The awe-inspiring conservative counter-offensive against woke nonsense

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Well, safe injection without emphasis on treatment, is a woke idea.  You're incentivizing drug use. 

1. I think it fits *my* definition but others here disagree so I'll leave it to them to ask you.

The rest of your post supports this first sentence IMO.

[Moonlight Graham]

Eyeballs definition is funny:  woke = leftwing chuds lol

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I doubt that. 
 

Ok - i stand corrected. Even  your mom doesn't think you're kewl. 

Quote

2. Top of page 2.  You quoted part of my post "But only tribally, I suspect.  It's just code for something you don't like" and you responded "This is just such a lie.".  See - my post says "I suspect", meaning that it's my opinion.  Then you called my opinion a lie.

Oh look. An attempt to distract.  You'd prefer the conversation to be about that.

You're as dishonest as the day is long mike. 
 

Quote

3. Ok, please do.  I sincerely will try to keep an eye out.

Quote

I have many times so you'll understand why your sincerity may be in question.

I read fine - and while i may not speak 'bullcrap'  as fluently as you do i certainly recognize it when i see it.

Quote

4. Maybe you're not reading the posts that followed, with you, me, Graham et al. trying to find said definition.

The very fact you would turn the conversation into a lengthy one about the 'definiton' is proof enough.  As i said - it's an old trick, instead of addressing the issue pick a detail like a definition and argue over that instead so you can avoid the main point.

 

Quote

5. We're now in the vicinity of the philosophers like Kant and Hegel.  So if you want to go by that way of defining words, then I agree that it's a better approach.  But you have to also accept that there will be at least "quibbles" as to details as evidenced by the posts on here.  But ok

Deflect deflect deflect.

Deal with the issue.  This is not a scientific paper - this is an online discussion and it is extremely dishonest to reduce the conversation to 'quibbles'  that are irrelevant to the main point. 

 

Quote

6. Says you. 

.Yes. Because it's true.  It's that simple and while you can lie to yourself others can see it pretty clearly.

Quote

 If you want to be an absolute moralist and claim that anybody different from you is just wrong then I can also point out the fuzziness of definitions.  It's fair game as far as I can see.  Just as it's fair game for you to point out my reluctance to nail down a static and detailed definition or opinion on something

Again - completely dishonest. I have never suggested that anyone who thinks different from me is wrong. At all.

But you make that false statement so that you can then argue dishonestly about it. "Because you believe this thing you've never claimed to believe in the slightest, therefore i'm excused for doing this other thing  that's wrong'.

What utter bullcrap.
 

Quote

7.  9. 10. 11. You project your view of the world on others then.  Because I for one know you're wrong about me.

You are judged by your actions and your words.  Its' that simple. Now - this is the internet, for all i know you could ACTUALLY be a 12 year old girl or something. (sometimes i wonder)   But - judging solely on YOUR presence here i'm not wrong and I have to wonder if you know yourself as well as you think you do.

In any case i'm hardly going to give credit to someone's self evaluation who behaves as you do and calls himself a 'conservative'

 

Quote

8.  Never ?  Let me look at this post and see how I did... Well, oddly, you only have one question mark in your last two posts to me: "How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?"  

There's nothing odd about it. There's no point asking you questions, you never answer them honestly. Lets take a look shall we?

 

Quote

My answer is: "I'm not participating in dishonest tricks.  If you think I'm being evasive or dishonest, show how.  Don't just assume that I have an agenda based on your suspicious."  That's an answer.

No, it isn't.  It would be an answer if the question was "do you or do you not use dishonest tricks'.  But that is not a question i asked.

My question was how will we ever know.  And you failed to answer it.
 --++--

 

Quote

Believe it or not, I think we're getting somewhere.  I took you off ignore.

Oh yay. (Yawn). 

This is another dishonest trick of yours.  This weird little claim you have me on ignore off and on several times a month. It allows you to address comments i make when you feel like it but then ignore when evidence or information is provided to show you're incorrect about something or if you feel i've make a good point you don't want to address.  "Oh i didn't see that information because i had you on ignore for that particular 18 hour period."

I don't care about your 'ignore' status.  I'm going to point out when you are being dishonest either way - i really don't need YOU to read it, it's more for others anyway.  Your choice.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Well, safe injection without emphasis on treatment, is a woke idea. 

You're incentivizing drug use. 

Coupled with softening crime laws in those areas, creating virtually lawless kilometers of typically downtown cores, where I can literally sell these people fetanyl and have police turn a blind eye due to of course, being underfunded (wonder why), and the sheer explosion of the issue.

Public defecation on private property? No problem. 

This, along with the crime this brings along with it, driving businesses to leave in droves, as drug addicts look for money for their next hit.

Ignores data (on the lack of treatment being offered to the growing need of safe injections, for someone wanting to turn their lives around). Check.

Ignores unintended consequences (needles in playgrounds, used condoms in public spaces, and needing to hire "needle picker uppers, vs accept the issue has grown beyond their control". Check.

Sounds woke to me. 

Its humiliating enough to lose everything, but for those who want out, struggling to find help, is adding insult to injury.

I know way too many people who have gone homeless. 

This is true.

But at the end of the day he's got you arguing what is or is not 'woke' instead of dealing with the original issue.

The Definition of 'woke' is not that complex. In the context we tend to use it in it's idea/ideology or actions that are seen as part of the left wing side of the political spectrum which are extreme often to the point of being absurd or detrimental.

How hard is that? Yes -safe injection can be woke if it's taken to an extreme.  If it's matched with an effective strategy to get people off of drug use - not so woke. Still left wing - not woke.

 

Sex education in school  - slightly left wing but not woke.  Demanding books that teach homosexual technique and how to give a blow job be available to 7 year olds - woke. (yes that happened).

Teaching kids that we shouldn't judge people just because they look different from us - not woke.  Banning dr seuss's "to think i saw it on mulberry street" because of a cartoon in it -  totally woke.

Saying that it's wrong to exclude black people is not woke.  Building them their own little areas at universities like cages so they can self-segregate and send the message that they're NOT to be included is beyond woke.

Saying children should be respected - not wokr.  Saying parents have no rights - woke.

 

 

This isn't hard.  it's a dishonest distraction that Mike is using to avoid having to have a conversation he doesn't think will end well for his 'Side'.

 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The books were balanced, but they refused to toe the line. As a result  some were banned.

I literally felt like I was smuggling cocaine across the border when I ordered that book, as it was banned anywhere I could see in Canada. I can't even read it in public.

What do you mean by banned? 

Were online book stores just not selling them due to pressure from special interest groups, or were they actually banned by the gov't?

 

Is the lgbtq/woke crowd, in a sense, trying to cancel you for being you? Or trying to cancel your way of life? I'm just trying to get an accurate sense of how you feel about it. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. Oh look. An attempt to distract.  You'd prefer the conversation to be about that. You're as dishonest as the day is long mike. 
 
2. ... instead of addressing the issue pick a detail like a definition and argue over that instead so you can avoid the main point.

4. Deal with the issue.  This is not a scientific paper - this is an online discussion and it is extremely dishonest to reduce the conversation to 'quibbles'  that are irrelevant to the main point. 

5. ... you could ACTUALLY be a 12 year old girl or something. (sometimes i wonder)  ...

6. In any case i'm hardly going to give credit to someone's self evaluation who behaves as you do and calls himself a 'conservative'

7. There's nothing odd about it. There's no point asking you questions, you never answer them honestly. Lets take a look shall we?  My question was how will we ever know.  And you failed to answer it.

8. This is another dishonest trick of yours. 

9. I don't care about your 'ignore' status.  I'm going to point out when you are being dishonest either way.

1.  That's just silly.  I was responding to this comment in your previous post: "i have no idea what you're referencing".  Didn't you accuse me of dodging/avoiding issues ?  This would be evidence that I read/respond to your points.
2. 4.  There's no "main point" if everybody is talking about something different.  Others on here are working on that very question, are you going to go after them too ?  Figuring out what people are talking about is first steps to dealing with any issue.
3. 5. OK.
6. I'm accountable for what I write.  If I make a mistake I admit it.  You see discussions as combat, which makes our encounters other worldly: one person thinking he's American Gladiator and the other just trying to figure things out.
7.  It's called a 'loaded question' then.  Your question assumes I'm being dishonest which is incorrect.  Is this what you mean by avoiding questions or tricks ?  If so -> lol.
8. Dishonest trick like adding a loaded question like ""How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?"  "   How am I supposed to answer that.  You're acting in bad faith.
9. Ok cool.  I'll also point out your dishonesty such as demanding that I answer loaded questions, otherwise being labelled as dishonest (?).  Ignore button glowing read pending your response 🥰

--++---

You answered Perspektiv, and actually said the definition isn't that complex... then basically invoked the definition that I provided !

Sly like a fox ! 😂

Edited March 4, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Black Dog]

All yo need to know about Jordan Peterson is he's a drug addict who once tweeted fetish porn thinking it was a Chinese jizz-harvesting facility.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

All yo need to know about Jordan Peterson is he's a drug addict who once tweeted fetish porn thinking it was a Chinese jizz-harvesting facility.

So basically he's your personal idol  

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Quote

1.  That's just silly.  I was responding to this comment in your previous post: "i have no idea what you're referencing".  Didn't you accuse me of dodging/avoiding issues ?  This would be evidence that I read/respond to your points.
2. 4.  There's no "main point" if everybody is talking about something different.  Others on here are working on that very question, are you going to go after them too ?  Figuring out what people are talking about is first steps to dealing with any issue.
3. 5. OK.
6. I'm accountable for what I write.  If I make a mistake I admit it.  You see discussions as combat, which makes our encounters other worldly: one person thinking he's American Gladiator and the other just trying to figure things out.
7.  It's called a 'loaded question' then.  Your question assumes I'm being dishonest which is incorrect.  Is this what you mean by avoiding questions or tricks ?  If so -> lol.
8. Dishonest trick like adding a loaded question like ""How will we ever know when all you do is participate in dishonest 'debate tricks' that bring nothing to the conversation?"  "   How am I supposed to answer that.  You're acting in bad faith.
9. Ok cool.  I'll also point out your dishonesty such as demanding that I answer loaded questions, otherwise being labelled as dishonest (?).  Ignore button glowing read pending your response 🥰

--++---

You're not 'just responding'.  You brought it up - you attempt to continue it.  It's a distraction

And you have frequently claimed there is 'no definition of woke' to dismiss it's use to describe something. Rather than deal with whatever got called woke

and you do not wish to be accountable for what you write. That's the challenge. Again - you use cheap debate tactics rather than have discussions but you don't want to be accountable for it in the slightest.

And no it's not a 'loaded question' it's just rhetorical.  But it's the one you chose as an example and you STILL didn't answer it.

Which rather proves my point.

and no - that's not a dishonest trick .  It's a simple rhetorical question - but if you choose to answer it anyway then at least answer the question.  Which you failed to do.

 

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ignore button glowing read pending your response

Oh nooooees!!!!!   Nobody cares mike. LIke i said feel free to put your head in the sand - i don't need your attention to point out your dishonesty to others so if you find yourself to frightened to read what i have to say then go put your head in whatever sandbox works for you. Or don't.  threatening to take your ball and go home is a child's argument it has no place here.

 

Quote

You answered Perspektiv, and actually said the definition isn't that complex... then basically invoked the definition that I provided !

But that's not possible!!!!! I'm reliably informed there IS no definition      

Edited March 4, 2024 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. You're not 'just responding'.  You brought it up - you attempt to continue it.  It's a distraction

2. And no it's not a 'loaded question' it's just rhetorical.   

3. Nobody cares mike.

4. I don't need your attention to point out your dishonesty to others....

5. ...if you find yourself to frightened to read what i have to say then go put your head in whatever sandbox works for you. Or don't.  threatening to take your ball and go home is a child's argument it has no place here.

6. But that's not possible!!!!! I'm reliably informed there IS no definition      

1. You are doing what you always do... clouding the issue and refusing to accept what you yourself wrote.  Top of Page 2 you called something I wrote a lie and when I responded you called THAT a distraction.   So I'm not sure what to do at this point.  Are you still calling me stating my opinion on something a lie or ?

2. Those aren't opposites.  A question can be both and yours was.

3.  You seem to care.

4. Such as calling an opinion a "lie" and when I address it saying I'm not causing a distraction.  The main problem is that you see discussion as competition, and acknowledging points as getting a goal scored on you.  So it's impossible to build any kind of discussion.

5. No, I'm staying right here where I have been for 20 years.  Insult redacted.

6. I address your point that I don't give my take on things enough, and then you steal my definition... and THIS is the thanks I get.  Insult redacted.

Edited March 4, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

 a Chinese jizz-harvesting facility.

Take a victory lap: this is the one and only topic that you're the resident expert on. 

I heard that you refused a promotion out of the taste-testing dept. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How is it "woke"?  You can label it dumb if you want, but it's not "woke".  

Aren't they the same?

Find me anything currently woke that isn't dumb, or lacking any thought of unintended consequences or pragmatism in solving an issue.

Maybe you're right on this not full on being woke, but have seen so many far left government officials on such issues using the same catchphrases to defend it.

IE many people will die, providing zero supporting data to show that this is remotely true.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What do you mean by banned? 

The book in question was canceled by Amazon, and other major book retailers, under withering pressure from the LGBTQ community. It accuses it of transphobia.

The book went on the wrong path, the moment it stated gender isn't assigned at birth and presented medical specialists who weren't afraid to state the same. You know you're getting banned, when.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Were online book stores just not selling them due to pressure from special interest groups, or were they actually banned by the gov't?

No government intervention that I know of. Just businesses not wanting to be canceled, by holding such a book. I bought it at Barnes and Noble, because couldn't find any companies in my city, let alone Canada that dared to carry it.

Not sure if our government cracked down on it, but to me it just piques my curiosity. Same thing that pushed me to watch the Closer by Chapelle. I needed to see if it was that bad.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Is the lgbtq/woke crowd, in a sense, trying to cancel you for being you? Or trying to cancel your way of life? I'm just trying to get an accurate sense of how you feel about it. 

I was on a major LGBTQ discussion board with hundreds of thousands of people on it.

It was clear as day. Conservstive views were not welcome.

If I didn't toe the line, I would get withering pressure to align with the group views or be bullied into oblivion. I could stand my ground, so when the bullying didn't work, they would try to tell me that my views can cause someone to kill themselves. That also didn't work, because I have never told anyone to kill themselves who didn't deserve the words (meaning enough personal attacks for me to give return fire). Meaning I don't feel remorse for those who I have told this to.

You have to be quite low online, for me to be that petty.

Nobody has ever canceled me for my views, as I don't go out of my way to disrespect people.

I just don't feel like I belong to the community, nor do I care much for it. I don't hate the community, as most I have met were great. I just hate the political activism behind it.

I know who I am, and couldn't care less how others feel about me, so wasn't disappointed when I got banned.  

Never have been banned before, so almost made me feel important how many moderators voted in favor.

[Michael Hardner]

Syllogistic Fallacy:

All woke things are dumb.  Safe Injection is dumb.  Therefore it is woke.

Edited March 4, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You are doing what you always do... clouding the issue and refusing to accept what you yourself wrote.

No, that's what you do. And are doing here. And i pointed that out when you first brought it up.

Quote

  Top of Page 2 you called something I wrote a lie and when I responded you called THAT a distraction. 

THis is an entirely different discussion - but you want to go back to that one becuase you don't like how this one is going.  That' is a distraction. And you continue with it even now.  
 

Quote

2. Those aren't opposites.  A question can be both and yours was.

Nope. Sorry.
 

Quote

3.  You seem to care.

Not about that specifically.

 

Quote

4. Such as calling an opinion a "lie" and when I address it saying I'm not causing a distraction.  The main problem is that you see discussion as competition, and acknowledging points as getting a goal scored on you.  So it's impossible to build any kind of discussion.

No. Sorry.  I get that's your schtick and you tried that with perspectiv too but no.
 

Quote

5. No, I'm staying right here where I have been for 20 years.

Are you sure? You seem to flip flop on that pretty regular. But as i said - that's up to you.

 

Quote

6. I address your point that I don't give my take on things enough, and then you steal my definition... and THIS is the thanks I get.  Better get back to your mail-order bride, she's crying and locked herself in the bathroom again...

LOL - man you lefties come up with the weirdest fantasies sometimes   Are mail order brides a big thing in your world or something, you just assume everyone else has them?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Syllogistic Fallacy:

All woke things are dumb.  Safe Injection is dumb.  Therefore it is woke.

Syllogistic Fallacy:

Anything i don't like is a logical fallacy.  I don't like the term 'woke'. Therefore it must be a logical fallacy.

It's pretty easy to do that, but it's neither accurate or honest.

It's 'woke' because it is an extreme positon that does not actually produce results and those who wish to promote it are doing so from ideological rather than practical considerations when it's done without any effort to get people off the drugs.

Again - not complicated.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. No, that's what you do. And are doing here. And i pointed that out when you first brought it up.

2.That' is a distraction.  

3. Nope. Sorry.

4. Not about that specifically.

5. No. Sorry.  I get that's your schtick and you tried that with perspectiv too but no.

6.  LOL  

1. I know you are but what am I ?
2. Don't call something a distraction just because you can't follow a simple chain of posts and responses.  Do your work and scroll back and read, lazybones.
3. Yep.  You're welcome.
4. Weirdly, you keep mentioning it.
5. Actually we're making progress on diving into what people consider "woke" and it's interesting for me to understand the perspectives of others on this.  But you can just keep using my definition, it's ok.
6. Glad you got a laugh out of my joke.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Syllogistic Fallacy:

Anything i don't like is a logical fallacy.  I don't like the term 'woke'. Therefore it must be a logical fallacy.

It's pretty easy to do that, but it's neither accurate or honest.

It's 'woke' because it is an extreme positon that does not actually produce results and those who wish to promote it are doing so from ideological rather than practical considerations when it's done without any effort to get people off the drugs.

Again - not complicated.

Weeeeeird.   I just wanted to quote this tangential illogical square dance you're doing by yourself there... 

I'm not saying Safe Injection Sites are woke or un-woke.  Try to allow that idea to penetrate the part of your body above the neck.  I am not involved in a debate on this tangent...

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. I know you are but what am I ?

Well that is the level of debate we've come to expect from you

Quote

2. Don't call something a distraction just because you can't follow a simple chain of posts and responses.  Do your work and scroll back and read, lazybones.

It's a distraction because it's a distracton.

 

Quote

3. Yep.  You're welcome.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true Mike

Quote

4. Weirdly, you keep mentioning it.

In reply to you.  "I'll say this thing!"  "Ok - here's my response". "How WEIRD you would bring it up"

LOL - ok.

 

Quote

5. Actually we're making progress on diving into what people consider "woke" and it's interesting for me to understand the perspectives of others on this.  But you can just keep using my definition, it's ok.

It's pretty simple mike. And it's not really your definition - it's actually in the dictionary pretty much that way.  About the best you can do 'progress' wise is explore what various people on an individual bases consider to be excessive or extreme, and while that's kind of sort of interesting it doesn't change the definition. Just like people's opinion of what's "too hot" or "too cold" may differ but it doesn't change the definition of hot and cold.
 

Quote

6. Glad you got a laugh out of my joke.

For sure   I get lots of laughs from you

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

1. Well that is the level of debate we've come to expect from you

2. It's a distraction because it's a distracton.

3. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true Mike

4. In reply to you.  

5. that's kind of sort of interesting...

6. .. it doesn't change the definition of hot and cold.

7. For sure   I get lots of laughs from you

1. I know you do but what do I ?
2. Circular logic.
3. Apply this to your #2.
4. Apply this to your #2.
5. Thanks.
6. Next thing is, you'll start to explain what "subjective" means like I didn't use the term several times.
7. Awww... thanks.  Did you know I actually have been paid to write comedy ?  No kidding.  There's not much market for dry stuff but I'm working on it.  I appreciate the compliment.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Weeeeeird.   I just wanted to quote this tangential illogical square dance you're doing by yourself there... 
 

Sure kiddo.

So - you made a poor reference to a logical fallacy to try to bolster your lack of argument.

I mocked your attempt because it was kind of stupid and pointed out correctly that your attempt was neither accurate nor honest.

But - suddenly, it's WEEEEEEIRD.   Mike - it was weird and illogical when you did it in the first place. Thats the point. If you find it suddenly gets weird and illogical when you hear your own nonsense said back to you then you need to listen to yourself before you post.

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not saying Safe Injection Sites are woke or un-woke.

I never said you did. Can you point to where i claimed you were saying anything of the kind? Nope?  Well there you go - your usual bait and switch. Can't argue what i said so pretend i said something i didn't and argue that.

You DID however ask what would make a safe injection site woke earlier and you DID suggest that the reason some think it's 'woke' is because it's 'dumb'.  I simply pointed out why it was woke. I didn't comment on what YOUR opinion might be at all.

Try to let THAT sink in mr "i don't use cheezy debate tactics'

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure kiddo.

So - you made a poor reference to a logical fallacy to try to bolster your lack of argument.

I mocked your attempt because it was kind of stupid and pointed out correctly that your attempt was neither accurate nor honest.

But - suddenly, it's WEEEEEEIRD.   Mike - it was weird and illogical when you did it in the first place. Thats the point. If you find it suddenly gets weird and illogical when you hear your own nonsense said back to you then you need to listen to yourself before you post.

I never said you did. Can you point to where i claimed you were saying anything of the kind? Nope?  Well there you go - your usual bait and switch. Can't argue what i said so pretend i said something i didn't and argue that.

You DID however ask what would make a safe injection site woke earlier and you DID suggest that the reason some think it's 'woke' is because it's 'dumb'.  I simply pointed out why it was woke. I didn't comment on what YOUR opinion might be at all.

Try to let THAT sink in mr "i don't use cheezy debate tactics'

Ever tried to juggle sawdust, Mike's the expert.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I know you do but what do I ?

I dunno - you'll have to ask other 5 year olds.

 

Quote

2. Circular logic.

Nonsense. And you can't even make an argument, just throw out tired phrases and hope that's distraction enough.

It's not a distraction for any reason other than it's what a distraction is.

 

Quote

3. Apply this to your #2.

Ok - repeating that it's circular logic won't make it circular logic.  Done.

Quote

4. Apply this to your #2.

How - you were the one who brought it up in both cases, not me. 

 

Quote

5. Thanks.

You're welcome. 

Quote

6. Next thing is, you'll start to explain what "subjective" means like I didn't use the term several times.

I think that's a little advanced for you. Lets keep it simple till you've got the basics.

Quote

7. Awww... thanks.  Did you know I actually have been paid to write comedy ?  No kidding.  There's not much market for dry stuff but I'm working on it.  I appreciate the compliment.

Well keep at it - i've actually made a very tidy sum writing comedy in the past and if it's something you love to do just do it. As my mentor said "birds fly, fish swim, writers write".  Also - "everyone's got 1000 bad jokes/stories in them so you just have to keep writing till you get rid of them all.  Good humour is both extremely easy and very difficult at the same time

Now. As to your post.

Once again - very little in the way of substance. Not a lot in the way of arguments or reasoned positions or data or evidence or anything. No thought is required to read it and little effort, thinking or research to respond.

Do better. You're supposed to be the 'smart' one on the left around here.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. So - you made a poor reference to a logical fallacy...

2. I mocked your attempt because it was kind of stupid and pointed out correctly that your attempt was neither accurate nor honest.

3. ...it was ... illogical when you did it in the first place. Thats the point.  

4.  I never said you did. Can you point to where i claimed you were saying anything of the kind? Nope? 

5. Well there you go - your usual bait and switch.

6. Can't argue what i said so pretend i said something i didn't and argue that.

7. You DID however ask what would make a safe injection site woke earlier and you DID suggest that the reason some think it's 'woke' is because it's 'dumb'. 

8. I simply pointed out why it was woke. I didn't comment on what YOUR opinion might be at all.

9. Try to let THAT sink in mr "i don't use cheezy debate tactics'

1. Why was it a 'poor reference' ?
2. My attempt was inaccurate ?  Dishonest ?  I didn't get that from your post.   The syllogism itself actually makes sense, so non sequitur.
3. No, it made sense in the context of what I was commenting on.  Graham got it.
4. Ok, good.  I wasn't sure what you were saying...
5. No, you infer that I am accusing you of saying that.  I just wasn't sure so I clarified my position there.  You seem to react as though you have touched an electric fence.  You're likely afraid of my "dishonest traps" LOL
6. No... I illustrated what I thought was a syllogistic fallacy and you came back with a syllogism that made sense... Did you... ah forget it... 
7. No, Perspektiv said something like that I think... not me.
8. Ok then.  I just didn't get what the syllogism was supposed to be making fun of, I guess.
9. Got it.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 Do better. You're supposed to be the 'smart' one on the left around here.

Doubly wrong - nobody says I'm the "smart one" and I'm not left.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why was it a 'poor reference' ?

Well apparently it was both weeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiirrrrrdddd  and illogical   i'd say that makes it poor

In what way WASN'T it a poor reference? Explain how it was accurate and a realistic depcition of what the original poster you were referencing said.

 

Quote

2 . My attempt was inaccurate ?  Dishonest ?  I didn't get that from your post. 

You see the part where i said it was neither accurate or honest? Go back and look you must have missed it.

Quote

3. No, it made sense in the context of what I was commenting on.  Graham got it.

Sure. if you say so.

 

Quote

4. Ok, good.  I wasn't sure what you were saying...

I think you were. I think you got called out for trying to yet again bait and switch and you're trying to play it off as a simple misunderstanding. But you have a LOT of misunderstandings i notice. So it's hard to give that much credit.

 

Quote

5. No, you infer that I am accusing you of saying that.  I just wasn't sure so I clarified my position there.  You seem to react as though you have touched an electric fence.  You're likely afraid of my "dishonest traps" LOL

You literally said it.

 

Quote

6. No... I illustrated what I thought was a syllogistic fallacy and you came back with a syllogism that made sense... Did you... ah forget it... 

Perhaps your use of the term WEEEEEEEEEIIIIRRRRRD and illogical  made me mistake your position that it made sense all along.

 

Quote

Doubly wrong - nobody says I'm the "smart one" and I'm not left.

Well for the first part i was being kind. For the second - you are absolutely on the left unless you spend almost your entire time here aggressively faking it.