Renewables are now the cheapest form of electricity.
Let me lookee in Ontario. Hmm...that would be a nope. And it's only gotten worse in the last year since that article was published, and they've become more expensive.
Trying to pass blasphemy laws. When was the last time that the existing blasphemy law on the books enforced? Right. Do you know why? No? Let me help by pointing you to canlii.org. Now you realize that there is a difference between a blasphemy law, and blasphemy libel right. Now why don't you read m103 and tell everyone why it's already having a chilling effect on free speech and tell everyone why pundits, and the liberals in power have turned around and started using m103 to conflate religion and the criticism thereof as racism. I'll wait, because this is gonna be a good answer I'll bet.
"Hate speech" is a bullshit term used to mean "speech I find unsavory" and therefore should not hold any weight.
Hate speech is also used to silence people. So enjoy the slippery slop we're now seeing in Canada. The Liberal Party(federal) pushed M103 through. That motion directly pushed a "if you speak up against muslims/engage in islamophobia/etc" it's very very bad. 7mo later, those same people who said "it won't impact free speech" are now pushing blasphemy laws to protect islam from criticism in any form and using m103 as the basis of it.
There were multiple attempts by the conservative party to get it reworded to apply to all religions in the effort not to single out a single one. I still disagree with that fully, but I get the point they were trying to push. The liberals were all over the "poor old muslims, just look at what's happening!" Hell I've even read left-wing pundits screeching that just because the terrorist attack in edmonton was by a muslim, who was also in love with isis and wanted to kill westners. This shouldn't be mentioned at all because obviously it would hurt all those muslims feelings.
Obviously this is all just islamophobia or something.
"The government is listening to everything!" was a conspiracy theory until that exact point - when we got the evidence. It wasn't false.
Except that wasn't a conspiracy theory. 5-eyes, STASI, KGB all did that and it was well known back in the 1970's.
Conspiracy theories aren't the lack of evidence to make it true. A conspiracy theory is whether or not multiple people have conspired to make it happen "outside of the norm" of what's expected. Let's look at pizzagate which is a favorite of some people as a "but it's alll fake, all the way down". It's not that pedophilia doesn't happen(it does), it's not that there haven't been massive rings(there are), it's not that politicians have been caught in it(they have), it's not that media and entertainers haven't been caught in it(they have and do), it's not that police, prosecutors/crown and media have covered it up(it has and does happen), it's not that various symbols, code-words, phrases, etc aren't used(they are).
It was whether or not specific people lined up to do these things, and there were ties to particular people and places. That in itself is still questionable with the terms, phrases, and so on. Whether or not they were tied to particular places is doubtful, whether they're tied to particular people is possible. Whether or not it has happened by those particular people is unknown. In pizzagate's case, it's not a lack of evidence but a whole pile of very circumstantial evidence that fits other profiles. That's what makes people go "well wait a second..." You can look in the past and know that they have happened before, and there were massive coverups for things exactly along those lines in the past and terminology used then and now are similar.
If you need an example? Ol'Jimmy Savile is probably the best known, people screeched it was all a conspiracy theory. There was lots of circumstantial evidence going back 40 years in the public, and the media, police, and government bodies covered it up.
GM tried, something a lot of people don't know. Hell they were a head of the curve with where Tesla is now, and even tried it in their own warehouses. Didn't work in the 1980's, or 90's or 00's, and the latest round of tests ~3 years ago were complete cluserfucks too, caused more problems then what it was worth. The only reliable solution they ever found was including a guide wire implanted in the floor of the plant so the lift trucks knew where they were going. Even then, sometimes the trucks would simply drive off the wire for no particular reason. At least the design included a failsafe that if the guide wasn't detected it would stop.
But these numbers also result from the fact that most cancer drugs coming on the market are experimental and while the science might suggest a solution, it doesn't always pan out. Cancer is a difficult problem.
Spot on. Two of my grandparents died from cancer, one had bladder cancer with a 1yr survival rate and went for the interferon clinical trials. He was still alive nearly a decade later after that, it was a type of aggressive skin cancer that killed him though. Broke off, got into the blood, hit the bone and disintegrated his spine in a matter of weeks.
My grandmother had stage 4 lung cancer with a survival period of less then 3 months. They did a biopsy, and gave her the option of an experimental treatment that targeted that cancer or simply hitting it with concentrated radiation to slow it down. Either way with those two treatment options her survival time was still a year. She lived 14 months on 4 doses of the experimental drug. I'm sure that's also counted as "not increasing the life expectancy." But it also doesn't take into fact things like targeted radiation does more damage to surrounding tissue and so on. She didn't have problems swallowing/eating/chest pain and so on. In either case she was already walking dead and she knew it, but her being formally a RN and head nurse went with the experimental side, even if it might have killed her quicker.
That one should be obvious. Trump didn't rig the primary, and didn't turn around when caught give the person a very cushy job inside of their campaign did he.
I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?
She was very unlikable. Really what was her selling point? Female? That's all she really ran on, she pushed identity politics, political correctness, and other garbage that mainstream has already had enough of. Why do you think when Trump went politically incorrect then doubled down on it he soared with people. Oh and "literally grab you by the crotch" is a great example of a lie being told, and idiots repeating it.
Also, why do you have to LIKE your president? They're not going to be your friend or significant other. You're never going to even see them in person during their tenure. They just need to be effective, not likable, but effective at their job.
You don't. Though it makes them better at their job. So here's the question, you have a businessman who has a likeable face, is successful, seems to genuinely like "that rustbelt worker" vs the women who can't even figure out why she's down in the polls, pissed all over those workers who were struggling, and was a dismal and ineffective sec. of state who also pushed a lie that benghazi was because of a video. This isn't rocket surgery. And the doubling down of the left with more identity politics guarantees him a second term.
Hell ask yourself this question: What do the democrats even stand for? What did Clinton stand for? If you can't answer either one of those without resorting to a search engine you just got your answer as to why she was unlikable, unelectable, and unless they get their head out of their ass did a bang up job of killing off the democrats after Obama's run.
You can read Sandberg's emails in the podesta chain right here. You can read Zuckerburg coming right out to bat for Hillary and the DNC to boot, right here. You can try screeching over the source all you want, but those emails are cold hard facts. Facebook came right out to bat for her.
The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.
You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary? That even when Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton she still lost the debate? Nah, none of that is her fault we know that. She keeps screeching and saying so, it was all that Russia's fault. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been those pesky kids from 4chan and their cartoon frog.
The most hilarious thing was pepe. Even the hillary loving pundits in Canada went on and on about how stupid she was trying to make it into something.
Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.
No. You need to have resident status(or fall under one of the landed statues), or be a citizen in that province for a period of 6 months. Otherwise the province will simply bill the province that you're actually from.
BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.
The electronics tax is a VAT, so are the "green recycling" taxes on electronics. The fuel taxes also have a VAT and federal excise tax on them. The GST replaced the old "manufacturers tax" which was a defacto VAT and applied on everything.
The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.
If you worked in the US, you can claim the time you've worked in the US for your Canadian CPP contributions too.
They aren't here, that's the thing. Those prototypes still have people in them, they still run red lights, still hit people, still drive off the road. Take one into downtown Toronto and it would be in an accident in 8 seconds.
For now. Early adopters never see the highest ROI, but I'm more confident than you that these human truck drivers are endangered.
It has a negative ROI, just like electric trucks do. The problems that persist in driverless cars exist in those trucks too. My favorite case being the truck that got lost, the one that drove off the on-ramp, and the other one that got into on-coming traffic. They aren't even close to prime time deployment. Hell they can't even backup a trailer into a dock, shunt drivers still do that work.
They said we'd have flying cars when my grandfather was a kid, by the time he was an adult it hadn't happened. He was born in 1913. They also said that when my father was a kid. He was born in 1949. They said that when I was a kid too, that was ~40 years ago. And people have also been saying driverless cars, robots that will do everything and a life of ease that we'll never see.
Serfs might have worked harder, but they had a hell of a lot more leisure time then we do. I doubt we'll see driverless cars within the next 40 years. Hell even the trucking companies who've run trials with driverless trucks are finding that while the workers complain, they still got a better return. If we see a demand for driverless stuff it'll be there first, especially since there's a huge demand for drivers in north america and not many people wanting to do it.
There is a difference. If I binge eat I am mentally ill?
Likely yes, because there's other things that have likely triggered that behavior.
Homosexuality was once an illiness. Now a simple disorder
That's still a debated topic, especially the more so we dig into the understanding of our mind and how sexuality itself develops. I'll remind you about political lesbians and whatnot from the 1970's. So are you agreeing that if someone wants to cut off their arm because "it feels alien and not natural" it's not a mental illness? After all if someone "feels that not being *insert gender* isn't natural and alien" and they want to change it you're saying it's not a mental illness either. The two are in psychology linked after all.
No? Sure explains the TERF's then doesn't it. Better look those up if you don't know the term. Those women aren't out there punching people, but they're out there being psychologically abusive all the same. Boy's aren't taught to bully, boy's engage in bullying behavior because that's how most 'sort out' the pecking order. While girls do something similar it's almost always psychological. If you've never seen "mean girls" in action, you have no idea just how quickly that feminine virtue melts away in to a pile of demeaning personal attacks. And you know what? I'll bet that if I rattled off the most common psychological attacks that women engage in, you'll find nearly every one of those 'ladies' use them on a regular basis and find zero problems engaging in that abusive behavior either.
So let's roll with this: The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else. Will you now argue that someone who wants to cut off a part of their body to gain a disability doesn't have a mental illness? Is that not the very definition of a psychiatric problem?
Can you provide just one single example of a confirmed case of this happening?
You mean like the case of Thomas Lobel? Which started at the age of 3.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but actually most places do try to involve children in medical decisions even when they are that young, or younger. I wasn't much older than that when I had to sign medical consent forms for surgery, and refusal would have resulted in my death (or legal intervention).
Yeah and in most places, you can't consent until you hit the "mens rea" age. In most places that's the age of 12, a few places it's as low as 9. Even in places where it's under the age of 12, the courts routinely rule that the child is incapable of fundamentally understanding the situation before them.
You seem to be saying that cancer patients should get priority, and if that means diverting money from other treatments then so be it because cancer is life-threatening and represents a greater need.
And they should, and that's not happening.
However, no sane healthcare system works that way. I'm also going to have to ask for a citation that there is a line and transgender people at at the front of it.
Oh so naive. And if you think it's just in Canada, search in your own backyard and you'll find something similar.
the bigot speaks. even though no one really cares what drivel pours out of its mouth.
Don't worry, you wouldn't know actual bigotry if it tried to cut your head off. Or started screeching that they need those masks so they can beat you for holding an unpopular opinion.
Yes very progressive in the media and university establishment. And look at the government, so progressive in Europe. I mean just think how much shilling they go out for to protect islamists, covering up those rape gangs, burying their head in the sand over extremist imams. The same ones who'd turn around and kill that trans individuals or gays. And just look at that progressive media in the US, the ones not reporting on the mass murder by Emanuel Samson. You know the black guy, who's the equivalent of Dylan Roof and shot up that church full of whites. So progressive to cover up for the supremacist, I mean we really wouldn't want a "social outcry" like what happened when whitey shot up that black church.
It's kinda like feminism too. Which turns around and cozy's up with islamists and defends them so fiercely. The same islamists who'd turn around and demand that the "stupid whore should get that black bag on, and shut her mouth up." After all, those sharia courts that are running in the UK are also very progressive in many cases, per your own inquiry. They operate on the belief that women are eternal children. So progressive!
I seem to know nothing? Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine. You'll easily find those parents who're pushing their kids into it, show them off and "how proud they are" and so on. Not parents acting like a parent. Seems to me you know nothing on what's going on or that there's a push in this, that the media has made it into something trendy along with advocates of it.
That you can find news stories on those under-age kids not dressing up, not living their "correct gender." That those same kids who apparently "know they're the wrong gender" are legally unable to know the difference from right or wrong at the age of 10.
s it really so surprising that state healthcare covers well established medical conditions? Are you also outraged that it covers "non-essential" stuff like prosthetics for men who had testicular cancer? Or is it just that you think it's not a real condition, in which case why do you disagree with the majority of medical experts?
No, here's the thing. In our lovely socialized countries, a trans individual is being bumped to the top of the line for priority treatment while that person suffering from cancer is waiting a 1/3 of a year for treatment. They're also being bumped to the top of the line against that 40yr old worker with the torn out knee that's stopping them from going back to work and taking surgical time up in an already strained system. On top of that they're getting drug coverage, and covered by the state where the person who's on depression is paying out-of-pocket for their medication. Do you think any of that is reasonable, that a single person is granted preferential treatment vs more cases in a strained system?
You mean those same "majority of medical experts" that classify it as a mental illness which requires psychiatric treatment? Or the "experts" who turn around and claim that gender is whatever you're feeling like it is when you roll out of bed because that's also trendy?
Slashdot Mirror
Renewables are now the cheapest form of electricity.
Let me lookee in Ontario. Hmm...that would be a nope. And it's only gotten worse in the last year since that article was published, and they've become more expensive.
Too bad they don't have a plan to deal with sea level rise.
Don't let the Dutch know, their country might sink.
Trying to pass blasphemy laws. When was the last time that the existing blasphemy law on the books enforced? Right. Do you know why? No? Let me help by pointing you to canlii.org. Now you realize that there is a difference between a blasphemy law, and blasphemy libel right. Now why don't you read m103 and tell everyone why it's already having a chilling effect on free speech and tell everyone why pundits, and the liberals in power have turned around and started using m103 to conflate religion and the criticism thereof as racism. I'll wait, because this is gonna be a good answer I'll bet.
"Hate speech" is a bullshit term used to mean "speech I find unsavory" and therefore should not hold any weight.
Hate speech is also used to silence people. So enjoy the slippery slop we're now seeing in Canada. The Liberal Party(federal) pushed M103 through. That motion directly pushed a "if you speak up against muslims/engage in islamophobia/etc" it's very very bad. 7mo later, those same people who said "it won't impact free speech" are now pushing blasphemy laws to protect islam from criticism in any form and using m103 as the basis of it.
There were multiple attempts by the conservative party to get it reworded to apply to all religions in the effort not to single out a single one. I still disagree with that fully, but I get the point they were trying to push. The liberals were all over the "poor old muslims, just look at what's happening!" Hell I've even read left-wing pundits screeching that just because the terrorist attack in edmonton was by a muslim, who was also in love with isis and wanted to kill westners. This shouldn't be mentioned at all because obviously it would hurt all those muslims feelings.
Obviously this is all just islamophobia or something.
What VPN would you suggest, and how do you know they actually do what they say they do ... in writing?
PIA. They've also been tested in court as keeping no logs at all.
"The government is listening to everything!" was a conspiracy theory until that exact point - when we got the evidence. It wasn't false.
Except that wasn't a conspiracy theory. 5-eyes, STASI, KGB all did that and it was well known back in the 1970's.
Conspiracy theories aren't the lack of evidence to make it true. A conspiracy theory is whether or not multiple people have conspired to make it happen "outside of the norm" of what's expected. Let's look at pizzagate which is a favorite of some people as a "but it's alll fake, all the way down". It's not that pedophilia doesn't happen(it does), it's not that there haven't been massive rings(there are), it's not that politicians have been caught in it(they have), it's not that media and entertainers haven't been caught in it(they have and do), it's not that police, prosecutors/crown and media have covered it up(it has and does happen), it's not that various symbols, code-words, phrases, etc aren't used(they are).
It was whether or not specific people lined up to do these things, and there were ties to particular people and places. That in itself is still questionable with the terms, phrases, and so on. Whether or not they were tied to particular places is doubtful, whether they're tied to particular people is possible. Whether or not it has happened by those particular people is unknown. In pizzagate's case, it's not a lack of evidence but a whole pile of very circumstantial evidence that fits other profiles. That's what makes people go "well wait a second..." You can look in the past and know that they have happened before, and there were massive coverups for things exactly along those lines in the past and terminology used then and now are similar.
If you need an example? Ol'Jimmy Savile is probably the best known, people screeched it was all a conspiracy theory. There was lots of circumstantial evidence going back 40 years in the public, and the media, police, and government bodies covered it up.
Up next on CNN: Someone who was pointing out an inconvenient fact....and we've lost the feed.
GM tried, something a lot of people don't know. Hell they were a head of the curve with where Tesla is now, and even tried it in their own warehouses. Didn't work in the 1980's, or 90's or 00's, and the latest round of tests ~3 years ago were complete cluserfucks too, caused more problems then what it was worth. The only reliable solution they ever found was including a guide wire implanted in the floor of the plant so the lift trucks knew where they were going. Even then, sometimes the trucks would simply drive off the wire for no particular reason. At least the design included a failsafe that if the guide wasn't detected it would stop.
But these numbers also result from the fact that most cancer drugs coming on the market are experimental and while the science might suggest a solution, it doesn't always pan out. Cancer is a difficult problem.
Spot on. Two of my grandparents died from cancer, one had bladder cancer with a 1yr survival rate and went for the interferon clinical trials. He was still alive nearly a decade later after that, it was a type of aggressive skin cancer that killed him though. Broke off, got into the blood, hit the bone and disintegrated his spine in a matter of weeks.
My grandmother had stage 4 lung cancer with a survival period of less then 3 months. They did a biopsy, and gave her the option of an experimental treatment that targeted that cancer or simply hitting it with concentrated radiation to slow it down. Either way with those two treatment options her survival time was still a year. She lived 14 months on 4 doses of the experimental drug. I'm sure that's also counted as "not increasing the life expectancy." But it also doesn't take into fact things like targeted radiation does more damage to surrounding tissue and so on. She didn't have problems swallowing/eating/chest pain and so on. In either case she was already walking dead and she knew it, but her being formally a RN and head nurse went with the experimental side, even if it might have killed her quicker.
Wait, are you talking about Clinton or Trump?!?!
That one should be obvious. Trump didn't rig the primary, and didn't turn around when caught give the person a very cushy job inside of their campaign did he.
I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?
She was very unlikable. Really what was her selling point? Female? That's all she really ran on, she pushed identity politics, political correctness, and other garbage that mainstream has already had enough of. Why do you think when Trump went politically incorrect then doubled down on it he soared with people. Oh and "literally grab you by the crotch" is a great example of a lie being told, and idiots repeating it.
Also, why do you have to LIKE your president? They're not going to be your friend or significant other. You're never going to even see them in person during their tenure. They just need to be effective, not likable, but effective at their job.
You don't. Though it makes them better at their job. So here's the question, you have a businessman who has a likeable face, is successful, seems to genuinely like "that rustbelt worker" vs the women who can't even figure out why she's down in the polls, pissed all over those workers who were struggling, and was a dismal and ineffective sec. of state who also pushed a lie that benghazi was because of a video. This isn't rocket surgery. And the doubling down of the left with more identity politics guarantees him a second term.
Hell ask yourself this question: What do the democrats even stand for? What did Clinton stand for? If you can't answer either one of those without resorting to a search engine you just got your answer as to why she was unlikable, unelectable, and unless they get their head out of their ass did a bang up job of killing off the democrats after Obama's run.
Thing is...those emails are all real.
You can read Sandberg's emails in the podesta chain right here. You can read Zuckerburg coming right out to bat for Hillary and the DNC to boot, right here. You can try screeching over the source all you want, but those emails are cold hard facts. Facebook came right out to bat for her.
The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.
You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary? That even when Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton she still lost the debate? Nah, none of that is her fault we know that. She keeps screeching and saying so, it was all that Russia's fault. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been those pesky kids from 4chan and their cartoon frog.
The most hilarious thing was pepe. Even the hillary loving pundits in Canada went on and on about how stupid she was trying to make it into something.
Don't quote me, but my recollection is that if you are resident in Canada for 6 months or more, then yes, you are eligible for government health insurance in the province you reside.
No. You need to have resident status(or fall under one of the landed statues), or be a citizen in that province for a period of 6 months. Otherwise the province will simply bill the province that you're actually from.
BTW, there is no such thing as Canadian VAT. Yes there are PST and GST, but no VAT.
The electronics tax is a VAT, so are the "green recycling" taxes on electronics. The fuel taxes also have a VAT and federal excise tax on them. The GST replaced the old "manufacturers tax" which was a defacto VAT and applied on everything.
The Canadian equivalent is the CPP (QPP in Quebec) and yes, you can get either if you worked in Canada and are vested, regardless of citizenship or subsequent residency.
If you worked in the US, you can claim the time you've worked in the US for your Canadian CPP contributions too.
I don't get it. Driverless cars are HERE.
They aren't here, that's the thing. Those prototypes still have people in them, they still run red lights, still hit people, still drive off the road. Take one into downtown Toronto and it would be in an accident in 8 seconds.
For now. Early adopters never see the highest ROI, but I'm more confident than you that these human truck drivers are endangered.
It has a negative ROI, just like electric trucks do. The problems that persist in driverless cars exist in those trucks too. My favorite case being the truck that got lost, the one that drove off the on-ramp, and the other one that got into on-coming traffic. They aren't even close to prime time deployment. Hell they can't even backup a trailer into a dock, shunt drivers still do that work.
Another BT customer?
Nearly every big name ISP in Canada used them at one point. From Rogers to Telus, this is likely going to be very interesting.
They said we'd have flying cars when my grandfather was a kid, by the time he was an adult it hadn't happened. He was born in 1913. They also said that when my father was a kid. He was born in 1949. They said that when I was a kid too, that was ~40 years ago. And people have also been saying driverless cars, robots that will do everything and a life of ease that we'll never see.
Serfs might have worked harder, but they had a hell of a lot more leisure time then we do. I doubt we'll see driverless cars within the next 40 years. Hell even the trucking companies who've run trials with driverless trucks are finding that while the workers complain, they still got a better return. If we see a demand for driverless stuff it'll be there first, especially since there's a huge demand for drivers in north america and not many people wanting to do it.
bigots gonna bigot.
Retard gonna retard. Don't worry when current society passes you by, and you're left wondering what's happening.
There is a difference. If I binge eat I am mentally ill?
Likely yes, because there's other things that have likely triggered that behavior.
Homosexuality was once an illiness. Now a simple disorder
That's still a debated topic, especially the more so we dig into the understanding of our mind and how sexuality itself develops. I'll remind you about political lesbians and whatnot from the 1970's. So are you agreeing that if someone wants to cut off their arm because "it feels alien and not natural" it's not a mental illness? After all if someone "feels that not being *insert gender* isn't natural and alien" and they want to change it you're saying it's not a mental illness either. The two are in psychology linked after all.
No? Sure explains the TERF's then doesn't it. Better look those up if you don't know the term. Those women aren't out there punching people, but they're out there being psychologically abusive all the same. Boy's aren't taught to bully, boy's engage in bullying behavior because that's how most 'sort out' the pecking order. While girls do something similar it's almost always psychological. If you've never seen "mean girls" in action, you have no idea just how quickly that feminine virtue melts away in to a pile of demeaning personal attacks. And you know what? I'll bet that if I rattled off the most common psychological attacks that women engage in, you'll find nearly every one of those 'ladies' use them on a regular basis and find zero problems engaging in that abusive behavior either.
Don't try moving the goal posts, it only makes you look petty.
Yeah it really is a mental illness. Unless you want to argue that the entire branch of psychology is wrong.
So let's roll with this: The "conscious self" says one thing, the physical body is saying something else. Will you now argue that someone who wants to cut off a part of their body to gain a disability doesn't have a mental illness? Is that not the very definition of a psychiatric problem?
Can you provide just one single example of a confirmed case of this happening?
You mean like the case of Thomas Lobel? Which started at the age of 3.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but actually most places do try to involve children in medical decisions even when they are that young, or younger. I wasn't much older than that when I had to sign medical consent forms for surgery, and refusal would have resulted in my death (or legal intervention).
Yeah and in most places, you can't consent until you hit the "mens rea" age. In most places that's the age of 12, a few places it's as low as 9. Even in places where it's under the age of 12, the courts routinely rule that the child is incapable of fundamentally understanding the situation before them.
You seem to be saying that cancer patients should get priority, and if that means diverting money from other treatments then so be it because cancer is life-threatening and represents a greater need.
And they should, and that's not happening.
However, no sane healthcare system works that way. I'm also going to have to ask for a citation that there is a line and transgender people at at the front of it.
Oh so naive. And if you think it's just in Canada, search in your own backyard and you'll find something similar.
the bigot speaks.
even though no one really cares what drivel pours out of its mouth.
Don't worry, you wouldn't know actual bigotry if it tried to cut your head off. Or started screeching that they need those masks so they can beat you for holding an unpopular opinion.
Yes very progressive in the media and university establishment. And look at the government, so progressive in Europe. I mean just think how much shilling they go out for to protect islamists, covering up those rape gangs, burying their head in the sand over extremist imams. The same ones who'd turn around and kill that trans individuals or gays. And just look at that progressive media in the US, the ones not reporting on the mass murder by Emanuel Samson. You know the black guy, who's the equivalent of Dylan Roof and shot up that church full of whites. So progressive to cover up for the supremacist, I mean we really wouldn't want a "social outcry" like what happened when whitey shot up that black church.
It's kinda like feminism too. Which turns around and cozy's up with islamists and defends them so fiercely. The same islamists who'd turn around and demand that the "stupid whore should get that black bag on, and shut her mouth up." After all, those sharia courts that are running in the UK are also very progressive in many cases, per your own inquiry. They operate on the belief that women are eternal children. So progressive!
I seem to know nothing? Yet I can find plenty of examples of children under the age of 10 with parents pushing this on their kids as well. So can you, pick a search engine. You'll easily find those parents who're pushing their kids into it, show them off and "how proud they are" and so on. Not parents acting like a parent. Seems to me you know nothing on what's going on or that there's a push in this, that the media has made it into something trendy along with advocates of it.
That you can find news stories on those under-age kids not dressing up, not living their "correct gender." That those same kids who apparently "know they're the wrong gender" are legally unable to know the difference from right or wrong at the age of 10.
s it really so surprising that state healthcare covers well established medical conditions? Are you also outraged that it covers "non-essential" stuff like prosthetics for men who had testicular cancer? Or is it just that you think it's not a real condition, in which case why do you disagree with the majority of medical experts?
No, here's the thing. In our lovely socialized countries, a trans individual is being bumped to the top of the line for priority treatment while that person suffering from cancer is waiting a 1/3 of a year for treatment. They're also being bumped to the top of the line against that 40yr old worker with the torn out knee that's stopping them from going back to work and taking surgical time up in an already strained system. On top of that they're getting drug coverage, and covered by the state where the person who's on depression is paying out-of-pocket for their medication. Do you think any of that is reasonable, that a single person is granted preferential treatment vs more cases in a strained system?
You mean those same "majority of medical experts" that classify it as a mental illness which requires psychiatric treatment? Or the "experts" who turn around and claim that gender is whatever you're feeling like it is when you roll out of bed because that's also trendy?