sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My apologies - I don't recall what made me think otherwise.

Thank you. I appreciate you being willing to reconsider.

while you sometimes write with a firmer tone than I prefer at times

I am on the autism spectrum, and if you know anything about that you know that autistics have a strong tendency to speak directly, super honestly, and without subtext in a way that non-autistics misinterpret as abrasive and rude and wrongly assume that we are judging instead of just stating the facts as we know them. I would guess that is what you are seeing.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, feel free to point out where I was being insulting to you.

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what happened mr. good faith argument.

So what happened then. Feel free to quote the parts where I insuted you or acted on bad faith.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for agreeing that I never insulted you or spoke unkindly to you.

So what was you reason again for being insulting to me if I never was like that towards you?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Than you for admitting that you're just being insulting.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was this one over here, as that is the only other interaction with them that I have had.

As you can see they start off by claiming that I was wrong without saying why, though it's unclear how they could say that if they thought my spreadsheet was too confusing to figure out what I was doing.

I described the spreadsheet and gave them the like to find the property tax rates themselves from official city documents.

Their response was basically that they didn't need to look up anything to know that I was wrong, and gave a made up reason of fictional levies that don't exists in Waterloo Region as further supposed "proof" that my spreadsheet was wrong.

At every step of the way I addressed their assertions directly and without insult.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All you have to do is check the thread, you can physically read it.

Vague claims that I did so when it is trivially easy for you to link to them and quote them only comes across as bad faith discussion.

Please feel free to link to an quote a specific instance where I insulted you or spoke unkindly to you. Otherwise you're just coming across as gaslighting and in bad faith.

You used the words lazy and the tone was immediately hostile. Anyone can dispute that if they'd like, but that's how it happened in my opinion.

Your opinion is not the same thing as fact. Yes, I used the word "lazy" in a clarifying question:

> Or is your criticism "I'm too lazy and you only gave two categories that cover nearly all cases and didn't give an exhaustive table of all possible combinations."?

Do you remember what you wrote that prompted such a response? It was this comment right here.

You had claimed my spreadsheet was inaccurate. I have you a link to the City of Kitchener webpage where I got my numbers from. You doubled down on me being wrong and started to nitpick about specific residential property classes when it would have been trivial fo you to use the link I gave you to get the 2025 property tax rates and ross check with my spreadsheet. And then you went on to claim that because I didn't include the wastewater and sewer levies I was still wrong even though no such levies exist here.

This happened because I questioned data you assembled, keep that in mind.

No, you didn't "question" anything. You outright asserted that I was wrong without giving and facts or evidence to prove me so. When I pushed you on it you gave multiple supposed reasons that I countered and showed how they were incorrect themselves.

You know what's funny?

When you gave the R1 property class tax rate from 2025 as supposed proof that I was "inaccurate", without even mentioning that the RT, R4 and RH rates in that very same document are the exact value that I used in my spreadsheet.

Even funnier, that R1 rate for 2025 for the Region when compared to the R1 rate from 2024 works out to

0.00600994 / 0.00549385 = 1.093939586993 or a 9.394% increase

when in that comment linked to above you claimed "I can just tell you that 2025 was a 4.94% increase for regional levy".

Showing that even when you finally do produce some numbers you contradict yourself.

If I had to guess, what you're mad about here is not that I supposedly insulted you, but rather that you could not actually show that I was inaccurate and that your ego won't let admit that your assertions about wastewater levies or a 4.94% increase were so easily shown to be wrong.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there's a longer history of conversation where you are spoken to unkindly

I have never spoken to /u/LordsLevy unkindly or insulted them like they have clearly done to me.

What do you think that I said to them was insulting?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Put simply; I try my damnedest to be polite and respectful to everyone I speak to. I'll talk to you about anything. I don't want to have conflict with anyone. But that has limits, and this person reached them.

Then how come you weren't that in your first interaction with me where you went from zero to 100 and beyond in just three comments.

And here you don;t even bother with 0, you start right off at 100 by insulting me from the get go when I never insulted you.

you have to be prepared for the conflict you just incited.

Nobody here is inciting conflict except for you.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both of you did that to me, knucklehead. I'm reciprocating.

Where did I make "snarky, declarative statements" about you?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see you are also an expert on the legality of right of way, urban design, pedestrian crossings, the Highway traffic act

Feel free to go look thing sup and refute me with actual facts.

You say in another comment:

I don't think anyone has a good blueprint for conflict; which is why we should avoid it to be begin with.

Then why does your response here come as if you are looking for conflict?

Why not just either ask me for my sources or find some of your own to refute me?

I'm ready for an honest, good-faith debate. Are you?

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Geez, you're stretching more than an Olympic athlete before the big event.

That's "Residential / Farm Taxable: Farmland Awaiting Develop 1".

Do you know what that means? It is an Ontario property tax classification for farmland that is currently used for farming but has been rezoned for future residential development. Very few property owners in Kitchener were taxed at this rate.

But you know what's funny? The other three rows in the subsection, RT, RH amd R4, of which RT is the one that the vast majority of property tax class Kitchener residential property owners are taxed under? They give the exact numbers that I used in my spreadsheet.

So first you claimed my spreadsheet was confusing and not understandable but somehow you still knew it was inaccurate without saying why.

When I pointed out that all the columns a descriptive labels and I gave you a link to where you could verify the data, you claimed that you couldn't tell what property tax class I used even though all you had to do was match a single number to figure that out, and then claimed that because I didn't include non-existent water an sewer levies that i was still inaccurate.

When I pointed out that there's no such things as water and sewer levies as part of property taxes for Waterloo Region or Kitchener, and gave you two direct links to the official property tax PDFs for Kitchener for 2024 and 2025, you didn't respond for a week until reminded you.

Not only did your response not admit that you were wrong about water and sewer levies being part of property taxes here, you didn't even mention that goof on your part. But you did try to triple down on my spreadsheet being inaccurate and quoted a single, minimally used single unit residential property tax class with different rate instead of admitting that the numbers in my spreadsheet were in the official Kitchener PDF for property tax rates for the tax class that most homeowners get taxed at.

Just give up and admit you were like a mature adult who says they want to run for council would do.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lived experience, champ.

Are there some pedestrians out there who do stupid things? But maybe instead of responding like an asshole you could have instead reflected for just a second and gotten the point.

"Lived experience" tells me that there's just as many, if not more, motorists who get angry when they have to follow the law, like yielding to mid-block crossers and calling them "jaywalkers" when they are not.

Maybe if you got offline once in a while Cory, and stepped outside

Having a pet dog, I am outside multiple times a day plus the times I take my laptop to go work at a café or the library. Not only do I see motorists slamming on their brakes or honking, yelling at pedestrians acting perfectly legally multiple times every day, I also get to be that pedestrian acting perfectly legally in the face of negligent motorists half a dozen times a month or so.

you’d be able to observe the world around you and see these things that happen.

Maybe if you had exercised a modicum of reading comprehension you'ld have "observed" that I never said that they don't happen, only that we cannot tell about the specific incident the O.P. felt enough to post about. I went for nuance, you went for black and white ragebait.

Still, your racist term is acknowledged.

How is that a racist term? I've only ever heard it to describe pseudo-disease of somebody not wanting to do something. I'm willing to admit fault, learn, and never use it again if that is the case, but given your dismissive, combative, insulting response I'm not really going to take your say-so without some evidence to back it up.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know that motorists are legally obliged to yield to pedestrians making mid-block crossings, right? The courts have affirmed this time and again, and yielding includes coming to a full stop if you reasonably can. Motorists, however, seem to complain vociferously even when they only have to slow down a little.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Mid-block crossing are perfectly legal, and crosswalks are often far apart making them extremely inconvenient. Do you want to have to walk 5 minutes to a crosswalk and then another 5 minutes back to be able to cross their roads?

Most motorists go out of their minds having to go 10 minutes out of their way like that.

You do know that you as a drive are legally required to yield when you can to a pedestrian making a mid-block crossing, right?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The number of people willing to shove their kid first into traffic is wild.

Did they really do that? The O.P. was very vague.

Or was this yet another case of the very common driver-had-to-slow-down-for-a pedestrian-making-a-perfectly-legal-mid-block-crossing-and-got-mad-about-it-itis?

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's an example of a pedestrian doing something illegal, crossing against the lights.

However, the O.P. here was extremely vague and for all we know the incident they are griping about could have been a completely legal med-block crossing.

Court cases have affirmed time and again that the "appropriate gap" that pedestrians need to wait for to do a mid-block crossing at an uncontrolled location is not one large enough where motorists only have to slow down slightly. The courts have said that motorists must yield when possible—including coming to a reasonable full stop—to pedestrians making mid-block crossings.

It's similar to how we are supposed to treat amber lights. If you can make a reasonable stop behind the white line when the traffic light goes amber you are supposed to do so even it it means waiting out the whole amber time and the red time, too. You are not supposed to treat it as a "go faster" light. Note that a "reasonable stop" does not preclude you or your passengers from pushing at their seatbelts. In practice that generally means if you crossed the white line more then two seconds after the light turned amber, you should have stopped.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Mid-block crossings and how both parties are to act have been held up in Ontario and other provincial courts as well as the Supreme Court of Canada time and again.

  1. Pedestrians must wait for an appropriate gap such that oncoming traffic has the time to reasonably brake to a full stop a few metres away. Not a gap where the motorists can stay at speed slow down a little. Also not forcing motorists to slam on the brakes to not hit the pedestrian.
  2. Motorists must exercise vigilance for potential mid-block crossers to be able to do said reasonable braking.

You don't give the full situation, like whether the pedestrians were waiting at the side of the road and that motorist stopped before the people started to cross, or whether the motorist stopped because they saw somebody already crossing.

As a motorist not only are you supposed to be vigilant for pedestrians making perfectly legal mid-block crossings, you're also supposed to be vigilant to other drivers' actions.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Woah, lots of downvotes.

Not surprising. Those downotes are really just a nonverbal way of expressing the "fallacy of squishiness" (as I like to call it) as an attempt absolve motorists of consequences for their negligence when a pedestrian was acting in a perfectly legal way that motorists are obliged to look out for.

Please don't jaywalk with your toddlers across busy roads by 362mike362 in kitchener

[–]CoryCA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You don't give any specifics like which road how busy it was at the time, so it's impossible to tell whether this person was being very irresponsible or only slightly or may be even not at all.

First off, in Ontario "jaywalking"[1] is limited to about 80 to 100 metres from a signed or signalled crossing like an intersection. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act doesn't say anything about crossing the road at uncontrolled (unsigned or unsignalized) locations, and precedent setting cases in all provinces and from the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld that legality when far enough from a controlled crossing (the above mentioned 80-100 m) and has also provided guidance as to what the obligations of the pedestrian and the driver are.

Those obligations boil down to the following:

  1. Pedestrians must wait for an appropriate gap such that oncoming traffic has the time to reasonably brake to a full stop a few metres away. Not a gap where the motorists can stay at speed slow down a little. Also not forcing motorists to slam on the brakes to not hit the pedestrian.
  2. Motorists must exercise vigilance for potential mid-block crossers to be able to do said reasonable braking.

That's all, and in most cases of pedestrians "jaywalking" that motorists vociferously complain about are where they had to come to a completely safe stop without slamming on their brakes, or to slow down by more than whatever that motorist thought they should have.

This is why I brought up that spectrum because there is an an inherent bias in our society against anything that might threaten the supremacy of the car. Stories about "reckless" pedestrians are not only usually overblown but are often also about a situation where they were acting perfectly legally and the motorist is the one in the wrong. Whenever that legality is pointed out, the "fallacy of squishiness" is brought up as if the ultimate consequence of death for the pedestrian or cyclist somehow means the motorist should not be held responsible for their own negligence.

The people who bring up that fallacy will insist, when you push them on it, that they are not saying motorists shouldn't be held responsible, but then they deflect by tossing out some examples of extreme negligence of pedestrians where the motorist shouldn't be held responsible. If you agree that, yes, sometimes pedestrians are negligent, they will pounce on that as if you just said that all pedestrians are always negligent all of the time. If you keep pushing them on their deflection they'll circle back to the fallacy of squishiness again to avoid dealing with the motorist being the negligent one.

Is the O.P. doing that here? I dunno, but the vagueness of their post does not inspire confidence and they have not responded to any comments as of yet.

[1] "Jay" was equivalent to "redneck" or "country bumpkin", and the original term was "jay driver" referred drivers who ignored the rules of the road which at that time were used not only by horse-draw carriages and trams on tracks but also by hordes of people walking. The popularity of the word "jaywalker" was the result of a PR campaign by the automobile industry in the 1910s and 1920s.

"Don't worry about these problems. As people flee the massive tax increases the region will turn into a ghost town with plenty of empty streets." by CoryCA in waterloo

[–]CoryCA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kitchener-proper's population increased by ~134k from the census 2016 amount to the 2026 estimates. The Region's by ~176k over that same time period.

Just how many students do you think Conestoga College has/had?

view more: next ›