oh yeah, not saying it's a good thing at all...
karlhungus
joined 1 year ago
To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don't own the land under your land
You don't have to, and here we are with what IMO is the worst choice, because you didn't vote.
Not voting is not an excuse when Doug is on the ballot, you still need to vote for the less sucky person.
It's time to admit that us Ontarians just suck on average.
In my experience corporations serve their shareholders (and maybe board and executive s).
20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.
I haven't read the article...yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don't know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I'm fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don't want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn't get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)... This is tough
You aren't a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.
For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren't assholes is "determining best interests".
I don't want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.
As a parent, this is a parenting/personal issue, fuck off and please spend my money doing useful things (like supporting health care, or housing) not attempting to protect my children.
Skim the article, it's 20 large municipality's, nowhere is 0 mentioned
It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.
No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.
I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.
Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.
I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.
How is it impossible to be true?
I'm not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.
We might live better if this were true (maybe not), but it is not at all their job. Neither is it our job to serve them.