18 PM »
to further your logic, why not round up all 35 million american blacks and put them in concentration camps? crime will go down. our education statistics will look better when compared to japan and europe, illegitimacy will go down, obesity will go down. what's the cost?

You're confusing "logic" with "rhetoric," and poor rhetoric at that.  If you really think that your sentence follows logically from what I said, then God help you.  Try thinking sometime, it might help.

it does. you're arguing that even if aa discriminates its okay because the ends justify the means. you could make a similar argument for detaining all blacks.

You have a very strange idea of what "ends" would be accomplished by detaining an entire race of people.  Most people, including myself, don't think that imprisoning an entire race of people could ever be an acceptable end.

Logically, just because the ends justify the means in one situation, it does not follow, as you seem to "think," that any end justifies any means.

8
Affirmative Action / Re: Why Does Affirmative Action need Justification?
« on: August 10, 2006, 05:12:26 PM »
yes, my moral lines are inflexible. there is no circumstance in which imprisoning an innocent man is morally justifiable. flexible morals are amoral.

This really isn't the place for this, but I can't resist.  Do you really think that all flexible morals are amoral?  I mean, really?

So, for instance, if, somehow, for some reason, you were put in a situation where you either had to release 10 of the 9/11 bombers (or, perhaps, 10 of these potential bombers they arrested today in London) or put an innocent man in jail for one night, you would choose the former, because the latter would be immoral?

Or have you ever stolen a grape?  Or told a harmless or mostly harmless lie?  In which case are you immoral or, as you seem to think, amoral?   If so, do your insults "immoral" and "amoral" even have any meaning anymore?  Or do they become vapid modifiers, like most swear words these days.

9
Affirmative Action / Re: Why Does Affirmative Action need Justification?
« on: August 10, 2006, 05:02:06 PM »
to further your logic, why not round up all 35 million american blacks and put them in concentration camps? crime will go down. our education statistics will look better when compared to japan and europe, illegitimacy will go down, obesity will go down. what's the cost?

You're confusing "logic" with "rhetoric," and poor rhetoric at that.  If you really think that your sentence follows logically from what I said, then God help you.  Try thinking sometime, it might help.

10
Affirmative Action / Re: Why Does Affirmative Action need Justification?
« on: August 09, 2006, 08:57:24 PM »
yes because some of us see this as a moral issue, not as a do benefits outweigh the cost issue? ever hear the old adage it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man? by any standard it's more beneficial to society to imprison the innocent man but it's morally repugnant to us. just like with affirmative action. racially based discrimination's offensiveness penetrates to the very heart of the american mainstream.

It's a simple question: would you prefer to be what you consider "morally" pristine and have a racially stratified society, or would you prefer to be "morally repugnant" and have a society with equal opportunities for all.  I'd certainly prefer the latter.  It's obviously not such a cut-and-dry issue, but that's what you would like to make it, apparently, by drawing such precise and unflexible moral lines.

But I can happily answer your example: generally speaking, I would rather set free 10 guilty men than incarcerate 1 innocent man, even if that made me, in your mind, "morally repugnant" (though I understand you don't think that, you very easily could).  Mostly, though, your analogy is ridiculous and ambiguous.  Certaintly, it is not true, as you wrongly assume, that "by any standard it's more beneficial to society to imprison the innocent man."  If you gave me specifics (which would be silly since its an unrealistic hypothetical---obviously if we knew which people were guilty or innocent we would treat them accordingly), for instance that the 10 guilty men to be set free were serial killers, or 10 of the 9/11 bombers, and the innocent man was only going to be in jail overnight, then I might very well say that it would be "morally repugnant" to free the 10 guilty people.  Or, if you said the 10 guilty men were petty theives or drug dealers, then i would prefer to set them free instead of wrongy imprisoning for decades one innocent man for some serious felony.

The point is, calling something "morally repugnant," or even deciding that something is a "moral issue" does not necessarily make it so.  Furthermore, the way you're throwing around the term "morally repugnant" without saying precsisely what is repugnant and why it is so implies that you object to AA but you don't know why, or you can't say way, which suggests the sort of fuzzy theoretical thinking I find useless when discussing concrete policy issues. 

I shouldn't have even wasted these 5 minutes responding to this post, but I already did, so I'll post it anyways.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4