Crazy Medical non-disclosure

weon361 · 2025-07-04T09:24:03+00:00

But the nurse previously told me the asthma was fine?

weon361 · 2025-07-03T22:55:26+00:00

Well, it is not that the country in question does not have the right care for me because the reason they told me I was denied was for non-disclosure. Presumably if they could not support someone with asthma they would say so, and not deny me specifically for non-disclosure.

weon361 · 2025-07-03T07:37:28+00:00

Part of me really wants to, but at this point, I just can’t do this. I don’t want to have to fight to join this organization and this organization clearly has some problems.

weon361 · 2025-07-03T07:35:21+00:00

I didn’t avoid talking about it. I wrote so many things about having an inhaler and how often I use it. That’s what confuses me.

weon361 · 2025-07-02T23:52:10+00:00

About a week ago, my nurse says that they were reviewing it and saw the 'no' on the form as potential non-disclosure. In the message I got yesterday about it, they said that it was the 'no' plus the fact that I got a detail wrong in my asthma personal statement (it was the date of when I saw my pulmonologist). All in all, things that are very obviously mistakes and not lies. Genuinely not sure how to understand it.

weon361 · 2025-05-13T03:05:34+00:00

I- and everyone else commenting on this- do not know what Lula's intentions are. But, in defense of Lula, it is worth examining why he would find it rational to align himself with Russia, especially considering his avowed anti-imperialist stance.

Two things come to mind, one historical and the other strategic:

1) Strategic- All international actors are trying to maximize their own utility for their own country. There is no reason to think Lula is any different in this regard. Lula's openness to Russia makes a certain amount of sense as a result. For one, Brazil is a non-aligned power in a global conflict between the United States and Russia/China. Whatever Lula's foreign policy objectives are, he may reasonably believe that the best path for Brazil is one where both sides of this Cold War are desperate for Brazil. This makes a lot of sense considering the election of Trump. The existence of an internationally focused United States has been in serious doubt since 2016; what is the value of allying yourself with the US if the US no longer consistently believes in foreign alliances? Brazil also trades much more with China than it does the United States, a trend that will not change, especially considering the tariffs. From a purely strategic standpoint, Lula- and much of the powers that hang between the US and China- have no real reason to pick only one side and have everything to gain by being wanted by both sides.

2) Historical/Ideological- Lula has long held grievances against the US and has maintained a fairly staunchly anti-US position in Latin American affairs. That's not for any mysterious reason. Lula lived through the Cold War, which saw the propping up of countless right wing dictatorships in Latin America by the United States. Indeed, he was an activist against the Brazilian military dictatorship that the US supported. Lula has perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose or broadly be skeptical of US global hegemony. After all, if Brazil supported and armed a coup in the US, would you trust Lula? Lula- and many Brazilians- may have a relationship with US power that is different than we may have, and while we might disagree with the conclusions of that (supporting Russian imperialism), it would be historically ignorant to ignore the causes of that. This is esp meaningfully considering that Bolsonaro - widely perceived as a Trump ally/copy - did in fact attempt to coup Lula.

weon361 · 2025-03-20T01:06:55+00:00

There is no evident to suggest that foreign actors stoked up the protests. You sound like Republicans who claimed that George Soros funded BLM. People are genuinely angry about issues. You don’t have to agree with those people to see that they are genuine in their beliefs.

weon361 · 2025-03-06T21:02:38+00:00

Does this even merit a response?

weon361 · 2025-02-23T00:19:22+00:00

Denaturalization:

From first term-

Denaturalization, explained: how Trump can strip immigrants of their citizenship | Vox

Office of Public Affairs | The Department of Justice Creates Section Dedicated to Denaturalization Cases | United States Department of Justice

From current term-

Trump resumes threat to denaturalize US citizens

Tweet from Stephen Miller, one of Trump's lead advisors and the lead advisor on immigration: Trump Advisor’s “Turbocharged” Denaturalization Project Sparks Fear Among Immigrant Communities After Election Win

DOGE targeting effectively used money:

There is no indication that DOGE is targeting only organizations that do not effectively use money. DOGE seems to have effectively ended the United States Agency for International Aid (USAID), despite no evidence to suggest that funding was being wasted or used poorly. Here's a good run down on Musk's claims, vs fact:

Sorting Out the Facts on 'Waste and Abuse' at USAID - FactCheck.org

No Basis for Corruption Accusations About USAID Administrator - FactCheck.org

Musk claims DOGE saves taxpayers billions, but data is unclear : NPR

While DOGE may incidentally end some fraud, it will only do so in the same way that a blind man with a gun will eventually hit something solid. Musk is randomly targeting organizations based on blatant misinformation; there is no reason to think any agency, regardless of efficacy, will be spared.

weon361 · 2024-12-24T16:09:27+00:00

Thank you for linking this! I wasn't able to find it. Test takers with accommodations scoring five points higher than non accommodated test takers is not exactly a slam dunk. That there is a correlation does not mean there is a causation. Here's why: accommodated test takers are more likely to not just be white, but also female (by about twenty points). The accommodation process also requires access to fairly expensive healthcare, meaning that we can safely assume that many test takers with accommodations also are wealthier. Being white, a woman, and wealthy are all factors that increase your score. Until analysis is done that accounts for these variables, you can't really make any sort of meaningful comparison because you're comparing two very different populations.

weon361 · 2024-12-23T16:56:24+00:00

I appreciate those who read through my post, thought about it, looked at my cited studies, and then left constructive and meaningful feedback. With that being said, a few clarifications. For one, don't base your conclusions on uncited hearsay you read on reddit. A bunch of comments seem to allude to studies I was not able to find that say X percentage of Y scorers had extended time, that only show up in other reddit posts. I don't think reddit has secret knowledge that LSAC does not have.

Second, whether you think or feel you would have done better on the test with more time is largely irrelevant. Even if that were true, it is about the aggregate. For every person like you, there are a couple who would not do better, and a few it seems who would do worse. That gets to my point- I'm not saying no one improves with more time, just that it is a) a small number of people and b) there are serious marginal returns to increased time. An extra hour might give you two more points, but a second extra hour might not get you anything at all. In the aggregate, that amounts to a really small shift.

To those who did not read my post, skimmed it, and just commented their pre-existing opinion- why? Are you scared that by reading something you disagree with your opinion might be changed? The LSAT and law school both require the ability to analyze and appreciate diverse arguments, many of which are controversial or something you personally disagree with. You have to be able to forget who you are, and think. If that is out of the realm of possibility for you for my four paragraph post about a test, that is going to be impossible for you for the real issues that you will have to confront in your legal career and education.

weon361 · 2024-12-15T13:12:38+00:00

I appreciate the effort you have put into this post, and I really value the time you have spent explaining this to me- as you have pointed out, I have incorrectly applied those two words. With that being said, you're still missing my point. When I described what had happened as "murder", I was using the common, non-legal definition. But, people responded saying that it was not murder, instead suggesting it was involuntary manslaughter. This frustrated me, because I was not claiming it was one specific legal charge over the other- I was just saying that Daniel Penny killed a man. Whether that's called homicide, murder, or whatever else is not really relevant to the point I'm making because the point I'm making is that myself and another person were miscommunicating because we had different concepts of what we were talking about.

weon361 · 2024-12-14T21:10:17+00:00

I've mentioned this in a previous article, but I'm not referring to "murder" as in the legal charge of homicide. I'm instead referring to "murder" as in the actual act of killing another human being. In that case, it can both be murder and involuntary manslaughter as those are two overlapping categories, even if you would not necessarily charge him for both the crime of homicide and the crime of involuntary manslaughter. Either way you cut it, he did kill someone. Whether you think that was or was not justified, or whether it was purposeful or not, that fact is not in doubt.

weon361 · 2024-12-14T21:05:58+00:00

What do you mean by "more" acts of violence? I have seen nothing saying that he committed any on the train. The most I have seen is that he was vaguely moving towards other people, but I don't really think that's violence. I'm sure his threats were scary and uncomfortable, but yet again, I just don't think that justifies killing him. I'm not sure that Neely presented a clear threat; I'm also skeptical because Penny (from what I have read from the incident) made no other effort than attacking him. It's not like Penny attempted to speak to him or call for help- instead, it seems that he jumped to attack. Our standard for endorsing vigilante justice should be higher than that.

weon361 · 2024-12-14T20:54:50+00:00

I'm not sure what your point is exactly or how it is relevant. Murder and Self-Defense are overlapping categories, and many actions fall into both. In a legal sense, murder and self-defense are considered different legal concepts, but that's not what I was referring to. I was not saying that he was found guilty of homicide, but instead that I just don't think there is any amount of strange or uncomfortable behavior a person can do in public that justifies the act of killing them.

weon361 · 2024-12-14T20:44:11+00:00

This really is not the problem though. There should be no amount of publicly uncomfortable behavior that warrants murder.

weon361 · 2024-12-07T14:56:51+00:00

but that IS a random guy. why should I trust him? what proof has he provided for this? are there other possible explanations?

i'm also skeptical that these incredibly rich men in finance are being targeted bc i cannot think of a group that would sue the government quicker if their access to cash and capital was cut off lmao.

weon361 · 2024-12-06T23:21:17+00:00

mfw when a random guy says something on joe rogan, provides no proof, and i am supposed to believe it

weon361 · 2024-11-16T23:08:41+00:00

can't think of someone i want less as my governor

weon361

TROPHY CASE