Date: May 25th, 2026 2:00 AM
Author: 346
Gave a speech about someone at the firm who killed himself last year. He was fat, did drugs, single and went to strip clubs to the point he was asking to borrow money. No one liked him or his smell before he killed himself but it was a huge deal after with law shrews crying but wouldn’t walk down the same hallway with him when he was alive. They invited his brother there who is equally as fat and degenerate as some shrew instagram virtue signaling/
humiliation ritual I guess.
In my speech at the podium I was going over this guys life because we graduate law school together and went to the firm at the same time. My speech was impromptu but something like this:
“Could we have prevented this guy from killing himself? Maybe. But even if we knew he was going to take a 50 story leap, the question should be is it our duty to try to get involved?”
*gasps* *a few drunk laughs*
“No I’m serious. I feel like as a society we try to make like it’s our duty to stop people from killing themselves. I think we should do a case by case assessment. Is the world “better off” with this person alive? While no one person makes a difference in the world, if you broke it down to the fraction of whether this person’s existence makes the world better, what would Greg’s be? He gambled, he went to strip clubs (and had been kicked out and almost arrested multiple times), he smelled, he was a horrible employee, no women liked him. So…why exactly are we getting involved here?
If the person is a positive for the world, we should help him of course. But I believe if the person cannot potentially make the world better, we just leave him on his own to figure it out. And Greg apparently figured it out on his own. On a sidewalk thankfully not killing any of the 150 or so pedestrians on the sidewalk when he did it.”
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5868903&forum_id=2id.#49899463)