Boges

If, heaven forbid, they brought back mask mandates for public indoor places. I'd comply simply to not be "that guy". No one likes that guy. I don't think that'll ever happen because the absurdity of mask mandates without some sort of capacity limit or social distancing is pretty evident to most people. It wasn't the masks that brought down COVID infections during waves, it was the fact that governments closed everything! I don't think they'll ever go back to making children wear masks, that seemed rather cruel. I most certainly will never comply with government's telling people how many people can be in a person's home again. That did more damage than good. . . in hindsight of course.

I am pretty sure the land DoFo and Co. took from the Greenbelt were not going to high density real estate, which is something the province desperately needs.

Which states? And what charge?

The Eff is that? Too hard to post a link?

Per Capita, Canada's emissions are three times that of China. Higher than the US to. That's why we should be encouraged to reduce emissions. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ # Country CO2 Emissions per capita (tons) CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016) Population (2016) 1 China 7.44 10,432,751,400 1,401,889,681 2 United States 15.32 5,011,686,600 327,210,198 3 India 1.89 2,533,638,100 1,338,636,340 4 Russia 11.45 1,661,899,300 145,109,157 5 Japan 9.76 1,239,592,060 126,993,857 6 Germany 9.42 775,752,190 82,331,423 7 Canada 18.72 675,918,610 36,113,532 8 Iran 7.71 642,560,030 83,306,231

If you take a look at Twitter, there definitely seems to be a faction of people that still think COVID is an existential threat. It's amusing to see people that seem to think that wearing a mask in public is a form of public service and those that don't hate the disabled. But they're the fringe now. No one, even mainstream liberals, are talking about returning to COVID restrictions.

This thread is click bait.

This thread looks silly right now.

Follow-up. They are going ban Gambling advertising with celebrities. https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-banning-online-gambling-commercials-featuring-athletes-and-celebrities-1.6539223

No. But for Electricity generation they've mostly cut out coal and Natural Gas is a far cleaner fossil fuel. These countries also use lots of Nuclear and Hydro.

BRICS is G8 for the Fascist friendly?

Are you comparing discrimination like this to Peterson's pontifications? It's not a one-fits-all scenario. I did mention, however that religious institutions most certainly make someone's views and conduct contingent to employment. Should a religious institution be forced to employ someone who has beliefs contrary to their core values? I've seen churches fire married staff for affairs. Perhaps fat-shaming is not a core value of psychologists. This is not, in any way, comparable to what's happening to Peterson. But a business could have such a code of conduct. It's not illegal, AFIK.

I'm assuming this is the question you're asking. There's a difference between what people do outside of work and what people are willing to publish on social media. I would stand by a business not wanting to do business with someone based on what they put forward on Social Media, especially if that contravene's the companies core values.

So where's this panacea nation where people can say whatever they want and avoid repercussions? It certainly isn't the United States.

People get fired for their conduct on Social Media all the time.

Isn't that what's happening in Florida? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teachers-start-school-year-uncertainty-new-policies-take-effec-rcna99243

Calling into question the validity of the field doesn't mean Peterson must be accepted in a governing body of said field. I can call into question the validity and usefulness of plenty of religious studies. That doesn't mean that a person of faith may not find such things useful.

They didn't rule on the the nature of his conduct. They ruled that the regulating body has the right to dictate the conduct of its members. Again, I'll go back to the Religious example. Are religious institutions allowed to dictate the conduct of the people working for it and the opinions they make public? Or any workplace for that matter. Is it China North for a workplace to fire someone for hateful content online?

It could be both. The Hippocratic oath for Medical Doctors is a code of conduct, not a demonstration of medical knowledge. Lawyers can be disbarred for certain unprofessional conduct. I'm surprised this is a concept difficult for some to comprehend.

Yes, Peterson is being put in a camp and deprogrammed. ? Do you honestly believe the tripe you type?

Or a Social Media gas-bag. Which, I suspect is far more lucrative to Mr. Peterson than being a practicing Psychologist.

Why? both bodies are governed by subjective standards.

I'm sure he can still see "patients". He just can't say he's part of the professional body. Would it be an attack of Freedom of Speech if a Pastor that taught that Abortion isn't murder and Pre-marital sex isn't a sin was fired from a Church?

Are you restricted from hearing Peterson's opinions?

I'm OK with a governing body for a profession have subjective codes of conduct for those who can be part of that organization.