Friday, December 04, 2009

Dear stupid wanks: Pick a position and stick with it.

There a joke I like to tell regarding a lawyer who defends his client against a charge of murder thusly:

"Your Honour, my client cannot possibly be guilty since he wasn't even there. But if he was, he didn't do it. And if he did it, it was an accident. Besides, that son-of-a-bitch had it coming."

Most sentient people see the absurdity in that defense -- the frantic and desperate attempts to throw out a number of mutually-exclusive and self-contradictory defenses, hoping that one of them sounds convincing. Which, unsurprisingly, brings us to Canada's stupid wankers on the subject of the torture of Afghan detainees.

On the one hand, of course, it never happened. Richard Colvin is either a liar or just plain deluded. He's been thoroughly and soundly refuted, by generals and the Red Cross and, well, bunches of other people. He's a crackpot, and there is not a single shred of evidence to back up his wild and irresponsible accusations, and he can be safely ignored.

On the other hand, well, sure those folks were tortured, but we didn't do it and besides, why should we care about a bunch of terrorists and what happens to them, it's not like any of them might be innocent, and how come those lefties are so weepy over a bunch of hardened killers and savages, and you're damned right those people were tortured, and I'm glad and I don't have a problem with it because they're bad, bad people and they had it coming so what's the problem?

Here's a suggestion, wanks: Pick a position. Seriously. Figure out what side of that argument you're on. Either a) that torture never happened, or b) it happened but why should we care because those bastards deserved it. You can't have it both ways. Really, you can't. So howzabout you give this some thought, and figure out which argument you want to defend and, when you come to a decision, get back to us.

We'll be right here. Condemning the use of torture. Same as always.


bocanut said...

Too bad that Colvin didn't have the same fervor investigating torture allegations as he had in accusing Canada of being knowingly complicit.
A 1/2 day outside the wire just doesn't cut it.

CC said...

My dear bocanut:

Do you really think women are attracted to horrifically stupid people? Or are you just trying to attract horrifically stupid women? Either way, I don't see this ending well for you.

double nickel said...

Well, he's got the "nut" part down pretty well. Boca is living prooof that any fool with a keyboard can say anyting he wants without having to account for his stupidity/ignorance. Yay "free speach"!

double nickel said...

That would be "speech" :(

CC said...

Dear dn:

As boca recently learned, no, he can't say anything he wants without having to account for it. And I'm going to be paying close attention to make sure he doesn't forget that.

thwap said...

Good argument CC. i've been thinking something vaguely similar for days.

bocanut said...

I did learn a valuable lesson about accountability.
Apparently it's not abusive behaviour if you call women cunts and douchebags to try and win an argument.
I'm glad we could clear that misconception up.
I'll try out your theory in the real world and get back to you.
Thanks CC.

CC said...

Dear boacunt:

It doesn't matter how strenuously you defend the honour of Canada's Estronuts -- they are not going to give you a blowjob.

Well, OK, Wendy Sullivan might. She seems desperate enough.

bocanut said...

Dearest CC,
Thanks for the tip.

Roman said...

Did you know that "boca" is Spanish for "mouth"?

It does create a rather interesting image in one's mind.

Metro said...

I did so not need to know that.

L-girl said...

Great post. I wrote a shorter, less articulate version of this in a comment on my blog recently. I knew I was missing something, but didn't have time to figure out what. Turns out I was missing this post!