Depends on the Province I think. Where I’m at you’re entitled to 30 min off (unpaid) within the first 5 hours, and another within 8 if you’re working longer than 8 hours. 15 min breaks are not mandated except that if the company gives you them they must be paid.
I wish this was true so that there would be a hard limit to within this century, on how much ff related damage we will do.
Unfortunately, they are still finding more, particularly in the north. How much yet-to-be-proven oil still out there is what really should be considered along with technology improvements that increase how much oil can be effectively recovered.
also, it is the most distant point on the surface of the Earth
I’m having a difficult time reconciling this with the fact the Earth is an oblate spheroid. I feel like there is a small semicircle on the ‘far’ side where the distance is marginally farther due to the wider vs tall dimensions.
Yeah, mainstream media is shitshow atm. ABC news fact checked Trump’s BS during that debate and people lost their minds. Why? Because truth doesn’t matter? Now CBS refuses to fact check because they are cowards? They are the GD news. Their job is to literally inform the public of the truth.
It really feels like we are literally watching civilization flushing down the drain and there is nothing that can be done about it.
It clearly isn’t. Donald sounds way too coherent 😂
They’re more likely to vote for a useless 3rd party or not vote at all. When Trump gets the EC votes of their state (assuming their actual voters which I highly doubt) by a couple hundred votes they’ll shocked Pikachu face for 4 years (assuming this isn’t their actual goal in which case they’ll laugh at the rubes who fell for it).
I downvote it to lower it in the comment rankings. Acknowledging that it is imperfect, I still like it because it gives a clue as to whether I should verify the article elsewhere. It’s not there to be the final arbiter on what truth is and I think any mod that treats it as such is woefully mistaken.
I agree, but this doesn’t actually specify which party is the 🤡 . That being obvious is not MY fault.
Of all the people, and all the agendas to be threatened by this… why am I not surprised.
Hey, would you look at that. They can take a hint.
Office Space: in my top 10
Adding website to my block list TY
Word of warning: they tend to trap more than hair. If you have a teenage boy in the house you’ll find out real quick what I mean.
No, I’m not entertaining your tried and true slippery slope of straw man accusations when you lose an argument. Be better, because this schtick is getting old and abusive. I’ve done nothing but politely explain my quite reasonable position and only answered your questions as best I can. Continuing on at this point would be sealioning as you’ve obviously tilted into direct attacks on me and to continue this to your embarrassment would only serve to further your agenda of getting a report enforced.
Have a good day Squid. Feel free to read up on that Principle of Charity link I previously supplied for a better understanding of rational argumentation.
sealioning
Seriously, you’re a mod. Do better.
Because I prefer rational arguments as they are the best ones for elucidating Truth, not appeals to emotional ones. I’d rather know I was right for good reasons than just join the mob right or not. In this case anyone could have accused Kamala of ‘being black’ and I could refute it without needing to bring racism claims into it.
Interesting that you use the word ‘charitable’ as the Principle of Charity is literally what I’m talking about.
Edit: bring
(although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)
I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument “Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences” is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.
In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.
If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn’t be voted for you’d be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.
You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.
Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.
This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.
As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).
That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.
Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black
They have it really bad over there. My understanding is most European countries would laugh at Canadian labour law, but Canada laughs at the US’s.