Kadaeux

Anyone else like to read?

Scifi Authors:

Peter F Hamilton.
Michael Stackpole.
Aaron Allston.
Iain M Banks.
E.E.Doc Smith.
Dan Abnett
*and numerous others*

Fantasy Authors

Raymond E Feist
David Eddings
David Gemmell
Anne McCaffery
Janny Wurts
Brent Weeks
George R.R. Martin
etc etc

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Sere said
It is a play with words. If I take a firearm and shot myself in my car in some parking lot (car park) people will say that is suicide and was not rational. When I more to Washington state, one of a few states you can die early: the voters do not like the words assisted suicide. Nope, it polls better if you use a different word to do the same identical policy. It is politics when you just change the words around to change the public poles.

Are you even reading?

It isn't a play with words in any possible way.

If you shoot yourself in a car in some car park, yes people will say its a suicide and not rational.
If you do it in Washington state THEY WILL STILL say it's a suicide and not rational.

And who gives a shit about politics or voters?

Euthenasia is a situation when, due to medical reasons, you will either cease to be yourself (Dementia, Alzheimers etc) or you will, thanks to little things like cancer, live in such incredible agony and suffering, whereby your continued existence is a source of suffering to both you and everyone around you. Instead of dying shitting your daks for some poor RN to clean from your ass with a wet towel you choose to depart the mortal coil while you can still do so with dignity.

Suicide is a situation whereby, due to depression, cowardice and a sharp profound fear of facing the world a person choose to, instead of seeking help, instead of talking about their issues, takes it on themselves to leave the world suddenly without so much as the courtesy of preparing their family, friends, colleagues and other applicable parties for it leaving them with not only the emotional burden of said suicide, but also the financial burden.

There has been a number of political scientist that have debated for decades about why type of government is more likely to happen in America if and when the government collapse. No, it is not going to be communism, it is going to be fascism. America has been for a long time, been a center right country and were moving more to the right all the time. The more stress America has, it moves more to the right. Hold on when Climate Change is accepted by the right. They will be looking at Canada and say, you have breading room and it is much cooler above 48 degrees north. Think I am joking, just a few years ago a military report came out talking about America with an invasion plan to take Canada in the event that the United Kingdom was invaded by Germany.In America still supports "Social Darwinism" my friend. The good point is health care in the past. If you are poor, if you are old, if have no needed importance, we find out we do not care if you life or die. Right now in the state of Georgia, the governor wants to get ride of a federal law that says a hospital must provide you will medical care until your well enough to be discharged. Reason being, there have been a number of hospitals that have closed because they are taking care of the poor in their neighborhood. True, they could get healthcare, but, it is a southern state that does not want universal healthcare. Let us put it this way. If the state of Georgia gets what it wants. And your a person that does not have insurance, they can just tell you after you tell them your going to take your life go away. Then you cross the street and take a firearm and shoot yourself. It would be no crime done by the hospital. But, if you read my last comment above, and you call the police after the hospital talked to you. You go to prison.

What the fuck are you on about. About the only point that connects, in any way, to what I said is. "True, they could get healthcare, but, it is a southern state that does not want universal healthcare." And that is in response to a tangential remark I made that has no bearing on the actual discussion. The rest of it is just utter irrelevant nonsense.

Abortion Discussion

mdk said
Where it fails is 'at the woman's expense,' in that it implies this is a pure negative for the mother (most mothers tend to disagree). I would argue it's a symbiotic relationship. This allows for some 'parasitic' traits, but as a more general (and significantly less loaded) term, also acknowledges the positive aspects of the relationship.Neither is technically correct, because all forms of symbiont (including parasites) are required to be of another species from the host; biologically speaking this is natural reproductive process, which cannot be categorized in either sense we're talking about. But, hey, language is cooler than science, so eff it.

Definition 1 of Parasite does not specify that the organism has to be of a separate species.

Definition 2 applies as well if we assume that the Religious Radicals are right and that fetus' qualify as "persons"

par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Abortion Discussion

Dark Wind said
Well, I should've seen how this was going to come up in the Modern Feminism thread. So, I decided I'd make a nice little place for people to discuss this. Whether you're pro-life, pro-choice, or perhaps a middle ground (I don't know exactly what that would like, but it's there).

Discuss why you're pro-choice, or pro-life, or whatever individual specific opinion you have on the topic. Personally, I am pro-choice. I also believe abortion to be a women's issue. If you agree or disagree, explain.

Be nice to each other everyone. :)

I'm pro-choice. Though in some people's case I also strongly support post-birth mandatory abortions for those people. :p

Mentality behind having hold/control over someone else?

The Nexerus said
To dominate is not to 'beat thoroughly'. That's an informal, incorrect use of the word.

I now require you to remove that signature of yours, turn in your Grammar Nazi card and prepare for the tar and feathering of shame as your lack of ability and understanding of the English Language is never more obvious than this moment.

dom·i·nate [dom-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), dom·i·nat·ed, dom·i·nat·ing.
1.
to rule over; govern; control.
2.
to tower above; overlook; overshadow: A tall pine dominated the landscape.
3.
to predominate, permeate, or characterize.
4.
Mathematics . (of a series, vector, etc.) to have terms or components greater in absolute value than the corresponding terms or components of a given series, vector, etc.
5.
Linguistics . (of a node in a tree diagram) to be connected with (a subordinate node) either directly by a single downward branch or indirectly by a sequence of downward branches.

verb (used without object), dom·i·nat·ed, dom·i·nat·ing.
6.
to rule; exercise control; predominate.
7.
to occupy a commanding or elevated position.

And then we ALSO have points 3, 4 and 5 neither of which mean 'Control'

A team "thoroughly beating" an opposing team is to "tower above" and "overshadow" their opposition. Ergo. Dominating is neither incorrect nor informal. So GTF off your high horse and learn English properly next time.

Now I point out that point 3 and 6 ALSO apply to the analogy through the word "predominate"

pre·dom·i·nate [pri-dom-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used without object), pre·dom·i·nat·ed, pre·dom·i·nat·ing.
1.
to be the stronger or leading element or force.
2.
to have numerical superiority or advantage: The radicals predominate in the new legislature.
3.
to surpass others in authority or influence; be preeminent: He predominated in the political scene.
4.
to have or exert controlling power (often followed by over ): Good sense predominated over the impulse to fight.
5.
to appear more noticeable or imposing than something else: Blues and greens predominated in the painting.
verb (used with object), pre·dom·i·nat·ed, pre·dom·i·nat·ing.
6.
to dominate or prevail over.

The example I provided fulfilling the very first, fifth AND sixth definitions.

The lesson here Nex, English is a Complex Language. Before you try telling other people what it means, make sure you actually do know what it means.

Mentality behind having hold/control over someone else?

The Nexerus said
That doesn't make any sense. Dominance control.

Incorrect.

While control IS dominance. Dominance is not control.

If I puppetted someones actions through Sims God Edition, i'd be controlling them. Dominating them.

But if my team dominates the opposition during the finals they're not controlling them, they're just beating them thoroughly.

Russia in Crimea

Omega said .Ukraine has asked the UN to declare Crimea a demilitarized zone.

That is just an excercise in idiotic futility.

"And now we call for the vote to declare Crimea a demilitarized zone." - Someone.

"Veto." - Russia + Trollface.

Mentality behind having hold/control over someone else?

Magic Magnum said
It could be the case.But would you think there's still some element of having used someone else to get it?

Or for other situations unlike the one above do you find some people simply like exercising control over others?

Oh there are definitely people who simply like exercising control over others. I'd even go so far as to say many such people exist. Look at any field where someone is put in a position of power over others, from Company Executives to Military Generals to your wife-beater wearing actual wife-beaters.

It comes down to the "human herd mentality" idea.

Some people are sheeple, others are wolves who fancy being shepherds.

Mentality behind having hold/control over someone else?

Magic Magnum said
I ended up getting into a mini-debate on a facebook group.

Basically the original picture was this.

Where I basically asked "Why would you want those pics from a random girl, when you can google professional ones by models online?".
For a bit the only answers I got were those like "It's not the same" and "Just cause". With no actually argument or logical point behind it.

So this got me wondering, what is it about the human mind that get's joy/pleasure over obtaining something that you needed to have influence and control over someone to get? Even if there is a better alternative you can get without using anyone else to get it?

What about people here? Would you simply go after which ever was the best source of what you wanted, or would you go the route where you used others to get it, because something about influencing others brings you pleasure?

I think it's less a case of pleasure in influencing someone directly and more the old addage about how things are so much sweeter if you worked for them. A "satisfaction" in having earned it versus just used Google 101.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Sere said Is it? Is there really a difference between the two, or, is it just a play with words.

Yes there really is a difference.

A suicide is a person who terminates their own existence without justifiable reason based on emotional or mental difficulties that they are having at the time.

A euthanasia is a person who is conscious that their mental state is either degrading to a point where ANIMALS have more conscious thought and control of their body, or the physical pain is so great that it isn't like torture, but is literal torture, to continue living.

How long must someone debate about their rational death that it does not become suicide but is a good death?

It's not about how long. It's about reasons.

What you call criminal neglect, is there a difference to watch someone die in a nursing home then same a prison? Both are covered by tax dollars. If I was a nurse and have the flu, one is in the nursing home and the other in a prison. If their life was so run down that my flu kills both, is it criminal neglect that they died. NO, because were do you stop.

Yes actually it IS criminal neglect that they died. If your nursing home or prison maintained such a low quality of standards that a common illness resulted in the death of someone under your care that is Criminal Neglect and is illegal at least here in Australia.

Reader, you could have had the common flu in your life, gave it to someone else and that person gave it to someone else that ended in death. Or, you could have had the flue, gave it to someone and never seen them again only for them to die some time latter.

Anyone who doesn't seek medical treatment if the flu becomes that life threatening is going to die and I have no compunction to save them. But then again, I don't live in America and its idiotically draconian medical care system that is on par with most third world countries because "Health Care" is "too Communist" to have.

The reason I support suicide at any time, as were going to die some time in our life. I can be a 100 year old woman and be killed by a 8 year old girl with a flu. Oh, you can come up with a rational reason for my death in that way. But, if I say I want to die in say my 20's and in good health, then it is not a rational reason to die. So, the rational reason to be alive is to pay taxes?

A rational reason for your death if an 8yo with the flu gives it to you and you die? That's not "rational" that's a "medical" reason.

If you want to die in your twenties and good health it is just cowardice, being afraid to face the world, being so afraid of the world that death is seen as an escape that must be taken. A suicide is someone who decides that nothing they do can make the world around them better for themselves, even when their life is something millions of people elsewhere would envy.