america - fucked up

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Is that a numbers game or are you (read your Gubmint) doing a better job of taking care of those folks? Providing markedly better living/food assistance?

 

It's a combination of outdated institutionalization approach and cultural norms and values, where extended family remains important. I have not checked by I think there may even be legal obligation to take care of next of keen or something like that.

 

So, what caught my attention is the family which now has a lawyer who will probably be suing someone for a lot of money,  for the death / murder / manslaughter of their beloved family member who lived as a mentally ill homeless beggar. 

[TheHowieLama]

27 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

 

So, what caught my attention is the family which now has a lawyer who will probably be suing someone for a lot of money,  for the death / murder / manslaughter of their beloved family member who lived as a mentally ill homeless beggar. 

 

That is correct -- he lived until he was killed. You seem to be making a value judgement on that. Then justifying it by what you would have done.

Is that ok?

 

Which part, mentally ill : homeless : beggar caught your attention?

[SasaS]

11 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

That is correct -- he lived until he was killed. You seem to be making a value judgement on that. Then justifying it by what you would have done.

Is that ok?

 

Which part, mentally ill : homeless : beggar caught your attention?

 

I would say  I have sufficiently explained what caught my attention to anyone with a genuine willingness to understand it.

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I would say  I have sufficiently explained what caught my attention to anyone with a genuine willingness to understand it.

 

Ok -- here it is in brief:

 

So, what caught my attention is the family which now has a lawyer who will probably be suing someone for a lot of money,  for the death / murder / manslaughter of their beloved family member who lived as a mentally ill homeless beggar. 

 

It is either - lawsuit - death/murder/manslaughter or mentally ill homeless beggar.

 

That is a lot of ground to cover pal. Might be helpful to narrow it down, cuz something caught your attention.

[VladimirIlyich]

12 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Ok -- here it is in brief:

 

So, what caught my attention is the family which now has a lawyer who will probably be suing someone for a lot of money,  for the death / murder / manslaughter of their beloved family member who lived as a mentally ill homeless beggar. 

 

It is either - lawsuit - death/murder/manslaughter or mentally ill homeless beggar.

 

That is a lot of ground to cover pal. Might be helpful to narrow it down, cuz something caught your attention.

I think Sasa is saying that his family only seem to care about him now he is dead. If they'd cared more while alive then he might not have been homeless and vulnerable.

That is what I surmise from it.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I think Sasa is saying that his family only seem to care about him now he is dead. If they'd cared more while alive then he might not have been homeless and vulnerable.

That is what I surmise from it.

 

I think we should let him speak for himself and if you have anything pertinent to say you can add it. As yourself.

[VladimirIlyich]

40 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

I think we should let him speak for himself and if you have anything pertinent to say you can add it. As yourself.

I think he makes a fair point about the family perspective in his community not allowing family members to be cast aside like this. 

[SasaS]

Howie, how are you yourself not tired of this deliberate obtuseness tactic, or is it approach? It's like Socratic maieutics as seen by Ionesco.

 

The lawyer is now representing the family, he will, as is normal in similar cases, try to get them a big settlement (already talking they are going to sue). He is using the usual argument about family's loss of a beloved member, except in this case, the family member was homeless and mentally ill, and as such, you would surmise abandoned by this very family (the actual case may admittedly be more nuanced  as I don't know any of the specifics). So lawyer's argument is bound to sound a bit hollow. 

[TheHowieLama]

20 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Howie, how are you yourself not tired of this deliberate obtuseness tactic, or is it approach? It's like Socratic maieutics as seen by Ionesco.

 

The lawyer is now representing the family, he will, as is normal in similar cases, try to get them a big settlement (already talking they are going to sue). He is using the usual argument about family's loss of a beloved member, except in this case, the family member was homeless and mentally ill, and as such, you would surmise abandoned by this very family (the actual case may admittedly be more nuanced  as I don't know any of the specifics). So lawyer's argument is bound to sound a bit hollow. 

 

 

No, not yet.

 

You are making so many assumptions in the individuals life. Some may be true, others not.

 

The fella was alive until he was choked out. To death. Not until he was no longer a threat to anyone around him, to death. By a stranger.

 

Anything that happens after that has nothing to do with him.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

33 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Howie, how are you yourself not tired of this deliberate obtuseness tactic, or is it approach? It's like Socratic maieutics as seen by Ionesco.

 

The lawyer is now representing the family, he will, as is normal in similar cases, try to get them a big settlement (already talking they are going to sue). He is using the usual argument about family's loss of a beloved member, except in this case, the family member was homeless and mentally ill, and as such, you would surmise abandoned by this very family (the actual case may admittedly be more nuanced  as I don't know any of the specifics). So lawyer's argument is bound to sound a bit hollow. 

 

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

 

No, not yet.

 

You are making so many assumptions in the individuals life. Some may be true, others not.

 

The fella was alive until he was choked out. To death. Not until he was no longer a threat to anyone around him, to death. By a stranger.

 

Anything that happens after that has nothing to do with him.

 

As you may have noticed, I didn't go there, I didn't comment on the actual event and all the possible implications. I commented on the lawyer representing the family and his  picture of passengers indifference to the man's plight.

[TheHowieLama]

39 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I commented on the lawyer representing the family and his  picture of passengers indifference to the man's plight.

 

Do you think that was reported incorrectly or is that what happened?

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Do you think that was reported incorrectly or is that what happened?

 

I quoted from what they wrote the lawyer said. Why is that even important? I would presume they reported correctly what the man said.

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I quoted from what they wrote the lawyer said. Why is that even important? I would presume they reported correctly what the man said.

Ah, my bad. It seemed like you were suggesting the family lawyer was positioning something out of context/ordinary.

[polymerpunkah]

Has Trump promised a pardon yet?

 

 

 

 

[Kepler-186]

The jarhead’s legal defense fund stands at 700k, and he’s being championed by Big Ron DeSantis. Because choking a vulnerable man to death is anti woke and you can own the libs for supporting street crime. 
 

 

[polymerpunkah]

So DeSantis got there first.

 

The Republicans are taking the US down the sewer, head first.