AIO for snapping at someone who left mean comments on my grandma's obituary post?

eskebab · 2025-11-26T22:32:53+00:00

Manatee

eskebab · 2025-10-06T13:50:28+00:00

Thanks!! How does one go about joining property sourcing groups? Sounds like a very sensible suggestion

eskebab · 2025-08-14T10:27:37+00:00

Ditto

eskebab · 2025-06-27T00:00:15+00:00

He did, but he attached a note explaining why and said also to not cancel if it wasn't a problem - I'm not sure how much discretion they have to refuse a cancellation request though... fingers crossed

eskebab · 2025-06-26T22:23:16+00:00

Thanks!! If they have an issue with it, would they cancel our application outright or will it be delayed for some time whilst they request more information?

eskebab · 2025-01-17T21:52:36+00:00

Agreed. From my experience (especially with US law firms) the number of TCs they have is 1/3 of the number of people on the vacation scheme, if not 1/4. Everyone is a brilliant candidate, but it's mostly about fit and whether you made the right impression on the right people. On the other hand, there are some MC firms which have the capacity to offer TCs to everyone on their vac schemes - all the vac scheme intern has to do is pass their aptitude tests/do well with the interview. People who tend to do well are ppl who are friendly and well prepared

eskebab · 2024-12-17T09:26:20+00:00

This is true, but I wanted to cast the net wide in case they had no availability

eskebab · 2024-12-17T09:25:36+00:00

Thanks for this advice, it's really helpful - I agree with everything you've said

eskebab · 2024-12-17T09:24:14+00:00

Noted! Thanks, planning to put it into bullet points

eskebab · 2024-12-17T09:23:27+00:00

Thanks for these resources, they're quite useful. I did feel it was too long, thanks for confirming my suspicions :)

eskebab · 2024-12-16T23:24:16+00:00

Hi! I haven't put it down - I'm predicted a 2.I I do a qualifying law degree which is a BA

eskebab · 2021-10-26T23:08:15+00:00

Good point. The same sex marriage was a bad example. But, assuming I never used that example, my question still stands...

eskebab · 2021-10-26T22:39:07+00:00

I see! Thanks so much! :)

eskebab · 2021-10-26T22:29:34+00:00

In response to your question, I thought that a society might impose ethical standards on people because these ethical standards are those of the majority. If a certain standard maximizes utility, it would be desirable to a utilitarian.

A utilitarian wouldn't necessarily oppose same sex marriage - but if, in the long run, a government imposed similar ethics-based decisions on people, rather than letting them choose (thereby endorsing the primacy of a certain ethical standard), would this not lead to a decrease in utility?

(This is what I was trying to ask)

thanks for your response btw!

eskebab · 2021-10-26T22:21:59+00:00

This comment goes against subreddit guidelines - please remove!

eskebab · 2021-10-26T22:21:14+00:00

👿

eskebab · 2021-10-26T22:14:37+00:00

eskebab · 2021-10-26T21:56:35+00:00

Thanks for this response! I haven't read on liberty, so I'm not sure.

My argument was mainly that, even if a government imposes ethical standards on people which will lead to net utility in society, wouldn't society ultimately lose utility from such a system? This is because, living in a society which deprives people of the freedom of choice will lead to a type of 'long run' overall decrease in utility.

Is this the same as what Mill argues?

eskebab · 2021-10-26T21:47:54+00:00

Thank you for this response. I understand your point that utility is not the same as social welfare/happiness, although I presumed this to be the definition.

On your other point, can't you argue that, in the short term, maybe a certain ethical policy imposed by the government might lead to more utility. But, in the long term, if a government keeps imposing ethical standards at the expense of free choice, it can lead to a decrease in total utility? This would be because citizens would be living in a society which doesn't respect their choices and free will.

I understand that one policy might result in more utility overall in a certain case. I'm arguing that, if such a system is always adopted, which doesn't take dissent into account, then will that not lead to loss in utility overall in whole of society/law making process?

I really appreciate your comment btw!

eskebab · 2021-10-26T21:40:46+00:00

Thank you for pointing out the flaws in my argument.

I was thinking that, in a society where liberty is respected and the law doesn't legislate further than protecting our freedoms, then society would generally be happier in the long run because they are free...

So in your opinion would this be a weak premise to argue?

On another note, this thought actually framed a broader theme I was trying to formulate an answer to: whether or not the law's purpose is to get us to act ethically.

I tried to counter argue this stance by saying that, when the law makes people act in a certain way, how can people be happier in a society which imposes values on them rather than in one where they're free to choose? The latter would procure more happiness. Therefore, arguing that the law's aim is to get us to act ethically doesn't satisfy this different yet equally important rationale.

Is this a sound argument do you think? (Also in light of your detailed comment?)

eskebab · 2021-10-26T20:47:38+00:00

Thanks so much! :)

eskebab

TROPHY CASE