I saw this video popping up on several sites devoted to Science-Based Medicine.

If we would ban all medicine except Science-Based Medicine and replace fee-for-service with a fixed salary, that would go quite aways toward fixing or HealthCareProblems:

SCAM (Supplemental Complementary Alternative Medicine ) is not Science-Based and is strictly fee-for-service.

Many Science-Based Doctors make extra money by performing medically unnecessary procedures such as medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of unconsenting minors, causing pain, suffering, and reduced sexual sensation and function for lining their wallets. If Doctors would receive a fixed salary, no matter how many or few procedures their perform, that would destroy this perverse incentive.

Here is the video:

I agree with you that banning the practice of non-Science-Based medicine would vastly improve almost all aspects of modern healthcare, but the political wind seems to be blowing hard against that idea. Doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to fight the good fight, though.

 If Doctors would receive a fixed salary, no matter how many or few procedures their perform, that would destroy this perverse incentive.

This is something I hadn't considered before, but I'm afraid that there will always be a way for doctors to operate outside a mandated system to make extra money, unless such procedures are absolutely outlawed. If they are outlawed, many will be preformed anyway, most likely by unlicensed, untrained people. It's a very difficult situation to control.

A downside of the fixed salary/payment system is that doctors and laboratories (my area of specialty) will slow down toward the end of the fiscal year when they get near the optimal payment/expenditure point. They don't want to spend any more on consumables that they won't be compensated for. Reference laboratories operate under this sort of system in Canada, and the December slow-down is a very real thing.

This is for private companies working under government compensation, of course. A purely governmental organization like the US's Veteran's Affairs medical care system is different. And if you want to know how well that works, ask any vet with a serious medical problem. Be prepared to weather a bitter rant, though.

Trump is right a bout one thing; it's complex.

I'm not sure how the video correlates to your topic besides being of medical practices/procedures.

6005498
Yeah, the support for CAM is nearly universal, tragically.

Iisaw, do you listen to the Skeptic's Guide podcast?

6005842

Iisaw, do you listen to the Skeptic's Guide podcast?

Religiously!

6005685

The thread is about the video. My comments about Science-Based versus SCAM-Based Medicine and the need to eliminate fee-for-service because it leads to Doctors performing medically unnecessary procedures for the money is an aside.

I agree that in the current political climate, we are unlikely to ban SCAM-Based Medicine and fee-for service but instead have Science-Based-Only and flat-salary-based Medicine. Indeed, we Are likely to have naturopathy and homœopathy licensed instead.

6006643
*squee of shared interests*

6007078
And such a (relatively) rare one!

6007110
It's a shame, because they're one of the only skeptical outlets that hasn't disappointed or betrayed me of late. YouTube's community has become a festering pool, with only a few lights I can turn to (Rebecca Watson).

6007131
I know what you mean. I've given up on almost every other source of skepticism and science analysis. I used to attend a couple of skeptical meetup groups, but, the loudest prevailed there, and lung power doesn't correlate closely with brain power.

Good thing the SGU is still going strong!

6005472

If Doctors would receive a fixed salary, no matter how many or few procedures their perform, that would destroy this perverse incentive.

But if you pay all doctors the same, you'll end up with the opposite problem, where doctors see only enough patients to make the list. It would exacerbate the already troublesome doctor shortage.

6007864

Well now, this goes back to incentives to become a physician or accept patients once one becomes a physician. I shall do some back-of-the-envelope calculations that are good within a magnitude. This is not a finalized plan:

• If students agree to take patients for a decade, we give them free medical school, assuming that they have a GPA over over a threshold (no point wasting taxpayer-dollars on village-idiots wanting to go to medical school for shits and giggles who will just washout).
• Pay the physicians 100K$ for a standard kilopatient.*

* I figure that it takes about an hour per visit with the mode of visits being 1 per year and the average being 2 per year; so now, if the physicians work 2KH/year, a physicians should handle 1KiloPatient. This is only a back-of-the-envelop calculation.

The free education will increase physicians. We can adjust the precise number of patients and the salary. We should never do fee for service because that turns physicians into machines seeking billable procedures.

6008083
Now you just have doctors seeing people to fill a quota without any incentive to provide good care. How is that any better?

6008475

That is what doctors already do:

Physician:
“You are fine. Pay me.”

Patient:
“¡You did not even examine me!”

6008503
Skipping the part where you apparently have an unrealistically sour view of the entire medical profession…

You appear to have admitted that both the current and proposed models have the same problem. So what would be the point of changing anything? That's like trading in your broken car for another broken car.

6009163

Evidently, you do not see how my idea is better. I shall explain:

In the current system, physicians do not pay much attention during routine examinations because they get much less for them than for medically unnecessary procedures. They perform lots of medically unnecessary procedures because they are very profitable —— ¡thousands of dollars!.

Under the new system, doctors would not pay attention during routine examinations because they would have a flat salary, but would not bother with medically unnecessary procedures because they would have a flat salary. ¡Think about all of the money we would save and all of the patients whom doctors would not harm under the proposed system!

6011026

Evidently, you do not see how my idea is better.

Under the new system, doctors would not pay attention during routine examinations

And they wouldn't pay attention during important procedures because of the same reason, which would be worse than now. It appears you think that doctors don't do anything, in which case my question for you would be, why have doctors at all? According to your idea of ‘improvement’, paying less is automatically better, so logically, we should just stop having doctors, so we don't need to pay them anything.

6011450

It would eliminate unnecessary procedures. ¿Do you prefer paying for the privilege of doctors cutting of perfectly good body-parts?

6012668
What would eliminate unnecessary procedures? Getting rid of doctors? Yes, it would. Therefore it's a good idea… right?

6012931

I want doctors around for necessary procedures.

6013886
And who decides what is a necessary procedure? You, or the person with a medical degree?

6013920

The person with a medical decree with no financial incentive to recommend unnecessary procedures.

6014381
Under your proposal, they have the financial incentive to not recommend necessary procedures, because it would be more work for them without extra pay. Either the overriding motive of a doctor is money, or it is not; you can't have it one way for half your argument, and then turn it around for the other half. Your position, as presented, is logically inconsistent.

Now, for the interesting question:

Physician:
“You are fine. Pay me.”

Patient:
“¡You did not even examine me!”

Your motivation for hating certain voting rights groups turned out to be personal in nature, and that leads me to ask… is this personal, too? Did you have a conversation like this with a doctor?

6014598

I live in a country where Ob/Gyns sexually mutilate the genitals, without medical necessity, for the fee of over a million babies annually. They tell parents lies such as “if we do not sexually mutilate the genitals of your baby, your baby will suffer from blindness, insanity, hairy palms, et cetera.”:

> “I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time.”
——
Wiswell. (1987-06-22). The age-old question of circumcision. Boston Globe, p.43

The price of a medically unnecessary sexual mutilation is now over a Kilo$.

6014968
You do realize that not all doctors are obstetricians, right? And that the reason for circumcision is religion and ignorance, not profit motive? But no, it's the evil capitalist's fault, and obviously reflective of a wider problem with all doctors that needs drastic measures to correct, without thought to the actual consequences outside this one issue you've hyper-focused on.
I'm not seeing the logic in your position. Plenty of righteous indignation, but emotion does not logic make.

Also, citing a quote from 30 years ago isn't exactly telling of the current situation. You could at least find something more recent to prop up your position, wrongheaded as it may be.

I predict that you'll misinterpret the previous sentence as me saying your opposition to circumcision is wrongheaded, rather than your approach to fixing the problem.

~You might find out what this space is for later.~

Edit: The comment below was just me hitting the post comment button by mistake. I blame 1 AM.

6015684

In the USA, most medically unnecessary forced sexual genital mutilations of the genitals on unconsenting minors are nonreligious. The doctors scare parents with stories about terrible hypothetical things like hairy palms. The frightened parent sign the consent and the doctors medically unnecessarily sexually mutilate the 0-day old —— ¡poor defenseless baby is only a single-digit hours old! This goes back to the 19th century:

The Quack Doctor Kellogg believed that masturbation causes insanity, bed-wetting , et cetera. He forcefully sexually mutilated the genitals of teenagers after restraining them, without anesthetic, if caught masturbating. Other doctors knew that doctor Kellogg was a quack, but adopted forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation on nonconsenting minors for the money. Then came a race to the 0-day olds:

In a race to get the money before other doctors do, doctors forcefully medically unnecessarily sexually mutilated the genitals of unconsenting minors at earlier and earlier ages. The Ob/Gyns won at 0-days old. The thing is that Ob/Gyns are not qualified to treat males and many of thesexual assaults they perform are on male infants. Keeping with the tradition of constraint without anesthetic, ObGyns strap 0-day olds to a board called a CircumStraint and forcefully medically unnecessarily sexually mutilated the unconsenting baby as it screams in agony. Once I met an Ob/Gyn who claimed to be better because he uses anesthetic:

He commented that he is a good man because he forcefully medically sexually mutilates the genitals of unconsenting babies under anesthetic. I agreed while pointing out that we all know that it is not rape if one has the courtesy to slip one’s victim a Mickey 1st. Then, I suggested that he should make the world a better place by committing suicide.

Medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation as a cure in search of a disease.

Doctors searched for more reasons to convince parents that they a have to give consent to medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of their children. Interestingly enough, they could never cook the numbers enough to make it cost effective:

The latest bit of junk-science goes back to Doctor Aaron Fink in the 1980s:

Religiously motivated Fink wanted to show that sexual genital mutilation is medically beneficial. He examined medical statistics and discovered that in East Africa, the sexually genitally mutilated moslems have a lower rate of HIV than the intact animists.. This was cherry picking:

In Southern Africa, it is the reverse. Sexually genitally mutilated USA has an higher rate of HIV than intact Mexico to the south, partially intact Canada to the north, intact Western Europe to the east, and intact East Asia to the west.

In the 200s, came along this study:

1. Take a group of intact HIV-negative men.
2. Sexually genitally mutilate the genitals of half of them, tus rendering them them incapable of having sex for a few month while they heal.
3. After a few months, test both groups for HIV.
4. Discover that the group who could not have sex has a lower rate of HIV than the group which could have sex.

After journal shopping, they even got the results publish. The thing is, according to their own numbers, sexual genital mutilation is not as cost effective as condoms:

According to their own numbers, sexual genital mutilation reduces HIV-infection to 40% of intact. condoms reduce HIV-infection to 10% barebacksex ending in creampie. and cost much less. Even if we accept their bogus numbers, condoms cost less and are more effective. This is a recurring theme:

The military does things on such scale that it has to do things uniformly. Because most Americand are sxually geitally multilated at birth, the US-Military routinely sexually genitally mutilates babies at birth, with the exception of premature, underweight, sick, and deformed babies. In the 1980s, a Thomas Wiswell —— ¡That name sounds familiar! —— determined that sexually genitally mutilated babies born in US-Army-Hospitals have lower rates of Urinary-Tract Infections. This really boiled down to comparing health full-term babies against sick babies. After accounting for this, the correlation disappears. The interesting thing is that according to the raw numbers of Wiswell, which we know are bogus, one must sexually genitally mutilate 200 babies, at a thousand times the cost for preventing 1 urinary tract infection.

I could go on with the bogus claims for sexually transmitted diseases, but you get the pattern. I shall close with the biggest whopper of them all though:

Doctors once pushed sexual genital mutilation as a way of preventing penile cancer with poorly designed studies which are now debunked. The thing is that penile cancer is so rare that one would multiple babies for every man saved and spend more money too.

One can design a poorly designed study to show that sexual genital mutilation reduces risks of disease x until someone comes along and debunks it, but one cannot design a study to show that sexual genital mutilation is cost-effect.

6015879

In the USA, most medically unnecessary forced sexual genital mutilations of the genitals on unconsenting minors are nonreligious.

I would appreciate a source detailing the breakdown of reasons people have their child circumcised. I'm willing to bet religion and social pressure far beat out physician advice.

The Quack Doctor Kellogg believed that masturbation causes insanity, bed-wetting , et cetera.

Yes, because of his religion.

Other doctors knew that doctor Kellogg was a quack, but adopted forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation on nonconsenting minors for the money.

You assert this with no sourcing or justification, so I reject it just as easily. I present the alternative, and much more reasonable possibility that Kellogg was respected by his colleagues (regardless of whether that respect was earned) and that they followed his advice because they shared his religiously-based anti-masturbation position, not because of money.

The thing is that Ob/Gyns are not qualified to treat males

That's just straight-up false. As doctors, they are ‘qualified’ to treat everybody. They just specialize in pregnancies, as well as fetuses and newborns… so yes, they do specialize in very small males.

He commented that he is a good man because he forcefully medically sexually mutilates the genitals of unconsenting babies under anesthetic. I agreed while pointing out that we all know that it is not rape if one has the courtesy to slip one’s victim a Mickey 1st. Then, I suggested that he should make the world a better place by committing suicide.

So, in response to a perception of physical harm to someone, you suggest physical harm as a solution? How does that make you better? It's okay when it happens to someone you don't like?

Religiously motivated Fink wanted to show that sexual genital mutilation is medically beneficial.

Oops, you just admitted it's religiously motivated, not monetarily.

I could go on with the bogus claims for sexually transmitted diseases, but you get the pattern.

You're kind of missing the point. Are you trying to convince me that circumcision is wrong, or are you trying to convince me that your proposed solution would improve things? These are two very different claims. I'm disputing one, but you're focusing on the other.

6016225

> > “’In the USA, most medically unnecessary forced sexual genital mutilations of the genitals on unconsenting minors are nonreligious.

> “I would appreciate a source detailing the breakdown of reasons people have their child circumcised. I'm willing to bet religion and social pressure far beat out physician advice.”

¿Do I have to perform a survey for you? Ob/Gyns lay on the dire consequences of not sexually genitally mutilating, citing poorly run studies debunked decades ago which even if true, would not be cost-effective such as sexually genitally mutilating the genitals of 200 poor defenseless babies at 1000x the cost for preventing 1 urinary tract-infection easily treated by antibiotics. Certainly, you do not believe that most Ob/Gyns are jews and moslems.

> > “’The Quack Doctor Kellogg believed that masturbation causes insanity, bed-wetting , et cetera.’”

> “Yes, because of his religion.”

Perhaps. The guy was a nutcase. ¿Who can say? We do know that other doctors knew that he was crazy, but gladly took money for sexual genital mutilation anyway.

> > “’Other doctors knew that doctor Kellogg was a quack, but adopted forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation on nonconsenting minors for the money.’”

> “You assert this with no sourcing or justification, so I reject it just as easily. I present the alternative, and much more reasonable possibility that Kellogg was respected by his colleagues (regardless of whether that respect was earned) and that they followed his advice because they shared his religiously-based anti-masturbation position, not because of money.”

Yes, other doctors figured that the crazy man, who despite being married remained a virgin his whole life, with the obsession about enemas was right. That makes so much sense.

> > “’The thing is that Ob/Gyns are not qualified to treat males’”

> “That's just straight-up false. As doctors, they are ‘qualified’ to treat everybody. They just specialize in pregnancies, as well as fetuses and newborns… so yes, they do specialize in very small males.

¿Who you want a Podiatrist to remove your brain-tumor? One could argue that they can sexually mutilate the genitals of baby-girls but not boys, but really, they should refer all babies to Pædiatric Urologist for sexual genital mutilation of the genitals. The only problem with referal to Pædiatric Urologists is that they would not make a quick buck.

> > “’He commented that he is a good man because he forcefully medically sexually mutilates the genitals of unconsenting babies under anesthetic. I agreed while pointing out that we all know that it is not rape if one has the courtesy to slip one’s victim a Mickey 1st. Then, I suggested that he should make the world a better place by committing suicide.’”

> “So, in response to a perception of physical harm to someone, you suggest physical harm as a solution? How does that make you better? It's okay when it happens to someone you don't like?”

The man is ghoul. I suppose that I could ask him to stop:

> “¿Would you kindly stop sexually genitally mutilating the genitals of babies?

> > ‘”Religiously motivated Fink wanted to show that sexual genital mutilation is medically beneficial.’”

> “Oops, you just admitted it's religiously motivated, not monetarily.

I never claImed that none have religious motivations.

> > “’I could go on with the bogus claims for sexually transmitted diseases, but you get the pattern.’”

> “You're kind of missing the point. Are you trying to convince me that circumcision is wrong, or are you trying to convince me that your proposed solution would improve things? These are two very different claims. I'm disputing one, but you're focusing on the other.”

I try to convince you that fee-for-service leads to unnecessary billable procedures. Forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of unconsenting minors is the perfect example of fee-seeking behavior. I suspect that you already know that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of 0-day-old unconsenting babies is a bad thing. Indeed, I personally feel that we should have a law banning forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of unconsenting minors, but I never brought that up in this thread because it is not germane to the subject.

6016848

¿Do I have to perform a survey for you?

If you can't find one that's already been done, then yes. That's what providing evidence means. You don't get to just assert things and expect me to believe them.

Certainly, you do not believe that most Ob/Gyns are jews and moslems.

Kellogg's motivation was religious. He was Christian (Seventh Day Adventist). The pieces have been laid out; put them together.

We do know that other doctors knew that he was crazy, but gladly took money for sexual genital mutilation anyway.

How do we know? Present your evidence for this claim.

Yes, other doctors figured that the crazy men, who despite being married remained a virgin his whole life, with the obsession about enemas was right. That makes so much sense.

That you think the possibility is absurd just shows how little you know of how the world works; large groups of people can indeed decide stupid things en masse. Again; provide evidence, instead of just asserting things.

¿Who you want a Podiatrist to remove your brain-tumor?

That's different, and you know it. You didn't say they weren't qualified to treat any specific complex procedure, you literally said ‘males’, which is false.

One could argue that they can sexually mutilate the genitals of baby-girls but not boys, but really, they should refer all babies to Pædiatric Urologist for sexual genital mutilation of the genitals. The only problem with referal to Pædiatric Urologists is that they would not make a quick buck.

You do realize that doctor specialties can overlap, right? Because your argument here appears to be that since another specialty is qualified to do it, then this one isn't, which makes no sense.

The man is ghoul.

Did you seriously just call someone a monster as justification for advocating violence? You do realize how much like a religious extremist you sound, right?

I never claImed that none have religious motivations.

Your entire argument is based on it being monetarily motivated, but you have yet to provide any substantial evidence for it; yet you have provided evidence of other motivations, which I am highlighting for you to show how your argument doesn't hold up.

I try to convince you that fee-for-service leads to unnecessary billable procedures.

And I countered that your proposed solution wouldn't make things better.

Forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of unconsenting minors is the perfect example of fee-seeking behavior.

You keep saying that, but when I ask you to provide evidence for the claim, you have so far refused.

I suspect that you already know that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of 0-day-old unconsenting babies is a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure I've said as much previously, so I would hope it's more than just suspecting.

Oh, and:

the perfect example of fee-seeking behavior.

Examples are for emotional arguments. I want a logical argument, and that means statistics. How widespread is this fee-seeking behavior? What is it's financial impact? Even if you had actually presented evidence for genital mutilation being monetarily motivated, that wouldn't answer the general question about the profession as a whole, which is what needs to be answered to support your argument.

6017089

Sorry for the late reply, but I worked 6 10-hour days last week. Usually, I would make up the lost sleep on my day off, but I saw SpiderMan and took freeTrainRides on the new CommuterTrain. With a little effort, you could figure out where I live within an 100 KM or so. After all, ¿how many places just started CommuterTrainService and offers free TrainRides on the weekends for the 1st month. After work on Monday, I basically fell asleep and did not wake until I had to go to work again.

> > “’The man is ghoul.’”

> “Did you seriously just call someone a monster as justification for advocating violence? You do realize how much like a religious extremist you sound, right?”

¿Do you believe that he will stop?

> > “’I suspect that you already know that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of 0-day-old unconsenting babies is a bad thing.’”

> “I'm pretty sure I've said as much previously, so I would hope it's more than just suspecting.”

That is why I suspected.

> > “’…the perfect example of fee-seeking behavior.’”

> “Examples are for emotional arguments. I want a logical argument, and that means statistics. How widespread is this fee-seeking behavior? What is it's financial impact? Even if you had actually presented evidence for genital mutilation being monetarily motivated, that wouldn't answer the general question about the profession as a whole, which is what needs to be answered to support your argument.”

We do know that they do not feel that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors is not important enough to do it for free:

Defunding forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of newborns makes Ob/Gyns stop performing them Let us compare that to my family dentist:

I had a cavity but was short of money and without insurance. She drilled and filled the cavity gratis.

This is why I volunteer in the effort to get Medicaid and private insurance to defund medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of minors. I also volunteer to try to get medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of minors banned.

6019227

¿Do you believe that he will stop?

Do you believe that someone continuing to do something you disagree with deserves a death sentence? Again, you sound like a religious fanatic.

We do know that they do not feel that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors is not important enough to do it for free:

By that argument (that anything they charge for must be unnecessary), no medical procedure is important. Try following through with your logic to see if it actually makes sense, instead of just spouting stuff that you think sounds kind of smart.

Let us compare that to my family dentist:
I had a cavity but was short of money and without insurance. She drilled and filled the cavity gratis.

And I'm sure that some doctors will mutilate the genitals for free in extenuating circumstances, too. Just as I'm sure you're aware that doing it ‘gratis’ strongly implies that this isn't something that your dentist (or any dentist) usually does for free.

I notice you've completely given up on your original argument in favor of something you feel more comfortable defending. That's known as moving the goalpost.

6020511

> > “’¿Do you believe that he will stop?’”

> “Do you believe that someone continuing to do something you disagree with deserves a death sentence? Again, you sound like a religious fanatic.”

He sexually assaults babies for money. Besides, I do not want to kill him. I merely suggest that he improve the world by committing suicide.

> > “’Let us compare that to my family dentist:’”

> > “’I had a cavity but was short of money and without insurance. She drilled and filled the cavity gratis.’”

> “’Just as I'm sure you're aware that doing it ‘gratis’ strongly implies that this isn't something that your dentist (or any dentist) usually does for free.’”

Doctors should prioritize doing good over doing well. Doctors letting patients they could save die because the patients lack funds while engaging in fee-seeking are not good doctors in mine humble opinion.

> “I notice you've completely given up on your original argument in favor of something you feel more comfortable defending. That's known as moving the goalpost.”

Mine original thesis is that John Oliver made a good video about Vaccines. An aside I made is that we should only allow Science-Based Medicine and pay doctors a flat salary. These positions have not changed.

6020538

Besides, I do not want to kill him. I merely suggest that he improve the world by committing suicide.

“I didn't tell anyone to commit murder, I just suggested that my boys have him take a swim with the fishes.”
If you can't understand that suggesting someone commit suicide is essentially the same as directly wishing to kill them, you have failed as a rational person. The intent is the same.

Mine original thesis is that John Oliver made a good video about Vaccines.

Essentially your entire post was focused on your proposed healthcare overhaul. I suggest you look up how to present a thesis, and what an ‘aside’ is, because you clearly didn't do it right.

An aside I made is that we should only allow Science-Based Medicine and pay doctors a flat salary. These positions have not changed.

I challenged your position on paying doctors a flat salary, and you pivoted away to a rant on circumcision, despite my repeated attempts to return to the original topic. How can you not see this?

6021153

> > “’An aside I made is that we should only allow Science-Based Medicine and pay doctors a flat salary. These positions have not changed.’”

> “I challenged your position on paying doctors a flat salary, and you pivoted away to a rant on circumcision, despite my repeated attempts to return to the original topic. How can you not see this?”

No, I gave involuntary medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of nonconsenting minors. I mentioned the Medicaid-Project. ¿Why expend time and money on a defunding forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of nonconsenting minors if Ob/Gyns would just sexually assault infants gratis?

6021517
So your response is to pivot again, and also to object to an equivalent term because it isn't sufficiently angry for your taste. Yeah…

6021725

You should read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. It explains why euphemisms makes atrocities acceptable. I for 1, refuse to speak NewSpeak:

Politics and the English Language
——
George Orwell

NewSpeak

6022583

You should read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. It explains why euphemisms makes atrocities acceptable.

I'm not asking you to use a euphemism, I'm pointing out that your language indicates violent intent. I don't intend you to just change your language, I intend you to reflect on your thoughts and realize that wishing for someone's death is morally reprehensible. This has absolutely nothing to do with phrasing; this is about the meaning of your words.

6022585

If a man would come up to and smugly, expecting praise for his actions, would gloat about having the decency to always slip his victims a Micky before sexually assaulting them, ¿what would your response be to him?

6022589
It would not be to promote killing. Killing is wrong. Killing in response to someone doing something wrong is still wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

6022616

It was said in the heat of the moment, and if you could have seen how full of himself he was —— ¡he sincerely believes that he is the bees’ knees because he uses anesthetic before mutilating! —— you would realize that he would not kill himself.

6022618

It was said in the heat of the moment,

And then you bragged about it in a comment section, presumably after several months (at least) during which you could have calmed down. Instead, you embraced the sentiment.

you would realize that he would not kill himself.

It being wrong to wish someone to commit suicide is not predicated on whether they will actually listen to your suggestion.

6022630

Sorry for the delay, but I work like a dog.

I crimethink. I am doubleplus ungood. ¿Should I fear Minilove and Room # 101? Everypony has violent thoughts when angered, but it is acting on said that which is wrong.

I hear that viewers marathon content on streaming services. evidently, they do not work at least 40 h/w with instances of 60 h/w with 50 h/w being typical. I am partway through Luke Cage and am unlikely to finish it before September. I finally got around to watching the Principles of Curiosity. It is good so I shall link it in a new blogpost.

6043726

Everypony has violent thoughts when angered, but it is acting on said that which is wrong.

1. I don't. Oddly, if you live your life with the attitude that thinking violent thoughts is bad, you can get yourself to stop having them. How about that?
2. Telling someone to go commit suicide is an action, not a thought. As soon as it leaves your head, you can't complain about it being a thought crime.

6044351

You win; you are better than I.