T14 vs the top 15-25. Just how big is the difference? Forum

[kcdc1]

Found it funny, would ask Chad to move off-campus.

[Tempo]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

Okay I'll bite:

The idea that a word should stand on its own as a logically valid claim is nonsensical.
A word is not a claim. A claim is a proposition with a truth value. Words do not have truth values. "Banana" has no truth value. "Bananas are yellow" is a claim that has a truth value.

A word is not valid/invalid. Arguments are valid/invalid. The word "banana" is not valid nor invalid. A syllogism about bananas is valid or invalid.

I don't even know how to address the idea of a word being logical. What does an illogical word look like? I have no idea.

[rpupkin]

Okay I'll bite:

The idea that a word should stand on its own as a logically valid claim is nonsensical.
A word is not a claim. A claim is a proposition with a truth value. Words do not have truth values. "Banana" has no truth value. "Bananas are yellow" is a claim that has a truth value.

A word is not valid/invalid. Arguments are valid/invalid. The word "banana" is not valid nor invalid. A syllogism about bananas is valid or invalid.

I don't even know how to address the idea of a word being logical. What does an illogical word look like? I have no idea.

For those of you who suggested that "158" was too high, this is why Chad's troll--while far from elite--is above the national troll median.

[Tempo]

Okay I'll bite:

The idea that a word should stand on its own as a logically valid claim is nonsensical.
A word is not a claim. A claim is a proposition with a truth value. Words do not have truth values. "Banana" has no truth value. "Bananas are yellow" is a claim that has a truth value.

A word is not valid/invalid. Arguments are valid/invalid. The word "banana" is not valid nor invalid. A syllogism about bananas is valid or invalid.

I don't even know how to address the idea of a word being logical. What does an illogical word look like? I have no idea.

For those of you who suggested that "158" was too high, this is why Chad's troll--while far from elite--is above the national troll median.

I think calling him an above average troll for roping ME in is either giving my intelligence too much credit or his.

[oidsedidy]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

too long; didn't read

Is the above statement logically valid? It is at least the truth in and of itself.

You really aren't very funny, you know that

I wonder if this is a question or a statement

Fwiw, I still feel vindicated.

[Informative]

If you want big law, the following schools are the best for big law placement outside of the T14 (% of class in BL):

Vandy: 47%
UCLA: 45%
UT: 42%
Boston C: 41%
Notre Dame: 40%
USC: 38%
GW: 35%
Fordham: 35%

It is a pretty big drop off from the T14, but you have a shot.

[hopefuljumbo23]

If you want big law, the following schools are the best for big law placement outside of the T14 (% of class in BL):

Vandy: 47%
UCLA: 45%
UT: 42%
Boston C: 41%
Notre Dame: 40%
USC: 38%
GW: 35%
Fordham: 35%

It is a pretty big drop off from the T14, but you have a shot.

Wow, someone who actually responded to the OP. I didn't realize Vandy's % was almost at 50. That's pretty legit.

Also, props to the OP for (albeit, unknowingly) creating a hilarious thread.