Well in fairness, if you hurt those industry’s with less travel, the people in those industries who end up out of jobs and with no money will die at greater numbers. They would be mostly outside the US though, so this administration doesn’t care about that. But at the same time, if they gut the programs in the US that are peoples saftey nets, maybe it will include Americans.

I figure that and attractiveness will enable you to borrow any other ability you need.

It’s the conflict of interest in the “decision maker”

Yeah, but the professional board is kinda like an HOA board. Should be more like a jury of all regular doctors or something.

Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care, they should go after the doctor, not the patient. Doctors have malpractice insurance. If the health insurance can’t win a case of malpractice, then they should pay the bill. Why are patients in the midfle here at all.

I think there are a lot of us there. More than lemmy would make it appear.

I’m going with I don’t advocate for violence, but I also won’t condemn this use of it. If I knew a better way to attempt to cause change, I would advocate for that. But it is hard to argue with the result. (Anthem reversal)

Yeah, I don’t consider any moral stance to be “litterally right”. They seem like opposites to me. And clearly philosophy is by definition is a personal view point. Thanks for the history and such. Your comment adds a lot of value to the discussion, which is great to see.

I will agree with you on B and C. Not so much on A. Not saying A isn’t true, just that it isn’t as simple as most people think. And probably is impossible to prove due to all the unknown side effects. An example of a side effect not related to veganism is the effect monocrop farming has on bees. Noone saw that coming until it happened. So changes to what is planted and such to support veganism could turn out to be less sustainable for reasons we can’t fathom. Similar on the “better for the planet”. We can’t really know that. So I wouldn’t put that under “litterally” right. Just probably right. In general I think diversity is better than one thing or the other. In the US the balance is way over toward the animal side. Shifting toward less of that would for sure be good. But going all the way to no animal products will probably have it’s own issues on things.

I just want to ask for more details on the “they’re litterally right” part. Mostly cause I didn’t think the had an official organized statement to be right about. But I don’t really follow them, so maybe I’m missing something.