As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do. (or why it's ok for parents to question)

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. I see this as those who look at people who were alive during the slavery years, by today's standards.

2. It's moralizing, vs debating on topic.

3. Sure, some people do it all the time, but someone good at debate will pick you apart at what you're saying in the moment.

4. I was married to a woman like this. Pulled stuff from 6 years ago, ...

1. 2. What is the post was from last week, yesterday, 10 minutes ago? People and nations change, it's true. Nations move on from slavery, people change their character.. and there's usually an acknowledgment of that.

If somebody seems to contradict their principles, I don't see why I shouldn't challenge them on that.

3. People are constantly saying that I'm not conservative based on some post I made in the past. I have to live with this standard too.

4. ... The world is full of people that are not on this board...

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If somebody seems to contradict their principles, I don't see why I shouldn't challenge them on that.

Your assumption of the contradiction isn't enough to justify you treating it as fact. Expect return fire every time, as its disingenuous. 

Basically, if you don't like the argument you will pick on the past. A narrative used by the far left.

Trump's father denied black people rent. He lost businesses. 

Biden? Crickets. No mention of him using the N word openly. No mention of him clearly putting his stance on marriage being between a woman and a man.

There are no mentions of some of his backed policies, destroying the same community he stated aren't "black" if they didn't vote for him.

You only push back on the "past" of those you wish to silence. Has nothing to do with debate.

I don't know. I use rules of engagement. If your argument is weak, I will pick it apart. I expect the same in return. In fact, I welcome it. I genuinely enjoy debate. The hotter/controversial, the better.

I could have polar opposing views to you, and still shake your hand if we debated in high school.

It was back then I noticed while having a heated debate on abortion, as am pro life, that those who couldn't stand that I didn't budge on my beliefs via pressure (and only did via assessing any of them being wrong, and growing after that self analysis), made it an attack on my character and who I was as a man. Not a single person could pick apart my points which were heavily researched.

I still remember about 20 classmates ganging up on me, picking me apart from stuff I did in kindergarten, trying to destroy me, personally. 

At one point, my teacher stopped the debate to see if I was okay.

I just smiled, and told them that knowing where people stand on me is a blessing in disguise, but it changes nothing from my stance. I know what I believe in. If anything, it makes me dig in my heels further, and fuels me more.

The tactic doesn't work. To me, it shows the person has nothing to bring to the table to beat you at the debate on hand, hence my smile back then. 

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

People are constantly saying that I'm not conservative

I'm saying you're not conservative, because of your current behavior.

Presentism is a far leftist debate tactic.

Like I said, your past means nothing to me. I don't care what others say on you. What you say to me in the moment, is what I will zero in on.

When you hear something from many if not most posters, you must at some point start to consider that there may be truth to it.

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The world is full of people that are not on this board...

Some people on this board act like tons of people out there. Moralizing is a two way road.

You can't even stay in your lane, and are going the wrong way, and get mad when you get hit by a Truck.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Your assumption of the contradiction isn't enough to justify you treating it as fact. Expect return fire every time, as its disingenuous. 

Basically, if you don't like the argument you will pick on the past. A narrative used by the far left.

Trump's father denied black people rent. He lost businesses. 

Biden? Crickets. No mention of him using the N word openly. No mention of him clearly putting his stance on marriage being between a woman and a man.

There are no mentions of some of his backed policies, destroying the same community he stated aren't "black" if they didn't vote for him.

You only push back on the "past" of those you wish to silence. Has nothing to do with debate.

I don't know. I use rules of engagement. If your argument is weak, I will pick it apart. I expect the same in return. In fact, I welcome it. I genuinely enjoy debate. The hotter/controversial, the better.

I could have polar opposing views to you, and still shake your hand if we debated in high school.

It was back then I noticed while having a heated debate on abortion, as am pro life, that those who couldn't stand that I didn't budge on my beliefs via pressure (and only did via assessing any of them being wrong, and growing after that self analysis), made it an attack on my character and who I was as a man. Not a single person could pick apart my points which were heavily researched.

I still remember about 20 classmates ganging up on me, picking me apart from stuff I did in kindergarten, trying to destroy me, personally. 

At one point, my teacher stopped the debate to see if I was okay.

I just smiled, and told them that knowing where people stand on me is a blessing in disguise, but it changes nothing from my stance. I know what I believe in. If anything, it makes me dig in my heels further, and fuels me more.

The tactic doesn't work. To me, it shows the person has nothing to bring to the table to beat you at the debate on hand, hence my smile back then. 

I'm saying you're not conservative, because of your current behavior.

Presentism is a far leftist debate tactic.

Like I said, your past means nothing to me. I don't care what others say on you. What you say to me in the moment, is what I will zero in on.

When you hear something from many if not most posters, you must at some point start to consider that there may be truth to it.

Some people on this board act like tons of people out there. Moralizing is a two way road.

You can't even stay in your lane, and are going the wrong way, and get mad when you get hit by a Truck.

Okay, it seems like you've made some good points here. This is rather long though, so I'll have to give it a good look later.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Your assumption of the contradiction isn't enough to justify you treating it as fact. Expect return fire every time, as its disingenuous. 

2. Basically, if you don't like the argument you will pick on the past.

3. A narrative used by the far left.

4. Trump's father denied black people rent. He lost businesses.  Biden? Crickets. No mention of him using the N word openly. No mention of him clearly putting his stance on marriage being between a woman and a man.  There are no mentions of some of his backed policies, destroying the same community he stated aren't "black" if they didn't vote for him.

5. You only push back on the "past" of those you wish to silence. Has nothing to do with debate.

6. I don't know. I use rules of engagement. If your argument is weak, I will pick it apart. I expect the same in return. In fact, I welcome it. I genuinely enjoy debate. The hotter/controversial, the better.

7. I'm saying you're not conservative, because of your current behavior.

8. Presentism is a far leftist debate tactic.

9. When you hear something from many if not most posters, you must at some point start to consider that there may be truth to it.

10. Some people on this board act like tons of people out there. Moralizing is a two way road.

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 ...

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, but here's the next level:

People who look at your post in the context of your past posts.

I do this to you and people do it to me.

Weak minded people do that.

Intelligent people do consider the argument being made. Consider eyeball for exmaple. Very frequently makes what i consider to be !diotic or childish arguments as well as ones that are absolutely clearly bullcrap. And i tend to ridicule him for those posts.  But sometimes he makes a post that's got a reasonable argument (i may not agree with it but the argument is reasoned) and raises a serious point and to those I reply respectfully and address the issues as best i can and take the conversation seriously.  And sometimes interesting things come out of that.

If your only measure for a discussion is 'muh feels' about the poster then you're doing yourself a serious disservice and lowering your intellectual bar. You should be more like @Perspektiv

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

In fact, if I have doubt then I will ask about the apparent contradiction. 

Bringing up prior threads is disingenuous. It removes context from the comments made, and is just you conveniently using a quote with the context you choose to attach to it.

Find me a couple that does this, and you have found me a couple that will either divorce with 3-5 years, or resent each other to the tune of simply existing together, due to guilt and pressures vs love and choice.

There's a reason for it. Its a lazy way of debating or resolving problems, which just creates more problems, while allowing you to virtue signal and pat yourself on the back.

Its like the news editing a statement, but removing nuance by ommitting to put the full statement. Further doing so by putting a headline that takes the entire statement well out of context, to generate the necessary outrage that gets clicks.

I don't believe for a second you don't realize how dirty a tactic that it is, as it likely works for you on many posters.

If I believe in something, I don't mind looking like a total fool in standing by my beliefs. You need someone who fears this, for your tactics to work.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

then one can rightly respond with a request to explain that contradiction.  

The contradiction is right there in the post itself. You're picking apart their logic. Far cry from using past quotes on current debates. The latter comes across as passive aggressive. 

"Anyone who voted for Trudeau, can't possibly like muscle cars"

I voted in 2016!

"A vote counted is a vote for life"

That doesn't even make sense! 

"Says someone who voted for Trudeau.".

How do you expect someone to take your debating seriously?

Its like you feel entitled to an apology for the mistake they made years ago.

Destroy that person when they make the mistake. 

Doing it in the heat of debate to me, is like my ex wife reminding me about the time I was texted by a woman, years ago. It silences any argument I have, as she is crying and am on the defensive having to somehow prove I did nothing wrong, while erasing any points I had in the current argument.

Its lazy.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

"YOU make generalizations about people.  THE NAZIS DID THAT."

Except I could find you 20 articles easily, showing my point.

Don Lemon got fired for doing just that, but made the mistake of picking on someone who could defend himself.

Like I said. It only works on those who panic under pressure, or aren't articulate, turning emotional vs rational.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

not bringing up the past

You can bring up/moralize the past all you wish. I won't stop you. However, it is a weak debate tactic, especially if losing a debate.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But logic alone doesn't determine an argument. 

If I can articulate my argument better than you can, I likely will do better at the argument. 

This is how I see it. I use your  current words against you. You try to use my past words with the tone of your choosing against me. People can decide which one of us is being disingenuous. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is 'presentism' ?

You're applying your moral values or values you feel should be applied, on past posts from threads not even being debated in.

You can't let it go.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I invite you to search my posts:

I don't see the relevance of doing so in our present debate.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

"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

You must be a prize in arguments in any relationship you have been in.

If you have an Excel spreadsheet or statistics, bro....

I will try that on the wife later: "do you know I tell you you're right 96% of the time. In fact out of 181 opportunities.."

If I don't post again, you'll know why. Funny thing, her reaction will mean her being right...again.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Weak minded people do that.

Basically. Vivek Ramaswamy vs Don Lemon is one of the best examples I can think of.

Lemon has no argument, so dismisses Ramaswamy immediately, telling him that until he has his darker complexion he has no business talking about racial issues affecting the black community. 

Then tries to make it a moral issue...Ramaswamy is a racial minority, too and then just watching Lemon flailing trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink, and watching Ramaswamy still remaining calm and logical. Gold. 

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Weak minded people do that.

2. Intelligent people do consider the argument being made.  

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.

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Bringing up prior threads is disingenuous. It removes context from the comments made, and is just you conveniently using a quote with the context you choose to attach to it.

2. Find me a couple that does this, and you have found me a couple that will either divorce with 3-5 years, or resent each other to the tune of simply existing together, due to guilt and pressures vs love and choice.

3. There's a reason for it. Its a lazy way of debating or resolving problems, which just creates more problems, while allowing you to virtue signal and pat yourself on the back.

Its like the news editing a statement, but removing nuance by ommitting to put the full statement. Further doing so by putting a headline that takes the entire statement well out of context, to generate the necessary outrage that gets clicks.

4. I don't believe for a second you don't realize how dirty a tactic that it is, as it likely works for you on many posters.

5. If I believe in something, I don't mind looking like a total fool in standing by my beliefs. You need someone who fears this, for your tactics to work.

6. The contradiction is right there in the post itself. You're picking apart their logic. Far cry from using past quotes on current debates. The latter comes across as passive aggressive. 

7. Doing it in the heat of debate to me, is like my ex wife reminding me about the time I was texted by a woman, years ago. It silences any argument I have, as she is crying and am on the defensive having to somehow prove I did nothing wrong, while erasing any points I had in the current argument.

8. Except I could find you 20 articles easily, showing my point.

9 ... It only works on those who panic under pressure, or aren't articulate, turning emotional vs rational.

10. You can bring up/moralize the past all you wish. I won't stop you. However, it is a weak debate tactic, especially if losing a debate.

11. You must be a prize in arguments in any relationship you have been in. If you have an Excel spreadsheet or statistics, bro.... I will try that on the wife later: "do you know I tell you you're right 96% of the time. In fact out of 181 opportunities.." If I don't post again, you'll know why. Funny thing, her reaction will mean her being right...again.

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.  

Edited February 10, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Black Dog]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's certainly true - you can choose to look like an uneducated doof.

Literally happens every day.

Ahhhh yes  - you're "go to" when you know you're wrong and can't defend your position.

Pretty close to zero - and lets be fair, some teachers will use hiding it from parents to sexually exploit the kids. It's rarer but theres' lots of cases of teacher's seducing kids.  So risks either way.

You've literally no evidence to support any of this. Pony up big talker.

Quote

Yeah we are.  It's the lefties who are making the claim that no right wing home is supportive. Which just isnt true.

LOL no one made that claim you absolute illiterate doofus. Hell, no one even mentioned right wingers, so this is just your persecution complex flaring up.

Quote

You mean your hate filled bigoted statement above?  Yeah - well - we didn't really think you had one so no surprises.

Thank god you have the courage to stick up for...abusive parents. lol.

Edited February 10, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You've literally no evidence to support any of this. Pony up big talker.

LOL no one made that claim you absolute illiterate doofus.

Thank god you have the courage to stick up for...abusive parents. lol.

Oooo - time for everyone's favorite game show - "Is Black Dog correct? or is he a steaming pile of crap?"

So blackdog says "NO EVIDENCE THAT POLICE OR SOCIAL WORKERS WILL RESPOND BEFORE THERE'S VIOLENCE".  I said that they'll respond to children at risk, not just voilence - Black dog says no, that i have NO evidence for that.

Answer is:  ding ding ding!  - the police and social workers have entire teams dedicated to just that and have for decades!!!

https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/News/SuccessStories/CARRT20Ann

OHHHH NOOOO - Looks like black dog scored "is a pile of crap" again!!!!

LOL -  my god you're stupid    Everyone knows about this and there's similar stuff in every province.  Here's edmontons

https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT

Quote

LOL no one made that claim you absolute illiterate doofus.

Sure they did. That's the whole point. You've said something fairly similar yourself.

 And i see from the rest you're out of ideas so are just lying about me saying things so you'll have something you could actually argue.  ROFL - what a piece of crap you are.

Edited February 10, 2024 by CdnFox

[Black Dog]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oooo - time for everyone's favorite game show - "Is Black Dog correct? or is he a steaming pile of crap?"

So blackdog says "NO EVIDENCE THAT POLICE OR SOCIAL WORKERS WILL RESPOND BEFORE THERE'S VIOLENCE".  I said that they'll respond to children at risk, not just voilence - Black dog says no

Answer is:  ding ding ding!  - the police and social workers have entire teams dedicated to just that and have for decades!!!

https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/News/SuccessStories/CARRT20Ann

OHHHH NOOOO - Looks like black dog scored "is a pile of crap" again!!!!

LOL -  my god you're stupid    Everyone knows about this and there's similar stuff in every province.  Here's edmontons

https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/FamilyProtection/ChildProtection/CARRT

 

Quote

CARRT investigates the following:

• Incidents involving imminent risk to children caused by neglect and/or physical or sexual abuse.
• Incidents involving a caregiver who is unable or unwilling to provide adequate care to any child in their charge.
• Requests for assistance from EPS members and/or Child Welfare investigators involving a child welfare investigation.
• Action requests from Child Welfare that originate from the Crisis Unit or any Neighbourhood Centre in Edmonton.
• Requests for investigation that originate from the Sergeant i/c CARRT.
• Incidents involving the welfare of any child that has been placed with Children Services.

Doesn't say anything about investigating cases where there's only the potential for abuse. Like how would that even go? 

I also noticed no cite for the "close to zero kids get abused for being trans" claim. Not surprised.

Quote

Sure they did. That's the whole point. You've said something fairly similar yourself.

I'd ask for a direct citation but we know you'll just bloviate and obfuscate and continue to lie because that's your whole M.O. But again: no one made the claim that "no right wing home is supportive" though it stands to reason that right wing/conservative/religious households are more likely to be non supportive.

Quote

 And i see from the rest you're out of ideas so are just lying about me saying things so you'll have something you could actually argue.  ROFL - what a piece of crap you are.

Guy i'm not the one who thinks saying some parents are abusive is a"bigoted statement" but I'm sure the abusers appreciate you going to bat for them.

Edited February 10, 2024 by Black Dog

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Consider eyeball for exmaple. Very frequently makes what i consider to be !diotic or childish arguments as well as ones that are absolutely clearly bullcrap. And i tend to ridicule him for those posts.  But sometimes he makes a post that's got a reasonable argument (i may not agree with it but the argument is reasoned) and raises a serious point and to those I reply respectfully and address the issues as best i can and take the conversation seriously.  And sometimes interesting things come out of that.

Hmmm. I'm afraid the impression you've tried to cultivate that you have all the grace and charm of a dog's dick has been very successful. The quality of your arguments simply don't matter.

 

Good job.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but the dynamic is pretty different than for couples I'm sure you will agree. 

Not really. If you can't communicate, how strong is your debate going to be? How strong are your relationships going to be?

Different scenario, but both are related, in that failure to communicate during conflict based on the issue at hand, vs revisiting past issues to "one up" each other, is underhanded and does nothing but destroy relationships, or in debate, credibility.

It also points to you having nothing to bring to the table.

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are talking about how you feel when you are called out as far as I can see.  

Wrong. Someone using past things they took out of context, to suppress me voicing my displeasure about something presently while remaining on subject. Ironically, you're proving my point.

I can be called out all day. This isn't the issue at hand. I was deliberately specific, knowing you would try to twist my words.

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I point out when I see contradictions

No, you'll pull from threads from over a year ago. Its a weak debate tactic. You're not dense. You know the context in another thread likely may be far different if applied to a current one.

I have been called out by several posters on here. Life goes on. Dissagreements are part of debate.

I don't know if you notice, only one is being called out about the underhanded and shiesty approach to doing it.

Anyone who can point to statistically what they have said, showcase a level of self-importance that is off the charts.

Something you can pat yourself on the back on, like you'll predictably do in your response.

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

  the grace and charm of a dog's dick ...

To be fair, some dog dicks are finer than others.  

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Not really. If you can't communicate, how strong is your debate going to be? How strong are your relationships going to be?

2. ... revisiting past issues to "one up" each other, is underhanded and does nothing but destroy relationships, or in debate, credibility.

3. It also points to you having nothing to bring to the table.

4. Wrong. Someone using past things they took out of context, to suppress me voicing my displeasure about something presently while remaining on subject. Ironically, you're proving my point.

5. No, you'll pull from threads from over a year ago.

6. Its a weak debate tactic. You're not dense. You know the context in another thread likely may be far different if applied to a current one.

7. I don't know if you notice, only one is being called out about the underhanded and shiesty approach to doing it. Anyone who can point to statistically what they have said, showcase a level of self-importance that is off the charts.Something you can pat yourself on the back on, like you'll predictably do in your response.

 

1. We have to agree to disagree on this.  The engagement with my wife and family vs to strangers on here is galaxies apart on many levels, including intent, trust, purpose and mode.
2. I think I said in my last post, or at least alluded to: I am not trying to one up anyone, either here or in personal relationships.  If you don't believe me, that's fine I can't expect you to.
3. I bring my principles, values and facts as does everyone.  Feel free to critique them.  Call me a fake conservative if you see that in my posts.
4. I guess I am, except I'm not trying to suppress anything.  My take is I can ask where such displeasure comes from, and if the answer isn't consistent then that shows something.
5. Did I ?  Seems unlikely as I'm unable to remember that far back.  But I do remember certain things, especially if they strike me as significant and out-of-character.
6. I mean... you keep saying it's a weak tactic but did you ever respond to my point ?  I don't remember.  You expressed indignation, and compared me to people in your personal life, and called my style of posting shyster-like.  It's fine - you don't like it when I do that.  I get it.
7. Not really.  I would say someone who never says they're wrong, and who brings in a backstory of their life including... wives, ex-wives, their experiences with boxing, being asexual yada yada...  is pretty egotistical. 

So you call me shyster-like, and my response is you're egotistical.  Where are we ?  Nowhere, really.  You can still respond to me if you like.  

Is that patting myself on the back ?

And does this mean you'll stop calling me a fake conservative ?  You side stepped that one... If so, can I call you a fake moralist and virtue-signaller ? (Edited to add: and a whiner...)

Are there any rules ?
 

Edited February 10, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. People call me out for having called myself a 'conservative' in the past.  How is that different ?
 

It's entirely different. people call you out for that when you claim to be a conservative, because the statement is false.  They don't assess your other statements based on or in light of the fact that in the past you've been dishonest about being a conservative.

Nobody says "ahh your point on refugees is invalid because last week you claimed to be a conservative".  They evaluate it on your argument today. IF you say "this is my view on refugees and that's because i'm a conservative" THEN it's going to come up again   But would if it was the first time they'd seen it.

So it has nothing to do with your past history. It gets mentioned when you actually mention it in a conversation now. And then we comment.  Because it's stupid.

Quote

2. True but everybody gives in to tossing a rock here and there.  Mea culpa.

Well of course.  That's part of the fun. It's not like we're doing this to ACTUALLY solve the problems of the world or anything.  

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. It's entirely different. people call you out for that when you claim to be a conservative, because the statement is false. 

2.  IF you say "this is my view on refugees and that's because i'm a conservative" THEN it's going to come up again   But would if it was the first time they'd seen it.

3.  Because it's stupid.

1. So comparing statements I have made ?  And deciding that they contradict ?  Sounds like exactly what I do.
2. I don't think I say that very much, if at all.  I believe I have tied individual beliefs to conservative values directly, such as individual freedom and such.  But, people who know me look at a statement on its own and compare it to past statements and decide there's a conflict.  Again, that's what I do and it's fair game.
3. I mean.. you COULD just say it's inconsistent, and that you disagree, and then proceed to explain why...

And let's talk about 'virtue signalling' again.  What's the difference between that and moralizing ?  As far as I can see they're the same, but with the former one assumes the motive is based in vanity.

 

[Moonbox]

56 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'd ask for a direct citation but we know you'll just bloviate and obfuscate and continue to lie because that's your whole M.O. But again: no one made the claim that "no right wing home is supportive" though it stands to reason that right wing/conservative/religious households are more likely to be non supportive.

Wow, it's almost like anyone who argues with him notices this - no cites, no numbers, just donkey-logic and straw-man arguments he's made up to debate against.  🤡

  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

my response is you're egotistical.

You're literally the definition of self-important and arrogant. 

Your icon literally spews of one who would lecture a McDonald's server for adding one creamer too many to your coffee:

"Do you not know who I am?!"

Sir, I can make you a new coffee..

"It should have been made the right way, on the first go!" *slams fist onto counter*

1. "I ordered during the drive through, and you incorrectly put it together."

2. "It forces me to get out of my car."

3. "I have been talking for 20 seconds, and uttered more than 50 words, and have heard precisely 0 apologies from you."

You literally put the I in victim, and expect that the world owes you something. 

You want that in exact change, no less. How liberal of you.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You're literally the definition of self-important and arrogant. 

2. Your icon literally spews of one who would lecture a McDonald's server for adding one creamer too many to your coffee: " 

3. You literally put the I in victim, and expect that the world owes you something.  You want that in exact change, no less. How liberal of you.

1. And yet you're the one who talks about his epic struggles, his wives, and his amazing kung-fu experiences... and also most importantly refuses to admit fault.  Hypocritian, heal thyself.
2. I'm nice to service staff.  Nice McDonald's story... it doesn't stack up against actual examples which I sited in my first sentence and I know that bugs you.  Keep writing, though, I'm sure you've got a screenplay in there somewhere.
3. No.  You don't owe me any explanation at all for your hypocrisy.  For appealing to morality and refusing to lift a finger if you don't agree with the cause.  You define what is moral and correct in your world... oops, check that... for everyone..

I'm sorry I couldn't make you see why I find your posting style contradictory.  That's on me, sincerely.  And similarly I can't understand why you call me a shyster for asking for consistency.

Off we go I suppose.

 

Edited February 10, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So comparing statements I have made ?  And deciding that they contradict ?  Sounds like exactly what I do.

 

I swear to god Mike your english skills slip every time we talk. You have said that you take PAST behavior into account - i noted that it's more appropriate to take THE CURRENT argument at it's face value. It is NOTHING like what you do.

Quote

2. I don't think I say that very much, if at all.  I believe I have tied individual beliefs to conservative values directly, such as individual freedom and such.  But, people who know me look at a statement on its own and compare it to past statements and decide there's a conflict.  Again, that's what I do and it's fair game.

You say it a fair bit - but it only gets discussed when you do. Like right now.  I didn't bring it up,  you did.  And i would not say in the future that an unrelated argument you made was invalid just because you'd falsified being conservative.

Quote

3. I mean.. you COULD just say it's inconsistent, and that you disagree, and then proceed to explain why...

I have explained why several times - AND pointed out when you've made decidedly unconservative comments or taken radically un conservative or left wing positions. BUT - i don't claim that those positions are invalid as a result of you pretending to be conservative  
 

Quote

And let's talk about 'virtue signalling' again.  What's the difference between that and moralizing ?  As far as I can see they're the same, but with the former one assumes the motive is based in vanity.

I would imagine that it would depend on your definitions of those two things.

Generally i believe that 'virtue signalling' is taking action or making statments who's sole intent is to create an exaggerated appearance of belief in a moral or ethical value for the purpose of impressing others.

I think generallly that moralizing is just telling others about a moral belief but with a ceratin level of arrogance or intolerance to other opinion.

Sort of similar but not quite - but it would depend on how YOU define them  
 

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Wow, it's almost like anyone who argues with him notices this - no cites, no numbers, just donkey-logic and straw-man arguments he's made up to debate against.  🤡

  

Awww litle guy   still butt hurt over looking like a child who can't do math again LOLOLOL   Cry me those salty tears boy

I fact i always produce facts and numbers - you spend the rest of your life trying to pretend math doesn't work and words mean anything other than what they actually do.

And i fact the post you're responding to  is where he's mad about the cites i provided   LOLOLOL

I do have to admit tho - I wasn't the one who presented the final hunk of evidence  that proved you were wrong entirely in our last fight when you failed so epicly - you were kind enough to do that YOURSELF!  ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw - he didn't say i don't provide cites - he said that it'd 'bloviate and obfuscate'.  - which means i'd explain the cite and he woudln't get it and get angry

But hey - if you want to compare your level of intelligence and arguing skills as being similar to Black Dog.... Sure i'm fine with that   LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh -

Edited February 10, 2024 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

 

Doesn't say anything about investigating cases where there's only the potential for abuse. Like how would that even go? 

I also noticed no cite for the "close to zero kids get abused for being trans" claim. Not surprised.

I'd ask for a direct citation but we know you'll just bloviate and obfuscate and continue to lie because that's your whole M.O. But again: no one made the claim that "no right wing home is supportive" though it stands to reason that right wing/conservative/religious households are more likely to be non supportive.

 

It literally says they are specifically for at risk kids - which means there's no abuse yet. If there's abuse it's JUST the cops .

Sorry kiddo    That was literally a direct citation 

 

WHat you really mean is your very very angry you were wrong again and look like a complete loser.  Sure, i get that

Quote

Guy i'm not the one who thinks saying some parents are abusive is a"bigoted statement" but I'm sure the abusers appreciate you going to bat for them.

Neither did i.  But you ARE the one who is prepared to lie and pretend i said anything of the kind.  You talked about how conservative homes weren't supportive.  I said that statement was bigoted and hateful.  And it is.  "abuse' didn't come up. Maybe because you were thinking about conservatives you just assumed they're abusive  as well? LOLOL

But hey - just for fun manybe i missed something.  Point out where i actually said "saying some parents are abusive is a"bigoted statement" :"

 

Go on - i dare you   No reason for you not to look like a re-tard twice in one day is there?  Lets see you post it  

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And similarly I can't understand why you call me a shyster for asking for consistency.

Your posting style is underhanded. 

The funny thing is I don't need you to see this. Many posters have called you out on it. You lack on self awareness what you make up on in virtue signaling and lecturing.