But how does someone prove integrity to you? You see the bind here, right?

You’re putting everything on these vague handwavey qualities like “integrity” as if you, like Anubis, can put their souls on the scale and measure their exact weight. What you’re describing, ultimately, is just vibes, and voting on vibes has never gotten us anywhere good.

Policies can be lied about, sure, but integrity, compassion and humility can be faked. That’s literally the essence of being a con artist. The CPC loved to talk about how Harper was a salt of the earth guy who rolled up his sleeves and drank Timmy’s instead of Starbucks. It didn’t mean shit. At least policies are an objective standard you can hold someone to; a yardstick to measure their integrity against. And all the integrity in the world is worthless if its being devoted to policies that will do no good.

Just a little off the top.

See, here’s where I’m lost. None of that describes policy, which is what I had assumed you were looking for. Those are just personality traits. I mean, back when he first got elected leader, that’s how most people described Jagmeet Singh. He basically won on liability, mostly thanks to that one viral video, and it turned out he wasn’t a particularly good leader at all.

And I’m not sure how any new leader is supposed to bring a “track record a few decades long”. That just feels like a catch-22. Especially if you’re looking for new blood to shake up a party that’s been suffering from serious political stagnation for the past decade (or more). How are we supposed to bring in bold new leadership if we can only consider well established options?

What exactly defines their Jack Layton roots for you, and which of the current prospective leaders do you think embodies Layton’s approach the best? Not trying to put you on the spot here, it’s just I hear this sentiment a lot and very rarely does anyone actually expand on what, specifically, they think the NDP needs to be doing differently. For those of us voting in the leadership election it would be really helpful to have a clear sense of what everyone is actually asking for.

If the US actually succeeds (huge if, they control exactly 0.00% of Venezuela right now), this is will crash the Albertan economy into the earth’s core. And Albertans will, somehow, blame the Liberals.

He’s aiming a little higher, I think.

If we’re coming at this from a perspective of fighting climate change, I don’t think plastic straws are really the hill to die on.

The reality of any political battle is that you always have to ask “What is the thing that will create the most net impact?” But net impact includes “Not making my cause toxic to the average person.”

The public, in general, are very amenable to changes like getting rid of disposable plastic bags and plastic packaging, and those can have as much impact or more than getting rid of plastic straws. Those are also changes that don’t create significant negative impacts for people with disabilities.

And that’s before you even get to the industrial scale changes that would have far more impact. If you look at, say, plastic waste in the ocean, about half of it is fishing nets. Changing fishing industry practices would be a lot more of an impactful approach.

Banning plastic straws is like putting out the grease fire on the stove while the whole house is burning down around you. Yes, technically it’s a thing we should do, but it is not even remotely the first thing we should do. And the people advocating for it are often doing so as a way of pretending to do something meaningful while ignoring the far bigger industry level changes we could be making that would have a far bigger impact.

As a political issue, plastic straws have become entirely toxic, and given how small a piece of the puzzle they are, there really is no benefit to dying on this largely worthless hill when our efforts could be better spent elsewhere.

When communism creates victims, it is failing at its intended goal. When capitalism creates victims, it is working as intended.

Courts decide. They look at broader context, eg the overall framing and intent of the bill. There’s debate and argument, and where necessary there are appeals until it goes to the supreme court. In this case, they’re not just going to look at a specific paragraph but the whole text of the law and what it’s stated intent is.

I’m aware. My comment was a joke, but to be serious about it, murrsuit sex / porn is exceedingly niche, in no small part because, yeah, that shit is really fucking expensive. And, consequently, really expensive fucking.

Even within the furry community as a whole, only 10% report it being a sexual kink. And cartoon furry porn vastly outweighs photographic (There is some venn diagram split here, granted, since some people who don’t identify as furries still enjoy furry porn, but it’s not exactly a huge one). So, yes, you are technically correct, it does exist, but we’re talking about a subset of a subset of a subset.

It’s less “prop up” and more “are”. Also most research science. If you like vaccines, thank a furry.

The only ambiguity is that stated directly in the text; “is or is likely to be mistaken for”.

And again, the thing it has to be likely to be mistaken for is a film or photograph of a person performing a sex act on an animal. Not “something like an animal.” Not “something with animal features.” Animal. One word. Period.

That means if you showed the image to an average person on the street they would be likely to believe it was an actual photo or video of someone doing actual sex acts to an actual flesh and blood animal. All of those conditions are clearly spelled out in the text of the law. It’s really not vague at all.

The only reason they even put the “is likely to be mistaken” for part is because we’re now at the point where AI can generate photographic images that aren’t actually real photographs.

And if someone is out there painting photo realistic art so good that no one can tell its not real, and they’re using that to recreate believable depictions of bestiality, well, yeah, the law is meant to criminalize that too. If it would fool the average person into thinking its a real animal, yes, that counts. But the average person isn’t going to look at Judy Hopps and think “Oh my God, that’s a real actual bunny rabbit”, so I’m really not clear on what it is you’re worried about here.

No, I’m interpreting “photographic” to mean “photographic.” There’s no interpretation needed, the word has a specific meaning that is entirely valid in this context. The question is, why are you trying to interpret “photographic” as meaning anything else?

Besides, who actually fucks in a full fursuit? That shit is crazy expensive.

I don’t see how any reading of this would criminalize furry porn.

1. It says “likely to be mistaken for a photographic” media. This immediately rules out all forms of hand drawn and CG furry art from being covered by this law. It has to be a photo, video (or some AI generated facsimile).

2. The media has to involve - or realistically appear to involve (to the point that a reasonable person would be fooled) - sexual contact with an animal. Not “cartoon rabbit.” Not “person in a fursuit.” Animal.

Those two points alone rule out any kind of furry porn from being affected by this.

I’m aware. That’s not what I meant by “This is not a joke.”

Also the hint is that OP said they meant it as a joke. But, yeah, everything you said too.

At this point why in the fuck should we give a shit about what angers the US?

This is not a joke. This is genuinely what a significant number of flat earthers believe.

Call or write to your MP. Let them know that no one wants this.

Maybe shoot these guys an email, see what they can offer?

https://frederictonfarmersmarket.ca/vendors/the-cheese-market/

I can’t speak to lactose free, but they’re the only place I buy cheese now. Super helpful and friendly, and their selection is amazing.