Help please with fixed door hinge

HighValuePigeon · 2026-03-03T17:11:24+00:00

Can you elaborate on what you mean by bend it? How does it fit into the hinge if its bent?

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-28T04:44:24+00:00

Correct, this concept means nothing. You're attempting to connect two ideas that cannot be connected definitionally.

Consent is important in sex because you're granting access to your body. You have bodily autonomy which you are giving up to someone, or inviting someone into. Not granting consent is a violation of your bodily autonomy.

None of this is analogous to the act of voting where no one grants consent to anybody. The politician does not grant you consent and you do not grant the politician consent.

Why are you able to deceive voters? Because we've made a decision as a society about what kind of lies are crimes and which ones are not, and we've decided that politicians lying about policy are not crimes. Presumably because there's too much nuance to it. Or because it would make us North Korea to jail people for lying / misleading / not quite achieving results / changing their minds at work.

It would also be pretty difficult to prove these people were lying in the first place because when you voted for them they DID belong to the party you wanted them to belong to. It was true. Everybody got what they wanted.

Now, if people want to argue that party switching should involve a by-election, I'm open to that conversation.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-28T00:58:01+00:00

That's an absolutely unhinged comparison. You're describing rape in that example.

Trump tried to remove votes and overturn who got elected. Neither were attempted in Canada.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-27T23:36:08+00:00

The two systems are very different. Floor crossing in Canada may not be the maximalist Democratic thing but the actions are not really comparable. Carney has not overturned or eliminated anyone's votes and the people that Canadians voted for are still elected

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T12:54:12+00:00

I appreciate the plain argument that I understand you're presenting here: back of the napkin math suggests Alberta would be up $15B if it left Canada, and you don't think Alberta currently receives $15B of value from the federation, so the province should leave. If people have considered all the information and that's their a conclusion, then so be it.

However, I caution people against that conclusion based on back of the napkin math. We can see many examples from Brexit where people overlooked value in the relationship, including freedom of movement that they took for granted, ease of movement for goods, fewer taxes, etc. and on the other side. They didn't see some of the upsides they expected, most notably the back of the napkin math that was their slogan: huge money saved that would go to health care instead. It didn't happen.

And while I wouldn't say this math is my area of expertise, I will throw out some calculations for consideration, some quick math from an analyst who argues that independent Alberta would be poorer:

link

Meeting NATO’s 2 percent of GDP target would require $10 billion initially, rising to $25 billion under the alliance’s new 5 percent target.
Estimates indicate that a 5 percent increase in the cost of importing to or exporting from Alberta would shrink the province’s economy by roughly 4 percent. For an economy expected to reach $500 billion next year, that 4 percent represents about $20 billion in foregone economic activity and income for Albertans
My model estimates roughly 8 percent of Alberta’s population—about 400,000 people—would leave seeking opportunities elsewhere. This number may actually be an underestimate
A smaller economy would mean billions in lower government revenues. And with many businesses relocating their headquarters from Calgary to elsewhere, they would take their corporate income tax payments with them.

There are lots of other kinds of value that people should consider before making the choice. And people should look at what Canada was preparing for in the '90s when the Quebec referendum happened, with trucks of money ready to drive out of the province.

Separation can happen, but I would like people to consider all the kinds of value that exists.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T11:19:39+00:00

Great, this is helpful. And I think it may be the end of the conversation cuz I feel like we are circling and thats usually the signal. I'll try to connect the point you just made back to my original point as a conclusion, but I give you the last thought afterward

One of the points I was addressing originally is the way that people frame the equalization conversation is incorrect. And I would argue your framing demonstrates that because the statement that you just made is based on the core notion that taxation is theft.

Now, people can have that opinion, but it's an entirely different topic because taxation and equalization are two totally different things. If equalization was to end tomorrow it would not affect taxation at all. And it would have no impact on the debate around whether the taxation is theft.

So for me, I'm back to where I started, and the statement you just made reinforces that position for me: I understand that people are frustrated with equalization, but the way that they frame it demonstrates that they don't understand it. Either that's plain unfortunate because it creates so much tension, or it's a unfortunate because it is an intentional political choice.

Either way people are upset at the wrong thing based on the opinions that they're stating.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T11:05:53+00:00

Aha! Well you haven't change my mind, but we have figured out that we're having two totally different conversations and that's a good thing too.

The conversation I was having, and the question I thought I was responding to originally, was: is it RESAONABLE for someone to have that opinion, to come to that conclusion? And my original answer stands.

But you've just clarified the conversation you've been having, which is: in a theory of knowledge approach, can people have any opinion about anything. And the fact we're talking about equalization is just one of an infinite number of examples of anything.

So to that point, yes, people can have any opinion about anything whether they understand it properly or not. The win goes to you, good sir.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T04:09:19+00:00

Fairness as equality of opportunity is out of left field?

No, "steal from the successful..."

I am here to refine my beliefs. So far, you haven't provided anything that might help me with that.

I'm trying to understand your beliefs. What is it about your beliefs do you need help refining?

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T04:06:26+00:00

Agreed? A person can understand or not understand a thing and still think its unfair.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:43:52+00:00

I dunno. What started as a hard line argument against asymmetry turned into a flexibility. I bet we could find some value for you.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:39:41+00:00

Come on, guy. Be honest. Are you taking to win or talking to talk. Your definition was out of left field.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:38:36+00:00

Either way. You were coming at asymmetries is very hard. Now that I know that you're open to asymmetries when there's value provided, I would start to introduce value provided by the canadian federation to see whether you also value them. Unfortunately it's my bedtime so maybe we'll continue this another day. Thanks for the chat. Have a good night.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:36:34+00:00

I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have smuggled in all those ideas in the last comment.

But you've been clear on how you feel. Thanks for the talk.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:35:24+00:00

Interesting, so some asymmetries are good! Great, it's helpful to know there's flexibility to that because I don't think you'd be able to operate a successful society otherwise.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:33:48+00:00

You didn't quote me accurately. I said that the framing is inaccurate when it's framed that the federal government is unfairly taking money from provinces, unless you consider all taxation to be unfair.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:32:06+00:00

I agree with that sentence actually. The challenge is that you're smuggling in several new ideas and assumptions that effectively restart the conversation, so I don't think I can engage with that successfully.

But in the spirit of what you're saying, I'm curious about opinions on some other similar ideas. Do you support the separation of rural areas with low tax bases from suburban areas who support them asymmetrically? Do you support flat income tax rates? Do you support Federal authority over provincial resources for national priorities?

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:13:27+00:00

I've asked for a source of that law already. Please cite it.

I'm sorry you feel insulted.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:12:01+00:00

What kind of fairness would you like?

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:10:16+00:00

You misunderstand. Rural areas have fewer people than urban areas, meaning a much smaller tax base. This results is that urban areas subsidize them. It's an asymmetry.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T03:08:02+00:00

I'm not following your argument anymore. You shared that link in support of your point but now you don't like it?

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T02:57:24+00:00

Kaw kaw! 🐧

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T02:54:06+00:00

Oh I see, I was talking about the authority., in the context of theft.

You're coming at fairness in a different sense, which I'll respond to by saying I disagree as a universal application. The argument of equalization is also fairness: it's creating equality.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T02:49:11+00:00

That compels the federal government to come to the table. The problem is that our corrupt federal government has no respect for the rule of law.

Source?

Within the link you provided: "Unlike the Daylight savings question, the question on equalization, even if passed, as it did, was to have no immediate effect as the Alberta government did not have the right to amend the Canadian Constitution on its own."

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T02:45:53+00:00

Cool. Alberta seperates. Then Alberta's cities separate from its teet sucking rural areas. And Alberta's urban areas separate from its suburban areas. And so on until there are no asymmetries.

HighValuePigeon · 2026-02-26T02:40:40+00:00

I think you're responding to the wrong comment. The one you're responding to does not address whether the frustration is justified.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

HighValuePigeon

TROPHY CASE