Good evening. Hope you're doing at least all right over there after the long day. =)

Your approach does make a lot of sense from the RPG perspective, definitely.

Went back to Geometry Dash here. It's another one that's going to bug me until I kill it.

How far are you along now?

Crawling through level 10 of 20 at the moment.

Hiya li'l Attack Brat.

Just another little hello before I make an effort at sleep. New bookshelves are being delivered tomorrow, so I'll have the fun of putting them together to look forward to. :) It actually will be quite exciting, as they're perfect for my records as well, which have been crowding up my computer room lately.
Seems I may have actually done some damage to my middle finger when I got it caught in the door a week or two ago (man, I suck with time... whenever that was... there was baseball, drinking and car doors! you know the night!) Still all colorful under the nail and swollen, and sensitive as all get-out. Pretty sure it's just blood backed up beneath the nail, but it seems like it's very, very slowly getting more swollen instead of less so. So weird that it waited a week or two to start being a bother. If I actually have to see a doctor about a finger, I'm going to feel like a moron. Oh, wait, got that covered already in spades. No worries then, I suppose. ;)

I've been playing The Witcher 3 again now that the final DLC is out, and it's reminded me just how huge the game really is. I did every side quest, witcher contract and treasure hunt I found, though I did skip some gwent and horse racing quests... but the map, holy crap... so many undiscovered spots on so many of the maps still... So though I was excited about the new expansion, I only got to starting it in earnest earlier today, as I've been too busy wrapping up old treasure hunts and just exploring around, uncovering some bandit camps and monster dens and such. There is so much crap packed into that game.

Also Dark Souls and Salt & Sanctuary, both of which are awesome, and both of which I'm not currently speaking with. It's a rocky relationship, I suppose you could say.

*big hugs and waves*

So I was joking around with the significant other about ways to take care of my allergies & pointed out that it's a reaction of the immune system & with out an immune system there would be no allergies.

So as a mental exercise, if no one is too offended (since serious subjects don't bother me), I thought it'd interesting to see what kind of arguments can be made for or against terminating the immune system as a result of one of Canada's new laws that states: "a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition” (irremediable means that the condition cannot be alleviated by means acceptable to the person)."

Basically do allergies qualify for assisted suicide following that one basic ruling from our supreme court?

Ehm...is it even medically possible to eliminate an immune system?
Besides, I'm pretty sure the diseases you'd be exposed to would cause much worse of a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" than the allergies would.

I'm saying the termination of life also terminates the immune system. :-)

Oh, my bad, I thought you meant the other way around. Like, destroy their immune system in order to kill them.
Considering that the condition isn't "irremediable" (it can be reduced through, albeit heavy, medication), I don't think it would qualify.

Ahh... but the ruling is "irremediable means that the condition cannot be alleviated by means acceptable to the person".
So the normal medication isn't working for me; I have two 24 hour reactines, 1 benadryl & some calamine on & the condition isn't alleviated; just reduced.
To me that means so far, from a certain point of view, it is irremediable since the condition persists.

Still not "irremediable" depending on just what it is you're allergic TO. If it's local plants or something, you could arguably just move to another country.

Court won't force someone to move to another country; I don't believe they even have that power if the person(s) in question is a citizen not convicted of a capital crime.
However since Canada has tundra that might be a decent argument against.
Now would you consider moving to a place where there's maybe a dozen houses, no internet, TV & supplies arrive only once a month an acceptable means? On the other hand most allergens would be removed; in summer time the places I'm aware of have minimal vegetation... few trees, some weeds, grass (which is actually a major allergen in my case).
an example of one of the more famous ones: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Resolute_Bay_1_1997-08-02.jpg

They can't force you to move, but it can be used as proof that the condition isn't "irremediable". Moving to a new country isn't too expensive, I imagine, since you could, in theory, move to an area where it's cheaper to live, it's just a bit of a headache.
The tundra? I was thinking more like a vacation resort. Bah.
Considering that internet and TV aren't technically necessities, it's possible. Would I personally want to do it? Well, no, but if it were the only available option for my survival, I'd do it. There was a time where people lived without these things (and still do, in some places). For me, I imagine that I could reasonably amuse myself with enough books, puzzles, and board games.

Decision HAS to be within the courts power to enforce or it's not legal hence outside the argument since anyone could solve the argument by taking suicide anyways (which is still illegal in Canada technically though untested in light of the new law).
The argument is for & against allowing the individual the court order that will allow them to seek their doctor's support in terminating their life.
So moving to another country is out because the court can't enforce it.
However I do believe our court could force you to move to a new town in another part of the country. To me the tundra would have the least allergens & probably raised as an argument.
My argument against that would be it would be a significant change in lifestyle to the point where termination might be a better result vs. wasting away with few to no friends in the area. (While I too would be fine with out the internet (being that I to read a lot & have a kobo & about 30 puzzles & 20 or so board games above my head & two chess boards in the other room.) Specifically I would not be able to find work in such a place, diet would change to something can't really tolerate (increase in fish, decrease in beef, more canned goods, no pop (I'm addicted) etc.... not kidding when I say a couple of these smaller towns literally get supplies once a month) & I'd have the ability to bike or walk anywhere removed from my lifestyle.

Ehm....suicide is illegal? How exactly do they punish you for that one? Fine your family? O_o

In that case, they'd probably tell you to move to a new city with fewer of the allergens that are bothering you, such as the tundra, which you mentioned.
It would be a lifestyle change, but arguably not an impossible one. It may be a more preferable result for you personally, but I'm not sure how it would be in the court's eyes.
Depending on the specific allergens that affect you, the tundra might not be the only option. There may very well be less-remote places. And I'm most certain that there are people in this places (possibly even people such as yourself).

Also, on an unrelated note, what's a kobo?