TreeBeard

Did you need a new thread on the same topic?

You’re the one claiming there’s an issue with them…

Of course they do. You only hear about the massive projects where there are delays and court cases.

So do you have an example of a quick, small project by government that took too long?

I never said it was. But, when things are fast tracked, the environmental assessments are skipped over. That is clear. How would your engagement of the public look different, and take less time, than how it is currently done?

How do you determine which problems will get the “act fast and fail often” approach?

Would you prefer that projects are in court for years while indigenous people fight it, or that they get on side with a project early? If incorporating indigenous knowledge helps to avoid litigation and gets the project done sooner, why not?

You’re right. It’s not a surprise that fast tracking projects is detrimental to the environment. That’s what I said earlier. Glad we agree.

I linked to an article that you clearly didn’t bother looking at.

So you say…. But I am the only one to show a clear example of fast tracking being detrimental to the environment and not doing the proper assessments. That’s not an example; that’s an assertion.

Not a false choice at all. When projects are fast-tracked, the environmental assessments and mitigation are short-cut. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/07/05/provinces-special-orders-fast-tracking-development-swamp-toronto-area-conservation-authorities.html?rf “The conservation authorities say that given the expedited nature of minister’s zoning orders, or MZOs, the province is approving developments without a complete picture of their environmental impacts.”

Banning books. Outing LGBTQ children. I think it’s a fair warning by AOC. https://truthout.org/articles/aoc-slams-gop-for-banning-childrens-book-life-of-rosa-parks-for-being-woke/

Are you willing to risk the environment to “get things done” quickly? I’d rather they take the time to get it right and mitigate potential risk.

I didn’t ask you anything. But I wouldn’t take @August1991’s word for it if I were you.

I find it more shallow to suggest that this is the case without providing some evidence.

So who do you think saw the empty tomb first? If one gospel says Mary Magdalene and another gospel says something else, that’s a contradiction.

Nope. Both say they are Joseph’s genealogy. Joseph. Not Mary. It is plainly written in the bible. If it’s completely up to interpretation and Joseph’s father can mean father-in-law, then it is all up for interpretation and can mean anything to anyone. Now…. who was the first to see the empty tomb?

They BOTH say the father of Joseph, and give different fathers and genealogies. That is the dictionary definition of contradiction. But, you just said it was “obvious”. It’s a very simple explanation. They were written for different reasons and are telling a different story. Let’s move on…. Who was the first to see the empty tomb of Jesus?

They are different because they are different stories told for different reasons. No shame in that. But it certainly is a contradiction.

Again, show me in the bible where it says Heli is Mary’s father. Passage and verse please.

More contradictions. Who was the first to see the empty tomb of Jesus? Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1-2 Luke 23:55, 24:10

A made-up reading. Both claim to be Joseph’s genealogy. Or can you point to where it SAYS otherwise within the bible?

then slip ups are to be expected. When you’re pushing a century old, if you’re PM, I will forgive the odd slip of the tongue from you.

And left handedness is a trait you’re born with, like biological sex. Gender is a social construct.

isn’t he, like 92?