|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Bad street planning. Fallen-over buildings. Signs of fights everywhere, up to and including severed body parts. Enslaved smaller creatures. Severely mistreated enslaved smaller creatures. Corpses, sometimes gnawed on. Public punishments for appreciative crowds. Starvation because raiding is not a good strategy to feed a city. No lighting. Few if any shops and inns.
Possibly. It is also a good way to lose social contact you need, and has a tendency to make others react badly to you. It is not a common problem, but some find it a serious one.
Well, let's see. I read Amber, Lord of light, Eye of Cat, To die in Italbar, The dream master... probably something more. It isn't that the endings are particularly bad, it's more that they aren't really endings. I have just never felt any of his endings were spectacular. In several books, it feels like he just didn't resolve the storyline, one just simply stopped. But, as I said, all of them are worth reading despite this. That IS a pretty high mark for an author, I'd say. Lord of light ranks among my absolute favourite books.
Thing about Zelazny is that he's clinically unable to make a decent ending for his stories. I forgive him that because the trip there is so much fun. Also, it is always a good thing to remember who is telling the story. Seconded that the first five books outshine the second five. The absolute cream of the crop for me was #2, the Guns of Avalon.
Among the most disturbed of the groups is the scientologists. They provide their own health care, typically based on vitamins. In particular, they hate psychiatry and refuse to let their own have such care. In one case, a young woman with (IIRC) growing psychosis STARVED TO DEATH while they had her locked in. There are other examples.
If it gets down to decimeter precision, which I believe is quite possible today, the government could track everyone outdoors by simply connecting these data to face recognition surveillance camera data, to have a realtime map of where everyone is and has been at all times. This would work wonders to chart how oppositional politicians move, should that information be necessary or interesting.
It isn't odd that the rest of the union doesn't get to vote. That would make it a joke. The entire idea of independence is that a part of the group really doesn't want to stay with the others, so that is what should be allowed to decide. Another factor is that Scotland is doing this by the book, playing along. Refusing that isn't going to change their feelings - it's just going to make them stop doing it by the book.
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.
Among the better 2nd edition stuff you might want is:
Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, Demihuman Deities - the godbooks, stupendously informative books about all the Realms gods.
Fighters and Priests of the Realms, Wizards and Rogues of the Realms, Demihumans of the Realms - details the various classes in various areas.
The Volo's Guides - details what it's like to travel in various places in the central areas of the Realms with a focus on adventurer stuff.
Cloak and Dagger - details various secret societies and their doings during a period of a few years.
Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog - An equipment shopping book done in the style of early mail order catalogs.
Volo's Guide to All Things Magical - Details various non-standard ways to use magic, and details item creation and various artifacts.
Which supplements for what areas you want will depend largely on your campaign. For a cursory look, the different boxed campaign setting sets are a good deal.
Not at all. Diabetes is the faulty hormonal regulation of blood glucose levels, a disease that is lifelong. It is only in episodes of too low or too high blood sugar that the condition becomes acute, life threatening and the diabetic's mental faculties are affected. Sorry to come off as a pedant about it, but it is rather relevant to the discussion above.
I am curious what sort of new massive policy change you would expect from this piece at any rate. This story outlines failing of the system that are not likely to be changed by more laws and regulations. I think its more meant to educate people that the problem of sex slaves isn't a third world problem.
Various data storage laws, laws regulating who is responsible for what on the net, laws giving rights of supervision to what people do on the net, laws detailing what is prohibited to view... the list goes on and on. Thing is, new laws do not actually have to be effective for what they were claimed to do. If they make someone money, that is enough, and then it is better if they do not work. Then you can make more laws for the same problem and make more money.
Apart from the impropriety of pretending to quote someone when you aren't, you still have not given an answer to anything beyond the fact that you think I am paranoid.
When I see something that doesn't add up, whether it doesn't fit with other stuff I know, it contains people doing stuff nobody would do, or it contradicts itself, I know it's either a mistake or intentional. A highly designed article like this one obviously is does not make it reasonable that it's a mistake. So, if it is intentional, why? Well, somebody always does intentional stuff for a reason. You're welcome to show me otherwise, of course, but fact remains, this article reads like the backstory of a smut novella, misses a few very obvious points, and doesn't fit in with the rest of the site. If it's humour, it's pathetically bad. And of course... it is a safe story to publish, because there is no way to check it.
Oh, one more thing: It doesn't feel like something someone lived through because something is off with the passage of time in the story.
I agree with you that it's not poll-tested. If you want to publish a lie, you don't do polls about it first. Duh.
No. "Oh, I am not saying nobody is held against their will and forced into sex. It's just that the story, after reading it, struck the wrong chord with me." and "Again, I did not question the phenomenon, just the story in the 'investigative article'" are pretty clear, I think.
I am saying the story reads like a heavily designed argument to act against the phenomenon, thought up by a think tank, not something that really happened. If someone wants to pull my heartstrings, they should be decent enough to show me something real. This reeks of "how can we maximize the public reaction with her next situation?".
If someone used cracked.com for this, and get people to buy the veracity of the story, further arguments will come down the line, just in time for something the originators want. We'll see.
Again, I did not question the phenomenon, just the story in the "investigative article". And oh, I am sure it happens here too. That doesn't mean it's okay to make stuff up and call it real. And as I said, cracked.com seems to have had quite enough impact factor for a number of people here to take the story seriously.
Yeah, yeah. And not one of all those think tanks, lobby groups, institutes and whatnot... not a one among them would EVER invent a story for a specific purpose, would they? Of course not, that's just me being paranoid.
And of course, cracked.com is not a site that has any visitors anyway, right? Except, I note that it IS rather an odd fit with that story... and there are obviously some people who bought it wholesale.
Don't you get tired of yourself, thejeff?
Which is not answering my question. Thing is, while knowing about such paperwork would make things very simple, you don't have that information. All you have is someone in a very dire situation, and you have the cure at hand. As it stands, the person says he doesn't want it. It is very clear that he is not in a mental state where he even understands what he's saying no to.
Treat, or no treat?
Oh, I am not saying nobody is held against their will and forced into sex. It's just that the story, after reading it, struck the wrong chord with me. Going just by the headlines: It works through the internet, the authorities do not help... it sounds like they are building support for some new horrible law for sabotaging the internet. The story seems designed for maximum emotional impact, i.e. it's a female honors student, the only one who could have helped her died, her parents saw her only as an investment, the cops were in on it too... It's a perfect storm of s~&@, wouldn't you agree? And then when they run into the problem of "Well, if this is so utterly pervasive, so completely monstrous, and the people involved have exactly ZERO hope as it is - how the hell did she manage to tell us the story?", they solve it with a copout: The last guy who bought her for some serious amount of money just throws her out because he found her having sex with someone else.
Mark my words, someone wants something serious out of this article, and expect more in the months to come, leading up to some suggestion or other.
Investigative article? I wouldn't be surprised if this was really part of a push to get some new law into place in a while. Thing is, with this kind of articles, people get an exempt from every sort of standard of providing references and such.
Not saying it's not true, of course, and certainly not saying it isn't horrible if it is, just that anyone could have written that for any reason.
George, a well known diabetes sufferer who has several very bad blood sugar drops in his history and is on large doses of insulin but still doesn't have good stability, comes in to the hospital. He is not making sense when he talks, he was found shouting at people on the street, and he's very angry, but doesn't seem to be taking in information at all.
His blood test comes back, and his glucose levels are dangerously low.
What do you, as his emergency ward doctor, do?
a) Hit him with full treatment via injections and infusions, against his will, FAST?
Now, most of you would probably choose a. Why would the fact that another patient is suffering from severe depression instead change this equation, if it does?
Well, there used to be a discussion about endogenous (internally caused) and exogenous (externally caused) depression. The thinking was that this should show up in treatment studies. If there were different causes, and therefore different mechanisms of pathology, this should be clearly visible. To my knowledge, this difference didn't show up at all. Depression is depression, whatever originally might have caused it. When you break it down after the knowledge we have today, the only clear correlation is that it is rather common for the first episode of depression to follow some sort of crisis or stress. With the following such episodes, no such correlation has been found. In all likelihood, then, using the stress-vulnerability model, there is a large part of the population that can react with depression, and will do so more often when put through something bad enough. Typically, this happens in the teenage years. After this, they keep getting depressive episodes where no real triggering cause can be identified. Note that it is far from every case where you can find a likely trigger even the first time.
Another thing worth noting is that for each depressive episode you have had but did not get treatment for, the next episode becomes more likely, comes sooner, gets more severe, and gets harder to treat. Eventually, a certain situation called refractory depression happens (usually when the person is in his/her sixties), where depression is a constant, and more or less impossible to treat. We also know that depression causes loss of neuron dendrites (connections to other neurons), and that at least SSRI can reverse this degeneration to some degree.
If so, Freehold, anyone whose mental illness prevents them from accepting treatment is just f!*$ed. Is that reasonable? Is that what you want for them?
Sometimes you don't have the best option. Then what do you do?
The choice is between forcing people in extremely bad psychiatric condition to treatment which restores their functioning in a matter of weeks, or abandon them to suffer and die on their own.
Forced medication doesn't mean the patient isn't allowed to influence which drug, of course.
Severe depression, as I said, pretty much rules out talk therapy due to inefficiency. CBT has its place in therapy, but that isn't it.
People did recover from depression before antidepressants, of course. The natural (i.e. without treatment) course of a bout of depression is six to eighteen months until you no longer qualify for the diagnosis.
Ebola has a fair way to go before it reaches the Great Killer's numbers (tuberculosis). Cholera and malaria are also pretty massive. Tuberculosis is sort of understandable given the difficulty of treating it, but cholera is a sodding shame. All you need to handle it is clean water, some salt and some sugar.
Every medicine has side effects. The analysis is whether the effects outweigh the side effects. For different people, that comes out differently for different side effects.
Again, I did not say all depressed people were suicidal. I said severe depression. Repeat that as many times as you feel you need to remember it before responding.
Regarding the bad places of authoritarianism, they are the reason there is openness and legal oversight of the process. If that went away, I would agree with you.
Also, what Alex said.
That makes it compute, then. I was just thinking of how we spent two years going through MOST of Shackled City, even longer going through Age of Worms in its entirety... I would love to play Savage Tide as well, but the time investment is... frightening.
In 2010, a paper by Dr. John Reed and Dr. Richard Bentall found that ECT was only minimally more effective than a placebo during the treatment period, and that there was no difference in effect after the treatment period. In light of this finding, and the risk of side-effects, the authors concluded that the use of ECT "cannot be scientifically justified".
It is worth noting here, that this article bases its judgement on the principle that a study must conduct sham ECT treatments on a control group that you can then compare to real ECT, so you can check the treatment against placebo. It then notes, interestingly enough, that since real ECT gives headaches and short term confusion right after the treatment, a difference the patients notice very clearly, that it may be impossible to disguise this difference. What they then do not conclude is that sham ECT is useless as a placebo treatment - and that their own requirement of sham ECT as a placebo is pretty much completely useless. It would be a good thing if people who wrote articles actually read their own arguments first, no?
I wouldn't call this an insult, veiled or not, rather a quite accurate representation of reality. The ranks of the antipsychiatric movement are legion, and they have no compunctions about lying in their propaganda, by omission or outright. And since care for the severe psychiatric conditions is a field people feel better if they believe it could never happen to them, their lies find fertile soil in the minds of the public.