Everything old is new again.
906 karma · joined November 22, 2013
That's because you're not talking about anything I believe in. You believe in a fairy tale. Something that doesn't exist.
Nothing about my stance is "pro-big-government"... my stance is actually pro-limited government.
Again: If you trust the government to decide when people die? You're not that smart.
Then again... you think I'm pro-big-government so... not that smart.
Canada has government run healthcare and that government run healthcare is pushing people to kill themselves to save money.
That's not you deciding to die. That's you getting pushed to die to save bean counters in the government money.
YOU are so pro-big-government that you want to give government run healthcare the right to kill you because it's better for tax payers.
See how that works? I can make non-sense statements too.
I'd argue that it's like the death penalty. The right people should be killed but what happens if you execute an innocent person? It's better to err on the side of not killing so you don't accidentally kill an innocent person.
Likewise? I think the bar for euthanasia should be insanely high. I do think it should exist - there are people who deserve to die with dignity. Cancer or life ending conditions.
I think the problem is "where appropriate"... I seriously doubt that the 10k people in Canada killed this year are all appropriate. There are examples of people being given "the option" for being depressed or simply to poor to afford better options. Those aren't appropriate.
One person killed that shouldn't be is too many.
"created by people with agendas" and "MAID" is defended by people with agendas. Everyone has an agenda - even people like you that presumably want to "end suffering".
"why do you think the government should step in and demand people suffer" Because anyone who trusts the government with the right to end peoples lives and ignores OBVIOUS problems with such power (IE: the stories about people with "agendas" - aka those who shouldn't be getting killed) is ignorant of governments abusing powers.
"Why are you so pro-big-government?" I'm not pro big government... I'm anti-government killing people. I don't think they should have the right to cut costs by killing people who shouldn't be killed.
Don't try to spin this as pro-big government... it's actually ANTI big government because I don't trust the government. If you do? You're ignorant of history - past and present.
And my original question still stands: Why is the interpretation "California is letting people suffer needlessly" not "Why is Canada killing people to save money"? - since the original person I responded to is just as likely to be wrong that CA isn't killing enough people...
I don't think it's wrong to assume that Canada is killing people that don't need to die. 1 is too many... and it's easily 10's of people... and easily hundreds. It's not that hard to assume it's at least 10% of the 10k killed meaning "add up to thousands" is easy to assume.
Tons of people are making the case.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...
"Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000."
So again: Why isn't the take that Thousands are dying to soon to save money?
"As long as we're trading conspiracy theories,"
Other than my "conspiracy" theory being main stream media reported and a simple statement backed by fact. Not your cockamamey bullshit:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-vete...
"According to the report, the veteran called VAC seeking support for PTSD when the employee brought up medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia, unprompted."
Oh wait... that's the wrong one. That's not the Wheelchair one... hard to find the right one in the mountain of evidence.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/canada-offered-to-help-euthani...
"A paraplegic former Canadian military member is ripping her government, which offered to euthanize her after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home."
If main stream, reliable news sources are 'conspiracy theories' then I'm not sure what you consider real news.
"my conspiracy theory has a lot more going for it than yours does."
Other than the fact that my "theory" has backing evidence... and yours is shit pulled out of your ass. You really need to learn what a conspiracy theory is and when real life evidence makes it not a theory.
Why is that your take? Why isn't it "Thousands of Canadians are being killed too soon in an effort to save the government money"? or some other take? We already have stories of Canada asking Veterans to join "MAID" instead of getting a wheelchair...
Not sure but I'm seeing 2 different conversations here: flat tax on what you pay at the pump... and what the company reports as profit at the end of the day.
France doesn't care if you make a profit or not on the 8.50... just like Apple doens't care when they take 30% off the top.
Am I reading it wrong? Is it 15% off the top ala Apple Store? or 15% off of profits? both of which are different conversations.
Looking at the article, it seems like a nothing burger until it's voted in officially... The Paris Accord was "passed"... and then left because it was just a verbal agreement. What's enforcing this and stopping the next POTUS from leaving it all together?
I didn't say "they deserve to fail"... I said karma will happen. Deserve or not? If you don't have "insurance" then you'll pay eventually.
If you don't have backups? Good luck when the Cyrpo Locker hits. if you don't have redundant hard drives? Good luck when the click of doom hits you.
If you only have one payment processor who is known to randomly lock accounts without recourse? Then it's a matter of time until it happens to you.
I do get that shortcuts have to be made when starting... but those short cuts don't sidestep reality.
With backups - onsite, offsite, security, code reviews, pen testing, separate environments for testing, etc... all things that take time and aren't "light lifts".
If you skip and don't cover your bases? You're going to fall and you'll deserve the broken leg - or worse - when it happens.
Why doesn't C#, Java, etc have the same problem with perception because they have the same "many ways" to solve problems.
"fun"
brainfuck is fun too and no one uses it.
Or, as the article says, "It was either not enough or, oh, my God, please stop.".
Trying to placate a mob is pointless.
Be authentic (apologize if you really mean it), otherwise stand your ground and stay still. The mob will move on eventually. They are fickle and easily distracted. If you stay still? they'll move on. If you dart around? You're a target for the pack. Let them find the next target.
Removing government help won't end the college dream... but it might, in time - since it took time to get this fucked up - restore some semblance of reasonable to the equation.
No thanks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/battle-over-c...
It's not that we don't care... it's that we know why our system was setup the way it is.
Because only an idiot supports "Pure Democracy" - we don't have pure democracy for many reasons.
You simply don't care to admit those reasons and address the problems with pure democracy.
I thought they were to keep things cold? That requires internet?
They are actively blocking stories about Biden. Actively filtering stories about negative aspects of COVID vaccines. They are actively filtering stories about inconsistencies in the 2020 election - "The most secure ever".
They are amplifying stuff - absolutely... but they are also censoring free speech because "corporations are allowed too".
"If you tell me something and I don't tell anybody what you told me, does that mean I "muzzle your speech"."
No... but if you post a story and your account gets banned for stuff that's later found out to be true (IE: hunters laptop and the New York Post RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION)? that's absolutely muzzling speech and suppressing facts.
lol you misspelled "ran by corrupt authoritarian governments that don't give 2 shits about the public unless they can exploit them"
You can ding corporations... but the real world socialist examples are worse.
Corporations aren't perfect (and we don't live in pure capitalism anyways. Common sense controls exist for good reason). But they are better than socialist governments.
Want Biden or Obama to have some power? Are you going to be okay with Bush or Trump gets that power?
Can they legally give that considering its, most likely, private customer information? If they give detailed information out in a "Detailed" post mortem... isn't that proof that they are an untrustworthy entity?
Just seems to me this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't attitude against Stripe (or, any company in general that has a complaint but can't do a "detailed" public response because, well, that's private information... .. . )
And will you say the opposite when the opposite is true? Other comments mention facts about how the OP tried to do something outside of normal and the response is expected for "abnormal" behavior on an account.
Anger against companies is one thing... but will you defend them when it turns out the company is in the right or is this only a one sided comment?
"hurt the cause" facts tend to do that when promises aren't met and people suffer.
If they have support? Then I would say a restructure should happen. People get switched around in teams to start to "balance out" the "diversity" so it's not all one ethnicity in a pot.
Second... hiring should happen with multiple inputs. That manager is biased? Are all the managers biased? No? Then he doesn't make the decision alone anymore. If it's a 3 manager panel that decides? 5? and there has to be consensus or majority rules votes?
Third... teams in my company come with a maximum size. If the team has no more room then new hires go elsewhere. If his team is too big? Time to break it up or move some program from his group to other groups. Something to "rebalance" the equation.
But really, these are decisions that are generally make or break by corporate culture and without buy-in from above? Then there's nothing you can do.