Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

The UK Brave Space For Shitposting and Other Opinions Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Shhhh.....Don't say that!  :ph34r:

 

I'm hoping they will get really, really cross and cruise-missile Downing Street.  :P

 

Well I mean... They have already burnt down a fucking island so there's always hope I suppose. And some servers... And some miscellaneous sundries as well as sending jar jar cunts to try and get laptops back from the DC police ....

 

There's Definitely hope I'd say

Edited by roguetechie
Way more hope than initially reported

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry fella, I can't answer that one.....I just don't know.

 

I'm simply stating that while it seems quite a hot-topic in the red-tops, it's not something that I've heard discussed and TBH it's not something I would want to discuss.

 

Craig Murray has some comments which might be of interest to you:

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/alfie-evans-and-the-state/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

Seems like a ridiculous situation caused by the parents not wanting to accept their kid is a corpse being kept moving by machines.

 

Yeah but having the state make that decision for them is even fucking creepier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the state pays for it here.....How much money should we throw at poor Alfie?  At the expense of how many other sick kids? 

 

I appreciate that Alfie now has private backers, but had his parents been financially responsible for his healthcare in the first instance, he would have been pushing up the daisies months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Remember, the state pays for it here.....How much money should we throw at poor Alfie?  At the expense of how many other sick kids? 

 

I appreciate that Alfie now has private backers, but had his parents been financially responsible for his healthcare in the first instance, he would have been pushing up the daisies months ago.

You're missing the point. I'm fine with the state cutting funding to a dieing kid. 

 

I'm not fine with the state not allowing the parents to move the child to another hospital of their request.

 

The responsibility for the child's life should be with the parents, not the hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I'm not fine with the state not allowing the parents to move the child to another hospital of their request.

 

The responsibility for the child's life should be with the parents, not the hospital.

 

I don't consider myself qualified to comment.....However on a matter of pure principle I'd probably agree, the issues Craig Murray raises do seem to suggest the courts are being unhelpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. Again, I will reiterate, the child is a lost cause. But it is no one's call but the parents of said child to determine what treatment he receives. 

 

Because boy howdy, any other way sets a very dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Should parents have the only say if they were to refuse life saving treatment?

I think you're purposely confusing two different scenarios. A government and a person are not equitable entities. And the context of this situation does not translate to a situation like you've described. 

 

Obviously, parents should not purposely harm their children without due reason. And there are laws against that sort of thing. I for one know of instances where children are taken from parents who refuse treatment for life threatening issues. Cosmetic, not so much. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I think you're purposely confusing two different scenarios. A government and a person are not equitable entities. And the context of this situation does not translate to a situation like you've described. 

 

Obviously, parents should not purposely harm their children without due reason. And there are laws against that sort of thing. I for one know of instances where children are taken from parents who refuse treatment for life threatening issues. Cosmetic, not so much. 

 

 

 

I’m checking for ideological consistency with “it is no one's call but thparents of said child to determine what treatment he receives“.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance, the state decided for the parents to forego treatment. I am saying that that is fine. It's when the state then denied parents access to their child for what in the states would be a second opinion that the line was crossed. 

 

The key here is that legal guardianship of a minor has passed from parents to the state. 

 

In contrast, you are asking if legal guardianship extends the opposing way. That would I be fine with a parent refusing care for a child out of their morals or principals. 

 

I am in favor of legal guardianship being delivered at benefit or potential benefit of the stakeholder. In this case, the ultimate stakeholder is the child who's life is at risk. 

 

While you may make a rightful judgment call that in this case specifically the child's life was a lost cause, I am more Keen to look ahead at the precedent set by following this removal of guardianship from the party that holds the stakeholders best interests as their direct argument. 

 

I'm sure you're ready to bring up a Watchtower/JW example here stateside, and their insistence against blood transfusions. While currently the numbers Indicate about 1.5 percent increase in surgical deaths in this group because of their beliefs, I still hold fast to my analysis of stakeholder claim. 

 

Always err to context and the party at the most risk to lose if guardianship is transferred to someone without stake in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Obviously, parents should not purposely harm their children without due reason. And there are laws against that sort of thing. I for one know of instances where children are taken from parents who refuse treatment for life threatening issues. Cosmetic, not so much.  

 

One could argue that since the kid is a lost cause what's the point of making him suffer simply because his parents wants to keep him alive as long as possible?

70% of his brain is fried at this point, he won't recover from this and for all we know he may never be able to think, to be properly.

 

That's my personal opinion here, but the brain is what makes an individual: Our memories, our capacity to think, to feel. That kid never had that and most likely never will.

 

So if one accept the premises that the kid is a lost cause and that he isn't able to decide for himself you have an ethical dilemma.

 

Should the parents take priority because it's their child and the State shouldn't decide for them?

Or should the State decide that the child take priority since at this point prolonging his life does nothing more than prolonging his suffering?

 

Personally I think that there is no point keeping the child on life support, it just prolong his suffering.

But I agree that denying the parents a second opinion as you said isn't really a good thing either, if the second opinion is negative as well maybe it will help them to accept that their child is dying, it could help them.

 

Since I'm not emotionally involved with this (and have never been placed in a similar situation), hard to tell if I could say the same thing if I was one of the parent.

From the outside I'm under the impression that they are at the bargaining stage ("maybe there is still hope in Italy").

 

That said I only learned about this case today so I don't really know all the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

One could argue that since the kid is a lost cause what's the point of making him suffer simply because his parents wants to keep him alive as long as possible?

70% of his brain is fried at this point, he won't recover from this and for all we know he may never be able to think, to be properly.

 

*snip*

 

 

Of course you could make that argument. That's an argument that gets touched on once every few years here in the States as well. And it's perfectly viable to do so.

 

However, that's not the issue at hand. The ethical conundrum should be with the parents who are the legal guardians of the child. They can choose "Do we end his suffering? Do we try to save him still?"

 

The issue at hand is the parents, who are legal guardians acting upon the behalf of the stakeholder, are fighting to attempt a different procedure under a different governance. And the current governance is rejecting their request, I surmise out of liability. 

 

If you expand this situation and give it the breadth of potential future precedent, I side with the parents 100%. There is nothing that would stop me from moving my loved one to somewhere else to seek a different procedure or attempt a different cure. ESPECIALLY when the stakeholder is so young (not like we're doing this for 88 year old grandpa) and the alternative is death.

 

My argument is that the parents should have control over their child's life, as well as death and whatever ethical conundrum begets it, at this point. That choice should not depend upon the bureaucracies of a large hospital. 

 

If you are making an argument just for the sake of its edge, then by all means let the child die. 

 

But luckily, you are not the ultimate stakeholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Amy Schumer has been hospitalized. I'd let the State pull the plug on her since clearly it's in the best interest of society to terminate someone like her who is 70 percent brain dead.

 

...

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Alfies's parents do find themselves the centre of a lot of attention (& very possibly financial assistance) that they would not otherwise receive.....Do you think this might be a factor at all? 

 

I would fervently hope not, but knowing human nature, it definitely cannot be ruled out.

 

However at a certain point the question becomes how much would you want other people having input if you were the one in this situation.

 

I've personally had the unique experience of panicking and waving off my own DNR/No extraordinary measures order at pretty close to the last second and being grateful for it. While also having had an experience after that where other people made further decisions "on my behalf" which it's really debatable whether they should have or not even to me even knowing that had they not made the decisions they did I wouldn't be here to write this.

 

If anything it has left me even more confused about where we should draw certain lines, not less.

 

These situations suck, and I do not envy anyone the personal hell of having to try and make the right decision one way or another. But as terrible as all this is, and as fraught with potential for real abuses and tragedies to occur as they are, I'd much prefer someone who knows me getting to make these calls over a fucking bureaucrat.

 

Is that the right answer? I really don't know!

 

It's honestly bit me pretty fucking hard having it be that way in my own life, but the potential for really effed up shit to happen in the event that we take the other approach just strikes me as a road we shouldn't go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing good comes from the death of a child.....The press circle this whole affair like a flock of vultures.

 

I've had similar experiences on the DNR front, but from the other side, my father was allowed to pass peacefully at home when he'd just about had enough.....We could probably have kept him alive in hospital for a month or more, with tubes in every orifice, but where is the 'quality' in that?  Instead he came home and stayed with us just long enough to say goodbye.  Then he left.

 

Maybe something like that would be better for Alfie?  Who knows?  Who really wants to know?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Alfies's parents do find themselves the centre of a lot of attention (& very possibly financial assistance) that they would not otherwise receive.....Do you think this might be a factor at all? 

 

On par for the course of a tragedy. Over here, a hockey team bus crashed and the whole team died. Tons of money was raised for the families.

 

People tend to come together in times of need. Some people take advantage of that for scams. That's a symptom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Reposting for those that didn't see it the first time around:

       
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html
    • By T___A
      Might as well make a new thread now that the election is over.
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...