Dubstepforum.com

Rönin wrote:
PS I know the thread was derailed into an academic discussion

Rönin wrote:I've read a lot of books on the matter too, but most of them were pompous essays that trashed whatever ideologies were prevalent at the time and didn't bring anything concrete to the table.

It would seem many of those so-called political philosophers don't have any idea that lives up to their ideals.

If you have any recommendations though, I'm open to anything (no extremism)

Hart - concept of law
lon fuller the morality of law
ronald dworkin law's empire (middle sitter)
Hart v Fuller - the classical two articles from Harvard
John Finnis - natural law natural rights

Robert Nozick - robert nozick anarchy state and utopia
John rawls a theory of justice

amartya sen development as freedom
martha fineman the autonomy myth (bait of a crazy theory)

Legal Realism - Frank

?

OGLemon wrote:

Rönin wrote:
PS I know the thread was derailed into an academic discussion

Fruitful discussions

I probably need to study ethics some more. Seems like there is a lot to learn though.

Ah safe. Might come in handy for some of my works for the university as well.

Constitutional and administration law systems vary depending on the country but it's still better than reading a 300 page rant on the effects of modern liberalism in the school system (The amount of bullshit filling some authors can pull is astonishing).

Ethics in itself is too broad tbh. That's why it's divided in bioethics, legal ethics, contractual ethics, toilet ethics, whatevs.

Legal ethics was a nice course, there are a lot of books explaining the corollaries of democracy and their structural applications (the standard is still On the spirit of laws, awesome book)

Bioethics was a pain but that's just me.

Contractual ethics is closely related to legal ethics, more focused on person-to-person relationship, good faith in contracts and agreements and the major principles used by courts to regulate economical partnerships, the necessity of protecting consumers (foundation of class actions and whatnot), the downsides of modern customs (less formalism etc.)

Off course the division is purely doctrinal and typical of academic environments

OGLemon wrote:I probably need to study ethics some more. Seems like there is a lot to learn though.

If I was going to recommend one introduction it would be Peter Singer's Companion to Ethics two and I'd include Hugh Lafollette Ethics in Practice

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Ethic ... 631187855/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethics-Practice ... 470671831/

I generally think it's harder working through books detailing a specific position and it's generally better to start with a series of essays detailing different approaches to ethics and different applications of theory. I found both really useful and both get dipped into whenever.

1 more as a general introduction to metaethics this is as good a place to start as any and better than most. Andrew Fisher's Metaethics: An Introduction

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844652580/

yeah companion to ethics is a good place to start

scspkr99 wrote:

OGLemon wrote:I probably need to study ethics some more. Seems like there is a lot to learn though.

If I was going to recommend one introduction it would be Peter Singer's Companion to Ethics two and I'd include Hugh Lafollette Ethics in Practice

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Ethic ... 631187855/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethics-Practice ... 470671831/

I generally think it's harder working through books detailing a specific position and it's generally better to start with a series of essays detailing different approaches to ethics and different applications of theory. I found both really useful and both get dipped into whenever.

1 more as a general introduction to metaethics this is as good a place to start as any and better than most. Andrew Fisher's Metaethics: An Introduction

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844652580/

noice, I'm heading to the library tomorrow so I'll pick these up.

Muncey wrote:

Agent 47 wrote:my housemate has a slight interest in politics, so can just blag exams without even revising cus its all just backing up opinions. as long as you know a bit of history and watch the news you're bless

Lol you've made that sound much easier than it is. You've probably gotta remember what loads of people have said and what they meant ect and if you have an opinion on something you're likely going to have to learn in great detail opposition points of view which I assume can get irritating, if you think their view is a load of bollocks.

Exams are suppose to test your knowledge of whats been taught, you aren't suppose to necessarily produce your own opinions. If they've told you they don't revise and just watch the news they're very likely talking bollocks

They're not just memory tests, it's about you do with what you've been told. My mate also did piss all revision but critically analysed what she remembered and bang done

Ye politics (and law) professors give a lot of space to critical analysis even in exams. Knowledge only won't get you good grades but it's a necessary basis to construct criticism. I've even heard students who failed assignments even though they had more than 30 pages of research content because there was no personal opinion or criticisms on the analysed regulations...

I think it's a good thing tbh. universities are supposed to teach students to think for themselves and it's even more important when you're studying matters that have to do with state activity or politics. Otherwise they would only produce predesigned minds to put on party ballot because the older MPs are dying out.


+ I'll take on any occasion to criticise my government

Rönin wrote:Ah safe. Might come in handy for some of my works for the university as well.

Constitutional and administration law systems vary depending on the country but it's still better than reading a 300 page rant on the effects of modern liberalism in the school system (The amount of bullshit filling some authors can pull is astonishing).

Ethics in itself is too broad tbh. That's why it's divided in bioethics, legal ethics, contractual ethics, toilet ethics, whatevs.

Legal ethics was a nice course, there are a lot of books explaining the corollaries of democracy and their structural applications (the standard is still On the spirit of laws, awesome book)

Bioethics was a pain but that's just me.

Contractual ethics is closely related to legal ethics, more focused on person-to-person relationship, good faith in contracts and agreements and the major principles used by courts to regulate economical partnerships, the necessity of protecting consumers (foundation of class actions and whatnot), the downsides of modern customs (less formalism etc.)

Off course the division is purely doctrinal and typical of academic environments

Yeah legal anthropology is a area of debate entirely by itself, after all what is law xyc.

+1 on the ability to criteria anyasis. My law school with give a top 2.2 only for knowledge basic. You could have interpreted a whole book and it's concepts but if you fail to actually start looking at the merits of it, failing counter agreements from other theist 2.1 is out of reach. If you want a high 2.1 or a first you have to go beyond that and starting forming the overall issues and not just the small semantics - but you needs to have a solid solid knowledge base for this - when you read a 1st essay its like boom this cat knows his shit

ultraspatial wrote:say i'm a doll maker, and i only make standard white skinny blonde dolls

OOHHH I see….de-personalization

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhZZP3KDVqY" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>


Reload on my favorite commercial in the history of the world of them.

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KANmaItmUgo" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>


….absolutely nothing….

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbLqOXmJ04" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>


hold on….I'm working on it…

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCJeIFUHdDo" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

to say that you don't have the mated penis pair cake topper in stock…

is not the same thing as...

accusing someone of being satan's abhorrent blasphimization of nature
and "I'm going to use my secured and yet covert social position
to remind you once again - that I despise your type, and revel
in my part of making sure your party doesn't happen, or does
at the very least with my uninvited vexation and criticism.

..you know - but haters gotta make a living too….



Buddhists cannot fight advancing Chinese…
In the same way that freedom respecters cannot squash impolite behavior
- with carefully aimed political and economic suppression…

...wait a minute…..maybe we can…nope, we're left - not right.

...so when does leaving stop becoming the answer…
…when gypsies all look like Johnny Depp….
…when chick flicks start to become required viewing…

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEzzbBc7Tw4" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

..to me this is basic - every 6 year old should know kindness.

slewwww deeemm

JizzMan wrote:stewwww deeemm

food ennit

Anybody have any new contributions to make to this thread?

Fish kebabs are pretty tasty

horrid. aren't they? it's like having a big sign on your forehead saying 'i'm greedy'

Thyroid problem? no, eat less, burn more.

Fat fucking idiots, worst people ever.













lets make fun of fat people in this thread

isn't Neil deGrasse Tyson the fedorian equal of jesus?

but yeah fat people are the worst. and they're expensive.

Buffet style dining hall at school.

Pizza and Ice Cream err day.

Gonna be fat soon.