4 ms·

Conflating facing a severe and painful disease [1] while being repeatedly dicked around by the medical system through a combination of incompetence and greed wi

by x0x0 12y ago

Conflating facing a severe and painful disease [1] while being repeatedly dicked around by the medical system through a combination of incompetence and greed with an entitled asshole who rapes a woman because he feels like he's, well, entitled to have sex with people he finds attractive is pretty stupid. As was explained in the article, the murderer had endured a painful illness, a misdiagnosis, used his grandparents' life savings and borrowed money for treatment, traveled some distance, had treatment interrupted, was blown off again by the medical system, and snapped. Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis

zo1 12y ago
He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here are the details of the two scenarios: In both scenarios the victim's were not directly to blame. In both scenarios a larger group of people "dicked" around the aggressor. And in both scenarios (one hypothetical) the violent actions are being downplayed, or justified because of some sort of indirect harm towards the aggressor. This backlash just shows how easy it is for people to conflate the issues involved. It is in essence justifying violence against innocent individuals, and frankly, it's sickening. "Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money." Murder is murder, I don't see the distinction here. You can't go ahead and say murder isn't so bad if the aggressor was "having a bad hair day", or any other trivial issue. If you want to say that this individual was justified in his act of killing because he was in danger and was forced to do so, or was defending himself, then fine that's a different issue.

by x0x0 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here are the details of the two scenarios: In both scenarios the victim's were not directly to blame. In both scenarios a larger group of people "dicked" around the aggressor. And in both scenarios (one hypothetical) the violent actions are being downplayed, or justified because of some sort of indirect harm towards the aggressor. This backlash just shows how easy it is for people to conflate the issues involved. It is in essence justifying violence against innocent individuals, and frankly, it's sickening. "Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money." Murder is murder, I don't see the distinction here. You can't go ahead and say murder isn't so bad if the aggressor was "having a bad hair day", or any other trivial issue. If you want to say that this individual was justified in his act of killing because he was in danger and was forced to do so, or was defending himself, then fine that's a different issue.