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 - Alecto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: God doesn't like Lawyers
« on: May 29, 2008, 03:21:54 PM »
my dearest Alton, this thread was hijacked by some overly-serious champion of religions, and I think we are all feeling a little on the defensive as we try to right what was supposed to be a light-hearted discussion about an article.


1)  Making discriminatory statements about people based on their religious views is innappropriate and shouldn't be celebrated as a light hearted joke
2)  Religion appears to now be okay to ridicule, while other, old targets are now beyond the pale.
Believe me, if this post was about how black people, gay people, women, or any other group was more prone to fail out of law school due to an inability to reason, I would have posted just the same.
You are preparing to be lawyers.  As such, I feel that you should represent yourself better than making fun of people because they believe in god.

I really have trouble finding where people did this (things mentioned above).  I don't think it's out of line for a poster to muse on whether or not people who profess strong religious beliefs might have, in fact, spent a significant amount of time praying for good grades.  Strongly religious people usually do a lot of praying and do, often, pray for certain outcomes or guidance, etc.  If you perceive the early posts to fall into those categories above, then I think you arrived at this site looking to pick a fight.  If that's not the case, then it seems that you automatically assume we are all anti-religion, and you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

Then let me help you understand.
The OP made fun of people who failed out, and joked that they did so because they are irrational and prayed too much instead of studying.  This is a bigoted statement, born out of an attempt at humor yet still telling.
Yes, religious people pray.  Did it ever occur to you that those prayers are not a substitute for hard work and studying?
Nah.  You're right.  Nothing is offensive unless it offends you.
And to those who make the cheap argument about CHOICE of religion vs. choice of gender, you miss the point.
Yes, people choose to be religious.  But that doesn't make it fair game to make fun of them.
My point wasn't about 'choice' it was about manners.
You can continue to excuse bad behavior all you like.
As I said before, you intend to become attorney's.  Attorney's, in my opinion, have degraded their perceived value in society.  You can continue this trend by laughing at others with whom you share very little, or you can try to think a little and realize that your actions, including your 'jokes', reflect on all of us.
Me personally?  I think it is a sad day when law students get together to make fun of people's religion, especially in a nation where religion is constitutionally protected.
You don't get it?  Then you never will.
I hope you enjoy being censured as an attorney when you make a crack that you think is funny but offends others.

If you really want to be an attorney, then I suggest you develop a thicker skin.  I imagine the disciplinary committee is similar to a judge, in that it does not appreciate frivolous complaints.  Save your breath for an attorney that is being unethical, not one that just has poor taste in jokes.  I am beginning to wonder, however, if you do want to be an attorney, or if you're just some a@@hole troll, b/c you keep commenting about how "you" want to be attorneys, not how "we" want to be attorneys.  Maybe you're just too good to lump yourselves in with the rest of us?  And by the way, it's "attorneys" not "attorney's."  Inappropriate use of the possessive apostrophe really irks me.

I have a friend who is a terrorism analyst and has said blankly that if we pull out from Iraq now, in 15 years, or 100 years the result will be exactly the same. 

Seriously, haven't most successful revolutions been successful because the people were ready for it and demanded change?  I feel like in Iraq there are not enough people really ready for a change.  It seems like this "democracy" or whatever they're trying to set up has been foisted on them and so they're not going to able to make it work.  Trust me, I don't really like the situation over there, and I think people should have more freedom and opportunities, but I also don't think it's my place to tell them that they have to have democracy, and I don't recall any major outcries from the populace, begging to be "liberated."  Try to take out bin Laden and Al Qaeda?  Sure, they're terrorists and criminals who want to attack people all over the world.  Destabilize an entire region (killing thousands of soldiers from many nations and innocent civilians in the process) when the (oppressed) aren't ready to rise up and form their own government? Uhhh, I think that decision is not so clear-cut.  Not that Saddam didn't have it coming, but maybe a better, more thoughtful course of action could have been investigated.

MP, Jr., thanks for those websites!

Should a candidate be allowed to ignore Wyomings needs and desires merely because fewer people live there? Without the electoral college, this is exactly the problem.
More aptly put, California, Texas, and New York would have the power to swing elections against the will of the rest of the country, making this less of a democracy than we have as is.  What we don't need, as a nation, is to put the power of the more populace states above the responsibility that the President has to the entire nation.

I think you're underestimating the similarities of people across the nation.  We all need basically the same things: financial security, physical security, opportunities for a good education, affordable access to healthcare, an environment that won't be detrimental to our health . . . .  Whether a person lives in rural Wyoming or NYC, he's still going to need a job to support himself, government services for things like roads and police, schools for his kids, etc.  Now, I know the nature of a person's needs might differ based on whether that person lives in a rural environment or a city, however, I think there are enough rural people throughout the nation that (if they vote) the voice of Wyoming won't be drowned out.  There are enough city-dwellers and suburbanites that if they hall vote, their various blocs will be heard.  My point is that I think the farmer in Wyoming has more in common with the farmer in Indiana than with the whole state of Wyoming.  The city-dweller in NYC probably has more in common with the city-dweller in Chicago than he does with the dairy-farmer in up-state New York.  The federal government (and president) need to look out for the nation as a whole.  I personally don't feel that the electoral college system achieves that purpose. 

The whole process is very confusing (pre-engagement -> engagement -> marriage) from a symbolic standpoint. I don't mean, 'what does this symbolize?', but when do the symbols get normally discussed (if at all), etc. I need a damn FAQ!

I will marry the girl I am with now and I do not know when I am going to propose. Neither of us are ready to tie the knot, though we do easily talk about marriage and both see it as where we are headed relatively soon. I don't know if it's faux-pas to discuss a ring before, or shop for it before, or what. To me it makes sense to surprise her at some point with a cracker jack ring and then, once she says yes, to go and shop for a ring. The hell if I know if this makes any sense. Hell, why does it even have to make sense?

Ok, I'll take pity on you.  First of all, from my experience, promise ring = kiss of death.  Just don't go there.  As far as actually popping the question goes, if you know you're headed towards marriage in the relatively near future, you might as well just go for it.  Honestly, do you know how long it takes to plan a wedding these days?  Most brides book everything up a year in advance!  With regard to the actual logistics, it entirely depends on her personality.  Is she a very traditional, surprise-proposal-at-a-fancy-restaurant kind of girl?  Would she want something more private?  And then, there are ring issues.  If a ring is really important to her, her friends and female family members will know.  They'll also know how big it should be, what cut it should be, whether she wants yellow gold, white gold, or platinum, and the general style.  If a ring is not really important to her (and a lot of women would rather you saved the money for a downpayment on a house) her friends will probably know that as well.  If she wants a little ring or a less traditional ring, I would say you're better off proposing either empty-handed or with a goofy stand-in (onion ring anyone?) and then picking one out together.  Good luck!


As far as I can tell, the electoral college still works as designed.  Why should states with higher populations have a vastly larger share of voting power?

Wait, maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but doesn't the electoral vote actually encourage weighting by state?  If you go with the popular vote, then each person's vote carries the same weight, right?  Like, being from Indiana I would always get discouraged during elections b/c our state is usually one of the first to declare (republican).  If we went with the popular vote, then my ballot would actually matter.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: K-12: Public or Private School?
« on: May 28, 2008, 06:25:48 PM »
oh man that really blows my mind

sorry, I think my brain has decided to quit work early today. 

with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.

what about deciding via the popular vote?

Popular vote is only good when deciding issues like Gay Marriage.  It should never be used to pick a president.

what are your reasons for that opinion?

with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.

what about deciding via the popular vote?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19