Congrats on completely ignoring points 4 to 6.

Have a good day.

1. You don’t require a license for a e-scooters.
2. As such, most people on e-scooters aren’t educated on traffic laws like drivers are.
3. As such, minors who are uneducated on traffic law are also able to use them.
4. Going back to point 2, when you pair people ignorant to traffic laws going 120 km/hr on a device with no built-in protection with the fact that helmets aren’t legally required for them, you get a strain on public health for stupid reasons.
5. We already set speed limits on conventional bikes for safety reasons.
6. “Pedestrians” (which should include e-scooters and e-bikes), are at a 90% rate of injury for car collisions at 90 km/hr . I highly doubt this changes when it’s an e-scooter hitting another e-scooter or an e-scooter hitting a pedestrian.

No matter how you spin this, 120 km/hr on a scooter is beyond stupid.

Quickly adding that where I live, we have designated, separated bike lanes people using these things are supposed to use, and they still go zooming down sidewalks nearly hitting people, no helmet on, without so much of a ring of a bell for warning.

“How dare I be asked not to go down a sidewalk at 120 km/hr, I have places to be”

“it’s coming for you too”

Proceeds to post the most unpopular politicians in the country.

Smith just lost a Conservative stronghold to the NDP, this doesn’t bode well for her.

I disagree with OP calling it fascism to ban it, but people here are forgetting Monero exists and the valid use cases a cryptocurrency like that can have.

Not every cryptocurrency is a scam or a means to manipulate markets. If I’m in a country where I’m doing something objectively good, but still against the law, then cryptocurrency works if it requires finances to operate. See Sci Hub.

Edit: Why was this top of my homepage, I’m just noticing this post is two months old lol.

Cool. Except I don’t expect the U.S. to protect us.

I expect us to not follow their footsteps and become more alike to them by saying “if they have indiscriminate killing machines, we should have them too!”

Non-proliferation isn’t about protection from other countries with weapons. It’s about protection from the weapons themselves in disarmament and collectively deciding that their use is a war crime.

We’re literally basically just saying “if they can commit war crimes and not care, why can’t we?”. I don’t care about Trump when it comes to this, if anything he proves the point that having these weapons is a bad idea for everybody because it takes one bad apple to ruin the cider.

Am I supposed to suddenly agree with nukes because of this?

People are so short-sighted as to knowing the level of carnage these things produce. “It protects us from invasion” is not a valid excuse. Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced levels of indiscriminate killing and torment that we have not seen before or since, and these weapons have only grown more powerful since then.

Having a handful of fault points in the world is better than a million. People keep making the case that it just takes one madman from either the U.S., Russia, or China to launch a nuke.

Can you imagine if we just started allowing everyone to have nukes because we struggled getting the big guys to stop? Do you want Franz Ferdinand’s assassination but with atomic weapons? That’s what you get when start allowing more people to have nukes, and “but our guy is rational” doesn’t cut it as a justification.

Edit: You know, it’s hilarious that I’ve been blocked from responding to the person below’s comment calling me a tankie when at no point did I voice support for China or Russia and literally indicated that it can take a madman from those countries to cause mayhem just as much as it could anywhere else.

I find it so funny that self-described progressives will often drop their stance on war crimes the second you decide that you don’t want your country having a device that may as well be called “Warcrime Commiter 9000”. Does Avi Lewis support Canada having nuclear weapons? No? So he’s a tankie then, right? It just goes to show how far the Overton window has shifted right, and how people are shifting with it.

I want to know when being Canadian started meaning being anti-humanity. The creators of these weapons were horrified at their capability, and we decide that we want to have more of these things in the world over this fallacy that more destructive capability means more safety.

Yes, keep arming the world with doomsday weapons, great idea.

We signed a non-proliferation agreement for a reason.

Cool. So now we’re just making up imaginary scenarios as an excuse to subtly say slurs.