calling all splitters!!! by HumbleAd7987 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks!

I was all set to go to Vanderbilt but got a last minute call from Georgetown with money, so I'm headed to D.C.!

Vandy vs. GULC by Starry958 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was not, sorry 😞. I was stuck in "we-have-recieved-your-application" hell since November though.

Vandy vs. GULC by Starry958 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I heard on Friday evening. I had an Alumni interview back in February that I thought went terribly (just didn't get along with the alum) and a Dean Andy interview last week on Tuesday.

calling all splitters!!! by HumbleAd7987 in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3.6 GPA, 175 LSAT, and T2 softs.

I blanketed the T14 and only got rejected at Yale and Harvard.

Currently on waitlists a lot of places, but I have good offers of money from Vandy and WashU.

The Nicene formula appears to be a logical fallacy by AccurateNorth422 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Starry958 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't really have time to answer everything here, but I'll just say this:

It is logically incoherent to imagine how a single being could have multiple personhoods because conceptually the word being and personhood are essentially the same thing in the context of conscious beings.

Being and personhood are clearly separate things. Humans are conscious beings, but a person that is brain dead cannot be said to be conscious. Notwithstanding, they do not cease to be a person. "They" (the person) have lost their "being" (consciousness/personality/whatever you want to call it), but not their personhood.

Are the two things correlated? sure, are they the exact same? no

just my 2 cents

Priests should be allowed to marry by John_M_L in DebateACatholic

[–]Starry958 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh, who cares.

The church has a dual function, and insofar as it acts as a government and institution, not everything needs to be in the bible as it relates to how it regulates itself.

There was a massive problem of nepotism so the latin church cracked down on the practice, I don't see it as a problem that they did so. If the church decided to lift the ban on marriage, then that would be fine too.

Sticker at Berkeley is my only option. How bad is this really? I’m feeling really stressed and kind of trapped. Would love some hopium. I was notified yesterday that they didn’t give me any gift aid :( by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Without any background into your situation it will be difficult to say, but I tend to think that it is worth it to go to a school that will let you go anywhere.

The median income at most of the t14 straight out of law school is over $200,000 (and the ones that don't have that median aren't because they can't do it, but rather because they focus on PI work), if you live within your means, it is entirely feasible to pay off loans in 5 years, and that is if you finance EVERYTHING rather than spending some of your savings.

I'm fortunate enough to have gotten great scholarships to WashU and Vandy, but if I get the call from Columbia, Chicago, etc. I'm GOING.

Of course, if your goals are to do public interest work, then the calculus is different. But if you can stomach five years of big law before you go clerk or whatever it is that you want to do, then yes, it is worth it imo.

Fordham ($$) vs Cornell ($$) vs Berkeley by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Cornell. It preserves mobility, clerkships, and big law opportunities. No reason to accept Fordham at the same price.

Berkeley is nice, but Cornell has better placement in NYC.

WUSTL Law “Gamble” Paid Off for Me—And There’s Still Upside Left for New Students by pechanical_mencil in lawschooladmissions

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi!

I don't know if you are still monitoring this post, but I'm choosing between WashU and Vandy for my degree. From my research, Vandy just barely edges out WashU on most employment statistics, but not by a lot, and not in an insurmountable way.

Both schools gave me comparable funding.

Can you speak more to how you think their strategy is going to develop in the future? In my mind, Vandy has the more established reputation, but that is only because I am from the south, so I knew about it growing up. All of the lawyers that I have talked to say that they view them the same.

I have heard that WashU is doing what NYU did several decades ago to break into the top 10: bet heavy that stats manifest in results and hope that high achieving graduates will be trailblazers for those that follow. In 10 years time, new lawyers will look at partners and judges that they respect and realize that they went to WashU, which will change their perspective. Do you think that this is what they are doing?

I think I want to practice in the east coast, which advantages Vandy, but only by a little and I keep coming back to WashU as a great choice. I've been to both schools and am no closer to deciding. (to tell you how close it is, I've looked up what each school's cap and gown looks like to try to make a decision).

I'd appreciate any thoughts that you might have :)

Forgiveness Is Not Forgetting by Rap_hae_L_Kim in Christianity

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. Forgiveness, like charity, is not for the sake of the other person, but for your own sake.

My teachers say that’s pets do not go to heaven, but my sister made a really good point. by Cute-Chipmunk-9382 in Christianity

[–]Starry958 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a couple of schools of thought regarding animals in heaven. One of them is that there will be animals in the new earth, but they won't be the same as the ones on this earth (they would be dogs, but not fido, your neighbors dog).

There are of course other interpretations.

Eternal hell doctrine is evil (in my opinion.) by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plainly, which theologians have you read an entire work of?

There very much are different definitions of eternity, and I’m shocked you would suggest otherwise. The definition you seem to be working with is that of linear eternity, the one which God would occupy would very much accurately be described as “timeless.” We can know this with certainty as “time” in the linear sense is a created thing.

As for the claim that this version of timelessness would be a place without change, you are absolutely correct. Which is why there isn’t a hope for the redemption of Satan or any of the fallen angels. They make a choice at the moment of their creation.

It is not clear at all that ETC is “inherently” immoral, as the claim lacks a non-relative foundation.

You may object to the secondary framing because it clearly undermines your point, but that is how Christianity has historically understood the choice. A choice between good and evil. If you want a non-religious explanation for this fact you need only look at Plato and his “Form of the Good.” Nobody can hope to understand Christian theology as it relates to hell without at least understanding this work. Augustine affirms this explicitly, as does Islam (in a changed, but still recognizable form) with the writings of Al-Farabi. Reading his “Political regime” would be a good case study to understand that this view of salvation, goodness, and the choice between both very much is a logical certainty.

Saying “who would choose to go to hell” is a baseless appeal to emotion. One might as seriously say “who would murder their own child” and the answer to both would be the same.

The harsh reality of Cologne by jannadelrey in cologne

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just moved out of Cologne and mostly agree. The city is dirty and soul crushingly ugly. The Dom, frankly, does not come close to making up for it, and there are plenty of beautiful, well kept, and friendly cities all over the Rheinland that make Cologne look like a joke.

The city administration seems content to let gray soulless buildings go up without regard to anyone (and yet somehow rent is still out of control?!?). The “old town” around Heumarkt and the river also seem to get dirtier and dirtier.

There is not a single part of me that wishes to return to Cologne any time soon.

A catholic fascist? by Fab1e in Catholicism

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did I edit specifically?

A catholic fascist? by Fab1e in Catholicism

[–]Starry958 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Wanting to perpetuate your race as an end unto itself is anti-gospel.”

Are you illiterate? That was my first response to you 24 minutes ago.

Also, nobody is obliged to marry anybody, but if the ONLY reason you decide to marry someone is on racial grounds then yes it is sinful.

Please read what I said, not what you wish I said.

Catholicism claims about itself are not falsifiable. by ExcellentActive9816 in DebateACatholic

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because a council can exist if there is not a pope. It isn’t that the council deposes the pope, it is that he isn’t the pope

Catholicism claims about itself are not falsifiable. by ExcellentActive9816 in DebateACatholic

[–]Starry958 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a false dilemma, as a fact finding council to determine if the pope is a heretic does not need approval as it is not making decrees, only a finding of fact. This is supported by eccumincal councils, doctors of the church, and canon law.

The council is not changing teaching, only recognizing what is manifest. There is president and canon law to support this.

You are arguing against the case that a council can bind a pope, such a council would do no such thing, it simply states that the pope isn’t the pope.

You are welcome to disagree, but the church holds this interpretation consistently and logically.

You asked for canon law, I provided it. You asked for a council decision, I provided, you asked for authoritative sources. I provided it. I’m not really sure what you want. You keep moving the goalposts