Michael Hardner
-
Posts
45,821 -
Joined
-
Days Won
101
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michael Hardner
-
-
4 hours ago, User said:
Such as? If that happens, point it out.
Here:
Quoteyou are just fine with dudes in women's spaces.
We are going to fundamentally disagree here, in that women should feel safe and confident in a changing room, that they won't have a male in there with them getting naked and exposing themselves or seeing them as they might be in various stages of undressing.
You pressed me to a yes/no answer on a general idea that trans women could share spaces with women. Since I had to pick a side, I picked yes... then you come back with an example that I would not be in favour of in all cases.
I'm trying to say that there's nuance here, and when I brought up the case of women that look very much like men you say "it's on them" meaning I assume that they're not allowed in their own sex's bathroom either.
It's not as cut and dried as you keep saying it is. -
User: "Stop being specific ! Are you ok with men in women's spaces ?"
Me: "I guess by your definition sure..."
User: "So therefore you want little girls to be forced to look at penises !"
Me: "Uh... no?"
This the essence of the discussion... and accusing me of being dishonest and refusing to stop doing so is itself dishonest.
The truth of the matter is that no person who would construct a long post like that about nothing, dodging, using word play, would have any interest or acknowledgement that some things are not objective facts but subjective and political matters. And that could only grow out of a big personal problem with trans people.
That's not obfuscation, that is a fact...
If anyone wants to discuss political issues I'm here... -
1 hour ago, User said:
1. Why do you keep asking me to define things that are already a common phrase?
2. It means just that. If someone is going to choose to do something outside of norms that would put them in a position to have to deal with any policies or laws it might conflict with... it is on them. I don't have to figure out how to accommodate them. They put themselves in that position.
I already pointed out the picture you were showing was an extreme example, so why do you keep asking me to define things like this?
3. You continue on later to complain about my saying you are obfuscating, well, if you are going to keep engaging in these tactics whether you intended to or not, I will keep calling you out for them. Just as I can't see any other reason for what you are doing, it is a way to justify your wanting to force this trans madness onto women.
4. Except, we were breaking this down beyond laws, bringing up what schools do too.
5 .No. I won't stop talking to you. I will just keep calling out what it appears you are doing in these discussions. If you don't like that, stop posting on a public forum or change the way you post.
1. Because you read things into my responses that are not correct.
2. Ok so the law would be "if you are not a lady or you don't look like a conventional woman" you can't use the bathroom. That seems to be what you're saying it would have to be, to be a common sense type law.
3. Calling them 'tactics' means you say I'm doing it on purpose. I'm Not. So you're insulting me and defying the rule that said we wouldn't get personal.
4. Ok I see now... school policy.
5. Fine then let's just admit this is all based on you being weirded out by trans people and not being comfortable with them. That's what is driving this, and unfortunately all of the logical decorations you hang on your hangup don't fly.
I'll leave the rest of my response until you acknowledge that you don't like trans people and the tactic of saying otherwise is dishonest. If not, prove it - name the trans people who you like and respect, and prove otherwise. Because clearly there's something at play here beyond your snug logial games that really bugs you about trans people, and causes you to obfuscate the issue into word games.
I'll await your response. -
1 hour ago, User said:
1. Easy... it is a dude that looks like a lady. You want to throw out all common sense here for the most extreme example. This is why we just set the rule that men use men's facilities and women use women's facilities. If a man or woman does such a good job as pretending to be something they are not, it is on them.
2. You don't understand the difference between laws and policy?
3. The point was clear. You are obfuscating ...4. LOL, so first you say no, but then you go on to say it could be your main argument. Then you go on to answer my other questions in the affirmative.
5. Because you keep being hyper-specific to avoid answering. Glad you finally did here, that you are OK with dudes going into women's spaces.
6. ... you are just fine with dudes in women's spaces.
7. We are going to fundamentally disagree here, in that women should feel safe and confident in a changing room, that they won't have a male in there with them getting naked and exposing themselves or seeing them as they might be in various stages of undressing.
8. I care about this because women do too. Women have complained about the madness of forcing these dudes into their spaces.
9. See, this is the obfuscation I am talking about. You hyper focus on boxing. So, you are just fine with men beating women in every other physical competition?
10. My point is the same as above, if someone wants to alter themselves and their appearance to the extreme point they look convincingly like something they are not, it is their problem. Not mine.
11. If you walk around covered in body piercings and tattoos, you don't get to complain that people stare at you and treat you differently.12. More obfuscation.
13. If they are both-sex bathrooms, that is not a woman's space.
14. That was not my assertion. You can declare yourself to be anything you want, it doesn't make you that thing. This is a simple statement of reality.
15. You are avoiding this because it is more obfuscation so you can avoid having to admit the truth because you support the trans madness.
16. Nope.
17. Yeah, I know what I said, but you still refuse to acknowledge that you were interjecting crap about me personally that is irrelevant.
18. If I sit here characterizing you as being an emotional cry baby... does that add anything to the discussion? No. We agreed to keep things to the points being made, not make it personal. You forget that?
19. That which can be asserted without facts, evidence, or logic can be rejected without it as well.
1. What does that mean "it's on them" ? What do you mean by 'extreme example' ? I see lots of extreme examples cited in support of policy, by Republicans. This includes random assaults and crimes of violence that happen everywhere. Why do we want to eliminate extreme examples sometimes and not others ? Oh, I know... because of politics. Because it helps people rally the unknowing to their cause. I can't see any other reason.
2. To my mind, policy is the implementation of laws. I just want to check if that's what you mean also.
3. If you accuse me of obfuscating then you're saying that I'm INTENTIONALLY making something unclear. If you think I'm using dirty tricks in this conversation, then stop talking to me. I'm not spending my lunch hour replying to this because I'm intellectually dishonest. if you think I am, then it only makes sense to walk away.
4. I don't get why you're LOLing at this but ok, you seem satisfied.
5. The conversation warrants being specific, I would say. If you don't want specific answers, how does that help clarify anything ? You ask general questions and expect me to answer.
6. By your definition, it seems that yes I do sometimes.
7. OMG... seems like now you're getting specific ! I didn't say any of those specific things are ok. Please note I'm not accusing you of being dishonest (which is what you're doing to me) but being unclear. There are lots of types of change rooms... I don't think that every change room should demand both-sex nudity but you never asked that.
8. Yeah, I trust you're being honest here which is why I'm talking to you. If you continue to accuse me of obfuscating, lyring and being dishonest though then the rules change and I'll assume you are trolling.
9. Yes I'm fine with males and females competing in other competitions, context being primary here. Specifics matter. Are you going to ban women from auto racing ? Darts ? Be specific.
10. It's your problem because you decide that you're part of the discussion. As such, you should have an idea of what to do about it. Deny bathroom status ? "Who shall bell the cat" ?
11. I agree with that, but we do allow self-expression so you have to deal with it. I don't feel "safe" with biker dudes around my kid, so it seems using your precepts I can demand that they be excluded from the YMCA change room I guess.
12. Oh, now I get it ... you think questions are obfuscation. Simple: just answer them.
13. Yes, that's true
14. Reality is objective but identity is subjective. I can't declare abortion to be murder, either, because it's not regarded as objectively being murder by our institutions (and public) The definition of gender, which I looked up, seems to allow for it to change even if you don't personally believe that. I respect your choices though...
15. "Trans madness" is obfuscation. Not answering questions is obfuscation. If one accepts some trans accommodations are they "mad" ? You yourself accept some right ?
16. Oh, too bad. I wish we were. This conversation is only about clarifying terms so far and as such is not interesting to me or probably anyone else. Can we just agree to disagree ?
17. I think I accepted your claim that you don't have a problem with trans folks, so we're done on that front. We only need you to accept that I'm not trying to obfuscate the argument. Why would I ? We're not going to come to any conclusion...
18. Yes, I would say that I moved beyond my assessment of your rationale by now. But politics is necessary somewhat 'personal' since we are human beings with our own experiences and preferences. I'm not going to call you names, though, assuming you stop accusing me of lying/obfuscating...
19. Some things aren't factual, which is why politics exist. Values, attitudes and perspectives all have an emotional basis and we have politics to grease the wheels of social function, that's it.
Ok... can't we agree to disagree on this now ? We're not going to convince each other. -
20 minutes ago, User said:
Easy... it is a dude that looks like a lady.
You want to throw out all common sense here for the most extreme example. This is why we just set the rule that men use men's facilities and women use women's facilities. If a man or woman does such a good job as pretending to be something they are not, it is on them.
You don't understand the difference between laws and policy? The point was clear. You are obfuscating by being hyper-specific to avoid the point. Men do not belong in women's spaces and vice versa.
LOL, so first you say no, but then you go on to say it could be your main argument. Then you go on to answer my other questions in the affirmative.
Because you keep being hyper-specific to avoid answering. Glad you finally did here, that you are OK with dudes going into women's spaces.
Which, to my earlier point, is why I was calling you out for posting such silly pictures and making your arguments about opposing federal laws... when at the end of the day, you are just fine with dudes in women's spaces.
We are going to fundamentally disagree here, in that women should feel safe and confident in a changing room, that they won't have a male in there with them getting naked and exposing themselves or seeing them as they might be in various stages of undressing.
I care about this because women do too. Women have complained about the madness of forcing these dudes into their spaces.
See, this is the obfuscation I am talking about. You hyper focus on boxing. So, you are just fine with men beating women in every other physical competition?
My point is the same as above, if someone wants to alter themselves and their appearance to the extreme point they look convincingly like something they are not, it is their problem. Not mine.
If you walk around covered in body piercings and tattoos, you don't get to complain that people stare at you and treat you differently.More obfuscation.
If they are both-sex bathrooms, that is not a woman's space.
That was not my assertion. You can declare yourself to be anything you want, it doesn't make you that thing. This is a simple statement of reality.
You are avoiding this because it is more obfuscation so you can avoid having to admit the truth because you support the trans madness.
Nope.
Yeah, I know what I said, but you still refuse to acknowledge that you were interjecting crap about me personally that is irrelevant.
If I sit here characterizing you as being an emotional cry baby... does that add anything to the discussion? No. We agreed to keep things to the points being made, not make it personal. You forget that?
That which can be asserted without facts, evidence, or logic can be rejected without it as well.
Seriously ? It's been five days... I thought this was done... Ok I will respond when i can then...
-
2 minutes ago, August1991 said:
Qatar?
Can you think of a reason Trump might favour them?
-
2 hours ago, User said:
1. No, you were using it as an example to oppose anything, and as you say here, that is clearly your position.
2. It is not just the laws either... but policy.
3. You are clearly obfuscating here to support dudes pretending to be women going into women spaces.4. Lets prove that out, just be blunt here, be clear and I will even avoid loaded language: Are you OK with trans women going into women's spaces? Yes or No?
5. Do you care at all how much that impacts women? Yes or No?
6. Are you just fine seeing a trans woman up on the podium in 1st place, preventing a woman from winning and having that spot?
7. It is not my problem to deal with some girl who surgically altered herself to the point she looks like a man. That is her problem to deal with and explain to people as to why she is trying to use the ladies room or not.
8. Can you at least agree that is wrong for a dude who clearly looks like a dude trying to look like a woman using women spaces?
9 If all you are going to do is offer a baseless assertion that is obviously wrong, all I have to do is point out it is wrong.
10. Once again, just a factual observation, not just me saying it.11. Once again... if YOU want to make it personal for yourself, that is on you. YOU trying to make it personal for me has nothing to do with anything. My being upset or not has nothing to do with anything. It is just you trying to cast negative emotions on me when not only are those irrelevant, you have no clue.
1. Ok I read it again and you're right it does read that way. No, that's not the reason I'm opposed to bathroom bans but what DO you say to the problem I posed ? How do you decide if 'dude looks like a lady' ?
2. What's the difference ?
3. No. Obfuscating ? I mean, it *could* be my main argument I suppose and that wouldn't be obfuscating would it ?
4. Yes or no ? Why so simple ? It's a broad question and I don't have one take on every woman's space out there. Generally I'm ok with the idea, yes.
5. Yes
6. I don't watch women's sports and I don't care about the sports stuff. If they ban trans women from women's boxing it's ok with me.
7. Ok. But you want a say in that right ? You're part of the community who decides if it's ok so you are involved as part of the public I guess.
8. Which 'women spaces' ? Bathrooms ? No... there were both-sexes bathrooms in a high school I went to (obviously many many years ago) and nobody cared. It's a culture thing.
9. I say your assertion is wrong that you can't declare a gender. So is this part of the discussion done yet ? I sure hope so.
10. No it's not. So NOW are we done ?
11. You already said you're not upset, so now your PERSONAL opinions and judgements are the personal part. Such as explaining why you think gender can't change and convincing me of your argument. So far you just said that people can't change gender and that's a fact. Not much of an argument IMO. -
3 hours ago, Aristides said:
With a new finance minister and the current trade war, I'm not surprised there won't be a budget right away (it would be even more of a guess than most budgets) but there should be something in a few months as things become more clear. Parliament still has to approve funding for programs that aren't already funded or require further funding.
Well yes they should have given a date, even if the rationale is that we're in turbulent times blah blah blah blah blah.
-
1
-
-
It's true... Dynamics have changed quite a bit. Europe, Mexico and Canada were previously partners and close allies.
In the last term North Korea and Russia ascended and in this term it's Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and now Syria
. Interesting times indeed.
-
2 hours ago, User said:
1. Once again, not all trans folks can afford perfect amounts of surgery and effort to appear to be something they are not... you are hyper focused on the extreme example here and ignoring that there are many dudes who clearly look like dudes just pretending to be women.
2. No, it is just a statement of fact. You can pretend to be something you are not, but you can't change your gender.
3. This is not a disagreement about people choosing to appear to be something they are not or having mental issues believing it... It is about how you and others expect and support society, then conforming to their cosplay or illness, and wanting to impose dudes into women's private spaces or taking away their fair competition.
4. OK... so what? Talk about yourself all you want, trying to make this personal about me doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.
5. You really don't care... which is why you are in almost all of these discussions. You are involving yourself right now.
1. Ok, I mentioned that as a potential flaw in setting up a policy. I'm still again barring them regardless but curious as to how you would deal with that? You can't make a "dude looks like a lady" rule as it's subjective and a potential loophole.
2. Okay, so if I say yes you can, what is your response? Is it no you can't?
3. If you say so. It's still politics, and if a group of people are okay with it in their community, they can make it happen. This is assuming we're talking about issues Beyond discrimination, which is a separate matter.
4. It is personal, it's about how we personally deal with behavior we don't agree with. Since both of us don't have a problem with it, it's about community guidelines. So if you're not upset with it... Do you care? Seems like there's some thin line between caring enough to talk about it and being bothered. Pretty thin line.
5. Yes I'm interested in the larger question. I'm not bothered by the sports question in particular enough to engage in it to any level of depth. I'm mostly interested in the public sphere and how we discuss policy, in this case related to morality.
-
5 hours ago, User said:
1. No, you didn't.
2. You can't change your gender.
3. It is not a problem for me at all, it is simply an observation of fact and my being honest about it.
4. You are choosing to once again try to make a discussion personal with me instead of simply sticking to the subject.
5. Yes, "some people" being the girls and women who are losing their place in competition and losing their privacy and norms, having to see some dude in their locker rooms and bathrooms...
1. Ok, I don't support schools enforcing bathroom bans. You'll get people who look like the dude in the picture in the girls' room. They may have the legal rights to do so if course.
2. It's a semantic argument and an opinion. There's no response to your statement other than "yes you can". So some people will want to do it, and now you are in the realm of politics to solve the disagreement.
3. Well then, if it's not a problem you can accept that sometimes people want to do things that contradict science and leave the question out of policy.
4. It's about me too.
5. Well,ok, but I don't really care. I'm pretty sure they can work this out without me getting involved. Women don't want me weighing in on abortion so I'm glad to leave it to them...
-
8 minutes ago, User said:
And by gender based… you mean, a dude who thinks he is a woman actually is considered one when it comes to being gender based?
You didn’t really answer my question. At all.
You said you didn’t support the federal government being involved… so again, what level do you support being involved?
6 minutes ago, User said:So you don’t know the most obvious issue here?
A dude thinking he is a woman is a mental issue. Being dangerous isn’t the only reason we protect women’s privacy and spaces in society.
I said that the school should decide.
No, lots of people change gender and lots of people are ok with it.
It's a problem for some, including you.
I get that you're upset but I don't see any reason for me to be. I do believe that this is being politicized because some people get super upset over it. I'm not one of those.
-
6 hours ago, User said:
1. We both know the most obvious issue here are that most trans women clearly look like dudes pretending to be or dressed up to be women.
2. So... why do you want some dude with a beard and a dress on, with clear mental issues thinking he is something he isn't, going into the women's restroom?1. I don't know how you could decide that conclusively. Or what you do with that idea.
2. Mental issues is a different topic. I don't agree with dangerous people coming into private spaces.
-
6 hours ago, User said:
OK. So if your position is on what level of government can't interfere here, what level is it that you support enforcing laws against dudes pretending to be women going into women's spaces?
How about at the Collegiate or High School level? Do you support those organizations enforcing rules against dudes pretending to be women going into women's spaces like locker rooms and restrooms?
I think that the school should separate student bathrooms from teachers, and teachers go in for emergency only.
Otherwise it's gender based.
-
4 hours ago, August1991 said:
After the mid-terms of 2026, if the Republicans win, I think Trump as president may impose a federal consumption tax - collected by states. But then he'll reduce federal income tax - he may even remove them.
Trump is a weird guy.
And the big question is do you think this is smart?
-
3 hours ago, August1991 said:
Disagree.
Costco is successful.
====
You Americans have a written agreement between people still respected, honoured.
For the British in Canada, the collapse of the Hudson's Bay matters.
The Chinese are proud of their written heritage. Do they have something that has lasted longer?
Costco has more similarities to GUM, the Soviet store than Target.
In a society where the middle class must be eliminated, Costco provides the solution to The problem of subsistence.
I worked, as a contractor, with HBC. They were a ridiculous company.... Near the end they were still managing like it was the '70s.
Lots of institutions are failing now.
.
-
6 hours ago, August1991 said:
1. Trump is wily like a fox.
2. Carney is a typical ambitious bureaucrat.
3. Let's see how this plays out.
1. Foxes are indeed wiley but they can't do basic arithmetic.
2. The Carney question is separate. Whether he has the ability to succeed is an open question.
3. We have no choice.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:
LMAO Once again you don’t argue that Trump’s [not] a corrupt dictator
"executive branch employees are subject to an important set of ethics rules contained in the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch. Underlying these rules is a principle that employees must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The impartiality rule breathes life into this principle."
US office of government ethics
https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/A+Refresher+on+the+Impartiality+Rule
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:
So sayeth the guy who says "Carney says...".
Just sayin'.
I don't think I would use Carney as a source for his own achievements.
Like... The economy is going to grow next year because Carney says...
That's not a good cite.
-
Remember this?
The 13000+ jobs he touted ended up being less than 1200.
His problem is that he doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't listen to others.
Just more hype.
-
2
-
1
-
-
"Trump says..."
-
1
-
1
-
-
Why do people want this one in the ladies' room ?
I never got that... People can just use their judgement and if they can't then the law can weigh in... -
On 10/16/2024 at 1:36 AM, August1991 said:
The federal state has no business in the washrooms of the nation.
Exactly. People should just work it out. Lots of people don't like trans folks and lots do... time to work through that...
-
On 12/18/2024 at 1:17 AM, RB said:
This is not the only reason though to get the full picture why males are not enrolling or dropping out of college.
Good point.
Joe Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
55 Posts on this thread... 🤔
We had two senile old men running for president in 2024.