In truth I suspect that everything is merely a creation of my imagination in an effort to keep me amused. There is nothing until I perceive it to exist, or to have existed, in order to enrich my experience of my imagined reality. Time is meaningless as there is no context in which it would be valid. There is only me.

Imaginationism.

It's another war. Don't worry, there will be many more after this one, and after those, and after those as well. Welcome to people. We are upset with our neighbours, so we fight. Schools have rivalries. Cities have rivalries. Counties. Countries. Once these rivalries get to the Country level then the leaders may, or may not, decide to go to war. As they are never the ones to actually fight, or face any appreciable hardship from their decision to go to war, it is a bit easier to elect to go that way. Put only the leader of the country in a field with the other leader, give them a mace each, and then see how eager they are to bash at each other. Methinks there would be less war. The concept of having your head bashed in with a mace is rather daunting, I say most world leaders would find an alternate solution fairly quickly.

We have been warring for millennia, why would we stop now?

When you lock up your legally protesting citizenry, remove their charter rights, have your police use mounted horsemen on peaceful protesters, beat said protesters with batons and rifle butts, threaten to kill protesters pets and have their children taken away from them...You are way into totalitarianism and Facism. And forget the rule of law, every case brought against the government for charter rights violations was thrown out. The judges refused to hear any at all. Might as well burn the Canadian Charter of Rights for all it's worth.

He is a brutal nationalist autocrat. He is a war monger and a mass murderer. He is funding Le Pen and has links with other European extreme right parties. And he complains about nazis? — Olivier5

You know these things because you said them? I get that you have your opinion, and are welcome to it, as are we all, however, Can you support your claims with facts? or perhaps we simply leave them as an opinion piece?

I say Trudeau is a Facist Prick. His actions certainly suggest this: He enacts the Emergency Measures act which allows him to use force against peaceful, legally gathered protesters; by using this act none of the police officers involved can be held liable for their actions, however violent, inappropriate, or otherwise illegal those actions may be. The organizers of the peaceful protest are arrested under this act, requiring no proof of guilt and held for an indeterminate amount of time (yep, still in jail) on "mischief" and "conspiring to commit Mischief" charges. No bail. Charges that would normally involve a minor fine (under $500.00) if anything. This is akin with charging someone with "intention to commit self-defence". Under this act the government froze citizens personal bank accounts "for contributing to domestic terrorism" Apparently bouncy Castles constitute "domestic terrorism" in Canada. All done BEFORE the Emergency Measures Act was actually approved by the Government. Which, incidently, it never was. The senate was very likely to refuse to support the action, so our Pansy leader, having already done what he wanted, decided to cancel the enactment. However, everything he did was still protected by the Act, despite not having official government approval. End result, Political prisoners in Canada, imprisoned for daring to protest legally, beaten (literally) protesters, for protesting legally and peacefully. The violence at the Ottawa protest was brought entirely by the police, on behalf of Justin Trudeau. This is my basis for the claim I make regarding Justin Trudeau.

You forgot Trudeau eh. Had his horsemen run down a senior with a walker that dared protest oppression. If you are going to cover 21st century Facists, never forget Trudeau; Canada's national embarrassment.

you know this how?

I was recently described as a violent conspiracy theorist, rapist, white supremacist, fringe minority. I attended the Coutts Border protest with my wife and a sign that said healthcare workers support freedom and advocate for choice. Hardly the values I associate with the labels applied to me.

So you know Putin is a neo-nazi how?

what else do you do with your time?

yep.

The idea of not dying seems to make things rather pointless, one would become a master at everything, just like everybody else that isn't dying. Big shitty hairball.

In discussion with my wife, she pointed out that many witches use laptops to live stream gatherings over distance, so I guess technology is being used for magick. Maybe not Crowley's magick, but still, being used. I guess we use the tools we are comfortable with eh!

I don't consider Death a problem, so am unclear on the OP in general. What exactly is the game plan? Immortality? Sounds like a straight up nightmare.

Not necessarily. We had access to all sorts of guns, however, we also knew how to use them, so no one did. Choosing to hurt someone, self defense or otherwise, is very different than choosing to kill them. Murder is rare (despite what the news would have us believe) because most people don't have the stomach for it. This is further supported by the fact that nearly all murder convictions arise from a confession. When it does happen, the one that did the killing feels terrible about it, regrets it nearly instantly, and almost always turns themselves in to the police and confesses the crime. Hardly the act of the "stone cold killer".

Also the legality of a gun is relatively irrelevant. For example: I am currently at work and here it is 1 am. Gun stores are closed, so legally purchasing a gun is not currently possible, from a store. I could still likely get one in a few hours, legally, by looking online for a private sale. Legally they would take my license number down and I would sign a bill of sale for the gun and away I go with my gun. Chances are, at this time of day, an eyebrow or two might be raised, however I could probably explain that away as being a shift worker and this is the best time for me to buy anything, gun or otherwise. However, If I elect to go illegal, I could likely find something in under 2 hours, complete with a reasonable amount of ammunition. They would not ask for my license, or name, and I would not ask for theirs. It would be a cash exchange and relatively untraceable. All things considered, the illegal transaction is slightly more annoying as I have no local contacts for illegal weapons, but otherwise, nothing very exciting. Much like buying anything else; you like it, you buy it, if not, see what else is available, or walk away. The point is, if you want something; guns, drugs, whatever, you usually don't have to look very hard for it. Just have money and start looking, it will come to you.

The vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by the legal owners of the guns, which is why gun control laws are odd to me. It is a lot like restricting access to Codeine because people are dying of Fentanyl overdoses. I don't really see the connection.

Yes, Yukon and B.C. Sleeping with the Shotgun was in the Northwest Territories. And a hiccup or two in Alberta, but that was mostly posturing type stuff. Leaves a mark I guess.

Magick (according to Aleister Crowley) can be defined as, "...the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. — Bret Bernhoft

Crowley's approach to magick was that anything he did he had done with magick as he had caused change to occur in conformity with his will. Which is accurate, in so much that he did cause something to change in conformity with his will, but ridiculous, as doing anything by hand would also qualify as magick under this broad definition as doing anything would constitute change in conformity with the doer's will. So accurate... but not helpful in anyway. Also, as he advocated for human sacrifice and espoused the magick power available during the act of rape, yet also claimed to not promote violence. So...confused much? Still not a bad read and handy for plot movement in writing. As for thelma...eewww. Just nasty. Look up cakes of light. Yeech.

And yet no one I know has ever known a person who was murdered, much less who was shot. What do you make of that? 55 years in this crime ridden city, and never even been pickpocketed. — Hanover

The States get a bad rap. I have not lived in the US. I have spent my life in Canada. I had a friend from high school get murdered with a pair of scissors while delivering a pizza. He was 22 and the guy that killed him didn't want to pay, so stabbed him in the throat with the scissors. After 10 minutes someone else saw the pizza guy bleeding out in the yard and called the ambulance. My friend was dead before they arrived. He left behind a 2 year old daughter. A classmate of mine from junior high was fished out of the Fraser river. She had been found tied to a chair and had been tortured to death. I always felt she had been dealt a shit hand, even in junior high. she wasn't 25 when they fished her out. In 2015 i worked on a chest stabbing, same part of town. He was also dead before he arrived in the ER. Not one died from a firearm.

I have been stabbed on two separate occasions, each time only once, in my right thigh. Both times while going to start the car outside the same bar in February, nearly one year apart to the day. I was the designated driver. I did not recognize either guy that stabbed me and never bothered to pursue it further. I have had hockey sticks broken over my knee, and have a lovely scar in my hairline from a baseball bat. I have been in knife fights, bat fights, and sword fights. I have not killed anyone, but I have made a few bleed while defending myself, once an attacker realizes you intend to also play rough they tend to go away. I have slept with a shotgun beside my bed, with 7 in the pipe, and knife under my pillow, knowing that I may be called to use both before the night ended. Canada is peaceful in the brochures, out in the northern communities...not so much. I don't know anyone that has been murdered with a gun, or even shot, except a single hunting accident.

So yeah, I say the States get a bad rap. All of us know how to kill each other.

The funny part is that I did not realize that I had a rough upbringing until I was 23 years old. I found out from watching TV: there was an injury list on the right side of the screen with a narrator reading off the list. To me the list was nothing special, respectable sure, but not impressive. It could have been anyone of my friends growing up, I had had more injuries, but still, whoever the TV was talking about had done some shit too. Then a picture showed up on the left, some hockey enforcer, I don't follow sports much as I am not a spectator type. Anyway, turns out the list was that dude's lifetime injury list. His entire life of injuries could have been anyone of my high school friends. So yeah, I guess we grew up rough. Been a long time since I have really thought about it.

In truth, I must decline. What we are facing is nothing short of the regular run-of-the-mill human response. Entitlement and power electing to destroy those who oppose it, or are perceived to oppose it. We have recently seen it in Canada, as our Prime minister (now mostly referred to as "that Mother-fucker") enacted the emergency measures act and had his cronies violently subdue a peaceful protest (see video with mounted RCMP trampling a senior with a walker, police beating a reporter with batons after pepper spraying her, and police beating a youth with their rifle butts) Exceptionally embarrassing, and enraging, for Canadians to bear witness to. After which, bank accounts of regular citizens that donated to this peaceful protest had their financial accounts frozen by the government, for "donating to domestic terrorism". The only violence committed during this protest was by the the government against it's own citizens. Nothing to be proud of there, not for any of us in Canada. Yet a shining example of what an entitled ass in power is willing to do to not have his authority questioned. Again, offensively human, and repeatedly seen throughout history.

Russia invades the Ukraine. Unfortunate, but predictable. Certainly not the first such invasion, and not the last. Philosophers will not solve this. Mass extinction...might, but we won't be there to see it.

So... which is it, Book273? An unscrupulous doctor, NP or CP, or else a layman who has an opinion without much substance? — god must be atheist

Yep. one of those. However, I cannot tell you which as I have provided enough information about myself, anymore would allow someone to locate me and report my less-than-company-supporting attitude to my employer. This would result in job loss, and currently, I still need the money, so that will not do. Ethically I must support my family; which means that remaining employed remains a requirement. I am unclear as to the value of determining the specific title under which I practice. Either you work in the field, in which case you know, but may not agree with, what I am saying. Or you do not work in the field, in which case your opinion is entirely yours and based upon whatever bias you have brought with you, which does not make it invalid, although perhaps less well informed, then again, perhaps not, I do not know your background. Interesting that you label me as unscrupulous, I have done nothing to earn such a label. I have, accurately, pointed out that many of my patients have no apparent interest in bettering themselves, providing for themselves, or doing anything other than continue feeling entitled to state sponsored funding. None of which is inaccurate, regardless about one's feelings on the subject. I have also stated, accurately, that I am not responsible for admitting these people; therefore the validity of their admission is not on me in anyway. I am required to treat those that allow it and need it, but not required to treat anyone against their will, unless directed to do so by a review panel that is unaffiliated with me, and am also not required to treat anyone that does not need treatment. Again, not sure what someone would object to with these statements.

I am certain that healthcare costs could be reduced by enforcing valid admission requirements, however, as physicians are paid by patient, not annual salary, there will always be those that need an extra boat payment, ergo, in appropriate admissions. I did not design the system, I just play in it.

I don't treat those that don't want treatment. They have the right to refuse treatment and I respect that. I can't treat people that do not require treatment. I am not responsible for admissions, that is someone else's balliwick. So yes, when someone refuses treatment, or doesn't need it, but are admited regardless, we do nothing for them. They take up space, generally bitch about how hard done by they are, and eventually decide to leave the hospital after a week or three. That is one reason hospitals lack space: pure bullshit admissions.

Not a parole officer. Currently practicing in Acute Psychiatry. Interesting to read that you reclassified my profession based on the lack of a space, rather than assume it may have been a spelling error. Now if we redefine disabled to include entitled and unmotivated, then yes, the vast majority of financial aid recipients would be disabled. Maybe diagnose them as Motivationally Challenged; exacerbated by Congenital Entitlement.

You don't have the statistics. Or the reality. It sounds very much like you have the Social Worker handbook though, as well as a nice "how things should work" brochure. I agree, it should work that way. It doesn't. I work with the covered capable and unwilling everyday; half my patient population at any given moment is capable and unwilling and on full government support.
But the brochure reads better than the reality plays out, that is accurate.

Death, efficiently applied, can result in a minimization of suffering. I will provide you with a ridiculous example to demonstrate:

Bob is a generally violent guy, takes whatever he wants from whoever he wants, whenever he wants, in whatever fashion he likes at the time. Maybe he wants somebody's sandwich, he does whatever he needs to to get the sandwich. Maybe he wants money, maybe he feels like raping somebody. Whatever it is, he will move forward on his desire, being as violent as required to achieve his goal. He leaves a path of trauma and suffering in his wake. Mike is eating in the park with his family. The park is by a deep strong river. Mike can see Bob making his way through the park, victimizing picnickers and passersby with various levels of violence and general mayhem. When Bob approaches Mike's family, intent on committing more harms, Mike intercedes with a rapid blow to the side of the head, knocking Bob unconscious. One single blow. Unknownst to Bob or Mike, Bob suffers a cerebral bleed and dies within minutes. Bob is no longer able to continue inflicting harm, trauma, and suffering upon others, as he is dead, thereby saving countless future victims from Bob's ravaging. Whether Mike accidentally killed Bob, or meant to, the end result of Bob's death is less suffering overall, even for Bob, as he was struck once and died. Had he continued to live he would have continued to experience more violence inflicted on him from others who chose to attempt to defend themselves from Bob.

Fun is not the debate. Ethical violence is. My position is that under specific circumstances, violence, no matter the required level, is ethical. I am also adding the qualifier that in order to ensure the highest level of ethical violence, one should be thoroughly adept at violence and able to dispense said violence as efficiently as possible in order to minimize suffering.

I do see a difference with M.A.I.D and efficient self defense: one is by choice and the other is forced upon an unwilling party. However, by initiating the conflict, one opens the door to all responses.

So your objection is not that death does not relieve suffering but that killing an enemy as a means of expediency is wrong...based on what premise? If I am attacked I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. If I am better at violence than the attacker even better for me. I did not initiate the situation but I am going to end it as rapidly and efficiently as possible with the least amount of risk to myself or my family. Under most circumstances that means striking hard, fast, and enough times so the attacker is unable to rise again. The faster I can accomplish that, the better, as my family and myself will continue to be at risk until the threat is gone. The faster it happens the less violence my family, me, and the attacker have to endure. I will lose no sleep if the attacker dies while I defend myself or my family.

Ever been in a fist fight? or one with weapons involved?

I am not joking. I work healthcare, I have patients and family ask me to "assist" with death on a nearly daily basis to relieve suffering. There is now a program for that in Canada: Medical Assistance In Dying. It has been along time coming, far too long.

However, what if the man was hitting the woman, for her pleasure? — john27

As long as both are consenting, that would be a good time.

Sweet! Thanks

Minimize suffering? Someone's dead! — john27

Yes. Death does not equate to suffering. I am not clear what your objection is. I suppose you could define suffering, however, as I understand it, once someone is dead their physical suffering is over, therefore death equates to the end of suffering.

If one considers violence, in itself, to be unethical, or at least undesirable, then minimizing the time one, or any other, is exposed to violence would be paramount to the reduction of harm from exposure to said violence. Therefore, achieving a state of maximum efficiency with violence could be considered the best way to reduce the amount of violence anyone is exposed to, and thereby reducing the harm associated with violence. An ability to achieve a violent outcome, when required, as painlessly and rapidly as possible would be the ultimate goal.

Example:

A) One is attacked in an alley, and having no previous training or weapons with which to defend oneself, one is subject to the will and whims of ones attacker. However long, or painful the attacker wants thing to go, that is what the victim must endure. Wallet theft, rape, murder, whatever the attacker wants, the attacker gets, within whatever parameters they elect to pursue. The victim relies on the goodness of their fellow man for protection.

B) One is attacked in the same alley, same attacker, however, the victim is packing a knife and knows how to use it. After two minutes the attacker is dead, the victim, bleeding, goes to the hospital for minor stiches. One is more reliant on the self to defend against fellow man.

C) Same alley, same attacker. The person attacked is highly trained in highly efficient use of violence. Within seconds the attacker is incapacitated (dead or unconscious) and the victim of the attack carries on along their previous path, having barely broken a sweat.

Option A has the largest, longest violence and the most suffering for the victim, and potentially for the attacker, on the premise that violence harms in both directions. Option B) has the next highest level of violence, as violence occurs to both parties and the event lasts longer than it needs to. Option C has the least violence involved, both in duration of time and energy expended committing violence, therefore Option C is the most ethical position.

Violence should not be one's opening option, however, once it is there, one should be fully conversant with it and use it as efficiently as possible, minimizing suffering.

violence is ethical when used in defense against an aggressor. Some would suggest that it should be the minimal use of force needed, however I am a proponent of using whatever amount of force I chose to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. So yes, if that means someone has to die, they are going to die as efficiently as I can make it happen. If I can end the threat without death, great. If I am not sure, oh well, efficiency wins.

I found a lovely 1480 first edition, Gulden Throene, listing for $215,010.67. (US) Beautiful book. Not really an area I am overly interested in, but still a really nice piece.

If Canada works for you then I am interested in editing it. I may be enticed to go stateside for a sabbatical if that is the only way to have a read of this book. My interest is piqued.

They shouldn't settle for that pittance. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Getting an education and a job would be a decent start.

In a nutshell, not really. Omicron reproduces 70 times more than previous strains, in the upper airways, nasal passages etc, and gets exhaled out with higher viral loads. Viola! higher spread. It seems to not get as deep into the lungs and has greater difficulty penetrating the lung tissue...viola! Less severe outcomes. It doesn't have to be complex.

Simple is harder to fight actually. It is usually more resilient and has less areas to exploit weakness in. A better mouse trap is simple, not more complex.

Nothing complex about a tsunami: a big wall of water moving at 150+ kilometers per hour. However, all you can do is get out of it's way, if not, you are screwed.

The viral load being exhausted into the air makes it more infective. However, if 99% of people get infected, have no particular symptoms, and simply shed viral particles for awhile and then resolve their infections...that would be called immunity. 99% of the population are immune, we should be happy about that. It doesn't support a booster requirement though, and it isn't very dramatic, so I guess...Omicron bad? and Carry on pandemic response! (because that has worked so well so far eh)

Should people start refusing to take amoxicillin when told to by a doctor, I think the example would be relevant. — Xtrix

Depends on why they are refusing to listen to the doctor. Is amoxicillin the best actual choice of antibiotics? Are antibiotics actually required in their case? Do they trust their doctor? If any of those answers are "No" then declining to take amoxicillin is perfectly reasonable, despite it being safe and effective.

I recommend antibiotics when required, and only when required. I also recommend treating a fever with Tylenol (paracetamol for across the pond) when required, but not for low to midgrade fevers, those are there for a reason so we should let the immune system work unimpeded as much as possible. I strongly advise all of my patients to ask as many questions as they like until they are satisfied with the answer. They might not like my answer, but it will always be as clear as I can make it and provide the best possible information available. That way, whatever they decide, they have the best information available to them.

Safe and effective is all well and good, but if something is not required, why should anyone take it?

It would have been much better to have moved forward in the beginning by using all the money spent on advertising, propaganda (education about the value of public policy), free masks, restrictions, (etc) to enhance existing healthcare facilities, services, equipment and staff numbers. That would have led to a much more robust healthcare system and much less confusion in the public while allowing for future treatment of whatever else.happens to.come along. No forward vision was used. Just sad.

Welcome to the forum!

I understand the awakening (or crushing, depends on the person) that happens when you realize that the position you have been hoping to get, to finally create a solid, positive difference, amounts to so much bullshit, and the options you have left are walk and start over, or say fuck it, I did my bit, now I am going to ride it out to retirement and this place can eat me. I walked away and went back to the bedside, I can't fix the system, so fuck it, let it fall. But I can make a difference to my patients, so I do that when I can. These days I do at least one thing a day that can get me fired, and eventually someone will. Until then, ever forward.

Yes. However, in the manager's defense, the job is entirely awful, just a horrid thing of a career. I did it for a year, foolishly thinking that I could be the manager I always wanted to work for. I honestly tried, but there was just no chance of success. I was not allowed to make any successful changes, every time I reallocated funds for staff training, better equipment, or more staff, I had my budget suddenly reduced by whatever amount I had managed to find for the improvement. Zero chance for success there. The only "success" on could achieve was to show up, do nothing of value, and collect a cheque and pension. If that is all you want, management isn't a bad gig as there are almost no metrics to meet to keep your job. Welcome to Canadian Healthcare; we have no idea why it is so expensive...

Hospitals are government and media? — Xtrix

Absolutely. I have a useless mask on my face for "optics" not actual value. I was mandated to get the vaccine, not because I needed it, but because the health region wanted to be able to post really high uptake in healthcare workers to further promote vaccine uptake in the general public, 80% of which also did not really need the vaccine. Now my health region can make statements like "98% of healthcare staff are fully vaccinated". No mention of firing us if we didn't submit to the vaccine, and no mention of the 1600 staff that walked away, rather than get the useless vaccine. We also have signs all over the hospital explaining that all staff are to wear masks due to Covid, but no mention of the fact that even the Chief Medical officer of the province admits that those same masks are useless. Now we are more short staffed, more burnt out, and still doing useless shit for optics. Yes, hospitals are government and media run, make no mistake there.