Riffing here but as a lawyer I see my role as exploring the boundaries of all possible extrapolations of the law. This translates quite well into other areas (philosophy, psychology etc) because your default position is to identify the outliers and anomalies within domains in the first instance.  From there, you can reverse engineer by finding the mean ground and the generalisations. But I think lawyers are well placed to imagine both the worst-case scenarios - and, something which is less emphasised, the best-case scenarios.

It's not evil or toxic or mean to get angry; why would it be? It's a matter of how the anger is expressed and the context; it's not automatically evil/toxic/mean. If you use it wrong, it's mean. But anger is an appropriate response to bullying, at which point it's just kinda Angry Neutral/Good rather than Angry Evil. You can get angry and manage self-control simultaneously. You can have conflicted feelings of love and hate for a person while also caring for them completely. Anger is just anger.

REMOVED