thedarkfly

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It probably wouldn't be allowed under an authoritarian government though...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I went to stay a couple of months in the US and of course I brought my reusable bag to the übermarket. The cashier didn't want to fill it. She insisted to use single-use bags :|

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Overeating is bad for sleep, isn't it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

One of the good humans yes, according to the story's morals

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ah then we agree, there was certainly so shift to the meaning of the phrase!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Uh, not really. In the story, a Jew gets injured and multiple Jews pass by without helping. Samaritans are enemies to the Jews, but the good Samaritan helps. A good Samaritan is someone that has no reason to help but still does out the goodness of their heart.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Either they're forced or they believe they're forced to drive cars. I'd become insane too.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Sooo, why is the gf on a leash?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Okay, I had a listen. Basically his arguments are:

  • People don't want it, it is forced through ruse by socialist politicians.
  • It removes freedom from patients to choose their insurance, health care provider etc.
  • It removes freedom from physicians to choose their working methods and living/practicing location. The state will control every aspect of their profession.
  • By slippery slope, it's going to lead to the same for every profession.

So it's an attack point to impose socialism in America. Eh.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Somebody listened to this and can tell me what his rationale was? The unspoken reason is probably like less taxation for the rich and profit in the medical industry, but what are the "sensible" arguments he would be brave enough to formulate in public at the time? If it's about medical research and innovation, it could be assured by the government but "it's not the job of the state to ensure the people's well-being"? Or "people will get lazy if their health is not on the line"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah that's what I'm guessing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Where's the rabbit though?

view more: next ›