UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated
The murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO is a strange story. On the one hand, the killer obviously was taking steps to avoid getting caught. He was wearing a hoodie. He used a silencer. He clearly had an escape plan.
On the other hand, he was wearing a distinctive backpack. He may have left a food wrapper and a water bottle at the scene. And there was writing on each of the three shell casings (the words "deny," "defend," and "depose").
lol terrorism. while the country fully supports a literal headchopping Jihadi. total joke of a country.
"fully"... lololol
kinda true, there isn't any government opposition to the jihadist rebels who took over in Syria, as far as I know.
they aren't treating them as we should, like the monsters with no right to exist they are.
something like "we don't recognize any government coming from the violent uprising of terrorists in Syria as a democratic or legitimate one, nor any person representing the terrorists who led the revolution" would be the bare minimum.
and it wouldn't be hard to do that while at the same time saying Assad was also a monster and we aren't sorry if he isn't the leader of Syria anymore.
feels like A LOT of his supporters ITT and reddit/internet really really cooled off when the manifesto and his speaking released. guess they were hoping for something different
Also don't think there will ever be a case bigger than OJ unless we get aother pandemic which I hope we dont, tehj way media and everythign is im not sure people will care as much. we haev had higher prolific cases like Rittenhouse, Anthony, zimmerman, depp and heard (lol) but this one seems pretty shut and dry if we compre it to the others wrt evidence
edit* casey anthony should have been easy case to close iirc based on what i read from both sides but alas
I assume its because he had something in writing or of the affect about admitting to the event based on his political aims or belief in some way written or verbal?
Im not sure if he admitted to it or not though, but if he did they can definitely try to go that route
They got bigger fish to fry, looks like some nuke stuff is missing and they are trying to find it, maybe with all the drones being spotted at night on the east coast. Putin is pissed.
They got bigger fish to fry, looks like some nuke stuff is missing and they are trying to find it, maybe with all the drones being spotted at night on the east coast. Putin is pissed.
Does it look like that? Not from the article you posted, which just states that the conspiracy theory is they're looking for radioactive material.
Whatever it is, the government doesn't feel comfortable letting people know what it is. Considering a virus caused people to buy every piece of toilet paper they could get their hands on, it could be for any number of reasons.
kinda true, there isn't any government opposition to the jihadist rebels who took over in Syria, as far as I know.
they aren't treating them as we should, like the monsters with no right to exist they are.
something like "we don't recognize any government coming from the violent uprising of terrorists in Syria as a democratic or legitimate one, nor any person representing the terrorists who led the revolution" would be the bare minimum.
and it wouldn't be hard to do that while at the same time sayi
Do you consider them monsters because they are highly religious people and wants the rule of god instead of the rule of a human dictator ?
Do you consider them monsters because they are highly religious people and wants the rule of god instead of the rule of a human dictator ?
I consider them monsters because they assassinated a ton of people using holy books as the justification.
you realize these people were al Qaeda 6-7 years ago yes?
and irrational evil is worse than rational evil.
Does it look like that? Not from the article you posted, which just states that the conspiracy theory is they're looking for radioactive material.
Whatever it is, the government doesn't feel comfortable letting people know what it is. Considering a virus caused people to buy every piece of toilet paper they could get their hands on, it could be for any number of reasons.
the bold is an indictment of your logical capacity
I consider them monsters because they assassinated a ton of people using holy books as the justification.
you realize these people were al Qaeda 6-7 years ago yes?
and irrational evil is worse than rational evil.
Ok but not this time .
And maybe their goal has changed a bit ?
Well considering just being left wing is evil , I’m. It sure we have the same definition of it , being rational or irrational evilness .
Believing in god isn’t rational and yet it’s very popular in the right .
Cool, but there's really not much to process.
- Government says to lockdown for 15 days to slow the spread of a novel virus.
- Every store ran out of toilet paper within a week.
So yeah, they learned that Americans do irrational things in response to government warnings.
Cool, but there's really not much to process.
- Government says to lockdown for 15 days to slow the spread of a novel virus.
- Every store ran out of toilet paper within a week.
So yeah, they learned that Americans do irrational things in response to government warnings.
It wasn't an irrational response. Try to think about how much toilet paper you need in an office of 100 people during working hours vs in 100 homes + schoolchildren staying at home.
And households don't necessarily buy the same low quality toilet paper offices and schools especially buy in bulk, they have demand for higher quality, which isn't the whole production, so you get scarcity of what supermarket shelves offer. You know those bulky oversized rolls some places have? people don't want them at home.
And you don't buy one piece at a time, you buy 4-6-12 whatever the size is.
And as soon as scarcity happens because of the individually rational choices of slightly overbuying (vs what offices and schools bought), it becomes rational to hoard just in case as you aren't going to throw it away anyway, so hoarding is 100% rational at the slightest sign there might be a lack of a durable good you are guaranteed to need in the near future (and you have no reason to be absolutely certain toilet paper will be available soon enough in a guaranteed way at the same price).
It was also rational to have doubts about future imminent production, you are not supposed to be an expert on toiler paper production facilities and/or trade, you might have doubts about imports (come out that wouldn't be a problem for that as it's not imported in the USA, but how can you know for sure if you are a normal person?) and/or lockdown of factories.
As i said, that you thought that behavior was a prominent display of irrationality, indicts your logical capacity
It wasn't an irrational response. Try to think about how much toilet paper you need in an office of 100 people during working hours vs in 100 homes + schoolchildren staying at home.
And households don't necessarily buy the same low quality toilet paper offices and schools especially buy in bulk, they have demand for higher quality, which isn't the whole production, so you get scarcity of what supermarket shelves offer. You know those bulky oversized rolls some places have? people don't want them
After all his posts, we have finally reached the subject matter that I truly believe Luciom has some expertise.
Yes. I mean in the hypothetical world in which you are called for jury duty.
It isn't nearly as easy or comfortable to lie your way onto a jury as most people imagine. And it isn't cost free if you get caught. You definitely would have to commit perjury.
I'm sure you're likely right. I did say that it would take "some planning". I definitely wouldn't just waltz my way up there and think I could bullshit my way to victory. I know that lawyers are very skilled at asking artfully worded questions to spur certain responses.
Sure, I'd be committing perjury. How would they find out if I don't make a big mistake?
Well, unlike you, I'm not a bitch-made pussy. I'm not a guy who makes drive-by one-liner Nazi troll posts and then leaves after any resistance. Consider that for a minute.
feels like A LOT of his supporters ITT and reddit/internet really really cooled off when the manifesto and his speaking released. guess they were hoping for something different
No. I don't read Reddit, but Twitter doesn't care. Who does? The dude could be a hardcore Nazi and would still have committed a bold and just act. He's a guy with a set of spread out and internally incoherent political principles, just like some 90+% of America's populace. Only lunatics would assume Luigi shares said lunatic's political ideas.
I'm sure you're likely right. I did say that it would take "some planning". I definitely wouldn't just waltz my way up there and think I could bullshit my way to victory. I know that lawyers are very skilled at asking artfully worded questions to spur certain responses.
Sure, I'd be committing perjury. How would they find out if I don't make a big mistake?
It isn't just about preparation. You would be asked questions like the following:
--Have you already formed an opinion that the death of the victim was justified?
--Have you ever told anyone that the death of this victim was justified?
--Do you have views about the health care industry in the United States that would make you unable to fairly evaluate the evidence in this case?
Sure. You can answer no to these questions and other similar questions. But in all likelihood, it will be clear to the other jurors during deliberations that you should have answered yes. In all likelihood, the foreperson will be telling the judge that one of the jurors refuses to consider the evidence or follow instructions. This is a high profile case, so you can't rule out the possibility that a juror will give interviews or write a book after the case is over. And you probably have aired your views on this killing and the health care industry generally to a lot of people. In other words, there are a lot of people running around who (i) know your identity; and (ii) know that you must have lied your way onto the jury. How much do you trust all those people?
I am not suggesting that you definitely would be convicted of perjury. You very likely would not. That said, the risk is much higher in a high profile case than it would be in a random case, especially when you consider that you have posted online (albeit anonymously) about your willingness to lie your way onto this jury. You would be very uncomfortable, or at least most people would.
You think it was a just act?
It wasn't an irrational response. Try to think about how much toilet paper you need in an office of 100 people during working hours vs in 100 homes + schoolchildren staying at home.
And households don't necessarily buy the same low quality toilet paper offices and schools especially buy in bulk, they have demand for higher quality, which isn't the whole production, so you get scarcity of what supermarket shelves offer. You know those bulky oversized rolls some places have? people don't want them
Dude, we're talking about toilet paper here, and we're not talking about each family buying 1 or 2 extra packages.
While walking into stores we saw SUV's and pickup trucks loaded with toilet paper from back-to-front and top-to-bottom. We laughed.
When stores were getting low and they had a "limit one" sign, I saw people making several trips in and out of the store to circumvent policy.
There was no reason to hoard anything, let alone buying 250 rolls of toilet paper. Can you really not think of how you could get by without toilet paper if you had to? Really?
Probably not, if his posting history is anything to go by.
I think you can limit the damage when dealing with rational evil, because you can predict behaviours better, you can change rationally evil behaviours by changing incentives and so on.
Wait a minute, you're the guy who wants it to be legal for governments to execute citizens who don't support its values.
Surely questions of whether someone is rationally or irrationally evil are irrelevant in your dream world?
It doesn't seem reasonable to pick the worst examples of hoarding to try to refute the whole idea.
