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 - Dillon

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46
1
RC w/ $, biotech (had 28 qs) was experimental.  I too was like WTF!!!! beyond that it was great :)

2
General Off-Topic Board / Re: something I'd never propose in public...
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:46:02 PM »
This is by far the most appalling thread I have read on this LSD and Jenny you are awesome!

3
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Online Law Schools
« on: November 09, 2004, 07:06:15 AM »
get off my back cunnus!

4
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Things that are hard to say when you're drunk
« on: November 08, 2004, 09:25:36 PM »
woman's rugby, but the butchs would beat him to a pulp...

5
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Things that are hard to say when you're drunk
« on: November 08, 2004, 09:17:31 PM »
He must have a very small penis ;D

6
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Things that are hard to say when you're drunk
« on: November 08, 2004, 09:16:26 PM »
that's really a freakshow of a picture, isn't it?

He's the guy who's going to coach girls' soccer at age 45 with really short shorts so his nuts hang out-

Anybody else see that kinda thing happening?

Reminds me of your quote about staring into the camera and... ;)

8
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Do you support polygamous marriage? -- poll
« on: November 08, 2004, 08:43:44 PM »
It is quite humorous to see people posting on something which they know nothing about.  Reminds me of Monte Python (buy an argument)!

Why can't we be three? (CSNY) the reality of it is not even comparable to marriage.  The dynamics are so different and dynamic within themselves.  It is ever changing and not static... I have rarely seen it work even though I have no problem with it.  The complexities are quite difficult to overcome even for the most determined.  But why should people be told who they can or cannot be with?  Who cares?  Marriage is not necessary for those interested.  The lack of the legal contract can be compensated via Power of Attorneys, joint tenancies(right to survivorship ), trusts, coops... there are tools which already exist which make it possible to meet the needs of those so inclined.

Dillon, unfortunately, you are wrong.  Yes, some of the tools exist to allow people who are not legally married to have some of the same rights as those who are, but not for every right.  I don't know why this is always the first thing to pop into my mind, but the right to sue on the behalf of a spouse for wrongful death is something that someone who is not married can never do.  Many people don't have time or money to be going through the legal procedures for powers of attorney and trusts and things.  Some people, unfortunately, have terrible accidents that are quite unexpected, before they've had a chance to do these things.  And again, not every right offered to married people is possible for those who aren't married.

I agree; compensation is not complete.  But imagine a divorce between three or more people or the annexation of one party to a marriage?

I believe more rights need to be extended to domestic partnership.  I had a domestic partner and it is a very simple and efficient tool.  I like it a lot!  

Right to survivorship is simple.  You buy a home as joint tenants and the survivor(s) is/are the owners absent from the process of probate.  Very simple!

Power of Attorney is fine for medical needs and is used all of the time for adults and children alike.  Go to a stationary store and buy one, fill it out and sign it in front of a notary… very simple and painless.  No need for an attorney!

Trusts are more complicated.  But if you have something then you should use it.  If you do not have anything/much then use a will.  Again, go to a stationary store and buy one and fill the F#$king thing out and notarize… Simple!

The big problems are visitation at hospitals and the right to sue.  That is a problem and needs to be resolved.

It should be noted that many polyamorous groups have a primary relationship and there is often a dynamic which supersedes another.  Therefore, primary lovers can always get married and then extend their family if they so choose which is often the case.  I am not going to get into Mormonism because it is the men married to all of the women and the women are not really married to each other.  So in my book that is polygamy and not polyamory.  

To tell you the truth, when I posted my position (of being opposed to polygamy) I never intended to argue whether or not it should be legal or illegal.

*snip*

Given my information, I would vote against the legalization of polygamy if I was given a vote on such athing.

So you do in fact believe that polygamy should remain illegal. And yet again, you have contradicted your own words.

No, I just think many polygamists are lame and polyamorous folks are good people.  Although, I did know one cool polygamist.  He had 5 wives and wanted my partner to be the next one.  Besides that, he was cool for a Mormon.  But that is in the subculture of Missoula, MT... not very representative of the world.

9
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Things that are hard to say when you're drunk
« on: November 08, 2004, 08:27:58 PM »
Hey Lipper, are you going to start a new thread "lookwhois Gay"?


seriously dude, put some pants on!

10
It is not just biological evolution that poses challenges to traditional Christian views, scientific understanding of cosmological evolution also raises issues for people of faith. According to the Book of Genesis, God created the universe - and all the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, and the stars - in six days. But according to contemporary cosmologists the universe began with a great explosion known as the Big Bang, after which the stars and galaxies slowly formed over billions of years. Just as Darwin proposed that the evolution of life was a long, slow, and gradual process, so cosmologists now believe that our universe evolves by long slow processes.

Yet if the biblical account and the scientific account don't match up in all their details, there are many parallels. Perhaps most importantly, both suggest that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite amount of time ago. Indeed, many contemporary religious believers see the Big Bang as providing confirmation for the Christian notion of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Interestingly, when evidence of the Big Bang was first discovered in the late 1920's (with Edwin Hubble’s finding that the universe was expanding), many scientists rejected the idea because they thought it smacked of religion. If the universe had a beginning they felt, then it must have had a creator. But that would be unscientific. At the time, the prevailing view was that the universe had existed in much the same state forever and that it therefore had no beginning.

Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding put paid to this static vision of the universe and suggested that the cosmos had a definite starting moment. Moreover, this view was supported by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which provided a beautiful set of equations to describe how a universe could arise out of nothing. Ironically, the tables have now been turned with some scientists today arguing that the Big Bang demonstrates that the universe came into being by purely natural processes needing no supernatural power.

This view has been expressed most famously by the English physicist Stephen Hawking. In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", Hawking suggested that if current cosmological theories turn out to be true then the creation of the universe will have been completely explained by the laws of physics. In that case, Hawking asks, what role would there be for a creator?

But again, where Hawking sees science as writing God out of the picture, others take a different view. Physicist Paul Davies, for example, has written that the beauty and order of the laws of physics themselves suggests there must be something behind those laws, something driving the mathematical beauty and order in the universe. Likewise physicists John Polkinghorn and John Barrow believe the incredibly finely balanced mathematical order of the universe suggests there must be some kind of intelligent force responsible. Stephen Hawking himself has associated God with the laws of physics. In particular, he and Davies have associated God with a so-called "theory of everything" - a single theory that physicists hope will one day unite general relativity with quantum mechanics, thereby bringing the entire universe under one grand mathematical umbrella. This theory is a major goal of contemporary theoretical physics, and it is this which Hawking has famously linked to "the mind of God". Perhaps more than any other science, cosmology is a case where one can either see God reflected in the picture, or not. In the end, science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. More often than not, the scientific evidence can be read either way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 46