egg

My father was given less than 2 years just before he was 70. He's 79 soon. My mother in law was given 4-6 months and survived another 4 years, enough time to see various significant events. Horrific to think that people in her position could be made to feel a burden and feel compelled to elect death without anyone feeling the need to explore whether that's what she really wants.

Don't misquote me. I said "It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me". The freedom of choice, and it being satisfied, is the safeguard at 1st instance after the verification of terminal illness. I'm not misinterpreting what you've said. You've said throughout, and yet again, that the terminal diagnosis is pretty much all that is needed. That's the beginning. It's the need for freedom choice to elect to die thereafter that you don't seem to understand. I'll ask my question again - are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? It's a yes or no.

1st part. The choice part (free choice) has to be satisfied imo. 2nd part. Is that a genuine question? Of course it matters.

To be clear, are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice?

It's not. It's the freedom of choice part that is the main safeguard. You can't approach something as serious as this on the basis that the person is definitely going to pass within the next 6 months and accept that as the main safeguard. Crazy approach. It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me.

He has misunderstood it, and your interpretation is correct. I haven't read the bill, but my earlier concerns would be allayed largely if the process involves both doctors speaking with person to be satisfied, as far as is possible, that they have freely elected to die.

I think there is a distinction between him as a TV presenter, and as a social media personality. I like him in both capacities, and respect that he puts his personal opinions out there. I suspect people who dislike him, do so because they disagree with his politics. That said, he was paid a daft amount of money and I'm glad to see that money being saved.

I still don't know why you're insinuating that Global poverty is going down. It isn't. The worldbank says global poverty has had its first increase in decades https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/march-2024-global-poverty-update-from-the-world-bank--first-esti The latest UN figures (not that recent though) has said that extreme poverty has risen https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/goal-01/

Have you seen Wood and Edwards play? In a back 3 you play your best 3.

The top won't sack itself - Rasmus is an owner. Regardless, we have a failing manager, and to address that imo.

Ha!! I'd take Puel's "boring" 0-0 and 1-0 wins over RM's boring weekly defeats every day of the week. And his hair looked better.

It's now 2024, almost 2025 . Your argument is that there has never been a better time to be alive, and rely on figures from 2020 and 2022. Your argument has no credibility at all. Save the children say this: "1.2 Billion Children Worldwide Are Living in Poverty No child deserves to grow up in poverty. And yet, today the number of children living below the national poverty line in low- and middle-income countries is unprecedented. Hundreds of millions of children remain multidimensionally poor — meaning they lack access to health care, education, proper nutrition, or adequate housing — often a reflection of inequitable investments by governments in social services. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a 15% increase in household poverty around the world." And you say this is the best time to be alive.

That's a logic I don't get. The decision to keep him or sack him starts with asking whether he's successfully doing his job. He isn't. He's failing. He has to go.

Yep. Too many people focus on wants not needs, have unrealistic expectations of themselves and others, and live under pressure of immediacy.

30 years later and some things are worse. The fact is, we can focus on pretty much any period and pick out something to support the argument. Britain today, and the world, is absolutely not the best it has ever been at any point time.

Hypo's point was that "Times are the best they have ever been in human history" so I can pick any point on time I want as a comparison.

Child poverty is increasing again. Regression, not progress. A statistical increase in life expectancy does not equate to "Times are the best they have ever been in human history". There's a difference between living longer and living better. Has tech advancement, and the immediacy of communication made the world and society better on the whole? I'd argue the contrary, and if nothing else, it's created all manner of expectations and made people a lot less patient.

In the middle to late 90's, our economy was growing, the cold war had ended, the Bosnian war was over, the first gulf war over, and the world generally stable. We now have the middle east tinderbox, Russia/Ukraine, Myanmar, Yemen, and plenty of others. We didn't have HIV I'll grant you, but vaccines aren't a new thing, and if you're referring to COVID vaccine, that's just science addressing something new, not societal growth. Re eating shit, what you do isn't the issue. Whatever the reason, the reality is that the masses are putting sugar and ultra processed shit inside them. The creation of that shit, and it's mass consumption, is a massive retrograde step. HIV getting sorted aside, you're not persuading me that the world and our country are better placed than the 90's boom years. It definitely isn't the best time ever to be alive - that's a nonsense statement.

Cancer rates were lower. Kids weren't going to school with cans of monster. How have things improved to make "times the best they have been in human history". They aren't.

If we could keep that group, we'd be very competitive, and on course for another PL relegation bid in 2027.

In what way is the world, and our country, better now than it was in say the 90's boom? Financially we're worse off in this country, the world feels a more unstable and uncertain place, people are fatter, there's more cancer, sugar and chemicals seem to be the diet of the masses. I think we've regressed.

Trump's view on Ukraine. Predictable: 'A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to gain back territory occupied by Russia. Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace". "And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said. "Crimea is gone."' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7o

I can't imagine it'll be RM, whatever the outcome. I can't imagine Wolves will be so benevolent if we can manage a win.

Will you be extending this "subject not people" approach to the lounge as well?

In those 2 years the US have backed Ukraine. I'll ask again - Do you think the US are likely to continue that military support when Trump takes the helm? If not, do you think the rest of the NATO countries will continue to support Ukraine? For a military stalemate, Ukraine will need ongoing military backing. The Isis point isn't a good, or relevant, one.