Michael Hardner

Well I DO think it's weird, but I want to assert that I think there's something honest in your stance in all this. Even though you want to make it about deficiencies in my part, I don't feel the same about you here. You seem to have a consistent and axiomatic "ethic" about this and I admire that. But still weird to me, In that you're describing a foreign feeling. That doesn't mean I think your take is bad, or worse than mine, just that I can't relate. Maybe You could understand me better if I said I admire these things we're talking about, that I have a deep affection for the work that my ancestors and others put in to building... I don't know.... Canada, Western civilization.... I stood at the amphitheater at Nimes, I think, when I was a young man.. And standing there I could feel the force of the Roman will to build, and create. I could really feel in my heart that they intended to be there forever. It was awe-inspiring. I have felt that way every time I visited a Roman site ... Such as Pompeii or the aqueduct. And I suppose for Canadian cities and American cities I visited. But pride? That's a very personal feeling I think. I can only really feel pride over my achievements and the ones close to me. And I'm a perfectionist so I don't even feel that about myself very often despite how hard I've worked to achieve what I have in my life. I would say not egotistical, but maybe the opposite.... I don't really feel like I've ever done enough. But I commend you for having a principled take on this. Interesting talk. Thanks. You made me think a lot about what pride means.

You made a big leap there... I'm not interested in hysteria on this question. I just want down to earth discussion...

You shouldn't.

So weird. 1. So I guess I should also be proud of Chinese people since they built th the railroad? What is it? I'm supposed to feel proud of everybody who contributed to Canada? 2. So because I'm not proud of other people... I'm egotistical? That's a stretch. People should be proud of their achievements, but grateful for those who made it happen. There. .. I think this is your habit of furiously rubbing sticks together trying to get smoke. I can't even say that I disagree because the point you're making is such a stretch. Let's find something else to disagree on.

Are you actually proud of nationalities to which you don't belong? That just strikes me as weird. Where do you cut off the line? At a certain point people get kind of.... Mixed. Like Malta? Corsica? Anyway... Far be it for me to tell you who you're proud of.

Well here's my answer: I think her system of government is superior. I've always loved French and Italian cuisine, as served in the countries themselves. I will never read enough German intellectual material, until the day I die. But why I would be proud of a German who died hundreds of years ago is beyond me. And the idea that people would think I obviously should be is very strange to me to the point where I doubt they're sincere.

🤔 You're weird.

Read GUNS GERMS AND STEEL by Jared diamond. It's an entertaining read and it will explain one good theory as to why Europe was dominant for a good while. I don't feel pride in German Intellectualism, French culinary excellence, British governance and the Victorian era..

1. Yes, I have been doing this a lot recently. 2. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In any case, even if you were right then that observation wouldn't translate to any conclusions about 'pride'. I will absolutely concur with your point that people are naturally AFRAID of different skin colours in certain contexts, specifically if they have no experience with them and probably if they're past the formative age. Case in point, the story of my great aunt who ran out of an elevator in Montreal in the 1950s when a black man got in. Not a woke person. I, on the other hand, had a black family friend when I was a toddler - shortly after that era and had an affinity for black folks thereafter. And there were basically no black folks in Toronto (my neighbourhood) at that time. 3. Absolutely I concur. 4. I concur. 5. I concur here also. Back to the question of 'Pride'... it's a pretty foggy notion. I can be 'proud' of my city but I had nothing to do with building it. I can be 'proud' of my skin colour but it's not an achievement either. We need to separate things we can really proud about - maybe a new word - such as achievement of ourselves or our family.

How exactly I'm supposed to automatically assume 'skin colour' is what you meant by denomination is beyond me. In any case, explain to me why identifying with similar skin colour is rational OR instinctual. People evolved in tribes and rarely warred with people from different climates. What constitutes an outsider is in question and - yes - it could be skin colour, but also religion, nationality and uncountable other things. So I will keep my point - there's no true pride in being any race, sexual identity, nationhood or somesuch. You were born into it, AFAIC.

People are 'trained' to denominate in many ways with the possible exception of tribe and family. Why would humans evolve to feel kinship with something called a 'nation' which is a pretty recent invention ? Edited to add a ridiculous example: I went to the Corvette Museum, I think in Kentucky... about 30 years ago. They showed a video of those large car rallies, and interviewed the organizer... he actually said "Corvette people are good people" Like... buying one of those cars means you're part of his tribe therefore good. People using their minds is too much to ask in such an environment, my two cents.

Exactly. There is no pride to be had in things you are born with. That includes people of color. Pride in the context of identity, as such, is not pride of achievement...... It's a kind of non- shame. They told people to be proud of their skin color. What they meant is... Do not be ashamed of it. As a result, These are all just semantic arguments over values that we probably share anyway.

I don't know enough about the subject to refute this or affirm.

1. And do you know that, or feel it in your gut?

I will add that the issue of ports is indeed critical. And it's one of those things that nobody pays attention to unless they're inside the business areas affected or in governance. So good point on that for Groot...

Yes, the critique that he's flying around everywhere and meeting with other nations seems daft to me.

What are you even talking about ? Watch to see how many elected Republicans rush to Donald's defense on this one. It might inform you a bit.

1. Give an example. If I have taken a strong modern position I will clarify or retract or maybe better yet declare myself offside with the typical conservative. 2. 🤔 How can my positions NOT be my own ? 3. Yes please do. 4. Of course I believe in Christ. What a thing to say My observation is that when I agree with you, you seem to be very offended. The idea of someone being independently minded vs out-of-the-box politically branded seems to make you uncomfortable. My advice to you is: live a little.

1. But the position I post is chiefly that the rights have been granted, that it's not a left/right thing on that point, and also criticism of bad arguments made on either side of the argument. I'm not an SFW on those term. 2. I have answered your points. I don't know what more you want from me. Try asking a specific question. 3. Not a game. My positions are my own. Not my fault you don't like them. 4. Incorrect. 5. Not a game.

1. I'm not balking, or concealing or obfuscating.... You want me to take a stand on myriad implementations of 'trans rights'... and I don't have a strong opinion on... a trans girl playing in a softball league.. bathroom laws... there's no one answer to all these things and that's not obfuscation. It's not a tactic, it's an honest response. 2. I do believe in them. If they go against my positions then I have to live with that. I didn't 'support' discrimination but I accepted that there was no legal framework on that,. The law doesn't change my moral positions. 3. I don't mostly agree with leftists, that's your characterization.... You want to draw the lines but I don't accept it. Once again, there doesn't seem to be much to talk about here. But if refuse to submit to your interrogations and say that I don't want to dance you come back with your accusations.... It's a boring cycle, User. I don't even know why you care ....

1. That's irrelevant. The discussion around rights is/was necessarily a first step and that discussion wouldn't have changed in light of current discussions. You want to talk about current events - feel free. I've explained that I don't have strong opinions on most of the ones that are discussed on here. I may have agree with him if he were alive, or maybe not. We were on the same page on the rights question and that's always been my stance. You have said that I must be 'left' because of my stance on it but my stance isn't much different from Flaherty's I think. 2. Did I support discrimination ? I don't think I would say that but there was no legal basis to act on discrimination. 3. No and I can accept why people wouldn't consider me Christian on that point.

In my lifetime: Nietzsche, Derrida, Lacan, Marx, Abstract Art, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Feminism, Rock n Roll, Television, Comic Books, Violence in films, Violence on TV, Dungeons and Dragons, Death Metal, Hip Hop, Gangsta Rap, Video Games, The Internet, Facebook, TikTok... From the top of my head.

"Woke" in the public sphere came in around 12 years ago... BLM. So, no. The Decline was already described in Eisenhower's post-presidency book (which I read) in 1959. Decline, decline.... always in decline... Entropy is a thing.

1. Jesus didn't talk about trans specifically. Jim voted on it, and his stance is with mine. You don't like that a conservative agrees with me so you're saying "he died". I don't get it. 2. The trans one. Which I agree with Flaherty on. 3. I feel like I did this: I support the legal frameworks, institutions of science, institutions of education, economic frameworks, democratic frameworks that support our western traditions. 4. I don't hate debt across the board, I should have said that. But he's bad at math and has short-term thinking. He bankrupted casinos that way. Argus, another conservative, once posted an informative story of his Eastern Airlines debacle. 5. Trump was pro-life until he sold himself to Republican donors. I'm left of centre on some of those but I'm not going to subject myself to your purity test... go interrogate your cat. 6. Maybe but it's declining. I already retracted "driving force" so i can't really contest your use of "major" 7. I don't now - we're talking about religion as a force and although I'm a fan of mine, I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of moral frameworks either. Morality is a separate thing.

1. So has Jesus. 2. Maybe not. On the trans thing though, which you're always bringing up as proof of my non-conservativism. 3. He loves debt, Nationalizing industry, centralizing power.... those are big things for him. Not me. 4. Well, we're quibbling here. I tried to be a little more specific last time, so I'll retract my statement that it's not a "driving force" and say its influence will decline as religiosity declines. 5. Age-old question. We had laws and morality prior to the Abrahamic gods and it worked...