Maybe I remember it wrong, been a while since I had contact with the insurance industry.

Also might depend on national insurance regulations.

I assume you’re right since you are in the sector, but I don’t know where I picked up the notion, that reinsurers would reinsure themselves.

I was quite surprised when I first learned it, there are insurance companies which specialize in selling insurance to insurance companies in case the insurances they sold have to be paid. See Reinsurance on Wikipedia for example.

Obviously Reinsurance companies might reinsure their claims to other Reinsurance companies until nobody knows who is actually paying.

Similar to packing rotting investments with other investments and selling them to retirement founds, because hey look, there are good investments in it.

Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?

And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.

Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.

I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).

I mean don’t you prove his point, by pointing out that all governments that call themselves communist are “so called communist governments”? So they aren’t doing communism right, else they could call themselves rightfully communist.

I do share the notion that communism is an ideology or economic system that is supposed to liberate people from class war. So it should be a liberating force. Suppressing dissent, free media, and casually engaging in imperialism and ethnic cleansing is not what I’d imagine a liberating government would do.

Obviously democracies with “free markets” also have these pitfalls. Not to say that both are equally wrong, but both are surely not the implementation of its self proclaimed ideals.

Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.

Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.

I never met an engine.

The story with the hot coffee is a capitalist trope. Serving 88°C coffee to someone who than suffers third degree burns (prognosis: Scarring, contractures, amputation (early excision recommended)) due to a spill is a valid law suit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Only reported to work with lion dens, but might be extended to arenas as well.

Pray to the god of Daniel and be without sin before the face of god and the king. (DANIEL 6, 13)

I think that the us perspective on politics is surprising self-centered. If millions will die remains to be seen, but an unpredictable us leadership will certainly shift power dynamics on an international scale. The trump administration might randomly decide to side with land grabbing dictators, might embolden Israel, or switch to Doge Coin as the main currency. Those things might not directly cause death, but will disrupt the world stage to a degree which might overpower currently stable institutions. Which in turn might lead to death and suffering as a consequence. I’m not trying to say that everything should remain as is. Things are awful in a lot of places, but one of the biggest and most powerful nations with a “leader” that might throw a world ending tantrum over a Twitter thread is nothing anybody, but the most nihilistic acclerationists want. Also Trump’s plans to withdraw from climate change mitigation will certainly add to the pile of dead bodies which we will inherit in the next 50 year as a consequence of our actions today.