Comments by "Mark Zuckergecko" (@markzuckergecko621) on "Should We Worry About Luigi Mangione Supporters? Nope!" video.

I'm not trying to act like it's not a problem, because it definitely is, one is too many. But it's not as big of a problem as the media would have you believe.
22
@Walter-wo5sz gay. A gay ribbon.
13
@Cptn.Smoker not only that, we're also giving them an excuse to hire an army of private security, and guess who's gonna pay for it? The consumer.
13
@Cptn.Smoker it's so annoying and frustrating how they act like you're on the side of CEOs and insurance agencies if your reaction is anything other than gleeful cheering, and that couldn't be further from the truth, nobody has to tell my libertarian ass that insurance companies suck. I'm just being practical about it, this isn't a win for us, at best this is a nothing burger that's going to blow over and change nothing, and at worst this is a huge setback in us reducing the power and influence these companies have.
8
@bluefalconssuck5881 "Game", "assault", tomato, tomato.
8
@z3r0_35 I think you're all missing the point, the cost of the security will be passed on to the consumer. And no matter how many of them are taken out, they'll just be replaced by another.
7
@chesscomsupport8689 lmao, right wing socialist is like a bicycle with 3 wheels. It's one or the other. And the way "right wing" is classified these days can be very loose too.
6
@howitzer3342 not a single person, because murder requires intent.
6
@howitzer3342 look at that goal post shift...
5
@howitzer3342 no, it's not murder when the intent is to make money, and death is an unintended result. That doesn't mean it's not still wrong, but it's not murder. This isn't debatable, words have meaning.
5
@howitzer3342 do you know what the word "intent" means? Real question. You either don't know, or you're just being dishonest.
5
@howitzer3342 good lord I really don't understand how you don't understand this. If your intent is to kill, it's murder, even if you also intended to steal their money. Insurance companies denying claims are not trying to kill anyone, it just happens sometimes. And that's wrong, but it's not murder. This isn't an opinion, you're just objectively incorrect on this one. These terms are clearly defined.
5
@howitzer3342 why would they want their paying customers to die? That doesn't sound like a very good business model. Sure, they don't really give a damn if people die here and there, but they would prefer for people to stay alive and keep paying them money. Think about this for just a minute.
4
@theratrace5826 you really think these companies won't take any excuse available to raise their prices? And it's going to happen one way or another, but that doesn't mean you should just hand them a new excuse on a silver platter. You really don't seem to be thinking this through, these people are much smarter than you. They're a lot of bad things, but they're not stupid. If it seems like you're winning, it's because they're allowing you to think you're winning. It's a chess match, and you're losing.
4
I hope all the conservatives and libertarians cheering for this realize that in the eyes of progressives, you're no different than the CEO, you're a capitalist.
3
@TheKing-uu7jn allegedly, they've said he's a Republican. But they've said that before with no real evidence.
3
@howitzer3342 oh shit, you don't understand the difference between intent and motive. Lmfao, I guess we solved the mystery.
3
@theratrace5826 so they'll just get more security, and raise the price some more. Derp derp.
3
@howitzer3342 murder requires intent. Like I said, this is not debatable. You're just twisting definitions to try and prove a point, and it's making your point weaker. Stop being dishonest.
2
@howitzer3342 that would be murder, because your intent was to kill them. This is really not a difficult concept, and if you do understand the concept of intent, then you're being dishonest.
2
@howitzer3342 but they wouldn't be able to prove that the intent was to profit, because your intent was to kill. This has been explained to you very clearly, you just don't want to understand.
2
@howitzer3342 the intent is still to kill though, it doesn't matter if there's a financial motive. I guess you could consider that also the intent in some cases, but it doesn't matter if they also intended to kill. That's murder. I'm getting really tired of going in circles here, you know you're wrong, just admit you're wrong.
2
@howitzer3342 I never said it was all good, I've said at least 3 times that it's still wrong. It's just not murder, because words have meaning. Why are you being so dishonest?
2
@howitzer3342 and the goal post shifts again!!!🤣
2
@joelcastillo5828 when have I ever said it was moral? I've said numerous times that it's wrong, I'm not on the side of insurance, I'm on the side of accuracy. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's murder. Child abuse is wrong, but it's not murder. Words have meaning.
2
@howitzer3342 what would that prove? Anyone can copy and paste a definition. That doesn't mean what you're claiming fits the definition. You're wrong on this one, just take the L.
2
@howitzer3342 the unlawful killing of a person without malice or premeditation. What's your point now?
2
@howitzer3342 that's directly from google, I can't copy and paste links because they get deleted. You know that too. What exactly do you think I'm leaving out? Stop being cryptic and just say it.
2
@joelcastillo5828 you people are impossible, you just can't see the bigger picture. You're so glued to this "rich person bad" mentality that you can't even see you're accidentally on the rich people's side.
2
@howitzer3342 in some instances, it absolutely would apply. But that's not murder, that's why it's a separate charge. But these companies have entire teams of lawyers and consultants, they're very careful to walk that tightrope, any claim that would result in nearly certain death is typically not denied.
2
@howitzer3342 I really don't even know what your point is anymore, you're just rambling about nonsense because you know you're wrong. Insurance man bad. Can we agree on that part? I've been maintaining that position this entire time. You just refuse to listen.
2
@howitzer3342 I already said that there are definitely some denied claims that could be considered manslaughter, but MANSLAUGHTER IS NOT MURDER. Seriously, I don't understand how this has gone on so long with you completely missing the point of everything I've said.
2
@howitzer3342 that's not intent to kill, it's intent to make money. Like I said, they don't want their customers to die, because they can't pay them when they're dead. Not a good business model.
2
@DerrickSeaborne-d2j progressives are all the same person, they share a hive mind.
1
@jknott1509 true, but there's not a lot of parralels between him and the rich kid who pissed himself upon arrest, and was likely hired.
1
@howitzer3342 Jesus Christ you're so dishonest, if the intent is to kill someone, and you also profit from it, it's murder, because the intent was to kill them. What part of this do you not understand? Do you know what the word "intent" means? Or are you just being dishonest? Real question. At least one of those things is necessarily true.
1
@howitzer3342 it has nothing to do with it being a corporation, numbnuts, it's the INTENT. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Even if you're intending to take someone's money, and you kill them, you also intended to kill them. That's murder. Insurance companies denying a claim are not intending for anyone to die, it just happens sometimes. That's not murder, it's not even manslaughter. It's criminal negligence at worst, and you could make a strong case for that in many instances, and they definitely are protected by their clout. I'm not trying to say any of that is right, because it's wrong as hell, but it's not murder. You're just plain wrong here, it isn't an opinion, you are objectively incorrect. Take the L.
1
@howitzer3342 look at that goal post shift again!!! I guess you could make the argument for involuntary manslaughter in some claim denials, if it can be proven that the person was definitely going to die without the procedure or medicine they were denied. But most of those claims get approved, don't you think they have an army of lawyers to advise them on this stuff? Some of those cases are brought to trial and won. AGAIN, before you twist my words and lie, I'm not saying it's ok, it's definitely not ok, but it's not manslaughter if they just deny a treatment and the person ends up dying, not necessarily. There's a legal precedence for this.
1
@howitzer3342 and the goal post shifts again!!!! Sure, you could make an argument for manslaughter in some claims denials, but not all of them. They have lawyers to advise them on this stuff, if someone is definitely going to die without treatment, they usually approve those claims. It's the more murky ones where people end up dying, where it can't be proven that death was a certainty. AGAIN, I'm not saying it's ok, it's definitely not ok. But it's not murder.
1
@howitzer3342 some particular denials could be considered manslaughter, but they're pretty careful about walking that tightrope, they have entire armies of lawyers and advisors. It would have to be proven that death was a near certainty of the claim was denied, and most of those claims are approved, to cover their own asses. But there is a lot of grey area, and some of these cases are brought to trial. Sometimes the claimant even wins. I'm not trying to say it's ok, it's definitely not ok, but you're the one twisting the meaning of words here.
1
@howitzer3342 ok I'm done with this, you're just going to keep being dishonest. Have fun with your lying life, I'm looking forward to seeing everyone else that comes along later to laugh at your stupidity.
1
@howitzer3342 Jesus Christ dude, no, for the 25th time, that's not murder, it's manslaughter at best. And good luck winning that trial, because they usually only deny claims that they know they can't be held liable for, the kind of crap where you might die but you won't definitely die, and they're like tough shit, deal with it.
1
@howitzer3342 that's your opinion, and it would never hold up in court, because there's absolutely zero evidence that their intent is to kill. Because it's not true, it's just you making up shit because you can't admit you're wrong. Which is also why you're always wrong.
1