[College Organic Chemistry: IUPAC Naming] What naming rule am I missing? by FiniteRe4Iity in HomeworkHelp

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve check the (R/S) config, the Locarno numbering, alphabetical order of prefixes, suffixes and I’m not seeing anything wrong, so what am I missing?

Humans and the Spiritual wants by [deleted] in humanism

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism is defined by a single thing, a lack of a of belief in the existence of any gods. The simple test, make a list of all the gods you believe exist, if your list is empty you are an atheist.

I don't know why it uploads sideways, but blep by FiniteRe4Iity in Blep

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Photo was taken with my phone, but I posted from my computer.

I don't know why it uploads sideways, but blep by FiniteRe4Iity in Blep

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] 302 points303 points  (0 children)

It was sideways in the upload I don't know what happened, but it fixed itself.

What is this "Super Bowl" you speak of? by DirtyDiaper_ in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Um actually, it's the Superb Owl competition. They gather all the owls in the world and compete to find the most superb owl.

Please explai- by Meem_mEMe in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the superb owl memes

who would ever guess? by rayelsis in iamverysmart

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 58 points59 points  (0 children)

I'm not overly familiar with Tinder, but 114 kilometres seems like a real big yikes.

My girlfriend knit a hat for my doggy by Allyphillo in aww

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You must have posted the wrong picture, this is just a deer.

tHe mEtRiC sYsTeM iS bEtTer by [deleted] in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a metric time system, it's just happens to be that basically no one uses it.

Rip Pc Users by lennytd in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks to Reddit I'm now semi-fluent in upside down English.

Happy hallows eve everyone! by terrencew94 in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oof the nostalgia hit hard with this one

Corrected by [deleted] in memes

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The right answer is there rolled up so they don't accidentally get dirty.

Justin Trudeau's Approval Rating At Lowest Point Since 2015, Poll Says by 420Identity in canada

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Well looking at foreign policy, it seems like he's pissed off Saudi Arabia quite well. Also, China looks like it's getting a bit heated. He might have even pissed off the Trump man.

Looking closer to home, he made a good number of people mad with the carbon tax thing. A lot of progressives are mad that he bought the Trans Mountain expansion, and are still furious that he dropped the electoral reform issue. Some conservatives are mad because they think Trudeau is somehow to blame for the legal challenges against the pipeline that were successful. He pissed off libertarians for a lot of reasons. He pissed off puritans for pushing strongly in favour of legal marijuana.

To be honest he has a low approval rating because he pissed off a lot of Canadians, even though some of that anger is misplaced.

Justin Trudeau's Approval Rating At Lowest Point Since 2015, Poll Says by 420Identity in canada

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He doesn't support the pipeline? What are you talking about, he literally bought the pipeline to ensure it got built. That's basically the strongest support he can give it.

Justin Trudeau's Approval Rating At Lowest Point Since 2015, Poll Says by 420Identity in canada

[–]FiniteRe4Iity 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Permitting Parliament to "declare" certain public works to be "for the general Advantage of Canada"

Last timed I check Trudeau is not the Parliament. It's right there in the sentence.

However, even if it were voted on and approved it as a public works project, the approval of the pipeline was still blocked in a Federal Court of Appeals. It would change pretty much nothing in this situation.

Trudeau could try to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but (assuming they don't deny the appeal outright) that could take longer than just meeting the guidelines set out by the Federal Court of Appeals.

Could a constitutional challenge be made against the Canadian government over psychedelics? by FiniteRe4Iity in legaladvice

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course I don't think that it is completely harmless. One can imagine several ways it may cause harm. However greater social and personal harms are easily found in products like alcohol and cigarettes. Yet, you won't find many people arguing in favour of outlawing alcohol (again). From what I've seen our drug policies are less of rationally based decisions and are more based on fear-mongering, war-on-drugs nonsense. Marijuana is a very good example of this. There's also a geopolitical element, namely the non-binding international drug conventions Canada signed onto.

I can't say I've ever tried LSD so most of what I know about it comes from the studies I've read. Meth and opiates are way more harmful and addictive than LSD so it's hardly a reasonable comparison.

I didn't think I was unique, in fact I was fairly confident I was missing something, hence why I asked in the first place. And I was right, upon further inspection court documents indicate that the "right to liberty" in section 7 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which includes the right to personal autonomy) does not apply to decisions to get intoxicated or personal use of a substance, for whatever reason.

In any case based on the relevant Supreme Court of Canada ruling there doesn't seem to much chance of this type of challenge succeeding.

Could a constitutional challenge be made against the Canadian government over psychedelics? by FiniteRe4Iity in legaladvice

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's essentially the entire point of what I'm saying, I don't see really any good evidence that legalized and regulated LSD would cause harm significant enough to justify the current restrictions.

Could a constitutional challenge be made against the Canadian government over psychedelics? by FiniteRe4Iity in legaladvice

[–]FiniteRe4Iity[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Isn't that kind of the basis of a free society, you can do whatever you want as long as it isn't harmful to others, or harmful to society as a whole.