I’m sorry to hear that. And yes, it’s depressing to see these “privitization will save us all” types destroy public services using the same old playbook of “defund, defund, defund, point out the issues after decades of defunding, then start to slow-roll private options until the public service has been fully hollowed out” everywhere.

This might be a bit sensitive of a question to ask, but what country are you in? Because I’ve lived in several western European countries and the access to healthcare wildly varies between them. Especially countries that’ve “enjoyed” a multitude of conservative/right wing governments over the past three decades seem to have really embraced enshittifying healthcare access and affordability while pushing an American-style private system as the “solution”.

What can they do? How about making the cellular models modular? 3G goes bust? Swap the modem for a 4G one next time the car is in for service.

That’s the worst part imho. We should hold Ford accountable and demand that money back if they unilaterally decide to axe the plan we collectively funded.

Remember how we used to think people should retire in old age, instead of running a country? Pepperidge farm remembers.

It’s a good thing the Republican leadership is as incompetent as they are morally bankrupt, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t managed to stumble their way into pushing the US to the brink of a dictatorship. As the KGB used to say, a lot of them are “useful idiots” which can be orchestrated by careful external manipulation.

I’m not onboard with that conspiracy, as there were certainly attempts on his life throughout his reign. But I do agree with the relevancy of that Sun Tzu quote.

By 1943 Hitler was making such poor decisions it would’ve actually benefited the Nazi war effort if he had been removed from power.

That last part is the terrifying bit, honestly. Trump is an egomaniac with the attention span of a toddler. He’s an unguided projectile of spite and vanity.

Imagine someone competent filling his shoes with the unprecedented powers that were recently granted by the supreme court and the rabid MAGA fanbase behind them.

The potential for lasting damage goes (even further) off the scale. I shudder to think what that might actually look like.

Honestly, in the event Biden loses, the best hope the US has is Trump’s general incompetence.

True, but Göteborg has its own areas to avoid. Hjällbo comes to mind…

Wasn’t the original quote by Nigel Powers about the Dutch?

I’m happy to hear England’s argument is crumbling before their eyes. These statues belong in Greece.

“Fighting solves everything” - These guys are really out there thinking they can punch the genie of social progress back into the bottle. If this were a parody people would say it’s too ridiculous to be true.

Talk about a terrible way to go. For everyone involved. That’s a lot of people that’ll need trauma counseling for sure.

That’s so cute. Also funny to see how the grey color is dominant, but even the grey kittens get some of their pattern from the spotted patent.

You’re looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.

I’m done debating this. Have a good day.

No, it’s common parlance that attempts to avoid previous words associated with stigma.

That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”) and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.

I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn’t.

What I said, and what you’re conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there’s very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).

Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

What you’re trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).

I’m absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US’ hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn’t mean the concept is without merit.

It’s like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibly, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.

In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.

We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.

It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.

I feel as if you’re trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.

And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you’ve never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.

One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.

They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can’t see the difference between these two options I’m frankly done debating this with you.

That’s both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it’s assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.

What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.