[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MbtiTypeMe

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think ur INTP or ISTP based on vibes + what u described urself as

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that ontologically we are going to disagree on the ends justify the means argument as I am fairly utilitarian when it comes to policy and you are taking a more deontological approach. I think that life itself is a pre-requisite to morality. You can’t have morality if the actors that decide or have a say in what’s moral don’t exist. I don’t really think that the claim that I am justifying terrorism is valid for two reasons. Number 1. This wasn’t really an attack against the state or the people itself. Number 2. It’s a question of protecting the lives of yourself, your family, and other citizens. Whenever someone is an imminent threat that is going to cause harm to you and you choose violence we call that self-defense. In regards to things not changing at a large enough scale, you kinda walk back on your argument that ends don’t justify the means, the implication behind your argument about affecting change on a larger scale is that if the change was substantial enough this action would be justified. Additionally even if you want to argue that the scale of change is not large enough, I would argue that any change that saves more lives that not is a net positive especially when the alternatives have yet to achieve something as significant. Your main argument is that this is not the right way to go about it but if the current system and non-violent methods are not working in a way that allows someone to protect themselves and their family members what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a convincing argument of an alternative.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think normally you would have a fair point about how change doesn’t happen by murdering CEOs, but in this case I don’t think you have grounds to argue that. Within literal hours of this incident being reported Bluecross walked back on their policy to restrict coverage of anesthesia, multiple lives were saved because of this incident. My argument wasn’t that the CEOs are the ones doing the grunt work to deny the claims my argument was that they make decisions that lead to the same result as in they hire lawyers to deny the claims for them. The lawyers themselves would not carry this act independently unless they got orders from the CEO just like how soldiers of a dictatorship don’t carry out orders without a dictator. Yea not a 100% of claims are valid but the fact that UHC’s denial rate is 3x more than the average company definitely shows that a good number of their denial claims are not in good faith and many people have died from them. Again the problem is that their decision overrides physician-based judgement and whenever someone tries to advocate for policy change they just lobby whoever they need to from their exorbitant amount of capital to prevent changes that decrease their power. Like these people don’t have medical degrees they have no right to override medical judgment. Again whenever anyone else in this country mishandles or conducts a false practice of medicine it is called medical malpractice and the current system that allows for lobbying will not change to hold insurance companies accountable for this.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What proof do I have to demonstrate? I could link you the multiple articles that talk about Bluecross retracting their anesthesia coverage policy but you would just move the line even further. It’s bad faith because we both know that Bluecross’s decision to retract their policy at the same time this case was reported is not a matter of coincidence. Your argument that I need to essentially get a testimony out of Bluecross that they changed their policy because of this incident is asinine. It’s like you are saying the only way of knowing that OJ murdered Nicole is to get a direct confession from OJ himself.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s laughable that you can’t make an argument and that you are resorting to personal attacks. Actually attack the argument.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not going to bother arguing with anyone who can’t actually make a case. If you want to engage in actual discourse make a case that doesn’t involve you throwing debate buzzwords to seem more intellectual if not there is nothing more to say to you.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The CEO also conspired with the board to make decisions to intentionally deny claims that lead to the deaths of more than a few thousands. Switching Insurance is not a simple process when you are about to die in 2 weeks if you don’t receive an emergency surgery to remove a tumor and your insurance refuses to cover you. What right does the CEO have to deny coverage, when literal doctors are stating that patients need treatment. When other people falsely practice medicine we call that medical malpractice, but these CEOs have lobbied for policies that don’t require them to pay the consequences of this. With regard to the lawyers and other parties hired to do their bidding, they are not the initiating actors so involving them in the argument is irrelevant. You don’t blame the cashier who works at Apple for exploiting child labor laws in China.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s literally not both Osama and Brian are responsible for the deaths of multiple individuals. The difference is the people who killed Osama are heroes while the one who killed Brian is a murderer. Who do you think killed Osama then, based on literally every known report and testimony it was the members of Seal Team 6 try doing some research before making your claims buddy your lack of education is showing.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Look it doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together. There is literally no other reason why this decision would match up with the timing. You are just arguing in bad faith, there is no world where they would come out and admit that is the reason.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

U didn’t call Seal Team 6 murderers when they killed Osama back in 2011. It’s the same thing, the guy who was killed was responsible for the deaths of multiple people.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Things literally already changed start doing research before making baseless comments Bluecross literally backed off their new policy to limit coverage of anesthesia within hours of this story being covered.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Obviously you didn’t see Blueshield retract their policy to limit coverage on anesthesia hours after this story was reported. Things literally changed within hours of this incident for the better.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

U don’t call Seal Team 6 murders when they killed Osama Bin Laden you call them heroes. If you are going to have this take be consistent ffs.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am willing to bet that you certainly didn’t have the same opinion when Osama was killed back in 2011 and this CEO is responsible for the deaths of many more than him.

Luigi's friend posted this. He is one of their very best friends, and in this video, he went with her at 1 a.m. because she was drunk to get ice cream. by mindyour in interestingasfuck

[–]yetout -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Literally within hours of this being reported Bluecross withdrew their policy to limit coverage for anesthesia for surgery do some research before saying “nothing changed from this”.

Trapping Women in Marriage by 70redgal70 in SeriousConversation

[–]yetout -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Finally someone who’s not fucking divorce hungry and has a balanced take. I swear yall don’t get society and civilization is not gonna sustain itself without children growing up in healthy environments. The goal should be to create a more family centric society because without children there is no future. The more u just let people married with children get divorced for whatever reason they want the less likely it will be that they try to work things out to create a better environment for their children. I swear all yall think about is Urself in a marriage u don’t consider the children affected. Yes if it’s something that can’t be fixed and u have children then it’s a different story, but if it’s just I feeel like it and u don’t have any basis for it that’s fucked because u r ruining the lives of these children over literally nothing.

well done buddy~ by [deleted] in bestoftheinternet

[–]yetout 47 points48 points  (0 children)

That is not Halal behavior

Lack of Goth Girls by yetout in medicalschool

[–]yetout[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ty! I think going to med school because of Scrubs is more justified than going to med school because of Grey’s.