Canada. I used to vote. My friends used to vote. Most don't now, for the reasons I listed. No body listens to our letters, might as well burn them, the end result is the same. I figure democracy is a scam: nice sales pitch but the final product isn't worth a damn.

I am saying that all is made up of the same fundamental stuff; differentiated packaging only. For some reason this upsets you, so you have attempted, poorly, to ridicule my position by claiming firstly, that I support serial killing, and then, failing at that, that I support nothing; which is also utterly inaccurate. Therefore, A) you have difficulty comprehending the scope of my position and feel compelled to mockery to distract from your own short-comings, or B) You are arguing from a weak position for entertainment, or C) You are a fool. None of which cast you in a particularly good light.

Perhaps you should consider why you are offended by my claiming that everything is of equal value. The answer may help solve other issues in your life.

My philosophy is universally applicable, attributing value in a truly equal fashion. It is unfortunate that people react so poorly when confronted by a system in which they hold no special place. All things have value to themselves, all things have a purpose, none are above the other. You say my philosophy is useful to serial killers, perhaps it is, however, I am not advocating for the blatant killing of people. I am not advocating for the blatant killing of anything. I am simply stating that all life is of equal value to the organism.

In truth there is nothing special about life. Seriously, it is all around us and we snuff it out without regard. We only object when we are the ones being snuffed out, and so too does every other living thing. The rocks we crush for gravel may object to being crushed, however, since they cannot, or will not, communicate with us (or we refuse to listen, or cannot understand) we crush away with nary a care.

The mosquito values it's life as much as I value mine, and you yours, and yet we squish them with no concern when they try to bite us. However they are only trying to eat, so really, squish a mosquito because the itch is inconvenient, or kill the guy ahead of you line, because he is slow to make up his mind...both ways a life is ended for your comfort. The second involves a human, so we attribute more value to it, but there shouldn't be.

As for life being good, I am enjoying the experience and learning from it, and in my philosophy, all learning is good, therefore life is good. However, who am I to say your life, or someone else's life is good? That is their call to make, not mine.

Your assumption is there is no ghost in the universe. My philosophy is that the "ghost" is the universe. You have it, I have it, everything has it.

I think that the overwhelming push to vaccinate, and the constant sales pitch for it, is working against the placebo effect and supporting an increase in Nocebo effect. Methinks the government doth sell it too much, and too hard; thus reinforcing those who say "Something is wrong here; the response is not supported by numbers"

I expected this level of response when Ebola was moving out of Africa. It did not happen, despite the 70% death rate. Now, despite the under 1% death rate, we have this monster response. The math does not add up. However, as long as we are comfortable ignoring bad math...Carry on!

I will be repackaged as a lifeless corpse eventually, no worries there. I am enjoying this run as it is now, when it shifts to something else, I will experience that. If I am able to enjoy it, great! If not, I will still learn something, and learning is good, which brings us back to great!

See how this goes?

The difference getween a meaningful democracy and a dictatorship, by the way, is that the former has the means of turfing out corruption and ineptitude on the part of leaders. — Tim3003

Really? I have never noticed that. How is that accomplished in your country exactly? Here we can't do anything until the next election, and then we have a choice about which lying sack of crap gets in, but ultimately there is no discernable difference to any of the political parties: all of them will lie, all of them are corrupt, and all of them will back pedal on any promises they made during the election. So we vote in someone that back pedals, lies, and rewards friends with government contracts, then 4 years later we vote in someone that back pedals, lies, and rewards friends with government contracts. Does the detail that the name of the person has changed make any difference to anyone, other than the person that got voted in? I would posit that all of my available electoral choices in the last thirty years have been inept, quasi-corrupt, and lacked conviction. The only one that I believe may not have fit that bill died before he could come to power. The four hours off I get to vote is much better spent taking my wife out for dinner; that actually has an effect on my life. Voting, not so much.

do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed

Sure. Doesn't mean I can communicate with them, or visa versa, yet. But conscious? Hell yeah. However, rocks likely have a different value system than I have, and certainly more long term perspective. So I am not sure why they would want to talk to me anyway.

Placebo effect will increase the efficacy of the vaccine by about 30%, the usual rate of improvement associated with the placebo effect with medication administration. As far as psychological state and related philosophical outlook on life, and the effect of same on viral response, I would say that the nocebo effect is in play. Placebo, 30% increase in efficacy due to belief in same. Nocebo, 30% decrease in efficacy due to belief in same. You think something will work well, so it does. You think it won't work for shit, so it works for shit. You are stressed out and fearful that if you get the virus you are going to die...much higher chance of dying if you get the virus (and you know that you have the virus). Think about going down stairs, we do it all the time and rarely fall, then, when we are concerned and fearful about falling, we a much more likely to do so. Self-fulfillment is a bitch.

I work psychiatry currently. I can not speak to the practice of psychiatry in your country, nor will I offer medical advise of any kind regarding specific medications or courses of potential treatment; without assessing your sister it would be unprofessional and, in theory, could result in me losing my ability to practice.

However, I will offer this: Firstly, if you do not feel safe with her in your house, using your definition of safety and no one else's, she should not be there. If you feel unsafe with her, expecting someone else to be safe with her may be unrealistic, therefore, there is a distinct possibility that no one elects to take her in. In that likely event, she will be left to wander as she sees fit. I pose this to you: If the positions were reversed, you are the one causing others to feel unsafe, you are the one whose behaviours and perceptions are causing others to be fearful and are disrupting their lives. Would you be comfortable being passed around the family, the proverbial "Hot Potato" that no one really wants but everyone feels they must be saddled with from time to time, because "we are family"? As you pointed out, you have no more attachment to her than a stranger, therefore, why is she getting more from you than a stranger? I have seen families burn out, sacrifice a great deal, and the end result is exceedingly poor. How much will you sacrifice, knowing at the outset that the end result will likely be exactly the same for her?

I understand the good of the many outweighing the good of the one, and the sentiment behind the good of the one outweighing the good of the many, but endorsing the ambivalence of the one outweighing the good of the many seems truly odd.

Again, I do not know the specifics of your sister's case, only what you have provided, and I do not know the specifics of your country's system, so will not tell you what you can or cannot do. I simply do not have that information. How lucid and how often and for how long make a huge difference in treatment. I agree with the care facility, most people with schizophrenia stop taking their meds eventually and then decompensate and require readmission. Lastly, your medical system may be telling you they must release her as a means to apply pressure to family to provide for her instead. If your family is truly unable to provide for her, then nothing they say will change that, which is also true if it is a simple refusal, however, if there is ability and uncertainty, then perhaps the pressure will have you solve their problem. This is done in North America as well; frequently families are loathe to take home those they feel will be uncomfortable to live with, citing an inability to care for these individuals. The story changes when the hospital calls and says that grandma is going to live in the street. Suddenly someone finds an unused portion of the house to renovate and grandma has a place to live for a few more years.

Having said that, I have never seen Grandma get thrown out of the hospital, unless she chooses to leave on her own.

Hope that helped a little.

I admit, the lawn-shitting video would go viral, which is sad commentary on our time, but you prove the point: the video, and resulting money, would detract from the problem, and likely, because of the "success" of the video, result in more of the same problem, solving nothing.

And some bastard would bring race into it, because that somehow matters.

I want my kids to surpass me, in every respect. Learn everything I know, go forth, learn more and do more. Then come back for coffee and explain where I got things wrong, and, more importantly, why they are wrong.

Bloody inconsiderate wanting my kids to be just like me. Many days I don't want to be just like me.

Determine the actual issue at hand, and discuss that. Remove anyone from the conversation that tries to lead the discussion away from the main issue.

Example: I live in an expensive area of town, homes run about a $1.5 million each, on 3.5 acre spreads. Everyone in the area is well educated and earns an appropriate income to support this kind of lifestyle. A new resident (single, family, etc. Not really important) moves in and begins to shit on our lawns. Not the dog, the Resident is shitting on our lawn. All the affected people have a problem with this behaviour. When it is up for discussion, anyone that brings up anything other than the lawn shitting should be removed from the conversation, as no other aspect is actually relevant and detracts from the conversation, and the subsequent solution.

I think a more accurate question is: Does democracy, as it stands, whose results are imposed by the ignorant, who are in turn influenced by whoever yells the wrong answer first and loudest, matter in any meaningful way?

Someone will point out that in a democracy I can voice my objection/opinion. However, if no one listens anyway, I see no value in it, and so my voice remains just as silent as if in a dictatorship. Unvoiced is unvoiced, regardless of the why behind it.

The dictatorship has less freedom. But does it? Really? If I disagree with the government I go to jail. Here...There, pretty much the same. If I disagree with them while armed I get shot. Here...There, just as shot, by government sanctioned shooters. Still dead though, not sure why I would be concerned about the format of the government that shot me. I have to go to work, here...there. Same thing. Pretty much across the board, same thing, different label. Someone will claim that we can choose what we do in a democracy (work, play,etc), but really, how is that working out for the common person? How many of us wake up each day and say "Thank God I chose this job, I love it so much!" Would it make such a difference if someone else had chosen the job you dislike? State or parental pressure, the outcome appears similar. I do not live where I want, I live where I can afford to live, very little choice there in truth. Yes, in a dictatorship the police can boot down your door and take you away to be interrogated. Of course, with "No Knock" entry (yep, a real thing) so can my local Police service, or the Federal RCMP. So again, at three in the morning, do I really care what emblem the armed jack-booted thugs kicking my door in are wearing? No, not really. And it doesn't matter if they are at the wrong place; the door is still broken, my house has been effectively pillaged, and everyone in it will be questioned for hours before any mistake is acknowledged.

I am not seeing much difference.

The challenge could be put this way: "If there's no ghost of the universe, how come there's a ghost of us, human beings?" By ghost I mean something like mind or sentience. — Olivier5

And you know there is no ghost of the universe because...?

Do you think that space and time are made of the same one stuff as apples and rocks? — Olivier5

Yes, actually. As is everything else. The "stuff" is merely differentiated, but fundamentally remains the same "stuff". A rock, space, time (arguably, time does not actually exist, it is a perceptive tool used by an observer, remove the observer and "time" is meaningless, ceasing to exist), a duck, this computer, all of it...same stuff, different packaging.

Having been an employer, and currently an employee, I believe the current method of compensation to be the main crux of the work week with reduction problem. As things are currently, an employee is not generally paid based on production or value to the company; we are paid on a "time for money" trade. I spend 12 hours at work, I get paid 11.08 hours (yep the company gets 0.92 hours of my time each shift with no compensation to me for it. I did not write the contract.) This modality results in the following fundamental problem: There is, outside of personal development, no motivation to increase efficiency in any way. The minimum acceptable level of performance to maintain employment is the maximum expectation of performance.

Example: When I was an apprentice, I made $16.50 an hour. Mike, at the same apprenticeship level as me, also made $16.50/hr. Over a 10 hour day I could wire 100 receptacles, and all would pass inspection. Mike could wire 75 receptacles and 15% would fail inspection and need to be redone. I was frequently sent to sites Mike had worked at to clean up his mess and make sure the work that had been done would actually function and pass inspection. Our pay cheques were identical, however our performance levels were far different. Mike met the requirements to not get fired, I exceeded them. We worked 40 hours a week, or more. Had we been paid for each receptacle that passed inspection, I would have made twice the amount that Mike made, which would have allowed me to work 50% less, with the same end result in pay, resulting in a shorter work week.

Even worse: when efficiency is punished, confirming to employees that working faster, and smarter will result in a net loss of income. Example: After completing my apprenticeship I worked for a small company and was sent out to do a security lighting wiring job. The quote for the job was $5000.00, with a time allotment of 40 hours labour (so I get paid $1000). My boss was terrible at estimates, and lazy to boot, so his quote was horribly wrong: the job took 2 hours total, not 40. The customer still had to pay the full quoted amount of the job (seriously), however, as there was no other work that week, I made $50.00 instead of $1000. Hard lesson learned. Had I been paid for the job, not the time on the job, the time off would have been much appreciated. As it was, I left the company shortly thereafter and began working for myself, and attempted to incorporate the lessons I had learned in running my own small business.

My model was simple enough: Employees are paid the industry standard rate (so minimum acceptable to attract an employee) when they met my minimum performance levels, however, if they exceeded performance levels they were increasingly rewarded in the form of a performance bonus. That was my theory, as that is what I felt had been missing from my previous positions: NO reward for achievement. After going through 18 employees (if you don't want to be at work, and so don't really work, you have no job with me) I had a few employees that were reliable enough to keep on, but none were interested in exceeding the minimum performance levels. Unfortunate, but ok, I know I work like a dog, and not everyone is going to want to do that. I hired one temporary employee for a single day job, out of town, long hours. I was clear with him before he signed on: We travel, we work until we are done, we come home. I anticipated the job to take 14 hours, plus travel, 18 hours each, all in. He agreed with the terms and we went to work. My estimate was wrong (it happens) the job took 24 hours, plus travel. And we did it, all of it, in one shot, as planned. At the 23 rd hour we were both in the trench, swinging shovels and picks, getting it done. I paid him in cash before I dropped him off, at the agreed upon hourly rate, which he was happy with. Then I doubled it, which stunned him. Then I offered him a full apprenticeship. NO bullshit 6 month trial period. If he wanted it we could do the paperwork the next day and he would start work at $18.00/hr, not the $10.00/hr minimum wage, and have $1.50/hr increases every 6 months until he capped out at $30.00/hr. Unfortunately for both of us, he was leaving the territory as he could not find decent work there and his fiancé had already left a few weeks earlier for the same reason. I have never made that offer to any other employee again, none seemed to be willing to work for it or really want it.

Now I am an employee, I make the same rate as everyone else in my area, with similar experience. We are paid for our time, not performance, or knowledge. Just time. A reduced work week now means a reduced income, so if you can afford it, a reduced work week is possible, otherwise, better be self employed and good at what you do.

Something we agree on. Cool.

Humanity has proven itself unworthy. On the other hand, wildlife and wildlands will have a party. — James Riley

About damn time you got the real picture. Welcome to the club eh. Wednesday night is wing night and the jackets are on order.

it was the Muricans who started the 1918 influenza pandemic and let the damn thing spread — baker

Sure, but A) they had no idea what it was, and B) no idea of how to stop it, also, as it was over 100 years ago, maybe we cut them some slack eh, not go for reparations or anything. Interestingly, no one that died of the flu in those years had a confirming PCR test, so, as per current standards, we don't KNOW they died of the flu. Actually, since things are only true if confirmed by laboratory testing, no one ever died of anything prior to the creation of modern lab testing. The things you learn online eh! Wow.

Or becomes substantially more lethal so at least we know why we are supposed to be concerned about it at all. Either way, an improvement eh.

look into polio, small pox, etc. — James Riley

Stable viruses.

Corona virus 19 (and variants)

Unstable virus.

Vaccine for stable virus: effective.
Vaccine for unstable virus: Watch the news for efficacy. Also see: Optics; the importance of being seen to be doing something. Also consider: Chanting, Covering one's face in cloth, Cleansing with smoke, and other faith-based treatments.

How so?

Well, I'm going to leave you rebels alone for a spell, while I go into the big city and enjoy all that society dun brung me — James Riley

Like hookers and Blow? or concrete and pollution? Noise and light pollution? I am actually ok with the hookers, they need to make a living somehow.

That's right. Send a virus to clear out the invading virus (or parasite, both are equally applicable to people).

Or did the evil state deprive you of the choice to leave? — James Riley

Yes, when it closed the borders, it did.

However, I ascribe to the same theory as Von icarus, our lame ass vaccination process will result in this annoying virus mutating into something highly lethal, and as I watch the results of that ripping through the population I will munch on popcorn and snicker. Our governments reacted in fear, and are still doing so, it will be fun watching them get torn down by their peoples.

It wasn't a question of side effects, It was the fact that I did not need the vaccine. I did the research; there are no appreciable flaws in the science of the vaccine, the side effects are negligible. However, since one can still be infected and infect others, not a lot of motivation there. My entire career is basically about informed consent and supporting my patients, regardless of my personal thoughts about their choice. The irony is that my patients can decline the vaccine, and my employer has no issue with that, but I can't keep my job if I say no.

Well said!

polite requests to mask, distance and vax, — James Riley

That's laughable. My employer's "polite" request was "Get the vaccine or get fired, and fuck all the times you had our back." Getting fired means no income, because the employer is the entire province, so no job, no house, no pension, and I would have to move. All in, it would have cost me about 2.7 million to stand on my ethics and refuse the injection. SO yeah, in light of losing everything I have spent the last 30 years working for if I said no, I got the injection. It won't do shit anyway, but I get to keep working. Only now I have less respect for my employer, and I would love to park my truck on the CEO's face.

And that is company morale there.

30 years of "Do not discriminate" messaging and programs and the government puts in the mother of all discrimination programs. I hope Covid gets them all, short sighted bastards.

Presumably we agree on limiting the virus replicating, propagating, mutating? — jorndoe

We do not. Let it run. ALL of our attempts to control it thus far have resulted in epic failure, for the very simple reason that it cannot be limited, it may be slowed, momentarily, but it will resurge again, until, eventually, it has hit everyone a few times, snuffed the snuffable, and the rest that are left have relative immunity. So it goes. Welcome to a new virus. It was going to happen eventually eh.

If that makes you happy, go with it!

They are all good to go. We have our reasons for what we do, and yours is no worse, and no better, than mine.

As per the landlord, no. My friend got married, then divorced. Then returned to Canada and has a clean credit history, no criminal record, and works for the government. Go figure eh.

The credit was with the store, not a credit card. My understanding is that should someone default the store would come collect the furniture.

I can not speak to the American Medical system, I don't play in it.

However, the Canadian version goes something like this: If you can prove you are useless, as in unable to work, AND unwilling to attempt to better your situation by any means available to you, you will qualify for some sort of welfare payments (different provinces have different names for their programs but the premise is the same). However, if you are struggling and need a hand up in order to better provide for yourself (single parent with kids wanting to go to school to allow for better earnings to provide for the family) AND (this is the kicker) you tried to do it first WITHOUT getting government assistance, chances are YOU WILL NOT qualify for assistance. Because you wanted, and tried, to do it on your own before asking for help. So, as the system is currently, it essentially punishes those who attempt to help themselves while rewarding those who refuse to help themselves. In fact, the more someone refuses to try, the more people will show up with options for development. Additional funding will be provided for upgrading, college diploma programs, business courses and programs, start-up money, language courses, re-location options will be presented, etc. However, if you have demonstrated that you intend to improve your life, and actively try to do so, there are very few supports in place to assist, because, essentially, you are not proving the necessity of the complex system in place, thereby undermining it.

Horrible practice, but there it is. I have seen parents who have requested the family doctor label their son with some mental health disorder so that he qualifies for "support", meanwhile the son is, quite literally, crying in the waiting room, wanting to know why his parents won't let him get a job instead of sitting on welfare. This kid wants to work, is able to work, and isn't being allowed to. He is still too young to realize that he can tell his folks where to go, as well as the doctor, but once he gets the disorder diagnosis, he is rather screwed. Best option then is to move, not tell anyone where he went, and start over somewhere else. If any one asks for a medical history, tell them he doesn't have one. Just sad.

Yes. Increasing amounts of agoraphobia ( I am not using the latest term for this condition, phobias are now out of style, it is some other anxiety disorder), suicide, addiction, and anhedonia are being reported. I would further postulate that in my region suicidal ideation has increased by a factor of five. Serious side effects of Work From Home and other pandemic responses. As our medical officer pointed out a number of months ago "...there are far worse things than Covid." For once, I fully support her statement.

I have a true story to represent the Case you requested of Bartricks. Hopefully you find it sufficient to work with.

I had a friend, many years ago, living in Edmonton. He had recently signed a one year lease with his land lord and the next month purchased, on in store credit account, about $15000.00 worth of furniture, which he put into his apartment. About three weeks after this, he decided to move to Chicago to be with a girl he met online. Rather than admit his change of plans, he told the land lord that he needed to fly to Australia right away because his vacationing parents had been in a car accident and his mother was likely to die from her injuries in the next few days. The landlord believed him, and agreed, furthermore, to provide an $8000.00 emergency loan, with the furniture as collateral, so my friend could leave immediately to see his dying mother. My friend took the money, moved to Chicago, and never looked back.

Should the landlord, who had acted in good faith, but had, arguably, received essentially stolen goods, as no money had ever been paid for the furniture, be held accountable for the cost of the furniture, in addition to already losing $8000?

What if the landlord, realizing he had been taken had sold the furniture for $25,000? Should he then return the $15,000, all of it? None of it? or pass it forward to the people he sold it to, claiming that they were in fact the receivers of stolen goods, and therefore all costs should be fed to them? Additionally, as the $8000 was taken by fraud, anything he purchased with it would then be proceeds of crime, so those people, innocent merchants, too would be considered recipients of proceeds of crime and responsible for such. I trust you see where I am going with this.

I stand that my friend is a douche bag, and solely responsible for both the initial $15000 theft, the next $8000 theft, and the violation of the lease. The landlord should not be held to compensate for the initial theft, nor should anyone who purchased furniture from the landlord as he attempted to recover his lost $8000. Neither party would have any idea that the furniture had not been paid for until months later.

I will take it one level further; relative to benefiting from being the victim of a crime.

You break into my house, wreck it, and steal a bunch of stuff. You are caught, my stuff already disposed of, and admit your guilt, thereby reducing your sentence. I, being so traumatized by this ordeal, then write an international best-seller, based on my horrible experiences of violation from your theft. Following the logic that all that befell me after said crime is your fault, I should be expected to pay you reasonable compensation for my success, because, had you not interceded with your crime, my success would have never occurred, having nothing to write about. Would anyone seriously pursue this line of retroactive compensation? And if not, why are we doing so in the other direction? If the practice cannot be applied universally then it should not be applied at all.

The alternative, when it comes to issues of intergenerational justice and so on, is shout and stamp and scream and bash each other over the head. Identify your tribe, find out what your tribe believes, then scream it. — Bartricks

you forgot to also demand ridiculous amounts of money in compensation for all the bad stuff that happened as a result of the initial crime. Because, as the latest perspective has it, had said crime not occurred, Nothing bad would have ever happened to anyone affected by said crime, ever. So everything bad since then is the result of said crime and needs to be compensated for. It does not matter who did the subsequent crimes or bad things, only that someone else first did something bad too. Then it is all the fault of the first cause. Lastly, never mention the regular rates of bad things that happen to everyone else, and certainly do not remove those rates from your complaint and seek recompense for the rates above and beyond general population rates; that would violate the fundamental premise that all bad is based on first cause, nothing more.

it's ok. You already bought the stuff and did not know it. So you owe the perceived victims of the crime, which seems odd, as you likely bought the stuff from a store and had no reasonable grounds to believe any untoward act had occurred in the making of said items. Still, as you have these items, you are now indebted to the victims. As is the store you purchased from, and the shipping companies used to transport the goods, etc. Seems rather ridiculous to me. The claim is on the thief, or initial criminal, not the rest of the honest, good-faith, individuals farther down the food chain.