I imagine if my occupation includes carrying a gun, interacting with citizens, and a historically high rate of extrajudicial deaths amongst people I am supposed to be protecting. A publicly accessible camera would be beneficial to easing the minds of those I interact with and providing evidence for any actual instances where I felt my life was threatened.

The way it’s set up it sure looks like Saskatchewan is still technically collecting the tax and just paying the amount right back from their own budget. And Saskatchewan citizens are still getting the carbon payouts from Ottawa.

Saskatchewan citizens will still have to pay for Moe’s stupidity, but the deficit will be in the Saskatchewan budget, not an individual extra tax bill.

Mainly means that Moe will just continue to destroy Education and Healthcare, which was his main goal anyway.

Probably until either the nurses stop panicking in my local area or the immunocompromised people in my life die of a preventable illness.

https://aquamodesta.com/

https://www.splashgearusa.com/

Are some options for people who don’t want clothing that is skintight and revealing.

I’ve very occasionally seen brands like this at box stores. But the vast majority of time if you want something that isn’t skin tight you have to get shorts designed for men and some sort of sports top with a shirt.

Yes. Baggy clothing isn’t optimal for swimming, and trunks will tend to stick awkwardly anyway, but a lot of guys would feel uncomfortable if speedoes were the only option. I know I would.

It’s a double standard plain and simple.

Of course, “always cheaper” in this case means less money up front, but much, much expensive more down the road than the initial cost.

Of course, the down the road cost isn’t usually that visibly connected to the “make it illegal” plan, so conservative governments love it.

It might be similar to a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Though that one is more focused on distinct but related definitions than it is for distinct but related situations. Not the exact one that you are looking for, but the related concepts might be a path towards an answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

The first few books (and really most of them that feature Rincewind) are not the best examples of his work in my opinion. Honestly the series evolves from cheap parody to suprisingly deep commentaries on life and society. Most of the books are standalone, so you don’t need to read all of them to get the best bits.

Might I suggest ‘going postal’ or ‘making money’ as good examples of his later work that are particularly stand alone.

“Most consumers want fast food companies to label when sawdust has been added to food - but trust restaurants less when they do.”

You don’t even need to go that far. Water used in concrete is locked in as a structural component. That’s why concrete is described as ‘setting’ instead of just ‘drying’.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent (Click ‘Antarctic’ under ‘region selector’ on the right).

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ (click ‘Antarctic’ towards the top left.)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dino_game/

“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”

Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.

If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.

The trouble with ‘Slippery Slope’ and ‘No True Scotsman’ is that they themselves are not fallacies. Invoking them without proper justification is the fallacy. The same sort of thing happens all the time with ‘Appeal to Authority’, you can probably trust a scientific consensus about a subject in which they are all experts, but you probably shouldn’t trust an individual expert on a topic for which they are not recognized as an expert.

For an example of Slippery Slope: Fascists will absolutely try to demonize the most available target, and then because they always need an out-group, they continue cutting at what they consider the ‘degenerates’ of society until they are all that remain. (And then they find some new definition of degenerate)

“No True Scotsman” is valid in that there is at some point by definition after which you are no longer talking about something. “No true vegetarian eats meat” is valid, as this is definitional. “No true member of Vegetarians United eats meat” lacks proper justification, and refers to an organization, not a proper definition. This gets really messy when people conflate what group people are in with what they ‘are’ or what makes them a good example of a group. Especially when religion is involved.