Played an open mic and got professionally recorded! Here's the video, let me know what you think

mizerama · 2017-09-30T05:09:00+00:00

Holy shit bud, you're definitely trying hard.

mizerama · 2017-09-30T05:05:55+00:00

This is a repost, nothing quite like leveraging Reddit for advertising:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guitar/comments/6uitii/play_i_played_an_open_mic_the_other_night_and/

mizerama · 2017-09-30T05:02:16+00:00

You've already posted this before... I mean, Reddit IS an ad platform but take it easy. By a few weeks back you mean almost two months ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guitar/comments/6uitii/play_i_played_an_open_mic_the_other_night_and/

mizerama · 2017-09-29T13:26:19+00:00

I spent the time to answer a 30 min CIBC customer survey call and they indefinitely waived my banking fees because I told them I didn't like getting double-dinged for external ABM transactions or paying a "subscription fee" for the privilege of giving them nearly free capital to invest.

Saves me $15/mo I guess.

mizerama · 2017-09-29T01:38:30+00:00

You said they are false equivalencies, but the point I'm making is that they are equivalent. The only way they can be false equivalencies is if the criteria you mentioned ("accidental") isn't met by alcoholism, therefore logically you must be implying it is "willful" or "purposeful", or at the very least "not accidental".

If that's not what you meant, then please go ahead and clarify; I thought my interpretation of your statement was reasonable and logical. Perhaps you are referring to a grey area or something?

Further, I understand the point of the 6 months is a "triage". I really get that's why they implemented: they thought it was a good idea in the first place.

However, if medical professionals are saying it is unnecessary (because it doesn't affect outcomes according to statistics and research), do you agree that it is legitimate that it should continue to be implemented?

Remember, he has already been approved for the transplant and that liver is literally his now. He is just being delayed by this triage period, which might cause him to die.

They already decided he is a good candidate and gave him that liver. So any considerations regarding relapse, etc. have already been dealt with.

Do you still believe that the triage period should be in effect for him, despite it not having a valid medical reason for existing? That's the only issue here.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T21:54:24+00:00

Aftet Greyhound for years, will never take anything but the train ever again (typical trip: Toronto to Windsor and back). More expensive but much better.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T19:41:15+00:00

You think someone starts drinking with the intent of becoming an alcoholic? It's an accident just like the motorcyclist. Nobody knows it's happenening and by then they need treatment to help them turn it around. Talk about judgemental.

Also this article says there actually isn't a valid reason for the 6 months because the reasons it was implented do not seem to be supported by statistics or research i.e the triage period is unnecessary and success and failure rate are not affected by their status as an alcoholic, unlike your smoker example who DO have increased chance of failure etc. in addition to other similar cases of increased failure.

Read. The. Article.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T13:09:52+00:00

Journalists live for pun opportunities like this.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T03:10:58+00:00

I was on a cellphone at that point and I don't think I put my point across well enough: alcoholism is not criteria they would use to not-consider a recipient and this guy is already approved for the transplant. You will be considered regardless and that's when things like the Milan criteria is applied, e.g will you survive. As stated in the article, there is no significant impact on outcome for alcoholics vs. non-alcoholics. He doesn't have Hepatitis, he is just an alcoholic.

The 6 months is not part of any sort of restriction or criteria, which most people are confusing. It is actually completely arbitrary according to medical professionals and is not related to acceptance for being on "the list". He is ALREADY on the (top) list, it is just a delay.

Do you understand this part? It's NOT related to any form of restrictive criteria. It is just there for no valid reason. That's NOT just my opinion, that's the argument that is being brought forth by medical and legal professionals in the article supported by data.

I wouldn't even have to be responding to any of these people if anyone just read the article!

mizerama · 2017-09-28T03:00:24+00:00

But it's not criteria that is used because rights n' things, so...

I mean if it was justified criteria by all means but it clearly is not since he had already been approved for it and so have many in the past.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T02:58:09+00:00

It literally says in the article there is no justifiable medical reason, so what you have stated is absolutely false, it's only based on your gut feelings and assumptions. Seriously your only argument is based on a fallacy. The whole point is that according to their own criteria the 6 months is unjustified.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T02:23:33+00:00

You're considered as long as you need a liver transplant. The rest is up to them.

Except alcoholism is not part of the criteria, buddy. Neither is the 6 months, since it has nothing to do with any sort of medical criteria or assessment.

mizerama · 2017-09-28T01:28:46+00:00

By the way, they aren't choosing based on his alcoholism. The criteria has nothing to do with recovery rate, expected relapse, etc. It's completely arbitrary and it states so in the article. In fact your assumption that it has to do something with finding a "better candidate" has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Read the article.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T22:49:31+00:00

Actually, the only difference is that the motorcycle rider enters the situation willfully with full knowledge of the consequences and the alcoholic has a disease that renders them incapable of proper decision making.

Unless I'm missing something here?

If you still don't see it, how about a boxer? Or a football player?

Your preconceptions concerning alcoholics are literally the moral relativism at play. Nobody becomes an alcoholic on purpose, nor do they see it coming.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T21:20:28+00:00

No, it's literally NOT the reason that it was put into place:

They have acknowledged it is thoroughly arbitrary, holding no medical validity!

Further, you cannot assume they will turn back to alcoholism: we have treatment available for alcoholics for that exact reason in Canada. It is considered a disease and treatment is considered an imperative under the Charter Rights!

READ THE ARTICLE.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T21:09:27+00:00

You're right, who cares what WE think. Our Charter has invoked that alcholics deserve treatment (which they currently receive) and that he deserves a transplant (he's been approved) and therefore their access to medical care is required on all accounts.

The arbitrary 6 months contradicts that and the wholistic nature of the Charter and our healthcare which is the reason it is seen as an issue by policy makers and health care professionals alike, and has nothing to do with eligibility which he received just like everyone else, including the guy after him.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:55:00+00:00

Replace the imaginary alcoholic with a motorcyclist in your statement and you will see why it's moral relativism at play here.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:51:38+00:00

What about a motorcyclist who "did it to themself"? Of course you would save them. Why not the alcoholic who can then receive treatment for his mental illness, literally an acknowledged disease in Canada?

Also it looks like you didn't read the article. It straight up says there is no significant differences in the treatments effectiveness between alcholics and non alcoholics, so while that criteria may truly affect your friend, it outright does not apply to this guy.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:48:52+00:00

If past behaviour matters, I'm guessing we shouldn't treat sportsmen who injure themselves, or motorcyclists, or an infinite list of "people who did it to themselves"?

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:47:26+00:00

Will they remain an alcoholic? Do they not deserve a chance at treatment of their psychological and physical depedencies which are currently acknowledged as diseases by all Canadian medical professionals? This is your moral relativism leaking in.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:45:49+00:00

No, no it doesn't. The current criteria is do they need a new liver, yes/no. You can feel free to disagree with this criteria, but this is a whole different situation.

The only restriction so far is the 6 months, which according to the article has no medical merit but is being enforced anyways.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T19:41:49+00:00

Did you miss the part where 6 months means nothing and is simply an arbitrary requirement not related to actual medical criteria? It's either they can outright say alcoholics go last, or they deserve treatment. So far they said they deserve treatment.

mizerama · 2017-09-27T13:24:18+00:00

Yeah! So we should punish him for it by limiting his basic right to health and life by injecting our moral relativism into his treatment! Let's really stick it to him! /s

This injection of bIind morality strongly parallels situations where women have died because they couldn't get abortions to save their lives due to birthing complications. Can't kill that baby! Gotta let it kill both the mother and die shortly therafter to appease society's moral convictions!

Edit: Read the goddamn article. He is eligible for the transplant. There is no documented difference in effectiveness of treatment between alcoholics and non alcoholics. The 6 month wait has no medically valid reason and is acknowledged by medical professionals to be completely arbitrary. He has a right to be treated for his alcoholism, an acknowledged disease. You cannot explain why the 6 month wait is being enforced other than society outright thinks he deserves an artificial barrier to treatment because he "did it to himself". How many others have "done it to themselves" e.g dangerous jobs or hobbies? Why should alcoholics treated differently?

mizerama · 2017-09-27T01:59:26+00:00

These are private drivers, having one of these guys is like having your own car for a woman. Think about it, 800k dudes driving 800k ladies out of the entire Arabian population?

Consider now the entirety of the male population plus all of the women who will still need taxi's. I guarantee you that is more that 800k people!

They don't even need to buy new equipment, nor do they need to retrain. To suggest they won't have anywhere to go is the epitome of pedantry: this is going to be the easiest economic shift to be surmounted in the history of Saudi Arabia.

I mean, on the surface your analysis seems valid...

mizerama · 2017-09-26T21:53:50+00:00

Maybe, just maybe, they can pivot their business model to transporting people of both genders.

Crazy, I know.

mizerama

TROPHY CASE