Sunday, October 29, 2006

Well, that didn't last long.


That will teach me to say something nice about a Blogging Tory. Having complimented BT Backseat Blogger for being genuinely worth reading at times, his reaction was (tongue in cheek, of course) to wonder how he'd ever be able to show his face in BT circles again (which was amusing). He then proceeded to demonstrate why I think the Blogging Tories are, in general, such a colossal waste of time.

Writes BB:

While I must consider the source of the compliment, how will I be able to hold up my head in company of my fellow Blogging Whorries? How will I be able to reestablish my credentials as a political neanderthal and a regressive conservative?

I have just the thing. I’ll blog about SOW(aka the Status of Women) and the Court Challenges Program. These are two initiative near and dear to the Fiberal and Dipper bleeding hearts and ones that I haven’t blogged on yet.

Yes, BB starts off well by using the unofficial and derogatory acronym of "SOW" rather than the correct "SWC", thus firmly establishing his "neanderthal" credentials. And, sadly, it's all downhill from there.

(Aside: The rest of this post doesn't so much specifically address points made by BB, but more generally addresses arguments made by Canada's wingnuts about things like the SWC.)

Let's first dismiss the idiotic justification for slashing SWC funding as being for economic reasons. At the moment, it's safe to say that Canada in general has no overwhelming need to pinch pennies. Even the intellectual midgets at the National Post have managed to figure this out:

Surplus reaches $13.2 billion
Government to cut $1 billion anyway

Note how even the Post admits that, given the surplus, cutting one billion dollars is at least a little curious with their use of the word "anyway." And even if one ignores that oddity, it's not like cutting $5 million from the SWC would represent a significant saving, would it? In fact, that amount represents less than 4/100 of one per cent of the amount of the surplus, yet we're told, in all seriousness, that it's justified because the Conservatives are such careful and frugal watchdogs of the public purse.

This is, of course, the same CPoC who seemed deliriously happy to give away a cool billion to the U.S. to (as it turns out, not) resolve the softwood lumber dispute. And this is the Stephen Harper who didn't seem to have a problem using a government jet to treat himself and his buds to one hell of an evening on the taxpayers' tab, and who still hasn't figured out that those government jets aren't his personal playthings.

So, please -- can we knock off this unspeakably idiotic excuse that cuts to things like SWC are solely for economic reasons? But if that's not the case, then what reason does that leave us? Simple -- the SWC had to have its funding cut because it was engaging in (gasp! horrors!) "advocacy."

Well, duh.

How stupid do you have to be to make that argument in all seriousness? Of course they were engaged in advocacy! What is politics but advocacy of one viewpoint or another?

Why does one run for political office? Because they have a point of view they would like to advocate. Why did Canada's wankerhood vote for the CPoC? Because they agreed with the opinions being advocated by that same CPoC. Jesus, what's not to understand here? So rather than criticize the SWC for simply being involved in "advocacy," it's incumbent on its critics to explain what it is they don't like about what is being advocated. And, sadly, what you hear is little more than that the SWC espouses "radical feminism."

That is, quite simply, a justification that isn't even worthy of a petulant 8-year-old. If Canada's wankers feel they can dismiss an entire program as being nothing more than "radical feminism," then I have the right to bitch-slap Christianity as being nothing more than "pig-ignorant, superstitious swill." You want to play dueling catchphrases? Fucking A, I can play that game, too.

So what's left? What's left is for critics of the SWC, if they want to be taken seriously, to list what was being advocated by that group, and explain why they thought it was inappropriate, at which point we'll at least have something to discuss. But for anyone to defend what happened to the SWC as being for economic reasons or because it involved "advocacy" or that it promoted "radical feminism" is the height of intellectual laziness.

Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the Blogging Tories in a nutshell, isn't it?

BY THE WAY, the most annoying part of BB's screed:

I will cheerfully admit that I know virtually nothing about SOW beyond the fact that the minister responsible cut back its funding recently. Cue howls of protest from the usual suspects.

Here, let me translate that for you: "I have no fucking clue what this 'SOW' thing is all about, but if cutting its funding pisses off the lefties, then I'm so on board."

That pretty well defines the notion of unspeakable intellectual laziness, doesn't it?

46 comments:

Olaf said...

CC,

What an admirable defense of the SWC program. I mean, throughout the whole thing, you didn't once mention what it does or why it's important. Instead, you went on a rant as to why the universal Blogging Tory opinion is not fit for an 8 year old.

Very impressive. I, for one, am completely convinced.

CC said...

olaf whines:

"I mean, throughout the whole thing, you didn't once mention what it does or why it's important."

But that's not my job, Olaf. If Canada's wankers want that entire program cancelled, then it's their responsibility to explain what's wrong with it and why it deserves to be cut.

Instead, what we get are vacuous catchphrases like "advocacy" and "radical feminism," clearly being spouted by idiots who have no clue what it is they're criticizing, as I demonstrated with Backseat Blogger above.

I'm not the one who needs to make the case here. It's the critics of the SWC who have an obligation to justify their objections and, thus far, all they've presented are childish rants.

I have no intention of doing other peoples' work for them.

Ti-Guy said...

Olaf is a product of the Zeitgeist. He doesn't have to stand for anything, or explain anything or understand anything...all he has to do is say "you suck" and then demand you explain why you don't suck.

Mes Amis said...

CC - You're backseat driving this guy to distraction.
On one hand he feels he must remain loyal to his fellow Tory bloggers but on the other he has flirted with what could amount to a kiss of death for the yin and yang of the cosmos.
By agreeing with some initial premise of one of his posts you have caused a tremor to run through the foundation of the whole rasion d' etre of life as we know it.
This could result in a veritable tidal wave of comity and frank debate with open minds on the internets.

Oh horror of horrors!

Next would come the actual acknowledgement of misguided ideas and civility to each other. Soon bloggers will be tripping over themselves to out-polite each other rendering the blogosphere into an enormous communal group hug session.

I feel a disturbance in the force.

This would cause the collapse of the whole snark industry itself, turning thriving towns into tumbleweed infested slums.
Children, starved of the breastmilk of hyperbole, would stare hollow eyed and unfed from the doorways of scathing invective.
Unemployed character assassins would be lining up at EI offices to seek retraining as personal trainers.
And the strawmen, oh god yes, please think of the strawmen.
One of the oldest, and hardest working instruments of decietful debate reduced to wasting their talents flogging time shares on late night TV.

The end is nigh.

If I were you I would step carefully back from the edge of this abyss which threatens to mold all we know and love into a huuuge ball of feel good suckiness.

And as for that Oaf or Loaf or whomever, give him a sound thrashing and send him on his way.
You know he loves the attention and will be back more.

Steady as she goes old cock.

Anonymous said...

Sorry ladies, if the program is worth keeping, defend it on it's merits. It should be easy if it worth keeping. If you can't come up with a rational arguement to keep it, then it is a waste of money and should be scrapped.

And if the program is so important to so many people, then it should be no problem finding donations to fund it.
I should not be rquired to fund your advocacy program and you shouldn't be required to fund mine.

bmp said...

Anonymous:
I should not be rquired to fund your advocacy program and you shouldn't be required to fund mine.

when will the churches start paying taxes?

M@ said...

SWC's mandate is:

* improving women's economic autonomy and well-being;
* eliminating systemic violence against women and children;
* and advancing women's human rights.

Anonymous, Olaf, care to tell us which of those are you against? Or, more to the point, which of those is the one that scares you most?

SWC has been around since 1976. Seems like the burden of proof ought to be with those who want their budget slashed, not with those defending them.

Just Some Poor Schmuck said...

Some anonymous bozo said:
"Sorry ladies, if the program is worth keeping, defend it on it's merits. It should be easy if it worth keeping. If you can't come up with a rational arguement to keep it, then it is a waste of money and should be scrapped."

Alright, let's have a little clarity here.
Oda showed up, late, at the hearing to discuss the program, and added nothing with her presence.
However, there will be more committees where affected people will give their views on the veracity of the vehicle which advances women's rights across this land.
Let me be clear. This government is hell-bent-for-leather out to send women and all womanly issues back decades, if not millennia.
This is why you find 18 year old pimply computer geeks beaking off about issues his own mommy might be scared to tackle, or who may actually think the pimply faced bozo teen is out to lunch on. Does this pimply geek know or care? Not likely.
Which is why most of the world is actually held together by mothers up against post-pimply geeks thinking they know all enough to lay waste to 51% of the population.
The bozo even used the word "ladies" which tells the warrior in me that he's a coward and is hiding behind his anonymous computer (mommy) and likely couldn't care less if his own mother had to fight to have him, keep him, or not.
The SWC had fulfilled its mandate, according to Harper, Oda and minions. The SWC has no reason to be anymore. Yay!
What about all the other women?
Bring on the draft!
Canada no longer needs to worry about equality for women; time to think outside the box. Bring equality to the world, or at least our most honoured trading partners.
Draft them all. 17 and nowhere? No dad, and an ineffectual or sidelined mom? No worries! Afghanistan needs YOU!!!
Women in Afghanistan are waiting for YOU, as Harper's soldiers, to bring righteousnes to the women of Afghanistan.
Harper needs you to fight. Go! Go now! The women of Afghanistan need Canadian boys and girls of the Harper way to lead them to righteousness.
Bring on the draft.
Once all Harper's minions have smartened up Afghanistan, all Canadian women will toe the Harper quasi-evangelical line and be better people, mostly. (Toews has some awkward ideas about that, but let's let those two work that out themselves before they spring it on the taxpayers.)
Harper! Draft Canadian youth to save womankind from certain death and destruction.
Draft Canadian Youth!
Quit pretending to ask for help/deny help is needed.
One voice, remember.

Alison said...

One more friggin time...

1)SWC's mandate is advocacy for women.
Maybe it would help you get it if I put it another way : Advocacy for women is SWC's whole mandate.

2)BB may have no idea why he is supposed to be against SWC, but anti-SWC crusaders like Gwen Landolt who feed him his chatter points know exactly why.
In the early 80's, anti-choice anti-gay groups (Landolt's among them)were abruptly denied further SWC funding on the grounds they had no specific projects and thus were unable to provide any data on achievable goals.
And who was it who tightened the rules thereby making them ineligible for further government grants?
Mulroney.
Mulrooooney.

So let's not hear any more crap about the evils of gov funding from the sockpuppets of those who are pissed because their chosen hero cut their funding off.

CC said...

anonymous writes:

"I should not be rquired to fund your advocacy program and you shouldn't be required to fund mine."

Um, yeah ... about that Catholic school system ...

the rev. said...

"Intellectual laziness": It's the new "fucking stupid"

Olaf said...

M@:

Anonymous, Olaf, care to tell us which of those are you against? Or, more to the point, which of those is the one that scares you most?

Nothing about it scares me, but I question whether the SWC program actually does this. And if so how? I'm worried that people support a program because of it's stated goals and not it's actual accomplishments, which your question clearly demonstrates.

I mean, it's the exact same thing as Harper tabling a Defence of Religions Act, and then asking it's opponents "What don't you support about protecting religious freedom?", as if that were an argument in itself.

That's not the point - the opponents rightfully point out that religions already have constitutional protection, and that such an act, insofar as it would allow public servants to choose which of the public to serve, or protect hate speech against gays and lesbians under a religious pretext, would be absurd.

Just because it would theoretically have the stated purpose of "defending religion", it may not amount to that, in the same way that the SWC program may have the stated purpose of expanding gender equality, although it may do little or nothing towards this goal.

I mean, how exactly does it end violence against women? I'd like to see some concrete statistics that show it has had a discernable effect, that's all.

To CC:

But that's not my job, Olaf. If Canada's wankers want that entire program cancelled, then it's their responsibility to explain what's wrong with it and why it deserves to be cut.

This is an odd argument. The point is, that the SWC's advocacy efforts do not have a tangible benefit, as far as I can see. Their goals may be admirable, but the question is whether they are able to contribute towards those goals. Insofar as a program has no obvious benefit, I think that it would be incumbent upon it's supporters to show why it is worth the public funds devoted.

As I've said before, no one has made an argument anything close to this. I've never heard anyone say why the SWC program as it stands is producing any sort of benefit to women. Most simply rely on the fact that women still aren't equal and that feminism has given women the right to vote (etc.), and ipso facto, the program is necessary today, even if it does nothing tangible to promote this equality.

Maybe it does, but I'd like to see an argument as to how. It seems to be accepted as a matter of faith which is usually bad public policy.

Olaf said...

Haha,

I missed the olaf whines quip, as opposed to the more customary 'Olaf says', or 'Olaf sez'. Well done...

Also, I should rephrase a part of my response, where I whined:

As I've said before, no one has made an argument anything close to this.

I should have said, "no one who I've seen has made..." Such an argument may exist, I don't doubt that, but I haven't come across it, which is why I'm so skeptical. Please direct me to such an argument if you have access.

Ti-Guy said...

The point is, that the SWC's advocacy efforts do not have a tangible benefit, as far as I can see.

Olaf, do you know how insane you sound when you say something like this? It's simply not relevant to anyone else but yourself what *you see* and *do not see* regarding the use of any particular thing. If you're unwilling to do any work yourself to figure out whether a particular programme is useful, then that really is your own problem.

That's just the way life works.

Olaf said...

Ti,

If you're unwilling to do any work yourself to figure out whether a particular programme is useful, then that really is your own problem.

Programme? Did you send this message from the Ye Olde Candie Shoppe?

Kidding, of course, but I still take issue with your line of reasoning, that unless I can prove that the program is completely useless, it is therefore necessary useful.

That's absurd. How much do I have to search before I can categorically state the the program(me) is completely useless? I have looked, and I have read, and I have *not yet seen*, through all my research, anything which has convinced me that the program is useful.

Must I spend days and days, tirelessly researching every single source that has ever mentioned the SWC, even in passing, until I am justified in saying that the program provides no tangible benefit? At which point can I say so decisively?

Or, you could spare me the bother, and just send me a convincing argument. I mean, you've clearly been convinced through a reasoned cost-benefit analysis, and not just through a undeniable 'gender equality is good, and therefore any program which professes to contribute to such a goal is necessarily good, regardless if it does anything tangible to actually contribute to such an objective', line of reasoning.

By the way, I have never, nor do I ever plan to be, associated with the "Zeitgeist" of which you speak. I merely am informed by the general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of my particular period of time.

Ti-Guy said...

but I still take issue with your line of reasoning, that unless I can prove that the program is completely useless, it is therefore necessary useful.

You have major comprehension difficulties, Olaf. *I* ventured no such argument. As has been pointed out here, no one *has* to defend something you are, so far baselessly, claiming has no benefit.

I have looked...

Where have you looked?

...and I have read...

What have you read?

Show your work, Olaf.

CC said...

Let it go, ti-guy. There's an old saying: Trying to educate a wanker is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, I'm pretty sure I've caught Olaf in a lie about what he's done to inform himself on this issue. So, I guess, my work here is done.

Olaf said...

Ti,

*I* ventured no such argument.

Ok, I wrongly assumed from your opposition to what I said that you're against cuts to SWC. Am I to presume you support such cuts, or just that you're not willing to provide an argument to the contrary?

As has been pointed out here, no one *has* to defend something you are, so far baselessly, claiming has no benefit.

Seriously? So every Conservative government program is valid until undebatably proven otherwise? The onus is not on those who argue such a program has benefit, but on those who are so far unconvinced?

If I proposed a $100m dollar "World Peace initiative" program, would the onus be on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why such a program wouldn't necessarily promote world peace, or would it be on me to argue why such a program is necessary?

What have I read includes many of the '5 things...' entries, none of which has made an argument for SWC, but instead have rely on advances of women's equality, largely prior and irrelevant to the establishment of the SWC program (eg. thanks to feminism, women can vote).

I have read other things, such as this from NUPGE.

"It is thanks to the dedicated work of women’s groups that we have been able to achieve such law reforms as the introduction of maternity benefits, the adoption of prosecutorial policies to criminalize wife assault and the amendment of federal and provincial human rights statutes to prohibit sexual harassment and discrimination based on pregnancy and sexual orientation."

This letter sent to Harper did not suggest how these advancements would be rolled back by a cut in SWC program, nor did it suggest what effects such a funding cut would have on gender equality. It merely stated that women's civil society groups (which Harper hasn't yet outlawed) have produced benefits for women's equality, although didn't argue why such groups wouldn't exist, and future benefits couldn't be realised, due to a $5m cut in SWC funding.

It simply stated that men and women are not equal, and ipso facto, such a program is necessary, even if it didn't argue how such a program effectively promotes such a goal.

I'm not willing to provide everything that I have read, since you're not willing to provide even a single speck of evidence which argues that the SWC not only has promoted womens equality (in a way it wouldn't have been promoted without the program), but why it is still necessary today.

Now, while we're playing the onus game (whereby because SWC exists, I must prove why it shouldn't), lets turn it around.

Since the funding cuts for the SWC program have been announced, it would therefore, logically, be upto you (or others who oppose the spending cuts, which you haven't explicitly stated) to argue how such cuts will be detrimental to the goal of women's equality, and how, were the funding to be reinstated, women's equality would receive tangible benefits.

Simply saying 'they can't help' is unfortunately no more convincing that me saying a "World Peace initiative" would necessarily or effectively serve the goal of world peace.

Olaf said...

Ti,

Since I didn't respond within your arbitrary 30 min threshold, I'm lying?

And CC,

You're being characteristically arrogant in not providing an argument for your support. I mean, making fun of those who disagree with you is fun and all, but not terribly convincing for those who haven't already made up their mind in your favour.

M@ said...

So Olaf, what you're saying is that if, in a year of a very high surplus, a 30-year-old government agency's budget is slashed dramatically, the government does not have to give any rationale for that cut?

And let me give you a single way in which SWC was fulfilling its mandate. SWC collected and publicised statistics concerning violence against women. Without these statistics, collected over the long term, we cannot know whether police or court or legislative changes are affecting the problem. We cannot even know whether the problem exists, or what its extent is. Without these statistics, we are arguing only on opinion -- not at all on fact. Would you prefer women's advocacy groups to lobby the government without those facts? What about a Liberal government? What about an NDP government?

So I've given you one concrete, real-world example of the work that SWC does that is of value. I still haven't seen a single reason for the cut to their funding, other than your ruminations on whether they actually do anything. But of course, it's everyone else's responsibility to explain to you why SWC is important, rather than your responsibility to find out before pontificating.

I wonder if the various government agencies related to oil production in Alberta have to worry about your intense scrutiny. Signs point to no.

CC said...

You know, we could ask Olaf to defend all of the taxpayer money that goes to fund the Catholic school system here in Ontario. After all, using his own logic, it's his responsibility to defend it. But I suspect we all know what his response would be: "But that's different."

It always is, isn't it?

Olaf said...

You know, we could ask Olaf to defend all of the taxpayer money that goes to fund the Catholic school system here in Ontario. After all, using his own logic, it's his responsibility to defend it.

Very coy, CC... change the subject, no one even noticed!!!

If you can find a quote where I have defended the Catholic school system in Ontario, than your challenge is justified. Otherwise, you're just changing the subject, quite transparently, might I add.

Olaf said...

M@,

And let me give you a single way in which SWC was fulfilling its mandate. SWC collected and publicised statistics concerning violence against women. Without these statistics, collected over the long term, we cannot know whether police or court or legislative changes are affecting the problem.

Now we're getting somewhere. Does Stats Canada not collect such statistics? Does it collect statistics for other violent crimes? And if so, why not statistics for domestic violence? Could this not be accomplished by StatsCan? Isn't StatsCan the more logical department for statistics gathering on such an important topic?

Furthermore, has the existence of SWC impeded such violence? Do disgusting and cowardly men with dominance complexes read SWC studies, and thus recognize the error in their ways?

M@ said...

Now we're getting somewhere. Does Stats Canada not collect such statistics? Does it collect statistics for other violent crimes? And if so, why not statistics for domestic violence?

I didn't say domestic violence, I said violence against women. Can I suggest you visit the SWC and StatsCan pages yourself, and do a little research? It might be a little more effective than the wild, baseless speculation you throw around here.

Could this not be accomplished by StatsCan? Isn't StatsCan the more logical department for statistics gathering on such an important topic?

Obviously not, because they haven't been. StatsCan also does not work to publicise these statistics and make them available to interested parties -- it seems far more logical to me that an advocacy agency would do this work, rather than StatsCan.

Furthermore, has the existence of SWC impeded such violence? Do disgusting and cowardly men with dominance complexes read SWC studies, and thus recognize the error in their ways?

Jesus Christ. I explained to you exactly why this work is important. Did you not read it? Or did you not understand it? Because you've set up a pointless straw man instead of addressing it. Back to your cave, troll.

CC, Ti, etc: I know, I shouldn't have bothered. I've learned my lesson. Won't feed him again.

Ti-Guy said...

Now we're getting somewhere. Does Stats Canada not collect such statistics? Does it collect statistics for other violent crimes? And if so, why not statistics for domestic violence? Could this not be accomplished by StatsCan? Isn't StatsCan the more logical department for statistics gathering on such an important topic?

Still won't do your own work, eh? My, my...you are a lazy sot.

This is what happens when you let the wingnuts drag you onto their turf. They exhaust you. That's why I advocate not talking to them at all. And keeping them out of power, naturally.

You're a very practiced liar, Olaf. You said "you looked" and "you read" but obviously, that wasn't true. That's what's known as arguing in bad faith and the mistake everyone makes is tolerating people who do it.

Olaf said...

M@,

I didn't say domestic violence, I said violence against women. Can I suggest you visit the SWC and StatsCan pages yourself, and do a little research? It might be a little more effective than the wild, baseless speculation you throw around here.

I have visited both sites, but as I said, I consider the onus on you to prove why SWC and not statscan must fulfill this responsibility StatsCan. But, since that would be asking far too much, I'll tell you: Statscan does, as a simple search reveals, provide statistics on violence against women (click)

This, ofcourse, discredits your single example of why SWC is necessary (although ofcourse not all examples, just yours).

It might be a little more effective than the wild, baseless speculation you throw around here.

I have never said that the SWC program does not produce a tangible benefit, I've only said that I've yet to see an argument for it. Is this "wild, baseless speculation"? I'd suggest it isn't. I've asked someone to provide me with a compelling example as to how the SWC program provides a tangible benefit to gender equality. I've yet to hear a reasonable response.

StatsCan also does not work to publicise these statistics and make them available to interested parties -- it seems far more logical to me that an advocacy agency would do this work, rather than StatsCan.

I'm an interested party, and I found these statistics on the internet in about 2 seconds. Are women's groups incapable of such "research?" Do they need the statistics printed out and sent to them? Hardly. Poor argument.

Jesus Christ. I explained to you exactly why this work is important. Did you not read it? Or did you not understand it? Because you've set up a pointless straw man instead of addressing it.

I agreed that these statistics are important. I disputed whether a)the statistics couldn't be more logically provided by a program which, on ocassion, dabbles in statistics, like Statistics Canada; and b) whether, beyond the these benefits provided by a program like Statistics Canada, the SWC does anything to reduce violence against women.

Back to your cave, troll.

How open to constructive criticism we are.

Olaf said...

Ti,

Still won't do your own work, eh? My, my...you are a lazy sot.

As I said, the onus is on you, BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, to provide the reasons why the funding cut should be reversed. Go nuts. I'm the only person on the entire thread who has deigned to provide a source. Don't accuse me of being lazy.

You're a very practiced liar, Olaf. You said "you looked" and "you read" but obviously, that wasn't true. That's what's known as arguing in bad faith and the mistake everyone makes is tolerating people who do it.

Where have I lied? Or is the onus on me to prove where I have not lied? This is absurd.

Ti-Guy said...

As I said, the onus is on you, BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, to provide the reasons why the funding cut should be reversed.

By my own logic, I should explain why the funding cut should be reversed? When did I recommend any action at all with regard to the SWC? The only point I've been arguing is that you don't know what you're talking about but you're talking about it endlessly and asking everyone else to do your work for you.

Where have I lied?

You said "you looked" and "you read" but you didn't, did you? Why did you say that? Why don't you just admit you have no idea why this programme should be cut...you just think it should be. You're as uninformed about it as BB.

Olaf said...

Ti,

By my own logic, I should explain why the funding cut should be reversed?

Yes, by your own logic. You implied that the onus of proof is upon me to prove that SWC is ineffective, when you said:

As has been pointed out here, no one *has* to defend something you are, so far baselessly, claiming has no benefit.

Hence, if I've understood correctly (I have a comprehension problem, if you'll recall), it is incumbent upon me to suggest, with basis, why the existence of the program has no benefit. Therefore, if you dispute the funding cuts to SWC, you must prove why they are detrimental. Unless you're just here to voice no opinion whatsoever, other than your well researched opinion that I know not of what I speak, in which case just say so.

If you dispute the funding cuts to SWC (God forbid you make your position known), than say why. Otherwise, speculating on what I have and have not read is really a waste of your valuable time.

You said "you looked" and "you read" but you didn't, did you? Why did you say that? Why don't you just admit you have no idea why this programme should be cut...you just think it should be. You're as uninformed about it as BB.

Upon which facts do you base such a claim? Is it obvious that anyone who disagrees with you necessarily must be uninformed? You haven't provided any evidence to my lack of research. Is the burden on me again to prove I am well read on the topic? Where does this burden cease?

Why doesn't someone just say what benefit SWC provides and end the conversation right here?

Ti-Guy said...

Hence, if I've understood correctly (I have a comprehension problem, if you'll recall), it is incumbent upon me to suggest, with basis, why the existence of the program has no benefit.

Actually, it's incumbent upon you to indicate you are familiar with any program evaluation with regard to SWC, which, clearly, you are not.

Y'see, Olaf...this is the point I've been making the whole time...you don't know what you're talking about, and you yet you claim authority to suggest the cuts to SWC are justified.

Also, you lied. And now you're compounding the lie with deflection. Bad form, Olaf...bad, bad form.

Olaf said...

Ti,

Also, you lied. And now you're compounding the lie with deflection. Bad form, Olaf...bad, bad form.

Bad form? Listen, Cap'n Hook, I'm gonna say that you lied by saying I lied, and unfortunately, I'm the only one who can verify this claim, since only I know how much or how little I've read about the SWC.

If you have a point to make about SWC, make it, if not, your unverifiable claim that I haven't read enough, by your standards, to have an informed opinion on the matter, is noted, and you can leave it to those who are interested in the topic of hand to have a conversation.

I don't think I've ever been witness to a more baseless or utterly pointless intervention. Congrats.

Ti-Guy said...

I haven't read enough, by your standards, to have an informed opinion on the matter, is noted

Enough? I don't think you've read anything.

Sheesh. And stop lying about not lying.

Olaf said...

Haha,

Ti, I can't tell if you're kidding or not... either way, it's funny

M@ said...

Person: Doing X is not good.

Sock puppet: That's not an argument. Show me why the reverse is good.

Person: The onus of proof is on the person doing X, not the reverse.

Sock puppet: No it isn't!

Person: Why?

Sock puppet: Because I asked you first!

Person: You're an idiot.

Sock puppet: How open to constructive criticism we are.


I hope you've enjoyed my little tableau. Next time we'll see why Iraq should have proved it didn't have WMDs!

Ti-Guy said...

I hope you've enjoyed my little tableau. Next time we'll see why Iraq should have proved it didn't have WMDs!

I've heard that a million times from the wingnuts, pretty much. It's insane. Wolf Blitzer asked some Repug representative a while ago if he had any evidence that the Foley scandal had been orchestrated by the Democrats, as he was claiming. He didn't have any (of course) but deflected by asking Blitzer if he had any evidence that they didn't.

Demanding evidence to prove the non-existence of something. Astonishing. Simply astonishing.

Olaf said...

M@,

I hope you've enjoyed my little tableau. Next time we'll see why Iraq should have proved it didn't have WMDs!

I think you're confused. We're talking about defending a positive public policy here (eg. action by the government, in the case of providing the funding and administration for SWC).

So, just as you imply it would be the invaders responsibility to prove not only that the WMDs existed, but that an invasion would be effective in removing such a threat, it would likewise be (and don't have an aneurism now) your responsibility to suggest why funding for SWC, as a policy, is necessary.

See how that works? Public policy isn't self-evidently effective or necessary (gasp!). Just as invading Iraq isn't self-evidently a good idea until proven otherwise, funding SWC isn't necessarily a good idea until proven otherwise. Whoops!!! Where was your sock puppet on that one?

It is upto those who advocate such a policy, whether it's the invasion of Iraq or the funding of SWC, to defend it.

M@ said...

See how that works? Public policy isn't self-evidently effective or necessary (gasp!).

Geez, even a puppet show isn't enough to explain it to him. What do I do now? Put together a colouring book?

Olaf said...

M@,

I'm usually a fan of polite discourse, but you are, in my opinion, self-evidently, a dumb fuck.

I make you look like a complete ass, by using your own logic against you, and instead of attempting to defend why you're not a complete ass, you recoil and rely on your "humour".

At this point, I think the onus is on you to prove why you're not a dumb fuck.

M@ said...

Yeah, whether Olaf thinks I'm a complete ass is really high up on my list of concerns.

All you've done here is move goalposts and shift the burden of proof to everyone else. Cutting budgets, in a surplus year, to you is "positive government policy". That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? At least, for those of us who aren't a sock with a couple of buttons sewn on for eyes.

And everyone who won't play your game is a dumb fuck. Yeah, that cuts deep.

Olaf said...

M@,

All you've done here is move goalposts and shift the burden of proof to everyone else. Cutting budgets, in a surplus year, to you is "positive government policy". That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? At least, for those of us who aren't a sock with a couple of buttons sewn on for eyes.

Very good. So if the US were in a surplus year, than the burden of proof would be on those who oppose the Iraq war to prove why it wasn't a bad idea? We're in a surplus, and therefore, everything we spend money on is justified.

The surplus has nothing to do with the wisdom or folly of a government policy. Period. But to you, if we're in surplus, every current policy is necessarily justified, because we can afford it. Very good.

In any case, funding SWC is still, regardless of surplus, a positive policy in that it assumes government action and funding. As such, just as the invasion of Iraq should have been the supporters case to make, SWC should be the supporters case to make. Or, as you will surely do, ignore this entire paragraph because it makes you look like a tool. Make another joke about me not understanding. It'll be easier, and your friends will laugh.

Ti-Guy said...

It is upto those who advocate such a policy, whether it's the invasion of Iraq or the funding of SWC, to defend it.

Olaf, the action that has to be defended here is CUTTING the funds to the SWC, since that is the change from the previous situation. You've simply turned that argument around to put supporters of the SWC on the defensive and, as everyone has told you, no one's going to do your fucking work for you and play your fucking stupid game, no matter how much you blither on inanely about it.

You'd have much more credibility if you gave the impression you know at least something about the SWC, but you plainly do not.

Olaf said...

Ti,

Olaf, the action that has to be defended here is CUTTING the funds to the SWC, since that is the change from the previous situation. You've simply turned that argument around to put supporters of the SWC on the defensive and, as everyone has told you, no one's going to do your fucking work for you and play your fucking stupid game, no matter how much you blither on inanely about it.

Very conservative of you.

So, because the SWC exists, I have to suggest why it shouldn't exist. AND, because cuts were made to it's budget, I have to defend why cuts should have been made to its budget?

So the onus is on me to not only oppose past decisions, but to defend past decisions. Call me lazy, but that seems unreasonable.

Seriously Ti, as anathema as it is to you, you may have to make an argument for something, God forbid.

Ti-Guy said...

I have to suggest why it shouldn't exist. AND, because cuts were made to it's budget, I have to defend why cuts should have been made to its budget?

You don't have to do anything. You were trying to argue that there was some sort of ineluctable rationale that compels others to explain why the cuts cannot be defended. Some can choose to do that, but no one has to just because you demand it.

So the onus is on me to not only oppose past decisions, but to defend past decisions. Call me lazy, but that seems unreasonable.

If you don't like those decisions, I would say so. Otherwise, stop whining.

Seriously Ti, as anathema as it is to you, you may have to make an argument for something, God forbid.

Well, lil' feller, that's just the way life works. If you won't do your own work, don't expect others to do it for you.

I'm not defending the programme because the cuts the Tories made had nothing to do with the programme (no matter how much the Tories lie about it). They were politically and ideologically motivated by a bunch of Tory incompetents who'll be gone by Spring.

Olaf said...

Ti,

Ok, henceforth, any program(me) which is established by the government, however absurd, and however out of date, is therefore valid until proven otherwise by someone who has proven to you, Ti-Guy, that they have read enough on the matter to be an authority. Sounds fair.

The 1876 Indian act is therefore useful and justifiable, and if you disagree with it, than the onus is upon you to prove otherwise.

So the onus is on me to not only oppose past decisions, but to defend past decisions. Call me lazy, but that seems unreasonable.

If you don't like those decisions, I would say so. Otherwise, stop whining.


Hahaha... what am I whining about? Am I whining about the establishment of the SWC program, or the funding cuts? Am I pro SWC establishment, or pro-SWC cuts? Are you even paying attention anymore?

Well, lil' feller, that's just the way life works. If you won't do your own work, don't expect others to do it for you.

So your deal is to not make any argument whatsoever, and then attempt to prove others wrong based on your non-argument?

I've done my own work, and you've convinced no one that I haven't, other than yourself.

I've never heard you even attempt to make an argument for anything, ever. You're the head cheerleader for CC and McClelland and for your other heros, and you boo and jeer your rivals, using the most complimentary language for the former and the most derisory language for the latter, while contributing nothing to the debate.

Congrats, your entire existence consists of licking boots and making arguments that you shouldn't need to make an argument.

Ti-Guy said...

You're an juvenile idiot. Seriously, contact the distance education unit at Athabasca U. (ask Ralph Klein for the number) and tell them you want a refund on your degree. You'll have to send the diploma back, but they'll probably let you keep the Cracker Jacks.