I can’t wait for people who don’t have enough to fund the lavish lifestyles of people who spent their entire lives with too much because it’s not their fault we didn’t pull up our boot straps.

I don’t think there is a regulatory entity policing this issue.

And every real Canadian knows the best coffee in the country comes from small town Esso’s.

The TL;DR historically is that rises in wages led to more spending which increased demand and caused inflation. That’s an incredible oversimplification obviously, but that’s the meat and potatoes of it. People have more money to spend, companies can charge more, your individual dollars become worth less and less over time.

Nowadays with wages stagnating (even reducing in some situations) and immigration being so prevelant we have a situation of more people having less to spend but overall more money being injected into the economy having a similar inflationary impact.

Don’t misread what I wrote and think I am blaming immigration for the current situation, it is entirely the regulatory bodies who dropped the ball by encouraging immigration with no proper economic plan to handle the consequences.

As a poor person am I ever glad the conclusion they drew was we made people so poor we can’t afford to lose this fund.

Absolutely unfair, not fair like violating the charter rights of children by making it a law to purposely misgender them.

Fuck this Hank Hill look-a-like shitbag.

The article I’m assuming you didn’t read cited several similar laws being considered by other countries.

The only shrinkflation I support is a 32 hour, 4 day work week.

None of what you said justifies paying these employees less because consumers are expected to give them money above and beyond the products/services that were purchased.

I wouldn’t call it a plague of selfishness.

Society has certainly stopped looking fondly on those who go out of their way to help others though. But it goes further than that if you expend effort on something you don’t have to, you are looked at as having made a mistake.

This is the problem.

Framing this as the consumer doing something wrong and withholding wages from the servers is total bullshit.

The real fault is the industry underpaying their staff and leaving it up to the consumers to subsidize a significant portion of their income.

I think the disconnect was your first reply which made me believe you were playing devil’s advocate.

I am also not 100% on board with omitting the parents. I think if there a possibility that the children are being harmed that needs to be something our educators are trained to recognize, no different than if the children were showing up to school malnourished or with unexplained bruises.

It’s not the school divisions responsibility to determine which ideological beliefs are best for their children and what secrets should be kept from them. They are legal guardians for a reason and have every right to informed of their children’s behavior.

But I do feel the school divisions has a responsibility to let the proper authorities know if any kind of child abuse is occurring, which includes not allowing a child to express the gender identity they are comfortable with.

I was under the impression you were against telling parents, which made some of your posts seem very contradictory.

So is your argument that using a child’s preferred pronouns are not a forming of gender affirming care?I’m kinda confused on your position.

But authoritatively banning basic gender affirming behavior doesn’t hurt the child?

Maybe the answer here is put more effort than to make a one sized fits all solution to this crisis.

The proper path to that is better and more communication between the school and the parents, not authoritatively banning gender affirming care.