Take these numbers with a grain of salt. The real number of troops sent will be unknown because they’re all wearing camouflage.

Canadian soldiers need to get up to more mischief, obviously these MPs are bored

Holy shit this is embarrassing. How can someone who is so easily manipulated hold a security clearance? I’m a veteran and I hate it when people abuse their uniform like this.

Why wasn’t he required to have a surety/translator?

That’s a valid question no matter where they were born. I’m not arguing that there were no failings in this case, I’m arguing that those failings are not related to the original citizenship of this individual.

As I said earlier

We all want to reduce violent crime in Canada so lets focus on identifying real causal relationships so that we can support at risk individuals.

Let’s identify at risk individuals (both possible victims and possible attackers) instead of scapegoating non casual and even non correlated attributes of individuals who commit violent acts.

re: traffic laws in Canada. From my experience, it depends where you are in Canada (and what number plates you have). Driving the speed limit on Toronto highways is dangerous but going 10 over with Ontario plates in Quebec can get you a ticket 😅 There are lots of unwritten road rules here, it was difficult to learn as an immigrant. Especially coming from a country littered with speed cameras where 7km over will get you fined hundreds of dollars. And don’t get me wrong, I think Canadian drivers are generally really good, it’s just the laws don’t align with the reality which can be confusing.

Calling for genocide is illegal in Canada so why is it necessary to cover it in school policies? I wouldn’t expect murder to be included in school policies either.

most people are terrible about rolling stops, its insane

The stop signs seem more like a polite suggestion here 🤣 And why don’t they just increase the speed limit to 120 already.

just because the data says one thing DOES NOT in any sense preclude the existence of severe outlier data points

That’s why we should rely on the data, decisions shouldn’t be based on anecdotal outliers. No one is excusing the horrific acts of Ali Ibrahim or any other immigrant. It’s just that their immigrant status doesn’t have a causal relationship with crime so immigration status is irrelevant. We all want to reduce violent crime in Canada so lets focus on identifying real causal relationships so that we can support at risk individuals.

The data does not support the argument that an increase in immigration leads to an increases crime. As a side note, I’m an immigrant and I come to a complete stop at stop signs and drive the speed limit. None of my Canadian born friends do 😅

I wonder how this news is affecting midgard.com, the 100 year old lighting shop. My guess, they’re receiving abusive emails while also selling loads more white lamps

I’m trying to understand how it is different in your eyes. How is the Israeli government’s segregation different from the Apartheid South African government’s segregation? Obviously you see a distinction but it’s not obvious to myself and I want to understand your perspective.

From your perspective, how does the current situation in Israel and the territories that Israel controls differ from Apartheid South Africa? I’m trying to understand your world view.

But why wouldn’t the OP post that link?

Source?

I thought we only made five Canadarm ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don’t forget that autism anti vaccine movement was fueled by fairly intelligent well educated people who were tricked by one flawed study. We shouldn’t assume people are stupid if they’re anti vaccines.

On the flip side, transplant given to person who follows medical advice

You initially claimed that mentioning expertise was an ad hominem fallacy. That’s what we’ve been discussing. Can you now appreciate that mentioning expertise in this case is not an ad hominem fallacy?

I’m not talking about the validity of an argument as no argument is made in either statement. So maybe validity was a poor choice of wording. Which statement would you trust more?

Would you concede that in cases where no evidence is provided, a climate expert saying “climate change will affect x” has more validity than a non climate expert saying “climate change will not affect x”?

Can you expand on that idea? I’m not sure I understand.

Also, as a side note, I appreciate this debate and having my arguments challenged. Lemmy is great for more constructive conversations.

If Mary Lou McDonald was a toxicology expert her statement about the accuracy of the data would have more relevance. If Mary Lou McDonald had outlined the actual issues with the accuracy of the data her statement would have more relevance.

She is not offering details about issues with the data, so her expertise is important context.

The argument that expertise is part of character, therefore any mention of expertise is a fallacious ad hominem argument ignores the importance of expertise in giving context to a statement. A statement about health obviously has more relevance coming from a doctor than an influencer (assuming they’re not also a doctor).