Several of the regulars here at the CC Roadhouse and Car Wash got into it earlier, discussing the concept of debating in "bad faith." In my not-so-humble opinion, there are a number of distinct examples of that sort of thing, but one of the most annoying is what I call the deliberate misunderstanding of your point. You all know exactly what I mean. It's when your opponent clearly goes out of his way to misinterpret what you said or wrote so that he or she can criticize something that isn't even remotely your point of view.
Case in point: my recent post here. Go read it slowly, and convince yourself that you understood the argument I was making. Seriously, make sure you appreciate the point I was attempting to drive home, because that's critically important to what's about to happen.
Done? Good. Because now it's time to witness teh overwhelming stoopid:
Let's Talk "False Equivalence", Shall We?
The hypocrisy -- predictably -- is astounding
Good ol' Canadian Cynic. Whenever there's a slow news week, one can count on his unrepentant hypocrisy to provide something to blog about.
The predictable stupidity this week swirls around Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that has proven utterly offensive to those who think the Canadian government should be obligated to fund every Canadian film that asks for a tax credit.
All right, then -- apparently, Twatrick is going to take exception with my musings on Bill C-10. This should be good, if only for the entertainment value for the simple reason that you just know Twatrick is going to argue in bad faith exactly the way I just described. It's what he does. So let's just skip ahead over all the irrelevancies to get to the good stuff:
So then it could be considered oddly ironic that, just over a year later, he himself is resorting to a false equivalence to try and push his narrative regarding Bill C-10, when he compares Charles McVety's Calgary Herald article noting that tax dollars supported pornographic films to McVety using the internet to solicit donations for the Canadian Christian Coalition.
Sadly, you can already see that poor Twatrick's argument is veering wildly off the rails since my diatribe was entirely unrelated to how McVety solicited donations. The fact that he happened to be doing it "using the internet" was entirely irrelevant to my argument, as most of you can see. And, not surprisingly, given that egregious misrepresentation by Twatrick, what follows is predictably nonsensical:
Of course, there's a difference between using tax dollars -- the tax dollars paid by all Canadian citizens -- to subsidize pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- and asking people for a voluntary donation.
The fact that the donor in question has a choice in one example (McVety) and no choice in the other (production grants).
And there you have it. Twatrick has taken what I thought was a fairly obvious example of hypocrisy and mangled it so that he could respond, not to the argument I made, but to the one he wishes I'd made, which is the only one he can actually refute.
My objection was, of course, not to McVety asking for voluntary donations. It was, rather, to the fact that those donations were tax-deductible, the consequence of which is that McVety's religious organization is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers. That is, you and me. That was obviously the point I was making, so how is it that Twatrick could go so wildly off track?
It would be tempting to just call Twatrick a moron and leave it at that, but that would let him off too easy. I don't think Twatrick was being an idiot here, oh no. Instead, I think he was arguing in bad faith. He knew exactly what my point was, but he chose to misrepresent it for the simple reason that he had no comeback to the argument I made, so he simply mangled what I wrote into an argument I didn't make that he could rebut. (It's like the old joke of the drunk who lost his keys a block away but insists on looking for them under a street lamp because the light's better there.)
And how can I prove that Twatrick was arguing in bad faith? Easy. Now that I've explained what I actually meant, someone who was genuinely interested in dialogue would acknowledge the flawed interpretation and proceed to address what I actually meant. On the other hand, someone who was arguing in bad faith would do no such thing, but would continue to dish up the same plate of dishonesty, despite having been corrected.
And I'm fairly comfortable in betting which way this is going to go.
RED TORY IS RIGHT, it's really not a good investment in time to keep spanking Twatrick in public, but poor Twatsy's ability to mangle every argument he comes in contact with is truly breathtaking, isn't it? One is reminded of a piece I link to on occasion, in which writer Matt Taibbi takes it to Tom Friedman, pointing out one of Friedman's screwups but not stopping there:
This would be a small thing were it not for the overall pattern. Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.
And so it is with Twatsy -- it's not that he goes off tilting at the wrong windmill only on occasion; it's that he does it consistently, perpetually, even relentlessly. Over the months, poor Twats has managed to misaddress every single issue he's tackled. It's astonishing -- an absolutely Friedmanesque record of utter failure.
When it comes to Twatsy, it's hard to choose between entertaining and depressing. Or just downright dull.
GOD ALMIGHTY, THE BURNING STOOPID: I swear, just one quick towel snap to the nads and it's over. Here's Twatrick's jaw-dropping response, or at least part of it:
First off, the post in question (referenced again, just so we can be sure everyone actually reads it) never said anything about the tax-deductibility of donations to religious organizations.
Now let's examine closely the graphic that represented the majority of that very post:
Why, yes, right down there at the very bottom: "All donations are tax deductible." Everyone else managed to notice that, but not Twatrick. Never Twatrick. Then again, Twatrick is the mullet-headed imbecile who ... oh, Jesus, just go read for yourself. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Twatrick's first job interview. Lord, the pants-pissing entertainment that would represent.
I think we're done here, and it's time to pick on more intellectually-challenging targets. I hear Denyse O'Leary is available.
What is it with the Reformist/Crap camp's fixation with "Bubbles Galore". The film was a satirical look at the adult entertainment industry.
"The film was a satirical look at the adult entertainment industry."
oh, i thought he meant this bit of tawdry "erotica"....
With Twatsy, bad faith is the least of his high crimes and misdemeanors. His greatest sin is that he simply cannot write effectively except to indicate that he also cannot think. Which may in fact prove that he is an effective writer, just not in the way he intends. It's all very meta...and dull, don't forget dull.
heh. the lump now has a second blog which also goes unread.
Another form of arguing in bad faith is often on display here in downtown CCland. Wayne played this game, as have a number of fly-by-nighters and I believe two or three of Richard's alter egos.
The game is to come in talking about how "I just want to understand..." and "I'm not partisan, but..." and "while I agree with most of what you say..." and lead-ins of that kind. This is arguing in bad faith because the person is trying to gain a rhetorical advantage by presenting himself as neutral, while in fact he is partisan.
Why do this? To try to find admissions or openings with which to bring down the opposing argument. When you're arguing with someone who has many assumptions in common with you, you take far more liberty in the way you speak. When you're arguing with someone who is generally opposed to you, you speak with more care and couch your language precisely so that it can't be easily misused against you.
A good example of this is the movie Expelled, where they go to scientists as neutral parties, and then quote-mine what they say to attempt to make an opposite argument. Despicable, but to those of a sympathetic view, very persuasive.
Anyhow, this is a little off-topic but it's a another common form of arguing in bad faith that hasn't been raised here yet. I figured a long-winded, pedantic description of it would probably be most interesting to everyone else.
Fine. Back to vodka then.
Again, I have to express my admiration (not quite the right word, but it’ll have to suffice) and respect for your abiding patience with this hapless fuckwit. I simply can’t stand to read his lame-brained effluence any more, let alone be bothered to respond to it.
And just as a passing note: 10 posts, 5,000 words and 3 comments from his “community” of readers.
At the risk of being repetitive, I think you’re wasting your time on this guy.
Yes, RT, time could certainly be better spent elsewhere, but I thought it was timely given the earlier discussion about arguing in bad faith. And no one argues in bad faith like Twatrick.
Well, OK, there's SUZANNE. She really is the queen of bad faith dialogue.
It was a fine dissection of his tactics, to be sure and worthwhile for the purposes of demonstration in the context of "bad faith" — something that's almost become synonymous with Patrick.
I'd consider giving you an A for Effort, but this is just pathetic.
And there you have it, kids ... what a snappy comeback by the Twatster!
If he actually gets a degree, the U of A should simply go hang itself in embarrassment.
And right on cue, the unrequited pantload has another post over there that's even more fantastically moronic than the last one.
Twatsy's really not holding up his end of the bargain. Ninety-nine percent of the posts on his commentless blog are about Canadian Cynic and all we get in return "No it's not!"
At least Red's "Trusty Tory" makes me chuckle once in a while. Twatricia Rosshole is just dreary and sad.
twatsie is internets porn for the existentialist.
*yuck*. I'd hate to know what your real porn habits are, Kevron.
My existentialist porn is stuff like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the dark fantasy world of the neoconservatives. Twatsy's just boring and vaguely unsavoury.
It's the cardinal rule of debate Cynic: make your point, lest your point be made for you.
Funny how you fail to mention my dismantling of the argument you "intended" to make here -- and despite the impotent crowing of the terminally not-so-bright Martin Rayner, dismantled it has been -- regardless of what your cronies here at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Group Think may have to say about it.
Thanks for the reminder, Patrick.
CC, I'm really sorry - I know I owe you for like, 3 months of Group Think Temple fees. My new job's a hassle and I had a huge car repair bill last week. Is Tuesday okay?
"the terminally not-so-bright Martin Rayner"
should you ever manage to convince yourself of this, maybe then you can try to sell it to us.
you wear your desperation on your sleave, twats. how unsightly....
Where's the desperation, dimwit. I always know I have you feebs cornered when you refuse to debate the point (you see, that's how anti-intellectuals -- like yourselves -- work).
There's just no end to your laughable delusions, it seems. Only you could build a specious argument from a mistaken assumption then declare this pathetic and utterly pointless effort a “victory” of some sort. Too funny.
Marty, you have to be the oldest person I've ever encountered to argue like a four-year-old.
Shouldn't you be off somewhere fighting a toddler over some swings?
Patrick, I think you mean the oldest person ever to argue with a four year old. But I reckon he's almost through with you, so that will soon be in the past.
PR — More of your devastating "wit" I see. You have to be one of the most seriously unfunny people it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. And considering you're competing for that dubious distinction with the likes of "Neo" that's really saying a lot.
Nope. Unlike your lord and master, I make the points I intend to make.
Funny how that escapes you clowns.
Personally, I'm not about to take debating lessons from people whose favoured debating tactic is "that's stupid 'cuz I said so. Na na."
"I'm not about to take debating lessons"
how 'bout hemlock then?
Poor Patrick...wrong again. As usual.
Post a Comment