I can have one drink with a meal and barely feel anything

And if you eat a third of a 10mg gummy?

Don’t take oils directly then, use oils to cook a giant batch of brownies

So saying alcohol is worse than weed with no context on amount is worthless sentence.

Only if you’re a bit obtuse. You can just prepend “alcohol is worse than weed“ with “(for me and most people, considering a very average dose on each)” because that’s what people mean

You basically have to plan your day around it.

Usually hits in less than an hour and mostly gone by the third hour. Not really that hard to “plan”, and actually easier to manage than booze

That’s not a helpful comparison, though. Casual weed use is better than casual alcohol use. Alcohol abuse is more widespread than weed abuse.

Of course if you compare the extreme for each substance results can vary, like drinking 10 cans of pop every day is worse than using an opioid once in a lifetime.

Would be nice if Rachel Gilmore migrated away from X and Substack… she does such great work though, it makes sense to still publish on Shorts/TikTok but she has enough resources to learn from Molly White

Well thats a false analogy

Why? I think it hits the point just right, so much so that you immediately tries to pivot away from the question you made.

Yes. The answer is “there are as many genders as there are colours”.

There exist more than two colours so the answer is not two

some people say there are hundreds of genders, hence its pseudoscientific

You are being really stubborn about accepting that gender has a proper and scientific view, probably because the scientific consensus is not saying what you think it should be saying

but you think it righteous to punish someone for a wrong answer?

Why do you believe this is what’s happening? What parts of what this guy had as evidence against him that you think should get protected as free speech? Quote something specific that was raised as evidence

He did me one better. His hard work paid for some financial literacy so I’m grateful

Owning a home is the best investment you’ll make in your life.

Sure grandpa, let’s take you to bed

Convince you of what makes sense? You seem to think Mr Neufeld was fined for saying “there are two genders” but that’s not what he said.

Do you know the statements that made evidence for the trial in the first place, before asking for being convinced of anything?

Edit:

ask anyone off the street and you’ll get a random number

this is a like asking how many colors are there in the rainbow. Most people will name 5 to 7 colors, but the answer is “all visible colors, which is a spectrum and not a set amount; the fact that we usually name the common ones doesn’t mean we there exists 7 colors only”. The reason this question doesn’t have a right answer isn’t that “we can’t agree on it”; everyone who understands gender agrees the question itself is wrong because it starts from bad assumptions.

and I hope Im not fined for saying so.

lol poor soul, must be so hard living under the threat of persecution!!

But I do understand the tradition of not voting down on first reading.

Tradition shouldn’t come before a basic filter for platforming hate

And nothing will come out of it because we are brain dead when it comes to transportation safety

Even if he’s being technically correct, only a fool doesn’t understand the context and subtext of what he’s saying.

Even his dumb supporters get it.

The strawman is taking “supply is an issue” to mean that “dwellings per capita is going down”. Or to assume that stating the former means stating the latter. Or to assume that the former implies the latter. Whatever framing you prefer.

If you disagree this is strawman, that’s fine. Maybe there’s a bette name and we can call it something else, sorry for the confusion. The main point is that “dwellings per capita is going down“ is not representative of the view that supply is a factor in housing affordability.

Your first quote conveniently leaves out the last sentence which says “historical data shows otherwise.”

What difference does it make? It’s still a straw man. Historical data will showing otherwise is what makes it a great straw man.

Now, a strawman argument is where you create a fake thing to attack.

Yes, I know but thank you. It’s exactly what the “If the argument is correct, then we should expect to see…” line is doing.

You seem to be on the side which knows that supply is not the problem, rather it’s greed.

No, I’m not. I don’t think there’s a single cause that can easily summarize the housing affordability problem. Specially not a vague one such as “greed”. Saying that greed is the problem is the kind of thing that people who confuse BlackRock with Blackstone say.

The “supply-shortage argument” is encapsulated by the CMHC’s claim that “increasing housing supply is the key to restoring affordability.” If the argument is correct, then we should expect to see evidence that increases in dwellings per capita lower prices over time.

A great straw man argument 👍

It is difficult to find clear evidence that increased supply pushes price down, because in private markets, new supply only emerges when prices rise and developers feel reassured they can earn a profit on their investment. Price and supply both move up together over time, with increased supply not necessarily pushing prices down.

But when setting out to demonstrate supply’s downward impact on price, they instead use abstract models that presume what they are trying to explain.

Oh the irony. These economists with shady premises… btw you will never find evidence that supply pushes prices down, because in private markets that’s impossible.

It’s kind of funny that the same group that eats this kind of narrative like hot cake is also the group of people with a tendency to blame demand (as in immigration), like if by magic the supply vs demand relationship only works one way. Even though the last paragraph of the article tries to state this exact point (if supply is not the solution, demand is not the problem) - the only thing that this kind of article accomplishes is to undermine the efforts to build housing.

Interesting read but that’s just another one in a myriad of cases. This is the norm.

100% of my acquaintances that did not get professional services to prepare the application forms and documents (because that help is very expensive) had at least one rejection due to a form mistake or weird edge case.

Even with professional help I had trouble getting my wife’s fingerprints validated because her digitals are so dim that ink-on-paper fingerprinting just doesn’t work, it’s a black blob every time, and during our year-long process the government changed the rule so that digital submissions were no longer valid so it had to be ink-on-paper.