Michael Hardner

1. You think that scientific papers should be used to express OPINIONS of a political nature? That's a big change in how issues are discussed.

I don't know if you can call it inertia, given that they 've actively pursued a policy of drastic population increase.

Indeed they may publish, as they call, "Conceptual paper arguing for pragmatism in crisis public health policymaking.". I don't think it's the right place for it. So I stand by my point on that. And I assume you agree.

Whether or not it's a peer-reviewed source: 1. Single paper does not " destroy " anything, or Friis-Christensen would have destroyed climate change already in the 1990s. 2. It's not up to science to determine if something is a crisis. That's in the public sphere, because crisis is not an objective term.

Did Modi do this in the US or just Canada ? The limits are the political limits, which means they are very high. What kind of extrajudicial execution would actually evoke a strong political response ?

Indeed - Trump and Obama are culpable in these. The fact is we will not ever and can not ever know if they were justified.

Yes, the land that fetishizes individual rights... Who also somehow invented HOA and eminent domain... I don't understand it

I honestly don't remember

You have never defeated me because I didn't engage with you. You can't actually discuss anything because you're a culture warrior. It's like gum on my shoe. Seriously, please go.

Please leave the site.

So I went off to answer my own question, because as usual people on here would rather cat fight than discuss. And it's a lot easier to answer why books were banned as there's a process in place. I thought it was clear but the schools/boards wanted to be extra careful so they banned classics like 1984 in case someone saw them as too sexy. Now, they're dialing it back but it seems to be due to optics. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with the original guidelines but hopefully exempting Huxley, Atwood, Salinger will do the trick. The problem is that many parents thought that the books available were beyond the pale, and as with all things cultural... there had to be an unhappy arbitration to solve that. Liberals, take note: this is/was a government solution and it respects freedom of expression as well as parents' rights .

I think that the response to books we disagree with is to ask why they were approved.

1. 2. Agreed. 3. My Doctor diagnosed me with this. I was prescribed chair yoga, bubble tea and a male tampon.

"Redistribution of wealth" 🤔 Now where have I heard that before? Listen, I agree with a lot of the post, maybe most of it. But it did indeed constitute a boon for the economy. You can look at 100s of millions in impoverished countries that were elevated to a place where they couldn't have reached otherwise. What did happen was that the trickle down effect didn't work for manufacturing workers and others who had won middle class lifestyles in the early/mid 20th century. I'm also not sure whether I would draw a line between that group and Trump voters. Maybe we can, but the factory jobs were already long gone by 2016. I'm a lot more convinced that the economy gave him the victory in 2024.

"Narcissistic parents don't want children, they want pets." They don't want their children to develop their own opinions and ideas. I feel this phenomenon is more of an American thing. How many families broke apart over politics in the last 10 years?

That's because Canada supports traditional values, like freedom of expression.

1. I agree. 2. I don't think fake voters is much of a problem though. Any time the problem has been brought up here, the evidence is what they call 'mice nuts'.

Wait... what ? When was the last time he's been seen in public then ? I thought he did a press conference last week ?

I guess if we said Biden was too old back then we're off the hook though.

I can't wait for the backlash on this... old folks showing up at the polls to vote MAGA and being denied because they're using their Social Security cheque as ID... It's problematic all around....

Read ? Well-read ? Better read than dead ?

1. I didn't express any concern. I just outlined the differences in the legal case, from a state point of view. 2. Anytime I express an opinion, no matter how objective, you see red. Who is fighting again?

1. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-conclusion-the-visit-prime-minister-trudeau-canada 2. Your timelines might be off.

1. Are you talking about your personal experience? 2. Seems so. 3. How would you know? 😂 Anyway, interesting that the school banned it because, it seems, there would be arguments or disruption. Rather than protecting the rights of trans kids. That's where things sit in the US. Not like Canada.

The desire to fight is greater than the desire to discuss problems. The problem is that the public sphere was actually designed for the ladder outcome.