It was way back here when commenter "rabbit" introduced us to the version of reality on his planet:
I notice also that people are getting dragged in front of Human Rights Boards for simple speech. The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech.
Not having much patience with dishonest crap, I responded thusly:
"The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech."
Don't be so embarrassingly ignorant, rabbit. Henry did not simply "speak out against gay marriage," which would have been perfectly acceptable.
Instead, as you can read here,
"Bishop Fred Henry is refusing to take back comments he made comparing homosexuality to prostitution and adultery, after two people lodged human rights complaints against him."
I'm hoping, rabbit, that you can appreciate the difference between what you wrote and what actually happened.
There's a relevant saying here: "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts." And this, I predict, is going to be the downfall of The Great Canadian Debate: Canada's wankers will not simply show up to defend and/or justify their interpretation of the facts. Rather, they will show up with a complete set of fabricated facts that bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
As the quintessential example of this, consider the ongoing "debate" regarding biological evolution. Regardless of how many times you try to explain this to the more abysmally ignorant members of the wankerhood, you will, on a regular basis, hear this: "Evolution is impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
No. No, it doesn't. That's simply wrong.
But that won't stop said wankers from demanding to debate you on that very topic, to which the only appropriate response is, "Fuck off, you imbecile." Quite simply, there is no value in debating reality, but that doesn't stop the wankerhood from trying to do it repeatedly, over and over, again and again. And that, I fear, is exactly what's going to happen with The Great Canadian Debate.
Imagine, if you will, a given wanker opening his debate on the scientific validity of biological evolution with the above claim involving the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How does one properly respond to that? By giving a dissertation on the Second Law? Not likely. One responds by stating simply, "You're an idiot. I win."
Better yet, there should be no need for a rebuttal. What should happen is that the moderators (or whoever's in charge) should stop the debate instantly, and disqualify the moron. There should be absolutely no need for anyone to spend time defending facts. If someone makes a claim as idiotic as, say, "We need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan because Saddam had WMDs" or "Abortions cause breast cancer," they should be shown the door. Immediately.
There is no value whatsoever in wasting anyone's time refuting what is obvious rubbish. Canada's wankersphere may be entitled to their opinions (as insipid and misguided as they are), but when it comes to the Great Debate, there should be no patience for allowing them to show up toting their own bucket o' facts. If that happens, and the moderators don't step in instantly to stop the discussion, then that venture will be a horrific waste of time.
And, being the pessimist that I am, I already have a good idea how this is all going to play out. And, I dare say, it's not going to be pretty.
POOR "ANONYMOUS": It must drive first commenter "anonymous" crazy that I choose to write about the Great Debate while having no interest whatever in participating. Here's a suggestion, A: why don't you try leaving comments that have something worthwhile to say? Really, give it a shot. There's always a first time for everything, you know.