Not really. Every time the economy slowed down the US went to war; pretty much since FDR was in power. It has been the only thing that pulls up the economy. Makes me wonder how bad the next war will be to pull everyone out of the pandemic response.

Defending my family from an angry grizzly always had appeal to me. Sure I am likely gonna lose, but somewhere after there will be a big ass bear packing a scar I gave him. That'll work for me.

His writings shine a light on some of the darkest aspects of human nature; the things that we tell ourselves are fundamentally wrong, regardless of religion or upbringing, and yet, his works are widely read and reread. That we are unable to extricate ourselves from his works, instead electing to roll around in it, suggests that, despite what we tell ourselves, the dark and nasty animal is never far below the surface. We pretend we are better, more evolved, advanced, but are unable to rise above ourselves.

yes we are. Likely the worst of all animals.

The writings of the Marquis de Sade would certainly support the claim that he advocated for pedophilia, rape, infanticide, and murder. He also covered torture, and immolation. See "Justine" and "Juliette" for not-so-light reading.

in my local people are disinclined to contact the police for two main reasons: Firstly, many times the police are not interested in hearing about it and so attempt to dissuade the caller from filing a complaint, or, alternately, once the call has been made and the complaint made as well the police will stop by the complainant's house to get additional information; frequently the police are not professional or polite, so few people I know would actually bother to call for any crime less serious than attempted murder. Break and enters are handled "in house" in these parts.

I reject your initial premis that the healthcare system, whether it be privately or collectively (nationally) funded, does not work. — god must be atheist

I don't know about all healthcare systems not working, or working. I haven't experience with many, just the one I work in, which is not the same as Synthesis's. I can state that the system I work in is fatally flawed. There have been few steps forward during my career here (MAID being one of them). The system I work in allows the patient to never have to assume responsibility for their actions or decisions, thereby creating increasingly entitled patients with ever increasing medical costs. Eventually the system will crash. No worries, until then I make good money babysitting people with mostly self created problems.

Don't you people want to be free again? — synthesis

No. They don't want to be free, not ever. The vast, vast majority of my patients want someone to blame (just never them) for whatever predicament they find themselves in. Live healthy and personal responsibility? Terrifying idea to them. More nachos, gravy and book me in for a triple bypass? Much more support than eat healthy, exercise regularly, and sleep well. Diet pills, anti-depressants, and sleep aides are much more appreciated; because none of it is the patient's fault, ever.

I tell my patients to eat real food, organic if they can afford it, but real food nonetheless. Learn to cook, be active (walk, run, jog, yoga, whatever, just move around more), and get a good nights sleep. Have a mid afternoon nap when you can. Take the T.V (laptop, cellphone, etc) out of the bedroom, bedrooms are for bed activities, none of which involve a screen. Most of the time I get nods and that's about it. Next time they come in, have they changed anything? No, and not so shockingly, all their problems are also unchanged. The excuses are thick and personal responsibility is non-existent.

Years ago I had a chronic pain patient, claiming to be so desperate for pain relief that he was feeling suicidal "to make the pain go away". He kept telling me how great he felt at 45 and how wonderful it would be if he could be that way again. I asked him what his weight was at 45. "154lbs" he proudly answered. He weighed 215 lbs in my office. I then asked him, at 45, how he would have felt at the end of the day if he had carried a 60 lb pack everywhere he went, all day long. "Sore as hell" he responded, "that's a lot of weight to always carry around". I agreed and made an appointment to see him the following week, after he decided to try my recommendations, which I would tell him next week. I designed a weight loss plan (low-impact in the pool), arranged for a yoga program and instructor, nutritionist consultation and follow up, complete with cooking classes, and an alternative medication regime which accounted for the anticipated pain associated with the increase in activity as well as a tapering dosage over time to avoid any addiction concerns. The next week when I saw him he declined every aspect of the treatment plan. The only thing he wanted was medication. I told him that for any future visits he was not to bring up his chronic pain as I refused to treat it further. He accurately portrays my average patient.

Yes the current system is broken, well past broken. Letting it die and rebuilding means accepting responsibility for our own health and seeking out skilled practitioners to supplement our own knowledge. Damned few of us would be willing to accept that. I would, my wife would. Sounds like you would too. But we know the system, we lived it, we see the monumental flaws within it.

Everyone else reads the news, and believes what they read while reaching for another beer and bag of chips.

Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment? — Bartricks

I would suggest that the real question is: Am I morally entitled to force life saving treatment upon you, regardless of your stance on it?

That is the crux of the lockdown issue.

I don't give a damn about coronavirus. To me it is just another bug. I find the morbidity and mortality rates associated with it hardly noticeable. Ebola is impressive, this isn't, at least, not in the "dire threat" department.

The reaction to this bug is mob panic, nothing more. However, as things sit, the mob IS forcing rule upon everyone, regardless of the actual threat. The perceived threat is enough and reality be damned. Current rules require that we hide in the basement, instead of working the farm, because it might rain, and we could then get wet, resulting in the death of our sickly. No one is allowed to mention the long reaching impacts of NOT working the farm; because that would be counter the mob direction. Don't stand in the way of a stampede, it ends badly for you. Run with the cattle and try to maybe calm them a little.

Why do Australians accept the authority of the state? — frank

Well, the ones that agree with the state accept it's authority, the ones that don't do like everywhere else and grumble while not getting too much attention.

Did you meant to respond to me or Bartricks? The response seems more geared to me, but I could be wrong.

I wrote a paper about incorporating suicide into modern medical treatments years ago, while I was still in university, as part of my bioethics course. The premise of the paper was that we , in North America, ultimately fail our patients at the end of their lives by not incorporating an "eject button" as you put it. I put forward a model to identify the patient's condition as "crisis situation", in which cases we treat the crisis, or "chronic" in which case, we support the patient's decision and include the patient in the planning of their end of life affairs, with a qualifier that the patient can at any time elect to forgo the planned life termination. This is similar to the Medical Assistance In Dying bill currently in Canada, however, my model did not require any medical, or age, conditions to be applied. Age of majority only. The paper did not go over well with my instructor, however I was unaware that he was a staunch pro-lifer at that time. However, I stand by my paper, it is solid.

Currently we provide care for a patient from the point of the parents considering conception, conception, embryonic growth, birth, childhood, etc until such time, whenever it may be, that the patient says "enough. I am ready to go. Where is the exit please?" At that point all the healthcare providers that had been around, nosing into all sorts of affairs throughout the patient's life all run away and claim the patient has a mental health disorder that must be treated. This is an embarrassing failure. This is arguably the most needed time for a decent healthcare team that advocates for the will of the patient; instead we walk away, leaving the patient utterly alone, and worse, feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with them for asking for the exit. This has led to something called "suicide tourism" wherein North American residents go to European countries which allow Euthanasia and remain there long enough to meet the qualifications required. Then the individual electing such is euthanized and the family returns the body to their country of origin to be buried or cremated or whatever they had chosen. I find it fundamentally wrong that one needs to leave their home country in order to be treated as they wish in their final time in this life. Who am I to decide for them what is appropriate care? I am not living their life.

Actually, we are not allowed to not treat you from self-inflicted things. We could keep track of self inflicted disease and injury fairly easily, most of it is already in your chart now anyway.

If not treating for self inflicted issues were an option we could likely cut 30% from the healthcare budget overnight. That would also result in monster job loss. Healthcare has lots of direct and indirect employees.

I have wondered about this. The concept of removing identifiers is bizarre to me.

Consider it this way: 200 resumes.

First we remove any identified religion from them, for fear that it will bias the hiring manager.

Then we remove the age of the applicant; same reason.

Then the name; as the name could provide racial cluing, which could provide bias.

Then any racial identifiers. Again, they could bias the hiring.

Then the section on Volunteer activities. Because this section promotes those with enhanced socio-economic status as they are more able to volunteer.

Then we remove education. Again, those with a higher socio-economic status will have an economic advantage, and that is discriminatory against those less fortunate.

Next we remove work history. This section allows the discerning manager to determine the approximate age of the applicant, creating ageism bias. Also some people will have more or less work history than others, which could be seen as discriminatory; so it has to go.

Finally we remove any references. These people are most likely bias for the applicant and therefore should not be included in the hiring process.

We are left with...nothing.

What was once a stack of 200 resumes, providing a snapshot of 200 applicants we now have a stack of blank paper. How exactly is this a good thing?

If I agreed with it they would not be restrictions. I have an issue with the restrictions because the historic science does not support them. The new data has a large potential for introduced bias, therefore is questionable. I trust that the Government, any government, has it's interests placed well before the interests of its populace, therefore, again, the rationale espoused by said government should be questioned critically. Anyone on said government's payroll is also potentially in a conflict of interest.
If everything that my Government tells me about the Pandemic is on the up and up, why am I not allowed to question anything?

In my job I am expected to advocate for my patients, however, I am also expected to make my employer look good. At times these goals are not compatible. I choose to advocate for my patients, provide the best patient care that I can and, in so doing, recognize that I risk my career. Others decide differently, and I understand that too. Risking your income is one thing, risking the income of your entire family is something different entirely.

Every death is a tragedy, but intelligent and thoughtful people need to be able to hold two ideas in their minds: One, that the deaths are bad; and two, that in many cases they have been politicized. — fishfry

Please explain how every death is a tragedy. Then explain how deaths are bad. I don't follow either of these assumptions. It's like rain is bad and when rivers flow into the ocean it is a tragedy. Natural, normal and predictable linear systems, somehow bad and tragic?

Absolutely, the government can do what it likes, always could. My issue is with the lame-ass attempt at justifying the action. The rhetoric used does not jive with the response mandated, therefore I call foul. I would have more support for the actions if they were simply mandated, rather than poorly explained and rationalized with faulty logic.

Thanks for that eh. A non-answer, but if that's all you have to support your position...fair enough.

Everything you do has an effect on someone else. Where do you put your limits on spheres of potential influence? Following that logic through would leave one unable to do anything, while also being unable to do nothing, as no choice is without potential to adversely effect others. Arguably, the least impacting on the world at large would be to commit suicide at the earliest juncture in order to minimize the potential damage done by the decisions made throughout a long, well-lived life. Which is ridiculous, and yet, follows that logic exactly. No matter what you choose, you end up wrong.

I'm drunk, but I simply have to get home. So I drive, and the decision to drive drunk is just my own judgment that I can make about risks and benefits, yes? — tim wood

You make the call, you live, or die, with the results. IF you chose to drive drunk and you kill yourself, or someone else, that's on you. You don't get to whine that no one saved you from yourself and that none of it is your fault because of someone else's lack of action. You do it, you own it.

I will help anyone that is willing to help themselves and no one who isn't. Helping hands up, not handouts.

But live in fear of everything is mentally healthy? Do you read your responses or just go with whatever you are feeling at the time?

Nope. They can't see past the headlines. Not ever.

what's your game plan? People die. End of story. Fight it, hide, cry, whine, whatever you do the end result is exactly the same. So, as per the common narrative we are all supposed to cower in fear until we die. Anyone that doesn't want to live in fear must be uninformed or stupid. It couldn't be that we are well educated, well informed and ALSO have no interest in living in fear, because that would mean...Different values!

I ask no one to do what I do. I am nowhere near pretentious enough to attempt to mandate them to do what I want. I firmly support personal autonomy and personal responsibility. Apparently that makes me part of the minority, and therefore irrelevant, although no less morally correct.

If a fire is spreading, you don't mitigate it, you put it out. That's the precautionary approach — Andrew M

You put it out if you can. If you can't put it out (like we can't) you admit that shit early, pull your men out, and let that bastard burn out on its own.

Risk a lot to save a lot, risk nothing for what cannot be saved: Firefighter's credo.

We have always had this level of potentially poor, or lethal, results from social interaction. There are innumerable bugs out there that are capable of killing people, most without names and as yet, undiscovered. Using our current public health guidelines as a template, we should therefore be in a permanent lockdown out of an abundance of caution. This completely ignores history, our immune systems abilities, and the ever-so-annoying fact that these bugs have always been out there. Nothing has changed in that regard. This bug has a name now, we know about it. That is all. I am no more at risk now than I was six months ago, or 18 months ago. At least, not from the bugs out there.

I am far more at risk from social violence now than I was 18 months ago. Anyone that wants to dispute this can simply go for a walk, or go shopping, exactly as they would have 18 months ago: Mask free and with friends. See if there is any difference in how other people react now, as opposed to say, October 15, 2019. I am betting people feel much less safe now. That is a definable difference brought about by the abundance of caution approach: we live in generalized fear and anxiety...of the idea of maybe getting sick. This is something we teach our children, when they are children, to not be fearful of. We will get sick in our lives and the vast majority of us will survive it and be stronger for it. That is what we taught our children. Now we are teaching them to be fearful of illness, to have no faith in their natural ability to fight illness, and to believe that, without pharmaceutical intervention, they will get sick and die. What a damaging and horrible fallacy. Look at our population numbers...look at our history...we are doing fine without the lockdown.

I have 2 kids. Their future will be more difficult than mine at their age. However, as they do not realize that, their perception of future is still bright. The world is a fantastic and wonderful place and all things change. Eventually we will no longer be the dominant species. I will not be around for that, but it will happen. I enjoy the sunrise as well as the sunset, for different reasons. The sunset of humanity need not be a terrible or horrific thing.

I am not. It has allowed me a perspective I would have otherwise not had. I still have excellent vision, just shade changes. A few days of pain is a small price to pay for such a gain!

I see a less supported solution to overpopulation, a more biologically endorsed, time honored method. Don't get me wrong, there are likely temporary solutions which could delay the inevitable, however, historically speaking, we are not very good at self control. Human population growth curve is very similar to the viral growth curve (any viral growth curve). Inevitably with such a curve the population peaks when the resources required to maintain it begin to disappear. Shortly thereafter the population dramatically falls, based on resource scarcity and, essentially, mass death. The snowshoe hare has a seven year population cycle, the lynx, which eats the hare, also has a seven year cycle. In year one there are few of each to be found, in year seven, there are hares all over. That winter, between the large lynx population and the shortage of food...mass starvation and predation = dramatic population drop. We will see a similar effect in human populations. We are our only predators, if their is no predation, there will be more starvation; eventually. Our population only goes up. Notice that quality of life is becoming harder to maintain: multi-generational mortgages etc. These things are not unrelated.

That is the beauty and fatal flaw in communication: Are we actually saying the same thing, not just using the same word? Example: "Shag carpet" in North America is a thick, long haired type of carpet. In Britain that same word use mean "Fuck carpet". Hardly the same thing, despite the same word.

I would suggest that colour blindness is not based on a wrong interpretation of colour phenomena, but seeing the phenomena in an alternate way. 30 years ago I was sprayed in my left eye with a chemical, ammonia I believe, and once I could see again I saw different shades of the same colour. My left eye shows everything as slightly more gray, like a fine coating of dust on it. So now I see a mix of shades, although the same colour, It has made me wonder though, which shade is accurate, and I have decided that both are accurate, however, the shades I see are likely not the shade you see, although all are accurate. Cool eh!

I was rather hoping Covid was going to help in this area. However, unless the vaccine elicits a lethal hyperinflammatory response, which is possible, but unlikely, Covid is going to be unhelpful for population control, at least directly. Depending on long term fallout from the response...the resulting wars might make a dent in the population, again, unlikely to be very effective outside of a dent. However, if something along the lines of Ebola spreads with the efficiency of Covid, that would result in an effective population control, considering Ebola is 70% lethal. Lastly, in consideration that as population density increases the number of serial killers increases more rapidly, in theory it is only a matter of time before one of them has the capability to unleash some sort of weapon of mass destruction, or at least mass death. If done in a "maximize" damage sort of way, it could trigger similar responses in retaliation, resulting in a much more effective loss of life.

Another option would be if countries, on a global level, found themselves in a position wherein they were no longer able to assist other countries, with security, financial support, medical or food. This would result in many civil wars as governments collapse. It would be messy, but would also lead to considerable life loss.

My money is on a decent virus, think Covid and Ebola have kids and then tell the kids "Go unto the world and make us proud."

The dinosaur comet option is good too, no real response to that one, but it is astronomically remote (ha ha ha)

The colour names are arbitrary terms applied to phenomena which falls within general limits that are defined by the term arbitrarily assigned to that scope of the phenomenon. So within the spectrum of "red" are myriad "reds", however all are "red enough" to qualify as "red". This follows for every other definable colour on the spectrum. "red" (spectrum)+"yellow"(spectrum)= "orange" (spectrum). However the actual labels are irrelevant, they are accepted as the colour spectrum assigned to them. They could be "Fish" (the colour formerly known as Red)+ "Beer" (the colour formerly known as Yellow)= "Pelican" (the Colour formerly known as Orange). If this were accepted nomenclature by enough people then the phrase " I think that pelican motorbikes look really cool" would make complete sense and the imagery created by that phrase would be of an orange colour motorbike.

Perversity here, understand not only as being something attached to reason. All kinds of perversity - sexual, idealistic, physical, rational, irrational, etc... - are considered something that turns that individual no longer capable of conceiving and participating of the "Government". — Gus Lamarch

So your system only works if everyone involved manages to shed human nature and is able to be truly altruistic. Never going to happen. Sounds very similar to theoretical Communism. Looks good on paper...add people...non-inspiring result.

Lasting relationships are based on choice. I choose to lay with my wife at the end of the day, she chooses me. Every night, every day. I choose her above all others, she chooses me. simple enough in concept.

The division can continue indefinitely, so the stack goes up forever, in theory.
Practical purposes would suggest a fairly limited number of divisions before the process becomes pointless.

By the way, those moral rules that we agree on - thou shalt not kill for example — TheMadFool

Not everyone agrees on these moral rules, and therefore apply a nearly instant exception to them. "Thou shalt not kill..." is qualified by adding exceptions "...except in defense of your life, or the life of another, or..." so really, it comes down to "Thou should not kill without reason", as do most other moral rules. Make a rule, create the exception. Only if the rule is universally accepted as 'Wrong", then would it really be rule? No one would do it anyway so no one would have to confirm its wrongness.

I suggest you re-read the post. Clearly you did not understand it. You did however nicely demonstrate exactly what I was addressing in the last paragraph. Lastly, exactly where did I suggest, even remotely, that I wanted an anti-violence against men day? I think all those special recognition days are stupid. They suggest the other 364 days are good to go.


Also, WAY off topic! Campus free speech remember?

I cannot speak to the US. I am not from there. I can speak only to my experiences. I have not seen the discrimination you speak of. I have seen, heard, and felt, anti-white discrimination. I have seen the effects of affirmative action programs, some good, mostly bad, and all seem to promote animosity.

Consider the message "Anti-violence against women and children day". I do not support violence, domestic or otherwise, except in special circumstances. However, having a day specifically identified as being against violence against women and children suggests that, as they are specifically NOT mentioned, violence against men is ok. I guess men don't matter that much eh, so hurting them is, not really suggested, but meh, who really cares? Kinda like rolling through a stop sign at 2 am, sure it's illegal, but really, how many people actually come to a complete stop and wait the allotted 3 seconds before proceeding?

The ridiculous part is that, by saying, "Hey, violence against men isn't cool either eh!" I am apparently demeaning the previous message about violence against women and kids, suggesting that violence MUST be done to someone, and must discrimination, we can't seem to say, maybe it's not right to do to ANYONE, so let's not do that eh.

That is seriously flawed.

Your statement implying that they are somehow special because they are discriminated against suggests that others are not experiencing discrimination. This is simply inaccurate.

Also, all lives matter means ALL lives, EQUALLY. Any further distinction applied suggests those doing the application are also doing the discrimination.

do not get stopped and harrassed for walking black at night, do not get immediately overlooked for a job because their name is unusual — creativesoul

They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time. And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white.

All lives matter, each as much, or as little, as the next. Anything else demonstrates discrimination.

why be happy? — synthesis

I do it to annoy all the grumpy types. Also because it more peaceful than being angry all the time.