I'm not expecting anything, I'm talking entirely theoretically. I'm not asking anyone to do anything, I'm speculating on what I would do in that situation.
If I'm in a situation where I'm solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I'm on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.
You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn't mean I think that it's okay. It's more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.
Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I'm uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I'm dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.
So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?
There's no course of action available in which people won't suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.
People dying of treatable conditions does bother me, it's one of the main reasons I'm disgusted with the state of healthcare in the US.
As many as 44,789 people in the US die each year from lack of health insurance.
I'm under no illusions when it comes to the limitations of mutual aid, it's not a replacement for a functioning society. It's far more a foundation of a strong labour movement and sense of community.
The hypothetical being talked about here is a general strike. I know full well that not having access to healthcare kills people. I'd also like to specify that I'm not advocating for a general strike, I was speculating on the justifivuof those who are.
And to answer your your final point I'd like to refer back to the 44,789 people who die every year from a lack of health insurance in the US. Now attempting to bring about radical changes would most certainly cause more deaths than that, but you asked for a number. So if I could change things for the better without killing more people than those who are currently dying under the current system then I would consider that acceptable. So there's your number, 44,789 people dying per year to achieve the goal of universal healthcare in the US. I however live in a country that already has universal health care, so I thankfully wouldn't have to make such a grim decision. It's easy to engage in such calculations without having to have the emotional burden of potentially condemning thousands to suffer and die.
So for how much longer would you consider it acceptable for the current system to cause more suffering and death before drastic actions for change are acceptable?
It seems you care more about those who would be hypothetically be harmed than those who are being harmed right now.
I don't think that those who advocate for mutual aid networks and a general strike are either ignorant or uncaring of the harm that it could cause. I think they believe that the harm caused would be less than the harm already being inflicted by the current system. That said, I think it's a big ask for people to put themselves and their families at great risk, even if it's for a good purpose.
I'll accept that argument as long as they are normal women who wear cat themed accessories and act like a cats. But if we're talking full anime cat human hybrids, then I'm afraid you're in furry town.
I take it more to mean a subservient relationship. Metaphorically sucking someone's dick implies that the sucker is both intimately engaged and very much serving the interest of that person.
I get that you're calling attention to the almost certain homophobic origin of sucking dick being an insult, but the usage here doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
Remember remember the 4th of December, the capitalist bastard was shot. I know of no reason the insurance retribution should ever be forgot.
Unless I'm misremembering, the insurance boss was mentioned as being in hospital and then never again so he could have died from his injuries.
I believe the episode title is Monty can't buy me love.
Mr Burns becomes envious of the popular billionaire Arthur Fortune and tries to improve his public image, eventually capturing the Loch Ness monster.
This scene is when Mr Burns goes to appear of the radio show Jerry Rude and the bathroom bunch and is asked about his first gay experience.
How prevalent the use of the exact phrase 'Your body, my choice' is irrelevant when the intent behind it is so common in other espoused rhetoric. The fact is that too fucking many people are happy to tear up a woman's right to self determination and force women into situations that put their lives at risk. I don't think we can ignore any rhetoric that supports or gives cover to such attacks on a woman's autonomy.
At this point I would not be surprised if we started seeing feminist groups becoming armed and violent. And as much as I have a disdain for political violence, I don't think I could condemn them for doing so.
I'm not really a fan of my king, the queen before him was far more likeable.
Pithy remarks aside, I don't see how the far left can be blamed for Harris losing given the pretty sizable margin by which she lost. And why would leftists be motivated to vote for a party that not only doesn't offer them anything in terms of policy, but actively courts so called 'moderate' Republicans?
Ah, I see where the miscommunication happened. Only my first response was a defence of them, and only as far as the comment you were responding to. Their opinions are theirs and mine are mine.
I don't think a general strike is a remotely plausible possibility, it simply requires more labour organisation and willingness endure hardship than what currently exists. Me going into hypotheticals and theoreticals is based on this. You're right that If it were somehow we're to happen, the suffering would be immense and I don't know of any remotely realistic goal that it could achieve that would justify it. There's a lot wrong with society but I don't see how bringinging it all to a stop would do much to help.
The main point I initially tried to make(but got very sidetracked from) is that just because someone is advocating for a course of action that causes harm in persuit of a goal, it doesn't mean they are ignorant or uncaring of the harm. But rather that they believe that the end justifies the means.
Sorry for the confusion.