Recently, Paladiea of The Stormy Days of March dropped me a note and invited me to get involved here:
What is the Great Canadian Debate?
The Great Canadian Debate is an attempt to provide intelligent, civil discussion of some of the major issues facing Canada and Canadians. Two bloggers with opposing points of view will present their side of the argument on an agreed-upon topic. Readers will then be invited to debate the issue.
To which I can safely respond, "Not fucking likely."
In the first place, based on what I wrote here recently, as long as The Prairie Wrangler's Olaf continues to associate with that worthless, waste of skin Richard Evans and his cretinous colleagues here, I wouldn't touch anything he's involved in with Ann Coulter's dick. But it goes beyond mere personalities, Pal.
Frankly, I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish. You seem to believe that, under the right circumstances, you can get those on the Canadian Right to buckle down and produce cogent, coherent and rational arguments on various topics. What have you been smoking?
I've been to the Blogging Tories, Pal. Regularly. And I can say with little fear of contradiction that reason and critical thought are not in great supply over there. I mean, really, these are the folks who keep giving us such gems as "Saddam Hussein had WMDs and attacked us on 9/11" and "Same-sex marriage will threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage" and "There's no evidence for global warming" and "Yeah, I think there's something to this intelligent design stuff" and "We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and "But you can't prove God doesn't exist" and "I read on WorldNetDaily ...".
However, Pal, let me be generous. Let's assume that there are some in Canada's wankersphere that are, in fact, capable of logical and civil discussion. If that's the case, let them prove it first. By themselves. On their own blogs.
It shouldn't be necessary to set up a forum with all sorts of restrictions to finally get those dingbats to write something that's even marginally sane. They have their own forums, and they've had years to figure out how not to post utter swill. And, sadly, that just hasn't happened, and I don't see why they should be provided with yet another forum to try to get it right.
Let them figure out how not to sound like ignorant dingbats on their own time. And when they finally make that big step, then we should consider engaging them in conversation. But not before.
And, finally, I wouldn't get involved in that venture simply because I have too much pride to want to share the same stage with any of those whackjobs. As an evolutionary biologist recently said as he was explaining why he didn't want to debate a creationist (paraphrased), "That debate would look pretty good on his CV. On mine, not so much."
P.S. And I know this isn't going to go down well in the Canadian progress-o-sphere, but I took a stand regarding Olaf and his association with that bottomless pit of sleaze Richard Evans, and I'm going to stick to it. If you choose to hang out with Olaf, say bye-bye to my blogroll. I'll be cleansing it of anyone that has Olaf on their blogroll.
Sorry, Pal, but I have certain standards, and that's one of them. End of discussion.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, PALADIEA, the dropping from the blogroll has nothing to do with the attempt to promote civil debate. It has to do with Olaf, and nothing more. And you're not the only blog that got cut for precisely that reason.
If Olaf wants to chum around with Richard Evans, that's his choice, just as it's my choice to have nothing to do with him, directly or indirectly.
MAN, TALK ABOUT TIMING. Resolved: That genocide is not always a bad thing. Speaking for the affirmative ...