Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 ?  

 

Well @Perspektiv  - Here we see it again.  They have to twist what was said to make their arguement.

This is a slightly (very slightly) more sophisticated version of the outrageously popular leftie debate tactic of "So what you're REALLY saying is..."   Of course this was made famous in the interview with Jordan Peterson.  The tactic involves taking what someone says that you can't argue with and then rephrasing it (with a twist or skew) so that it becomes something you can.

"I like steak."   "so what you're REALLY saying is you enjoy killing animals and animal cruelty".

That's how it works

In this case  " I don't like it when you twist the meaning of my words or use them out of context or when you take out of context in another thread to try to create the impression of something i never really said". 

Becomes:

"Oh - so you don't like your own words!! You're ASHAMED of what you say!"

See - you're the bad guy here for daring to question his misuse of what you said :) 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


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"..

the only thing consistant about you Mike is your dishonest debate methods.

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


You could take me off ignore and face the music but ... I know that's hard.

Says the guy who claims to have me on ignore :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

That's how it works

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"So what you're REALLY saying is..."

That interview brought a tear to my eye in how he was measured and composed, and she flailed. Almost artistic. Logic, vs woke culture in a nutshell. 

I mean her title of the interview made it clear he wouldn't have a fair debate to begin with. Not only was it unfair, she not only tried to put words in his mouth, she forced it open and tried to drive them into it o_O 

You are dealing with people who are trying to force their idea of morality into you.

I don't think Michael understands the irony of how he is proving this very point in trying to summon me to answer to him for a moral standard he demands me to adhere to.

Feels like a homeless person asking you for 10$, then you saying you only have 1.50$.

I experienced similar before, but for a 5$ request. They then told me, "I'm looking for 5$" in the most condescending tone ever. Like they were entitled for whatever amount they were asking for. Like this was a negotiation. The black in me almost came out, as I almost slapped him based on how aggressive he approached me, to boot.

Sorry, you're not that important. Neither am I. 

For Michael: I am essentially telling you to get over yourself. 

Consider this the last bit of breath I will waste on you. 

As you were!

Edited by Perspektiv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You are dealing with people who are trying to force their idea of morality into you.

2. I don't think Michael understands the irony ...

3. For Michael: I am essentially telling you to get over yourself. 

4. Consider this the last bit of breath I will waste on you. 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nope.  He said straight off to NOT use his words from another thread.  What else could be implied ?  

Yep.  And the fact you're still arguing it proves my point nicely.  You can't discuss the issue, you only want to focus on this.

It's a cheezy trick.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Playing a game of taking people out of context is a children's trick.  And the hypocrisy is yours.

When you're forced to stoop to that level to defend your position, your position probably sucks. Worry about making your argument instead of worrying about trying to tell someone else what their argument is.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:



I do like that we're talking brass tacks of rhetoric and discussion though...

Rather than the point you weren't going to be able to make?  I bet.

"What you're REALLY saying is... "  is a terrible and low brow argument technique. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1.  And the fact you're still arguing it proves my point nicely.  You can't discuss the issue, you only want to focus on this.

2. Playing a game of taking people out of context is a children's trick. 

3. And the hypocrisy is yours.

4. Worry about making your argument instead of worrying about trying to tell someone else what their argument is.

5. "What you're REALLY saying is... "  is a terrible and low brow argument technique. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

SJW's in a nutshell


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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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?

First off - no, reason and logic also play a large role in a healthy argument. Principles would be a distant second to those in most healthy arguments. Important but only so much so.

Secondly - principles are often applied differently in different specific circumstances. For example - do you believe in killing people?  NO. Do you believe in self defense including lethal force if someone is trying to kill you? Yes. 

So - does that mean you really DO support killing people? Or not? Why are your principles changing so much?

You see the problem. Which is why it's dangerous to drag one statement from one conversation into another.

And finally - principles can be a little too nuanced to explain perfectly on an internet forum and allowances have to be made for that.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Then point out how I have misread the context.  That's fair.

up to a point - but you have a bad habit of dragging the whole argument into that, which is a dishonest debate technique.  It's very safe for you because now all we're talking about is whether or not the other poster feels one way or another and you can't really lose that discussion - but it's  basically changed the channel and you're no longer discussing the original point.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Except, you seem to also say that hypocrisy is irrelevant if I take the contradictory principles from another thread?

I think the hypocrisy in that case is more conveniently percieved than actual :) 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. You can do both, why not?  Why can't we take down someone's argument based on inconsistent principles?  

You can depending on the circumstance but it becomes a bit of a cheat quite quickly.  As i noted - arguments are not based on principles. They are based in fact and logic and reason.  If you can't address the argument based on that, falling back on your perception of another persons principles is seriously iffy territory.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Well - that is a slightly different tactic. Its not the same. But i'm not a huge fan of that one either.  :) 

Asking a clarifying question is legit.  Asking someone to reconcile an apparent discrepancy in their position is legit. Pinning YOUR argument on it is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. First off - no, reason and logic also play a large role in a healthy argument. Principles would be a distant second to those in most healthy arguments. Important but only so much so.

2. Secondly - principles are often applied differently in different specific circumstances. For example - do you believe in killing people?  NO. Do you believe in self defense including lethal force if someone is trying to kill you? Yes. 

3. And finally - principles can be a little too nuanced to explain perfectly on an internet forum and allowances have to be made for that.

4. You have a bad habit of dragging the whole argument into that, which is a dishonest debate technique. 

5. ... no longer discussing the original point.

6. As i noted - arguments are not based on principles. They are based in fact and logic and reason.   

7. Well - that is a slightly different tactic. Its not the same. But i'm not a huge fan of that one either.  :) 

 

1. But how can you deploy 'logic' without principles ?  Principles are axioms or rules that people go by.  Such as "I believe in freedom.  Trans rights support freedom.  Therefore I support trans rights."  
2. Yes, but you can incorporate the extra condition into the principle, eg. "I don't believe in abortion unless it's a case of rape or incest"
3. This I agree on, however we have this forum for exactly that.  Note that if somebody has different principles than me to start with - and they're consistent - you don't really have a logical base to criticize them.
4. Ok - well I admit perpektiv's arrogant moralizing gets under my saddle so... what if instead I said something like "Interesting point, but what about this assertion that you made in the past ?  How to resolve this?"
5. Here's the big secret on debating with me.  Just stop in the middle and ask me how I feel about it.  In most cases, my guess is I don't care so much about the matter as I do about the decorum and community rules around discussion. 

This might be surprising, the example I will give: I think that I can live with parents keeping children home for sex ed, of any kind.  If they want to stop a child hearing about some community value they don't agree with whether it's Canadian history, Remembrance Day, the history of LGBTQ+ rights etc.  What I think is FAR worse is a nation who would tear each other apart - lie in the media, hype up conflict and dehumanize the other side in order to "win".  When I see people who refuse to brandish humility, and who openly imply that parents and educators are pedophiles I see red.

Insisting on using a word that a group finds offensive is bad behaviour.  You might think a black man would understand that.

6. I disagree as I said in #1 above.
7. That you, that's overtly VETOing someone's statement of opinion.

Thanks for this - I enjoy trying to clarify the mechanics of discussion in our Repolitics community...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


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 ? 

THis is a perfect example.  IN a thread where one person is using memes INSTEAD of debate  @Perspektiv calls them out on it and says they should not use memes INSTEAD of arguments

In a completely different thread where he has FREQUENTLY debated the issue normally he makes ONE post that's meme based which isn't even presented as an argument and you want to claim that somehow it's the same thing as using memes ONLY to debate.

It is beyond dishonest of you.  He did NOT say in his original post that using a meme at all or ever was a bad thing.  He wasn't even debating anyone when he posted those memes - he was just making a separate statement.

But you're choosing to twist what he said ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT to suggest a conflict that simply doesn't exist.

At best you could say he didn't make a very STRONG point with his memes, and i think he would probably agree, but he obviously also wasn't trying to.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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)

As we have noted - that's a dishonest position.

THe lack of principles here is yours.  You have taken something entirely out of context to create the ILLUSION of an ethical or principle conflict RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE POINTS I MADE TO YOU. There is no conflict there.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:



Actually posting memes in place of arguments has always been against the rules in the past:

https://repolitics.com/forums/guidelines/

Those aren't rules. Those are guidelines.  Says so right in the link.

This is a TOTAL swing and a miss on your part.

If you can't debate a subject with facts and reason directly then you should be seriously questioning your position on the matter. Not trying to twist a previous conversation into some sort of distraction or smoke screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. ... he makes ONE post that's meme based which isn't even presented as an argument and you want to claim that somehow it's the same thing as using memes ONLY to debate.

2. But you're choosing to twist what he said ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT to suggest a conflict that simply doesn't exist.

3. At best you could say he didn't make a very STRONG point with his memes 

4. The lack of principles here is yours.  You have taken something entirely out of context to create the ILLUSION of an ethical or principle conflict RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE POINTS I MADE TO YOU. There is no conflict there.

5. This is a TOTAL swing and a miss on your part.

6. If you can't debate a subject with facts and reason directly then you should be seriously questioning your position on the matter. Not trying to twist a previous conversation into some sort of distraction or smoke screen.

1. The rules of the board used to be stringent: NO memes.  You are right that I am being irrational because memes bother me.  Someone says 'don't use memes' and I get happy.  Then they use them and I go off...
2. I simply quote him.  The context is his to set.  I will admit to being out of balance on the topic.
3. I didn't look closely at them - so I went back.  Three pictures of peoples' faces and an ugly person sitting on their butt.  No, not a week point... no point.
4. I was responding to him with the meme thing, maybe highlighting it for you.  What of my own principles am I violating ?  I welcome your criticism.
5. Ok.  
6. We're not debating a subject here, we're talking about rules and decorum, and whether principles matter.  I don't see how I was 'twisting' anything.  He ridiculed memes as a method of argument, then he used them... 

Seems to me if anyone violated principles then he did.  That principle being: "Memes are an insufficient mode of conveying ideas".  

Let me know your thoughts, I am looking at my behaviour more closely thanks to your assertions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The rules of the board used to be stringent: NO memes.  You are right that I am being irrational because memes bother me.  Someone says 'don't use memes' and I get happy.  Then they use them and I go off...

I'm not a massive meme fan either (except where it's genuinely funny and not part of the discourse). 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. I simply quote him.  The context is his to set.  I will admit to being out of balance on the topic.

Codswallop. The context is created by how you post it. Once you take it out of it's original context you're controlling the context.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. I didn't look closely at them - so I went back.  Three pictures of peoples' faces and an ugly person sitting on their butt.  No, not a week point... no point.

Arguably true - but again not really intended to be one either.  It's not like it was a rebuttal to a specific point.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


4. I was responding to him with the meme thing, maybe highlighting it for you.  What of my own principles am I violating ?  I welcome your criticism.

Its dishonest whether it's your intent to be or not.  It attempts to suggest that he has said memes are unacceptable and then used memes when that's not the case once you look at the context. His condemnation of memes was specific to a circumstance - attempting to use them to rebut an argument.

I would assume that honesty is a principle you're aspiring to. It's not an honest representation.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


5. Ok.  
6. We're not debating a subject here, we're talking about rules and decorum, and whether principles matter.  I don't see how I was 'twisting' anything.  He ridiculed memes as a method of argument, then he used them... 

.... But not as an argument. Clearly. And that's where the 'twist' comes.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:



Seems to me if anyone violated principles then he did.  That principle being: "Memes are an insufficient mode of conveying ideas".  

Again - the twist. That was not his claim.  His claim was that exclusively using a meme as a counter argument to someone is not acceptable.  That doesn't mean memes are not perfectly good ways of conveying ideas. In fact they can be very effective at conveying ideas. That's why they're popular.  Just not an effective tool for conveying a logical or reasoned counter argument in most cases. 

So you took what he said and slightly twisted it from "not an effective debate tool" to "not effective for conveying an idea".  SImilar - but sitll very different.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


Let me know your thoughts, I am looking at my behavior more closely thanks to your assertions...

Well - i don't know that your behavior is per se the issue, i think that honestly is a perspective issue.   Did you ever play that game where you take the lyrics of a song or something and run it through google translate to another language and then run it back to english? The results can be pretty hilarious - it's not that the translations are technically entirely wrong ,but once you do that the context of the words is lost and you get very different meanings.  The song from "Frozen" that goes "let it go, let it go" comes back as "give up! give up!  :)  it's  not that the translators weren't doing a decent job, but they don't get the context and that leads them to translations that are dishonest to the original meaning.

I feel that way looking at some of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually posting memes in place of arguments has always been against the rules in the past

What about posting memes when not used in argument or clearly not in response to anyone. So, just posting a meme?

What do rules speak of with the specific case per above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

What about posting memes when not used in argument or clearly not in response to anyone. So, just posting a meme?

What do rules speak of with the specific case per above?

There was a general discouragement of images, which was relaxed.  But memes were not allowed in any form, which is why images are mentioned in the guidelines.

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...