Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Not only are you being intellectually dishonest Will in responding to my statements, your "I didn't have the benefit of learning civics...." is one of the points you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess they taught Biodiesel creation/usage, fuel efficiency and chipping engines in your school, since you do seem proficient in that to some degree.  |
I've had plenty of history classes, but the only government-specific class I ever took was one semester my senior year in high school.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
See it seems this is the closest we will get to seeing you make an admission you have no idea as to what the Articles I-III state as to the separation of power and checks and balances.
|
Loq made a compelling argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Yes they do. I'll keep saying it each and every time you keep doing it. Let's make sure we are defining the word correctly.
You are stating the wikipedia version of intellectual dishonesty and that's fine. Using your definition, it still applies because you cannot state on one hand that you understand the separation of powers and checks and balances and then continue to make incorrect statements as to how they work or situations should be applied. Either way one of the statements you are making is intellectually dishonest. If not, then I'm giving you too much credit since the only next logical conclusion drawn is that you truly do not know what you are talking about and are ignorant of the subject being discussed and cannot admit that you do not know or understand the separation of powers and checks and balances as stated in Articles I-III of the United States Constitution.
I'm using John T. Reed's Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. I will list just the ones that you have used and have applied directly to this discussion: |
This is just a list of logical fallacies. It's also, ironically, a massive red herring.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You've clearly stated that you were going back to school to be a lawyer, not maybe go to law school, but be a lawyer. You've stated the illustrious profession of public defender on many occasion and then moving on to private practice because the pay is high. Delusion? Daydream? Pipe dream? What? Or is it more intellectual dishonesty, your definition, or even self-deception? Or is it more like that personal situtation I have found myself in we've discussed in PMs which I've asked your assistance; the one you helped with kind words and links to many resources?
|
I never said "maybe", Cynth. Boalt Hall is one of the most elite law schools in the US. I'm sure Loq can attest to it's reputation. Maybe even Jazz. I'm a damn good student, but I can't say with any level of certainty that I'll get in. I'll sure as hell try, but sometimes one's best efforts aren't enough.
If I don't get into Boalt, I'll have to reevaluate my goals. Will I try for Stanford, or will I have to settle on a less elite school? I honestly don't know. Fortunately, this is a few years down the line, so I have time to figure this out. I might apply to Stanford, Boalt, and my alma mater Santa Clara, just to give myself the options. But this is getting way off subject, and I've shared more than enough about me personally.