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.
The one major advantage that Reddit alternatives on the Fediverse have over Reddit still is that nobody owns the platform wholesale. So while that doesn't solve the content issues you're rightfully bringing up, at least we've learned from Reddit's faults by removing the option of unilaterally making platform-level decisions that are undesirable for the end user.
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.
Man, this screams "racial profiling" and "unjustified use of force" and they still want to claim there's no wrongdoing. Seriously, what needs to happen before a police organization goes "Yes, this was excessive and unjustified and we have disciplined the responsible officers" instead of first trying to gaslight the public?
I know. I'd just like the market to be more than a defacto monopoly with Meta selling 85% of all headsets. Especially given their privacy track record.
The HP Reverb G2 v2 was the highest resolution headset on the market for a while. And it comes with the same headset solution the Index uses.
Sure. It has some flaws, such as the hand tracking accuracy not being as good as some other headsets (some people felt the inside-out tracking wasn't as accurate as traditional lighthouse based approaches, but it's still plenty accurate for pretty much any game I've played with it) but at the price point this occupied when new there was really no better value for people that wanted a headset with as little setup as possible and absolutely fantastic fidelity and resolution.
It's a true travesty that Microsoft can just axe the entire platform with no way for users to continue using their still perfectly functioning devices.
Fair. It's my main reason for not owning an Oculus headset. Sadly Microsoft decided to turn my WMR headset into e-waste later this year, so I will need to find a replacement in due time.
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).