Killing people because it is god's will is not logical.  If illogical, then it is not a tactic.  Is only emotion.

Obviously god can kill anyone he wants dead.  He needs no silly human to do it for him.  How emotional and illogical is that human?  His god is so inferior that he is not a god.  So killing is justified only by the emotional brain of a adult child.  Children do not do anything tactical.  They do things emotionally.

Adults that are irresponsible are emotional.  Deserve full prosecution.  Adults are required to be logical - therefore responsible.  Is why we do not give driver licenses to children.

Last edited by tw (12/18/2024 4:18 pm)

eta: turns out, in New York, "an act of terrorism" is one of the special circumstances for a "first degree" murder charge, with a life sentence, which--
“By including that, the district attorney is setting up the conditions for a plea to a lesser charge”
 

Anon wrote:

You really need to up your knowledge base on what may constitute terrorism. Read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
 

Did you read this? You might want to take a pass at the first two sentences:

There is no legal or scientific consensus on the definition of terrorism.[1][2][3] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition.

Anyway, I've already figured it out. The "definition of terrorism" in this case is: a condition of a first-degree murder charge, which they're giving him with the hope he'll plea out to a lesser charge.

His manifesto sounds like what every normal person believes. Every person who's not a soulless ghoul. The difference between him and other people is that he murdered someone. It's not his beliefs. The general public feels the same way, and believes the same things that he does. The difference, again is that he murdered someone. It's the act that makes him different, not the beliefs. To call someone a terrorist indicates that they are motivated by faulty beliefs, by wrong beliefs. That's stupid, in this case. It's really stupid, because everyone agrees with his beliefs. It's the act that was illegal. When they call it terrorism, they're saying that his beliefs were wrong. The beliefs that everyone has. That cannot be a good ideological strategy because it takes power away from the word terrorism. If terrorism is believing something that everyone believes, then the word doesn't mean anything. And it's worse than meaningless, because now you'll think anyone using that word is a liar. Regardless of what anyone thinks about what he did, or has an opinion of whether it's terrorism or not, it's just a stupid strategy.

They're announcing that terrorism is when a lot of people agree that the billionaires have too much money. Even if that is what terrorism is, it's stupid of them to say that out loud.

Last edited by Flint (12/19/2024 2:08 am)

Most definitions of terrorism are about the acts and separate the acts from the beliefs. Many people can do the same.

Many people can do the same, but not the people who are running our society. Not our government, and not our media corporations.

They've been telling us for decades that "terrorists hate our way of life" --that terrorism is a belief system. If they want to change that definition now, there's two possibilities-- either they were lying then, or they're lying now.

Let's examine both:

1) If terrorism is acts, not beliefs, then the US military bombing civilians associated with militant groups is the same as militant groups bombing civilians associated with the US military. Obviously, they have been insisting that terrorism is NOT about the acts. Was that a lie?

2) If terrorism has a component of beliefs, then abortion clinic bombers would be considered terrorists. This is true-- the DOJ considers them to be domestic terrorists. This means that someone's beliefs make them a terrorist-- the obvious definition that our culture is saturated with.

Prosecution as an indictment of beliefs is a red herring

It's literally required in order to prosecute the charges in this case. You can't separate the murder being motivated by a belief that the healthcare system is unjust, from the belief that the healthcare industry is unjust. If that's not the motive, then it's not terrorism, and they fail to meet the legal requirements of the first degree charge. If it IS the motive, and it IS terrorism, then--

..millions of Americans consider a terrorist to be a folk hero. <<< My entire point is that it's stupid to introduce this narrative. If terrorism loses all meaning and impact, that cannot possibly help in the fight against terrorism.
 

Last edited by Flint (12/19/2024 2:45 pm)

People think a guy is a folk hero. Government says the guy is a terrorist. In your opinion, what are the people supposed to think about this? Do you think they'll change all of their beliefs and feelings? Or, conversely, if the obvious thing happens and they don't change their beliefs and feelings, what does this do to their relationship with the government that says their feelings are terrorist feelings?

How is this not an obvious question? It really doesn't have anything to do with definitions, or even which side of any of the issues you're on. What I'm saying is the obvious thing. Millions of people felt very strongly and agreed very strongly about a subject, and then the government said, essentially, people who feel that way about that subject are sympathizing with a terrorist. I really don't think that's going to make people change their feelings about the subject, I think it's going to make them change their feelings about their government.

I honestly don't know what other outcome could realistically occur.

What do you think?

Last edited by Flint (12/19/2024 6:45 pm)

Okay, I was interested in your thoughts, but thank you for the definition of a word.

DRONES! The REAL threat to Democritalism 

The irony is that this CEO was not even paid that much.  Did not have a entourage to serve him.

Most executive in such large companies are paid low hundreds of millions.  This one was only paid $10 million.  Had no entourage.  Did not commute to work on helicopters.  Was quite simple for a top executive.

Was targeted by someone with an inheritance that would have made him richer than the executive.  Maybe he should have first targeted himself.

 

The one thing I don't get in all this, is that Obamacare is still the law of the land, and one of the requirements is that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical claims, with the remaining 20% allowed for administrative costs and profit; large group plans must spend at least 85% on medical claims.  Before the pandemic, I would routinely get notifications in my own plan that Cigna had to issue a refund in order to comply with this requirement, and the money was returned to my employer, who applied it to the overall costs of providing insurance to the employee pool.  So I know from personal experience that it is a real rule.

Everyone is saying that UnitedHealth Group is the worst and they routinely denied care, but they absolutely complied with the law.  The penalties would be too great if they didn't. Their loss prevention lawyers would keep them in compliance.   All this CEO was doing was trying to get as close as possible to that 80% threshold instead of being up around 90% or so.

glatt wrote:

…one of the requirements is that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical claims, with the remaining 20% allowed for administrative costs and profit; …All this CEO was doing was trying to get as close as possible to that 80% threshold instead of being up around 90% or so.

What if 80% of their premium income doesn’t cover all of the medical claims? They have to either increase their premiums or reduce the amount they pay for claims. Increasing premiums may cause them to lose market shares and consequently lose investors. Reducing the amount they pay for claims can be done by reductions across the board resulting in many disgruntled customers or they can cause fewer disgruntled customers by entirely denying selected claims.

What if 90% of their premium income would cover all of the medical claims? There would be less profit for the CEO and investors.

What if the CEO was willing to settle for less personal profit; but, the investors who employ him weren’t.

What if no one asked… what if?




 

glatt wrote:

The one thing I don't get in all this, is that Obamacare is still the law of the land, and one of the requirements is that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical claims, with the remaining 20% allowed for administrative costs and profit; large group plans must spend at least 85% on medical claims.  Before the pandemic, I would routinely get notifications in my own plan that Cigna had to issue a refund in order to comply with this requirement, and the money was returned to my employer, who applied it to the overall costs of providing insurance to the employee pool.  So I know from personal experience that it is a real rule.

Everyone is saying that UnitedHealth Group is the worst and they routinely denied care, but they absolutely complied with the law.  The penalties would be too great if they didn't. Their loss prevention lawyers would keep them in compliance.   All this CEO was doing was trying to get as close as possible to that 80% threshold instead of being up around 90% or so.

I read something that indicated some health insurance companies have been getting around this number by owning healthcare facilities themselves. At that point, fuzzy bookkeeping means things like building maintenance, hospital executive salaries, etc. get counted as "payments to a medical facility" while not actually paying medical claims.