See, this is what happens when you let white guys become lawyers. They should stay in the kitchen where they belong!

6:08, gays are the best gay-bashers around. Ever heard of Ted Haggard?

This system is far superior to a traditional system. Grading is so subjective -- it has much more to do with how well you think like the professor than how well you actually understand the law. I shouldn't get a lower grade than someone else simply because he is as wierd as the person teaching the course.

I was top -5% at a law school so prestigious it doesn't exist in your dimension.

Try and prove me wrong!

Some of these are absurd. I've seen *partners* make typographical errors not just in memoranda, but in pleadings. On MULTIPLE occasions.

Also, who puts a summer in charge of a filing??????? WTF!!

I think Y is hilarious. A summer who had the balls to pull a prank on some of the attorneys automatically gets my vote.

What kind of uptight firms do people work at that practical jokes are some kind of no-no? It's not like he put a black mamba in a partner's drawer or something.

Gerald began to experience a sinking feeling as he realized that God may have taken his request to turn him into a "pussy magnet" a bit too literally.

I agree with the other commenters -- Lat, you're being a hypocrite.

And, yeah, a guy who is entertained by the idea of women being cows is kind of a creep, and I really doubt he'd be objective. Of course everyone likes porn. But there's porn that's about sex or porn that caters to specific acceptable fetishes and such *that don't harm anyone*, and then there's porn that's about degrading entire groups of people (e.g., women, blacks, Jews, etc.) And THEN there's porn that can only titillate those who are sick enough to get off on the sexual abuse of someone incapable of consent (e.g., children, animals). Where the fuck is PETA on this one??

Somehow I doubt the Founding Fathers meant for the First Amendment to protect someone's inalienable right to distribute images of people sexually abusing animals.

3:12, did you intentionally misinterpret the First Amendment point? The relevant part was not "images," which would have been clear to someone with half a brain. The First Amendment also doesn't protect distributing images of naked children posed in a sexually seductive manner. The fact that they are images is hardly the end of the discussions. Just because the First Amendment protects some images, does not mean it protects ALL images.

Those of you who favor the sexual abuse of animals: as to your (very stupid) arguments that, "hey, we abuse them in other ways, and that's legal," assuming the correctness of your premise, so what? We allow some abuse of animals, so we should allow any and all abuse of animals? Two wrongs make a right?

Also, aside from cruel methods of killing animals (something whose legality is questionable at best anyway) and similarly cruel things done to animals at commercial farms (again, even to the extent it may be legal to hook cows up to machines that will milk them dry, that doesn't mean it isn't abuse), what sorts of animal abuse do you think are legally condoned in our society? Many jurisdictions have now banned the sale of foie gras because it involves force-feeding geese. By your reasoning, hey, it's food, shouldn't the geese enjoy it? Why don't you go to Chicago and explain why the sale of foie gras must be allowed?

Do you seriously not get that using for sex a living being who is incapable of consent is immoral and illegal? You seriously don't see what's wrong with fucking your jack russell terrier in the ass??

"PLAY HELD AT FORD THEATRE!!!!!!!

(president lincoln assassinated)"

AWESOME.

4:11, actually, yeah, please go ahead and do that. Be sure to hump it lots and lots, and make sure it's a dry old splintery tree. You and your dick just go have a grand old time with that wooden pussy.

4:17, it should have been obvious, but no, that was not my point. The point was that something that is arguably LESS abusive to animals than rape is outlawed -- the point was to refute those who, bizarrely, seem to think any kind of abuse of animals is both morally and legally a-ok.

4:22, thanks for making the first *reasonable* argument in favor of bestiality. You have a fair point, but you are also assuming that those of us who oppose bestiality do not also oppose other forms of cruelty to animals. Speaking only for myself, I can already tell you that assumption is faulty.

Or, rather, the first reasonable argument against those of us who oppose bestiality. Yours, however, isn't quite an outright justification of bestiality.

4:33, you're just jealous of my hamster graphic.

4:35 and 4:37, so you're saying that you always, in every situation no matter what, are able to prevent yourselves from getting an erection? And that every time you get an erection you have consented to sex with whomever or whatever happens to be around at the moment (including, say, your buddy Jim)?

Interesting change of tactics...

Well, this idea at least has truthiness to it. May as well just come out and admit that the voices of the rich are the only ones that *really* count for anything, instead of this silly charade we're still calling "representative democracy." It's so cute how we kept the name even when we decided to stop doing it.

9, I'll need to run some tests to confirm that.