Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#221

Post by chomskyole »

bloqs wrote: post #219
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Its not violence. There may me a missing word to describe reputation and livlihood destruction

Why do you think it is not violence?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#222

Post by vouaobrasil »

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#223

Post by Method-X »

chomskyole wrote: post #220
BoxFour wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly. Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical for…

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example. > Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force. Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think? EDIT: for instance paying someone to…

> Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?

And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#224

Post by vouaobrasil »

bloqs wrote: post #219
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Its not violence. There may me a missing word to describe reputation and livlihood destruction

There is no sane reason to restrict violence to the immediate physical. If you destroy someone's livelihood, e.g. by forcing them into bankruptcy, they will have to leave their home and give up their assets. What if they don't? They must because there is a threat of force behind the act.

Destroying someone's livelihood is nothing else than asking someone to give up the resources they collected over time under the threat of force: if they refuse, they will have the police to talk to.

And if they do not listen to the police, the police have guns.

That is violence.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#226

Post by vouaobrasil »

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> We don't like violence.

Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant.

Personally, while I neither like nor dislike violence, it can be a useful tool in revolutions where the state has become incompatible with the needs of the majority.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#227

Post by vouaobrasil »

Method-X wrote: post #223
chomskyole wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example. > Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force. Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think? EDIT: for instance paying someone to…

> Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think? And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?

It is pretty clear that violence is more about coersion, not about hurting someone's feelings.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#228

Post by chomskyole »

Method-X wrote: post #223
chomskyole wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example. > Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force. Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think? EDIT: for instance paying someone to…

> Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think? And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?

I think you are sidestepping the argument here.

Tell me, if I outsource the physical act of harm, say by paying someone to beat someone else up, would you say I am not violent?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#229

Post by lotsofpulp »

FireBeyond wrote: post #189
lotsofpulp wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UNH was approving all their claims, then people would complain about increased premiums/deductibles. People just want to complain about not being able to afford something they want (American healthcare). While UNH does some shameful things, even criminal things, the celebration of a public execution of a second in command guy is embarrassing for HN.

This rather ignores the role of health "insurers", third party administrators, repricing specialists and every other middle man that contributes more significantly to the price of healthcare than the actual cost of providing that care.

In the US healthcare chain, the ranking of profit margins goes (and this is public info from public financials):

Pharmaceutical companies 20%+

Healthcare software companies (based on other software company margins). 20%+

Healthcare providers (doctor groups) Hospitals (HCA, tenet, etc) 10%+

Managed care organizations (MCOs, health insurers), retail pharmacies, and medicine distributors at the very bottom. ~2%

Legal is also up there. Those millions and tens of millions of dollar judgments don’t come from thin air.

Go ahead and get rid of MCOs, and at best you will reduce costs by 5%. Their medical loss ratios are 85% to 90%.

They are just allocating the very limited resources among more and more demand. Someone is going to have to be the bad guy unless supply of healthcare is drastically increased and tort reform happens to bring down liability costs.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#230

Post by chomskyole »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #222
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.

Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...
Post reply on HN