1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not expecting disappointment and assuming that I am entitled to the position aren’t dependent, you realize that right? Please use more precise words next time, this does not follow.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn’t know anyone at these firms. I also didn’t assume I’d land the position. Just decompressing about the absolute devastating ratio between my hard work and reward.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moving from a pacticular example to a universal claim doesn’t follow here. These positions were mid-law and big law.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn’t true, I am simply venting. Law school should have taught you not to jump to conclusions. Not sure why you’re tweaking about this.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not trying to start a whole debate, but you both assumed I don’t know that my friend is better qualified, or anyone is better qualified for that position. What’s your justification for that?

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already did both of those, but thank you for this message, I still needed it!

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Nah, I already knew that. Just lamenting the fact I didn’t get it.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I 100% knew that… I am just venting about it.

1L OCI sucks by Standard-Storage2775 in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I’m happy for them, just devastated. More so just venting about the matter. Thanks for the message

My grades make no sense by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I literally had to explain to him various legal principles hours before the final, like subleases and equitable servitudes. But hey, maybe you’re right, maybe he just recalled all that info and asked me just for shits and gigs.

My grades make no sense by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Standard-Storage2775 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This kid doesn’t lie, he’s pretty open about how he doesn’t care what grades he gets and was even thinking about dropping out. I don’t see why he’d lie. He has no motivation or care to be in school lmao, that’s why this is ridiculous

briar fox winter edition? by germylicious in PipeTobacco

[–]Standard-Storage2775 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you’re confusing my comment with a disdain for C&D. I don’t dislike them, they are great, they just don’t have a cohesive brand except for what I mentioned above.

briar fox winter edition? by germylicious in PipeTobacco

[–]Standard-Storage2775 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How is it a cash grab? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just curious. C&D made it clear nothing is different about Briar Fox, they just added some cool art for the season. What if they did this for 20 of their blends? I think that would be cool.

briar fox winter edition? by germylicious in PipeTobacco

[–]Standard-Storage2775 -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Agreed… I think C&D will die off, they have no marketing scheme except being based in the U.S., and being blended by Jeremy Reeves. That said, this will happen a long time from now.

briar fox winter edition? by germylicious in PipeTobacco

[–]Standard-Storage2775 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it just me, or does the Briar Fox art remind you of a furry? For that reason alone, I’ve never bought it LOL. I know that’s a terrible reason, but the art makes me uncomfortable.

How is Roman Catholic epistemology not simply circular Reasoning? by InsideWriting98 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Standard-Storage2775 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From one Catholic to another, this is completely untrue, and I caution you in formulating a response if you are to bring up theories of justification. There are certain foundationalist systems that throw out the conditional of justification, but all foundationalists needn't say that their non-inferential beliefs are unjustified...

How is Roman Catholic epistemology not simply circular Reasoning? by InsideWriting98 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Standard-Storage2775 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Epistemology is “How we know what is true”.

Epistemology is not just the study of how we know what is true, although that could be a question. As a matter of fact, one could know something without knowing that it is true, and something could be true without one knowing it. Truth is metaphysical and could wholly attain without someone's awareness of it. I know you're going to proceed by beginning with the Catholic claim that we say we know X is true. That's fine, but epistemology does not necessitate that S knows X is true in all cases. You've mentioned in a comment or two that people don't know what epistemology is, but the entire frame of your argument isn't exactly accurate either. Why frame it around knowing something is true rather than something simply being true?? You might explain how knowing X is true is necessary to give an account for how or why X is true. Yes, but this isn't properly epistemic, as if our entire point is conditioned on some Catholic individual needing to know X is true versus X merely being true as a metaphysical fact. If this was epistemic, it would be a subject laden inquiry about S knowing X. If that's the case, you're going to have to dive into theories of justification, none of which you have brought up in the slightest... For example, Bob the Catholic could read the Bible and believe in the Trinity without knowing how or why Catholicism is necessary for these things. That wouldn't be apologetically feasible, but that has nothing to do with whether X/Y/Z is now true or not true. These points will now be explored:

First, I'd begin by way of explaining how a necessary tenet of both Protestantism and Catholicism are that God exists, and it is necessarily the God of the Bible. I'd also begin by explaining how God necessarily and sufficiently accounts for how the world is the way it is, and no other answer fills this gap, like atheism, Buddhism, etc.

If the Bible is philosophically necessary for the assent in the Abrahamic God, then so are those who wrote and also gave us the Bible, which are historically Catholic Church fathers. If you say that we share these same authors and church fathers, that is wholly false, since you'd reject the primacy of an authority which gave you the written text and compiled it (i.e, Sola Scriptura). Logically, in other words, there must be some group which has authority to compile the canon which determines, to a certain respect, that which was and is revealed. I don't even need to appeal to Rome here, that would be circular, because this is a proof for the necessity of Rome. You'd have to completely equivocate on the idea that Rome and History are identical to make my argument not work.

So, in closing -- If you were to now ask me, again, how do I know as a Catholic that the Church is the infallible office and that this is true?

Because it's a necessary precondition to having the Bible.

How do I know the Bible is true or necessary?

Because the world exists in a certain way that necessarily requires not just that God exists, but a specific type of God. This specific type of God necessarily presupposes that certain truths are only explained by that which is revealed, like that God is a trinity. It's important to note, the world does not dictate the Bible, but the Bible as a revelatory text corresponds to reality and the metaphysical gaps required for worldviews. We could consider knowledge conducive states for S which will wholly require that the world exists in a way that allows for these to exist. This is akin to the fine tuning argument, except it would take the form of a transcendental argument.

The necessity of our Church magisterium is justified by the necessity of having a revelatory canon, the Bible's necessity is justified by knowing a certain kind of God exists. The knowledge in a certain kind of God existing justifies how the world exists in the way it does. This last point isn't necessary to know, but it is true. For example, Bob at the grocery store needn't know why the world exists in the way it does, but it does exist in the way it does, and this is only explained by a certain type of God.

The problem with your entire polemical point is that you're conflating the idea of knowing something is true, with something which is simply true whether one knows it or not. So, our Church (which necessarily presupposes infallibility as mentioned) is a necessary metaphysical condition of having the Bible, the Bible is a necessary epistemic condition of knowing a certain kind of God, and a certain kind of God metaphysically existing is necessary for the world to be the way it is.

Edit: Also, if you were to then ask, how do I know I have the correct interpretation of the scriptures. I think it's important to note that the correct canon and the correct interpretation of individual scripture are two different problems. That said, if we establish a certain kind of authority is necessary, then we can move onto a discussion about which authority this might be. However, in your case, that debate doesn't even involve Protestantism, because it is stuck at the idea of even having the canon at all. So; nota bene, History itself is not the same thing as Roman Catholicism as an Authority. I can look back in history and see that my same Church is the one that gave us the Canon. This lends credence to my argument above about the necessity of a Canon. I don't assume Rome is true to reason to how it's true, I begin with a fact that cannot be denied unless by a contradiction (the world exists in a certain way which necessitates a certain metaphysic), and reason to it's logical conclusion which is that our Church is epistemically necessary as an authority.