The_Squid Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 The law society is acting for the crown in determining whether someone qualifies as a lawyer. Nope. Accrediting a school. You can't even get that simple fact correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Nope. Accrediting a school. You can't even get that simple fact correct. Wrong, because the school isn't accredited, its graduates can't practice in Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Nope. Accrediting a school. You can't even get that simple fact correct. You're picking nits to no purpose. What's next, a long, arrogant and learned dissertation on how I missed capitalizing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Wrong, because the school isn't accredited, its graduates can't practice in Ontario. The whole purpose of accreditation is so they can graduate in Ontario, and accreditation has always, hitherto, been based on the quality of the legal education the would-be students would receive. This time it's being based on the outraged political correctness of the law society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 You're picking nits to no purpose. What's next, a long, arrogant and learned dissertation on how I missed capitalizing something? It makes a big difference when discussing a court decision to get the actual details correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 It makes a big difference when discussing a court decision to get the actual details correct. What details are incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 What details are incorrect? Go read the thread.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Go read the thread.... I did. What details are incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 I did. What details are incorrect? Well, the fact that neither you nor Argus actually know what this judgement even means... you two think that it was a judgement about TWU's policy, when it was about the Law Society's standards that were being judged against the Constitution. You two don't seem to be able to understand nuance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 And to be really truthful about this whole thing as I have mentioned in an earlier thread, this is about the Christian right contributing money to this university. Follow the money....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Well, the fact that neither you nor Argus actually know what this judgement even means... you two think that it was a judgement about TWU's policy, when it was about the Law Society's standards that were being judged against the Constitution. ... Exactly! Only in that it says the LSUC has the right to discriminate against TWU and its students. Get that, the society Ontarians rely on to certify their lawyers is allowed to discriminate for non professional reasons.The LSUC need not use professional standards to deny accreditation to law schools or their graduates.So what did I get wrong? Edited July 16, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) And to be really truthful about this whole thing as I have mentioned in an earlier thread, this is about the Christian right contributing money to this university. Follow the money....... Maybe so but what does that have to do with the quality of education or the professional qualifications of its graduates? Is this how we now grade all universities and the quality of the education they provide, who its donors are? Edited July 16, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Well, the fact that neither you nor Argus actually know what this judgement even means... you two think that it was a judgement about TWU's policy, when it was about the Law Society's standards that were being judged against the Constitution. You two don't seem to be able to understand nuance... Your arguments are as nuanced as a screaming child. Of course I understand that it is the violation of TWU's constitutional rights to freedom of religion by the law society which was the subject of the trial. Why would you suggest otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Maybe so but what does that have to do with the quality of education or the professional qualifications of its graduates? Is this how we now grade all universities and the quality of the education they provide, who its donors are? Some of these 'progressives' are so incredibly intolerant they would prefer those who don't support their social views to be in camps somewhere, gulags, perhaps. They certainly don't want them to be educated or have jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Maybe so but what does that have to do with the quality of education or the professional qualifications of its graduates? Is this how we now grade all universities and the quality of the education they provide, who its donors are? For one thing, it questions whether they are insisting on this covenant because they really believe it or because they will lose millions of donor contributions if they don't. Hard to get behind a university with questionable motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Hard to get behind a university with questionable motives. Everybody needs money to live, though... I don't find it hard to believe that people can be religious without a greed motive. In any case, questions about motives aren't answerable, so it ends up a speculation. People do a similar thing when they impugn climate scientists for publishing papers about Global Warming.... FOR MONEY. The scientists, they get paid you see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 For one thing, it questions whether they are insisting on this covenant because they really believe it or because they will lose millions of donor contributions if they don't. Hard to get behind a university with questionable motives. Doesn't matter what their motives are, you've decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Im torn on this one. On one hand I like what the law society did, and the blacklisting of institutions with questionable practices is and important part of how socieities develop a social conscience. On the other hand its very unfair to the students and anyone that goes through the rigor of obtaining a law degree ought to be allowed to practice. I think the important thing moving forward is that this school makes it clear to students that they can only offer a partial accreditation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) Im torn on this one. On one hand I like what the law society did, and the blacklisting of institutions with questionable practices is and important part of how socieities develop a social conscience. On the other hand its very unfair to the students and anyone that goes through the rigor of obtaining a law degree ought to be allowed to practice. I think the important thing moving forward is that this school makes it clear to students that they can only offer a partial accreditation. My position is that professional organizations given the responsibility of evaluating professional standards have no business using those powers to indulge in social engineering. Speak out on these issues by all means but keep that separate from their professional duties. By doing so, they undermine any claims of objectivity. Edited July 21, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 Im torn on this one. On one hand I like what the law society did, and the blacklisting of institutions with questionable practices is and important part of how socieities develop a social conscience. On the other hand its very unfair to the students and anyone that goes through the rigor of obtaining a law degree ought to be allowed to practice. I think the important thing moving forward is that this school makes it clear to students that they can only offer a partial accreditation. There are no students. This was a proposed law school. The school cannot get accreditation, unless they make a very minor and simple change to their policies. No one has gone through the rigors of getting a law degree only to be denied after the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 The school cannot get accreditation, unless they make a very minor and simple change to their policies. "minor and simple" ... that's a real whitewash there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 "minor and simple" ... that's a real whitewash there. What is so difficult about not telling students who they should/shouldn't have sex with? It really is not that difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 What is so difficult about not telling students who they should/shouldn't have sex with? It really is not that difficult. What's so difficult about you accepting Jesus into your life ? It's really not that difficult, plus you will leave forever in heaven. Can't you see that ? *Sarcasm* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 "minor and simple" ... that's a real whitewash there. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 How so? It's just a "minor change" for someone to eschew their beliefs. It's quite arrogant to write that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.