morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jbzcv3h wrote

Almost all my co-workers work from home and at least one is positive every couple weeks. Every few weeks one will be pretty sick. If they weren't vaccinated that would be really sick.

I watch a lot of YouTube, every few weeks another YouTuber I like will be pretty sick with Covid.

I'm not sure where you are but I still see covid around a lot


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jbvised wrote

To be fair the movie came out in 1994. A million dollars in 1994 would be like 2.1 million.

So, not really castle money but still more buying power. And if he was in the Midwest the castle would probably have been like $750k at the time.

I'm in a city and I remember $250k homes were like these huge nice houses.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayxas1 wrote

  1. people can be conscious during an active heart attack and if they have a DNR you can't take life saving measures

  2. someone can state they "don't want to die" before becoming unconscious in a situation where they are unconscious

Those are some examples of times when someone may be conscious but have a DNR.

Not every state allows for the same level of palliative care.

I also did not say that you had to agree to such things to do a vsed, I however did say that in places without euthanasia that this is the only option. And no matter what you have to admit it's much more cruel not only to the patient but to the care giver


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayptid wrote

It is, it just isn't expressly mentioned. It's like a do not resuscitate.

You can't sign a do not resuscitate and then in the heat of the moment yell "save me!" And them decide to save you against the orders of the DNR. Because when you recover (if you do) or if you are left incapacitated but "alive" you or your family can sue.

What you are reading is saying that you don't have to go into it 100%. You can tell them you want to cease food and water, but if you ask to start back then they can't deny it. That's abuse. If you tell them that you want to cease food and water and you do not want it to be restarted then they cannot start it back.

The idea behind this process is that those who request it are already so far gone that their bodies won't really want it enough for it to be painful, but not everyone is in that position.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jawqo7z wrote

Do you mean not allowing people to have food and water?

You'll see that it says you can start drinking and eating again wherever you want, however if you have signed that you do not want that to happen it will not override what you signed when you were "of sound mind"


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jaw88yh wrote

Before I read the article I thought that euthanasia sounded like a very soft way to refer to the death penalty.

I think that more places should offer euthanasia as an option, with multiple doctors opinions separate from family influence of course.

So many people suffer for so long without the ability to make a walk end of life decision. The only thing we let them do right now is not take food or water and that takes forever. They end up asking for water and all they will do is dab a sponge on their mouth so it's not so cracked and dry but once you ask to stop being given food and water no matter how much you beg they won't go back on it.

So then nurses have to watch these elderly and/or very sick people die slowly from dehydration and starvation, being begged for sitting to drink and having to deny it.

I think euthanasia is a lot less cruel.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_j75ozvp wrote

It really wasn't "progressives" as people use it now, but most people who were anti-vax were not due to religion until recently.

They were not conservative republicans that were anti-vax in society generally at the time but most of those folks didn't like the idea of one government insurance either for example.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_j75btax wrote

The only people I've known to dedicatedly homeschool their children despite any outside forces such as jobs getting in the way were secular antivaxxers, like anti-vax before covid.

We won't pretend like there's no issues in religious homeschooling (obviously) but we also shouldn't pretend like there's no issues in secular homeschooling either.

(I say dedicated homeschoolers because I do know those who had the spouse free to homeschool or friends that would do so if they could economically. I know people who still prefer at home traditional schooling for their kids now since it become an option. But you know. Those that would quit their jobs without adequate support from their partners income just to homeschool their kids)


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_j0y5fmp wrote

Yeah you know, if he was capable of doing that before he was at the point of commenting the way he did I'm pretty sure he would have.

That's kind of why I describe most people like that as disdainful.

If they are taking up too much of his workday and interrupting productivity then he should definitely say something.

If it's not interrupting his workday then there's really two things going on here

  1. he doesn't want any interaction with his co-workers on a personal level

  2. he specifically hates short format videos.

If it's 1 and he doesn't want them to realize it then he's going to have to put up with this because it's always going to be something. If he doesn't care he can just make it clear

If it's 2 then what you said would be great in a version that he would say. But it's probably going to kind of isolate him because you have to think about what he's saying. "Hey, I know you enjoy this thing but don't come to me with it because I don't want you to share your enjoyment with me"

I think it would personally be better to say that he doesn't get as much enjoyment out of them but let them know that if there's are any that really make them think of him he wouldn't mind seeing them. That shows that he is engaged in the office culture but asking them to respect him as well.

He's allowed to say no to all of them. But if they are THAT big a part of the office culture that people love them that much then that's something to consider


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_j0y3k1f wrote

You do realize that quite a few businesses use social media as part of the business right? And belowbefore you complain about it, where would you go to find out about any products anymore? Or where would they go to test products? Or network with other people in the business?

I know your job may not rely on it but some people's jobs do


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_iylhixf wrote

I think the HPV vaccine is used more than it was in the beginning based on the information I've seen just on the overall reduction rate in cancers they've seen in folks a little younger than me (I did get one of the 2 shots needed when it first came out. I had a really bad muscle reaction and did not get the second shot. Knowing now why those reactions happened I wish I had but they also say now just one shot gave some protection so I'm glad I at least got that).

I think the few people who got serious side effects were paraded around like with the whole covid misinformation but people were not dying in front of us 1000s by the day with HPV literally getting coughed in your face just by going to the store so there wasn't the urgency to stop the misinformation out there.

Plus there was the "not my child getting the shot! Thats a sex thing and they will never have sex!" I know that I had to have someone drive me in case there was a reaction and the only person available was my grandpa. I was at the top of the age range when it came out, I think like 19, and he was a little grumbly about it because it was "a sex thing" but he also knew in his head that a cancer prevention was a cancer prevention. He died from cancer just a couple years later btw so you know, fuck cancer.

But now you can get it so young and even older and boys and girls so I do wish pretty much everyone who could get it would. I'm so happy that I have some protection. I just wish the guys my age had that option too.

Also if anyone is curious the muscle reactions were because they shouldn't have been giving them where they were. It just wasn't the ideal place to put them, they were literally triggering the muscle spasms by the location.



morbidbutwhoisnt t1_iy7wdki wrote

There are so many folks that I know belong behind bars, even though I have a very limited scope of what kinds of crimes I think should get actual prison sentences. (I'm being up front that I'm a hardcore justice system reformer)

The parkland shooter for example was just convicted, we know for a fact that he is the perpetrator and I do believe that he needs to be separated from society for safety reasons. So this is an example of someone that I would agree even under a reformed system should be in custody. (not the time to argue what that looks like)

But in general when I see things like this I wonder how we can trust that the people who have been arrested, charged, and/or convicted have had that happen under fair terms.

Because it's not just this. A lot more often than I'm comfortable with it's something with an officer, DA, etc doing favors, planting evidence, changing information, blah blah.

This police chief had this happen, do you review the whole department? Do you have all the cases his officers worked on reviewed? Is it rotten top down? Is it just him?