Yeah not quite true. Asbestos was used in a lot of stuff, brakes for example. It was still mixed as a "semi-metallic" brake pad/shoes right up through to the late 90's as well as the industry(automotive and truck) were weaning off of using asbestos. Pretty much anyone who was an apprentice during those times(they'd be in their very early 30's to 40's now) has a chance for it, we already knew it was an issue though so the idea was to limit breathing the dust by hosing down the brakes, drums, pads, shoes, with water before you started hammering away with a hammer to pull it all apart. These days? You'll be lucky if your car brakes are anything but ceramic, it's only the cheaper models that don't use it. And semi-metallic pads don't contain any asbestos after the phase out. But let me tell ya, I've got the tools, brochures, promotional materials, toolboxes, and all the rest from the 60's,70's, 80's and 90's on the benefits of using "genuine asbestos brake pads" made by lots of companies. Probably the best known aftermarket was raybestos and they manufactured pads and shoes that were pure asbestos based right up until 1989, which means those shoes and pads were probably still in the market until 2001 or 2003.
Asbestos pads, tape, paste, wrap, and such were used still in the 90's as well in the collision industry too. Asbestos wrap was very popular with mechanics when you needed to heat up parts and hopefully avoid lighting the vehicle on fire, of course now the only real option you have is soaking shop rags in water and with luck that'll get you through whatever you're heating up. Also, lead used as a filler in body damage was used right up until the mid 1980's for anyone who's curious.
Hey let's bring back arsenic-treated lumber, trans fats and CFCs
What do you mean "bring back" all of those things still exist, and are in use to this day, hell mills pump out CCA lumber but the metric fucking shit ton. Remember all those studies that said CCA was bad, it'd kill ya, cause all sorts of problems and there was a mad rush to restrict and ban it? Yeah, and guess what? Nothing, not a damn thing to show that it actually caused problems in wildlife or even humans. What was the solution when CCA was being restricted, well shit we'll just SOAK IT IN OIL(creosote) far worse for the environment, especially since it leeches as it's broken down. Should note that in north america rail road ties are still creosote soaked because it's cheaper then concrete and survives the environmental swings and abuse better then say concrete ties. At least ACQ, you've only got to worry about introducing copper into the environment. Of course, this can lead to copper poisoning in lakes as they discovered, and occasionally copper poisoning in humans if the water source people use to drink is already high in copper.
Trans fats are still everywhere, and CFCs are used in nearly every industry in the world still. The difference is, there's regulations on how it can all be used. Hell asbestos is an amazing fire stop, highly non-conductive, and makes excellent insulation. The problem has to do with the fibers that come off of it when a wire is broken, pipes coated with it have it break off and so-on.
Before someone goes hur-dur-dur, ur and ididot. Yeah, look. I was apprenticing when asbestos was still used in truck and automotive brakes. I spent the better part of 8 years breathing the dust from it, chances of me developing something from it? Low. More likely the shit in automotive fluids(brakes, transmission, oil, gasoline) will be what kills me, providing the general hereditary diseases or old age don't get me first. But even at that, I still believe that we should be researching ways to make asbestos safer and use it, rather then letting it sit in the ground doing nothing while we spend twice or four times the energy to make a synthetic that degrades three times as quickly.
Still not a whataboutism thing. Sadly this is the state of academic review these days, where people correlate information that's outside of their field of expertise and try to present it as fact.
Did you read the article? Did you notice how it said oxygen starvation? Notice the picture? Notice how far the river is out from the normal "width" of it? Notice all those rocks which would be in the shallows and add to oxygenation? So we have no rain, which lowers the river, we have dredging to deepen the river. This makes a slow moving river with low oxygenation now. Add in that fertilizer runoff has been a serious problem for decades, and fertilizer causes massive lower end booms in population which use oxygen like crazy, and suddenly you have fish dying.
Seriously, just think a little bit. The problem is far simpler then "temperatures causing it" and requires a far more complex solution because of what 400 years of what Germany has done to the rivers "flow" all on it's own. The easiest one would be adding chops to add oxygen to the river, which are similar to aquarium air pumps.
There is no whataboutism there. The fact that the link doesn't even scientifically show what the other poster claimed is where the bullshit is. It's taking other data, painting it together, and claiming it is proof. There were no readings, there was no long-term study, hell there wasn't even a short-term study. The entire thing boiled down to "temperature is the cause" and "ecosystem disruption" by painting the two together to paint a story and not even looking for an actual cause.
Problem: Their own data shows that fish species with low tolerances to higher temperatures aren't having drop-offs in their population. Further, F&W agencies show that populations are high or within norms, except in cases where other factors come into play. Those other factors? Mainly people doing stupid things, like some farmer dumping shit on the fields and failing to plow it under causing a toxic bloom high enough to kill, but not enough to be noticeable outside of lab tests. Or a parasitic population bloom, caused by a variety of other factors like "boom years" with high populations and spawned populations being eaten by other fish creating less diversity in the offspring - aka lower resistances.
Good example from right here in my own neck of the woods. We have a serious problem with lamprey eels in the great lakes killing fish. We also have a serious problem with them traveling further up river every year and causing serious problems with fish spawning, breeding, and habitat destruction due to the rot of the fish in the river. Lamprey's have an extremely low tolerance to high temperatures, but this causes no impact to them in the river ecosystems which means traps and lampricide are an absolute requirement, despite the impact that lampricide has on other fish populations. The absolute destruction they cause is unbelievable and they can wipe out the entire river population in an area then travel further up or downstream continuing it.
You're wrong. How well does that light work through with 90% humidity? Cause that's what living around the great lakes, and south-east US is like in the summer. It's down right tropical and always has been, the very rare cases are when the jetstream dips and pushes humid air away or levels it out through the mountains in KY and TN. It gets worse of course, because you also don't get any real wind during these cases and they can go on for over a month during the peak summer. We're at around 27 days between July and August with low wind, high humidity, high temperatures. In other words a normal southern ontario summer. In theory it should work well in the winter especially here(winters are either crisp and cold or snowy depending on when the lakes freeze - and them fully freezing over is very rare), problem is solar doesn't work too good when covered with 20cm+ of snow.
Please explain how any answer would change the fact that Trump style conservationism includes being fiscally conservative (at least, in regards to cutting lefty liberal things and getting rid of political opponents you don't like)
Also, nice Trump style calling any news source you don't like to being controlled by the evil "Reds" (even though you just gave a counter example of them being biased, but hey, it's also very Trump style to have no coherent argument)
Except that isn't Trump style conservatism. That *IS* conservatism. Protip from Ontario: It's called the Red Star by the majority of people in the province for a reason, and it's earned that reputation all on it's own over the last 30 years. I'll let you think on why.
Nice of you to be honest that you don't have a coherent argument. Again, very Trump style of you... Please explain how in a discussion on Ford as a politician, you're changing the subject to attack me as a person.
And the first falls into the second, where I didn't attack you. I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Another declaration by fiat. Look, you as a private citizen has the right to your opinion, but again, I was discussing Ford and the PCs, and you haven't said anything to refute the fact that they're just declaring UBI to not work, by fiat.
You mean the auditor general right? Or are you saying that her professional opinion is wrong?
No, why don't YOU explain why you keep trying to change the subjecting, asking me to to explain things which are irrelevant to what I was talking about?
No why don't you explain, I'm giving you the opportunity to counter my arguments So far the only response you've had is to flail your virtual arms around.
Have you missed what's been going on the last 10-18 years or so? Because universities are cutting out the "classical" components of their curriculum, everything from math, economics, philosophy, literature those last two are being painted as "white supremacy and colonialism" in the top tier western universities these days. Hell you can graduate from a top 50 university in the US today, and not have to take algebra, economics, or english, but have a required 10-30hr flavor of social justice course. Some universities you can't graduate without a minimum 10hr social justice course of some kind.
Seriously the points that people like Peterson and Weinstein have been making regards to this problem have been building for quite a while, and Peterson falls directly into the classical liberal camp and Weinstein falls into progressive-liberal. The latter of the two is more progressive then your average/.er.
Well, we do know that wearing a shirt designed by a woman doesn't mean you're not a sexist, so I get suspicious at your construction. You're asking people to make assumptions that are not falsifiable, while also claiming to possess some sort of knowledge or idea. That adds up to something suspicious, in my experience.
Is this your first experience to the "everything is sexist/misogyny/rape" mob rule that's been going on the last decade or so via social media, where even if you're a feminist female monster who's raped people the media will ignore it and paint the victim as the aggressor.
Their point is exactly this. It's sexist because "women" not because it was designed by a woman. But because it has women on it, the fact that it was designed as such means that she's an ignorant anti-feminist steeped in misogyny that believes that the proper place for a female is pregnant. And I sure wish I was making that up, instead of it being part and parcel of what's taught in higher education today, and parroted on feminist news/blogs/opinion sites.
So which part just painted you a bigot? The part where you went anti-egalitarian, or the part where you don't believe that there's serious issues with suicide support, parental issues, paternity, abuses by childrens aid groups, or of flagrant abuses in family courts where men see suicide as the only way out because they're financially ruined.
There is no contradiction between being a White Supremacist and being Japanese. That is just about the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard about race today, and I'm right here in this thread reading it.
True, they call themselves banana's in a non-pejorative. However, when people screech that "islam is a race" it's pretty easy to tell exactly what their definition of racism is. That's right beside the part where they start saying that blacks can't be racist, and racism against whites isn't racism.
Because your definition of the word "racist" doesn't match anyone else's except for the small, loud minority of right-idenifying internet posters who want to discredit the entire idea of racism.
Considering you've screeched in the past that "islam" is a race, that should narrow down the definition difference between you and me.
If you don't like what's happening at Yale, you could always get a degree from Oral Roberts.
At the rate of companies now ignoring graduates from universities, it's not going to matter. Before the current employment boom in the US there was already a large upswing in companies wanting to hire people "fresh from high school" or "high school only" not because of various shit reasons, but because they could be trained for the job far easier then someone with a chip on their shoulder the size of Pontiac, Michigan.
Have you taken a liberal arts/humanities class in the last 10-20 years, do you know someone who teaches one, or are you just parroting the anti-intellectual bullshit of the alt-Right?
Oh look, the bogyman of 'alt-right' again. Instead of actually thinking that there's a problem it's the repeat of "OMG LOOK ANTI-INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVE" that leftists pushed 20 years ago. Seriously, stop with the bullshit, and realize that there's a serious problem with these areas. You need examples? Go hit campus reform. Need more examples? Go hit FIRE Japan didn't gut the piss out of humanities and liberal arts for no reason. Evergreen college didn't have a massive drop in student enrollment for no reason. University of Missouri didn't have a massive drop in enrollment for no reason either. Wilfred-Laurier didn't have a drop for no reason. Along with a bunch of other universities, and in each case that drop, the fact that students transferred out in droves, should tell you something. And in each case, it was very specific.
But hey, whatever. The problem is obviously everyone else, not the batshit crazies that are driving people out. It's really the alt-right, conservatives, christians, republicans, or whatever bogyman you need this week. It's always someone else, it's always that next mythical enemy over the hill that's out to ruin the reputation of xyz thing.
Sure, and let's look. When was the last time Elon Musk was going out of his way to push his ideology on everyone, and then stating that if you don't follow it you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/fascist/nazi/. When was the last time that Tim Cook used his position to turn around and shutdown free speech? But we can see the organized events from university professors, to shut down a group of MRA's who are gathered to talk about the inequality in family law. Pulling fire alarms, making fake police calls, and other shitty behavior. We can see the students being given extra credits for a course if they protest a speaker who doesn't hold the same views, to the point where the police cancel the event for fear that the protestors will turn violent.
Frankly, people SHOULD have the right to protest against wrong or abhorrent views. The Earth is NOT flat. Global warming is a real thing. Treating fellow humans badly because of the color of their skin or their country of birth is abhorrent. Deal with it.
Well I'd agree with that, more or less. So why aren't you up in arms when someone points out the number of educators in the humanities and liberal arts and/or leftwing elitists, and so-on who hold racist views? Or indoctrinate students into these views? I mean the NYT just finished hiring a devout anti-white racist for example, who has a track record of literal years of being such. Then there's the educators in the universities(of all flavors, but predominantly liberal colleges, but in nearly all universities) who push sexism against men, and racism against anyone who isn't black.
And why is it that when average people call this absolute bullshit out, that the response from the left is to circle the wagons and screech that "the accusers are sexist/racist/fascist/etc/etc/etc." Why is there a literal culture of fear against particular groups of racists, if we're agreeing that all racism is bad.
Perhaps when you say "deal with it" you mean that the rules and laws should be applied equally? In which case, I'm sure you'd agree with me that the little snot rag that the NYT hired should be canned. After all, they canned another reporter for having vocal disagreements with a white supremacist.
In before the anti-intellectual comments about "snowflakes" and "gender theory majors" commence.
No need. The anti-intellectuals in those majors have already done a bang-up job of showing why they need to have funding cut. Bret Weinstein explains it very well, Jordan Peterson shows a great example of those students who trash private property to stop views from being expressed. And Melissa Click is an exemplar of that egotism wrapped in a bubble of anti-intellectualism, that supports and teaches students to shutdown view points that are contrary to the groupthink. Being a victim is profitable, pretending you're outraged is currency.
But hey, believe whatever you want. Don't pretend that there's a swath of the humanities and liberal arts that have their heads shoves so far up their own asses that they sniff farts. Don't believe that this same elitism isn't a cancer that gets people fired from their jobs for making a joke based on personal experience(Sir Tim Hunt) and then drives them from their own country. Or creates a climate of intimidation and fear over wearing the "wrong kind of shirt" like with Matt Taylor.
Well people could make the need for ads to go away by starting to pay for content, lessening the need for "bullshit".
Here's the thing, most people don't mind ads to pay for content. What they do mind, is the bullshit. The first round of bullshit with the flashy, always on-sound, unable to turn off, jumps around the screen bullshit. By second bullshit, I mean the ads that install malware, virii, trojans, highjack your connection, are cryptominers, install cryptolockers and all the rest of the bullshit.
If companies vetted their fucking ads, this wouldn't be a problem. And every time some site says, we don't need to 'we trust our ad-front end' we see a few weeks down the road it was serving malware. Or the "it would cost too much" yeah and how much does it cost you when people leave because you just nuked 10 years worth of their stuff because of a cryptolocker? Or the complaints of "ads don't pay enough" but the site is right at the forefront of making sure that they're gutting the piss out of their own revenue by engaging in actions that drive advertisers away?
And yet all you're going to get is "Trump is doing great. Hillary would have been worse" no matter how improved their conversation skills are. That doesn't make for an interesting conversation.
To be fair, that's an accurate statement. Especially since she wanted to shoot russians in syria, because they were in syria. And her previous brilliant plan was to reneg on an agreement with Qaddafi, and destabilize most of northern africa. Which of course has now led to the open-air slave markets, and NGO's acting as criminal organizations that go fishing for illegals to bring to Europe. Try to remember that many of those NGO's also directly coordinate with the smugglers to boot.
MPAC determines the property taxes in the cases like this. A $1m house is "less" then a house in Toronto, then London. But according to the entity itself, property taxes are to be determined on market value and the "upgrades of the building itself." Remember that there's a big swing in Toronto determining a $1m house too. If you're a block off the danforth, a 600sqft house could be $1.4m, but if you're in a northern area a 2500sqft house can also be $1.4m but the property taxes remain the same.
As for the difficulty of political representation - it certainly is a tough problem to solve . If half you population is concentrated in one region, there is some logic in putting a whole lot of your resources and services in that region, but then again it is important to give everyone else reasonable access to all those services too. Putting the province's only cancer hospital up in Kenora wouldn't make much sense, but having all of the "only one in the province" services in Toronto doesn't make much sense either.
Equal access to help is really a big issue in this, if you live outside of Toronto(and in Southern Ontario) a lot of people commute a very long way for specialists. I travel 300km round trip to see my neurologist(chronic migraines), every few months. Sadly the problems become more obvious, the more you look at what's happened over the last 15 years. Money for core and important infrastructure never happened. It was more important to say blow millions on electric car charging stations then repairing collapsing bridges that span the 401.
Toronto offsets property taxes, because the provincial government gives them the different out of the general revenue funds. That means if you live in a normal burb of Toronto, your property taxes might be say $5400/year on a $1m/house. While the same house in London, Ontario would cost you $9k-10k/year in property taxes. Ontario has always been a bit...weird. 25 years ago, a single county in Ontario generated 10% of the GDP of the province. It was manufacturing heavy, paying work was good, good benefits, and so on too. With the collapse of industry from NAFTA though it makes barely 2% now.
I suspect that splitting the province would see an increase in people employed by the two new provinces compared to the one old province...
That would really depend. Toronto is already classified as a municipality, or simply put a "city state" within Ontario, like Kitchener-Waterloo, London and Woodstock/Oxford County. In those cases, they have their own administrative structure separate from the government already to handle all the day-to-day affairs. Most of the stuff already exists in Toronto's case because a bunch of years ago, the provincial government offloaded everything directly onto the various regions. That means that taxes are supposed to "stay" in the region, it doesn't happen in Toronto's case, they're the odd one out and get more out of the new reorganization then anyone else did.
The real reason why people would want the Toronto area separated from Ontario is because of voting, nothing more. With the number of MPP's(~50) you can basically win the entire province with a bit of leg work. You only need 63 to have a majority government. People see the entire situation as unfair because "what toronto wants, toronto gets" they want a new subway? Government throws money at them. They want special environmental thingy? Throw money at them. But if a municipality like Woodstock/Oxford County needs a new hospital? Nothing. It was federal grant money that the city/county got, nothing from the provincial government. And they'd been raising money to build a new one since the late 1970's, finally built in 2011.
So dear AC, please explain why the Red Star(sorry I mean Toronto Star) has been advocating a reduction to city councilors for years to match the number of ridings in the city. I'll wait for your answer on this. Now, since we have video and audio of the NDP member mocking the PC MPP, do we hold the left to the same standards? Or are you perfectly okay with "it's okay when we do it." Yes, very Trump style.
That's some nice whataboutism there, comrade
That's some nice, I don't have a coherent argument.
That's also an apt description of Ford's move on canceling the UBI. It's just declared by fiat that this "isn't what Ontarians need"
Oh, so you're the one that's going to cough up the money? He's right though, it isn't what Ontario needs. We need less regulations, less taxes on businesses, and more industry. Why don't you explain how losing 300k+ high paying middle-income jobs in the last few years is "helping ontario" while the replacement jobs are bare minimum wage with no benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
HF's are rated to around 3000F, your proper cutting temperature for oxy-actyl is 6000-6350F.
Yeah not quite true. Asbestos was used in a lot of stuff, brakes for example. It was still mixed as a "semi-metallic" brake pad/shoes right up through to the late 90's as well as the industry(automotive and truck) were weaning off of using asbestos. Pretty much anyone who was an apprentice during those times(they'd be in their very early 30's to 40's now) has a chance for it, we already knew it was an issue though so the idea was to limit breathing the dust by hosing down the brakes, drums, pads, shoes, with water before you started hammering away with a hammer to pull it all apart. These days? You'll be lucky if your car brakes are anything but ceramic, it's only the cheaper models that don't use it. And semi-metallic pads don't contain any asbestos after the phase out. But let me tell ya, I've got the tools, brochures, promotional materials, toolboxes, and all the rest from the 60's,70's, 80's and 90's on the benefits of using "genuine asbestos brake pads" made by lots of companies. Probably the best known aftermarket was raybestos and they manufactured pads and shoes that were pure asbestos based right up until 1989, which means those shoes and pads were probably still in the market until 2001 or 2003.
Asbestos pads, tape, paste, wrap, and such were used still in the 90's as well in the collision industry too. Asbestos wrap was very popular with mechanics when you needed to heat up parts and hopefully avoid lighting the vehicle on fire, of course now the only real option you have is soaking shop rags in water and with luck that'll get you through whatever you're heating up. Also, lead used as a filler in body damage was used right up until the mid 1980's for anyone who's curious.
Hey let's bring back arsenic-treated lumber, trans fats and CFCs
What do you mean "bring back" all of those things still exist, and are in use to this day, hell mills pump out CCA lumber but the metric fucking shit ton. Remember all those studies that said CCA was bad, it'd kill ya, cause all sorts of problems and there was a mad rush to restrict and ban it? Yeah, and guess what? Nothing, not a damn thing to show that it actually caused problems in wildlife or even humans. What was the solution when CCA was being restricted, well shit we'll just SOAK IT IN OIL(creosote) far worse for the environment, especially since it leeches as it's broken down. Should note that in north america rail road ties are still creosote soaked because it's cheaper then concrete and survives the environmental swings and abuse better then say concrete ties. At least ACQ, you've only got to worry about introducing copper into the environment. Of course, this can lead to copper poisoning in lakes as they discovered, and occasionally copper poisoning in humans if the water source people use to drink is already high in copper.
Trans fats are still everywhere, and CFCs are used in nearly every industry in the world still. The difference is, there's regulations on how it can all be used. Hell asbestos is an amazing fire stop, highly non-conductive, and makes excellent insulation. The problem has to do with the fibers that come off of it when a wire is broken, pipes coated with it have it break off and so-on.
Before someone goes hur-dur-dur, ur and ididot. Yeah, look. I was apprenticing when asbestos was still used in truck and automotive brakes. I spent the better part of 8 years breathing the dust from it, chances of me developing something from it? Low. More likely the shit in automotive fluids(brakes, transmission, oil, gasoline) will be what kills me, providing the general hereditary diseases or old age don't get me first. But even at that, I still believe that we should be researching ways to make asbestos safer and use it, rather then letting it sit in the ground doing nothing while we spend twice or four times the energy to make a synthetic that degrades three times as quickly.
I really don't want mega corporations telling me whom I may and may not listen to.
At the rate they're going you won't notice what they don't want you to hear.
Still not a whataboutism thing. Sadly this is the state of academic review these days, where people correlate information that's outside of their field of expertise and try to present it as fact.
Did you read the article? Did you notice how it said oxygen starvation? Notice the picture? Notice how far the river is out from the normal "width" of it? Notice all those rocks which would be in the shallows and add to oxygenation? So we have no rain, which lowers the river, we have dredging to deepen the river. This makes a slow moving river with low oxygenation now. Add in that fertilizer runoff has been a serious problem for decades, and fertilizer causes massive lower end booms in population which use oxygen like crazy, and suddenly you have fish dying.
Seriously, just think a little bit. The problem is far simpler then "temperatures causing it" and requires a far more complex solution because of what 400 years of what Germany has done to the rivers "flow" all on it's own. The easiest one would be adding chops to add oxygen to the river, which are similar to aquarium air pumps.
There is no whataboutism there. The fact that the link doesn't even scientifically show what the other poster claimed is where the bullshit is. It's taking other data, painting it together, and claiming it is proof. There were no readings, there was no long-term study, hell there wasn't even a short-term study. The entire thing boiled down to "temperature is the cause" and "ecosystem disruption" by painting the two together to paint a story and not even looking for an actual cause.
Problem: Their own data shows that fish species with low tolerances to higher temperatures aren't having drop-offs in their population. Further, F&W agencies show that populations are high or within norms, except in cases where other factors come into play. Those other factors? Mainly people doing stupid things, like some farmer dumping shit on the fields and failing to plow it under causing a toxic bloom high enough to kill, but not enough to be noticeable outside of lab tests. Or a parasitic population bloom, caused by a variety of other factors like "boom years" with high populations and spawned populations being eaten by other fish creating less diversity in the offspring - aka lower resistances.
Good example from right here in my own neck of the woods. We have a serious problem with lamprey eels in the great lakes killing fish. We also have a serious problem with them traveling further up river every year and causing serious problems with fish spawning, breeding, and habitat destruction due to the rot of the fish in the river. Lamprey's have an extremely low tolerance to high temperatures, but this causes no impact to them in the river ecosystems which means traps and lampricide are an absolute requirement, despite the impact that lampricide has on other fish populations. The absolute destruction they cause is unbelievable and they can wipe out the entire river population in an area then travel further up or downstream continuing it.
You're wrong. How well does that light work through with 90% humidity? Cause that's what living around the great lakes, and south-east US is like in the summer. It's down right tropical and always has been, the very rare cases are when the jetstream dips and pushes humid air away or levels it out through the mountains in KY and TN. It gets worse of course, because you also don't get any real wind during these cases and they can go on for over a month during the peak summer. We're at around 27 days between July and August with low wind, high humidity, high temperatures. In other words a normal southern ontario summer. In theory it should work well in the winter especially here(winters are either crisp and cold or snowy depending on when the lakes freeze - and them fully freezing over is very rare), problem is solar doesn't work too good when covered with 20cm+ of snow.
Please explain how any answer would change the fact that Trump style conservationism includes being fiscally conservative (at least, in regards to cutting lefty liberal things and getting rid of political opponents you don't like)
Also, nice Trump style calling any news source you don't like to being controlled by the evil "Reds" (even though you just gave a counter example of them being biased, but hey, it's also very Trump style to have no coherent argument)
Except that isn't Trump style conservatism. That *IS* conservatism. Protip from Ontario: It's called the Red Star by the majority of people in the province for a reason, and it's earned that reputation all on it's own over the last 30 years. I'll let you think on why.
Nice of you to be honest that you don't have a coherent argument. Again, very Trump style of you ... Please explain how in a discussion on Ford as a politician, you're changing the subject to attack me as a person.
And the first falls into the second, where I didn't attack you. I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Another declaration by fiat. Look, you as a private citizen has the right to your opinion, but again, I was discussing Ford and the PCs, and you haven't said anything to refute the fact that they're just declaring UBI to not work, by fiat.
You mean the auditor general right? Or are you saying that her professional opinion is wrong?
No, why don't YOU explain why you keep trying to change the subjecting, asking me to to explain things which are irrelevant to what I was talking about?
No why don't you explain, I'm giving you the opportunity to counter my arguments So far the only response you've had is to flail your virtual arms around.
Have you missed what's been going on the last 10-18 years or so? Because universities are cutting out the "classical" components of their curriculum, everything from math, economics, philosophy, literature those last two are being painted as "white supremacy and colonialism" in the top tier western universities these days. Hell you can graduate from a top 50 university in the US today, and not have to take algebra, economics, or english, but have a required 10-30hr flavor of social justice course. Some universities you can't graduate without a minimum 10hr social justice course of some kind.
Seriously the points that people like Peterson and Weinstein have been making regards to this problem have been building for quite a while, and Peterson falls directly into the classical liberal camp and Weinstein falls into progressive-liberal. The latter of the two is more progressive then your average /.er.
Well, we do know that wearing a shirt designed by a woman doesn't mean you're not a sexist, so I get suspicious at your construction. You're asking people to make assumptions that are not falsifiable, while also claiming to possess some sort of knowledge or idea. That adds up to something suspicious, in my experience.
Is this your first experience to the "everything is sexist/misogyny/rape" mob rule that's been going on the last decade or so via social media, where even if you're a feminist female monster who's raped people the media will ignore it and paint the victim as the aggressor.
Their point is exactly this. It's sexist because "women" not because it was designed by a woman. But because it has women on it, the fact that it was designed as such means that she's an ignorant anti-feminist steeped in misogyny that believes that the proper place for a female is pregnant. And I sure wish I was making that up, instead of it being part and parcel of what's taught in higher education today, and parroted on feminist news/blogs/opinion sites.
So which part just painted you a bigot? The part where you went anti-egalitarian, or the part where you don't believe that there's serious issues with suicide support, parental issues, paternity, abuses by childrens aid groups, or of flagrant abuses in family courts where men see suicide as the only way out because they're financially ruined.
There is no contradiction between being a White Supremacist and being Japanese. That is just about the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard about race today, and I'm right here in this thread reading it.
True, they call themselves banana's in a non-pejorative. However, when people screech that "islam is a race" it's pretty easy to tell exactly what their definition of racism is. That's right beside the part where they start saying that blacks can't be racist, and racism against whites isn't racism.
Because your definition of the word "racist" doesn't match anyone else's except for the small, loud minority of right-idenifying internet posters who want to discredit the entire idea of racism.
Considering you've screeched in the past that "islam" is a race, that should narrow down the definition difference between you and me.
If you don't like what's happening at Yale, you could always get a degree from Oral Roberts.
At the rate of companies now ignoring graduates from universities, it's not going to matter. Before the current employment boom in the US there was already a large upswing in companies wanting to hire people "fresh from high school" or "high school only" not because of various shit reasons, but because they could be trained for the job far easier then someone with a chip on their shoulder the size of Pontiac, Michigan.
Have you taken a liberal arts/humanities class in the last 10-20 years, do you know someone who teaches one, or are you just parroting the anti-intellectual bullshit of the alt-Right?
Oh look, the bogyman of 'alt-right' again. Instead of actually thinking that there's a problem it's the repeat of "OMG LOOK ANTI-INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVE" that leftists pushed 20 years ago. Seriously, stop with the bullshit, and realize that there's a serious problem with these areas. You need examples? Go hit campus reform. Need more examples? Go hit FIRE Japan didn't gut the piss out of humanities and liberal arts for no reason. Evergreen college didn't have a massive drop in student enrollment for no reason. University of Missouri didn't have a massive drop in enrollment for no reason either. Wilfred-Laurier didn't have a drop for no reason. Along with a bunch of other universities, and in each case that drop, the fact that students transferred out in droves, should tell you something. And in each case, it was very specific.
But hey, whatever. The problem is obviously everyone else, not the batshit crazies that are driving people out. It's really the alt-right, conservatives, christians, republicans, or whatever bogyman you need this week. It's always someone else, it's always that next mythical enemy over the hill that's out to ruin the reputation of xyz thing.
I don't know about Tim Cook specifically, but please. The Apple Store does it all the time.
And we're talking about individuals, education, universities, and not the corporate environment at the moment.
Sure, and let's look. When was the last time Elon Musk was going out of his way to push his ideology on everyone, and then stating that if you don't follow it you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/fascist/nazi/. When was the last time that Tim Cook used his position to turn around and shutdown free speech? But we can see the organized events from university professors, to shut down a group of MRA's who are gathered to talk about the inequality in family law. Pulling fire alarms, making fake police calls, and other shitty behavior. We can see the students being given extra credits for a course if they protest a speaker who doesn't hold the same views, to the point where the police cancel the event for fear that the protestors will turn violent.
Frankly, people SHOULD have the right to protest against wrong or abhorrent views. The Earth is NOT flat. Global warming is a real thing. Treating fellow humans badly because of the color of their skin or their country of birth is abhorrent. Deal with it.
Well I'd agree with that, more or less. So why aren't you up in arms when someone points out the number of educators in the humanities and liberal arts and/or leftwing elitists, and so-on who hold racist views? Or indoctrinate students into these views? I mean the NYT just finished hiring a devout anti-white racist for example, who has a track record of literal years of being such. Then there's the educators in the universities(of all flavors, but predominantly liberal colleges, but in nearly all universities) who push sexism against men, and racism against anyone who isn't black.
And why is it that when average people call this absolute bullshit out, that the response from the left is to circle the wagons and screech that "the accusers are sexist/racist/fascist/etc/etc/etc." Why is there a literal culture of fear against particular groups of racists, if we're agreeing that all racism is bad.
Perhaps when you say "deal with it" you mean that the rules and laws should be applied equally? In which case, I'm sure you'd agree with me that the little snot rag that the NYT hired should be canned. After all, they canned another reporter for having vocal disagreements with a white supremacist.
In before the anti-intellectual comments about "snowflakes" and "gender theory majors" commence.
No need. The anti-intellectuals in those majors have already done a bang-up job of showing why they need to have funding cut. Bret Weinstein explains it very well, Jordan Peterson shows a great example of those students who trash private property to stop views from being expressed. And Melissa Click is an exemplar of that egotism wrapped in a bubble of anti-intellectualism, that supports and teaches students to shutdown view points that are contrary to the groupthink. Being a victim is profitable, pretending you're outraged is currency.
But hey, believe whatever you want. Don't pretend that there's a swath of the humanities and liberal arts that have their heads shoves so far up their own asses that they sniff farts. Don't believe that this same elitism isn't a cancer that gets people fired from their jobs for making a joke based on personal experience(Sir Tim Hunt) and then drives them from their own country. Or creates a climate of intimidation and fear over wearing the "wrong kind of shirt" like with Matt Taylor.
Well people could make the need for ads to go away by starting to pay for content, lessening the need for "bullshit".
Here's the thing, most people don't mind ads to pay for content. What they do mind, is the bullshit. The first round of bullshit with the flashy, always on-sound, unable to turn off, jumps around the screen bullshit. By second bullshit, I mean the ads that install malware, virii, trojans, highjack your connection, are cryptominers, install cryptolockers and all the rest of the bullshit.
If companies vetted their fucking ads, this wouldn't be a problem. And every time some site says, we don't need to 'we trust our ad-front end' we see a few weeks down the road it was serving malware. Or the "it would cost too much" yeah and how much does it cost you when people leave because you just nuked 10 years worth of their stuff because of a cryptolocker? Or the complaints of "ads don't pay enough" but the site is right at the forefront of making sure that they're gutting the piss out of their own revenue by engaging in actions that drive advertisers away?
And yet all you're going to get is "Trump is doing great. Hillary would have been worse" no matter how improved their conversation skills are. That doesn't make for an interesting conversation.
To be fair, that's an accurate statement. Especially since she wanted to shoot russians in syria, because they were in syria. And her previous brilliant plan was to reneg on an agreement with Qaddafi, and destabilize most of northern africa. Which of course has now led to the open-air slave markets, and NGO's acting as criminal organizations that go fishing for illegals to bring to Europe. Try to remember that many of those NGO's also directly coordinate with the smugglers to boot.
MPAC determines the property taxes in the cases like this. A $1m house is "less" then a house in Toronto, then London. But according to the entity itself, property taxes are to be determined on market value and the "upgrades of the building itself." Remember that there's a big swing in Toronto determining a $1m house too. If you're a block off the danforth, a 600sqft house could be $1.4m, but if you're in a northern area a 2500sqft house can also be $1.4m but the property taxes remain the same.
As for the difficulty of political representation - it certainly is a tough problem to solve . If half you population is concentrated in one region, there is some logic in putting a whole lot of your resources and services in that region, but then again it is important to give everyone else reasonable access to all those services too. Putting the province's only cancer hospital up in Kenora wouldn't make much sense, but having all of the "only one in the province" services in Toronto doesn't make much sense either.
Equal access to help is really a big issue in this, if you live outside of Toronto(and in Southern Ontario) a lot of people commute a very long way for specialists. I travel 300km round trip to see my neurologist(chronic migraines), every few months. Sadly the problems become more obvious, the more you look at what's happened over the last 15 years. Money for core and important infrastructure never happened. It was more important to say blow millions on electric car charging stations then repairing collapsing bridges that span the 401.
Toronto offsets property taxes, because the provincial government gives them the different out of the general revenue funds. That means if you live in a normal burb of Toronto, your property taxes might be say $5400/year on a $1m/house. While the same house in London, Ontario would cost you $9k-10k/year in property taxes. Ontario has always been a bit...weird. 25 years ago, a single county in Ontario generated 10% of the GDP of the province. It was manufacturing heavy, paying work was good, good benefits, and so on too. With the collapse of industry from NAFTA though it makes barely 2% now.
I suspect that splitting the province would see an increase in people employed by the two new provinces compared to the one old province ...
That would really depend. Toronto is already classified as a municipality, or simply put a "city state" within Ontario, like Kitchener-Waterloo, London and Woodstock/Oxford County. In those cases, they have their own administrative structure separate from the government already to handle all the day-to-day affairs. Most of the stuff already exists in Toronto's case because a bunch of years ago, the provincial government offloaded everything directly onto the various regions. That means that taxes are supposed to "stay" in the region, it doesn't happen in Toronto's case, they're the odd one out and get more out of the new reorganization then anyone else did.
The real reason why people would want the Toronto area separated from Ontario is because of voting, nothing more. With the number of MPP's(~50) you can basically win the entire province with a bit of leg work. You only need 63 to have a majority government. People see the entire situation as unfair because "what toronto wants, toronto gets" they want a new subway? Government throws money at them. They want special environmental thingy? Throw money at them. But if a municipality like Woodstock/Oxford County needs a new hospital? Nothing. It was federal grant money that the city/county got, nothing from the provincial government. And they'd been raising money to build a new one since the late 1970's, finally built in 2011.
So dear AC, please explain why the Red Star(sorry I mean Toronto Star) has been advocating a reduction to city councilors for years to match the number of ridings in the city. I'll wait for your answer on this. Now, since we have video and audio of the NDP member mocking the PC MPP, do we hold the left to the same standards? Or are you perfectly okay with "it's okay when we do it." Yes, very Trump style.
That's some nice whataboutism there, comrade
That's some nice, I don't have a coherent argument.
That's also an apt description of Ford's move on canceling the UBI. It's just declared by fiat that this "isn't what Ontarians need"
Oh, so you're the one that's going to cough up the money? He's right though, it isn't what Ontario needs. We need less regulations, less taxes on businesses, and more industry. Why don't you explain how losing 300k+ high paying middle-income jobs in the last few years is "helping ontario" while the replacement jobs are bare minimum wage with no benefits.
That was a good company, and the suppliers were also considered good. Both had a long term history of being good, as in over 20 years.