Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

    1.  The pro-SOGI exclaim that it’s about protecting gay and trans rights and preventing bullying and depression.  The anti-SOGO claim that the prevalence of pride flags, gender affirmation, and excluding parents from student information are indoctrination, statist, and a trampling of other rights.  

    2. Schools can prevent bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, respect legal gender transition identifiers, and keep parents in the loop (except where abuse is suspected) without removing the use of male and female pronouns, requiring the raising of pride flags, or teaching elementary students about alternative genders in the curriculum.   Even the mention of diverse sexuality can be left to older grades.  It doesn’t mean that if students ask the teach can’t respond factually, at least to older students.  Not sure what the age should be, but it’s not going to be perfect.

    3. I also agree that the trans definition needs clarification.  I think it must remain a third category, as biological sex can’t change except in the performative sense.  Basically we agree to pretend up to the point of men’s and women’s sports and communal male or female washrooms.  

    1. Yes that summarizes the debate.
    2.  Ok - now you are being specific.  That's all I'm asking for.  I'm not going to debate the specifics of your points - some of which I agree with and some I don't.  
    3. Some of what you're talking about isn't strictly decided at the classroom or even Ministry of Education level though, as they will defer to legal and mental health experts.  If you are going to the school, board of education, or Ministry and asking them to do something that their professionals don't agree with they will side with them not you.

  2. 4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    1. Trans rights are taking precedence over women’s rights, religious rights, and the right to free speech.  

    1. Two points: the courts are working through what 'trans rights' mean in our legal system.  There will be trade-offs as there are when rights are granted to newly defined groups. That includes the right to 'free speech'.   

    But I think I will stop there because the point you're making doesn't seem to me to be 'the opposite' of what I said. You're going into the details of some of the issues, whereas I was talking high level.   I stated that the SOGI protests overstate their case - maybe you are disputing that.  If so, I can give you lots of examples from the Facebook group supporting the protests.

  3. 6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    They push gender ideology and the worst aspects of woke cancel culture.  

    Believe it or not, I DO empathize with "old school" thinkers who are left behind by the new identity politics, having friends and family in this group.

    But people who rail against gender "ideology" tend to ignore the fact that transgender people are a recognized group legally, and that the system has always taught inclusion. 

    If you want things changed, you need to be specific.  People are starting to recognize that the opposition to SOGI has been very vague and overstates their case.


  4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/31/viral-claim-hamas-holding-500-americans-hostages-in-gaza-isnt-true/?sh=7276d0e16c8b

    "Blackburn is incorrect about the number of hostages being held by Hamas. The Israel Defense Forces have said 230 people are being held by Hamas in Gaza, according to the latest figures released by the IDF. And obviously not every one of those 230 people are Americans."

    So interestingly more Americans are trapped in Gaza than are hostage ?


  5. 10 hours ago, August1991 said:

    I  checked the data. Real GDP per capita in 2020 is about twice 1970.

    We Canadians, on average, are twice better off.

    And in Canada, there is almost no risk. 


    Imagine someone in Cambodia in 1970  Or China.

    Can I get a cite ?  I look for these stats also but the ones I find don't align with yours, or others I find.  

    It's mind boggling that people aren't talking about this all the time.

  6. 39 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

    I don't see the issue with a black little mermaid.

    What I do see as problematic is this agenda to make roles that aren't held by people of color, all of a sudden held by people of color, to appear progressive. You know, vs the actor being the best possible person for the role.

    Again, still okay.

    Its the woke talking points that come with it, that get tiresome.

    Confusing. Are you okay with the black mermaid or no?  Is it problematic or okay?

    Is talking about it okay?

  7. Again - we had a national conversation on this in 1988 because Mulroney trusted what was then the public sphere to make a rational choice based on arguments.  Mulroney won the election and we got the FTA.  Then we got NAFTA, from the Liberals, without such a conversation.  By the time the Pacific Trade Agreement came in, I think that they had put in provisions that said the government wasn't allowed to tell us what was in it.

    I understand why the government thinks it's necessary to lie sometimes about, say, whether masks are a good idea, what's in Area 51, and so on... but these things aren't simple decisions and getting caught with your d*ck in the cookie jar makes people not want to eat cookies anymore, ever.

  8. 3 minutes ago, myata said:

    1. No wait, even before that: when you are planning to do something, even a small thing, you think right? Why are you doing it; is there a reason to do it?

    2. what could happen? could it go wrong, etc. Why would we have those things right above the shoulders if we never need them, except maybe for haircuts and shouting at the game?

    3. So why did we want to begin a massive, unique in the sane (and therefore developed) world immigration program? There had a reason, some reason one would think.. or not really eh?

    1. I said that at the outset: "The rationale is economic."
    2. The reasons to not do it, from a discussion I heard involving the German example, are political and centred around domestic attitudes to immigration.  I think it was Angela Merkel who compared Canada to Germany and determined Germany wouldn't be able to accept that many immigrants.  The things above the shoulders are attached to humans so their ideas aren't simply based on facts but emotions.
    3. See #1.

  9. 9 minutes ago, Legato said:

    You sir are being disingenuous. People have different opinions. However when someone does not have the same opinion as yourself ...

    Did you know that for most of our history on RePolitics memes were actually banned ?

    I refer to these as the good old days.

    It's not about you having a different opinion, it's about having your own opinion.

    What happens if I disagree with the meme ?  Are you going to email them in Belarus to come on here and defend their opinion ?

  10. 3 minutes ago, Legato said:

    1. My opinion if just as valid as yours,
    2. don't blame me for your myopic view.
    3. The source of all your problems is you. get over yourself.
    4. Leave the forum? After you sunshine.


    1.  Is it your opinion?  How convenient that a meme maker knows you well enough to make a meme for you.
    2. I didn't read your meme... maybe something about a Climate Change hoax ?  I don't know ... I don't respect meme eaters...
    3. That much I know.  But many of my problems originate from you.
    4. I've been posting for 20+ years on here.  I will die posting on here...

  11. 6 minutes ago, myata said:

    Please note the OP: no one else is bringing them at such a breathtaking pace. So it's not a given, not some kind of self-obvious truth.

    Why is that? What is special here and what are the reasons? Who explained?

    What is special here ?  I think we have an exceptional attitude towards immigration for one.  To get to the point where our systems are actually falling over due to the volume of immigration and not one political party is calling for the reduction or even talking about it is ... different, for good or bad.

    Nobody explained, but people have generally accepted it for good or bad.  

    Is it different from economic policy in general ?  I don't think so.  Kudos to Brian Mulroney and John Turner for bringing a discussion of international trade deals into Canadians' living rooms but I don't recall one since then.

  12. 1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

    1. Other experts differ, and so do I. For a young healthy person the risk factors drop to such low numbers, the benefit is debatable and the person need not be vaccinated

    2. ...  per government bureaucrat orders.

    3. Stay out of my health care decision, government man.

    1. Ok - devil in the details.  But there's also the benefit of reducing the spread to other people.
    2. Your hate of government people is yet another emotional aspect to this.
    3. You have to move out of Canada to get that.

    And there's a big part of my post you didn't respond to, where I talk about issues with the public sphere...

  13. 15 minutes ago, myata said:

    Lets hear it then! Can we? Bringing a half of a country in a single generation is a bold and creative experiment - no one else is the (sane) world is doing that. Why it has to be this and there's no other ways? Where can we find that out? In what backroom records, etc?

    Can we what ?  

    If you ask if there are 'no other ways' then you're asking a much more difficult question than why can't we build some hospitals ?  I explained a brief guess as to why the hospitals, medical schools, etc. weren't prepared for this situation.

    Coming up with a better way to grow the economy 🤫  I mean... we could focus on the 'new economy' but even then we have to bring in immigrants to build it. 

  14. 9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

    1. Yes you fell for the dunderhead comment. Low hanging fruit, for low-brows to find entertaining. 

    2. In general I like to post with an important (to me) topic related point that is usually given by inference. You have to figure it out a little. Then I add a joking remark to capture the attention of those who love ridicule, so they can enjoy that. Something for everyone. But the poster who discerns what I mean will pick up on the important part. Trolls will have fun with the other part.   ;)

    3. I allude to the larger more serious issue that faith in our democratic / medical/ scientific institutions is waning, leading to even bigger problems down the road.

    4. I blame this squarely on government and the excessive politicization of every issue, which parties are doing for their own benefit. This is the rotthat must be fought against.

    5. Foolish, naive leadership and Trudeau is at the helm. My comments echo the sentiment of others on here lately, like this-


    1. I wasn't entertained, I was aggravated.
    2. If you are delighted by being being confused by your posts then you should be delighted by me.
    3. We are on the same page there but I would ask you to focus on the big messes first.  The big mess would be people who believe grossly exaggerated claims about vaccine ineffectiveness.  If people are skittish about getting a shot and would rather gamble on getting sick then that's one thing.  But if they think the vaccine is equally risky as not getting the shot then that's a misinformed person and a problem for everyone.
    4. Again, we are on the same page.  I would fight the rot by promoting something we used to have: the public intellectual.  These people were independent of political parties and argued with each other.  There used to be something called 'the panel' on The National which is an aged, wrinkled, decrepit, decaying and failed version of this.
    5. Trudeau is a symptom of a system that evolved to promote style over substance.  Don't hate the playa, hate the game as Snoop Dogg quoted on his terrible album 'Da Game is to be Sold not to be Told'

    Any intelligent person should maybe admit first that 'Da Game' is complex beyond the comprehension of any human and needs to be changed, or probably broken down...


    • Like 1
  15. 10 minutes ago, myata said:

    But this happened over the decades. I'm interested in a real, meaningful answer: what is the rationale? Who thought about that? And who has decided and why?

    Surely this continued under governments of all strides and stripes. Why though? What is the rationale and who/what is driving it?

    The rationale is economic.  All the leaders thought about it - 3 Conservative PMs and 3 Liberal PMs.  And they did it.

    Could we have done better at capacity planning ?  Yes.  Did we ?  No, no way. 

    They had lots of warning that these problems were coming but fixing problems that are 20 years away isn't well handled by this system of government.

  16. 12 minutes ago, cannuck said:


    1. First there has to be some kind of prioritization of things we know are actually "the problem" and things we know might be some kind of "solution".   Political processes are one of the worst devices of mankind to deal with such important things.  Most of all, one needs to identify what is the driving mechanism of political policy and action.  IMHO the top of the list is realizing that politics is 99% about assigning privilege - most of the time for the financial benefit or at least perceived benefit of those in power or those who hold sway over them. The end result is that politics becomes the smokescreen for the truth while the politicos scrap over who gets to benefit from what policies and actions.

    2. The so called "green" movement has gained a life of its own based on the profitability and profile of those who benefit from scaring people and government into financing their fear-based programmes with knee-jerk reactions. 

    3. When you get millions sucked into this distortion of reality the politicos have little choice but to jump on the bandwagon to stay in public favour.

    4. Then you get economic activity happening, not because of real market forces, but because of the inrush of cash from people, companies (who have to show a public green face to maintain their perceived position)

    5.  We have damaged the biota of the oceans so badly the first genuine crisis will be the collapse of phytoplankton - that is by far the largest component of absorbing CO2 and emitting O2.   Diatoms alone account for 42% of all of the oxygen in our atmosphere, but dying off at an alarming rate.   Why?   We are poisoning the oceans with multiple chemicals, the most significant in this case being plastics (the UV blockers and plasticizers at top of the list).  Quick, easy, SIMPLE solution is to stop making and using these things NOW - not to demonize carbon to deviate from solving the real problems.


    1. I liked the start up until this point... can you explain, for example, how the response to Climate Change, Covid, etc. is "assigning privilege" as an explicit action vs. how privilege just is prioritized generally in society ?  If it's the latter then is it even worth mentioning ?

    2. Can't you say that about everything, or at least any challenge you disagree with ?  In my lifetime, Economic challenges, national unity, Global Trade, Climate Change, Security threats are all issues that could fall into this group - from top of mind.

    3. You do accept, though, that there are challenges in the public sphere as well as in science that contribute to the politics you're describing.  Such as - the ability for proponents/opponents to an approach to distort scientific facts, the general scientific ignorance of the masses, as well as the inability for any honest science to provide 100% proof of causality for a large majority of physical threats.  Any "politics" has to accept this current situation and come up with a novel solution.

    There are some interesting examples of success in the public sphere also.

    4.  Ah, but the market is built upon perception.  Right ?

    5. Ocean damage is something I know almost nothing about is something I know little to zero about, thanks for this.

    The big problem is our public sphere isn't set up to engender trust in institutions at this point.  That's what I got from your post and so I agree with you.

  17. 18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

    1. Because you focused on me, not the content I wanted to talk about ...
    2. Distrust over the covid vaccine, I should add. I'm not talking about going to the grocery store.

    3. But you, as ususl, seek to focus on the poster as singular in their view and somehow connect it to everything else. 

    4. ... It's a nasty liberal trait you need to rid yourself of, if you really want to join the conservative club.

    5. But nah. You won't. Because you're too old now and set in your ways. You are what you are at this point. ;) 

    1. Based on the use of the pronoun "I" in this sentence -> "I know you dunderheads may fire back that it's anecdotal, but so what. I trust my experiences more that these official reports.
    2. "Distrust" .... Trust and distrust are emotional brain-states made by individuals based on ... factors. Where 'distrust' is indeed a failure of communication that needs to be taken up, it doesn't necessarily implicate the content.
    3. "I don't trust" is an entirely subjective statement based on: the sender of the message, content, and receiver.  You specifically said "I TRUST MY EXPERIENCES" more than the data, which is a huge problem for the receiver of the message in general.  You have fallen into the fallacy of anecdotes to the point where you actually believe you can say that to a general audience and have them agree/empathize.
    4. While I am indeed liberal as well as conservative, I have a lot more depth in the topic than to just believe the claims of government without question.  The problem is that we never get to the deep end on here, but we hear people giving knee-jerk reactions and outright rejections of science.

    To be clear: there are lots of fallacies and misinformation in the public domain of science and I never say there isn't.  But the tendency for some... uh... types of people... to jump from "the data on vaccination reactions isn't well publicized" to "Bill Gates is injecting my wife with WEF chips" needs to be shat upon in a nice liberal way.

    5. A gross misunderstanding, which I chalk up to you being afraid to ask.  Have you ever asked me what aspects of climate science are wrong ?  If not, why not ?  I don't think you're a Chud ... which is why I put such effort in posting in response to your statements about yourself...

  18. 1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

    1. Do your feet even touch the ground when you walk? Just wondering.   ;) 

    1. I really don't get how you think.  You post "I don't listen to experts because I don't trust them"... despite presumably using consumer goods, listening to weather forecasts, taking medication etc. etc.  I point that out and your response is that *I* am the one who is somehow arrogant.

    It's actually humbling to realize how little we know, and put some intelligent capital into the opinions of others.  You really should try it.

    • Like 2
  19. 7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

    I trust my experiences more that these official reports.

    That is a very tribal response to knowledge. 

    And despite your proud defiance of institutions and their roles, you actually rely on them in your life in a pervasive way anyway... for economic, safety, security, nutritional, informational governance in all aspects of your life.

    It seems cool to be a rebel, I guess, but you still live in a world where choices are made for you by others and you're better off for it.


    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
  20. The thing that these half-wit Chud seekers don't understand is that their vapid identity politics crusades aren't that popular.

    By destroying the checks and balances, and arms length agreements with institutions, they're opening the door for it being used against them down the line.

    They're going to be going after religious folks within a generation, using the notwithstanding clause liberally...

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  21. 14 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

    I think most of us are aware of what happens to teachers who speak publicly on such issues. 

    I know a bunch of teachers, you're posting pure b******* and lies and you know it.

    Conversation over.

    No links, but everything is terrible and the world's ending.

    Can the moderator just ban the chicken Little or do we have to read garbage from someone who's clearly intelligent enough to know better?

    • Like 1
    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...