[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Before you criticize my house, get your own in order.

Inability to take criticism isn't a good trait.

I love how you still manage to criticize Quebecers, even in a discussion about how Anglophones vote for Bloc Québécois lol. You're in the right profession, that's for sure.

Not criticizing Quebecers - criticizing a Quebecer (and I suppose everyone who agrees). For making a textbook informally fallacious argument.

Of course, you made another - over-generalizing from a single example.

[Zoupa]

Before you criticize my house, get your own in order.

Inability to take criticism isn't a good trait.

I love how you still manage to criticize Quebecers, even in a discussion about how Anglophones vote for Bloc Québécois lol. You're in the right profession, that's for sure.

Of course, you made another - over-generalizing from a single example.

Right, right. Something you've never done in regards to Quebec.

Lorsque tu ôteras la poutre de ton œil, alors tu verras clair pour ôter la paille qui est dans l'œil de ton frère.

[crazy canuck]

The knives have come out for Scheer pretty quickly.

[Malthus]

]
Of course, you made another - over-generalizing from a single example.

Right, right. Something you've never done in regards to Quebec.

Lorsque tu ôteras la poutre de ton œil, alors tu verras clair pour ôter la paille qui est dans l'œil de ton frère.
[/quote]

Again with the tu quoque fallacy. It's like you have to keep repeating the same mistake. 

To simplify: it isn't a reasonable response to criticism say 'you do it too'. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant.

[crazy canuck]

The you do it too in this context though is not irrelevant - it actually explains a lot of the animosity.  More correctly it could be phrased as you did it first.

[garbon]

The you do it too in this context though is not irrelevant - it actually explains a lot of the animosity.  More correctly it could be phrased as you did it first.

2 wrongs make a right?

[Malthus]

The you do it too in this context though is not irrelevant - it actually explains a lot of the animosity.  More correctly it could be phrased as you did it first.

Of course it is irrelevant.

The issue is whether him posting an argument based on one Anglo guy saying he's cool with the current laws in Quebec makes those laws, in fact, cool.

My point is that this is over-generalizing from a single example and so, not convincing.

How will the "fact" that I've done exactly the same thing (even if it is true) make his argument convincing, if it otherwise isn't? I could be as mendacious as Trump himself, it will make exactly zero difference to his argument - a bad argument remains bad no matter who points out the fact that it is bad. 

This is really basic stuff.

[Zoupa]

Sure. Except we're not in a court of law, this is an internet forum. You're not seen as a trustworthy or or a valuable interlocutor by Qc members because of your post history.

Law 21 will pass because a majority of citizens approve of it and a majority of members of parliament campaigned on it. It's as simple as that. You can call us racists all day long if you wish. Qc believes in secularism, ROC doesn't. That's ok.

[Barrister]

Sure. Except we're not in a court of law, this is an internet forum. You're not seen as a trustworthy or or a valuable interlocutor by Qc members because of your post history.

Law 21 will pass because a majority of citizens approve of it and a majority of members of parliament campaigned on it. It's as simple as that. You can call us racists all day long if you wish. Qc believes in secularism, ROC doesn't. That's ok.

...and you had to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to overrule people's rights in order to do so.

[Malthus]

Sure. Except we're not in a court of law, this is an internet forum. You're not seen as a trustworthy or or a valuable interlocutor by Qc members because of your post history.

Law 21 will pass because a majority of citizens approve of it and a majority of members of parliament campaigned on it. It's as simple as that. You can call us racists all day long if you wish. Qc believes in secularism, ROC doesn't. That's ok.

That's why it is called an "informal fallacy". It has nothing to do with courts of law.

To which you just added a few others - ad hominem fallacy, ad populum fallacy, and poisoning the well.

Really, you are displaying practically a textbook of bad argument techniques. Bravo! 

[Zoupa]

Sure. Except we're not in a court of law, this is an internet forum. You're not seen as a trustworthy or or a valuable interlocutor by Qc members because of your post history.

Law 21 will pass because a majority of citizens approve of it and a majority of members of parliament campaigned on it. It's as simple as that. You can call us racists all day long if you wish. Qc believes in secularism, ROC doesn't. That's ok.

...and you had to invoke the notwithstanding clause in order to overrule people's rights in order to do so.

Good thing that clause is in there. It's almost as if it's there for a purpose.

[Zoupa]

Sure. Except we're not in a court of law, this is an internet forum. You're not seen as a trustworthy or or a valuable interlocutor by Qc members because of your post history.

Law 21 will pass because a majority of citizens approve of it and a majority of members of parliament campaigned on it. It's as simple as that. You can call us racists all day long if you wish. Qc believes in secularism, ROC doesn't. That's ok.

That's why it is called an "informal fallacy". It has nothing to do with courts of law.

To which you just added a few others - ad hominem fallacy, ad populum fallacy, and poisoning the well.

Really, you are displaying practically a textbook of bad argument techniques. Bravo!

Well, I'm glad you're enjoying my display at least. 

[Barrister]

Good thing that clause is in there. It's almost as if it's there for a purpose.

I would have thought it was in there in case you get a one-off bad decision from the courts that's poorly decided, not because you want to put people's religious rights in a paper shredder.

[crazy canuck]

Good thing that clause is in there. It's almost as if it's there for a purpose.

I would have thought it was in there in case you get a one-off bad decision from the courts that's poorly decided, not because you want to put people's religious rights in a paper shredder.

Well, that was needlessly inflammatory.

Go back and look at the history of the use of the clause.  It has almost never been used to deal with a decision of the SCC, it is almost always proactively invoked in legislation as it was designed to be - including the first time it was ever invoked which was in Saskatchewan.

The you do it too in this context though is not irrelevant - it actually explains a lot of the animosity.  More correctly it could be phrased as you did it first.

of course it is irrelevant.

From your perspective of ignoring the context, yes.  But if one looks a bit more broadly at the context, no.

[Barrister]

Well, that was needlessly inflammatory.

Go back and look at the history of the use of the clause.  It has almost never been used to deal with a decision of the SCC, it is almost always proactively invoked in legislation as it was designed to be - including the first time it was ever invoked which was in Saskatchewan.

Well Zoupa mentioned the reason it was included, not the history of its use.  And of course there was no single one "intent", but rather each participant had their own reason for including it.  But that's how I justify it - that sometimes the courts are just going to get the balancing act "wrong", and there should be some relief valve for the legislature to correct.

IIRC Sask first used it to just automatically exempt all SK laws.  Other than that one use it was used in Quebec for their language laws, it has been threatened a couple of times, most recently by the Ford Government when a lower court "got it wrong", but the CA overturned it.