US Health Care system has failed America (The Brian Thompson CEO Assassination)

[Matthew]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Sort of, but it's not what you think.

1. Calling for violence is justifying the future use of violence, and
2. saying that what happened is ok is 'justifying the past use of violence', which is in turn justifying the future use of violence. 

Get it? By justifying the murder of this CEO you're justifying the murder of the next CEO. 

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Those calling for violence ARE certainly going to believe that acts of violence are justified, but those who believe an act of violence is justified are not necessarily supporting a blanket call for violence.

[Matthew]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't want that.

Well ok but we are privileged bystanders able to post navel gazing reflections on when, if ever, violence is appropriate as a tool against oppression. History shows why it's not the preferred method in modern times, but it also shows how effective it sometimes has been at ending oppressive systems.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Calling for violence is calling for violence. For probably 99.9% of people there is a point at which they will view an act of violence as morally justified (execution, war, uprisings, self defense, etc). Approving of those acts does not equal a blanket call for violence.

Justifying murder is calling for violence. When you say "This violence is good violence" You are calling for more violence of that type.

What you are doing is calling for violence

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, Matthew said:

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

 

No it is not. The slippery slope fallacy is that something done today may lead to something worse tomorrow. What he is saying is that If you accept that something done today is perfectly acceptable, then you are sending the very real message that it will be acceptable tomorrow as well because it's the same thing.

There's no slippery slope here. You are claiming that this violence is acceptable. Once you do that there's no barrier for anyone to do the same thing tomorrow and that's a simple fact

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well ok but we are privileged bystanders able to post navel gazing reflections on when, if ever, violence is appropriate as a tool against oppression. History shows why it's not the preferred method in modern times, but it also shows how effective it sometimes has been at ending oppressive systems.

Or starting new ones.

Ok, I'm really done now. 👍

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The left started to go off the rails with this whole punch of Nazi thing, where they pushed the idea that anyone you didn't like or you felt was right wing was okay to punch them. 

I agree that was f'd up, because the leftists call everyone Nazis. 

If actual Nazis were punched in the face as a result of that, I wouldn't give a shit. 

The biggest problem I have with that is that leftists are pretty close to being Nazis themselves. If they were being honest, and punching fascists in the face, the DNC would look like fight club.

Quote

Now they've escalated to "shoot an executive". The left are violent hate filled bigots

"There, but for the grace of God, go I."

Honestly, if you had health insurance, and your wife or kid was denied a legitimate claim and ended up dying as a result, wouldn't you think of doing exactly what he just did? 

Maybe you wouldn't, but put 10 people in that spot, does 1 do it? Put 100 people in that spot, does 1 do it? Put 1,000 people in that spot, does 1 do it? It's simply a numbers game: screw enough people over, probably die. 

Accountability is simply not coming for some people. The Sackler family are still millions of dollars ahead after all the people they killed.  

We're kidding ourselves if we think that the Sacklers and Thompsons of the world can walk the streets in relative safety, and I wouldn't waste a dollar protecting them. They made enough money from the suffering of others, they should pay for their own protection. 

Edited December 8, 2024 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, Matthew said:

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Those calling for violence ARE certainly going to believe that acts of violence are justified, but those who believe an act of violence is justified are not necessarily supporting a blanket call for violence.

What's more consequential:

1. a person standing on a street-corner saying that the assassination of corporate killers is necessary, or
2. a person on CNN saying "The assassination of corporate killers is justified"?

I think number 2 results in more deaths, and I don't think that number 1 is worse.

TBH, lots of people threaten death compared to the number of people who actually kill anyone. A certain percentage of people who say "kill" don't mean it. By contrast, when there's a dead body there and someone says "that was justified", they actually mean it.  

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I agree that was f'd up, because the leftists call everyone Nazis. 

If actual Nazis were punched in the face as a result of that, I wouldn't give a shit. 

Because you don't like Nazis? Therefore it's okay to set aside their civil rights? If so don't complain if they lock this white guy  here up for killing a black person because the judge probably really doesn't like him and it's okay if we bend the law to hurt people we don't really like. Right?

Either you support everybody having their rights or at the end of the day nobody has rights. We don't get to pick and choose.

If we say it's okay to set aside someone's rights for our reason of choice then guaranteed sooner or later someone's going to come along and say it's okay to set aside your rights because of my reason of choice.

 

Quote

The biggest problem I have with that is that leftists are pretty close to being Nazis themselves. If they were being honest, and punching fascists in the face, the USA would look like fight club.

LOL that's the truth.  

[WestCanMan]

42 minutes ago, Matthew said:

History shows why it's not the preferred method in modern times, but it also shows how effective it sometimes has been at ending oppressive systems.

I think that there are a lot of people in the US, like the Sacklers, who have a lot of blood on their hands, who took notice of this. 

The Sacklers got their loot, and they're in the clear now, but the next Sackler wannabe is probably gonna think twice. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because you don't like Nazis? Therefore it's okay to set aside their civil rights?

No, because being an actual Nazi is a statement that you are intent on committing murder based on your own bigotry. It's not like being pro-vax or anti-vax. Neither of those two groups is associated with wishing death on each other, let alone actively/intentionally killing each other.

Quote

If so don't complain if they lock this white guy  here up for killing a black person because the judge probably really doesn't like him and it's okay if we bend the law to hurt people we don't really like. Right?

Not sure what you mean there... Of course a white guy who killed a black guy should go to jail. 

If you mean: "Should a judge lock up a white guy because he thinks that guy might kill black people"? No, that's way shy of a legitimate reason.

Now, if a guy lives in an area where the KKK is killing people, and he says that he's in the KKK and that the KKK is cool, the police NEED to take him into custody and find out what they can learn from him. His civil rights should be forfeited until further notice, sorry, because he's basically admitting to having been an accomplice to murder. 

Quote

Either you support everybody having their rights or at the end of the day nobody has rights. We don't get to pick and choose.

Yes, we all have rights, until we make death threats.

If the guy that killed Thompson threatened to kill Thompson, then he should have been locked up at that point, because that's a crime. 

Quote

If we say it's okay to set aside someone's rights for our reason of choice then guaranteed sooner or later someone's going to come along and say it's okay to set aside your rights because of my reason of choice.

There are groups whose main intention is murder. Membership in those groups is actually an admission of one's intent to commit murder. Al Qaeda. islamic state. Etc. 

Jojn the group, become a criminal. End of story. 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The biggest problem I have with that is that leftists are pretty close to being Nazis themselves. If they were being honest, and punching fascists in the face, the DNC would look like fight club.

Sure, and if you fu ckers had the courage of your convictions you'd be doing something about it. 

 

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, because being an actual Nazi is a statement that you are intent on committing murder based on your own bigotry.

Convincing yourself you're surrounded by Nazis is a prelude to war.  It's why you support Putin.

How long do you figure people should just wait until they act, until it's too late?

Violence appears to be as inevitable as it is unavoidable. I think embracing the horror will be easy as falling off a log once things get rolling.

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, and if you fu ckers had the courage of your convictions you'd be doing something about it. 

 

We are doing something about it. You've already said hi to president trump, get ready to say hi to prime minister Poilievre.

We'll start there and see how far we have to go   

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Accountability is simply not coming for some people. The Sackler family are still millions of dollars ahead after all the people they killed.  

Exactly.

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

when there's a dead body there and someone says "that was justified", they actually mean it.  

True. If someone said "they deserved it" are they actively threatening others by saying so?

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Matthew said:

True. If someone said "they deserved it" are they actively threatening others by saying so?

No.  But we should get into the business of shaming people for bad behaviour again.

I'll bet that the Sacklers and Epstein threw great parties and lots of rich and sophisticated Democrats and Republicans attended.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

True. If someone said "they deserved it" are they actively threatening others by saying so?

I wouldn't say that they're threatening other people, but I think that their lack of condemnation is kind of awesome (that's only if people died as a result of Thompson's greed and dishonesty).

No one's investigating the murder of Epstein, and no one's complaining about that. We can be equally upset that no one is finding Thompson's murderer.  

[NAME REMOVED]

"Canada has no healthcare insurance executives denying medical care to people who pay them premiums for greater profits. Instead we have Provinces under funding our universal healthcare in favour of other political agendas and privatising healthcare for greater corporate profits."

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

True. If someone said "they deserved it" are they actively threatening others by saying so?

There's certainly encouraging it. They are advocating for illegal Behavior saying that it was acceptable.

At the end of the day Hitler sold the germans on the idea that the Jews deserved it. Either you stand up for people's rights and you believe in the rule of law or you don't and if you don't and you advocate that it's acceptable to be violent when you feel like it then you are a criminal

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

"Canada has no healthcare insurance executives denying medical care to people who pay them premiums for greater profits. Instead we have Provinces under funding our universal healthcare in favour of other political agendas and privatising healthcare for greater corporate profits."

Who also choose to deny service to people for their own reasons. We extensively covered here the person who had had covid and had medical reports showing she had the covid antibodies but didn't want to take the shot and they denied her a transplant she had already qualified for and let her die.

Not sure I see the difference, they literally knew she would die and killed her for what turned out to be a nonsense reason. How is being dead from that any different than being dead from a lack of coverage?

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But we should get into the business of shaming people for bad behaviour again.

Well I think that's what we're witnessing, in the only language they can hear. I actually don't know of any person who has ever been shamed harder than this CEO. Shot like a dog on the street and then ruthlessly ridiculed publicly by millions of people. Bin Laden's killing was less celebrated by Americans.

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well I think that's what we're witnessing, in the only language they can hear. I actually don't know of any person who has ever been shamed harder than this CEO. Shot like a dog on the street and then ruthlessly ridiculed publicly by millions of people. Bin Laden's killing was less celebrated by Americans.

and you approve of that.

Is there a list of other people you feel should be similarly "shamed"?

And I guess we can throw the pretense of you even pretending that you're not calling for additional violence out the window at this point. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Matthew]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

No one's investigating the murder of Epstein, and no one's complaining about that. We can be equally upset that no one is finding Thompson's murderer.  

I agree, though to be clear I do think vigilante justice ought to be illegal and if the killer is found he ought to be fully prosecuted and that the police should fully use their normal effort at capturing him. Rule of law and due process are valuable parts of our political culture.

In this sense the classic folk hero rebel vigilante is willing to sacrifice his own freedom and safety for his just cause. But yeah people overwhelmingly seem to be hoping he stays at large.

[Matthew]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is there a list of other people you feel should be similarly "shamed"?

I don't believe shame has any societal value and I think most of the insecurities people carry in life stem from our culture's misplaced reliance on shame.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I don't believe shame has any societal value and I think most of the insecurities people carry in life stem from our culture's misplaced reliance on shame.

The value is in holding public figures who are accountable to all of us to some standard of behaviour.

How could that not have value ?

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

 I actually don't know of any person who has ever been shamed harder than this CEO 

Well after he was shot, sure.  Nobody heard of him before.

[Black Dog]

On 12/8/2024 at 6:53 AM, Matthew said:

There is a difference between calling for violence and viewing a violent act as justice. Do you think the rebels who just violently overthrew Syria's Bashar Al Assad are immoral murderers or is it ok to fight against a violent dictatorship?

I'd like to remind you that several of the same people you're arguing with here who are crying about this guy's death and people celebrating it also like to talk approvingly about how the right wing will turn to violence if wokeness goes too far so they aren't exactly honest people.

[Deluge]

On 12/5/2024 at 10:06 AM, DUI_Offender said:

I have never seen social media commentators so united, in their hatred of a Health Insurance CEO.  Thompson was the CEO of United healthcare, one of the largest health insurance agencies, and one of the most notorious companies for denying medical claims. This was not lost on the people.

 

"Just a friendly reminder that in 2024, Brian Thompson's leadership led United Healthcare to deny claims to 31.5 million sick Americans. By contrast, undocumented migrants in the USA killed fewer than 20 US citizens during that same time span. Who is your real enemy, America?"

"brian thompson isn't going to see your tweets, because he is dead from bullets, but your friends and family who run multi-billion dollar companies are, and they're going to feel that much more scared and alone because of it."

"Congratulations to Brian Thompson for avoiding a long and expensive end-of-life illness, filled with struggles to obtain care from insurance companies that employ AI to deny 90% of claims submitted."

The assassination:

https://x.com/DMichaelTripi/status/1864376762567635362

It wasn't lost on the murderer either.

Too bad this guy couldn't have had his day in court, first.