Your one example does not provide evidence for the skepticism you want to justify… If there’s plenty out there, it would would seem easy enough for you (the one making the claim) to provide a clear cut example, and preferably even an article that mentions a wider problem, to prove the point.
This kind of lazy “look it up I’m obviously right” in the face of push back as tepid as reading the article YOU linked would get you dunked on if you were a lost Liberal.
Go wild with it. I really don’t feel like having to rehash the conversation that pops up a couple times a year anyway when some lib comes in complaining about falun gong claims and we gotta go into how it’s projection of what Israel does to Palestinians and the US does to their poor.
Wait this has the same issue. Not a single person who shouldn’t have had their organs removed had their organs removed as per the article.
Subjecting people to this is still beyond the pale though, and it shows nonprofit having a skewed incentive structure. But pat_riot’s objections are just as valid here.
What are you expecting evidence to be? A necromancer resurrected 200 organ donors after their death and 25 of them said they were still alive when they were killed? @MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net the reason I shared the first article is because it was
A specific example that showed disaster averted.
Named one of the orgs involved.
Showed that the only reason it didn’t happen was refusal by an organization member that was so sickened by the experience that this was the last straw and they left the organization.
Discusses the org is under investigation for more of these events.
Either it’s a good enough for a starting off point for people to look more into or they’re just gonna give the response Keld gave here. Regardless, I’m done with it. Y’all take care.
I mean if what you wish to prove is that they kill people for their organs, then that. Like one example of that.
If what you wished to prove is messed uo incentive structures, then this suffices.
Showed that the only reason it didn’t happen was refusal by an organization member that was so sickened by the experience that this was the last straw and they left the organization.
No it doesn’t.
It was caught repeatedly before any organs were harvested. The fact that it had to be stopped repeatedly because of insufficient prior checks is the issue.
This is comradely critique, no need for the resentment. You have a right to disengage, but it’s fairly unproductive to just get frustrated and imply it’s your reader’s fault for critically reading the articles provided.
That was 1 example. Feel free to go hunt down more. There’s plenty out there.
Your one example does not provide evidence for the skepticism you want to justify… If there’s plenty out there, it would would seem easy enough for you (the one making the claim) to provide a clear cut example, and preferably even an article that mentions a wider problem, to prove the point.
This kind of lazy “look it up I’m obviously right” in the face of push back as tepid as reading the article YOU linked would get you dunked on if you were a lost Liberal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/us/kentucky-organ-donations.html
Go wild with it. I really don’t feel like having to rehash the conversation that pops up a couple times a year anyway when some lib comes in complaining about falun gong claims and we gotta go into how it’s projection of what Israel does to Palestinians and the US does to their poor.
Wait this has the same issue. Not a single person who shouldn’t have had their organs removed had their organs removed as per the article. Subjecting people to this is still beyond the pale though, and it shows nonprofit having a skewed incentive structure. But pat_riot’s objections are just as valid here.
What are you expecting evidence to be? A necromancer resurrected 200 organ donors after their death and 25 of them said they were still alive when they were killed? @MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net the reason I shared the first article is because it was
Either it’s a good enough for a starting off point for people to look more into or they’re just gonna give the response Keld gave here. Regardless, I’m done with it. Y’all take care.
I mean if what you wish to prove is that they kill people for their organs, then that. Like one example of that.
If what you wished to prove is messed uo incentive structures, then this suffices.
No it doesn’t. It was caught repeatedly before any organs were harvested. The fact that it had to be stopped repeatedly because of insufficient prior checks is the issue.
This is comradely critique, no need for the resentment. You have a right to disengage, but it’s fairly unproductive to just get frustrated and imply it’s your reader’s fault for critically reading the articles provided.
Keep that article on standby instead, then. Simple enough.