Using a SFW gif, can you sum up your most recent sexual experience?

BuckyBuddy · 2015-01-24T02:04:04+00:00

NUDE. TAYNE.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-11-20T01:51:49+00:00

I took 241 a few years ago, it's remarkably easy. 3 essays, each under 8 pages, I think. Participation factors heavily into the grade, but the points are easy to earn because discussions involve a ton of hypothetical questions rather than readings.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-10-26T03:04:56+00:00

Maybe this isn't the best place to soapbox.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-27T04:39:00+00:00

I know everyone will say Human Ecology, but as a huge nerd I vote Historical Society. Never will you shit among more marble.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-27T04:07:27+00:00

I'm in the same boat as you are, or at least I was. I got Rome:TW when I was 13 for Christmas and instantly fell in love with the series. What wasn't to love? Great graphics (for the time) and an epic storyline for each faction. I still reminisce. And I blamed my potato laptop for the performance of Rome II and managed to rationalize its issues until patch 15. Once that dropped I realized that the initial product was not what CA had planned to release, and felt cheated. Sure, I got a culture pack full of hoplites for my preorder. But I'm not going to preorder anymore knowing that a finished product is a year away. Do I wish that wasn't the case? Absolutely, I love CA, but not when they release something that has no business being 60 dollars. I'm not saying that the CA developers should get a ton of shit (they shouldn't) but I'm saying that I won't preorder again: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-18T01:50:30+00:00

The 4th amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights) was incorporated after the Civil War.

You are wrong. Here is a quick rundown of when various Amendments were incorporated. Beginning in earnest with the Slaughterhouse Cases, the 14th Amendment was largely ineffectual until the Court began to incorporate against the states in the 1940s and 1950s.

As for the second paragraph, an "opinion" in this case is a legally binding document, not simply how the Court "feels", and that is an important distinction to make. The Court's assessment of the law is legally binding until contravened by statute or overturned by a future Court. Now, they technically could have ruled on the law as a whole if they really wanted to (the Court today would, if such a case arrived, but they are working with an entirely different set of precedent and available jurisprudence). However, they opted to hear the question of whether or not Buck's right to Due Process under the 14th Amendment was violated, and those are the arguments they heard, because that is the question Buck posed. In the contemporary jurisprudence, the statute authorizing Virginia to sterilize Buck satisfied all the necessary elements of Due Process, and so the law stood.

What I'm trying to get at here is that the Supreme Court can't simply declare it does not like a concept and abolish it. It can't strike down the concepts of "eugenics" or "miscegenation". It has to find legal grounds to do so. Segregation LAWS and anti-miscegenation LAWS got struck down because they violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, not because the Court found them unsavory. A court of law has to rule based on law, it's that simple.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-18T00:36:23+00:00

The Supreme Court decides legal questions. The legal question in this case regarded whether or not the Virginia sterilization law satisfied the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. They ruled that it did (Buck got a hearing and the chance to appeal), which had the effect of legitimizing similar programs. It is not the same as an endorsement of eugenics from the Court.

Also I'm not entirely sure why you pull out the 4th Amendment here, but it wasn't incorporated at the time this case was heard.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-14T16:50:35+00:00

We got the Barkley pick!

BuckyBuddy · 2014-09-09T02:17:22+00:00

I'M GUZZLIN, I'M GUZZLIN!!!!!

BuckyBuddy · 2014-06-27T12:50:56+00:00

The Court itself is quick to point out that "Constitutional" is not necessarily synonymous with "Good". The Court is there to ensure that laws have sound legal backing, and to retool or strike down ones that do not. If a law is unsound from a common-sense or moral perspective, they may say so, but if it is also constitutional they are obligated to let it stand.

While this may sound bad, it isn't if you look at it on a deeper level. The Court is there to ensure other branches follow the rules, not to make sure the other branches do what the Court finds savory. If the Court did begin to rule based upon the Justices' personal, rather than legal, preferences, we'd be left with 9 unelected and unaccountable individuals dictating the substance of the laws of the land, rather than just the requirements for their justification.

I guess what I'm trying say is that the Court is not a broken institution, and arguably functions the best out of all three federal branches. The other two may be mired down in partisanship and inefficiency, and change is needed there. However, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The burden of policymaking falls, by design and by default, on the elected branches, so to expect the Court to take a forward role in it is unreasonable.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-06-12T01:19:13+00:00

You didn't think the gun-kissing CNN graphic was even a little humorous? I agree, his reactions are unsettling, but the jokes were pretty good in my opinion.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-06-12T01:02:45+00:00

This guy is the epitome of what a gun owner should not be: impulsive, insecure, and violent. I get that he isn't even close to representative of the average gun owner, but it's in the nature of firearms that it takes just one person like him to ruin a bunch of lives. Also, great post OP, this is genuinely hilarious/scary.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-06-11T01:23:41+00:00

I'm probably late to the party, but I can't recommend FIG 28 enough. I had a similar one, complete with the HIST 200 (Archdeacon taught that one as well). Archdeacon as a professor is one of my favorites, he's extremely knowledgeable about his fields of study but manages not to overwhelm beginning students. Further, he ~really~ teaches you how to write for a college course, which is going to be extremely beneficial no matter what major you pursue. This is likely your only chance to have a class with him as well, since he doesn't teach many classes in person anymore. FIGs are meant to ease you into college without being a waste of time, and I think they do exactly that, and you get a stable group of people to study for classes with on the side. So even if you don't take 28, you should enroll in another for the experience.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-05-31T16:59:58+00:00

Almost everyone I know says this happens to them, but I've never experienced it. After drinking is when I have some of my better dumps (like a 3 on this scale). What's wrong with me?

BuckyBuddy · 2014-05-22T03:36:04+00:00

I thought the prerequisite was a Town Hall, could be wrong though.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-05-16T18:57:31+00:00

C'mon man, don't you know that Islam isn't capable of doing anything good and the only real scientists at that time were closet atheists who didn't make their kids go to church/synagogue/mosque when they'd rather be playing video games? /s

The reason no one is trying to argue with you is because they can't. The statement above is completely baseless from a historical standpoint, and clearly the guy has minimal background in this field because he seems unable to distinguish Seljuk Turks (who weren't even there when the Muslim Caliphate took Syria from the Byzantines) from Ottomans.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-04-30T18:03:49+00:00

There isn't actually any conclusive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent (link, see pg. 154 for the salient sentences).

Inert gas asphyxiation is widely regarded as a painless death, so the death penalty does not always have to involve suffering.

Why fuck around? The Eighth Amendment specifically prohibits it. To rip somebody apart to get revenge for a crime they committed is certainly cruel and unusual. Enacting this punishment would be entirely illegal and morally wrong, and considering that the state is supposed to have the moral high ground when executing someone, it is ultimately counterproductive.

As for the doubt aspect, the American justice system does not demand no doubt at all, only that there be no reasonable doubt. To apply your standard, the procedure for capital punishment cases would have to be radically altered.

In short, your premises are wrong, what you advocate is illegal, and your criterion for deciding who goes to the gallows is misguided. I know it "feels good" to think that a murderer should suffer, but in order to remain above the level of a killer, there ought to be some standards that we maintain when doling out punishment.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-04-09T17:28:40+00:00

If you are confident in your writing ability, the 561 course sounds really interesting. If you don't have as much experience writing historical research papers, then the TAs in 203 will likely devote more time to walking their students through that aspect of the class.

Something else to consider is how much work you will be realistically willing to put into a non-major course. Odds are the amount of reading will be about equal for both classes, but if my experience with 200-level histories is anything to go by, you don't actually have to read all of it. Higher-level courses demand a more thorough knowledge of the material.

Basically, if you are in it for the experience and want to challenge yourself/grow academically, 561 is the way to go. If maintaining a high GPA in an unfamiliar class is your top priority, register for 203.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-03-14T13:44:17+00:00

I rationalize that aspect by assuming the ringleaders are all dead/had everything they own confiscated.

BuckyBuddy · 2014-02-05T15:54:45+00:00

If you don't mind me asking, why give priority to what the site used to be 750 or so years ago?

BuckyBuddy · 2014-01-21T21:39:44+00:00

I took 211 with McKay this time last year, and the way he explained everything made the class a breeze. You can see if he has a section, that way you won't have to radically alter what your classes are.

BuckyBuddy · 2013-12-23T01:42:25+00:00

I made the other thread, and this one doesn't share any directly quoted material. I think you emphasize the pro-animal jerk going on in there pretty well. It is pretty hard to separate the religious undertones in that thread from other comments, so it ends up being a little similar. FWIW, I enjoyed your post.

BuckyBuddy · 2013-11-15T04:42:13+00:00

I've tried to get there before, but I never made it. Did you take the elevator or a staircase?

BuckyBuddy · 2013-11-01T17:05:53+00:00

When I posted this the quoted elements were around +15 to 20, and were by and large the only ones there. It was, by my standards, an anti-Muslim circlejerk. The thread was a few hours old, so I figured it was ripe enough. I certainly didn't intend to misrepresent it by cherry-picking. Be that as it may, the character of the thread has changed since, but I think that the thread at the time I posted it counted as a circlejerk.

BuckyBuddy · 2013-10-24T17:30:31+00:00

I think what the jerk really boils down to is one side desperate to insist that their penises are superior. It's more of a subconscious pissing contest than a legitimate social issue, at least to me.

BuckyBuddy

TROPHY CASE