capeandcowllogs | T-shirts, cut-offs, and a pair of thongs

Entry tags:

T-shirts, cut-offs, and a pair of thongs

WHO: Beach Party People!
WHERE: The MAC, the party bus, a rest stop, and the Wildwood Beach!
WHEN: Friday 11am and onward into the afternoon and evening
WARNINGS: Possible make outs? Possible fights?
SUMMARY: Teens and young adults in an RV driving to NJ to have a drunken bonfire. What could possibly go wrong???
FORMAT: OPEN! There will be sections for different locations and times of day, so feel free to tag in and collect as much CR as you like!

Jessica was beyond excited. In the days leading up to the RV trip, she barely shut up about it. Even as she boarded the RV Laura had procured for their adventure and took the shotgun seat, she could barely stop talking. It was a beautiful day in the City, and the weather reports for their destination in Southern New Jersey called for blue skies and sunshine. It would be perfect beach-going weather, and it was bound to be the perfect summer night!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Alex, then.

Start wherever you like. What interests you -- legal moralism, analytical and virtue jurisprudence or Deontological ethics?

[ moralism? ethics? usually old guard bullshit, he's not wasting his time with that right now, this is his day off. ]

Figure we'll take the second out of those.

Not a fan of morals or ethics?

Well, I'll let you choose for yourself, but then perhaps you'd rather read about analytics than virtues. The latter's more of the same, really, except that it examines how ethics shapes the law and the actions of those in the profession...

Eh. [ he throws up a shrug ] Morals tend to be one more way for old douchebags to enforce their agendas and outdated values.

Not that those things ever had a date when they weren't bullshit, it's just that more people are actively recognizing it these days.

My Someone's Got Authority Issues Senses are tingling.

Not that I disagree. A lot of the legal profession is founded on the so-called wisdom of privileged, wealthy old men who thought they had the right to judge others. The system'sximproved, in some way, but it can't break entirely free of that legacy. Take one look at the shady stuff that slides by and you can see that.

Wealthy old white men. [ he tossed up a finger for emphasis ]

But I don't see what's wrong about having issues with an authority that's done you more harm than good. And it that isn't the law? Man, I don't know what is.

Fair enough!

Look, I've been screwed by the law, too. But the way I see it, just railing against something doesn't work, you have to operate from inside the system to effectively fight corruption.

[ Reilly you are like five seconds from pissing him off! ]

And who says all I do is rail against it? You don't really know what my level of involvement is, do you? People have full right to speak up about this shit, whether that's all they're doing or not!

But more than that, I really don't think fighting from the inside is the only effective method. It has its merits, sure, but a lot of the time will just net you a dead end.

Hey, I never said that people don't have a right to speak up about injustices or fight them in their own way. Don't put words in my mouth. For crying out loud, dude, I'm a lawyer. If it wasn't for the right to free speech, and all the morons trying to get rid of it, I'd be out of a job.

And fighting outside the system has the unfortunate tendency of netting you a literal death. I'd rather survive. You can't help anyone when you're dead.

You just drew a comparison that implied it was little more than a waste of time. You may not have argued that one doesn't have the right, but that's moving the goalposts, you were saying they shouldn't bother. Pretty weak argument from someone who supposedly spends his days in a courtroom!

What the hell are you talking about with death, though? We may live in a generally shitty country, but I'm not gonna pretend they kill or even lock up people for thinking subversively. I still don't think you should have to play by the Man's rules when you tell him what your issue is with them, either. You want them to change, you have to make them pay attention.

Excuse me. "Supposedly"? Are you honestly questioning my credentials just because you disagree with me? For the record, my exact words were that working inside the system is more effective. And I stand by that. Protesting is a great first step, it brings awareness and helps galvanize people, but in order to make a change that lasts? You have to change the system, its rules, and the people within it.

And for God's sake... think about Kent State. About political prisoners. About police coverups. People are killed for speaking out and fighting back. It happens all the time. Even here. Sure, you may have their attention, but you've also made yourself a target.

I said "supposedly" because I only met you five minutes ago and the only indication I had until right now that you're an actual lawyer was that you're reading a book on it. For all I know, you might've still been a student, or maybe an intern. Really, the lawyer assumption was generous, since they don't usually let someone as young as you that far, for the most part.

And now it's your turn to trust me, man. I work on the inside, I see how bureaucracy plays out on a daily basis, and no real change worth a damn is going to happen that way. All that system does is bury it.

I also think it's more preferable to stand for what you believe in than to live in fear of the consequences. Maybe it's not for everyone, but there's gotta be someone. They don't fear the consequences, so someone has to keep them accountable.

All right, fine. I suppose the burden of proof was on me to prove my identity. So, for the record: I have a degree from Empire State University. When I came here I was finishing up an internship for Franklin "Foggy" Nelson. Already did some work in the court room and a fair bit of consultation outside. If you haven't heard of them, okay, I suppose you're free to assume I'm making it all up.

You going to share? You know what-- no. Whatever. Let's say I believe you. I still think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The system exists for a reason. The rules exist for a reason. They may be corrupt or misused, but ideally? They're put in place to protect the people who don't have a voice.

The ones who can't speak out and stand up.

I don't need to see your degree, man. All you had to say was "yes, I am, as a matter of fact, a lawyer." Just confirmation would've done the job.

And you're still not getting what I'm talking about, still building strawmen to tear down. The system's basically fucked, sure, it may mostly just keep the rich rich and the poor poor, but tearing it all down would only worsen that problem. This isn't about anarchy, it's about accountability.

I'm talking about shining a light in the dark, pulling skeletons out of closets, getting attention where it's needed. I'm talking abut keeping the system honest. That's gonna net more change than getting so wrapped up in red tape even Boris Karloff would think you're overdoing it.

Yes, I am, as a matter of fact, a lawyer.

You should have clarified that from the start. When you start criticizing the System as a blanket rather than dissecting specific problems within that system, well, forgive me but what else am I supposed to think? Now, if you want to argue for accountability, I'm all for that -- if you'd been listening to anything I said about the legal system, perhaps you would have picked that up.

And I have no qualms about keeping the system honest. Helping the people on the edge, the people lost in the cracks, though who need us most... that's our responsibility.

Right, so all of your jumping to conclusions is my fault! All I said is that trying to get change to take through bureaucracy wasn't as effective as you were making it out to be, you filled in all those blanks afterward on your own.

The assumptions you make say way more about you than about anything I ever said! And honestly, where do you even expect me to start with specific issues? This was a discussion of method, not goals.

Oh, come on! Isn't that equally applicable to you? You've been doing nothing but making assumptions about what I believe based on my profession. Just because I'm part of- - "The System".

And honestly? If you have goals, then you should have a method. Without it your plans will fall apart.

The only assumption I've made about you, based solely on your profession, is that you really should be better at arguing than this if you expect to make a living out of it. Other than that, I've been addressing your words.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that we were discussing the most effective method, not which goals they should be used for. that's another conversation entirely.

Well, poor pitiful me, then. Doomed to a life of starvation.

Is it? You seem to think so, but I disagree. It's easy to lose your way if you choose the wrong method. And what you desire to do may not be the best way to do it.

Maybe not, but you do what you can and you hope that it nets results.

See, there. Something we can agree on.

You do your thing, I'll do mine, and we'll see if they don't meet in the middle somewhere.

Hmph. Can I get that in writing?

I'll have to talk to my lawyer first.

Heh.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

T-shirts, cut-offs, and a pair of thongs

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject