Anyone else here used to watch Daredevil?

[CleanHands]

17 minutes ago, Diplock said:

But spare me the bullshit about how any day now you're going to apply those skills to help poor people somehow. Just fucking spare me. Do it and then tell me that you've done it, or shut the hell up. Stop telling yourself any day now you're going to take your experience in Mergers and Acquisitions and help the poor. It's bullshit, and it's infuriating, and if you just maintained your delusions in private I wouldn't bother you about them. But don't spread them around and expect my silence to abet them.

 

[Mountebank]

Estates lawyer here. Just a friendly reminder that all roads lead to my office and I'll be seeing you at the end. When your body goes back to dust, I'll be there. And you can't run from me.

Memento mori, folks 😉

 

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, Diplock said:

But spare me the bullshit about how any day now you're going to apply those skills to help poor people somehow. Just fucking spare me. Do it and then tell me that you've done it, or shut the hell up. Stop telling yourself any day now you're going to take your experience in Mergers and Acquisitions and help the poor. It's bullshit, and it's infuriating, and if you just maintained your delusions in private I wouldn't bother you about them. But don't spread them around and expect my silence to abet them.

Yea - we agree completely here. No one doing what I do should be going around pretending that they could do what you or CH does. Or that they're going to someday. I think it's a pretty significant show of hubris to think that but for your student loans you too would have what it takes to do that. 

I suppose my point is this, and it's not to problematize anything. You effectively get to choose two things in a law career, what you do and who you do it for. The answer to either of those questions will dramatically impact the choices you have for the answer to the other, and vice versa. People need to pick which question's answer matters more to them, and then make choices based on that. If the answer to the latter is "real people", then you can have the answer to the former be "corporate/commercial". If it's "poor/indigent people" likely not.

The only issue I have is when people have "corporate/commercial" necessitate an answer of "evil big business", because there are a whole swath of real (again, not truly poor, but not near as well off as some would have you believe) people that need that advice and they arent served when people believe that they don't exist. And there's conversely a whole bunch of new calls who know they cant hack it in the trenches cleanhands is in who aren't served by feeling they need to go work for megacorp (and be miserable) to do something they can manage, and for clients that do need that help. 

But at this point I'm a megacorp lawyer and unlikely to be anything else, so maybe I should just eat it when it happens and comfort myself with my supposedly endless stores of dollars. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by WhoKnows

[Diplock]

13 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

I suppose my point is this, and it's not to problematize anything. You effectively get to choose two things in a law career, what you do and who you do it for. The answer to either of those questions will dramatically impact the choices you have for the answer to the other, and vice versa. People need to pick which question's answer matters more to them, and then make choices based on that. If the answer to the latter is "real people", then you can have the answer to the former be "corporate/commercial". If it's "poor/indigent people" likely not.

...

But at this point I'm a megacorp lawyer and unlikely to be anything else, so maybe I should just eat it when it happens and comfort myself with my supposedly endless stores of dollars. 

Couple of points well worth replying to, here.

First off, I totally agree with the "two choices" approach you've offered, though I apply it in a totally different context. Most students seem utterly consumed by the first question and spend all their time trying to find an area of practice that suits their interests, aptitudes, and ambitions. And they miss the second question entirely. When I talk with a student who can't figure out an answer to (a) I steer them towards answering (b) and that usually solves the problem. Again, not to imply there's a "good" and a "bad" answer. If you want to work with individuals, there are areas of practice where that's going to happen. If you want to work with institutions, that supports other choices. I agree that any career path will be influenced by both answers, but one can be far more significant than the other and it's often the question that's overlooked, just as you say.

I'll spare you rehashing the previous point. I'll agree we all make choices that are complicated and influenced by a lot of factors and it's rarely black and white. But in some cases, the trend in decision-making is clear enough that someone has clearly chosen their "side" here, to whatever degree there are sides. It is what it is. I don't judge those lawyers for their choices and some are close friends. I just want to acknowledge reality and expect everyone else to do the same.

In terms of what it means to be a "good" lawyer vs. a "bad" one, I think the real problem is that people are conflating what we do as professionals with how we function in the community as citizens. There can be a lot of overlap, don't get me wrong, but they aren't necessarily the same thing at all. Here's a personal example. My son's school apparently has some disruption in their lunch program. My son doesn't even rely on the program, but it bugs the hell out of me to imagine any kid who goes there - and it's a public school that draws from some poorer areas - might not be getting their one good meal of the day. I asked what I could do to help. They're organizing volunteers or something and it's still up in the air. I'm keeping an eye on it. But you know what I said I'd help with? Money. I have money. I have a hell of a lot more money than time. And I don't imagine I'm going to be going there any time soon to pack or cook or wash anything. I'll contribute money. Because money buys everything else - including time from people who can do those things much better than I can and who are worth far less than I cost in an hour.

I alluded to this before, but when I talk with lawyers and firms that make big bucks for big corporate clients, I don't expect them to stop doing math or to live outside economic reality. If a lawyer in that environment really really wants to go to Small Claims Court on behalf of some poor guy who's up against it - more power to them! I applaud the effort. But at that point it's more than half recreation rather than contribution. It's like growing your own vegetables rather than buying them, when you know damn well the time it takes to grow them represents enough foregone earnings you could buy several truckloads instead. So if Big Law lawyers want to both contribute and be efficient in their contributions, genuinely the best thing they can do is donate funds to a legal clinic where a full-time staff lawyer and a few paralegals and probably some students spend all their time doing stuff they already know how to do. And I'm fine with that. More than fine, in fact, because it helps a lot more people than some kind of DIY mission from Bay Street.

I agree ego is at the center of a lot of this. Do I tell myself that I could have done "Big Law" if I wanted to? Sometimes, sure. But I mainly keep that to myself. I backed out of a 2L summer position I was actually offered at a major firm and I thank God every day that I did. I would have been miserable. I'd probably be one of those guys who made it about three years and then had an existential crisis. I don't belong there. So mainly, I keep it to myself that I think I could hack it just as well as they could if only I made other choices. I don't blame Big Law lawyers looking what I do and thinking "I could do that if only...." I just expect some balance, and some humility, and a lack of self-delusion. Everything else can be solved by taking some of your largess and distributing it back down the ladder. Noblesse oblige and all that.

Anyway, fun discussion, despite some of the left turns.

 

[CndnViking]

17 hours ago, CleanHands said:

It's just what people who want to go into BigLaw for the money but don't want to admit that they want to go into BigLaw for the money say at the applicant and 1L stage, when they don't know enough to know how stupid that sounds to anyone who is somewhat familiar with the legal industry. 

Yeah, again with the superiority, condescension and insulting. Shocker. 

You really think, even in a world where you acknowledge this type of perception is so widely spread, that everyone with that perception is actively lying? Interesting. I didn't know that about myself. Crazy how over half of the people with my same undergrad degree took lucrative jobs in oil & gas and with our (very conservative) provincial government, while I went from an unpaid internship at the Human Rights Commission to a non-profit. Crazy how someone who doesn't even know my name knows what I think and want better than I do. 😆

With all due respect, cause from how you describe what you do I feel like we're cut from far more similar cloth than you think, but my god man you sure come across like you're constantly looking for a fight or somebody to cut down. Try meditating or something. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

23 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

With all due respect, cause from how you describe what you do I feel like we're cut from far more similar cloth than you think, but my god man you sure come across like you're constantly looking for a fight or somebody to cut down. Try meditating or something. 

You're not wrong, @CleanHands is being pretty condescending. I lean into that myself sometimes, but for the moment I'll play the voice of moderation.

No matter that the message is being delivered with a healthy dose of snark, there is a very important point at the heart of what CleanHands is saying. There is a strong gravitational pull towards compromise in legal practice. You will be urged at every turn towards pursuing "conventional" legal practice in larger organized firms, which unsurprisingly serve large, organized clients and primarily private clients with money. It is what it is.

Anxiety, in particular, is a major driver towards making choices you may not really "want" to make but will later explain as being involuntary. You'll be worried about finding a job. You'll be worried about being able to pay back your student loans. You'll be terrified at the idea of joining a small practice or God forbid setting out on your own, which is where a lot of the "in the trenches" work takes place. I don't want to downplay the legitimacy of those fears. They are real concerns. But in the end, you either face down those fears or you don't.

The warning isn't misdirected, that if you are already offering rationales for why you can't live your values in legal practice it's a very slippery slope from there. In fact, it isn't a downhill slope at all but an uphill climb you need to be on constantly, if you intend to adhere to your stated values and ambitions. You can either do the work, make the hard choices, or not. I won't usually judge you (subject to the exceptions noted, above) either way. But the warning about what it takes, and the constant pull in the other direction, is legitimate. Even if it comes in an unpleasant tone.

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, CndnViking said:

Yeah, again with the superiority, condescension and insulting. Shocker. 

You really think, even in a world where you acknowledge this type of perception is so widely spread, that everyone with that perception is actively lying? Interesting. I didn't know that about myself. Crazy how over half of the people with my same undergrad degree took lucrative jobs in oil & gas and with our (very conservative) provincial government, while I went from an unpaid internship at the Human Rights Commission to a non-profit. Crazy how someone who doesn't even know my name knows what I think and want better than I do. 😆

With all due respect, cause from how you describe what you do I feel like we're cut from far more similar cloth than you think, but my god man you sure come across like you're constantly looking for a fight or somebody to cut down. Try meditating or something. 

So, here's the thing: the statement you uttered both betrays a clearly and objectively incorrect understanding of the field, and yet is also still such a common sentiment that it's a cliché utterance from a certain kind of applicant/law student. Every lawyer knew multiple people who said the same thing in law school, and virtually none of the people who make that statement end up doing what they purport to "really" want to do with a legal education.

I've commented upon this enough, so I generally don't bother rehashing this in detail and having the same conversation with different but interchangeable applicants. Relevant posts from a 5 second search: https://canlawforum.com/topic/4368-has-anyone-ever-gotten-stuck-in-a-legal-field-they-didnt-like/#comment-46933

https://canlawforum.com/topic/507-difficulty-of-mid-career-area-switches/#comment-5379

 

What you seem to have failed to consider is that you're talking about entering a practice area that has no relevance to what you ostensibly want to do, and somehow making a transfer at the mid-career stage when you're in a better financial position. The implications of this are not just a significant pay cut. You would be in a position where you are totally unqualified for the jobs you supposedly wanted. There would be no opportunity to "lateral" and be treated as the year of call you are, because you'd have no more relevant experience than someone entering the practice area directly from law school. And you'd be a significantly less attractive candidate than the student, whose legal education in relevant areas is fresh, and who doesn't raise questions about what on earth they were doing for the past few years and why, or whether there is actual legitimate interest in the practice area or some kind of sketchy story-behind-the-story. In the long run, (even assuming you have the will to follow through on your plan, which almost nobody who says that does) you'd almost certainly actually make less money over the course of your career than you would directly entering your desired practice area, because you'd be doing a career reset and going back to square one, and that's only if you are fortunate enough to be able to switch practice areas, which isn't guaranteed.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CleanHands

[WiseGhost]

Without commenting on the merits of the positions here, I must say that this has been a very helpful discussion for a law student considering their next steps. So thanks 

[CndnViking]

31 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

So, here's the thing: the statement you uttered both betrays a clearly and objectively incorrect understanding of the field, and yet is also still such a common sentiment that it's a cliché utterance from a certain kind of applicant/law student. Every lawyer knew multiple people who said the same thing in law school, and virtually none of the people who make that statement end up doing what they purport to "really" want to do with a legal education.

I've commented upon this enough, so I generally don't bother rehashing this in detail and having the same conversation with different but interchangeable applicants. Relevant posts from a 5 second search: https://canlawforum.com/topic/4368-has-anyone-ever-gotten-stuck-in-a-legal-field-they-didnt-like/#comment-46933

https://canlawforum.com/topic/507-difficulty-of-mid-career-area-switches/#comment-5379

 

What you seem to have failed to consider is that you're talking about entering a practice area that has no relevance to what you ostensibly want to do, and somehow making a transfer at the mid-career stage when you're in a better career position. The implications of this are not just a significant pay cut. You would be in a position where you are totally unqualified for the jobs you supposedly wanted. There would be no opportunity to "lateral" and be treated as the year of call you are, because you'd have no more relevant experience than someone entering the practice area directly from law school. And you'd be a significantly less attractive candidate than the student, whose legal education in relevant areas is fresh, and who doesn't raise questions about what on earth they were doing for the past few years and why, or whether there is actual legitimate interest in the practice area or some kind of sketchy story-behind-the-story. In the long run, (even assuming you have the will to follow through on your plan, which almost nobody who says that does) you'd almost certainly actually make less money over the course of your career than you would directly entering your desired practice area, because you'd be doing a career reset and going back to square one, and that's only if you are fortunate enough to be able to switch practice areas, which isn't guaranteed.

I have to admit, I'm impressed. I'm generally very openly opposed to the very concept of "TL;DR"-ing things, but you've driven me to make an exception. As seems to be the usual for you across the half dozen or so threads I've seen you in, the topic of the thread seems almost secondary to you insulting and talking down to people. If it's not playing mind-reader and telling strangers what they secretly think, it's condescending to anybody who asks a question you disapprove of or admits a shred of weakness or uncertainty.

I'm aware that at the heart of your position is some version of "it's not as bad as people make it out to be" - which is fine, you may well be right... but I would hope that someone in such a logic-driven profession would manage to figure out that a) their experience isn't universal, and b) that a sentiment they admit is so common is being heard, and thus informing the genuine understanding of others.... but no, we MUST all just being lying. Give me a break.

For someone who's so self-congratulatory about their altruism and desire to help, you sure are eager to pounce on any little opportunity to be shitty to people, including those genuinely seeking the kind of help you could very easily provide. I sure hope you treat your clients with a bit less hostility than you do almost everybody I've seen you interact with here.

Have a good one.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[CleanHands]

15 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

I have to admit, I'm impressed. I'm generally very openly opposed to the very concept of "TL;DR"-ing things, but one sentence in, I've already been disabused of any interest in reading on: not because you may not have valuable insight, but because - much like every other comment I've seen you make across a half dozen or so threads, the overarching thread seems to be you just being an asshole. If it's not playing mind-reader and telling strangers what they secretly think, it's condescending to anybody who asks a question you disapprove of or admits a shred of weakness or uncertainty.

I'm aware that at the heart of your position is some version of "it's not as bad as people make it out to be" - which is fine, you may well be right... but I would hope that someone in such a logic-driven profession would manage to figure out that a) their experience isn't universal, and b) that a sentiment they admit is so common is being heard, and thus informing the genuine understanding of others.... but no, we MUST all just being lying. Give me a break.

For someone who's so self-congratulatory about their altruism and desire to help, you sure are eager to pounce on any little opportunity to be shitty to people, including those genuinely seeking the kind of help you could very easily provide. I sure hope you treat your clients with a bit less hostility than you do almost everybody I've seen you interact with here.

Have a good one.

And this is exactly why you initially just got a short burst of snark. Actually making an effort to disabuse people like you of your misconceptions is a complete waste of time.

[CndnViking]

4 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

And this is exactly why you initially just got a short burst of snark. Actually making an effort to disabuse people like you of your misconceptions is a complete waste of time.

Oooooooooooh, I initially got a short burst? Because of THIS? Crazy. How did you manage to use things I would say much later to justify being a dick since the second I joined this forum (and seemingly before)? First you're reading minds, now you can tell the future too? You're wasting your skills in law, man. Open a psychic hotline.

Maybe if you "actually made an effort" without burying it in condescension, insults, and ego, people might be more open to what you had to say. You should try it some time.

Also, they're misconceptions now? A minute ago you were completely convinced I knew the truth and was just lying. If you're gonna pretend to know my thought processes, at least pick a story and stick to it.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Naj]

12 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

And this is exactly why you initially just got a short burst of snark. Actually making an effort to disabuse people like you of your misconceptions is a complete waste of time.

This is bullshit. They will likely come around once they understand it's nothing personal, that is if they aren't so offended that they choose to never browse the forum again.

-At least this was the case for me.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Naj

[Pecan Boy]

OP: I have watched Daredevil, 

[CndnViking]

38 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Anxiety, in particular, is a major driver towards making choices you may not really "want" to make but will later explain as being involuntary. You'll be worried about finding a job. You'll be worried about being able to pay back your student loans. You'll be terrified at the idea of joining a small practice or God forbid setting out on your own, which is where a lot of the "in the trenches" work takes place. I don't want to downplay the legitimacy of those fears. They are real concerns. But in the end, you either face down those fears or you don't.

See the problem there is you're purporting to support his position, when in reality you're making a VERY different one. Surely you're both aware there's a big difference between someone being honest about their intentions and circumstances driving them to compromise or change plans, and someone just outright lying. You just described the former, and would make sense to describe as "a warning." He presented the latter, and gives nothing to "warn" people about, since we already know we're just making shit up to sound good.

Your version makes a lot of sense and is likely true in a lot of cases - but of course, every rule has its exceptions. As I mentioned I have a lawyer acquaintance, after accounting for paying back law school loans, is really no more secure in his lifestyle than I was working as a security guard for barely over minimum wage. Is that typical? Probably not. But obviously it does happen, and you've both admitted being aware of how widespread that concern is, so to assume anyone voicing it is actively being dishonest, let alone to then berate and insult them for it, is almost as ignorant as it is abhorrent.

[Diplock]

14 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

See the problem there is you're purporting to support his position, when in reality you're making a VERY different one. Surely you're both aware there's a big difference between someone being honest about their intentions and circumstances driving them to compromise or change plans, and someone just outright lying. You just described the former, and would make sense to describe as "a warning." He presented the latter, and gives nothing to "warn" people about, since we already know we're just making shit up to sound good.

Your version makes a lot of sense and is likely true in a lot of cases - but of course, every rule has its exceptions. As I mentioned I have a lawyer acquaintance, after accounting for paying back law school loans, is really no more secure in his lifestyle than I was working as a security guard for barely over minimum wage. Is that typical? Probably not. But obviously it does happen, and you've both admitted being aware of how widespread that concern is, so to assume anyone voicing it is actively being dishonest, let alone to then berate and insult them for it, is almost as ignorant as it is abhorrent.

I don't know what you're trying to say right now, but I won't get into tit-for-tat because you've already got your opponent for that exchange. And I really think you deserve each other right now, because you're both offering up plenty of fodder.

I'm not trying to say CleanHands is "right." I'm trying to say the warning is meaningful, appropriate, and needed. And you're replying with...what? "But I know a guy?" And knowing that guy proves...what? That you're right you're going to be compelled to compromise for the money or else be condemned to live hand to mouth indefinitely?

There are two major problems with the way you are going about this discussion right now. First, you're trying to argue that your "I know a guy" experience is somehow superior to the perspective offered by lawyers who are already practicing law and are surrounded by peers who are also already practicing law. Even if I agree someone is being a dick in how they express themselves, you're a fool if you don't acknowledge their superior perspective. Second, despite insisting on the strength of your convictions, you seem to be trying to support an argument that proves the necessity of compromise. I don't even know what you're trying to insist at this point. Is it "I'm going to fight for the little guy despite the costs" or is it "I'm going to chase the money because the system will force me to" or is it just "I know better than you all do because I know a guy?"

You aren't wrong to raise these issues. You aren't wrong that you've gotten, perhaps, more attitude than you deserved in reply. But at some point you either accept you're talking with people who know better than you do, or you continue to look dumb. There's no option in between.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Diplock

[CndnViking]

10 minutes ago, Naj said:

This is bullshit. They will likely come around once they understand it's nothing personal, that is if they aren't so offended that they choose to never browse the forum again.

-At least this was the case for me.

I don't take it personally. It's obviously his SOP around here to (sometimes) take a nugget of useful information, bury it in condescension and rudeness, and throw it out into the world, interspersed with other comments that exist for no other purpose than to talk shit. It's not that I think this is unique to me, just that I find it exhausting and not worth sifting through to find the good that may or may not even be there.

[Diplock]

26 minutes ago, Naj said:

This is bullshit. They will likely come around once they understand it's nothing personal, that is if they aren't so offended that they choose to never browse the forum again.

-At least this was the case for me.

I have a lot of time for people who'll come around. But at best I think he's moving a couple of degrees right now, and turning around is going to require a really wide curve.

[CndnViking]

6 minutes ago, Diplock said:

I'm not trying to say CleanHands is "right." I'm trying to say the warning is meaningful, appropriate, and needed. And you're replying with...what? "But I know a guy?" And knowing that guy proves...what? That you're right you're going to be compelled to compromise for the money or else be condemned to live hand to mouth indefinitely?

No, that's a complete straw man. He didn't offer a "warning" - warnings are, by definition, indications of impending circumstances of which the other party is presumed to be unaware. That is the very antithesis of what he said.

His entire comment was ABUNDANTLY clear that he is certain we are very much aware, and actively lying about it. To claim to be "warning" someone of their own lying is nonsensical.

Your version was a warning. It accepted that people like us believe what we're saying and cautions us about things to come. He flat out said repeatedly that we don't even believe it to begin with.

I honestly cannot fathom how you're missing that distinction.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

1 minute ago, CndnViking said:

No, that's a complete straw man. He didn't offer a "warning" - warnings are, by definition, indications of impending circumstances of which the other party is unaware.

His entire comment was ABUNDANTLY clear that he is certain we are very much aware, and actively lying about it. It's complete nonsense to say someone is "warning" me, and people like me, that we're liars.

Your version was a warning. It accepted that people like us believe what we're saying and cautions us about things to come. He flat out said repeatedly that we don't even believe it to begin with.

I honestly cannot fathom how you're missing that distinction.

Okay, fine. You've convinced me. A guy on the Internet was mean to you! You're right! That happened. Feel validated.

That's totally the most important thing that's happening in this discussion. Totally. Nothing else to see here. We settled it. A dude was mean to you.

/thread

[CndnViking]

10 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Okay, fine. You've convinced me. A guy on the Internet was mean to you! You're right! That happened. Feel validated.

That's totally the most important thing that's happening in this discussion. Totally. Nothing else to see here. We settled it. A dude was mean to you.

/thread

Cool. So his thing is condescension, and yours is straw man arguments. If you think the only distinction between warning someone of a potential change and calling them a liar is that one is "mean", then I dunno how you ever got past the LSAT, cause that's some of the worst difference spotting I've ever seen.

But hey, good to know so I don't continue to waste time reading things that won't be helpful.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Naj]

6 minutes ago, Diplock said:

I have a lot of time for people who'll come around. But at best I think he's moving a couple of degrees right now, and turning around is going to require a really wide curve

Well, he's doing a lot better than I did, so I've got hope. Have some patience, it will eventually be appreciated. 

[CndnViking]

1 minute ago, Naj said:

Well, he's doing a lot better than I did, so I've got hope. Have some patience, it will eventually be appreciated. 

I'm always open to changing my mind on things where warranted, but when his whole argument is "you don't even believe what you're saying, you're just lying about it" I'm not sure what I'm expected to "come around" on. 😆

[Diplock]

5 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

I'm always open to changing my mind on things where warranted, but when his whole argument is "you don't even believe what you're saying, you're just lying about it" I'm not sure what I'm expected to "come around" on. 😆

You're supposed to come around to the view that whether or not a dude was mean to you on the Internet is not, in fact, the most significant thing that's happening here. In a thread full of lawyers trying to tell you important things about legal practice, your fixation on winning an argument which you think is about whether or not someone was mean to you is not, you know, a hopeful sign.

That's all.

[Mountebank]

3 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

No, that's a complete straw man. He didn't offer a "warning" - warnings are, by definition, indications of impending circumstances of which the other party is unaware.

His entire comment was ABUNDANTLY clear that he is certain we are very much aware, and actively lying about it. It's complete nonsense to say someone is "warning" me, and people like me, that we're liars.

Your version was a warning. It accepted that people like us believe what we're saying and cautions us about things to come. He flat out said repeatedly that we don't even believe it to begin with.

I honestly cannot fathom how you're missing that distinction.

With respect, I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, CH was vaguely rude to you. The important thing to remember is that nobody cares about that.

Yet, there's a lot to get out of this thread, even in the knowledge and experience that CH is offering you, and you seem to be in danger of it going over your head. I think this is what Diplock is, frankly quite gently, suggesting.

[Naj]

5 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

I'm always open to changing my mind on things where warranted, but when his whole argument is "you don't even believe what you're saying, you're just lying about it" I'm not sure what I'm expected to "come around" on. 😆

Look man getting fucked on this forum during your first visit is a canon event. I personally wished they were a little more gentle with it, considering your mature background and all - I think that would've resonated better with you but they're used to younger applicants coming in here and spouting all 'this and that'.  Log off for now without saying any more, come back later with a clear head, and re-read the advice you've been given.