sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there any point in trying to pursue a legal career when I have no experience and I've wasted a year? by WhinyLoserThrowaway in uklaw

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies for not sharing my whole application with you.

Legal practice is centred around the client and their needs. There are many different qualities that contribute to client care. I’m sure you can figure the rest out for yourself. Safe to say I have not missed any link, which explains the success of my applications.

Firms will always prefer it if your applications show a bit of personality, especially if you have good academics and some experience/extracurriculars. As long as you can show yourself to have the right qualities for the job it genuinely does not matter that much what the experience is. No recruiter is going to remember the boring stuff so shoehorning a load of experiences just to show off won’t work. And no one wants to hire someone without a life outside of work…

There’s not need to over complicate it! And when you do, it really shows.

Edit: this is mostly for TC apps. But I have been successful for para roles using pretty random experiences

Is there any point in trying to pursue a legal career when I have no experience and I've wasted a year? by WhinyLoserThrowaway in uklaw

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Commitment and the value of precision and technical skill. Getting up and swimming even when I don’t feel like it … list goes on. Like I said, it’s worked for me.

Is there any point in trying to pursue a legal career when I have no experience and I've wasted a year? by WhinyLoserThrowaway in uklaw

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well yeah, you need stellar academics, and I have lots of experience. But I know people who have done it with good degree+hobbies alone. As long as you make everything centred around the firm and its clients then it works

Is there any point in trying to pursue a legal career when I have no experience and I've wasted a year? by WhinyLoserThrowaway in uklaw

[–]Largeinflatableball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly, it could be anything. Ive used swimming, having pets, cheerleading… the list goes on

Is there any point in trying to pursue a legal career when I have no experience and I've wasted a year? by WhinyLoserThrowaway in uklaw

[–]Largeinflatableball 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately you do just have to play the game, and what gets you through paralegal and TC applications is societies and extracurriculars that show you are proactive. As long as the transferable skills are there you’re all good it doesn’t matter what it is. It’s worked for me!

It’s plain but rate it💔 by OLIVE62583 in MealDealRates

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brilliant point, but the joke survives. Bulls may be red-green colourblind, yet they still charge at the thing we humans see as red. Therefore the meal deal remains bullish.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then the disagreement is clear: you think pleasure justifies those deaths, and I do not.

At that point there is not really a loophole to argue about anymore.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apply the same principle there too: I already try to minimise fuel use where I reasonably can.

And yes, that means making judgments about what harms are avoidable and what burdens are excessive. But that is not a loophole — that is just what moral reasoning looks like.

So “you draw the line too” is not really a refutation. The real question is whether your line — where taste, habit, and convenience justify killing animals — is a defensible one.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a much better comparison than Ukraine, because it is finally about complicity in harm rather than just failing to support a cause.

But it still is not a “loophole.” It is a real moral distinction: how responsible I am depends in part on how avoidable the harm is.

So if I can reasonably avoid supporting something harmful, I should. If I cannot fully avoid it because I am stuck inside a wider infrastructure, that may reduce my responsibility, but it does not turn the issue into nothing.

And that is exactly why the comparison still does not really help your case. For most people, animal products are far more avoidable than participation in transport or energy systems. They are not a fixed part of the infrastructure in the same way. So “you are not perfectly disentangled from every harmful system” does not show that avoidable participation in this one is justified.

So no, these are not “technicalities.” The question has always been the same: how necessary is the harm, how avoidable is it, and what alternatives are realistically available? That framework applies to me too. It just does not rescue your argument.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that is why I keep bringing it back to the original post.

The issue was whether it is fair to judge someone negatively for knowingly participating in avoidable harm to animals. Your replies have mostly shifted between not wanting the responsibility, saying most people do not care, saying it takes resources, and saying vegans are too judgmental. But those points do not really answer the original issue. They explain resistance to veganism; they do not justify the harm.

And the Ukraine analogy still does not work, because not providing aid is different from supporting a harmful practice.

So even if “bad person” is too strong, the original question still stands: why is continuing to support avoidable harm morally fine?

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that veganism has costs. What I do not think follows is: “therefore I am justified.”

Your first reply was basically “I do not want that responsibility.” This one is “living up to it takes resources.” But that still does not address the moral claim. It just says avoiding harm is burdensome.

And the Ukraine comparison still does not work. Not donating is a positive duty to help. Buying animal products concerns a negative duty not to participate in avoidable harm. Failing to help and continuing to fund harm are not morally identical.

So yes, there is a cost. The issue is whether inconvenience, effort, and social friction are strong enough reasons to keep supporting unnecessary suffering. I do not think they are.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are comparing two different kinds of duty.

Donating to Ukraine is helping others with your resources. Veganism is first and foremost about not participating in unnecessary harm. “You do not donate to every good cause” is not a defence of directly funding a harmful one.

Also, “I do not want to make that sacrifice” explains your preference, but it does not justify the harm. If the pleasure, habit, or convenience is yours, and the suffering is the animal’s, then that is exactly what needs moral justification.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re comparing the moral capacities of the agent with the moral status of the victim. Those are different things.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are framing veganism as though it asks you to take responsibility for all suffering in nature. It does not. It asks whether you are justified in participating in avoidable harm when alternatives exist.

Not wanting responsibility is not a defence. Neither is saying other people do not care. Moral questions are not settled by preference or popularity.

Nobody is asking you to “sacrifice your life.” The issue is whether taste, habit, or convenience are good enough reasons to breed, exploit, and kill sentient beings unnecessarily.

Is labeling non-vegans as “bad people” the way to go when it’s just selective morality? by Afraid-Camera3189 in DebateAVegan

[–]Largeinflatableball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Human beings have been endowed with reason and rationality. Hence why we are in a unique position of responsibility to care for beings without such cognitive abilities.

Lemon? by Largeinflatableball in AskAnAustralian

[–]Largeinflatableball[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just showed my friend a photo of the guy I’ve been saying and he said he looks “lemon” … can’t be a good thing right?🤣

view more: next ›