Search the Community

1. I apologize or respond with Mea Culpa when my own methods fail, so please do. 2. I don't see it as a debate. I'm asking you to educate me on the scale of those the fires and unrest in those videos. I haven't said you were wrong yet. 3. Good to hear. Please post it then. What is the impact of the riots that you have videos on. Wait... Didn't they stop or are people still rioting over this stuff? 4. I am old enough to get the reference... Ray Stevens recorded "The streak" about 1975 if I remember correctly.

1. Ok, I thought we had different policies per country. I guess I was confusing Entry Requirements with Economic Migration. Mea Culpa. 2. Western Europe.

1. 2. An opinion can't be a lie. Unless you're saying it's NOT my real opinion, that I DON'T suspect something is based on tribalism. Bizarre. 3. I already GAVE an offer of a definition to Groot. I wouldn't call "woke" leftism because it's also corporate, and doesn't have much if anything to do with economics. If woke's purpose is to put forward an agenda that appeals to the left, isn't it just "leftism" ? Do they mean the same thing ? 4. Then nobody is woke. Nobody is demanding gay porn be available to 8 year olds. Nobody. 5. I think that the Liberal bill is pretty crazy in the respect you pointed out but to be clear the judge would decide and life sentence is not mandatory there. 6. Just because you think you do, doesn't mean everybody does. The last poster I asked about this seemed to think trans rights established in law was NOT woke. That had me scratching my head. Like I say, it's one of those adjectives like "cool" or "spicy" or "sh1tty" that are relative and subjective. But I still tried to define it above. 7. I don't think so. My belief here is that you are extremely offended and hurt when the points of your illogic are pointed out to you. I don't know how to help you. For my part, I like being challenged and I admit mistakes, I say "mea culpa" (meaning, in effect, "my fault") and I change my opinions on social issues. I don't see these chats as duels but little JENGA sessions... we build ideas until contradictions bring down our logical structures. Such fun.

Oops. I misread the headline, which said he backed a ban, to mean he would enact a law. My mistake. Apologies. Mea culpa. Etc

I'll take that to mean.. Omg, sorry I misspoke, mea culpa.

1. True and mea culpa. 2. I don't listen to him.

1. Well, maybe but we all interpret things a certain way. Is that a choice ? Or are you saying that people purposefully take things out of context to make you look bad ? If so, I declare my innocence there. If I got the context wrong we can work through that. 2. 3. Ok but the dynamic is pretty different than for couples I'm sure you will agree. And, again, it seems like you think I'm playing "gotcha". Is that a fair assessment of what it looks like I am doing ? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but I want to understand the principles and whether I am talking to an honest person who will realize they contradicted themselves and write 'mea culpa'. 4. Ok, well you don't trust me then. I can say this: since I allow others to use that tactic on me in calling my past posts where I declare my conservative principles... how can I see it as 'dirty' ? 5. Not beliefs, but principles. A belief is rooted in how you see the world, and might not be provable ex. belief in God. I can't ridicule that any more than I can ridicule your morality. I can point it out, that's all. I can tell people "you're a racist" if I see them saying racist things, but that's labelling them that's all. I can't ridicule beliefs but I CAN point out when peoples' principles contradict. 6. I can't help how it comes across. The fact is if someone posts moral platitudes - whether it was ten minutes ago or last week - then complains about 'virtue signalling' then they're living by two standards: one for them and one for others. You don't want people to point that out, and yet you think it's ok to call out my calling myself conservative. That's two separate rules in my books - one for you, and one for me. 7. Another reference to your ex-wife, and it doesn't apply to debating principles, values and facts. You are talking about how you feel when you are called out as far as I can see. 8. It's still poisoning the well. If a far-left person or a Nazi uses a tactic that doesn't make it out of bounds. You have to debate the tactic on its own merits. 9. What pressure ? We're a bunch of strangers on here... your moniker is the only possible that represents anything close to reputation. It's not worth much - neither yours nor mine. 10. Most of these are not debates. They're discussions. In your mind when I ask about an apparent contradiction, such as if someone who seems to care deeply about morality mocks people who display morality, it's an escape tactic. It's no such thing for me. It's not a tactic. I honestly want to know how people who value morality think that it's fair game to mock those with a different moral code.... for being moral. 11. Again, the spouse model doesn't apply here. If I argue about my spouse it isn't about principles, values or facts. We have similar enough principles and values and we can just Google facts. We fight about present comforts and challenges, work it out and move on. I don't have an excel spreadsheet. I live in the moment, and I make mistakes. The point of my searching my posts on here and noting that I concede things is that I have a different way of looking at these things. I don't see them as debates to win/lose. We're expressing our opinions and hopefully expanding our understanding of things. I don't see you ever conceding anything on here, and maybe that's what bothers you so much about me: I point out when I see contradictions, which you seem to be offended by. But when it comes to me, I admit when I'm wrong. I know that there's no way to convince someone to change their morality, nor do I think that people are psychopaths or morally inferior on here. We disagree. I think the best way to open someone's mind is to find out what their principles are and discuss topics with that in mind. There's no winner at the end of the day. I think this board just means different things to us.

1. People call me out for having called myself a 'conservative' in the past. How is that different ? 2. True but everybody gives in to tossing a rock here and there. Mea culpa.

1. It might not be disingenuous. In fact, if I have doubt then I will ask about the apparent contradiction. I'm going to lump this into "The Rules of Engagement" for discussion [on here]. ie. I assume that posters are individuals who possess principles and are accountable for contradictions in them. 2. It's not that I don't "like" the argument, it's that it can't be accepted as principled. If someone posts "No poster here should post insults, you D*CK" then one can rightly respond with a request to explain that contradiction. 3. This is the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy, ie. someone you don't agree with/like etc. ... does something and so the method is discredited. The "far-left" equivalent is "YOU make generalizations about people. THE NAZIS DID THAT." 4. OK, the problem with this seems to be double-standards as such, not bringing up the past. I would say Biden's racism is fair game, but ... 5. I am more curious about principles than past words/deeds. What is the standard that the speaker is following ? If it seems to have changed or is not applied consistently then I should be able to challenge that - whether the contradiction is minutes or years old. I'm sure you can find some old posts of mine on here that reflect old attitudes of mine. Feel free to ask me if my views have changed. Several, for example, noted that my views on immigration changes over the past years. 6. Yes, good on you. But logic alone doesn't determine an argument. They are based on facts, values and principles too. Ultimately, you believe abortion is "wrong" and that value translates to a set of principles too: for example, life begins at conception, ending life for any reason [except, self-defence, XYZ, etc etc] is therefore wrong 7. What is "current" vs "past" then ? 8. What is 'presentism' ? And again, poisoning the well here. If Rush Limbaugh or Noam Chomsky use a debate tactic that doesn't make it wrong. 9. Why is it ok for people to pick apart my character and not ok for it to happen to you ? If you state openly that you will refuse to follow a community initiative then how is that sacred from me commenting on ? And why do you think that I have to acknowledge critics but you don't ? Sorry but that's what it seems like to me. I still haven't found the difference between my pointing out your comments on community and my associating transgender rights with the conservative tradition of individual freedom. Further to that, the comments on me were about my style of breaking down an argument from someone and tying it to their positions... which were categorized as 'shyster' or somesuch. So - I'm going to ask in the abstract here to examine the two cases: - One poster posts from a moral standpoint but openly refuses to follow community morals in another area. To me, this is hypocrisy and inconsistency of principle and character. - Another poster brings character and principle into the discussion and is denounced as a shyster ... That's the impasse as I see it. And that's as far as we can get with it, to the current point in time. 10. I agree wholeheartedly that moralism is a two-way road. I invite you to search my posts: "I stand corrected" - I have posted this 29 times on this board "mea culpa" - I have posted this 36 times on this board "I was/am wrong" - I have posted this 20 times on this board So at least 85 times I have used wording that suggests that I am or may be in need of correction. Surely that counts for something for those who think I am NOT humble ? I hope so anyway. thanks for the discussion ...

1. Well we did set up a society where greed is good, lazy is even better.... To the point where it's encouraged... And anybody who tells you that you should do better is accused of virtue signaling. I agree with you about people on their phones but, mea culpa, I should do much better myself also. 2. I thought your whole thing was you were against people who shame others? As has has been pointed out. I do give you a hard time on here.... So instead of raking you over the coals, I will invite you to explain when you think shaming is okay and when it is not. I will respect your answer as much as possible.

Mea culpa. But I still don't think I was wrong, nor do I think that I gave the post too little attention.

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

Mea culpa. I confess that I don't always read the entire post.

OOPS... the Voice of Fire controversy was 34 years ago ! Jeebus I am an old skeleton goddam... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Holtmann Mea Culpa - it was a drunk driver Conservative MP Pig Farmer from Manitoba who didn't like the purchase. Not to disparage his hobby and career, but so it is.

1. Not necessarily. The Halton Trolling Trans Teacher was much bigger internationally and the students didn't reveal additional details. I think it has more to do with people not sending reporters to such stories. In any case, you can't say "that's all the information there is" until the board reveals their side - if that even happens. It hasn't in Halton either. 2. It's possible to state an impolite or hateful opinion in polite tones too. In any case, you seem to be saying the whole question is valid. Well, that's your opinion but we're discussing this case here and your opinion on the validity of human rights policy doesn't enter into this very discussion as far as I can see. 3. Maybe I am ? Maybe my position is more nuanced than you make it out to be, because I also have a strong religious background. In any case, do you see me putting comments about you into this discussion ? 4. I'm writing about your posts. I'm not saying that you personally are disqualified from posting or biased... I'm talking about what you have said. You decry snowflakes and people who are overly sensitive but you are the pot calling the kettle based on your own words. 5. Do you really need to read a book to know that people are allowed to have an opinion ? Pretty much everybody pays taxes by the way, you're not really that special. 6. Ok - well you're changing the point we were discussing. You're bringing in a new topic - the consequences of talking about transgenderism in society. I accept that people can be punished disproportionately for holding moral views that are outside some indescribable frame. But that's not what we were talking about. You said that 3/4 of Canadians agree with what exactly (?) the student said, which is a different point. 7. No that's hyperbole. 8. Mea culpa - you're right, I thought they said "arrested" as per the subject line of this thread. Please shorten your answers if you respond. This is too drawn out and just repeats a lot of stuff. It's tiresome to rehash the same points I have made already on this thread. If you write a looooong post with no new points I will just respond to the parts that bear response.

1. Weird. You call my post dishonest then immediately make an assumption of what it said. No, I wanted to know what YOU think. Discussion forum and all that ? Culture change is something I take part in professionally and I'm interested in peoples' views. 2. I never said you were wrong, I said you would get better. Your false assumption here is a perfect example. 3. Mea culpa. I'm assuming you are a feverish Trudeau-hater. Am I wrong ? I will ask you honestly here. 4. Not dishonest, although I admit I made a bad assumption. I asked you to clarify in #3. What is your EMOTIONAL reaction to Mr. Trudeau our Honourable PM ? 5. OMG... you call me dishonest and yet you persist to call me a Liberal lover. Here's your last clarification: I am not. 6. Pierre already knows how to play ball with the mainstream Canadians - promoting not one but TWO LGBTQ vanguards to his inner circle. The first act of any revolutionary government is to assassinate the operatives don't you know ? 7. I maintain that the Liberals are NOT "left". All governments promote the business sphere heavily, even the NDP. You should read Francis Fukiyama "The End of History". That explains where leftism went.

1. Not specifically 2. I suppose. It's a pretty broad question, and mea culpa I didn't recognize that you posted it and so I gave a flippant answer. 3. Yes this is true... but did you look into this question before asking us?

Sorry, mea culpa. "dumbest Trump post" was this:

1. Mea culpa - I do find conspiracy theories to be fun to poke at, the equivalent of popping bubble wrap on here BUT your response overstated my criticism of the refrain that climate change response is bankrupting us. The costs and remediations have been estimated in the single digits as % of GDP in past studies. 2 I'm sorry that you are not used to reading informed opposition to your opinions. Next time read your posts to your pet parrot and she will squawk agreement to make you feel better 3. Agreed and thanks for the compliment. I sure don't feel that I am "smart" which is why I am on here trying to learn from other posters, such as yourself. 4. Since its a global count, that doesn't mean much. Also, a few years isn't long enough to get a measure of the impact. And finally, you are incorrect as emissions lowered in 2020. https://www.iea.org/news/after-steep-drop-in-early-2020-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-have-rebounded-strongly 5. Maybe, maybe not. I have read the opposite but if you have a cite then ok. https://www.autoserviceworld.com/the-significant-impact-gas-prices-will-have-on-driving/ 6. Yes and other events are impacting that a lot more than an 11 cent per litre tax on gas. I'm not a millionaire but I live in a city so I don't drive so much and the carbon credit pays for the additional tax for this working class family. 7. I am more than willing to listen to arguments that are backed up, in this case with some math. From everything I read the initial inflation and shortages came from global supply chain situation... we are now dealing with labour shortages, gas shortages and the situation is dire. If you think spending $2/litre vs $2.11/litre will fix everything than ok. 8. This criticism is valid. I believe the Conservative Party campaigned on creating a direct carbon credit system of some kind - maybe that's more to your liking IDK.

Alright, enough of this. Fck the French Revolution. I accept that I'm getting blown out of the water, mea culpa; let's you and I get back in the swimming pool then and drop it for now.

1. Well, mea culpa, yes I missed the obvious live video footage of inappropriate behaviour, but I'm talking about scrutiny of data, and so on that isn't backed up by obvious evidence. 2. The stories reinforce the status quo, which is bad and cuts both ways. This means America will never need to be reformed, but somehow simultaneously that it is permanently racist and no progress has been made. What needs to happen, IMO, is a bifurcation of television and new media news into "pop news" which is the equivalent of a broadsheet newspaper and "serious news".

Now you're backtracking again. I think I'm done with this. These types of posts help progressives look illogical... Please do yourself a favour and run through some math exercises, times tables etc. Edit: Ok - I see you said 'base'. You're not backtracking - I missed this detail mea culpa. Your math is still wrong, though but maybe you can advance to calculus.

1. That doesn't mean it didn't motivate him. It was a step in his development as a mass murderer and only a willfully blind person would deny the facts. 2. I said that without utility there's no reason to allow communication that has damaging effects. 3. Another insult. If you have thought through your answers, why haven't you posted them ? I asked several times. I am getting tired of you talking past me: I stated my reasons several times. .. Mea Culpa - this is thread drift. I will tie it back to the OP by saying that our society has become so narcissistic that we actually argue our political choices and philosophy as personal attributes like clothing. Most of the people I encounter who discuss politics are vain types who cut and paste quotes like the liberty quote. They are young and don't know how to argue objectively without insults. Politics and even philosophy is a shallow entertainment like fake wrestling or FOX news. With age will come wisdom.

Mea culpa. I shouldn't say BETTER though I do. And I am speaking of partisan rags sponsored by the parties that dominated at that time.

Mea Culpa. That's one I have never got right.