Michael Hardner

My family was liberal Christian, and charitable both in donations and good works. There were a fair number of hard right conservatives too, both social and fiscal conservatives however I would never have suspected any of them in being materialistic or (worse) worshipping money. These were people who had lived hard lives, and simply didn't believe in handouts without work in trade. There is no 'ethic' behind the materialism of today. It's simply assumed that a person who owns a few dairy queen franchises should pay less and less because they are employing Filipino workers and "helping the economy" that's all.

" sometimes even crossing the red line to make society aware in general. " What does this mean ?

Astute. Here's Jan Wong and Jesse Brown listing all the issues with the government response. https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/887-what-me-inquiry/

Wouldn't people call someone a hypocrite if they moralize and demand that others be consider it when they refuse to do so themselves? It sure wouldn't fly if a politician tried to say they cared about workers and then laughed at layoffs. I realize it's an analogy, but not caring about the future of the planet and openly saying so means you don't care about children. Unless Whitney Houston was lying also.

Yeah but to a lot of people it looks like a legitimate public discussion. So my first choice is to not engage, however to address contrarian's point I will invoke a new tactic to engage these people in the way I described above

1. They hold commanding leads in public office? They get reelected with landslides? 2. You've already explained that you don't care about the public good, so stop lecturing others. You're the worst kind of poster, it's vain hypocrisy to wag your finger at people and publicly admit that you will do nothing to help on other issues that you don't care about.

Not an issue. I vote for every position on every ballot. But the public sphere, that body of collective knowledge that supports democracy, requires responsible engagement on the part of participants. If you love people to participate when they don't adhere to the rules, then you're poisoning the public sphere in my opinion. Contrarian has made the point that uninformed and passive form members may be swayed by their arguments, therefore we should counter them. As such, I am trying to post against them infrequently.. we'll see the point out how unprincipled and ridiculous they are.

... let's add to the pile of bad ideas, by proposing state imposed Christianity, so that Atheists, Jews and Muslims go to public school will be converted as part of public policy. The parents will have no choice, unless they're anti-semites that the governor likes personally. (I did read that DeSantis defended the lone parent who got the poem banned)

Is your point appears to be supported by the fact that Florida's government is trying to use state power to discourage educators from talking about history. The Free Speech types will equate this to public groups demanding politeness and decorum around discussion of certain groups, but it's by no means the same thing.

Yes I think that I covered this angle. These decisions mean that the past concern about testosterone levels are brought back, validating the question. Also means that discussion can happen, and rumours that a shadowy cabal won't allow such discussion are unfounded. Of course a mob exists, and they include unhinged followers. But the mob will always be there. They'll boycott Bud Lite and/or will buy it. Let's support a public sphere where we ask a little more from participants.

Hahaha good one.

Not an issue, but how practical is the idea? Is there an audience for these groups to participate? Are there even enough athletes to create a field of competitors?

Of course, you're eagle-eyed when looking for me to actually state an opinion and I understand why. There are indeed sports where testosterone levels and some basic biological factors provide an edge, and indeed even some natural born women have been disqualified in the past. This is why they also ban hormone supplements. I think all of this is completely understandable, and unworthy of being attacked because of one's stance. Now I can't list which sports we're talking about.. but running, cycling, are included. Sports where men and women compete together obviously don't need to be considered, nor sports where there are no career implications such as high school volleyball or some such.

Anyway, for those keeping score, @Perspektiv is ostensibly a moralist.. who calls people groomers because they want to teach sex ed, and basic LGBTQ+ awareness. However, he's also said, in so many words, that he doesn't care about the environment and won't really lift a finger to help out on that front. So... like a moralist who says shame on people for not caring about the issues that I care about, who don't share my values.

You mean by commenting on your posts, right? And when you come back to me then you want my attention in turn, and that's cute, and we're having a discussion, and that's cute, and so on and so on and so on and so on.. Cute, cute, all around! 🤗