[msickmeier]

Awesome. I am going to try this since I now have an iPhone. I have always liked to watch the videos on my TV as well, but sometimes thats difficult.

[msickmeier]

Thank you Prof. Casey

[msickmeier]

Bump.

[msickmeier]

I would like to inform everyone of a work around as it applys to Roku users.
On the Roku, go to the Channel Store and download the MyMedia channel. From there you download the software on your PC of where your videos (specifically, LC lectures) are located. Follow the instructions to link the software to the MyMedia channel and your watching LC lectures in the living room in no time!

[msickmeier]

Wow, what a great rebuttal. Thank you greatly, Mr. Herbener!

[msickmeier]

Two other posts! Wonderful. At this rate, we’ll be sitting on our couches watching LC by next month…or 2016, not sure which one. Haha.

[msickmeier]

I would like to second this. I had this question as well, but instead of rewritting, I’ll just add to Koop’s post.

In the lecture regarding Hebrew Religion, the concept of linear time was brought up. How exactly was this assumed? Did the Hebrew people keep some form of calendar? Did they date things? Literally, where do historians get their concept of linear time?

[msickmeier]

Very interesting.

[msickmeier]

Looks interesting.

[msickmeier]

I’m glad you asked this Koop. I actually posted it on one of the last Live events. I really enjoyed it as well. I like how the detail got down to Adam’s dental problems and each episode had them getting worse. There was a medical term for this, but at the moment, it escapes me. Paul Giamatti is just a wonderful actor through and through. Can’t go wrong with him at lead.

[msickmeier]

How’d the term paper come along Sam?

[msickmeier]

I see where Dean is coming from with this. I myself, have used this argument more then once and have, at times, received the reply that I was using a reductio ad absurdum. I do, however, understand the economic rational behind said argument with Dr. Casey’s second post. It brings the defendant to a point where they should question why X amount of MW is sufficient, and not completely arbitrary. But to Dean’s original point, would this be considered a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to the MW?

[msickmeier]

Same problem here.

[msickmeier]

Beautifully said, Porp. I agree 100%. Thanks to you and Prof. Gutzman on helping me understand this more fully.

[msickmeier]

It’s not a matter of which “I prefer” or of which “I favor.” I was simply exercising critical thinking as it applies to this case and the importance of private property and contractual agreements. I understand that at the end of the day we need a final decision, and the law as it’s prescribed in the constitution is a wonderful start. I did not wish to challenge anyone assertions, this was simply me working through this conundrum, in my head, and looking to see if others could provide insight (of which everyone did).

I understand, and totally agree that it’s best we have “courts of law” instead of a “courts of justice” where every newly appointed federal judge gets his/her crack at “setting the record straight,” “social justice” or any other Leftist-judicial crusades.

As a believer in private property and contractual agreement, I suppose I am guilty of want the law to bend to my political biases. So, in closing, I agree it’s best for everyone to have law as an “absolute.” Making too many exceptions to the rules, (even in upholding contracts) can be a dangerous road to go down. As our modern judicial system has displayed.

[Author]

Posts