Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that I still do not understand a rich 26 yo who attended prep school and whose parents profited from assisted living and a country club thinks he's changing the world by killing another rich guy (who attended public schools and didn't even have a fancy upbringing).

The law would hopefully have done its job with the CEO for his insider trading and any other laws he broke.

1. I do not support gunning somebody down. However, I have thought a lot about this crazy story, and I think I get why this privileged boy decided it had to be him. Consider: if a black person had done the shooting, scrutiny of the situation would no be the same, and the group to whom Luigi was trying to make a point would be considerably less shaken than if they saw someone "like them" commit the murder. The same with a poor shooter, or a middle class shooter, etc. I'm not saying what he did was the right way to make his point, but if someone WERE going to choose this path, then it really has to be a privileged white male with a lot to lose who must take this guy out.

That's what I think he was thinking.

I do think it is true that our reactions would be considerably less sympathetic and inclined to get into his head and understand his situation if he had been poor, non-white, etc.

And I think he wanted his action to prompt conversation and scrutiny of the system; I don't think he believed that this one person's death alone would fix anything.

Again, I'm not saying I support gunning somebody down in American streets. But this is what I think he intended when he decided to take this path.

2. Playing devil's advocate, what if this shooting sparks a series of talks and scrutiny that results in real change to the health insurance industry? YES, this is highly UNLIKELY, but just for fun, if this happened...would you look back and conclude that the killing of this one (criminal, morally bankrupt) individual was, in fact, "worth it"? Because I don't know what my answer would be to this.

Anonymous wrote:I do not support murder but I do support putting every CEO and officers of health insurance companies and their respective Board of Directors in prison for massive fraud.

Anonymous wrote:I do not support murder but I do support putting every CEO and officers of health insurance companies and their respective Board of Directors in prison for massive fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know somebody who became addicted to painkillers because his insurance would no pay for the surgery his doctor said would fix the pain, but the insurance WOULD pay for painkillers to take for years to mask the pain they would not pay to fix. The addiction ruined him, just changed his personality beyond belief.

Someone with medical training pointed out to me that the x-ray photo Luigi had posted showing his back surgery results also showed that he was...very constipated. And this is a primary symptom of opiates. If the surgery didn't alleviate his symptoms (and this type of surgery sometimes does not "work"), then that means he was and may still be relying on painkillers.

It would be interesting if it turns out that Luigi's insurance wouldn't pay for additional treatments, but did pay for him to be on painkillers. Having known someone "addicted to pills", I know this does change one's personality, impulse control, and perception of the world.

The "Constipation Defense."

That's a bold strategy. Let's see if it pays off for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I support murder? No.

When the leopards eat their face, do I feel bad for them? No.

More ignorant, uneducated TikTok cliches from nobodies. Suits you well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do I support murder? No.

When the leopards eat their face, do I feel bad for them? No.

+1.

I support sock puppeting.

I'm the PP and was not sock puppeting. Jeff can confirm if you'd like to ask.

Anonymous wrote:I know somebody who became addicted to painkillers because his insurance would no pay for the surgery his doctor said would fix the pain, but the insurance WOULD pay for painkillers to take for years to mask the pain they would not pay to fix. The addiction ruined him, just changed his personality beyond belief.

Someone with medical training pointed out to me that the x-ray photo Luigi had posted showing his back surgery results also showed that he was...very constipated. And this is a primary symptom of opiates. If the surgery didn't alleviate his symptoms (and this type of surgery sometimes does not "work"), then that means he was and may still be relying on painkillers.

It would be interesting if it turns out that Luigi's insurance wouldn't pay for additional treatments, but did pay for him to be on painkillers. Having known someone "addicted to pills", I know this does change one's personality, impulse control, and perception of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that I still do not understand a rich 26 yo who attended prep school and whose parents profited from assisted living and a country club thinks he's changing the world by killing another rich guy (who attended public schools and didn't even have a fancy upbringing).

The law would hopefully have done its job with the CEO for his insider trading and any other laws he broke.

1. I do not support gunning somebody down. However, I have thought a lot about this crazy story, and I think I get why this privileged boy decided it had to be him. Consider: if a black person had done the shooting, scrutiny of the situation would no be the same, and the group to whom Luigi was trying to make a point would be considerably less shaken than if they saw someone "like them" commit the murder. The same with a poor shooter, or a middle class shooter, etc. I'm not saying what he did was the right way to make his point, but if someone WERE going to choose this path, then it really has to be a privileged white male with a lot to lose who must take this guy out.

That's what I think he was thinking.

I do think it is true that our reactions would be considerably less sympathetic and inclined to get into his head and understand his situation if he had been poor, non-white, etc.

And I think he wanted his action to prompt conversation and scrutiny of the system; I don't think he believed that this one person's death alone would fix anything.

Again, I'm not saying I support gunning somebody down in American streets. But this is what I think he intended when he decided to take this path.

2. Playing devil's advocate, what if this shooting sparks a series of talks and scrutiny that results in real change to the health insurance industry? YES, this is highly UNLIKELY, but just for fun, if this happened...would you look back and conclude that the killing of this one (criminal, morally bankrupt) individual was, in fact, "worth it"? Because I don't know what my answer would be to this.

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that I still do not understand a rich 26 yo who attended prep school and whose parents profited from assisted living and a country club thinks he's changing the world by killing another rich guy (who attended public schools and didn't even have a fancy upbringing).

The law would hopefully have done its job with the CEO for his insider trading and any other laws he broke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The master’s tools will never take down the master’s house. Therefore, by any means necessary . . .

Luigi the master.

Judge, jury and executioner

More accurately, we are arguing that the ends justify the means. That has gone well in the past.

lol. No it hasn’t. Grandiose Psychotic murdering behavior with a poorly written minifesto never went over well.

Stay in your delusional little echo chamber.