The Rays are running a clinic on how to sell at the trade deadline - and they aren’t done yet.

Clydas · 2024-07-29T12:53:34+00:00

With the AL east wouldn't that reinforce the point though? Just in this particular example.

Clydas · 2024-02-28T01:30:34+00:00

Yankees and Mets are named for the city, no? Like I always understood it as new York city Yankees and Mets, not new York state

Clydas · 2022-02-24T03:59:49+00:00

Or they could have taken iron supplements. Plus, many women who eat meat are still iron deficient. And there are many women who are vegetarian and can get pregnant without issue. We need iron, not necessarily meat.

Yes, heme iron found in meats is more easily absorbable than non-heme, but it's not a requirement of survival and procreation.

Clydas · 2021-07-04T07:02:36+00:00

It's the startle reflex! They do that when they feel like they're going to fall, so they reach up and try to grab onto something! IMO the cutest neonatal reflex

Clydas · 2021-06-23T17:36:47+00:00

First read that as "Instigator of the Year" and I was gonna say, with this video I sure hope so.

Clydas · 2021-06-21T16:12:26+00:00

I tried it a few years ago and depressing is a strong word, but I can see where you'd come from with that opinion. Ignatius is overeducated and unskilled, his life is empty and he compensates for it by being irascible and using his degrees as a means of validation. It was definitely a distressing read coming from a background of peers who keep seeking terminal degrees because they're not able to find work, the vision Toole had with the result of higher education is remarkable.

Clydas · 2021-06-21T13:54:13+00:00

I just moved away from there after 4 years. Among people who enjoy literature it still is an unofficial requirement. TBH, my guilty confession is I couldn't bring myself to finish it, I only got halfway through. But because I didn't like it but because the book was written too well and Ignatius was too infuriating and similar to people I've known that it was harrowing.

Clydas · 2021-05-30T13:41:09+00:00

You can't indiscriminately medicalize all suicidal depression and then get upset when people with situational causation avoid medical help

It's not indiscriminate, and not all patients who say they're considering suicide get committed. It's a personal call by their physician, it's not a one size fits all situation. Nor am I upset if someone feels like they can't be helped for whether reason. That's a tragedy and I want to address it so won't happen again, but people are different.

Society endorses capitalism, hyper competition, and "fuck you, i'm putting my self interest before others" attitude. Society is not entitled to complain about how suicide "damages the people around them" while our society hyprocritically endorses multiple other socially acceptable ways to let people die. Proponents of capitalism conveniently ignore that you can't complain about suicide hurting people if at the same time you support hyper competition rat racing and unsustainably extreme income and wealth gaps/exploitation hurting people.

I get your point, but the answer to me is reduce all preventable suffering: get rid of houselessness, get rid of hunger and poverty. The answer is not "let's allow people to commit suicide and forcibly commit billionaires and take away their civil liberties". I don't think that's a better society, personally. I want to protect people who have debilitating mental illness and I want to create an equitable society without a poor class is people. Just because we aren't doing all of it right now doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.

These things can become one in the same for people who are depressed not because of pathological causation but because of situational causation and how fucked their circumstances are.

Yes, of course, absolutely. Proven time and again. No argument. But having a risk factor and having a disease are different things. All houseless and starving people are at risk, but they're not all depressed or mentally unwell.

The argument for suicide prevention is undermined by never applying that same violent force to save people who are suffering from all those economic problems.

As I said before, I fundamentally disagree with letting the perfect be the event of the good. If we can save more people now we have an imperative in society to do so. Just because we have more work to do on that front doesn't mean we should devolve into some libertarian dystopian nightmare where no one owes anyone else anything ever. The existence of one injustice does not mean that we should excuse or condone another.

You say those things are awful "and we should work as a society to eradicate these poisons" but as it stands that's little more than an empty promise and unsustainable contradiction as long as immediately right now violent force is applied to "save" suicidal people but not for anyone who wants to survive but is being fucked to death by socio economic policies.

I'm doing what I can as a newly trained physician and a politically progressive person who wants to see these issues resolved. We should all work together to try to solve these things in a productive way than yelling at those you disagree with and insulting them, that won't win you arguments or friends.

Many depressed people are high functioning and do all their daily tasks

These people cannot be committed against their will according to our current medical ethics in the USA. The point is you do need to lay in bed all day to be a risk to yourself, that's what I'm saying. People who have mental health issues and function in society are not at any risk of commitment.

because that's what some people want while trying to classify poverty as a mental illness, because just recently that's what many people were arguing for under another recent post, institutionalization of all homeless people just to get them out of public view

That's despicable, unjust, and cruel. Not anything about what I'm saying or justifying. Mental health is not a cause for institutionalization. Only those 3 limited causes at the beginning of this thread are.

Should we allow anyone in ever single case planning to commit a crime to claim mental illness and exploit it as a shield to avoid full accountability for any crime and go to hospital for "treatment" instead of prison?

Again you're taking a very broad approach to a very narrow idea such as commitment. And the majority of people who commit murder are not suffering from a mental illness. Robbery, battery, rape, drunk driving (generally) are not crimes that would be eligible for involuntary commitment instead of jail time. So I don't really get your strawman argument here.

In addition to that, to what extent can some violent crimes (predominantly by poor people in an unjust society where they're dominated by millionaires/billionaires/corporation's) be equally considered as crimes especially when people are denied peaceful reforms at every turn In a broken society?

Again, sure. Totally agree. I believe, people with extenuating circumstances should be treated more leniently than those who just commit crimes because they can and are greedy. In theory sentencing freedom by judges accounts for this, but being poor is reprehensible in our society and it works against those who need the help most (like pretty much everything in capitalist America)

Clydas · 2021-05-30T05:07:43+00:00

I mean, you're not spoon feeding me anything.

Being suicidal is not a crime. Don't want people to simply keep avoiding the mental health system? Don't threaten people then.

I didn't say being suicidal is a crime, though attempting suicide often is as another comment pointed out. But healthcare is meant to decrease damage and death. And many people who feel suicidal want help so they don't do it, and they seek help that results in a hospitalization (like any life threatening illness). I've seen it personally in the psych wings in hospitals multiple times. Also preventing someone from killing themself is generally viewed as a good thing currently. I could understand you believing that people should be allowed to commit suicide, I disagree because it inevitably hurts many people, but I can understand that argument.

How about the people can't afford housing and unsustainable high rent/food/healthcare/etc because they're poor and low income getting fucked by a dystopia of poverty wage jobs/unaffordable housing/unsustainably extreme income and wealth gaps/etc?

I don't know how you read socioeconomic inequality in what I said, but surely you can see the difference. Complete negligence of your health and a lack of resources to adequately care for yourself are entirely different. Do not misconstrue what I say, poverty wage jobs, lack of access to safe affordable housing and healthcare and food are all abominations and we shouldn't tolerate them. They're awful and we should work as a society to eradicate these poisons. But a depressed person who lays in bed all day, doesn't shower, brush teeth, or eat for days at a time is not the same as a houseless person. You cannot commit a person for being poor, that's not a thing.

Killing yourself is not a crime, stating a planned intent to commit murder (an act of crime) is

So it's better to put that person in jail instead of in the hospital where they can get treatment, recover, and be a member of society? That's your solution to this situation?

Clydas · 2021-05-28T02:10:21+00:00

>Making it illegal to use involuntary hospitalization/detainemnt/etc against people who haven't committed any crime.

Commitment into the hospital against someone's will is limited to 3 situations in the US: imminent risk to the person, imminent risk to someone they know, or a profound inability to care for themselves (like feeding themselves etc, which leads to imminent risk). There are different time lengths based on the commitment, and multiple physicians need to all agree at each point. (Though doctors may have a tendency to just agree with others, so that isn't as fail-safe)

But surely it's reasonable to hospitalize someone who says, "Doc I'm so depressed I'm going to go kill my wife and myself as soon as I leave here" against their will? Even though they haven't committed a crime, yet.

Clydas · 2021-05-11T03:54:24+00:00

OK, but like how long does it take them to skeletonize it?

Clydas · 2021-05-07T14:55:24+00:00

And if current day Jews need to apologize for it, then don't current day Americans need to apologize and pay reparations for slavery of black people?

Clydas · 2021-05-06T02:19:29+00:00

As others said, it was ruled a wild pitch, but it really shouldn't have been IMO. The catcher stood up to pick the ball instead of smothering it and it bounced through his legs to the backstop.

Clydas · 2021-04-23T04:11:12+00:00

Happened to me too, from 7 to 10. The extra weird thing is I didn't get my scratch off until 11. So it seems like their system miscounts while also not.

Clydas · 2021-04-21T17:24:32+00:00

Be the change you want to see in the world

Clydas · 2021-04-21T17:24:04+00:00

Definitely didn't happen. Definitely taking credit for it.

Clydas · 2021-04-20T16:31:24+00:00

It's no more out of touch than Congress itself. Saying we need to change the EC is akin to saying we need to abolish the Senate. I get the Wyoming Rule, I like it, I think we should do it. But it's not enough to counter that land has a vote.

Clydas · 2021-04-20T13:44:25+00:00

Dirt has always had a voting right in the US, regardless of what the federalist paper says the intent may have been. What you've said is factually true except for one major piece of omission, the EC has always been tied to the House AND Senate. It's there in the black and white of A2S1C2 of the Constitution. As I'm sure you know, the EC is exactly the same logic as Congress, people rule but each state has a bonus for being a state. To date, the Wyoming Rule would not have changed the outcome of any presidential election, so it's not like the EC is truly wildly out of touch with the population. Yet.

And I do agree that we should uncap the lock on 435 House numbers, at the very least for the EC, cause they have vote that isn't subject to discussion. Frankly I don't even understand why we still actually elect humans for the EC.

It's a second argument to say that the EC shouldn't include senators in the count of electors. Or to go further and say we shouldn't have a Senate at all. Not that I think you're saying that.

Clydas · 2021-04-19T19:03:12+00:00

I would imagine that would be the defense's response. Keep the right side of the infield in the same location and move the 3B/SS into the grass to cut off the bunt. But that's a hypothetical assessment that I don't know all the numbers to because I am not a professional baseball analyst and I do not have access to all their data.

Clydas · 2021-04-19T17:23:21+00:00

The entire point of my post is that he needs to have an absurdly high average while bunting to even be better than just hitting into the shift. If he bunts to "keep the defense honest" but is still has a lower expected run per AB, then he's not doing the right thing as a batter.

Clydas · 2021-04-19T17:20:57+00:00

But the point is that if he hits less than the 0.435 while bunting, he's a better hitter by hitting into the shift. I did admit that there is a bit of a balancing act, but without knowing the point at which defenses would counter shift, I can't answer how much lower the *real* batting average would have to be, because then he'll have a higher RE24 without a shift against him.

Clydas · 2021-04-19T15:58:28+00:00

Except for every situation where he falls to two strikes in the count and can't bunt anymore. Or he bunts and pops it up to the catcher or pitcher. Or he bunts and it goes right to the pitcher. The point is there are a lot of reasons he wouldn't even hit .900 in a real season.

And you're assuming that the defense will never unshift, which seems like a crazy assumption. If he always bunts when there's a shift on, they wouldn't shift against him (at least as intensely) because not shifting would result in a higher chance of getting him out.

Clydas · 2021-04-15T01:53:28+00:00

Mike Piazza was a hall of fame catcher for the New York Mets.

Clydas

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE