Collapse related because when the rich tell the poor “the solution to inflation is tighten your belts” it means your country is fucked. Austerity, y’all.

  • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    7 months ago

    Forgoing chemotherapy on a dog is not killing it. You make decisions like that based on assessment of risk, quality of life, and unfortunately price. Regardless of what you choose, if your dog dies, it was killed by cancer.

    • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      You understand that we understand that right?

      That the problem here is that they’re using this as a handy tip for saving money in as casual a tone as ‘bring your lunch to work’.

      You get that right?

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes I do get that. The article is terrible but I don’t think you should conflate a complicated decision and animal murder just to make that point. I’m aware most people here know the difference between the two, but it bothered me so I pointed it put.

        • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s hyperbole for humour’s sake. You’ll see it often. Literally no one took it the way you did.

          • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well again, it bothered me so I pointed it out. I’ll agree it was probably unnecessary, but I’m really not sure why everyone seemed to dislike it so much.

            • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              You were condescendingly explaining something to people who already understood. That is typically poorly received.

              • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                All I did was explain something that most reasonable people probably already know. I did not write it in a condescending way. Maybe it seems condescending to you that I’m assuming you don’t already know that information. But, I’m not making any assumptions about you specifically. I’ve met plenty of people here that would genuinely have difficulty comprehending any possibility of not getting your dog chemotherapy. This isn’t a one on one conversation. If my comment isn’t of use to you, then move on. There’s no sense in having that kind of response just because I publicly explained something you personally didn’t need explained to you.

    • Ilflish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s not a strategy like the journal implies, that a decision you make when the time comes.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s not a strategy like the journal implies,

        Holy shit, why didn’t I think to tap into this ten grand I had set aside for Spike’s eventual chemotherapy?

    • Synnr@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Glad you commented because I read this as “forging chemotherapy on your dog” as in, commiting some kind of vet fraud. I was certainly surprised at that recommendation coming from Bloomberg.