Michael Hardner

So @CdnFox is this hypocrisy on the part of Perspektiv then ? Or am I absolutely out of bounds for quoting him from a separate thread ? Or does he just get embarrassed at having no principles, and having the mirror put in his face ? (I can't ask him because he's not wasting any breath typing posts to me anymore) Actually posting memes in place of arguments has always been against the rules in the past: https://repolitics.com/forums/guidelines/

1. Any argument is necessarily based on facts and principles. If your principals are changing, how solid is your argument? I'm asking this honestly. If a poster says I believe this is true based on principal A, and then on another thread discourage that principle how are they arguing in good faith? 2. Then point out how I have misread the context. That's fair. 3. Except, you seem to also say that hypocrisy is irrelevant if I take the contradictory principles from another thread? 4. You can do both, why not? Why can't we take down someone's argument based on inconsistent principles? 5. I am Groot does that. He says something that I DON'T believe, and then adds "and you know it". I'm glad you're against this tactic also.

Do you think that we should make same sex acts illegal again?

1. This from someone who would call a teacher a "groomer". Pretty rich stuff. 2. Oh, I bathe in the irony of your prose daily.... 3. The bubbles in your irony bath foam ever higher: Get over MYSELF ? Ask people how often to you talk about yourself in your posts ? Your self-image as a person, the racial abuse, and your cruel and crazy ex-wife ? It's like a dime novel... 4. You're not talking, you're typing...

Nope. He said straight off to NOT use his words from another thread. What else could be implied ? People are not destroyed and created in every thread - we are members of the public, and consistency is a valid requirement. Otherwise, what is hypocrisy but inconsistency in applying principles. I do like that we're talking brass tacks of rhetoric and discussion though...

OMG.... "my past words mean nothing, please don't use them against me" Has there ever been a human so afraid of looking in the mirror ? I invite anyone here to ask me about CONSISTENCY in my opinions, because I am more interested in holding principles that make sense than "winning a thread".... What's wrong with young people these days.... "He's so passive aggressive that I have to chirp to the other gals in the beauty salon about him here all the day long...." You could take me off ignore and face the music but ... I know that's hard.

You really REALLY hate when people show your words back to you, I can see. Again, I understand that that is difficult but all we have here is our statements. 1. "Good faith" means when you make a statement, you either stand by it or retract it. Your statement about not giving up any creature comforts for the planet is in limbo, as I asked you to retract it or confirm it as "tongue in cheek" as you now claim. 2. Well as someone who moralizes and virtue signals about "the children" (Do you have children?) it's a valid question. 3. Like the word "groomer" which you now redefine to use against people who are acting in good faith. 4. Like you putting me on IGNORE for asking you to not use the term "groomer". 5. You BLOCKED me because you couldn't stand me asking you questions. Find a single example of me calling you fascist, transphobic or the like. So slippery, and passive-aggressive to now post about me to others rather than answer my questions. I don't think you're up for being on a forum. Have you ever conceded a point, learned something, or admitted a mistake ? Do you know the term 'mea culpa' ? It's an admission of error. I have made at least 33 on here, as per this search. You don't appear to have made any. https://repolitics.com/forums/search/?&q=culpa&author=Michael Hardner&search_and_or=or

Some of these concerns are legitimate, other ones are being blown out of proportion for political reasons. In terms of the Catholic faith, things are definitely changing. Now the faith is not immutable, however the line between loving The sinner and loving the sin is becoming blurry.

1. Any system is based on components which change with time. As such, you can't say that what we have today is permanent. There is no 'end of history' as per Fukuyama. As time goes on, the new populists are starting to become dissatisfied with the so-called elite, but those same elite deploy mythology to direct their anger at institutions. It's corrosive and will eventually collapse the system if it persists. There will have to be something else built on common values. 2. Texas was hardcore democrat for more than half a century until the 1990s. Things change.

And yet you "clarify" constantly, with Jae droppers like "I don't virtue signal" ... And that you won't give up any comforts for the planet...and that teachers who do their jobs and teach something that you disagree with are actually groomers. But... I'm just trying to clarify that you retracted something... Or did you? ... You seem annoyed. I guess nobody has tried very hard to pin you down before. Must be hard.

Interesting... or you could answer my questions? I don't think that we're really fighting at this point. You retracted something, I asked for clarification and you started insulting me. Not much of a fight...

1. Well, I think that not listening to an argument is a right that we both enjoy and both execute, don't you agree ? I mean, you put ME on ignore right ? Is THAT suppressing future opinions ? 2. I think you are using the word 'suppress' too liberally. But maybe answer my number 1 ? 3. No, I was asking you to not use the word groomer outside of a very clear context and you put me on ignore. Then I noticed you were moralizing on people while simultaneously refusing a minimal to be a good citizen, albeit in a different context. But the way in which you were doing it negated the act of moralizing, saw it as illegitimate. And all of that is fine, but it's confusing that you seem to me to play both sides. And if your answer is that your initial comment was somewhat of a joke, fair enough - just say so. But can't you see how it would be easy to misinterpret that ? Communication is a two-part exercise after all. 4. Don't know what you are talking about - I'm asking for a minimum of principled discussion and respect, ie. follow the same rules you set for others, ie. if you moralize then don't ridicule others for moralizing. And stop calling people groomers if they're not convicted pedophiles, that would be nice.

You say histrionics, but you banned me when I was asking questions. I have determined that you are the slipperiest (sp?) poster I have ever encountered on here, who blocks people that try to pin him down. You make grand moral gestures, pleading that we think of the children and then say you won't do thing one for the environment if it could impact your comfort (!). Then, later, you say that I dismissed YOU (that's you - the one who blocked me) because I didn't get your "tongue in cheek" comments. Really baffling, but as I have said if you want to reset and move forward I'm in. You wouldn't be the first poster who overreacted to my exacting style of posting, and you know it.

Explain the context then. Also explain how I should interpret this otherwise given the context of your other statements. Also explain how I am suppressing or dismissing speech? I pretty clearly believed it, right? So how could I be dismissing the comment? And, again, I am trying to just clarify this between us: you're saying that I misunderstood and that's this statement was tongue in cheek right? If we had a miscommunication and we're resetting then ok but why backtrack while simultaneously attacking? And why would someone who is the haughtiest finger wagger when it comes to morality in education skewer the very idea of being a moralist? If you can explain what I'm not getting about these inconsistencies it would help. I offer to explain mine in kind, then we can better understand where we really stand.

Just so we're in a state of understanding, you're saying that your statement was a joke and I was supposed to understand that, after you let it stand until now? "I refuse to give up a single creature comfort for the sake of the planet."

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.