Just an ordinary myopic internet enjoyer.

Can also be found at lemmy.dbzer0, lemmy.world and Kbin.social.

  • 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • That’d be giving in to Chinese provocation. They’ve been doing this harassment in hopes of the Philippine government giving up and complying with the Chinese demands, or the Philippines getting riled up and firing the first shot. The latter will give China the “moral ground” or at least ammo for their propaganda.

    IMO, what the Philippine military has been doing is a good countermeasure to this harassment: asserting their rights (as per the arbitral ruling, which China refuses to honor), publicizing Chinese aggression all the while building up its defenses and network of allies.

    Punching a bully in the face might feel good, but this bully is also crafty and sneaky, that some care is needed dealing with it.




  • Both can be true, that we’re experiencing record low birth rates globally and that the global population is still increasing at the moment.

    How?

    1. While birth rates in many countries have fallen below replacement rate, it’s still not zero, which means people are still having babies.
    2. Due to advances in health science, the death rate has fallen.

    These two factors, especially decades earlier, mean that population hasn’t yet fallen. However:

    1. Non-existent humans will not produce babies.
    2. The older the population is on the average, the higher the death rate will be.

    This means that if I don’t produce offspring, my non-existent offspring will not produce babies. The less babies are produced, the older the population would be, and the higher the death rate will be. If current trends continue, the death rate will overtake the birth rate, and the population will shrink.

    Outside of a worldwide disaster that kills off people of child-bearing age, population will still rise before it levels off and then fall off as more and more people find less and less appealing to raise children. This is just a consequence of us humans not dying immediately after childbirth, and us humans as a whole making offspring at a certain age (say, 20 years old). These two factors explain the lag between childbirth figures and population growth.




  • Target is one creature the caster can touch (can be self). The target can make a wisdom saving throw against the caster’s spell save DC. If successful, the spell ends without having any effect on the target. Otherwise (or if the target chose not to make the wisdom saving throw), the target will immediately taste some really well-made lemonade gin mojito that will linger for as long as the spell is in effect.

    For every turn the target takes after this, the target will have to make a constitution saving throw against the caster’s spell save DC. A successful constitution saving throw will restore one first level spell slot. A natural 20 will increase the spell slot level this spell will restore. A failure will end the spell. A critical failure will cause the target to deplete all of their spell slots and the spell ends. Every turn increases the save DC‌ by one.





  • And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.

    Indeed, that’s not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

    My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.

    To reiterate: it won’t be initiated by the medical professionals. They’re simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed “proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered”. The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they’ve arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.

    My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved.

    I accept this point. This is why I‌ put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it’s on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made “the correct decision” isn’t the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.

    I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn’t even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.


  • I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:

    People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?

    And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.

    She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”

    Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That’s not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.

    We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.

    In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they’ve tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn’t have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one’s condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they’ve been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.

    If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.

    Oh, sorry, I’ve been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don’t have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there’d be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they’re in) can sign up.

    The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they’d ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I’d be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I’m completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I’m lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I’m continuing the process, then I’d choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!

    Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can’t be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.


    EDIT: Some proofreading.




  • In one campaign, we started out using tokens of some kind on a battle grid. However, as the campaign went on, we stopped using it. For most part, it went okay. However, keeping track of where everyone can sometimes be too much. In particular, my character, whose modus is either hiding or healing, sometimes both, lead us to a situation when even I forgot to inform of our DM that I was hiding behind a huge statue that fell over. I was too busy keeping the rest of the party alive that I forgot where I was. Thankfully, when it was brought up, our DM just asked me to do an acrobatics check to confirm that I managed to roll out of the way and another check to see whether or not I kept myself hidden.

    Keeping track of everyone’s positions also became less important because our DM got a bit more lax about imposing those area of effect rules.


  • Ah, my bad. I didn’t mean to imply that it being done in a religious context invalidates it, just that the religious context would inform us more about the man’s intent and whether or not they’d continue on doing so regardless of the result.

    I used the term “pledge” earlier, but maybe it’s better to use the word “vow” to refer this. The term in Filipino is “panata” (which wiktionary translates to “vow”). It usually isn’t as dramatic as this, however. And as far as I’ve observed, a lot would do these vows after they deem their prayers to have been heard (usually recovery from illness or accidents, or recovery from financial ruin), and thereafter, no matter what, they’d try to fulfill their vows, whether that’d be a crucifixion reenactment, or attending processions, or even just as simple as foregoing alcohol or vices or letting their hair grow.


    edit:

    I must clarify my position here, I‌ guess. I am neither in favor nor against the practice. But having grown up in the country where these practices occur, I just felt I have to clarify some things. Personally? I don’t mind. They’re doing these things with good intentions, and they’re hurting no one. As far as I know, they don’t force anyone to join them, but rather, make sure that those who are following their footsteps are sure they want to.


  • I agree with your sentiment, but I felt compelled to comment on one crucial element here: what he has been doing isn’t a protest, but some form of a religious pledge. It just so happened that this year, he’s praying for world peace. This is akin to some traditions in India and other parts where self-flagellation is part of religious ritual, but only for those who pledge themselves to it. It’s touched upon in the article, but he’s been doing it since the 1980’s as thanksgiving for his survival in an accident. Some people just do it once, but some devote their lives to it, and it seems to me that he’s one of the latter.

    Whether or not his actions will lead to results doesn’t matter, as far as I see it. He’s already devoted to the bit, and only old age (and poor health) will likely stop him.




  • megane-kun@lemm.eetoRPGMemes @ttrpg.networkSerious Campaigns
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, what can I say? I’m as cringe as you say I am. Tell me more about myself.

    The joke was that for those who knew about it, it’s downright disgusting, as you’ve very graciously pointed out. Also, the pike is an attempt at a pun. I actually didn’t think of it being phallic until you pointed it out, so, thanks!