I think the argument is that they don't provide that service.

[Some of] These organizations pre-date the legality of the services they are not offering.

I understand a person feeling that killing a person is at odds with their hippocratic oath. I understand a person feeling that killing a person in any situation is a sin.

I don't personally agree, but I see where they are coming from. Doctors shouldn't be obligated to kill patients.

That said: organizations don't have religious beliefs, people do. If there are doctors at these hospitals that are merciful and compassionate people that feel medical assistance in dying is appropriate for a patient, then they should be able to provide that service to the patient, regardless of which hospital they are in.

People shouldn't have to consider which hospital to go to to get appropriate care.

I have a buddy with adhd and he's also a musician.

He forgot he had to make a music video.

Not like he really ought to make one to market himself. He is contractually obligated to make a music video and he forgot.... well he forgot until it was just barely possible if everything went smoothly and he ran himself ragged.

For a person to be in the position depicted the word would have had to be "sa" which I don't believe is a word. But you can play words that aren't words in Scrabble as long as no one challenges you. But it's also an incredibly bad choice of a word, setting up an opponent for a triple like that.

Cartoonist is playing scrabble with a child confirmed.

There's one before that too:

Workers: well at least prices will go down in aggregate, so our dollars will be worth more due to deflation

Or stronger notions of what body types are compatible with the gender role they perceive.

Edited to clarify it's what they perceive as their gender role. Ie the sexist notion that "it's the duty of a husband to be strong, and the duty of a wife to be dainty"

Yeah I think the problem with the previous conservative leaders was that they tried to speak to conservative rationality. PP just goes for conservative emotionality.

Honestly I'd take it.

Shifts team to generative AI.

If your car development team can be transferred to AI developement you weren't building much of a car.

I'm not a law talking guy, this isn't the law, and it isn't ethical best practice but it might help people understand the reasonableness of the poster.

I believe it's true that drunk people can't consent. I think that what juries are likely to actually care about is the question:

Did the accused have the reasonable belief that the plaintiff would consent to sex while sober?

If you're in a police interview or a trial and are asked:

What made you think the plaintiff consented to your actions?

And all you can say without perjuring yourself is:

I vaguely recall that they seemed kinda into it, and they didn't say no, oh! and they didn't fight back.

You're going to have a bad time. ESPECIALLY if you've been drinking, because it will be easier to question the reasonableness of your belief in their consent.

This poster is clearly meant for a place similar to a university dormitory.

This poster is bad because: it makes the law seem lopsided, and perpetuates sexist ideas about gender and sex.

The poster is good because: unfortunately, too many men think that if a girl is drunk at a place where he thinks the girls are looking for drunk hookups, that she consents to whatever she doesn't fight (and maybe more). Too many men misunderstand consent and have dangerous ideas about what women really want. It's much better they be scared into over thinking whether they're risking arrest than that they rape somebody.

Obviously more nuance is good, but if you're trying to stop drunk 18 year olds from raping/being raped, taping up a poster like this in the stairwell is more effective than taping up an essay.

Hey I love this meme everytime I see it, but I want to point out that that point about growing up in "similar circumstances that nurture their skill' is contingent upon working musicians being able to afford to raise children. Children that will also need to work.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think there is a comparable proportion of the population that are working musicians, that earn enough money to support children, but not so much that the children don't have to learn a trade, as there were in "Enlightenment" Europe where if a person wanted to hear music they had to make it themselves, or pay someone to make it, and every rich asshole had a chamber orchestra following him around.

Also parents don't teach children their trades the way they used to, and they aren't expected to support their parent's businesses the way they used to. (I'm not lamenting this). There used to be a lot of pressure on children to contribute economically. Mozart, and his siblings probably faced what we'd consider child abuse if he didn't practice. He was certainly exploited.

Michael Jackson is a Mozart of the 20th century. He was put to work at a young age to support his parents and siblings, that were also working musicians.

As much as I love Weird Al (and I do) I don't think he was groomed and exploited the same way MJ/WM were. Kudos to his parents for that I guess.

Another way of thinking about it is betting your entire bankroll for 99.9....% certainty that you will win $1.

Say you go into the casino with $1000.

Bet:

$1 lose.
$3 lose.
$9 lose.
$27 lose.
$81 lose.
$243 lose.
$729 oh wait you can't bet that much, you only have $457 left. Dang, do you bet $457 or find another $272? 

Bet $457 and you win $914! Congrats you're now only down $86!
Or maybe you lost and are down $1000.

Or maybe you scrounged up $272 so you could keep playing
Bet 729 and lose. Now you're down $1272.
Or
Bet 729 and you win 1458. Pay back the $272 you borrowed from your buddy, you're still up $186. 
You just bet $729 dollars for a %50 chance of winning $186.

But what are the chances of getting 6 or 7 losses in a row? 1 in 64, or 128 respectively, actually worse because roulette wheels aren't 50/50, they're 18/19 (18 wins and 19 losses in 37 plays on average) or worse. So losing 6 times in a row will happen 1 in 54 plays, 7 losses is 1 in 106.

Google says roulette wheels spin 55 times per hour so with your strategy you will lose your bank roll in about one hour assuming your starting bet is 0.1% of your bank roll.

I seem to recall Diogenes replied:

Likewise: if I were not Diogenes I too would wish I were Diogenes

I mean it's all probably made up but what a guy.