HORI has been around for a good whole, and they make what are arguably the best aftermarket Nintendo switch controllers.

The horror is in the fact that the system forces these kinds of choices on people. Any system that forces people to consider suicide to avoid bankrupting their loved ones due to medical cost is barbaric.

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

I think this is still the most played game on my Switch. I need to stay far, far, away from this if my productivity is to survive.

I’m looking forward to this. Lego games always seem to deliver on capturing the spirit of the original work while adding some (often much needed) levity and charm. Having played HZD and having struggled to get through Forbiden West, I am looking forward to their take on the franchise.

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

The video also includes this spin. Sounds like they tried to do an interesting retelling of her recruitment into the Carrington Institute, making her a double agent or something. I’m intrigued.

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

This looks familiar. Is this somewhere in Whistler by any chance?

It’s a shame some of the cool features such as the eye tracking and HDR are going to get lost in the transition. It might still be worth it to replace many of the soon-obsolete WMR headsets on the market, but only if Sony adjusts the price of the headset accordingly.

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.

I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.

Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.

And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).

If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.

I am 100% with the women choosing the bear over an unknown man. Most wildlife, including bears, just want to be left alone to do their own thing. You can safely assume that the most likely thing to happen is the bear just does it’s own thing and lets you be. An unknown man is a much less predictable entity, and as such should be treated with a lot more suspicion.

Side note for those wanting to be pedantic: Bears vary in their level of habituation and indifference to humans as a result. More habituated bears may associate you with food, and some may even see you as food (depending on species) This will affect their aggression towards you, but as a general rule of thumb it’s still safe to assume any random bear would be more inclined to leave you alone or just steal your food than to actively want to harm you.