I have serious reservations about the patent system. After Apple was granted a patent several years ago where it was granted for their use of facial recognition to open the iPhone. They didn’t invent either technology but were granted this. I don’t know what came of it but I never heard of it being overturned.

The title was a bit confusing. I think your point is that it should also be taught at parochial schools. There is no doubt this is the case. The thing that gets me is that is comes down to what public (or private to some extent) educations goal should be. I think that schools should teach all topics as it is important to expose kids to all aspects of life and let their passions lead them to a satisfying path. Others think that parents should have more control in restricting what topics are covered. I think there is a way to honour both approaches but there is conflict in its organization.

As more and more people drift away from corporate control of our connections, I wonder when the U.S. will introduce laws to ban these user controlled environments in the name of national security.

I’m against child quotas but for education on what exactly population growth and shrinkage entails. Let people understand what the implications and solutions are for the various scenarios of the future. Ultimately I see a profound lack of hope for our futures is leading young people to not want to bring a child into the world older generations have built. I am with them 100%. A solution I have introduced in previous discussions is a suicide pill that any elderly that can no longer be supported by society could take to avoid and painful and lonely death. That has not gone over well, lol.

Thanks. I wasn’t aware of the specific mechanism in our trade agreements. No government should be compromising their right to make public policy.

deleted by creator

I’m not a bigot at all. I’m only questioning how practical mass immigration is in the modern age.

What will they do when violence begins in the west? Run away again?

I saw that but the article also listed many recent attacks that were the case.

Unfortunately and as with everything, the actions of a few cause a reaction that affects so many. The rise of the right has been driven primarily by immigration of people looking for the promise of democratic freedom and opportunity. These incidents are used to prevent this migration entirely.

Is this right? Should people have a right to migrate in hopes of a better life? Some you might identify as far left don’t feel boarders should exist at all. Others believe that borders should be sealed and only people who would benefit the society within should enter (sadly based on the colour of their skin as well). The obvious answer is that the best practice probably falls somewhere in the middle.

I have two takes on this. The first is that immigration should be ended as we are entering the end of our societies ability to support existing populations with food and shelter, due to climate change. The second is that regardless of circumstances, never flee your country if you don’t like what’s going on. Fight to change it, even if you have to die trying. That is what I plan to do.

Although I think the volatility of sourcing is probably not a factor in most business (I’m not just talking food), I agree as with everything there would be details to work out. A reasonable exception with regard to information on packaging could be accommodated with a posting on their website. This whole packaging issue has recently been exposed as BS given how quickly and efficiently company’s recently changed packaging and labeling in order to deceive their customers. From my perspective I’ve had enough of corporate crybabies. Thanks for your thoughts and example.

Thank you for adding more substance to my rant. Is the reason for a private business not to disclose the origin of their inputs exactly that by not doing so it deprives me of my right to express my beliefs? Obviously any existing laws or regulations are exactly where I am trying to force change. I don’t agree with the protections offered under trade secrets as I am only suggesting they are forced to add a list of countries and only a percentage of the inputs they represent. In addition I’m already tired of corporations hiding too much under the “trade secret” banner. In general I have not been a fan of corporate governance for some time and feel it is time to bring them to heal. I know this opens up a whole can of worms but I would argue it to the end. Thanks again for your thoughts.

I’m a lazy, not so bright contrarian who doesn’t know the details enough to have formed a sensible defense. What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage and I’m currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.

I understand the many inputs that are involved but if you take the accounting side of things it would take nothing to identify a % for each country involved. The difficulty you suggest sounds more like a marketing complaint. Company’s have all been only to quick lately to demonstrate how convenient it is to change their packaging.

For years I’ve been thinking about forcing a change to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act mentioned here by issuing a charter challenge. My stance would be that not forcing company’s to list all countries of origin and the percentage of material and labour that they make up denies me the information I need to make an informed decision. I have a right to this information so that I can express my support for or against areas of influence that affect my life. Anybody think this would work?

I’m late to the game so I’ll probably skip that step.

By that logic what you post on the internet is you ISPs speech and should also be subject to their control. No that I support a “FUCKYOU” plate but the law has to be honest with it’s prejudice.

There is a lot to be said for the positives of an end to democracy. The electorate of Ontario shouldn’t be trusted with these important decisions. This has been true since I started paying attention in the 90’s (so not party relevent). I regret not taking a different path in life to kick ass and chew bubble gum.

Like any word, use it too often for political efficacy and you will inevitably get arguments. It’s all too stupid. It takes the act of killing one person for any reason and conflates it into a competition as to who has suffered the most. Words are unimportant. Actions speak.

Thanks