Arkouda

If I am being honest I do not think Gen Z'ers as a whole would appreciate that kind of humour based on my experience with people in that age group. Obviously not a universal rule, but that kind of humour doesn't seem very relevant to newer generations.

Carney didn’t run with this in the platform, no Canadians were consulted on this.

Carney absolutely ran on a platform of Canadian industry independence, and building infrastructure to that end as quickly as possible. If anyone didn't see a bill like C-5 coming as a means to that end, one was not paying attention.

The harm of failing to consult on such a rushed piece of legislation is the harm.

Then I would argue that no harm was caused because bills pass regularly without further consultation from the public. This happens because we elect people to draft, vote on, and pass legislation.

Just think what PP would do with these powers?

Even if we believe Carney will act honouably, this legislation opens the door to all sorts of damage in the name of “projects of national interest” for all federal gov’t’s to come.

Fear mongering helps no one, and is not a valid argument against the legislation.

The Tribes bringing this ridiculous lawsuit to the courts is a waste of time and resources as no damage has been caused by the passing of this bill, and it is absolutely insulting to the idea of truth and reconciliation that they demand $100 million for not asking to pass the bill first to "set an example".

If they do not like how the Canadian Government is doing things they have a legal right to self determination and Governance.

I have no qualms about the past of people I am sexually active with as long as they are clean and safe. Considering how many people I have been with, I would be a hypocrite if it mattered to me.

As far as when it is appropriate to share, I would say as soon as one is comfortable if at all. At the end of the day even a romantic partner does not have a right to every piece of information on you, and if a lot of sexual partners is a deal breaker to anyone involved the relationship shouldn't continue in the first place. Incompatible values tend to ruin relationships.

Your reasoning is wrong because it has nothing to do with my point. There has been no discussion because of that. It is a simple math problem.

Take care.

Explain it to me. Preferably with your own numbers, and assessments.

One is merely an observer of their thoughts. The reason for this is there is a delay from Stimulus and Brain activity before the Conscious awareness of the stimulus and brain activity. This natural delay causes us to assume that we are consciously making choices, and thinking on our own.

The core idea that I believe in here is that Humans do not have free will. We cannot control our actions or thoughts, and we merely observe them with our conscious mind.

For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:

The idea of UBI: “Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”

There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501

The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2024.html#a9

The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.

32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784

$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784

Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.

UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.

Are you saying that there should be no limits to free speech and free expression, with no exceptions?

I invite you to ask good faith questions, or refresh yourself by reading what I said again.

I have stated my point of view very clearly. If you are confused about my point of view I invite you to ask good faith questions, or refresh yourself by reading what I said again.

I agree that a lot of laws are absolute garbage, like sex work laws and drug laws. Prohibition never worked, yet we keep on trying. I agree that the only laws we need are ones that prevent harm to others, which I include "theft" under.

I don't agree that giving everyone their needs will stop theft. If we assume everyone has their needs met, then what we have left is wants, and wants are a driving factor for many violent crimes and thefts.

I agree with you over all in needing an overhaul. There are many models better for reform, but I think we will also always need prisons for a small group of the population. I agree that not everyone should end up there, and that it should be the last stop after attempting to reform an individual or help them if they need it in other ways. I also think it shouldn't be pleasant, because that is the last stop.

But before we can even talk about that last step, we need to deal with all of the issues around crime, as you said by ensuring people have what they need, mental health help is readily available to anyone who needs it, and things of the like so that we have a better baseline for what we need in the most extreme measures.

I think most criminals can reform under the right conditions, and some European models are great for that, but I know some cannot. It is sad, but there is a point of no return and we have to acknowledge that if we want to keep people safe.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. :)

In favour of what?