Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    42,296
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    92

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1. You haven't shown any understanding of what was happening. 2. Yeah. A conservative who voted for trans rights. Is he woke?
  2. 1. Well what do you have to say against it. I paralleled the logic Perspektiv laid out. 2. You know who Jim Flaherty was?
  3. I mean whether the adoption of new language has achieved social goals. It's too long a causal chain to prove anything. Right, but didn't your definition assert that it's tied to affirmative action type programs? Otherwise we're back to my definition.
  4. 1. Well, it seemed to read like a common syllogistic fallacy. 2. Wrong. Somebody in this very thread tried to say that, and I showed how I'm aligned with WestCan and Flaherty. Next...
  5. 1. Why was it a 'poor reference' ? 2. My attempt was inaccurate ? Dishonest ? I didn't get that from your post. The syllogism itself actually makes sense, so non sequitur. 3. No, it made sense in the context of what I was commenting on. Graham got it. 4. Ok, good. I wasn't sure what you were saying... 5. No, you infer that I am accusing you of saying that. I just wasn't sure so I clarified my position there. You seem to react as though you have touched an electric fence. You're likely afraid of my "dishonest traps" LOL 6. No... I illustrated what I thought was a syllogistic fallacy and you came back with a syllogism that made sense... Did you... ah forget it... 7. No, Perspektiv said something like that I think... not me. 8. Ok then. I just didn't get what the syllogism was supposed to be making fun of, I guess. 9. Got it. Doubly wrong - nobody says I'm the "smart one" and I'm not left.
  6. 1. I know you do but what do I ? 2. Circular logic. 3. Apply this to your #2. 4. Apply this to your #2. 5. Thanks. 6. Next thing is, you'll start to explain what "subjective" means like I didn't use the term several times. 7. Awww... thanks. Did you know I actually have been paid to write comedy ? No kidding. There's not much market for dry stuff but I'm working on it. I appreciate the compliment.
  7. Weeeeeird. I just wanted to quote this tangential illogical square dance you're doing by yourself there... I'm not saying Safe Injection Sites are woke or un-woke. Try to allow that idea to penetrate the part of your body above the neck. I am not involved in a debate on this tangent...
  8. 1. I know you are but what am I ? 2. Don't call something a distraction just because you can't follow a simple chain of posts and responses. Do your work and scroll back and read, lazybones. 3. Yep. You're welcome. 4. Weirdly, you keep mentioning it. 5. Actually we're making progress on diving into what people consider "woke" and it's interesting for me to understand the perspectives of others on this. But you can just keep using my definition, it's ok. 6. Glad you got a laugh out of my joke.
  9. Syllogistic Fallacy: All woke things are dumb. Safe Injection is dumb. Therefore it is woke.
  10. 1. You are doing what you always do... clouding the issue and refusing to accept what you yourself wrote. Top of Page 2 you called something I wrote a lie and when I responded you called THAT a distraction. So I'm not sure what to do at this point. Are you still calling me stating my opinion on something a lie or ? 2. Those aren't opposites. A question can be both and yours was. 3. You seem to care. 4. Such as calling an opinion a "lie" and when I address it saying I'm not causing a distraction. The main problem is that you see discussion as competition, and acknowledging points as getting a goal scored on you. So it's impossible to build any kind of discussion. 5. No, I'm staying right here where I have been for 20 years. Insult redacted. 6. I address your point that I don't give my take on things enough, and then you steal my definition... and THIS is the thanks I get. Insult redacted.
  11. Interesting result that I didn't see predicted. They shut down Colorado's attempt but left it as states' rights as long as there was a solid process in place. From what I've read that's the upshot. Good ruling IMO, and will likely prevent noise in this area in the future.
  12. 1. That's just silly. I was responding to this comment in your previous post: "i have no idea what you're referencing". Didn't you accuse me of dodging/avoiding issues ? This would be evidence that I read/respond to your points. 2. 4. There's no "main point" if everybody is talking about something different. Others on here are working on that very question, are you going to go after them too ? Figuring out what people are talking about is first steps to dealing with any issue. 3. 5. OK. 6. I'm accountable for what I write. If I make a mistake I admit it. You see discussions as combat, which makes our encounters other worldly: one person thinking he's American Gladiator and the other just trying to figure things out. 7. It's called a 'loaded question' then. Your question assumes I'm being dishonest which is incorrect. Is this what you mean by avoiding questions or tricks ? If so -> lol. 8. Dishonest trick like adding a loaded question like ""How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?" " How am I supposed to answer that. You're acting in bad faith. 9. Ok cool. I'll also point out your dishonesty such as demanding that I answer loaded questions, otherwise being labelled as dishonest (?). Ignore button glowing read pending your response 🥰 --++--- You answered Perspektiv, and actually said the definition isn't that complex... then basically invoked the definition that I provided ! Sly like a fox ! 😂
  13. 1. I think it fits *my* definition but others here disagree so I'll leave it to them to ask you. The rest of your post supports this first sentence IMO.
  14. 1. I doubt that. But she doesn't seem to compete with me. Not sure why you think you do. 2. Top of page 2. You quoted part of my post "But only tribally, I suspect. It's just code for something you don't like" and you responded "This is just such a lie.". See - my post says "I suspect", meaning that it's my opinion. Then you called my opinion a lie. 3. Ok, please do. I sincerely will try to keep an eye out. 4. Maybe you're not reading the posts that followed, with you, me, Graham et al. trying to find said definition. I have put forward MY version. At best, it's vague and subjective and that's my point. If you want me to retract that there's "No definition", if I said that, than I will. 5. We're now in the vicinity of the philosophers like Kant and Hegel. So if you want to go by that way of defining words, then I agree that it's a better approach. But you have to also accept that there will be at least "quibbles" as to details as evidenced by the posts on here. But ok. 6. Says you. You also haven't admitted that I'm right. If you want to be an absolute moralist and claim that anybody different from you is just wrong then I can also point out the fuzziness of definitions. It's fair game as far as I can see. Just as it's fair game for you to point out my reluctance to nail down a static and detailed definition or opinion on something. 7. 9. 10. 11. You project your view of the world on others then. Because I for one know you're wrong about me. There's no other explanation I have other than you think I must only be thinking in a way that you can accommodate in your imagination of how others think. 8. Never ? Let me look at this post and see how I did... Well, oddly, you only have one question mark in your last two posts to me: "How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?" My answer is: "I'm not participating in dishonest tricks. If you think I'm being evasive or dishonest, show how. Don't just assume that I have an agenda based on your suspicious." That's an answer. --++-- Believe it or not, I think we're getting somewhere. I took you off ignore.
  15. Yes, but for him exactly because it has to be subjective. And the problem with a list format is that you can never list all of the "woke" things. For example, could you define delicious by listing all the delicious things ? No. I have been criticized, and I'll admit it's fair comment, about not weighing in on my own takes on things. Perspektiv and CanFox say that. Well, this is related to political mechanics, the public sphere etc. so it's easier to put something out there without looking like you're taking sides.
  16. Sorry, my definition is actually a definition. You can't define something by listing a bunch of examples. It's the tower of Babel problem. Colored hair? Rocket Richard used Grecian formula. Fiscal irresponsibility? Pretty tough to define that. Deficits? Try to keep me out of it. This to me is an exercise in politics, in defining the terms of a discussion. Not calling you a chud, because at least you're trying.
  17. Okay so let's notice, especially for those who say we all know what it is, how difficult it is to define "woke". Also does not meet the definition Groot and WestCan have touched on. With you and me and Perspektiv, that makes five conservatives with five different opinions so far. ---+++--- This is why my definition, which is admittedly subjective and general, works best IMO
  18. 1. Pretty sure not everybody. For tactics, you just stated that I was a liar after I am posted an opinion. How's that? 2. What's an example of a question I'm trying to dodge? And stop trying to read my mind as to what my intentions are. I'm just stating my opinion, and my logic. I'm trying to sound intelligent? I think that says more about your reading of my words, than my intentions. If I didn't answer a question, ask it again. I just did the Same thing with Perspektiv. He doesn't answer every question I ask him. And I don't assume he's trying to trick me. 3. I don't post my own opinions on things as often as I criticize others. Most of my opinions, as I say over and over when conveying my conservative stance, reflect a centrist status quo. The reason I'm on a discussion board is to help improve the discussion, and contribute to the public sphere. And I see so many bad arguments , and fallacies , and I see more use in pointing those out. Everybody on here has lots of opinions that mirror my own. My opinions aren't that unique. But go ahead and ask. I sure don't think that I'm running away from questions as you seem to think.
  19. WestCan just expressed tolerance for transgender protection, just as Jim Flaherty did. If you really want to start trying to split hairs on individual beliefs of mine, you're going to find yourself overwhelmed with complexities. I look at all of these things, identity politics issues, and I take it back to the political and judicial processes that got us to this point in history. People who want to overkill by using Parliament to pass laws against specific small details, or those who do not have tolerance for social change... These are people who do not believe in our institutions. I do.
  20. The Bud light campaign, and probably the questions of sports and education are not really included in that definition. Pronouns and other accommodations are not included. The definition is about material favoritism based on groupings, what used to be called affirmative action from what I see.
  21. I defined it, but it's still subjective: "woke" means "extreme progressivity" Caseinpoint- WestCan responded by saying gay marriage and trans rights for adults AREN'T woke. I think that validates the approach I took.
  22. 1. I don't see why it has to be. I don't feel that way about discussion with you. 2. I'm not twisting words, I'm giving an opinion. Certainly there's a lot of discussion on this board about how people use/misuse that word. That's significant IMO. 3. Your opinion. 4. Your use doesn't meet the definition. Go back and read the thread. 5. Well they're not opposites. I could be both. I take it from the 'no' part that you don't think that I am woke. 🤔 Ok. 6. Ok. Good to know. 7. No, you're out on a limb now. How exactly does "wokeness" make the cost of living high? How does it spike real estate costs and increase food prices? You appear to be stretching whatever meaning you're working with... I thought it was about social progression not economics. 8. Fine. Your wording in the previous post made me think that you were saying so. 9. Ok. ....... I still would have liked to hear you explain how you see it when word meanings change, it use changes. You probably don't want to go near that one though.
  23. Yes, but people expressed rage and this was a few generations ago. No political tribe has a monopoly on the high road.
  24. 1. 2. An opinion can't be a lie. Unless you're saying it's NOT my real opinion, that I DON'T suspect something is based on tribalism. Bizarre. 3. I already GAVE an offer of a definition to Groot. I wouldn't call "woke" leftism because it's also corporate, and doesn't have much if anything to do with economics. If woke's purpose is to put forward an agenda that appeals to the left, isn't it just "leftism" ? Do they mean the same thing ? 4. Then nobody is woke. Nobody is demanding gay porn be available to 8 year olds. Nobody. 5. I think that the Liberal bill is pretty crazy in the respect you pointed out but to be clear the judge would decide and life sentence is not mandatory there. 6. Just because you think you do, doesn't mean everybody does. The last poster I asked about this seemed to think trans rights established in law was NOT woke. That had me scratching my head. Like I say, it's one of those adjectives like "cool" or "spicy" or "sh1tty" that are relative and subjective. But I still tried to define it above. 7. I don't think so. My belief here is that you are extremely offended and hurt when the points of your illogic are pointed out to you. I don't know how to help you. For my part, I like being challenged and I admit mistakes, I say "mea culpa" (meaning, in effect, "my fault") and I change my opinions on social issues. I don't see these chats as duels but little JENGA sessions... we build ideas until contradictions bring down our logical structures. Such fun.
×
×
  • Create New...