Yale 1L Taking Questions Forum

[Ioannis]

sex is pretty awesome, i'm not sure why you feel all high and mighty and worthy of condemning people for just having sex. It's pretty natural.
sorry for derailing, I just hate that mentality.

Let me begin by noting your clearly invalid move from the supposed naturalness of sex-having to its moral acceptability. Murder, rape, gambling, and rap music may very well be natural to the human condition, but obviously no rational person would conclude that they are therefore morally appropriate.

Beyond your logical failing, though, is your factual error in supposing that everyone who condemns sex-having deems himself to be "high and mighty." I am no saint. There are times when I am more Dionysius than Apollo--days when my appetite gets the better of my intellect. You presumably don't deem yourself "high and mighty" when you deign to condemn murders and thieves, do you?

Sex is an agreement between two (or maybe more) people to do something that does no harm. I'm talking about consensual sex. You can not lump that with murder and rape.
You assumed a position of the high and mighty when you condemned something that does not violate the (positive version) golden rule of morals, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
You could argue that sex leads to std spread/unwanted reproduction, but we have means to test/prevent those ends.
Looks like there's nothing immoral about (protected or planned unprotected) consensual sex.

[JLin179]

sex is pretty awesome, i'm not sure why you feel all high and mighty and worthy of condemning people for just having sex. It's pretty natural.
sorry for derailing, I just hate that mentality.

Let me begin by noting your clearly invalid move from the supposed naturalness of sex-having to its moral acceptability. Murder, rape, gambling, and rap music may very well be natural to the human condition, but obviously no rational person would conclude that they are therefore morally appropriate.

Beyond your logical failing, though, is your factual error in supposing that everyone who condemns sex-having deems himself to be "high and mighty." I am no saint. There are times when I am more Dionysius than Apollo--days when my appetite gets the better of my intellect. You presumably don't deem yourself "high and mighty" when you deign to condemn murders and thieves, do you?

Sex is an agreement between two people to do something that does no harm. I'm talking about consensual sex. You can not lump that with murder and rape.
You assumed a position of the high and mighty when you condemned something that does not violate the (positive version) golden rule of morals, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
You could argue that sex leads to std spread/unwanted reproduction, but we have means to test/prevent those ends.
Looks like there's nothing immoral about (protected or planned unprotected) consensual sex.

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

[xkcd09]

How do students usually pick classes? Is there a tool where you can see past course evaluations on the difficulty/lecture quality/etc. of classes and professors?

[JLin179]

How do students usually pick classes? Is there a tool where you can see past course evaluations on the difficulty/lecture quality/etc. of classes and professors?

There's an online registration system that favors 3Ls over 2Ls and 2Ls over 1Ls for classes you need to bid on. Generally most black-letter law classes are open enrollment and the smaller seminars and clinics are the ones you bid on. There are course evaluations online with numerical rankings for different categories like reading load, professor quality, usefulness of class time, etc. You can really find out a lot about specific professors through word of mouth, though.

[PKozi]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

[arewehavingfunyet]

I, for one, hope this is all one elaborate joke.

[Elston Gunn]

I am so confused by this thread...

[JLin179]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself kiddo. I wasn't aware that thoroughly dominating arguments dealing with complex problems of law and morality made one an "insufferable prick." If you have the intellectual firepower to parry my thrust, hop on in. The water's plenty warm.

[BEAST_mode]

God, this thread is so fucking disappoint.

[tgir]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself kiddo. I wasn't aware that thoroughly dominating arguments dealing with complex problems of law and morality made one an "insufferable prick." If you have the intellectual firepower to parry my thrust, hop on in. The water's plenty warm.

Another 1L here.

JLin is obviously entitled to his/her opinion.

That said, for prospective YLS 0L's who are turned off by JLin's comments, worry not; people like JLin are a tiny (if not altogether invisible) minority at YLS. I'm also not entirely convinced that this whole thing isn't a hoax....

[WhiteGuy5]

God, this thread is so fucking disappoint.

Actually, it has exceeded expectations.

[Indifferent]

Need to get me some sweet sex-having.

[descartesb4thehorse]

Retake; ED Regent.

[Stanford4Me]

NOVA!

[JLin179]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself kiddo. I wasn't aware that thoroughly dominating arguments dealing with complex problems of law and morality made one an "insufferable prick." If you have the intellectual firepower to parry my thrust, hop on in. The water's plenty warm.

Another 1L here.

JLin is obviously entitled to his/her opinion.

That said, for prospective YLS 0L's who are turned off by JLin's comments, worry not; people like JLin are a tiny (if not altogether invisible) minority at YLS. I'm also not entirely convinced that this whole thing isn't a hoax....

Conversely, if you are turned on by my comments, don't think that YLS is as inhospitable as you might think. I plan on trying to develop a "Contraception Access" Clinic that will work towards the re-criminalization of birth control. After all, if you don't dream big, what's the use of dreaming? We must be the change we wish to see in the world.

[Davidbentley]

While I am still holding out hope for a Yale acceptance, I must say that my exposure to Yale's representation on the internet (the vapid students on this board, the grossly off-putting admissions staff) makes me believe that New Haven produces simply awful people.

[tronredo]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself kiddo. I wasn't aware that thoroughly dominating arguments dealing with complex problems of law and morality made one an "insufferable prick." If you have the intellectual firepower to parry my thrust, hop on in. The water's plenty warm.

JLIN, is this whole thing your skit for the Yale law revue. You sound like a comedian.

[Davidbentley]

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

0Ls rejoice, insufferable pricks await!

You better check yourself before you wreck yourself kiddo. I wasn't aware that thoroughly dominating arguments dealing with complex problems of law and morality made one an "insufferable prick." If you have the intellectual firepower to parry my thrust, hop on in. The water's plenty warm.

JLIN, is this whole thing your skit for the Yale law revue. You sound like a comedian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[freestallion]

I'm still pretty sure this thread is a joke. I can't believe anyone at Yale would be like this

[Mce252]

sex is pretty awesome, i'm not sure why you feel all high and mighty and worthy of condemning people for just having sex. It's pretty natural.
sorry for derailing, I just hate that mentality.

Let me begin by noting your clearly invalid move from the supposed naturalness of sex-having to its moral acceptability. Murder, rape, gambling, and rap music may very well be natural to the human condition, but obviously no rational person would conclude that they are therefore morally appropriate.

Beyond your logical failing, though, is your factual error in supposing that everyone who condemns sex-having deems himself to be "high and mighty." I am no saint. There are times when I am more Dionysius than Apollo--days when my appetite gets the better of my intellect. You presumably don't deem yourself "high and mighty" when you deign to condemn murders and thieves, do you?

Sex is an agreement between two people to do something that does no harm. I'm talking about consensual sex. You can not lump that with murder and rape.
You assumed a position of the high and mighty when you condemned something that does not violate the (positive version) golden rule of morals, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself".
You could argue that sex leads to std spread/unwanted reproduction, but we have means to test/prevent those ends.
Looks like there's nothing immoral about (protected or planned unprotected) consensual sex.

Sir,

You seem to misunderstand my point. Your moral defense of sex-havers relied on the "naturalness" of their conduct. This reason is clearly insufficient to support your conclusion because there is no necessary connection between naturalness and moral acceptability. There are activities (killing people, wearing suggestive clothing, cohabitation) that fall within the set of things we may deem "natural" that we obviously would not want to place within the set of things bearing the label "morally appropriate."

I am not clear on why you think the Golden Rule vindicates the appropriateness of sex-having. I don't want to sex-have with others, so I won't have them sex-have with me. If all moral condemnation necessarily fails according to the Golden Rule, then it seems to be a self-defeating standard. If your argument is that condemning things that aren't morally wrong violates the Golden Rule, then I'm with you. But then you beg the question by assuming that sex-having isn't morally wrong.

I would supply you with a prestigious argument for why sex-having--pre-marital, marital, extra-marital--is always and everywhere morally wrong. But it would involve such complex and sophisticated logical moves and complicated words that it would simply be bound to confuse and frustrate.

I would love to hear this argument. I am actually enjoying this thread.

[JLin179]

I'm still pretty sure this thread is a joke. I can't believe anyone at Yale would be like this

Surely no one able to develop such powerful and cogent analyses of the pressing legal problems of our day would attend the Yale Law School

BELIEVE, stallion. Believe.

[JLin179]

New Haven produces simply awful people.

Sir,

You misspelled "awesome." Hope you proofread your 250 more than your poasts.

[Guchster]

Wondering when mods will lay down the ban hammer ITT, or even lock it, considering this is supposed to be an on-topic school-specific thread.

[WhiteGuy5]

I'm still pretty sure this thread is a joke. I can't believe anyone at Yale would be like this

Surely no one able to develop such powerful and cogent analyses of the pressing legal problems of our day would attend the Yale Law School

BELIEVE, stallion. Believe.

I think people are slightly skeptical of someone who is against sex-having.

But your opposition to blowjobs pretty much crosses the line. Don't people get banned for that?

[JLin179]

Wondering when mods will lay down the ban hammer ITT, or even lock it, considering this is supposed to be an on-topic school-specific thread.

Sir,

You make an excellent argument. It's unfortunate that my compelling moral views have distracted the board from the raison d'etre of this thread.

That said, does anybody have any other questions on the mysterious the Yale Law School?