Michael Hardner

1. Factual. Is the book not ancient ? Is it not based on oral tradition written down after time ? These are a lot less loaded terms than saying "pushing on children". You take offense where it's not clear. I think you have a double standard here, sorry. 2. How do I know they're Babylonian ? They appear in Babylonian texts... again recorded from oral tradition as per published research. 3. Isn't saying it's not truth kind of an insult too ? 4. I don't think faith and wisdom are interchangeable. I don't think I said directly that it's not true, but that people accept it as truth. Some of it for sure is true. 5. People can take offense from anything and I think you are too sensitive when looking at what I write and not sensitive enough when looking at mine. A. I take offense to "pushing transgender on children" because it implies, at the worst, that people are brainwashing children perhaps even for their own advantage. B. You take offense to me saying the Bible is an ancient book based on legends. A. Is offensive because it speaks to a general motive for talking about identity issues with childrn B. Is offensive to people who don't want to hear that the bible isn't true. But the statement itself is factual. Ok - so box me on my statements vs A and B. I can fight you on that if you like...

1. I wouldn't say that. When you frame people as "pushing" ideas about transgender identity that sounds more like additing motives. If you used more neutral language then it might not seem that way, at least to me. I'm glad to use more neutral language if you see an issue with the words I use. 2. How could it be if I agree to follow the same rules as you ? The idea of using mutually agreeable language shouldn't be a problem should it ? 3. We have barely touched on the issue at all - we're having an extended meta-discussion as far as I can see. If you don't see my arguments for accepting folks who don't themselves accept trans identity, then maybe that's something I do more IRL, such as with my parents. They absolutely reject the ideas as they are, and I accept that they do so. 4. Loaded question, but the answer is - no - my friends are not all liars. 5. I can ask anything I want. I'm genuinely befuddled why people care, beyond correcting me on facts which I do understand. 6. Not everybody in the gym is there to fight you. I am not here to fight you on this forum either. 7. I disagree. 8. Okay. So you are here to fight me, and if I agree with Democrats on something then you don't respect me. 9. I hope I didn't say that I didn't have an opinion on this. I wouldn't say I have a "side", in that I agree 100% with some group. I'm an individual and consider myself a champion of democratic discussion, hence conservative. 10. I didn't intend to. 11. Well, ok ... and I realize we're not supposed to name-call here. I hope I haven't done that. But, whether or not you say it, it doesn't make sense (to me) for you to discuss with me except to tell me I'm wrong on everything. What fun is that ? 12. Yeah, it's a boxing fight. I think I mentioned my communist friend and his hardcore conservative buddies. We have all had beers together. We all want the best for Canada, I would say. 13. It's a coffee house to me. 14. Politicians do this, yes. On both sides. They blow things up to incite the uninformed. Do you want some Liberal examples ? 15. Are you "pushing" your opinions ? Is "pushing" the same as saying something ? Because "pushing" something on children sounds wrong. Sex Education sounds fine to most of us. And the devil is in the details. I would discuss such details but not if you just want to box me. I just don't find that fun. It's ok if you do, of course.

Arguable. I think it takes both sides to make war. It seems that 73% of Israelis want the Palestinians gone too, you see.

There's nothing rude in this statement: "Believing in ancient book based on Babylonian Legends and pre-literate superstition as truth is not wisdom."

1. Kudos for the cite. I will forthwith accept that the average person in India would likely only hire their kind. 2. I think that's not exactly true, and seems like just a way for you to rationalize a problematic claim.

1. "this language" being neutral language, yes. I would say that the main issue is a set of disagreements on the theme. The culture war isn't about transgenderism, that's just another arena for the fight. 2. That's incorrect. I have as many friends I know who are opposed to the idea of transgender identity as I have transgender friends, for sure. 3. I have something to say about the mode of engagement. I wouldn't fist fight you over your views - would you fist fight me ? If you agree that we both need to agree on the rules of engagement moving forward then we have an answer. 4. I suppose that's true and I respect that. But it sure seems like you have zero respect for Democrats, people who embrace transgender rights and so on. I do respect people who can't accept the concept, but the best way to delineate a way to move forward is to engage respectfully. If you don't respect me, that's fair. I can't force you to. You can say you don't, and that's not name calling. And then I would ask again why you would bother to talk with me. 5. I stopped doing that in the 1980s myself. I met a communist with whom I vehemently disagreed on politics. But his overall philosophy for democratic engagement, the will of the people, the dialectic of history was actually quite wise. He was very close friends with hardcore conservatives in our midst and respected their views. I was greatly influenced by this man. 6. Your language reveals that you think that there is no way to talk about transgenderism unless you are "pushing" it. I object to that word because it implies I'm lying, basically.

The Bible ?

But who acted in violence first ? The extremist who killed Yitzhak Rabin. My Israeli friends used to say that everyone knew it would be a two-state solution. Now 73% of them think that Gaza will magically go away thanks to Jesus Trump. Who knows ? I sure cant predict how they will think - they're religious.

You are a Quebecker. You don't understand Canadian patriotism because it has never existed there.

Believing in ancient book based on Babylonian Legends and pre-literate superstition as truth is not wisdom.

1. Yes, I to want to use neutral language. I don't want to call to people bigots, and I don't want us to call them crazy. 2. I don't consider myself part of the culture war. If you do then why are you talking to me if you think I'm in it? You must think I'm a liar, right? Do you believe I don't take part in it? That's why I'm not calling you a bigot, and you seem to think that I'm crazy. Does it even make sense to have a conversation with a crazy person? 3. No, they started demonizing the Democrats as not being a threat rather than another political point of view. 4. No. 5. If you think leftists are crazy, and you think I'm a leftist then... 6. You might feel differently about the issue if you knew any, I would think.

1. There's no way to figure this out. Why don't you just say that you're you have a hunch Indians are racist. 2. They didn't increase taxes for the top earners?

You're believing propaganda. I don't think we can talk about this anymore. I work in corporate and I see a great benefit in the utter death of the old boys club. Managers that I work for in the 1980s would not be able to work in our environment today. Those guys couldn't have worked for an Indian woman without shooting their mouth off, I guarantee it. Very good point. It was an old er kind of populism, based on a national meme that we're super kind, polite people. People. I'm not sure that we are anyway, and I never liked the way the Liberals won elections... Ever.

Well, I don't even know if I should answer because the question is cocked. If people are pushing things then, yes, maybe it's a war that they're engaging in. And certainly some of the statements people make on both sides are about divisiveness But it's also possible to expression opinion on the topic, to offer solace to confuse youths, lots of things that are objectionable by some... One doesn't need to attack them. Nor do people need to demonize folks who are unsure about this either. So I'll say that the culture war needs both sides to continue. But for sure the Republicans started it in the 1990s. And if you think it's madness, we then I don't know if we can even discuss it because you think I'm defending madness. I don't think I am. I don't see the point in engaging in a discussion if you think I'm evil or crazy. It seems like you would so.. How many trans people do you know? Assuming you know some, what were their experiences like?

1. Okay. 2. I'm responding to what you said. 3. Have a big problem with the terms right and left, especially as they're used in the context of this culture war we're in. In. So I just want to clarify. No offense. 4. Well, do you really think they're sick? As you say? Those are your words. Or is that just rhetoric? Honest question. I believe that people can honestly question gender issues that are coming up. I also believe that rhetoric and dishonest politicking on both sides is divisive, and distracts us from more serious problems. Of course we can talk about anything, the amount of bandwidth this stuff takes is incredible.

1. Newt Gingrich. 2. What does pushing it mean? Expressing an opinion? Having ideas about what is right and wrong? Because that's what everyone does. 3. By the left, I assume you mean Democrats? In some ways Democrats are to the right of the conservative party of Canada. But okay, you're talking about social issues, which is what left right fighting is about today. Let's face it. So if you think the people in the left are sick, then they're not mentally well. You should just deny them the vote. You should ban the Democrat party if you think that they're not rational. 4. Again, just ban the Democrats. If you think that they're sick, they are crazy... Why not just come out and say they shouldn't exist as a party? I don't get it.

Of course. And there are regrets. But these ideas, these are concepts: consent, second guessing one's decisions, parental approval. They apply to all medical/psychological questions. Certain ones lately have become icons for a non-existent, fabricated, culture war that is set up to Grant power to certain elites.

How many people voted for Trump so that he could nationalize TikTok? I'm guessing zero.

I did. You believe that society should be based on holy books that only a minority of people believe in..

Yes. Sometimes these thread titles are so baffling that I have to open to read the theory. The image here is very apt.

Well, but we did. Neville Chamberlain. Didn't he say " I have assurances from Mr. Hitler that he will not invade any more countries. "? Something like that?

I'm sure the Jihadists would agree with you. Lucky for us, most don't. Ok, I hear you. I don't agree 👍

A large number of people reject the idea of using the Bible as a basis for public policy. The West was established and thrived in separation of church and state. People who don't accept that centuries-old cornerstone are increasingly seen as unhinged IMO.

I'll bet that the Gaza poll the other way would be almost as high 😉

1. Unlike Trump, I don't have the ego to push dumb ideas as miracle solutions. 2. Two state solution is on the books as the agreed upon direction for many nations, observers, commenters including from Israel. 3. Just because I disagree with an insane idea, doesn't mean I owe you my own insane idea. It's not serious. If it were, his own team wouldn't be disagreeing with it.