n2burns

I think you're working on old data. According to Wikipedia:

Prior to the 1994 constitutional reform, the president and vice president were required to be Roman Catholics. This stipulation was abolished in 1994.

and

Article 89 of the Constitution detail the requirements:

Article 89. To be elected president or vice president of the Nation, it is necessary to have born in Argentine territory, or be the son of a native citizen, having been born in a country foreign; and the other qualities required to be elected senator

Article 55. The requirements to be elected senator are: to be thirty years old, to have been a citizen of the Nation for six years, enjoy an annual income of two thousand pesos or an equivalent income, and be a native of the province that chooses it, or with two years of residence immediate in it.

Caves Post owns 91%of Purolator. It isn't surprising they're running the show over there too, and I think past leadership has done the same.

As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning

So let’s imagine an individual. They go through a period of 1 or 2 years where they are in pain and suicidal. They go through all the checks and procedures that we put in place and doctors clear them for execution. They end up dead.

First off, using the word "execution" is pretty loaded. I just wanted to put that out there, especially because you're, "not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong."

Second, as of right now, MAID for mental illness on it's own is not available in Canada.

The big thing you said, but kind of glossed over is, "doctors clear them". It's not just on the individual who is making this decision, but health care professionals who use their professional opinion on the mental state of the individual. If a person is suicidal, generally a mental health care professional is involved.

Obviously, this system isn't perfect, but no system is perfect. Doctors do mess up and individuals can be influenced by their families/finances. I think these are all good reasons to be skeptical, but I also don't think they're reasons to completely prevent access.

I appreciate that you're looking for discussion, however, I'm hung up on this is the part of your comment:

But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.

I also grew up Catholic, and agree that "human life is something sacred." However, I'd ask you to consider why you think human is sacred, and what about it is sacred? IMHO, our lives are a gift, and we should appreciate that gift by not squandering our lives, by enjoying life and by trying to share that joy with others. If someone is in extreme and unending pain, it would be extremely difficult for them to bring joy into the world and instead their lives often just introduce suffering for themselves, their loved ones, and their caretakers.

I know one of the arguments against this is that even terminally ill patients sometimes experience miracle recoveries. Similarly, when dealing with terminal illness, there's a concept know as the "Last Good Day". My Grandmother had one, where she was nearly comatose for months, had a medical emergency and nearly died, then perked up the next day, was lucid and talking, then died a week later. However, I don't think we should force people to suffer in the vague hopes that they might have another good day, or in the vaguer hope that they experience a miracle recovery.

I know this gets into a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I'd be curious what your opinion is on DNRs and other forms of with-holding care. I personally don't think those options are all that different than MAID, though I will acknowledge it's the difference of action vs inaction. Personally, I think both action and inaction are decisions, as the Canadian band, Rush says in Freewill, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I think OP is just pointing out that bike lanes aren't the source of all traffic, as the recently passed Bill 212 tries to say. Even without any bike infrastructure, the Gardner is jam packed, and it's not even rush hour.

Traffic is worsened by people driving cars badly, but traffic is caused simply by people driving cars. Cars are highly space inefficient, especially when on average they're moving ~1.4 people.

K...I started my original comment with, "While I don’t agree with it’s findings," and was responding to a comment asking for elaboration on the safety risks. I was just providing context, not stating the report was gospel-truth or anything.

What was the debunked? That a report exists?

While I don't agree with it's findings, there is a 388-page report this decision is based on.

Puberty blockers to be banned indefinitely for under-18s with gender dysphoria across UK

I fixed the title. Of course, they're still available for other medical conditions, they're just singling out gender dysphoria.

Great news, and TIL Framework is on Mastodon, so that's great too!

This is talking about if the plan cannot pay it's pensions. That's why it starts with:

The Government of Canada has a legal obligation to pay plan member pension benefits.

It's not talking about if actuaries predict a future funding shortfall. In that case, they can change the rules before there's actually a shortfall, as they did in 2012.

I don’t dispute that they’ve renegotiated contribution rules, I don’t know the history of this pension fund that well. Typically these rules are renegotiated with union agreement.

The unions have no input into contribution rules. Any changes are decided unilaterally by the government, as shown in your source (look for "Jobs and Growth Act, 2012").

EDIT You are correct, that the government guarantees the fund if it completely fails. What I meant to say is the government isn't liable to top it up if it's underfunded. My bad on the wording.