Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

They're going to get more donations as a result of this woman's sacrifice. She helped the university, she didn't hurt it.
6
@solvingpolitics3172 PLSTN is a region in the Near East inhabited continuously for well over 1000 years by an indigenous group of people we call the PLSTNans. Following an international wave of nationalism in the early 20th century, this group lobbied for national recognition by contemporary global powers.
5
 @jimfalls6583 You sound jealous.
4
@dakotawitmer6517 I support their decision to walk out. There was no useful or necessary purpose in playing the video. It is a technical discussion on surgical procedure. There was no moral judgement on whether the surgery is appropriate or not. It seems like the entire purpose of playing the video was to just to stoke vitriol against the doctor because of how he looks and talks.
3
@charlottec9858 Everyone already knows that surgical interventions in adolescents are so ridiculously rare that it's impossible to have large amounts of published data. Even the doctor in this whole video admits he's only ever seen 2 cases. That's a pretty easy figure to pull up. But it doesn't really speak to the necessity or appropriateness of the surgery since virtually every edge case surgical intervention has similar stats. If the idea is to get a medical opinion on whether the small sample sizes represent a risk large enough to impose a ban then play a video of you asking the doctor that. But don't play an out of context soundbite that will let you cherry pick parts of his statements in order to convey a false image of the medical opinion on this matter.
3
 @ladylikeness180 We're definitely better now. No 300,000 excess deaths a year.
3
@Carvaka She helped it with the testimony and she helped it even more with her apology. The mission was for her to embarrass herself in order to protect the institution. She performed as instructed.
2
@scottszczechowicz5699 This is false. Please stop spreading misinformation. The donor threatened to pull $100m. He did not actually do it. There's a difference.
2
@Carvaka It's not really a conspiracy. She was asked to defend Harvard's decision without defending the protests because Harvard's donors are in favor of free speech but are opposed to "Free PLSTN" movement (they are mostly ISRL lobby donors). So she was told she must defend Harvard's decision to allow the protests without pointing out that the obvious fact that the protests did not call for Gen. This left her with only one option. To defend the vague concept of advocating for Gen. on even vaguer grounds of free speech. Which is a recipe for getting fired. But this is the only way Harvard can protect its interest in academic freedom while protecting its donors interests in smearing the protests. This is why Harvard is supporting her now. They're thanking her for her sacrifice.
2
@nikpapado9785 Relax, I'll still pay for your welfare.
2
@SingleMaltBuckeye The odd thing is that I see multiple references to the name "PLSTN" in the documentary historical record dating all the way back to 400BC. Odder still, these same indigenous group self identify as PLSTN people. As such, we must conclude that PLSTN is indeed the name of this particular region that exists within the larger geographical designation of "Transjordan". When in doubt, it is generally a good idea to defer to the opinion of the indigenous people. Particularly if it is backed by a documentary trail of primary historical sources.
2
@borntobewild9056 I don't see how. Please explain.
1
@Carvaka The only way she could justify allowing the protests is by pointing out that they do not advocate for Gen. But she was told she was not allowed to do that, while also being told she must defend the decision to allow the protests. Therefore the only remaining option is to defend the notion of allowing Gen. speech on campus. Do you see any other way?
1
@scottszczechowicz5699 The Wexner Foundation cut their ties in October. Months before this speech. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
1
@geometerfpv2804 It is not her position. It's a compromise between the position of the donors and the administration.
1
"Elise Stefanik Open Secrets" A quick glance shows that she's clearly bought and owned by another country. Not a good choice.
1
@Penta_Penguin_237 There was no new information in the 1 minute video. Any 9th grader could have told you that tissue is cut off for one procedure and tissue is grafted into a flap for another. If learning how the procedure is done were the point, they would simply present a video of a doctor actually giving a presentation designed to teach congress about the details of the procedure. Not an out of context soundbite of a doctor informally discussing a small part of the procedure. Like literally he said they excise tissue for a v-plasty, but said nothing about how the plasty is done. That's the whole point. No new information was learned.
1
@travisdoe4663 If they had no idea before, this video provided no additional information. Because the doctor was not asked and did not explain how the procedure was done.
1
@Penta_Penguin_237 What part was new for you? The part where he said v-plasty involved removing tissue? Or the part where he said p-plasty involved grafting tissue. Or the part where he said these procedures are exceptionally rare? Because these are the only 3 pieces of information in the entire video and the are generally known by grade school children. In the 1980s.
1
@Penta_Penguin_237 Really? Based on this video alone what can you tell me about how a v-plasty is done, beyond the fact that tissue is excised? What are the first 3 incisions? How are nervous system applications accommodated? Muscular control, sensation, etc? What sort of anesthesia is used? What is the recovery process like? What about surgical prep? How long is the procedure? How many sessions? Is donor tissue used as scaffolding for the body to generate structures or are those sculptures exclusively built by the surgeon? Is special medication required? Did you get any of that from the 40 second video? Did you really learn how v-plasty is done?
1
@travisdoe4663 Which part of the video was new information for you? The part where he said v-plasty involves cutting something off or the part where he said p-plasty involves sticking something on? Or the part where he said these surgeries are extraordinarily rare. Because as far as I can tell, grade school kids already knew these 3 things in the 1980s.
1
@RickGrimes807 That's not my objection. Read more carefully. The video provides no useful or necessary information. Because it is a small clip of a technical conversation. It doesn't explain the process nor does it discuss how the morality or appropriateness of the surgery is determined. Rather it appears that the entire purpose in playing the video is to stoke vitriol against the provider based on the way he looks and talks. It is a tactic designed to mislead and encourage emotional bias. And a transparent one at that.
1
@RickGrimes807 It does. This is simply a matter of poor reading comprehension on your part. In general a politician will not waste time with a presentation that transmits no useful information on a topic unless there is an objective besides transmitting useful information. Given that this video transmits no useful information on the topic of debate, the only possible conclusion is the presentation is being done for some purpose besides transmitting useful information. Given that we know the presenter is opposed to the surgical interventions in question, it follows logically that the presentation is being done with the intention of persuading others to ban this procedure. In short, we have a situation where a politician is trying to persuade others to support their position by playing a video that has the appearance of presenting useful information but in actual fact presents none. This is sneaky and dishonest. Thus we can conclude the video is being played in bad faith. Good people have an obligation to reject bad faith debate. Walking out is the right call.
1
@RickGrimes807 Not insulting or being mean. I'm giving my frank evaluation of the reality of the situation here. If you find an unemotional description of your actions offensive, you should consider changing your actions.
1
@RickGrimes807 I feel the same way about yours. Imagine being rude enough to engage in pop psychological diagnosis of a stranger you've never met before and following up by accusing them of playing "stew pit" (yt filter) yet somehow having the nerve to accuse them of being hostile. Your combination of fragility and rudeness is very weird indeed. Just my 2 cents...
1
@RickGrimes807 Projection much?
1