some schools add the labs and tech ONTO of the theory

Blessed be your spread of legal help

other schools don't

ME still get labs ofc

but, again

they get a lot more into it with the theory

whereas METs primarily focus on labs and application

In truth, if I wanted to cuck to the BAR, I could become an attorney and make lots of money, but it'd kill my soul.

that being said, they aren't even necessarily better than MEs are at even application in the end

yeah, that is one of the main reasons I went for the EIT then the PE; to account for that ambiguity outside the area where they knew our school

because it is always better to learn the groundwork and theory, as that helps you learn the application a lot more easily once you do

well, it's BEST to learn both AT ONCE

true

Guys

Fellas

that's why i liked our program; we had to design from scratch, simulate, build, test

Gurls

I just learned something amazing.

sheilas

soup to nuts

The British are actually the real Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

Oof.

Technically, that's correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration##targetText=The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20was%20a,a%20small%20minority%20Jewish%20population.

there are many issues when attorneys that mainly deal in civil law try their hand in criminal law

@Marushia Dark can I drag someone out of my property for trespassing

cuz I feel like the law around that is ambiguous

mainly, in criminal law the state lets the husband testify as if he owned his wife's property

I've gotten different responses

doesn't work like that in civil law

But yeah, MA, going back to our earlier conversation, if you wanna know the law, it's this simple and this hard: "Do no harm." Everything else stems from that. What is harm, exactly? Well, that's what you have philosophy and ethics for.

from what I understand, even security guards have to call a real cop to actually drag someone out

> mainly, in criminal law the state lets the husband testify as if he owned his wife's property

Yes and there's a reason for that. Marriage is a property contract. A corporate merger.

you are trying to apply a 'head in the clouds theory' to real life practice; morals and ethics rarely enter into it

just generalize it to property contracts in general honestly

is it legal or is it not?

Legal and lawful are two different things

correct

and morality isn't a function of the state

Agreed

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/LegalVLawful.htm

I'd still like an answer to my question

I don't waste my time in the weeds of legality when I can take the high ground of law and morality.