I think I may have already met the Sophist's challenge. Today on my constitutional law exam, I was asked to argue that a hypothetical law violated the substantive due process rights of various persons (I was also asked to argue that it did not in another section of the exam). The strange thing about the question was that on those set of facts I was certain that there was no violation of substantive due process, but I argued that there was anyway: I had to. I'll report my success when my grades come out.
We, the faithful, await the Sophist's triumphant return.
Excellent work! I commend you! Law has always interested me, would it be too inquisitive to ask what the question was? I may have a go arguing it myself.
Sophistry is necessary for anything in life, really. Especially in college. As an undergraduate, I know that when I ask a student about their academic papers, very few of them truly believe what they argue. In fact, very few people ACTUALLY believe anything that most people take as background knowledge if they are questioned long enough.
I hope to be active in this community! It's immensely worthwhile. As far as anything is worthwhile, that is, at least that's how it seems to me.
Comments 3
We, the faithful, await the Sophist's triumphant return.
Reply
Georgina
Reply
I hope to be active in this community! It's immensely worthwhile. As far as anything is worthwhile, that is, at least that's how it seems to me.
Reply
Leave a comment