Did you ever have one of those days where you're just not on top of your game intellectually? You're a bit fuzzy, it's hard to concentrate and, after a while, you start thinking, man, I am seriously dense today. We all have those days and, sometimes, it's hard not to think that maybe, just maybe, we're not as smart as we like to think.
Have no fear though because, no matter how bad a day you're having brain-wise, you can always be grateful that you're not as stultifyingly stupid as Peter Rempel. And who is Peter Rempel? Let me introduce you.
In my regular rounds of my Canuck blogger friends, I ended up here, where Jonathan pointed out how the Conservative Party of Canada just doesn't cotton to all that fancy-schmancy legal mumbo-jumbo in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- I'm assuming they're just not fans of stuff with big words in it or something like that.
Anyway, I'm reading the comments and, from what I can tell, poor Jonathan has his own attack Shih Tzu -- his equivalent of the late, not so great "Dizzy Gillespie", some jaw-droppingly ignorant wanker named Peter Rempel. As evidence of the above, let me walk you through the salient portions of the comments section to show you what I mean. Early in the comments section, Rempel writes (and, I swear, I am not making this up):
Give me a f**king break. Would Canadians not have these rights without the Charter? Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights? The common law?
Does the Charter guarantee rights of the kind you describe. Sure, but they're redundant, because everyone agrees on them anyway. The Charter is a useless scrap of parchment.
Now, see if you can follow the logic here. Rempel, in running down the Charter, appears first to admit that, yes, the Charter does guarantee some pretty important basic rights but he simultaneously claims that those very same rights are also guaranteed elsewhere, making the Charter redundant and a "useless scrap of parchment". Let's make sure we remember this precise claim for what is to follow, shall we?
Blogger Jonathan, being an order of magnitude smarter than Mr. Rempel and actually knowing what he is talking about, responds:
... Yes, the Charter is the only document which secures those rights as legally enforcable for Canadians. [Emphasis added.]
Ignore for the moment any corroborating evidence that Jonathan supplies, just focus on the fact that he is clearly disagreeing with Rempel. And Rempel's response in a subsequent comment, in which he first quotes Jonathan's claim:
"Yes, the Charter is the only document which secures those rights as legally enforcable for Canadians."
Sit back and savour the indescribable stupidity of Rempel's response. To recap:
- Rempel claims "A".
- Jonathan disputes "A".
- Rempel, in response, admits that "A" is, in fact, completely wrong but that it's no big deal.
- Unreasoning embrace of nonsensical position.
- Redefinition of basic terms to suit the argument.
- Unexpected change of subject to avoid impending defeat.
- Sudden admission of error, accompanied by insistence that this whole thing is no big deal.
Can I call it or what?