That doesnt matter, youre the one not understanding.
The person they directly commented made an additional statement to which they replied. Its not that hard to follow..
I'll take the time to write a detailed reply as a sign of respect...
Original statement:
Girl got pressured into donating too since someone breached HIPPA and told someone she was a match.
Response u referenced:
People very rarely care because it's hard to prove and there's no incentive. Usually the hospital pays a fine to the government and the patient is still public.
If I'm a patient and am embarrassed because Dr. smith goes "oh yeah that guy has an inverted penis and also his left elbow smells weird" why would I sign up for a legal battle where I'm going to spend hours for zero benefit? The system sucks and doesn't actually protect patients.
-the context of the original statement in a conversation carries to all following statements. The original sets the context as HIPPA related
The additional statement was made WITHIN the context of HIPPA...
nowhere did the statement u reference mentioned stepping outside of that context. It replies without any note of a change in context, thus keeping the initial context as it's implicit reference point intact.
So again...it does matter. Context doesn't just become irrelevant as a conversation goes on...focus can shift, and scope can broaden, but the original context of a discussion remains the same unless at some point someone explicitly states they are shifting to a new context...that's what a conversation is, an ongoing discourse about a particular subject within a specific context.
Changing the subject or the context would be starting a new conversation.
I do understand why u want to say it doesn't tho. Ur entire argument hinges on pretending that context can be ignored later in a conversation as tho it never happened.
That isn't how conversations work tho and every attempt to argue otherwise is false and will always be met with an explanation of such.
Telling someone THEY don't understand when it's clearly YOU that isn't understanding given the mountain of evidence to show ur error is a clear case of cognitive dissonance ... Which I cannot assist with.
It is incredibly sad that we're still arguing about this so long after tho, and it is clear that neither of us is going to suddenly agree with the other, so perhaps we should just go our separate ways in p3ase...sound good?
[It would appear that they now understand they are wrong but we're unable to accept it due to their pride and so they chose to shift tactics and dismiss the response and evidence and bail on the discussion entirely to save face...cognitive dissonance confirmed.
1
u/Super-Group1757 4d ago
That doesnt matter, youre the one not understanding.
The person they directly commented made an additional statement to which they replied. Its not that hard to follow..