Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

1,710

Joined

2 yr. ago

No: Imo, this is up to the discretion and responsibility of the parents.

I'd biddy biddy bum.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was outlining an example where the outcome is favorable by all parties, but the principles used to arrive at the outcome differ. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be describing an outcome that wouldn't be favorable for all parties.

AntennaPod

I'd ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum.

Drugs.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

I think the implications here is that the reasons it gets legalized can have an impact on the specifics of the policy.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Just write a description in the main post and put the link in the reply. This just stops lazy linking.

I agree with Elon's sentiment in this (though sticking a link in a reply is kind've inelegant — imo, Lemmy would be better for this, as it has a separate title and body). This is something that bothers me on Lemmy; I'm not super fond of the practice of simply copy-pasting articles from news sites into posts; it feels very lazy and spammy. Lemmy is under no obligation to repeat the clickbait and misinformation that a news site may be compelled to use. When an article is shared, I think that it should, in general, be used as a source to back up a claim rather than the entire post itself. Posts should be human oriented rather than just an outlet for news spam.

In principle, I agree with removal of a VAT; though, I would want it to be removed permanently (or, at least, permanently exempting more goods, eg food and other necessities) rather than temporarily. I personally see little benefit to the citizen from a VAT. The only real positive, and it's really quite a low bar imo, is that it can help account for tax-loopholes ^[1].

The roll out of this announcement was very poorly done, imo. It seems that the federal government didn't consult with any of the premiers beforehand (many of whom are now complaining, and rightly so, imo, of lost revenues due to the HST) ^[2]. And it seems to be causing more of a headache to shop owners ^[3][4] which may offset any possible increase in profits over such a short period.

I disagree with the $250 payout. While I think that it will help some people in the short term, it is far from an actual solution, and only serves to increase Canada's national debt — this is likely also compounded by the fact that Canada is temporarily lowering its tax revenue.

Recently, my life feels like a blur, like I dont really remember what happened even in the past 2 weeks, and this has cause me some anxiety. […] How much of your life do you remember, like do you only remember major events in your life, or do you remember like what you have been doing for the past 2 weeks. […]

I experience the same sort of feelings. What I find helps me a little bit is to journal at the end of the night and document what I did during the day and what happened during the day. This helps me reflect and ground myself on what goes on around me. Instead of me just existing with events passively happening around me, it forces me to sort of anchor events to my life. Having this sort of stuff documented also allows me to reflect on it in the future.

It's really unclear, to me, what these tables are even saying. What's each column?

"Who cares! Get the goddamn show on the road!"

And parents are held responsible if they give it to kids

Imo, only if it can be proven that the parent is being willfully negligent regarding the safety the child.

Also, if a product that claimed to be safe, but actually wasn't, was purchased and given to the child, then this responsibility should fall on the producer only.

I’m not sure how one could fail to understand how an employer won’t do anything they’re not compelled to do by law (As evidenced by the very existence of OSHA, for one.) which would include good faith negotiation with a union.

As long as the market is competitive and the agents involved are well-informed. Things like OSHA come in to play when the second requirement fails; if it is not possible for a consumer to make a well-informed purchase, then there should be reasonable protections in place for that consumer to make up for the deficiency.

My point was concise and abundantly clear.

I wasn't asking for your opinion of the clarity of your own post. All that's important in this conversation is that your point wasn't clear to me. If one is interested in continuing a conversation in good faith, then they would want to make sure that all parties involved are accurately following what's being said.

Yes, but it shouldn’t be legalized for the wrong reasons.

This is kind of an interesting thought, imo. If one agrees with the resultant policy, does the rationale used to get there matter? Perhaps it does in principle, but I wonder if it matters in practice. The end result is the same.

All people who display both a Gadsden flag and pro-union decals are necessarily idiots […]

What's your rationale?

All people who display both a Gadsden flag and pro-union decals are necessarily idiots

So you aren't making a point about the Gadsden flag on its own?

Either you're not answering the question, or I am entirely misunderstanding this entire thread. You said:

I hate to say this but they’re tradesmen and not necessarily critical thinkers.

To me, this comes off as extremely condescending — it reads like you are saying that people who are tradesmen are incapable of complex thought (ie critical thinking). I'm simply asking for you to explicitly clarify that statement. If my reading is incorrect, then how would you word it to make it more clear? How you reword it might clarify your intent and explain your following replies.

They’re skilled workers who specialize in some very difficult jobs and had the good sense to unionize to prevent getting fucked too hard by owners and the management class.

Is this statement clarifying the people that you think "aren't critical thinkers"?