The Shotgun Blog
« The Summer's Best Album? (Reprise) | Main | Crushing: a limit on freedom of expression »
Friday, July 17, 2009
Private initiative
It's amazing what private initiative can accomplish with a little effort
The one thing that really strikes me about this strike in Toronto, almost a month in, is how good the city continues to function with 24,000 civil servants on the picket line. Maybe if the city holds out long enough, it will actually be able to balance it's budget this year.
Posted by Mike Brock on July 17, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Yes, especially if they get the military to clean up the garbage. I hope Harper tells them to drop dead if they asked. Toronto has become a source of embarrassment for their incompetence, stupidity and overt racism. I say let the garbage accumulate and bury the city so the world can be spared from having to look at it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-17 8:35:10 AM
It brings me a little joy every day to know Toronto is in "rough" shape. Assholes.
Dave Miller should go hide in a cave in shame for his poor leadership and general douchebaggyness.
Posted by: Pete | 2009-07-17 8:55:13 AM
Don't blame Miller for this - he doesn't know any better.
Instead, blame every man, woman and child in Toronto. They re-elected him - this is their fault.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-17 9:00:13 AM
I'm increasingly convinced of the need for comment moderation on this blog.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-17 9:19:04 AM
Bailout 2008, a poem by David Jeffrey:
Like a bloodied warrior,
laying broken and torn.
Like a dying soldier, hopeless and forlorn.
But the blood, it be green,
the color of money.
And the soldier is an economy,
and it is anything but funny.
Broken are it’s people and shattered are their dreams.
Thanks to the ultra rich and their full proof schemes.
It is a tragedy with more pain to come.
Finance will be Hell, and their wills will be done.
Posted by: D.R. Sanchez | 2009-07-17 9:37:45 AM
Toronto sucks--West is the best!
I love this Bailout 2008 poem and I love David Jeffrey
David Jeffrey rocks!
Posted by: Alotta Vagena | 2009-07-17 10:01:29 AM
I started to read the article and saw the word "Toronto"....I knew before looking that Zeb would already be here advocating a general hatred to the people who live there. That racist really should be banned from this site...if not for advoacating hatred 9 posts out of 10 then for being just plain psychopathically obnoxiuos.
Toronto needs to take responsibility for itself as all cities and all people.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-17 10:04:53 AM
Great link mike! It proves that individual citizens can get things done without the help of big government.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-17 10:07:56 AM
JC: as soon as those idiots do something - ANYTHING - worthy of being respected and admired, I will point it out. However, I am not optimistic. Toronto is long on rhetoric and short, almost barren, of substance. It is a white supremacist, neo-fascist, near-slave society devoid of any intelligence or common sense. It is a model of what a society should not be like. The worst thing I could do to them is to leave them as they are. I still derive great pleasure from attacking them, so there.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-17 10:22:30 AM
i think it's a widespread Ontario disease-I mean the miller AND McIDIOT connection-that shows up in California, somewhat inB.C. and other places.
The garbage strike is only a minor symptom of the bigger spreading insidious pathogen known as pomoliberalism.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2009-07-17 7:30:05 PM
Reading parts of this thread tends to re-enforce the notion that hatred of Toronto seems to be the only thing uniting parts of the country....
Interestingly in this case, partly standing up to the union's excess, is far from Millers worst moment. Not everyone voted for him so not all are to blame. The mess the city is in is not substantively different than most other major cities.
The vast majority of politicians are by nature conservative. They will only change when they have to to get elected.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-18 9:56:38 AM
The hatred for Toronto is--in fact--highly irrational. Any libertarian or conservative who actually lives here can speak to a very sizable community of those who are not nominally on the left.
The truth about the Conservative lock-out of Toronto has more to do with the perceived anti-Toronto mentality of the Conservative Party than any ideological position.
I meet so many Torontonians that are self-described "fiscal conservatives" that view the Conservative Party and PC Party as "out to get" Toronto and "teach it a lesson", which is effectively the attitude we see from Conservatives out a West.
So the problem is reciprocal.
The conservatives out West position themselves as effectively "at war" with Toronto, and then freak out every election cycle that Toronto voters don't give a shit about them.
And, of course, the idea that Toronto is useless and does "nothing for the country" is most certainly contradicted by the fact that the city represents the lion's share of corporate activity in this country outside of the oil industry.
Also, the ever-present stream of people moving to Toronto from disparate parts of Canada in search of higher paying jobs and work would also seem to fly in the face of such logic.
Or the continuous construction of skyscrapers ascending in the skyline that I watch from my downtown condo...
A city in decline, indeed.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-18 10:53:14 AM
I recall living in Toronto and taking a crosscountry trip to B.C. at one point and being cornered by several people along the way slaggin Toronto and when asked the majority said they had never even visited.
Can you imagine people doing that with any other city?
Toronto is very different than many imagine it to be, and has more Libertarians than any other city in Canada easily. Like all big cities in North America they have a lot of authoritarians and the latest mayor is a poster child for them ....
Posted by: V.M Smith | 2009-07-18 3:00:09 PM
"Can you imagine people doing that with any other city?"
Posted by: V.M Smith | 2009-07-18 3:00:09 PM
Yes I can. Try driving through Toronto with Alberta plates.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-18 3:10:38 PM
"Yes I can. Try driving through Toronto with Alberta plates."
It's funny you should say that. Recently my car broke down out in Oakville, and I had to rent a car as the dealership was closed at the time.
It was an Alamo car with Alberta plates on it. And I ended up having it for 3 days. Truth be told, nobody said a fucking word. Nobody gave a shit.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-18 4:02:47 PM
dp - are you talking from personal experience?
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-18 5:52:23 PM
along the way slaggin Toronto and when asked the majority said they had never even visited.
Can you imagine people doing that with any other city?
~V.M Smith | 2009-07-18 3:00:09 PM
Can I imagine any other Canadian city ramming gun registration and Same Sex Marriage down the throats of the rest of the country?
No.
Can I imagine any other Canadian city remaining the rock solid bastion of Liberal support after Adscam?
No.
Can I imagine Warren Kinsella or Jack Layton living in any other Canadian city?
No.
Is any other Canadian city made up Of 49.9% foreign-born people or have visible minorities projected to comprise a majority of it's citizenry by 2017?
No.
Is Toronto's Gay Pride Parade the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world?
Yes.
Does this reflect the values of the majority of Canadians?
No.
Are Toronto's sister cities Tehran Iran, Chicago Illinois, and Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam?
Yes.
Why then, with the answers to these questions so obvious and the fact that Toronto is so out of step with the rest Canada's values and views would Canadians who have never visited there resent and despise Toronto so much?
Answer:
They wouldn't if Toronto didn't force it's politics, "culture", and values or lack thereof on the rest of the nation and make us pay for their politics, idiosyncrasies, phobias, and tastes.
Got any other obtuse questions, V.M Smith?
Posted by: Speller | 2009-07-18 11:23:39 PM
Speller,
On gun rights, I'm with you. But I know plenty of people in Toronto who are pro-gun rights.
But have you been "forced" to marry someone of the opposite sex? Oh, I'm sorry, you've been "forced" to accept other people being allowed to do it. How tyrannical. Your life must be a living hell.
"Is any other Canadian city made up Of 49.9% foreign-born people or have visible minorities projected to comprise a majority of it's citizenry by 2017?"
This just sounds like patently xenophobic/racist sentiment.
"Is Toronto's Gay Pride Parade the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world?
Yes."
This bothers you, why? Oh I know. The very thought that all those sexual deviants are allowed to "flaunt their sexuality" without feeling ashamed of themselves--which conservatives often want them to be--offends you. Who's the tyrant again?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 9:57:27 AM
Can I imagine any other Canadian city ramming gun registration and Same Sex Marriage down the throats of the rest of the country?
No.
This was done by the federal government .... Let's see the Federal Conservatives have done nothing other than cosmetics to the registry so they seem to agree with it too. Harper did live near Toronto for a while, are you now disowning him based on that?
Can I imagine any other Canadian city remaining the rock solid bastion of Liberal support after Adscam?
No.
Not a single Conservative is elected in Montreal or instance (a much higher rejection ratio of the Conservatives than TO). Given Harper's election promises included $92 billion in new spending I think it smart the two largest cities in Canada largely ignored a partisan political problem when the return to big government was being promised by the Conservatives was the big problem.
Is any other Canadian city made up Of 49.9% foreign-born people or have visible minorities projected to comprise a majority of it's citizenry by 2017?
No.
Hum - now we get to the meat of it. I have heard this undertone a lot. Toronto is feruners and minorities. Too ignorant to dignify with a reply.
Is Toronto's Gay Pride Parade the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world?
Yes.
Does this reflect the values of the majority of Canadians?
No.
Well it is by far the largest city so having the largest parade is not too suprising but more to the point (such as it is) the parade does reflect the values of much of the country.
Are Toronto's sister cities Tehran Iran, Chicago Illinois, and Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam?
Yes.
??? - nevermind anyway.
Answer:
They wouldn't if Toronto didn't force it's politics, "culture", and values or lack thereof on the rest of the nation and make us pay for their politics, idiosyncrasies, phobias, and tastes.
Let's see: the 34 ridings that are not Conservative (8 ridings in TO are conservative) in Toronto somehow force thier opinions on the rest of the country that has 308 total. Even including the Conservative held seats Toronto has 15% of the registered voters in the Country but only 13% of the seats. They have less influence than they should: not more. Fact is your (extremely) marginal opinions are not popular, don't blame that on Toronto.
As for paying for other people's mistakes, it was the big government Conservatives of Albeta exporting the big government highest spending ever Harper who are making us all pay. Jean Chretien had done a better than most (of the G7 anyway) job of slowing down the rate of growth of government. Now Harper has outdone every NDP wet dream with his excessive spending. Still far as I can tell most Torontonians do not hold that against people from Calgary.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 10:12:52 AM
This just sounds like patently xenophobic/racist sentiment.
"Sounds Like"??
Are you making a statement? Are you making a comparision? Are you actually doing anything other
diverting attention from the truth of the matter?
If its a fact...its a fact!
"Sounds Like" is a mere diversion tactic to gain an unearned moral advantage.
If in FACT the projections are what Speller says they are...then its a FACT. Not Paranoia.
Mike that sort of journalism / statement looks like a product of the Parliamentary Spin Doctors.
Not an independent free thinking analytical view of the "facts".
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-19 10:16:09 AM
The suggestion was that the demographics were a key and valid reason to slag Toronto as a whole.
Both xenophobic/racist are applicable as obvious motivations when taken in that context.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 10:40:32 AM
Both xenophobic/racist are applicable as obvious motivations when taken in that context.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 10:40:32 AM
Disagree. Perhaps the motivation has more to do with an objection to our loss of rights in the name of multi culturalism. That isn't necessarily "race specific" but it is "policy specific".
In this case I give Speller full points for an excellent observation and one which we should not write off because it doesn't "sound" politically correct.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-19 11:15:15 AM
"Disagree. Perhaps the motivation has more to do with an objection to our loss of rights in the name of multi culturalism."
It's not my responsibility to read-in to the implications of a statement. On it's face, the statement appears both xenophobic and racist.
The demographic makeup of Toronto was presented as a criticism of Toronto. Most importantly, it was presented as a negative that 49.5% of the population are visible minorities.
I do not deny these statistics. In fact, I believe them to be accurate. But to point the statistic out as a self-evident negative, to me anyways, smacks of racism and xenophobia.
The context was criticisms of Toronto. And the demographic characteristics of "visible minorities" was presented as a self-evident problem with Toronto.
No mention of government multi-cultural policies were presented. It was only presented as a demographic problem. That, my friend, is plainly racist and xenophobic.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 1:11:40 PM
What is the flip-side to the criticism that 49.5% of Toronto are visible minorities? The flip-side is the implication that he wishes Toronto were more white. How is that not racist?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 1:12:58 PM
Thank you Speller for stating the facts. As expected a lot of PC feathers got ruffled, but so what.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-19 3:27:00 PM
Do you look under your bed, for racists, before you go to sleep, Mike?
It's a very valid criticism. It absolutely guarantees Toronto will experience severe racial tensions, for years to come. No one pointed a finger at black, brown, red, or yellow people. You imagined that, all on your own.
Demographics are always an indicator of what we should anticipate for future statistics. Look at New York, when all the Irish, and Italians poured in. Look at Brooks AB, when hundreds of Somalis and Sudanese moved in. Race is only coincidental. The collision of races is what takes time to work itself out. Toronto is getting very close to critical mass.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-19 3:30:47 PM
White Toronto will never let go of their power. They have rich, easy lives and make sure that non-whites have it hard. It's the new Apartheid. I recommend reconstruction of Ontario society to make non-whites politically and economically equal to whites.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-19 3:50:07 PM
See that Mike? Now, there's a racist!
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-19 4:29:19 PM
It is racist to maintain the existing social and political order in Ontario. It is not racist to overthrow it - quite the opposite, it is healthy and beneficial to all to destroy a racist state which is Ontario.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-19 5:00:31 PM
These comments cannot be sloughed off as something mild as with "politically incorrect".
Contempt of others who did you no wrong is demonstrating a lack of the basic morals required to function in a civil society.
Worst is the implicit presumption that the government should enforcing expectations for "purity" on society.
That some in this thread perceive violence must be just below the surface simply since some people do not look like others may reflect their (dim) view of the world, but Canadians in general moved past that simplistic tribalism long ago.
It is not just Toronto that has moved past that either.
Posted by: V. M. Smith | 2009-07-19 5:02:38 PM
Worst is the implicit presumption that the government should enforcing expectations for "purity" on society.
Exactly. You'd think these guys would have a more endearing view of Hitler.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 6:14:05 PM
Having to resort to using the "H" word, does not strengthen your position.
Cry "racist", and put your head back in the sand. Don't bother considering the possibility of conflict. Just pretend everything is the fault of less enlightened people, like me.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-19 7:33:52 PM
dp, it is a waste of time trying to provide a rational argument to these folks who are actually the ones identifying people by colour. Funny that, n'est-ce pas? Colours are not the issue but cultures most definitely are. Also interesting to note is that trotting out the worn out race card is not limited to the leftist chattering class.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-19 8:08:09 PM
Give me a break, dp and Alain. The comment was made that 49.5% of Toronto are visible minorities, and that's a BAD thing. I wasn't criticizing him pointing it out, I was criticizing him framing it as an implicit negative about Toronto.
Then people are trying to turn it around and suggest I'm somehow the bigot. Yeah.
Then trying to say that you can't win a "rational argument" with folks like me. That's really rich.
This, so far, is the progression of the position:
1. 49.5% of Torontonians are "visible minorities", and that's a bad thing.
2. It was wrong for Mike Brock to point out that statement was racist, because he should have known that the further implication had nothing to do with racism or xenophobia but the policy of multiculturalism.
3. It was also wrong for Mike Brock to point that out, because demographic disparities of this sort always lead to "racial tensions".
4. Mike Brock is simply crying "racist" with no rational basis.
When in fact:
- The sentiment expressed in statement one, by itself, cannot in any reasonable interpretation, be taken at face value, to imply anything in points #2 or #3.
- #2 and #3 are red herrings to begin with for the above reason.
- Statement #3 is pretty ridiculous on it's own.
- The person questioning Mike Brock's ability to reason clearly possesses very poor reasoning ability themselves.
The funny thing is, I'm not one of those crazy politically correct Nazi's who deny the statistics of crime, such as the over-representation of blacks, or anything absurd like that. But I don't attribute those statistics to inbred tendencies. Nor do I draw conclusions that Toronto, by extension of it's demographics, will necessarily have "racial tensions". Nor do I present the demographic data as a negative on face value, which is what was done here.
And all of you dimwits are sitting here defending that. So I am not using the "race card" to shut you down. I'm playing no cards. I'm calling a spade a spade.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 9:10:08 PM
I do not deny these statistics. In fact, I believe them to be accurate. But to point the statistic out as a self-evident negative, to me anyways, smacks of racism and xenophobia.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-19 1:11:40 PM
Ok, assuming you're right...
what should we call this new global village?
No point calling it "Canada" because "Canada" was a FREE nation. Maybe "Kanuckistan" will fit the bill...
I'm sick of paying the freight for people who are here to collect their benefits...and for no other reason.
I know that doesn't apply to all, but its true for far f**king too many.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-19 9:35:46 PM
"This just sounds like patently xenophobic/racist sentiment"
Only xenophobic/racist, Mike? You're getting soft in your old age, you missed a splendid opportunity to Godwin this thread! Or do you save the heavy artillery for me exclusively?
A racist is a conservative winning an argument with a Marxist. Jane Jacobs, along with several other million Canadians, felt mass immigration was problematic; was she a xenophobic/racist too? Of course not, you politically correct weenie, so shaddup.
Whoops, almost missed this:
"Exactly. You'd think these guys would have a more endearing view of Hitler."
You are a preposterously politically correct proto-bolshie. There's nothing xenophobic or racist about pointing out that there are negative externalities associated with mass immigration, in fact, you concede the point here:
"I'm not one of those crazy politically correct Nazi's who deny the statistics of crime, such as the over-representation of blacks"
More Godwinning.
"Nor do I draw conclusions that Toronto, by extension of it's demographics, will necessarily have "racial tensions"
The government of Ontario commissioned a report by Alvin Curling - a former black member of parliament - and others who reported just that: racial tensions, serious racial tensions.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6508
http://www.cicblog.com/2008/11/roy-mcmurtry-and-alvin-curling-report.html
http://zunia.org/post/poverty-racism-tied-to-youth-violence-report-says-1/
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:gM0OabsJQ5sJ:www.nanosresearch.com/news/in_the_news/National%2520Post%2520November%252021%25202008A.pdf+alvin+curling+racism&hl=en&gl=ua
http://blogs.mississauga.com/category/tags/racism
You have few if any politically incorrect beliefs, Mike, and people who don't have politically incorrect beliefs don't have beliefs: they believe what you they are told to believe.
The things you believe in most strongly - fighting "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" - are the same things that not only the government wants you to believe, but the mass media too. You're raging *with* the machine. Somewhat oddly, you are a conservative, happy with the status quo.
Grow a pair, for f*cks sake, or shaddup and let the adults talk politics. This:
http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/karate-kid-and-classmate-move-on/
is a problem: minorities can now assault white people with questionable cause without getting charged. You fancy yourself a free speecher: earn your stripes and speak out on this.
Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-19 10:17:02 PM
minorities can now assault white people with questionable cause without getting charged. You fancy yourself a free speecher: earn your stripes and speak out on this.
Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-19 10:17:02 PM
Well said!
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-19 11:07:40 PM
"minorities can now assault white people with questionable cause without getting charged."
You link a story, and then try to tie it to a widespread conspiracy against white people.
You certainly enjoy your own confirmation biases.
With everyone here apparently obsessing over how the 49.5% visible minority population in Toronto necessarily causes "racial conflict", I see that none of you have actually pointed out that Toronto has a lower murder rate than almost every other major Canadian city, including Calgary!
Toronto murder rate: 2.01
Calgary: 3.14
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=c19e5693-d029-4a4b-be8a-ecde408e44f8
But how can that be? Toronto is filled with 49.5% visible minorities. And that causes serious violent crime problems and "racial tensions". And I'm just a Marxist for refusing to frame 49.5% visible minority demographics in Toronto as a problem.
"A racist is a conservative winning an argument with a Marxist"
Actually, I think we've established that a "Marxist" is everyone and anything that disagrees with you. You seem to have a redefined the term, since it's clear to everyone with a functioning brain, that I am actually... a capitalist. And you know what? Many if not most of the capitalist economists support open immigration as an extension of free trade.
"Grow a pair, for f*cks sake, or shaddup and let the adults talk politics.
Talking about politics has nothing to do with "being a man" or "being brave". But I guess this is the kind of statement which proves to me how small you really are intellectually.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-20 7:19:15 AM
Mike you seem to have gone off the deep end of socialism. It becomes obvious when you deny the OBVIOUS war on the rights of white people in this country. Especially white males.
Everyone has lots of rights...except white males.
We are constantly painted as the racists. (See commenets by Mike Brock) and the worst of society.
Fact is we are under attack because we represent the only serious threat to the governemnts OBVIOUS march to socialism.
Maybe you should get out more to see what I mean.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-20 7:48:54 AM
Mike, you conceded the argument here:
"The funny thing is, I'm not one of those crazy politically correct Nazi's who deny the statistics of crime, such as the over-representation of blacks"
You concede my point and the point of every other sentinent Canadian who is honest with self and others. You explicitly admitted a correlation with crime and the black (non-white) population. I didn't say that - you did. You're just too stupid to realize that you defeated *yourself* in this argument. Game, set, match.
"But I guess this is the kind of statement which proves to me how small you really are intellectually."
Fair playback: you are the stupidest person I've ever seen on the internet. You are illiterate, you cannot spell, your grammar is horrible, you are wholly anti-moral, obviously unread, and you are a politically correct pussy incapable of debating without Godwinning or insults. And you have the nerve to sneer upwards at your betters. Be quiet, boy!
"Maybe you should get out more to see what I mean."
Mike is a wannabe pundit and talk show host and knows that being politically incorrect will adversely affect his popularity. He doesn't care about being right, he cares about being a radio show host and being accepted by the chattering classes.
Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-20 8:04:02 AM
Speaking of Calgary's murder rate, have you read the names of murderers?
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-20 10:25:48 AM
"You concede my point and the point of every other sentinent Canadian who is honest with self and others. You explicitly admitted a correlation with crime and the black (non-white) population. I didn't say that - you did. You're just too stupid to realize that you defeated *yourself* in this argument. Game, set, match."
By admitting a correlation, does not imply a causation. Nor does it concede this argument. This is a logical precept for which you seem to be unaware. Yet, you continue your attempts to claim that I'm somehow unread and have a poorer grasp on reasoning than you. But if we were to make an objective analysis of my arguments and your arguments, I think we'd find that your arguments (as almost always) are weighted heavily by ad hominem, red herrings and non sequiturs.
A prime example is you constantly calling me a Marxist. This is meant as both an ad hominem, in that it's an insult, and it's also meant seemingly as a literal, in that you think it somehow describes my political disposition. Yet, like your attempts to label Toronto's minorities as a problem, despite general evidence to the contrary, such as: low crime rates relative to other Canadian cities, lower welfare rates compared to native-born Canadians, with the exception of Caribbean immigrants, all other immigrant groups have lower incarceration rates than do all other immigrant groups.
In fact, with the exception of Caribbean immigrants of which, in Toronto, are a very small minority; most immigrants to Toronto are Asian, with about 30% of the entire population of Toronto being East Asian, who make on average, more money per year than Canadian-born persons, are generally more highly educated, and have among the lowest crime rates of any ethnic group, including whites.
Just as you like to point to the 49.5% visible minority statistic as a generalized problem, while excusing yourself of any attempts to be intellectually honest, you and others persist in labelling me things like "socialist" and "Marxist".
This is quite entertaining, because you really have no evidence that I'm either of these things, since immigration and social views are not directly indicative of a political ideology. (See: "Package-deal fallacy"; another reasoning error that you keep making)
In fact, the title of this article is "Private initiative", where I am celebrating people solving problems without the use of government.
My criticisms of Stephen Harper and the CPC have been mainly based on the fact that he has not reduced the size of government, or done anything fiscally conservative.
How you fit these disparate facts all together and come to the conclusion that I am a "Marxist" is one of the most bewildering things I've ever seen.
It's much in the same way that most Americans believe that atheism and communism are effectively the same thing, for no other reason than they've been indoctrinated not to use their fucking brains.
If I'm a Marxist, then so is Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, etc. Although none of them are around to answer to your characterization of my views--which are largely shared by these individuals--I'm sure they'd be quite interested to hear that the political commentator extraordinaire "Fair Comment" has used his overwhelming philosophical and political acumen to equate classical liberalism, libertarianism and free market liberalism with "Marxism".
You complain about me Godwin'ing the argument. Except that's effectively what you always do when you try to label me a "Marxist".
It's the same thing. Just a different tact, and different demon to apply.
Mike is a wannabe pundit and talk show host and knows that being politically incorrect will adversely affect his popularity. He doesn't care about being right, he cares about being a radio show host and being accepted by the chattering classes.
This is particularly bullshit point, because ever since I became more outspoken on my social views, I've been "less accepted" by the "chattering classes". The political commentary scene is overwhelmingly dominated by social conservatives: on talk radio, blogs, etc.
You demonstrate such typical behaviour of so many politically charged people on both the left and the right: the need to demonize and project motivations onto the people you disagree with in order to make yourself feel more righteous.
If you think you're such a fantastic master of argumentation and logic, then why don't you come on the show this week. I formally invite you. Come take me on.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-20 10:42:24 AM
"Speaking of Calgary's murder rate, have you read the names of murderers?"
It doesn't matter. Calgary has more violent crime than Toronto. You're changing the subject instead of addressing the fact that the proposition was made that Toronto has big problems because of the 49.5% visible minority demographic.
In fact, Toronto has lower violent crime than Montreal, which is Toronto's most-white big city (about 80%).
A simple paging through the statistics challenged your simplistic attack on Toronto as having too many "visible minorities".
In fact, Toronto has one of the lowest crime rates for a city of it's size in the entire world.
If someone were to listen to you or Fair Commenter, they would get the impression that Toronto is a bastion of immigrant crime, urban decay, and "racial tensions"--which is contradicted by all the evidence.
This is the reason I think you are a racist.
You are obsessed with defending a position that you want to believe; that immigrants are this big encumbering crime problem, overbearing weight on our society and a big fat negative for Toronto--even though there is no bloody data to support it. Whenever I present evidence to the contrary, you don't respond to it, you simply try and draw focus towards a data point that supports your position. That's called confirmation bias.
You are trying to paint a picture that has no bearing on reality. None at all.
I could point out that almost all street crime that does exist--particularly in the Caribbean community--is drug trade related, and that legalizing marijuana would cut off most of the money supply to those gangs, but with you people: we don't have time for rational solutions.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-20 11:04:03 AM
Wow. I should move to Toronto. What's the job situation down there? Do you think any of those highly educated, socially superior east asians would hire someone like me?
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-20 11:30:51 AM
An interesting back-and-forth but Mike has not provided any evidence that the facts stated by Speller are positive instead of negative. Try to skip the attacks on others and present us with evidence that Speller's stated facts are a positive.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-20 11:32:22 AM
"An interesting back-and-forth but Mike has not provided any evidence that the facts stated by Speller are positive instead of negative. Try to skip the attacks on others and present us with evidence that Speller's stated facts are a positive."
A few points.
I did not start this conversation about Toronto's demographic makeup. I only responded to it. The onus is never on the respondent in an argument to disprove the statement that someone else presents. The onus is on them to prove it--emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
If you say: 49.5% of Toronto are visible minorities, and that's a bad thing--which is what was said--it is actually not my responsibility to disprove this. It's your responsibility to prove it incontrovertibly.
That said, I have responded with statistics and evidence that flies in the face of the presumption that the demographic makeup of Toronto is leading to "racial tension".
Alain, show me one place in this conversation where my points have been refuted? And show me one place where the connection between minority demographics and crime rates in Toronto have been affirmed.
Rather, it's a nonstop barrage of how much of a "socialist" or "Marxist" I am. Or how I've "concede defeat" by admitting a corollary. And now, the burden is on me.
Arguing with you guys is Kafkaesque.
I think it's safe to assume at this point, that none of the people I'm debating here have any formal education in either logic or critical thinking.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-20 12:15:49 PM
So, you're turning this into a short-dick contest, Mike?
Last time I checked, formal education was the last place to learn logic, or critical thinking.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-20 12:35:20 PM
"Last time I checked, formal education was the last place to learn logic, or critical thinking."
dp,
I'm merely expressing frustration at the fact that you are all arguing as if you have superior reasoning skills to me, with my positions being classified--in ad hominem--as "Marxist".
Describe to me, what logic and critical thinking are to you? Considering you subscribe to a different school than me, I'd be really interested in hearing how you reason. As a engineer and scientist, I subscribe to the formal school of logic and reasoning.
To me, critical thinking is about challenging your own biases. That means, if I'm inclined to believe something instinctually, that should be a sign that I need to pay particular attention to real evidence as opposed to following my gut. This is key to avoiding the typical confirmation bias we suffer from as human beings.
This means, I don't just read authors who agree with me. I also read authors who disagree with me. I am willing to engage, say, Dr. Dawg in a debate (which I do regularly) over our differences in political opinions, without resorting to insulting him.
A critical thinker does not try to turn the conversation around on someone they disagree with. Rather, they engage in a constructive debate, where the other person's points are considered, explored and challenged if a fault is found.
When I pointed out Toronto's comparative crime rates, in response to the claim that 49.5% of Toronto's population being visible minorities are a bad thing, the only response to that was for me to look at the names of the murderers in Calgary.
What school of critical thinking do you come from, that makes you think that's a productive argument?
Have you read the definition of "red herring"? If you have, you certainly take issue with the applicability of a red herring argument in a formal debate, since you evidently have no problem with it. You have no problem with arguments based in ad hominem, either. You also seemingly reject emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
Essentially, you have your own rules. You define the rules as to what makes a reasoned debate. You define what comprises proof and disproof.
Like I said: kafkaesque.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-20 12:55:13 PM
Mike- Maybe you'd have more traffic on your own site, if you quit making it all about you.
Nobody enjoys listening to someone, who makes a point of claiming he has superior intellect, and therefore his point of view must be the correct one.
Toronto, and much of southern Ontario has forgotten an important rule of economics. A society that doesn't support local business will collapse. All you smart people, driving to work in your little hondas and toyotas, thinking you've made some sort of statement. Working at your work stations, not giving a shit about those blue collar proles. The factories close, the workers move west, and pretty soon, you realize no one needs you to sit at those work stations, any more.
The same applies to the workforce. Managers don't want to pay decent wages, so they push for more immigration. They fake some statistics, and make it uncomfortable for locals to stay on the job. Businesse fall, like dominos. Ethnic groups squeeze out everyone, and bring in extended family. Whole communities become recruiting grounds for more immigration.
High unemployment, no job opportunities for local workers, schools being overrun with foreign students. Local products no longer available in stores. Neighbourhoods that don't speak either official language. Religious persecution.
Maybe not today, Maybe not tomorrow. But soon.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-20 1:36:12 PM
Mike, you did not respond to the facts of Toronto's demographic make-up. You resorted to calling others racists, bigots et cetera. That is not a response but an emotional reaction. If you dispute the facts, then prove that the facts are positive rather than negative. The smoke-and-mirrors routine does not an argument make.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-20 1:44:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.