Kitchener

Sir, I suspect that many Canadians are just uncertain of what, exactly, we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. The rhetoric of the last two federal governments, in advocating for the mission, has been framed in platitudes rather than specifics; and the objectives of the NATO/ISAF mission, though laudable, are quite vaguely worded. Could you help us out? As you understand the overall aims of Canada's active combat mission in Afghanistan, what concrete events or states of affairs would justify winding down the combat element? (Over and above the mere expiry of the clock on the commitment we've made thus far, I mean.) And what timeline, in your estimation, are we looking at for those events to occur?

Then my conjecture is wrong. I'm left with no explanation for the false presupposition in the thread title.

I am not surprised that you believe the rule of law is nothing of value, and that pointing out your errors of reasoning is insubstantial. But don't whine just because you didn't get the echo chamber you wanted. Fallacy-ridden outrage-mongering will get a boot between the pockets, whether you like it or not.

No, let's leave you out of it. The contrast, naturally, was with people who do not greet context-free single data points with hysterical claims about the evils of judges, the legal system, and Canadian politics.

I agree. That's all you can say. I, however, can say other things -- like that the rule of law matters, that not every outcome has to fit with everyone's every desires (including mine) in order to be part of a just system, and that a confirmation-biased focus on "outrage examples" would predictably shore up a groundless conviction that the system is broken even if it weren't.

How, exactly, did you think this applied to my post? Or were you suggesting that Argus and Keepitsimple, e.g., were also the victim's girlfriend? (Note: girlfriend. Not boyfriend. Reading the thread and all.) Um, yes. Because the real soapboxers weren't the hysterical generalizers about how the justice system is broken.

The books you like don't change the point. "Fallacy" most clearly means an inferential error, a procedural mistake in reasoning. In this sense, fallacies are acts you commit, not beliefs you hold. There is certainly another sense of "fallacy", on which it means a common but erroneous belief. Hence one might speak of the fallacy that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. But there's two things to say about this latter sense. First, it is better to simply call it a canard or an urban myth, since these will be less ambiguous terms. Calling simple beliefs or assertions fallacies seems to capitalize on the much more forceful -- ie., objective -- first sense discussed above. And second, this use of "fallacy" simply becomes vacuous if one uses it to mean "things that other people think but which I and others like me don't". Because then everything's a fallacy if you disagree with it. If one must use the term, it is best reserved for quite widely believed but decisively falsified propositions. Your examples, and those of Mishan as I recall, tend to be more of the "stuff I don't like" variety. If you've got good arguments against some views, then more power to you. But asserting their error by calling them fallacies accomplishes nothing except raising the question of why such legerdemain would be employed, if really good arguments were available.

There's plenty of soft-headed soft-logic, all right. I doubt that much of it is demonstrated by the judge. Nothing quite as depressing as people with no specific knowledge of a case, of the concept of precedence, of a judge's actual reasoning, or of the law in general... taking a few spin points and a few plain untruths, and setting out to whine about all that's wrong with the judiciary.

I think you've pretty much nailed it. U of A has a lot of cultural stuff for students to do and see right near campus, besides just drink (though of course that's plenty possible, too). U of C has its virtues, and Calgary's transit system does a lot to make up for the isolation of the campus, but I'd say Edmonton over Calgary with confidence. (For students -- not a general remark on the cities, necessarily.) One disagreement: Sherbrooke is much prettier and less boring than Lethbridge, though I know what you mean. Neither place is a hotbed of excitement.

Not entirely sure why this thread has been necromanced. But it's worth pointing out, like Inigo Montoya, that you keep using this word "fallacy". I do not think it means what you think it means. A fallacy is not just something you disagree with.

Ah, well, as long as you say it with confidence. There are few inspirational figures active in our society and our society has no unique identification. Yes, your claims are unsupported by data. I've lived in various countries around the world. Every time I moved back to Canada, I was overwhelmingly struck by two impressions: what an unbelievably wonderful country Canada is; and how many Canadians whine like selfish children about Canada's problems.

Ah, well, since you're a Guy On The Internet and all, I guess your knee-jerk hot and embarrassed feelings about what constitutes deviance should dictate official educational policy. Especially since you confirm your bona fides by explaining that your opinions are unaffected by anything that anyone might say to you -- including, no doubt, experts, people bearing empirical data, and folks who've plain old thought more carefully about the matter than you.

Today when we were out at an arcade with a bunch of little boys for my son's birthday party, my wife told one of the boys to keep his hands to himself after he'd poked a couple of kids in the eye. Fortunately, my presence probably made my wife seem sufficiently heterosexual that she looked like a straight woman telling a kid to keep his hands to himself, instead of a "bull" saying the same thing. Close call, eh? Otherwise some nutjob might have run out and started an Internet thread about it!

Why this was addressed to my post is hard to fathom. But certainly I agree with what you say here. Who do you think has been relying on pride or jingoism? Stats can be biased. But anecdotes definitely are. The thing to do is use reliable sources, and to make clear and explicit challenges to the reliability of sources that are dubious. On the other hand, you're raising an important semantic point about how the word "poor" might have different meanings over time. I don't agree with your take on the question, but it's a good one to raise. How many of those homes were 5-level sidesplits backing onto greenbelts, with soaring (ie., heat-swallowing) ceilings and master-bedroom jacuzzis? Of course housing prices have gone up enormously, but you should make sure you're comparing apples and apples. How many kids needed cellphones with monthly plans when you were a kid? How many "working men" needed to afford two, or three, or four cars, so that nobody in the family ever had to walk, bike, take the bus? I'll reserve the word greed for now, but I think materialism may be playing a larger role than you're allowing.

It's not clear to me, either; if Coyne's just saying that it was awful judgment to take Mulroney on as an adviser, then it's hard to deny, but doesn't really constitute a transitive link to KHS. The connections between Schreiber and Peter McKay seem more obvious, certainly. It's not really in the same league as the grossly mendacious statement of connections between Saddam and Al Quaeda, mind you, which I'm sure jbg also staunchly opposed for its contemptible rhetoric; but it is a very broadly similar use of weasel words to make up for a lack of evidence.

Good question. I suspect the explanation is unfamiliarity with what poverty really looks like.

So, by "they", you don't mean Muslims -- you mean at most three Muslims. But one of the three says she was "shocked" to hear another Muslim state that stoning should be understood as basic Islamic law; and both she and another one of the three explicitly acknowledge a crucial distinction between what was Islamic law in the old days, and what it ought to be today. I'd prefer to hear more voices within the Islamic community speaking out critically of Islamic fundamentalism, much as I've long wanted to hear the moderate Christian majority speaking out against fundamentalist homophobes, young-Earth creationists, and the like. Yet apart from the social pressures against self-criticism that one finds in any group, there are many grossly prejudiced anti-Islamic folks in American society these days -- people ready to misrepresent and misinterpret facts in support of their biases. I don't know anything about this Bedier fellow except what I've seen on the video, but I don't blame him for wanting to avoid giving critical soundbites that could be used against other Muslims by such unprincipled commentators, politicians, and internet posters -- nor for not wanting to dance on their string just because they'd like to hear him recite their script.

I'll bet that as soon as they got those tinfoil hats on and interrupted the mind-control signals, they realized that the CBC has a pro-leftist bias.

It is, indeed. If only there was some money -- oh, say, half a trillion dollars -- that could have been spent on education and infrastructure in the Arab world.

Old news, and confused besides.

Since that didn't happen, yes, we should discount it. Investigations virtually never find people innocent, nor did this one. The initial investigation concluding merely that it lacked enough evidence to make charges stick. Hence the RCMP continued to investigate the Airbus affair for years afterwards (with what competence, again, it is difficult to say under our current state of information). If current evidence is different from that under which the initial investigation concluded -- for instance, if Mulroney has since quietly paid income tax on cash payments he first denied accepting -- then so too may the conclusion of an inquiry change. I believe I've answered this. For the rule of law, inter alia, and to clearly establish that it applies to our most powerful politicians -- yes, even if fifteen whole years have passed. I take you at your word. However, since vindictiveness towards the Liberals figures into my reasoning no more than vindictiveness towards the Conservatives did, this does not affect my grounds for supporting an inquiry.

So, you were opposed to the scope of the Gomery inquiry, and you opposed the way that the media and the then-Opposition Conservatives threw around the full dollar amounts of the sponsorship budgets. Because much of the inquiry, and much of that expenditure, was "ancient history".

Maybe. I wouldn't read too much into the example I gave. I just thought it was funny. But the Conservatives (I don't really think they're Tories) had the sense not to run him again, at least.

In my riding in 04, the Conservative candidate stopped going to all-candidate debates after saying at one debate that the Conservatives had fewer women running for them because, uh, "women think different than me". When the boos started, he hastily repaired the damage by adding that any women who wanted to could come on down to his campaign office and help out. Strangely, that didn't appease the crowd. Damned socialists. I blame Trudeau.

Fair enough. I'll even resist the urge to grade your performance. Anyhow, as I said somewhere back in the thread I didn't read, there's no way of saying whether Mulroney was a crook given what we know now. But there are serious questions, at a minimum, and I do think a large-scope inquiry would serve the public interest. I suspect it would embarrass the Liberals as much as the Conservatives, mind, but they might think they've paid their price already in the public's opinion and be willing to roll the dice on that. Either way, I like the idea that if a PM is an influence-peddler, s/he should know that the truth will out, however long it takes.