Having lived and worked in several countries, I think the concept of Jantelagen is rooted in the Protestant Reformation more than it being a specifically Nordic thing. Not only does it fit well with the general premise of the Protestant worldview, all countries that were early converts seem to have ingrained that particular perspective (under various names) in their collective cultures.

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.

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

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

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 still thankful our parents woke us up and put us in front of the TV to watch the live broadcast of that happening. That was a watershed moment in post-war politics.

The official count released recently by the Ukrainian government was 31k, vs Russia’s totally believable 6k dead on their own side.

I will happily concede both have incentives to misrepresent their casualty numbers but the difference between Ukraine’s official death toll and the estimates you see from military analysts have a much smaller discrepancy than the official reported losses and independent analysis on the Russian side.

But hey, you believe what you want to believe. We’re all still free to disagree.

All Infantry is cannon fodder to some extent, but so far Ukraine’s casualty numbers for their deployed personnel have been a lot better than Russia’s.

I hope they can maintain that track record.

No, I’d say my biggest issue is with the US becoming an unreliable ally just because the conservative party wants to score some stupid political points. See my original comment.

Read the above. I’m having issues with them winning at all, given the implications for the future security of Europe.

And what, pray tell, is the alternative here? A surrender to Russia is tantamount a full on capitalisation of the west and a defacto encouragement for Putin to keep pushing aggressive expansionist agendas. Ukraine will have an ongoing border dispute that can turn violent at any time with an adversary that’s been emboldened by a proven lack of support by Ukraine’s allies.

There is no winner in war, but this would be about as close to winning as Russia could possibly get.

For all intents and purposes the conservative party is in power. Sure, they aren’t in the White House, but they own a majority in congress and the supreme court.

As for complicity in genocide: I never said I liked the Biden administration’s wholesale carte blanche sorry of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The US doesn’t need to also support the genocide of Ukrainians by Russia through political inaction. One current genocide involving a US ally is bad enough, we don’t need two thank you very much.

Sure, I’d love for the US to stop supporting Israel. But I’m not going to suggest they do it over the dead bodies of Ukrainians.

deleted by creator

I get your point about the balkanization of US politics, but frankly it’s called for in this particular instance (as well as the Jan 6 coup attempt I am referring to) as it’s quite literally the conservative party’s representatives blocking the effort to give aid to Ukraine in congress. No ifs, buts, or both sides-isms about that.