Samtolly4JESUS:

Bro, I perfectly understand you.

Well, I think it will be expedient to state the fact that the question is actually an Exam question.

So I'll prefer if we'll be more Objective.

Thanks sire.

Illuminatus:
did you read my post about underaged marriage? Isn't that part of our culture? I get your point that Nigerians view being gay as very wrong, but I just can't patronise it because I know there's a whole lot more things worse than having two guys that wanna plo into each other in private.
Anyway, What bill are you talking about? I didn't say anything about initiating any bill, did I?

Fentoluwa: Under aged marriage is part of some culture in Nigeria but some traditions frowns at it. Any proposed law on the floor of the house is known as a 'bill'. Gay marriage was proposed back then, but it was later trashed out. that's where the word "bill" emanated from in my argument. A legislative house will not enact law cos it is right and beneficial for a few. The 'potential' gay men we have here in Nigeria will be happy if the bill was voted into law but will the whole country be happy? bro, let me give you a riddle to solve. you are a pilot in a plane containing about 500 people, to avoid a plane crash you need to make an emergency landing. unfortunately, a young lad was lying on the runway. what will you do? run the plane over the boy or give up the plane and let the 500 die?? the reason for this question is to tell you the importance of the theory of "greatest happiness of all" according to Jeremy Bentham

Illuminatus:
Once again, I ask, did you read my first post on this topic? I'm NOT canvassing for the legalization of gay marriage. We aren't prepared for that yet. What I'm questioning is the validity of the fact that the law recognises gay sex as a crime (ridiculously being punished by a fourteen years jail term).

Illuminatus:
what do you mean more objective?

Samtolly4JESUS: Geeks in the House. Here goes a question.

It has been said that although logic plays an important role in legal reasoning, it only part of the story .Engage this statement in the light of legal reasoning and justification.

Thanks in advance!

Illuminatus:
what do you mean more objective?

Fentoluwa: what i'm telling you is that, it was prohibited cos of the imminent danger involved. God bless JJ Rosseau “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains”. As you've said in your first post on this subject, killing of the twins was done in the dark ages and it was lawful then, no law prohibiting it. fundamental rights of man has to be limited to avoid danger. we all have right to life but wait, does your right entitles you to commit suicide?

Samtolly4JESUS:

Objective in the sense that I'll love if the answer goes in Context with the Question.

Illuminatus:
Sighs. I wasn't being objective? Pray, please show me how to be objective by answering your own question.

Illuminatus:
If it doesn't, would you charge people who commit to court? And why are you comparing gay sex with suicide?

Fentoluwa: we are talking about fundamental rights as a whole. you made mention of this in your first post. in essence, what you are arguing is 'prohibition of gay marriage is an infringement on people's right'

Samtolly4JESUS: Geeks in the House. Here goes a question.

It has been said that although logic plays an important role in legal reasoning, it only part of the story .Engage this statement in the light of legal reasoning and justification.

Thanks in advance!

lana_Vello: is this thread dying or wah
in an attempt to revive it&satisfy my curiosity;can an advocate represent himself in court?
lyk the accused becoming the defendant too?!

Fynestboi: are my able barristers, philosopher on strike to or what?

Illuminatus:
I checked in yesterday, but the topic on ground was...well, I didn't feel like it. I guess it's getting kinda boring

really

Illuminatus: In criminal cases, if you
cannot afford a lawyer, the
court will appoint a lawyer
for you, like a public
defender. But in civil cases,
you do not have the right to
a court-appointed lawyer so,
if you cannot afford your
own lawyer, you have to
represent yourself.
Some people choose to
represent themselves even if
they could pay a lawyer
because they feel they can
handle the case on their own.
In small claims cases, you are
not allowed to have a lawyer,
so everyone in small claims
court is representing himself
or herself.

Illuminatus: No. You are not required to be a SAN before you're appointed a judge. But it is expected that you become a SAN before becoming a judge of most superior courts. Just like it is expected for a Minister be very knowledgable about his portfolio.

Samoranopapa: hummm I lyk dat nd is a very intrestin thing to do as 4 me ooo

omobajohn58: In view of the ongoing industrial action by ASUU...can any party to the strike be suedconsidering d fact that d UN charter makes provision 4 d universal right to education which they are denying d s2dents

Illuminatus:
Why would you find it interesting? Are you hoping to get charged with a case soon?

Samoranopapa: hummm I don't but I think as a professional lawyer defendin himself in a court of law will give him a chance to win the case. Note:am still a learner

Illuminatus:
One of the requirements of being a good lawyer is OBJECTIVITY. As an accused (or even the plantiff), you loose right of this. You become partial and may not be able to observe things as you should. (There's a reason why US detectives aren't allowed to solve crimes relating to them or their family). Yes, as a lawyer you can defend yourself, but I advice you (and any other person) to seek the counsel other lawyers and legal practisoners.

Samoranopapa: okay wat of an issue whereby ur mum,u,nd ur GF re lawyers,nd unfortunately ur GF is been accused of killing ur own bro nd charged to court nd ur mum is standing 4 the govt,nd u re standing 4 ur GF.ow will u go through it ?(nd ur GF is insisting dat she want u as her lawyer)