Call me Lenny/Leni @ shinigamiookamiryuu @lemm.ee

It's nice to meet all you. I am she/her, can speak Toki Pona and English (n

---

Read more

Posts

138

Comments

5,088

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I mean when it's unnecessary. In many pets it is necessary, but many people do it just because it's the norm.

When it comes to odor though? I'd cope.

It’s hard to envision anywhere not understanding there are people that wish to discontinue medical treatment for whatever reason.

Wait, really? All this hoopla over healthcare reform these days and there are people who say it shouldn't be a given? Not invalidating you, just surprised and trying to think of it all.

So can you elaborate on your “environment”

Culture, philosophy, law, whatever you want to call it. It's all intertwined. Every rule and every norm you live by. Imagine your part of the world. Imagine the borders, the ones where, if you step outside these borders, certain laws no longer apply. Your confusion seems to come from being adamant that it shouldn't be a legal issue, that it's a no-brainer. The law, sadly, does not care what should and shouldn't be a legal issue. My last downvoter be damned, because again, their words, not mine. Anyone thinking anything here is my personal preference is not only shooting the messenger but also overthinking this, which might explain if anyone doesn't understand it. I only have the power to let people know that, within my borders, there resides my own legal environment. A sphere with its own rules of thumb and its own ways of thinking and doing things.

The place I live in is very anti-eugenics. It's pro-life. It's pro-equality. It's very medically established despite its low population. One day in school, we were talking about how, in the United Kingdom, there was a scandal where the government was putting people on one of those lists without their permission. Every debate around life and death is a gateway to another. A bureaucratic mistake can mean the difference between choice and persecution. It is then those of us who observe all of this who think "at what point does a rational, well-informed decision on the matter become one that's not rational or well-informed". Would a person who requests DNR who is then reckless and suffers due to it not amount to a kind of self-destruction? Would the same person be considered "murdered" if someone kills them? If someone depends on them, would it be "murdering" those people if something happened? I redirected to at least ten of these kinds of questions.

It's not so much "abstract" as the whole topic is a blur to begin with, again hence the episode. In more ways than one, I'm just the messenger. I was really hoping the original question might be answered, not just being dedicated to questioning a small part of it. Should I just not elaborate on my questions?

People sadly do all those things. People declaw cats because cat claws can get sharp enough to get into fabric, and the people who declaw their cats either don't realize cat claws are a part of their fingers or don't care. People dethumb monkeys because it hinders their ability to weaponize their surroundings, again because all they seem to care about is showing off their pet.

Personally, I would caution against pet castration/neutering/spaying even though it's not up there with the other things. When it comes to this, you're just trading some problems for other problems, and it still says a bit about the act of owning them.

Because I wasn't mentioning my own viewpoint, I was mentioning how the law might differ.

I did explain it explicitly, so I think the best way to explain it then is with an analogy/visualization.

Imagine an umbrella. The umbrella is labelled "issues of self-harm". Underneath the umbrella are all the things which can amount to or turn into it.

On the very edge underneath it is the issue of DNR. Where you live, the umbrella is nudged away from it. Where I live, the umbrella would just pass over it.

My own stance, which I have not mentioned until right now, is that, supposing someone has asked all the questions to themselves relating to their life, they should consult whoever has authority over the DNR or whatever it is.

The fact the very same important questions can be asked in the first place regarding both aspects of this issue (which you give the impression don't come off as related) shows they are related in the ways alluded to. The episode of Doc even explored this very thing. Hence I said that would not work out where I live. Hence I was asking, what kinds of legal culture shock have you picked up on in a TV show.

All that over snails? Like were they the kind that might've lost their way from the Amazon rainforest?

Rule of thumb in my opinion, if you have to perform body modification on an animal, it doesn't sound like it was ever worth keeping. Clipping bird wings, deforming monkey thumbs, declawing cats, etc. make me cringe bad.

Discussions of law don't necessitate anything relating to specific political issues, scandalous or not. I can't remember a relevant TV program that speaks of a specific person in power, which is why when you said what you said, I asked what media actually came to mind when you said that, and I was wondering if it was hypothetical. After a while, it just seemed random and forgotten, so after people were negatively bringing up the leniency (breaking rules 3 and 5, which is why that was locked), I removed it to clean it and withdrew my own comment (which was an honest question that got booed even before I did anything) to be fair. That is all, nothing like a ban or anything.

Makes me wonder when someone is going to make a military drama.

I'd be surprised if you didn't take legal action.

Was the water good?

There is a rule saying no US politics is allowed if it's tangential. I have been trying to balance that with an understanding of how things develop, but then you have things like people turning it into a deterrent as well as a window to break other rules. So I thought "well this conversation that seemed oddly specifically Trumpy seems forgotten about" and I removed it :(

You say that like "some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive" might not immediately establish "alright, this society quite clearly thinks refusal of life support is a passive form of suicide". That's just how it is here, whether I like it or not.

The community you're in is supposed to be free of that as per rules set up by my predecessors, but complications arise when people en masse try to act like it's normal to morph a conversation about so much as toothpicks to be about him. I've been reacting to the examples of this that are at all unfulfilling to the question at hand, if anyone wanted to know.

Speak less and what you do say might resonate more.

An accidental observation on my part. Nothing like that old selective mutism.

Wasn't The Resident in Georgia?

Quinces. I live on quince cider as my go-to non-water drink.

Different in some places but not everywhere. I'm not saying this as a position, just an observation. My viewpoint would be far more developed than even that.

They do draw heavily upon references to their norms though.

...as opposed to self-harm?

Some people consider not wanting to be alive to be not wanting to be alive. Cut and dry. They lump all the implications together, all the dilemmas and all the complexities that arise with the life issue. This is often associated with the law-based concepts of the Good Samaritan and the "duty to protect". They, of course, are not mind readers and can't look into the individual's psyche and they resort to not taking chances. Was the person of sound mind? Were they under duress? Where do they stand between circumstantial acceptance and circumstantial yearning? Things even such as those they won't end up guessing. Some are too afraid of what such a power can turn into, via the slippery slope trope.