Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

Let's see, insane, fourth-grade intellect, pussy-grabbing, vengeful, ego-maniacal, tax-cheating, swindling, false-charity operating, pathological lying demagogue vs a woman who plays fast and loose with the rules to her own benefit, has been caught out in the past too often doing the politically expedient thing rather than the right thing, but knows her shit pretty well.

At least with Hillary it's a given that there will be another election in four years (unless Trump supporters manage to overthrow the government). Trump is already saying the US should suspend the normal election procedures and just appoint him president. What would he be like in four years if he actually got elected?

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

They mix just fine.

If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice.

If one doesn't agree with the work conditions in those hospitals, don't work there (just like any other job).

Businesses don't have to offer all services. It is the business' choice, not the customers, what services they offer. Each and every medical procedure is a different service. E.g., in Australia, most private hospitals and small public hospitals don't offer emergency care in any substantive way. So if you self present with an acute injury that they don't provide care for, they will initiate transfer to another hospital.

If the patients life is in danger, the hospital will stabilise the patient and await medical transfer to another facility. This happens in both private and public hospitals every day. E.g. in general, smaller public hospitals don't offer obstetrics. You will be transferred to a larger public hospital. In the event that the procedure must be done stat, then all hospitals will give their best effort (including religious hospitals) to save the patient. It is basically the same in the USA.

Have you seen videos of a customer in a KFC screaming that they want their BigMac, with everyone staring in disbelief because that is a product KFC doesn't sell?

Well, I fully support the Black Lives Movement. Peaceful, and sometimes agitated, marching for justice. Gay Rights. That explosive moment at Stonewall in Greenwich Village, when the gay men fought back and said NO MORE.

Do I want a single woman who is in danger of being physically assaulted to "fight back?" A single gay man? A single black person? No, honey bunny, I absolutely do not. I think that is the height of idiocy for a single individual to fight back against one, two, three men. Especially when they are armed and have proven that they are capable of using that weapon in anger, fear, adrenaline.

Keep yourself safe, deescalate the situation if you can, submit to rape [edit] IF you think the man/men will kill you if you do fight back -- fight back if it is safe to fight back. (Interesting stat -- something like 90% of assaults against women are by single unarmed attackers. No gun? No knife? Try to avoid, try to deescalate, and if that doesn't work, fight back and yell and make yourself as difficult a target as possible.)

I took a self defense class years ago, geared towards women protecting themselves from violence by men. Not because I was afraid, but because of the psychological skills that we were taught about setting boundaries, taking charge, making choices -- skills needed in every day life that can also be applied to rare events of possible violence.

It was called Powerful Choices. Choices, my friend. Choices.

I must say, it is shocking to me that so many people live in a zero sum world. A black and white world. Where there is only one way to respond despite the actual circumstances. That this moment has to be used to fight larger battles or you are a failure.

I am a big fan of using your noggin to be safe. A fan of demonstrations (I prefer peaceful.) A fan of changing the laws, the procedures, the culture. A fan of acting strategically for the long run.

So you have me all wrong, my friend. All wrong.

Depends on the surgery. You don't need a specialist to do your acute appendectomy or cholecystectomy, but you DO need a specialist to do your knee replacement or ICA aneurysm clipping.

Also, I assume the risk reductions presented are relative - e.g. if mortality from a non-specialist surgeon procedure is 5% and a specialist surgeon mortality has a 4% risk, the relative risk reduction is 20% (absolute risk reduction is only 1%), which sounds really high and may be statistically significant, but in the real-world does not matter all that much. This would be called statistically significant, but likely not clinically significant.

DMT(ayahuasca) are not recreational, no matter which way anyone wants to flip it. The Universe in 5 minutes... an eternal life/death scenario. I was taking ayahuasca to mediate upon my father's death 2 months prior, along with a shaman I respected deeply, I also respect the "traditions" (in that I find the anthropological history incredibly rich) but I realize after "figuring out" DMT on my own that I think my way is best (standard psychedelic procedure, alone) and is the most important thing that I can learn from it. That this is my journey into the soul and I don't need anyone else in my way during my experiences; shamans have a way of influencing the experience, but the experience itself and YOU are the real guide, no need for a shaman with smoked DMT Ayahuasca is definitely an incredible experience and plant... I just prefer my way of visiting "that" realm of infinite knowledge. Tell us how it goes

Some things I did not like about Santo Diame were Christian dogma (with a lot of beliefs taken from many religions), they want you to stay with the circle even though you may be compelled to find somewhere that is quiet and away from everyone else, they separate men from women half circle men, half circle women, guide in between, they do not want talking, but the music is incessant and influences the experience (when the lights go out, be prepared to experience hell on fucking Earth), I couldn't stand the "helpers" at the ceremony I went to, they kept urging people to drink more - there were a lot of aspects that I didn't like about it. But, I certainly wouldn't want to take ayahusca alone, either. Instead, I believe the best way, for me at least, would be one on one with the shaman, in an open place, preferably outside and for him to just chant and check in with me every once in a while.

Also, you can check out the video I made about my smoked DMT breakthrough experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuRbLAqM6Kk

This video is the exact opposite of any problem with No Man's Sky. If the universe is hugely varied and procedurally generated, of course there will be a planet of fucked up steroid dinosaurs, and one with majestic brontosauruses, and one with sentient hydrogen, etc. This video makes you think that somewhere out there there is a planet that will be right for you, and gives you incentives to build the spaceship parts to get off the rock you're on and go in search of those perfect dinosaurs instead of staying with these freakish Belgian Blues.

There are valid criticisms against NMS, but this is more like a resounding endorsement of it.

Edit: Especially when paired with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpoDZmH70S4

If I go to enough worlds, will I eventually find procedurally generated life?

I was super skeptical of this game because the developer's were obviously intentionally vague about the gameplay aspects. Well, they didn't necessarily lie, it is exactly like I thought it would be - an indie survival game with a procedural engine. They were "vague" because that is literally all of there is to this game, it's a half empty / half full scenario.

I find the game great because I didn't have any grandiose ideas about it and went in skeptical. 40 hours later I'm still headed towards the center of the Universe, playing with the minimal systems but always able to appreciate what the game is and not what it is not.

This video is hilarious though, and the off key notes insinuated towards this game are one of the reasons I find the game endearing. I'm glad it doesn't feel like a AAA game, it feels fresh, I just wish they wouldn't sell this (shit) for $60.00

HAH! I had a medical procedure today that ... nevermind

*promote assholery

To paraphrase a fire official: We have a three step evacuation procedure. The first step is to warn residents to be ready to evacuate. We skipped that step and went straight to get the fuck out now.

like payback said, vancouver has been "rich washing" for decades. i've heard some crazy stories from expo 88 era. before the olympics they cracked down on the poor. often ostensibly rounding them up and sending them to the suburbs (this is fairly normal procedure for cops who "catch" binners/panhandlers in richer areas: they "arrest" them, drive them out to the suburbs, and just leave them there).

http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/10/14/OlympicsHomelessLaws/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/03/vancouver-winter-olympics-homeless-row

One problem with your anecdote. Swiss citizens (men compulsory, women voluntarily) are required, by law, to become part of their citizen military, a militia if you will, and receive intense training and practice with weapons. The process also weeds out the whack jobs, who don't get to buy guns.

The Swiss procedure should be adopted by the US. It'd be a great way to use up the defense budget without invading anywhere...