Monday, July 09, 2007

The Great Canadian Debate: No, you're NOT entitled to your own facts.


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:

rabbit wrote:

"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.


18 comments:

Anonymous said...

More obsessing about something you want nothing to do with Cynic? What gives?

Anonymous said...

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.

With responses like the one above, I can see why you'd be scared to participate. But, one has to wonder why you're putting the big "poo-poo" on the whole idea.

Ti-Guy said...

But, one has to wonder why you're putting the big "poo-poo" on the whole idea.

Really? You mean reading the post itself doesn't give you any clue?

Google "2nd law of thermodynamics" and "evolution" and see what comes up.

aweb said...

More obsessing about something you want nothing to do with Cynic? What gives?

Once again, a commenter complaining about what you choose to write about....I'm comfortable saying that most of this blogs postings are criticizing something CC wants nothing to do with. If this isn't what you want to read (and some days I don't), then don't come here.

Crabgrass said...

My personal preference is to provide feedback to a commenter who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on someone who is commenting on something they want nothing to do with. I like to think of it as going deeper. Anonymous, why don't you wait for me, and then make a smartass remark?

Olaf said...

CC,

Thanks for the constant exposure, everyone involved is much obliged - and your sustained pessimism is duly noted... again.

For the record, there will be no debates that the moderators consider substantively "settled" (eg. gay marriage, global warming, evolution, gravity, that the Leafs suck, and so on). We pick the topics, and pick the posts on those topics that are deemed reasonable enough in language and message to publish. It won't be the anarchic free-for-all that your post implies.

Mes Amis said...

Their reality doesn't come with handles.
Think of when you are at a concert and a big balloon is being bounced around the crowd, that's what their reality reminds me of.
It's a big floaty bubble they get occasionally get in touch with for just fleeting moment.
The rest of the time they are content to imagine themselves as staunch defenders of some static world that never was, circa 1957.
There they are unquestionably the good guys, can do no wrong.
In this herd mind state any deviation from the norm, be it spiritual, behavioral or moral, is cause for immediate and harsh punishment.
Only when they happen to unexpectedly get whacked in the head with reality does anything sink in.
The most you can offer these poor souls - I think the term is BTs - is a little advice and hope it might sink in:

It's reality you folks, so best get a grip on it.

Anonymous said...

From the CBC article you quoted:

"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."

Sounds like an attempt at silencing freedom of speech to me.

Good going Canada! Freedom of speech is, like, SO overvalued.

Observer said...

CC,

you are pretty good at making up your own facts.

here's a link to the Bishop's letter

here's a link to your a post where in the comments you write: "When a Catholic bishop describes gays as being equivalent to criminals...".

So where exactly did this occur in the letter?

The offending line starts with "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family".

Since when does presence in a list signify equivalence?

Even by your own warped logic, the Bishop must then also have been saying that adulterers are whores and that pornographers are gay and any other two node permutation of those 4 items (four choose two).

In any case, of the four items in the list only one, prostitution, is criminal behaviour.

Please do not accuse me of arguing in favour of any of the content of the letter; I'm only pointing out that you feel entitled to your own facts as well.

It's only that Rabbit was a poor arguer and it doesn't mean that your argument was "won" based on the actual facts.

Zorpheous said...

Someone draw the Observer a logic venn diagram. QED!

Richard Evans said...

Having fun in the toilet CC?

Ti-Guy said...

Go away, Richard. You're sickening.

Mes Amis said...

I beg to differ but prostitution isn't illegal in this country.
I think the Bishop meant solicitation, which is.

He should have gotten Mother Superior to proof read his material.
She could have told him it was $20, just like downtown, but that would be a crime now.
Wouldn't it?

Think about it, if prostitution was made illegal it would jeopardize the livelihoods of all those lawyers and politicians.

Oh the humanity, Jason and Stevie would have to get real jobs!

Grog said...

Observer:

Bishop Henry attempted to draw a moral equivalence that doesn't exist, as I showed back here

What if Bishop Henry's letter had talked of Jews, Blacks or Asians? Would it have been "acceptable" then? ... the short answer is No. So why is it "acceptable" to target GLBT people?

CC said...

Now, do you folks understand why I have no interest in debating these people?

Observer said...

Who are "these people".

I told you to avoid the cheap ad hominen and accuse me of agreeing with the argument itself but you just can't resist, can you?

But that's just your way. You only prove what your critics accuse you of.

You should just be a man and admit that you took the lazy press characterization of something rather than looking at it yourself.

mikmik said...

But they didn't say they didn't want lies and made-up facts. If they didn't want lies and made-up facts, they should have said they didn't want lies and made-up facts.

Steve Martin, on being called for using lies and made-up facts.

- - -

Anyhoo, CC, they not only don't want to discuss facts, anything that started as a fact has to get their 'straw man treatment' before it is presentable. You know, they have to add their assumptions and interpretations to what was really said, before they can respond to their assumptions and interpretations of what you said in the first place.

Like interpreting open debate as "anarchy". They can't let anarchy happen! However, censorship is just fine, as long as they choose what is being censored"

For the record, there will be no debates that the moderators consider substantively "settled" (eg. gay marriage, global warming, evolution, gravity, that the Leafs suck, and so on). We pick the topics, and pick the posts on those topics that are deemed reasonable enough in language and message to publish. It won't be the anarchic free-for-all that your post implies.

After all, it's the libs that hate free speech

Paladiea said...

The Great Canadian Debate was never about free speech, it's main goal is about civilized discussion between disagreeing sides. If you can't abide by the rules, then you don't belong.

If you want to rant incoherently, do it on your own blog.