Being homeless is not inherently wrong. But I feel when a society makes camping on common ground a crime - like native Americans did, it owes it to them to a) give them land to camp on or b) give them housing.
It shouldn’t be a crime to sleep, ever. It horrifies me that the “conservative” Supreme Court could deny the most fundamental right to existence, literally jailing people for sleeping.
I agree with, but maybe someone, or a group of people, could make a legally-defined difference between 'sleeping', and 'camping'.
Perhaps they could start by using different words, plainly understood by most - or, easily researched, for each of the different (perhaps) activities.
I believe that healthcare is deliberately limited by insane policy. Contrary to opinion insurance is not the problem. It’s doctors charging exorbitant fees.
We allow this because we let them scare us into voting for strict education.
But the reality is education could be fixed to cut the price by probably 80% - making the much smaller insurance amount negligible.
I hate to say it but pinning it on a ceo doesn’t seem right. His job was to ration a scarce resource. But why is it scare? Because the authorities thru the police force puts an end to unlicensed people regardless of their skills.
I was talking to a friend/acquaintance. Her dad was a doctor did all kinds of innovative surgeries on animals. But wasn’t licensed. She said he’d be called in by doctors to do surgeries all the time because he was the best.
But he wasn’t licensed. So California shut it all down.
The price of healthcare is 5x because we let people go to jail without a crime. If they went to jail for reckless I e untrained practice of medicine i understand. But seriously right now the problem is lack of supply that has to be rationed.
> Thank you for your comment, I thought that there's nobody left here who understands this.
Dude, plenty of people understand that. However, it's no good playing the circular pass-the-buck game, where the insurance apologists blame the doctors for everything, then the doctor-apologists blame the insurers for everything, everyone blaming someone else for everything, ad nauseam; with the end-result of the status-quo being defended by mentally exhausting everyone.
And why do doctors make 5x what normal people make? It's because they have to pay off a million dollars in school debt and risk ruining their entire lives if they fail.
I believe that school is a huge problem. Don’t give drugs, they can permanently mess up his mind.
ADHD and ADD are defense mechanisms the mind has. His brain is basically saying that what he is learning in school is a complete waste of his time. Even though we all do it, school is a really weird behavior! No animals do it and we aren’t designed for it.
I don’t believe that school is worth it for many people. They become business leaders etc.
Take him out of school and ask yourself what you would want if you were him. Then do it.
That’s my advice for anyone wondering what to do with adhd.
Take a 12 year old out of school? That's grade 5. They're learning to write paragraphs and their times tables. Not many business leaders can't write a paragraph or do 7*5 in their head.
Better advice would be to get them into something at school, that allows them to hyper focus. Something that draws them in. Science or programming, or even art.
Also wrong about the learning something that's a waste. ADD can show up as soon as 5 years old. I noticed symptoms in my 5 year old kid. They were slight, but they reminded me of me. She was learning shapes and colors, and how to spell 'cat'.
Should I have taken her out of school so she could avoid learning how to spell?
> Don’t give drugs, they can permanently mess up his mind.
Reading your entire comment, but especially this sentence makes my blood boil.
None of this is backed up by science and you provide no sources.
This is the equivalent to flat earthers explaining how the universe works or anti-vaxxers how thoughts cure disease.
The OPPOSITE is true: Medication, especially given during age when neuroplasticity is still high can have the best long term effects on neurological development and avoid many adverse life effects normally associated with untreated ADHD such as substance abuse and risky behavior.
> Don't give drugs, they can permanently mess up his mind.
This is common and good advice. Ritalin at one point was prescribed for ADD and ADHD, Kurt Cobain ended up dying by suicide as a result of complications from his use of the drug.
Spectrum disorders have been used for the past 20+ years as catchall diagnoses.
There have been many stories of people who were diagnosed with these disorders, when in fact they were exposed to toxic products without their knowledge.
Heavy metal poisoning from chronic low-level exposure for example mimics nearly all the symptoms and won't show up in blood tests without a chelator. The doctor generally has to have an idea of the substance they are looking for to justify ordering the specific tests. Low-level chronic exposure rarely presents
Exposure to many toxins can have these symptoms. Some studies suggest high doses of PFAS, microplastics, or even above safe-limits for flouride, and other industrial contaminants can cause these similar-looking issues.
They are actually quite different causes, and brain damage in the more extreme cases can occur if left untreated, especially in youth which are more susceptible to certain toxins.
Honestly, what if taking drugs as a kid desensitized him and made him feel it was fine? Sure it is legal vs illegal, but once you get used to the idea “drugs are good” it could be bad for the mind
...then post some, instead of obviously biased organisations which make a living of treating it as a problem but can't come up with better reasons than
-are less likely to finish high school and college
-are more likely to experience unemployment
-have more difficulty paying bills
-are more likely to experience substance use issues
How likely? I'm not bothering looking it up, it should be mentioned right there!
Anyway, it sure sounds like the general crime of being poor + not obeying the system as the ruling classes expect.
So instead of perhaps checking on the system, lets fill the child with some completely harmless pharmaceuticals:
"If a child taking a stimulant seems sedated or zombie-like, or tearful and irritable, it usually means that the dose is too high and the clinician needs to adjust the prescription to find the right dose."
No way that could mess up a childs mind, right? Everyone thinking otherwise is clearly a flat earther.
Disclaimer: I happen to be a clinician, although not in that field, and drug side effects like those - on a child - usually need very, very good justifications or it's malpractice. And just because it seems to have worked for you the right way doesn't mean that it's right for anyone.
Wikipedia is a good start, if you are open to the idea of being proven wrong. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence suggesting that many children with ADHD benefit from getting medicated with e.g. methylphenidate and amphetamine.
Of course ADHD medications come with risks, but the question is if they are on the whole beneficial for the patient or not. Brain surgery has risks, Ibuprofen has risks, exercise has risks.
If you are truly a clinician, I don't understand your comment.
Because it's all about you, your morals and unscientific personal opinion and 0 about interest for patient outcomes.
That is not the medical ethos.
And it seems you actually don't have much touchpoints with modern psychiatric practice.
I'd give a lot for my parents who got indication of my diagnosis at a much earlier age and never told me to act on that instead of me suffering the consequences of their failure to provide medical intervention - both with regards to broken relationships in personal and professional life, years of depression and thousands of Euros out of my own pocket to get to the point of understanding myself where I am today.
As always if you start on a psychoactive medication, adult or not, you'd go trough titration to determine an optimal dose.
This is closely monitored by your psychiatrist where I live.
Nobody in this process has any incentive to produce sedated zombies.
Everyone in this process has incentives to avoid very real human suffering.
All right, well I didn’t mean to be offensive in what I wrote. Please forgive me, it was written quickly. I hope we can all learn from each other in this forum, it was very kind of you to post those studies!
Haha that’s funny, the beehive one lays out the hexagons as if they were squares - so they overlap and have empty space lol! But still it’s a promising concept.
Btw for some reason on iOS I had to download to view the video
Until we understand consciousness, I think it perfectly reasonable to study the possibility of life after death.
If you think about it, consciousness doesn't exist in the material dimensions we understand. It's impossible to have an SI unit for happiness, for example.
So something within us is not material. Could it exist beyond the body? I think it's a question worth studying.
>If you think about it, consciousness doesn't exist in the material dimensions we understand. It's impossible to have an SI unit for happiness, for example.
The latter doesn't imply the former.
Assuming that consciousness exists entirely within the brain, it stands to reason that if we understood that physical process enough, we could in fact quantify happiness. You're simply taking for granted that it's impossible to do because we don't understand well enough to do it.
Also, not every physical process reduces to a single SI unit. This isn't evidence of a transcendent metaphysical reality, rather the result of some processes being complex. It's entirely likely that "happiness" is such a complex process, entirely physical and temporal and based on innumerable chemical, biological and sociological factors, but also impossible to reduce into a simple axis. We know that pain exists, and numerous scientific experiments demonstrate that pain is physical, but there is no SI unit for it, either.
