Moving goalposts, pedophile Democrats and really annoying anonymous commenters. (Part 1)

I hate to waste an entire post smacking around one irritating, nameless commenter but it seems that it's become necessary and it gives me the chance to set a ground rule or two for future dialogue here. And that's not a bad thing.

Back here, it appears that my humble blog has (sadly) attracted yet another example of Wankerus Right-Wingus Ignoramus -- someone who has no clue regarding the basic rules of intellectual discourse. As we speak, "anonymous"'s major rhetorical sin is that he has no idea what it means to "move the goalposts," so I'm going to explain it.

"Moving the goalposts," rhetorically speaking, means that, initially, someone makes a statement along the lines of "If you want to convince me of a particular point, here's my standard for evidence," at which point that initial speaker describes what would constitute proof for him or her. This suggests that, if such proof is eventually offered, that original claimant has an intellectual obligation to accept it. Case closed. In short, that initial claimant has established the initial location of the "goalposts" and should be prepared to concede whatever point is being debated if someone scores on them. With me so far?

To "move the goalposts" means that, if someone does produce exactly the proof that was demanded, then, rather than concede the point, the initial wanker suddenly redefines the goal. And, not only that, but (and this is critically important) said wanker redefines (or moves) the goal without conceding the original issue.

(If you need an example of these kind of shenanigans, see here, where you can read how the Bush administration moved the goalposts for the standard of what it would take to have someone dismissed from the administration. Initially, it was if someone had simply leaked information but, when it was obvious that someone in the administration had leaked, that standard was quietly changed to having committed an actual crime. There are, of course, many other examples, and readers are invited to submit their favourite examples from the Canadian political landscape, right or left.)

All of this should be fairly straight-forward but there is one point I'm going to emphasize since it's absolutely critical to this discussion. To "move the goalposts" requires one to refuse to concede the initial point before redefining the standards for evidence. Make sure you understand that before we go any further. I'll wait.

(Oooooooh ... little Red Corvette ... ah ah ah ... no one's gonna shut you down ... yeah, baby ... oh, you're back. Onward.)

So what does all this have to do with the increasingly-irritating commenter "anonymous?" Quite simply, he has not clue one about what the whole concept of goalpost moving is all about. He burst onto the scene here, making the claim that exposed DHS pedophile Brian J. Doyle, was, in fact, a registered Democrat, to which I, in a savage display of narrow-minded obstinacy, responded (are you ready? are you ready? wait for it ... ), "OK."

In short, I accepted his claim. "Sure," I said, "I'll take your word for it." At which point, quite simply, that issue was closed. It was resolved. It was over. "anonymous" made a claim and I accepted it; thus, therefore and to wit, there was nothing further to discuss with respect to that specific issue, which meant (and make sure you understand this as well) we were free to move on to other topics.

Sadly, "anonymous," being dumb as a fucking post, described our exchange thusly:

Me [Anonymous]: Here's the truth: Brian Doyle is a Democrat.

You [CC]: It's Bush's fault he didn't get exposed during the vetting process.

Me: There you go, hypocritically moving the goalposts again!

Unfortunately, he left out the most important tidbit, since it really went like this:

Me [Anonymous]: Here's the truth: Brian Doyle is a Democrat.

You [CC]: You're right. But, additionally, it's Bush's fault he didn't get exposed during the vetting process.

See the difference? "anonymous" makes a claim, I accept it and ... well, apparently, we're not allowed to move on because ... what? ... "anonymous" still has an overpowering urge to gloat? What?

If you have the patience to go back to the beginning of this dialogue, this is now (I believe) the fourth time I've publicly accepted "anonymous"'s original claim but, apparently, he's not ready to move on. Even now, any attempt to bring up another issue is (you guessed it) "moving the goalposts."

So, "anonymous," a question in all seriousness -- at what point are you prepared to allow a change of subject? How long do you need to revel in being right? Seriously. We over here at CC HQ will be happy to talk about other things for a bit while you do the happy dance and high-five your buddies or whatever else it is you do and, when that's over, hey, come on back so we can talk about other stuff. But enough with this "goalpost moving" nonsense, OK? You clearly don't understand the concept and you're starting to get just a bit annoying.

Coming up in Part 2: What happens when commenters start to get annoying.