Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
We're pretty much down to an interpretation of the (terrible) English language at this point where "because of one suit" could mean that any suit against a doctor explicitly results in the aforementioned consequence, or the alternative where that is the potential implication of any given suit.
The latter interpretation is one that gives the tweet merit, so I chose to go with that one.
|
That's actually not the potential implication of any given suit - it's the potential implication of a suit where the doctor's conduct is egregious enough to warrant losing his license.
If that's what you mean, though, then the response is "well,
that's true of police officers too... in fact that's even true of Chauvin in this case. So... what's your point?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
Imagine what a far right southern politician would say about bringing in troops to quell riots - that is what it says.
|
I don't see what the problem is with the NYT running a piece like that, then. In fact, they should run something like that, given that there are a lot of people probably making that argument. The NYT's subscribers are welcome to not read it, or to read it and disagree with it. Suggesting that no such thing must appear in the pages of the paper of record is... I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.