Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And the active work in teaching very small children about homosexuality and transgenderism in schools is pretty damned strange, as well.

When I see parents deliberately left out of the picture at times, of gender ideology that is being pushed onto their kids, I feel the term "groomer" is appropriate.

This no longer is teaching kids about the existence of transgenderism or homosexuality, but rather the promotion of it. Pushing pronouns onto kids, as well as gender fluidity, causing many children to question both their sexuality and gender, at ages where the focal point should be their well being, and well--allowing them to be children.

We all know what happens to those who misspeak about gender ideology publicly.

This sets a very dangerous precedent, where kids have been aided in transitioning, and parents had been kept in the dark. Groomers, are social media superstars telling these very kids, that its okay to "divorce your parents".

I don't understand how this is not grooming at worst, or at best something that should be open to debate in how much is too much access to one's children as a school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2023 at 8:55 PM, Contrarian said:

Well, if that's the case, you seem to have more important discussions to attend to upstairs, men from Florida are waiting for you to exchange valuable insight. But I urge you to at least visit my website and take a look around. It wouldn't hurt to stick around for the summer time either.

I haven't disrespected you in any way, and yet you constantly rebuff my ideas, spit in my face with the usual troll language, up to the "sex" insults, by the way I am not what you call an "incel", believe me on that, ? so you can drop the tactics of a troll, and try focusing on the big picture:

  • that simply because I don't conform to your narrow definition of what politics should be, you just judge one like the other trolls do. Is that easy. Look in the mirror before you judge others, is the sermon for today. ?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSevDgApiBCUavxoOw6T1x

I didn't call you an incel. I'm sure if you were an incel, you'd be on the Right, as opposed to just stupidly helping the Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2023 at 8:06 PM, Americana Antifa said:

to imply that the teachers are child molesters

What does Isis do to kids? They indoctrinate and groom. Am sure molestation does occur, but the term in this instance, is to describe a group that uses the child's innocence against them, in force feeding them an ideology they are nowhere near able to fight back against. The questioning of this ideology, would likely come with heavy handed consequences.

This is no different with political extremists of any type. 

While you're not being force fed information that is intended to kill anyone you are often times fed information that is at times incredibly dangerous and otherwise at times inappropriate for the age group being introduced to it.

There has been no talk about molestation. You put that thought there. I have never accused any teachers of molesting children, but rather am questioning the practice of teaching ideology to kids, with regards to trans and gender ideology. Earlier than the age of teaching sex ed where kids are much older, is highly inappropriate in my opinion. 

Kids cannot grasp these concepts. I have never seen so many kids who are gender questioning. This isn't a win, as creates the unintended consequence of kids who regret transitioning. 

This also doesn't stop violence against these groups, as in fact has increased it, by creating a divide where there should be none. 

You are politicizing mental illness, and using it to silence any dissenting opinions by using words like "genocide" which are highly disingenuous of an open and honest debate.

Women and men should have separate washrooms, and an establishment genuinely wishing to be inclusive would create unisex washrooms. 

Something of this nature should be built into law, vs forcing women to potentially shower with biological males, and silencing their protests, at times violently amplifying the hate some will misplace against a group of people simply trying to exist, which last time I checked, isn't a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. We all know what happens to those who misspeak about gender ideology publicly.

2. This sets a very dangerous precedent, ..

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You've already explained that you don't care about the public good

If I need to spell out to you the difference between actually not caring, and a tongue and cheek comment, you have showcased precisely why debating with you is a waste of breath. o_O

I don't see myself as a better human being like you do, simply because of my contributions to this world. I was raised humble, and virtue signaling isn't part of my DNA.

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're the worst kind of poster

You're digging up out of context comments I've made, many of which tongue in cheek or devoid of context and are trying to use them in current threads to dismiss anything I say--like a passive aggressive wife who keeps telling you she's "fine", but then picking fight with every side comment that she makes, because you chose to go play hockey with your buddies and got a "no problem" from her, assuming all was fine. She wanted to spend time together, but is passive, so didn't want to be direct to you about her needs, so preferred to go around the way to annoy you until you got it. 

You literally debate like my ex wife, is the point being made. My current wife, is straight to the point, and direct. No need for debate, as she tells it like it is. I've debated with her and disagreed, and respected her point of view, in disagreement even if I did not like her stance on a certain subject. She has done the same. Point being made, is you give respect, and you tend to get it--hope my spelling things out is helping.

So if I'm the worst type, you're a close second, and ultimately beat me because of my false start disqualifying me from contention :cP

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

hypocrisy

A word you should have tattooed on your large intestine, as its as full of s*** as you are.

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

publicly admit that you will do nothing to help on other issues that you don't care about.

I don't virtue signal, so unfortunately won't talk about how great am doing for this planet--that's your job. My mother raised me to be humble.

Also, with all your finger wagging, just note there are three more pointing right back at you.

Thanks for reminding me that blocking you was best for all parties involved.

Best of luck!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

If I need to spell out to you the difference between actually not caring, and a tongue and cheek comment, you have showcased precisely why debating with you is a waste of breath. o_O

 

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."

 

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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."

This sure looks like that common leftist tactic of avoiding a losing argument by nit picking on some detail and then pretending to be morally outraged about it.

Is that REALLY the best you've got mike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Is that REALLY the best you've got mike?

If it is, he essentially proves my point. Using my prior points out of context, in an attempt to suppress or dismiss speech. Ironically fitting for the thread we are discussing in.

I won't give up creature comforts, in the light of driving a car. Leave it to a person who can't read between lines, to make that your life #. Crown of thorns, you're to wear as its your emblem. Its who you are. Approval of the herd is required, to fit in, and be seen as anything less than morally repugnant. Your true crime? Thinking on your own feet, threatening their moral elitism, and sense of how they would have done things different in the same setting. Are morally superior somehow. Your opinion should be suppressed, due to it. Logic is a threat to ideology, which commands blind subscription.

They hold the keys to morality, however and there are no doors, just smoke screens.

Its a shame culture, a victimhood culture, and the obsession to judge the past based on today's wisdom and standards.

Same reason so many kids are gauged based on victim status, vs merit. Same reason why you now win a medal for participation, vs accomplishment. Losing is somehow racist (or prejudiced), vs teaching kids humility in success and failure, and learning from those very setbacks.

Kids nowadays will fight for every microaggression, and around the world many are fighting to live.

Logic to people like this is rage on something that happened hundreds of years ago, vs taking the wisdom learned, and growing from it, socially.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

If it is, he essentially proves my point. Using my prior points out of context, in an attempt to suppress or dismiss speech. Ironically fitting for the thread we are discussing in.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

If it is, he essentially proves my point. Using my prior points out of context, in an attempt to suppress or dismiss speech. Ironically fitting for the thread we are discussing in.

LOL - true.

And that is largely what the left is about.  They take something you say out of context and then try to make the argument all about that.

"I like peanut butter".

Well what exactly do you mean by that? Do you like the peas? Or the nuts? Are you saying peas are better than nuts? Because that's racist.  You need to clarify what you mean. And butter was one of the favorite foods of the colonials.  Do you have any idea how many people suffered under the colonials? You might as well be spreading slavery on your bread!  REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

This is how they work and i see that exact pattern in how mike is responding. It's pretty obvious what you meant.  And it's pretty obvious that most people aren't interested in significantly reducing their lifestyles over this issue.

So - instead of focusing on the issue he's got to take what you said out of context and then attack you as a person. That allows him to dismiss your arguments because you're a bad person who likes racist peanut butter i guess.

 

 

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its a shame culture, a victimhood culture, and the obsession to judge the past based on today's wisdom and standards.

Fear and anger are the two great motivators for humans that have been used by churches, con men and environmentalists for millennia. If you can make people afraid or angry you can motivate them to action, even extreme action. 

Shame culture and hierarchy relies  on making people angry at those who don't follow the doctrine, and makes people afraid that they'll be called out for saying or doing the wrong thing and violating doctrine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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?

Oh yeah, and I left out the entitlement culture. Thanks for reminding me. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I pretty clearly believed it, right?  So how could I be dismissing the comment?

You suppress future opinions based on that one, that you misinterpreted. You deliberately invalidate, based on the "lower" moral standing of an individual. Gaslighting, or shaming. Sometimes both.

Some communist countries in this world operate on similar suppression tactics under guise of morals to keep people in line.

Trudeau in Canada suppressed a truckers protest, by dropping the entire movements moral standing to a Swastika and confederate flag.

Deliberately used "terrorist", "so called Freedom Convoy" and overall dismissed their movement turning millions against them. 

You're taking a page from that book, then cry foul when someone responds not taking you seriously. 

Debate honestly, you will get the same. You take an air of superiority you will get it reflected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You suppress future opinions based on that one, that you misinterpreted. You deliberately invalidate, based on the "lower" moral standing of an individual. Gaslighting, or shaming. Sometimes both.

2. Trudeau in Canada suppressed a truckers protest, by dropping the entire movements moral standing to a Swastika and confederate flag.

3. You're taking a page from that book, then cry foul when someone responds not taking you seriously. 

4. Debate honestly, you will get the same. You take an air of superiority you will get it reflected. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 ?

Dodge

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. I think you are using the word 'suppress' too liberally.  But maybe answer my number 1 ?

Dodge

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:



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.  

 

Dodge.

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:



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.

Dodge

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:



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.

Dodge.

 

Every single answer dodges the issue raised but instead tries to throw it back on the other person as being their fault or their misunderstanding.

I do not understand why the left cannot just debate and discuss things honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Every single answer dodges the issue raised but instead tries to throw it back on the other person as being their fault or their misunderstanding.

Like I said, he fights like my ex wife. Uncanny o_O

Gaslighting, victimhood, put in a pinch of passive aggressive, two teaspoons of a superiority complex. 

I had to go in for seconds, but I think there is a small figment of white savior complex. "I do it for you".

Serve it on a hot plate, fresh with a dose of shame juice. Goes great with wine. Yes. Double dose of the wine. When they go for wine, they drink by the keg o_O

Last time I saw surgical dodging that clean, I was watching a Floyd Mayweather fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Interesting... or you could answer my questions?

Or you could ask honest questions - OR you could EVEN simply participate in the discussion

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Not much of a fight...

LOL - sure isn't.  He's kicking your butt. Why not try actually talking about issues instead of the cheap tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You retracted something, I asked for clarification and you started insulting me.

"Hypocrites always like to play innocent" Lauryn Hill.

Find what you did that evoked that reaction. If you "asking for clarification" is all you see, then you're not being genuine or lack self awareness. Not my job to spell things out for you.

I have wasted enough of my time with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

 

Find what you did that evoked that reaction. If you "asking for clarification" is all you see, then you're not being genuine or lack self awareness. Not my job to spell things out for you.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why not try actually talking about issues instead of the cheap tricks.

Debating with someone like this, is like debating with a highly narssissitic wife or being in the midst of litigation with someone. 

Understand they aren't trying to debate in good faith, and are simply hoping for a reply that in any way goes against their ideology. Its irrelevant if you support your stance.  They will question your character and moral standing, if you haven't provided them a wordy enough a reply to fight you that way. That, or past posts, but ensuring out of context, is a must. More shocking that way. The more you reply, the more opportunity you give them to move the goal posts. Heck they remove the goal, and dig a hole for you. Now, just get closer dammit so I can nudge you inside! 

If you try to explain, again, would you speak freely if under litigation? If your partner was narssissitic? 

Then why would you here?

I have dealt with the very same thing in litigation with someone who debates similarly trying to set me up. I gave them radio silence, but then after harassing me with texts, texted them once before our hearing. I was polite and meant well, but they never intended to avoid the courts.

Catastrophic error. 

They used that text, as justification to adjourn. They had found a legal loophole (my evidence was overwhelming), and used it against me, using my kindness for weakness.

I was seething, but in anger am more strategic than destructive. 

I had all call logs, texts and the like, proving he lied in court about the one sided timeliness that he provided that I somehow agreed to settle out of court (never did).

I was fighting fair. Facts, and no shame in showing what I was eluding to. 

Have you seen Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp in court?

Well, this poster is Amber Heard to a T.

Where she doesn't even call it the truth. People this separated from reality call it my truth.

Facts are subjective to them. But Trump's press secretary calling them "alternative facts", flips the planet on its axis. Call the coast guard! Houston. We have a problem!

There is a reason that people like them hate him to a level of wanting him to die. 

He is a mirror to them. Most rational people just think he's an a**hole.

They hate mirrors. 

They call those fascists, transphobic or any means of playing politics to dismiss an opinion as valid as their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Understand they aren't trying to debate in good faith

2. They will question your character and moral standing 

3. Facts are subjective to them.  

4. They hate mirrors. 

5. They call those fascists, transphobic or any means of playing politics to dismiss an opinion as valid as their own.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

People hate it when you twist the words out of context and then try to make the conversation all about that instead of the issue. .

You're basically just an overachieving grammar nazi.  "Oh - forget about the issue, you missed a comma".  In essence that's what you do.

It takes very little mental effort, and it makes the debater look smarter than they actually are.  So a lot of weak minded ill informed people use that technique, because they can't actually debate the issue itself.

You use it a lot. And it's popular (But not exclusive) to the left.  It's a poor man's version of pseudo intellectualism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

People hate it when you twist the words out of context

Exactly.

Bring up what I said in this thread only, if fighting my words on the subject at hand.

You're otherwise fighting below the belt, if you can't pick apart the argument itself being brought up in that very thread.

If your only means to win a debate is to bring up prior ones, then accept you suck at debating, and my ex wife is single. She used to model, so may be a perfect fit for someone like that.

If am that bad, it should be a cakewalk to pick me apart each thread. 

Pointing to me not liking to be faced with something, is one doing the exact same thing they are accusing me of o_O in my calling out their behavior and dismissing their posts.

I love a heated debate. Just don't bring bulls*** from other threads to mud sling and then get your panties soiled when you get return fire.

The irony of him calling me the worst type of poster.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If your only means to win a debate is to bring up prior ones, then accept you suck at debating, and my ex wife is single. She used to model, so may be a perfect fit for someone like that.

DUDE!!!!! Don't put ideas into his head - If they hook up and breed, we'll have a bunch of these !diots running around the place in no time!!!

 

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I love a heated debate. Just don't bring bulls*** from other threads to mud sling and then get your panties soiled when you get return fire.

The irony of him calling me the worst type of poster.

I know. I love a good knock down drag out argument myself if the subject is good and the logic and arguments are well made. And afterwards i don't hold grudges.  What we frequently see on the left, and Mike is a good example, is this dishonest debate with the same 'tricks' employed again and again. That's why terms like 'sealioning' came about.

It's what the world has come to i'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

You're otherwise fighting below the belt, if you can't pick apart the argument itself being brought up in that very thread.

If your only means to win a debate is to bring up prior ones, then accept you suck at debating 

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....

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 The irony of him calling me the worst type of poster.

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...