Canada Kicks Ass
FACT: Canadaka.net's T-Shirt merchandise: MADE IN AMERICA

REPLY

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next



Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:43 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
WTF? I never claimed he said he was free of globalization, I said the opposite.


Then why reprimand others for it? Why care?

$1:
“It's not about chastising "others for the acts he can’t abstain from himself," It's about chastising others for committing acts that they claim to be against. This is along the same lines of: Do As I Say, Not As I do.”


Where did CKA specifically outline that they are formally opposed to all things concerned with globalization? If this twit is a proponent of it (and so far, all I’ve seen from him is moronic blabbering, and obvious observations) then why narrowly interpret a website’s slogan, embellish its meaning and then invent a bogus, unsubstantiated argument that they are somehow being hypocrites?

$1:
“This is along the same lines of: Do As I Say, Not As I do.”


And this reeks of disingenuous prattle. This translates to “hypocrisy is tolerable when I do it and it shouldn’t be confused with my real, noble intentions.” If you can’t practice, what you preach, you don’t get to chastise others. If you want to cower behind such juvenile tactics (as does the kind of person you seem bent on defending) that’s certainly your prerogative, but it still doesn’t salvage your crumbling “argument.”

$1:
“This website is self-proclaimed as a "liberal-leaning site," among the issues trumped by the left is the plight of sweatshop workers.”


Yet another argumentative fallacy! Bravo! You’ve narrowly construed “liberal-leaning” as merely the entire ideological left of the spectrum? Is it Lockian or democratic socialist or is it moderate and centrist? Is it a reference to the Canadian Liberal Political Party or the unique Canadian political flavour associated with our brand of Leftism? The fact is that the diction is ambiguous as to the specific ideological tenets associated with its philosophical doctrines. You’ve gone and not only declared exactly what it means, but also assigned specific meaning – specific policy, no less – to its declaration. It’s presumptuous, unfounded and factually erroneous. Next time, don’t narrowly interpret ambiguous political statements, as it tends to hinder your “argument’s” basic foundation. Oops…too late!

$1:
“Kind of ironic that a "liberal-leaning" site would have their merchandise made in sweatshops isn't it?”


No, you narrowly and erroneously interpreted a vague (and most certainly politically moderate) statement, assigned ideological framework – and actual policy, no less – and then constructed an entire supposition surrounding the faulty methodology. Nice try.

$1:
“Where did I assume it only refered to economic matters?”


What about, “The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.”

And when you responded to Derby’s specific comments regarding U.S. economic matters, you curiously countered with, “Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.”

If you didn’t assume it meant “economic” matters, why argue that your interpretation was valid in light of the official ambiguity? You weren’t trying to find out what it meant, you were trying save your presumptuous understanding that was proving overly simplistic and overly exclusive

$1:
“While "deep" integration is stated, it is not stated just how "deep" that intergration is. As far as I know it could mean anything. I have asked numerous times on this forum (not just in this thread) as to what exactly "no deep integration with the USA" means, I have yet to recieve an answer to this. The website that the banner links to isn't very specific as to what the slogan means either, and I suspect has been left deliberatly vague.”


Exactly, then don’t assume anything until you get a specific answer.

$1:
“Doesn't seem all that "liberal-leaning" of CKA to support sweatshops now does it?”


Where does it say that CKA support sweatshops? Besides, couldn’t CKA just retreat to you sorry “Do As I Say, Not As I do” defence? It would seem as though you have painted yourself into quite a corner. Have fun trying to get out!

$1:
“I have no beef with globalization whatsoever, I do have a beef with hypocrisy however”


And I have a beef with ignorance, argumentative fallacies, disingenuous posters and incessant cheerleaders, but I tolerate you, don’t I? Zing! Seriously folks, I’ll be here all week. And try the steak - it’s delicious.

$1:
“Omitted? Your "correction" of my analogy was flawed since it was dependent on Rabblewatch being against globalization and integration with the USA, which is completely unsubstantiated.”


I’ll spot you two posts to correct that. It was also about your analogy’s piss poor execution, but I’ve been too sporting as of late and now it’s your turn to correct your own shortcomings.
:twisted:

Keep on trucking in 2005!

   



PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:37 pm

Mustang1 Mustang1:
Then why reprimand others for it? Why care?

What? Reprimand others for what? What are you talking about? You made an incorrect statement and I called you on it. No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.

$1:
Where did CKA specifically outline that they are formally opposed to all things concerned with globalization?

Where did I make any such claim that they did?

If CKA is against "deep integration with the USA," then what exactly does this mean? Can I not question the apparent hypocrisy of this slogan when they do business with the USA in order to promote Canada? How is this not "deep integration with the USA" when a "patriotic" Canadian website is forced to resort to American business to trump their cause? It's not just an economic matter, which you wrongly assume I assumed, this transcends into other matters as well. Just the fact that a Canadian website has to go to an American business to promote Canada, all the while denouncing "deep integration" with America is patently absurd. It has little to do with economic matters. It would be akin to asking an American to promote Canada by saying nice things about Canada to Canadians. Same deal.

I ask again, how is this not "deep integration" since you are the only one allowed to define "deep integration."

$1:
If this twit is a proponent of it (and so far, all I’ve seen from him is moronic blabbering, and obvious observations) then why narrowly interpret a website’s slogan, embellish its meaning and then invent a bogus, unsubstantiated argument that they are somehow being hypocrites?

Okay then, put your money where your mouth is and define it yourself if you think his interpretation is "narrow."

$1:
And this reeks of disingenuous prattle. This translates to “hypocrisy is tolerable when I do it and it shouldn’t be confused with my real, noble intentions.” If you can’t practice, what you preach, you don’t get to chastise others. If you want to cower behind such juvenile tactics (as does the kind of person you seem bent on defending) that’s certainly your prerogative, but it still doesn’t salvage your crumbling “argument.”

I'm not preaching anything you mindless buffoon. I'm not arguing against globalization or integration with the USA like you keep insisting that I am.

$1:
Yet another argumentative fallacy! Bravo! You’ve narrowly construed “liberal-leaning” as merely the entire ideological left of the spectrum? Is it Lockian or democratic socialist or is it moderate and centrist? Is it a reference to the Canadian Liberal Political Party or the unique Canadian political flavour associated with our brand of Leftism? The fact is that the diction is ambiguous as to the specific ideological tenets associated with its philosophical doctrines. You’ve gone and not only declared exactly what it means, but also assigned specific meaning – specific policy, no less – to its declaration. It’s presumptuous, unfounded and factually erroneous. Next time, don’t narrowly interpret ambiguous political statements, as it tends to hinder your “argument’s” basic foundation. Oops…too late!

Way to go spliting hairs. I'm sure if you ask most people here if they are against outsourcing jobs to third world sweatshops they would say yes. Go ahead take a poll. In fact go ahead and ask Canadaka himself whether he thinks it's a good idea. I know what the popular consensus is on the issue here because I have posted here before. I am not new to Canadaka.net

$1:
No, you narrowly and erroneously interpreted a vague (and most certainly politically moderate) statement, assigned ideological framework – and actual policy, no less – and then constructed an entire supposition surrounding the faulty methodology. Nice try.

You and I both know what was meant by that statement, and it was not of "politically moderate" motivations. You need to learn to take things in context and not at face value.

$1:
What about, “The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.”

And when you responded to Derby’s specific comments regarding U.S. economic matters, you curiously countered with, “Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.”

If you didn’t assume it meant “economic” matters, why argue that your interpretation was valid in light of the official ambiguity? You weren’t trying to find out what it meant, you were trying save your presumptuous understanding that was proving overly simplistic and overly exclusive

See above. The issue is not exlusive to economic matters.

$1:
Exactly, then don’t assume anything until you get a specific answer.

Like that stopped you from providing your own definition.

$1:
Where does it say that CKA support sweatshops?

If CKA merchandise were made in sweatshops or made by a company that operates sweatshops, would that not be supporing sweatshops?

$1:
Besides, couldn’t CKA just retreat to you sorry “Do As I Say, Not As I do” defence?

Funny, I don't remember ever using that defence.

$1:
It would seem as though you have painted yourself into quite a corner. Have fun trying to get out!

Is this an attempt at humour?

$1:
And I have a beef with ignorance, argumentative fallacies, disingenuous posters and incessant cheerleaders, but I tolerate you, don’t I? Zing! Seriously folks, I’ll be here all week. And try the steak - it’s delicious.

Why do you keep saying I am against globalization when I have said explicitly that I am not?

$1:
I’ll spot you two posts to correct that. It was also about your analogy’s piss poor execution, but I’ve been too sporting as of late and now it’s your turn to correct your own shortcomings.

Enough with the ad hominem attacks please.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:52 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.


Denouncing intergration with the USA a major component of rabblewatch's current blog.

   



PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:54 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.


Denouncing intergration with the USA a major component of rabblewatch's current blog.

Show me.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:58 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.


Denouncing intergration with the USA a major component of rabblewatch's current blog.

Show me.


You want me to click it for you?

   



PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:59 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.


Denouncing intergration with the USA a major component of rabblewatch's current blog.

Show me.


You want me to click it for you?

quote me the text that is anti-globalization and anti-intergration with the USA.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:09 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.


Denouncing intergration with the USA a major component of rabblewatch's current blog.

Show me.


You want me to click it for you?

quote me the text that is anti-globalization and anti-intergration with the USA.


Here's your link, Sport :
http://www.canadianliberals.blogspot.com/

By the way, I've noticed your friend has already changed his website so he wouldn't be caught with his flagrant libels.

Still pretty over the top, though.

And of course, utterly irrational. He's accusing the Mod here for posting his IP address when even he also backhandedly admits that never happened.

Did you go out of your way to find raving lunatic for a friend, or do people like that just gravitate to you?

   



PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:15 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Here's your link, Sport :
http://www.canadianliberals.blogspot.com/

That doesn't prove anything. SHOW ME WHERE HE STATES THAT HE IS AGAINST GLOBALIZATION AND INTEGRATION WITH THE USA.

If you know it's there than it should not be hard to find, no?

$1:
By the way, I've noticed your friend has already changed his website so he wouldn't be caught with his flagrant libels.

Still pretty over the top, though.

And of course, utterly irrational. He's accusing the Mod here for posting his IP address when even he also backhandedly admits that never happened.

Yeah, I don't agree with his accusations regarding the mod. If he's so concerned with his privacy he should use a proxy site, I told him myself.

$1:
Did you go out of your way to find raving lunatic for a friend, or do people like that just gravitate to you?

What leaves you to believe he is my friend? Are you best buddies with Mustang just because you agree with him on some issues?

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:24 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

That doesn't prove anything. SHOW ME WHERE HE STATES THAT HE IS AGAINST GLOBALIZATION AND INTEGRATION WITH THE USA.

If you know it's there than it should not be hard to find, no?


I'm not going to read his blog to you. Especially since I don't see the point. Anyone else here can read for themselves, I don't need to demonstrate it to you.

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
Did you go out of your way to find raving lunatic for a friend, or do people like that just gravitate to you?

What leaves you to believe he is my friend? Are you best buddies with Mustang just because you agree with him on some issues?


Oh, no. Mustang1 hates me with a deep and unsatisfied passion.

We don't even post in response to each other anymore.

But as far as you and your best buddy go, there would have been a question of ip addresses if many people hadn't thought you were the same person.

   



PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:34 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
I'm not going to read his blog to you. Especially since I don't see the point. Anyone else here can read for themselves, I don't need to demonstrate it to you.

Oh okay, so you really don't have an argument then. I see.

$1:
Oh, no. Mustang1 hates me with a deep and unsatisfied passion.

We don't even post in response to each other anymore.

But as far as you and your best buddy go, there would have been a question of ip addresses if many people hadn't thought you were the same person.

What does this have to do with anything? I am not "friends" with rabblewatch, and never claimed to be. It's just that we are on the same side of the debate.

   



Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:41 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
What? Reprimand others for what? What are you talking about? You made an incorrect statement and I called you on it. No where on this forum have I or rabblewatch denounced globalization or intergration with the USA, yet your entire argument seems to be wrapped around this belief that we are.



Nope. Nice try. I attacked his hypocrisy, his erroneous suppositions, his argumentative limitations and his cowardly tactics. You? You are merely his cheerleader.

And I noticed you conveniently dodged this,

Duthers: “Where did I assume it only referred to economic matters?”

Mustang1: “What about, “The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.”

And when you responded to Derby’s specific comments regarding U.S. economic matters, you curiously countered with, “Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.”

If you didn’t assume it meant “economic” matters, why argue that your interpretation was valid in light of the official ambiguity? You weren’t trying to find out what it meant, you were trying save your presumptuous understanding that was proving overly simplistic and overly exclusive”

That’s Dodge #1

$1:
“Where did I make any such claim that they did?”


Then why promote and continue your current line of reasoning? Besides, I’ve already demonstrated where you’ve been wrong before and you just gloss over it a pitiful attempt ignore its veracity. I won’t play this game as long as you suck off when your mistakes are brought to the forefront.

$1:
“If CKA is against "deep integration with the USA," then what exactly does this mean? Can I not question the apparent hypocrisy of this slogan when they do business with the USA in order to promote Canada? How is this not "deep integration with the USA" when a "patriotic" Canadian website is forced to resort to American business to trump their cause? It's not just an economic matter, which you wrongly assume I assumed, this transcends into other matters as well. Just the fact that a Canadian website has to go to an American business to promote Canada, all the while denouncing "deep integration" with America is patently absurd. It has little to do with economic matters. It would be akin to asking an American to promote Canada by saying nice things about Canada to Canadians. Same deal.

I ask again, how is this not "deep integration" since you are the only one allowed to define "deep integration."


Again, if you don’t know what it means, perhaps you shouldn’t assume anything. You are the one that made the narrow interpretation and now you spinning your wheels trying to rationalize your mistake. I never made a specific construal nor did I hinge an argument’s thrust off a subjective interpretation.

You demonstrate exactly where I said that I was the only “allowed to define deep intergration”. You made the claim, now you back it up. You’ll dodge this, but you’ll only appear shifty and cowardly in the process.

$1:
“Okay then, put your money where your mouth is and define it yourself if you think his interpretation is "narrow."


Ok, you think it means economic. Prove it. You demonstrate how it can’t be construed as cultural or political integration. Go ahead, my goal is easy as all I have to do is establish the ambiguity and you, my moronic chum, must establish the specific reading is blatant, objective and conclusive. Have fun with that challenge, dullard.

$1:
“I'm not preaching anything you mindless buffoon. I'm not arguing against globalization or integration with the USA like you keep insisting that I am.”


Who cares? Piss off and intellectually masturbate your little buddy in private then.

$1:
“Way to go spliting hairs. I'm sure if you ask most people here if they are against outsourcing jobs to third world sweatshops they would say yes. Go ahead take a poll. In fact go ahead and ask Canadaka himself whether he thinks it's a good idea. I know what the popular consensus is on the issue here because I have posted here before. I am not new to Canadaka.net


Dodge! You didn’t address my salient points. I initially wrote, “! You’ve narrowly construed “liberal-leaning” as merely the entire ideological left of the spectrum? Is it Lockian or democratic socialist or is it moderate and centrist? Is it a reference to the Canadian Liberal Political Party or the unique Canadian political flavour associated with our brand of Leftism? The fact is that the diction is ambiguous as to the specific ideological tenets associated with its philosophical doctrines. You’ve gone and not only declared exactly what it means, but also assigned specific meaning – specific policy, no less – to its declaration. It’s presumptuous, unfounded and factually erroneous.” Y
ou responded with that nonsensical prattle. Keep trying.

$1:
“You and I both know what was meant by that statement, and it was not of "politically moderate" motivations. You need to learn to take things in context and not at face value.”

Don’t include me in your little world of ignorance, logical fallacies and dullardy. Besides, I really don’t take advice from the likes of you. Save it for your little buddy.

$1:
“See above. The issue is not exlusive to economic matters.”


Now that is just plain lazy. Pathetic. It was exclusively about economic matters. See your quotes, halfwit, as I’ve provided the text evidence. Next!

$1:
“Like that stopped you from providing your own definition.”


What’s my definition? Come on, you keep playing this pitifully repetitive tune, now let’s see the post evidence where I specifically outline a definition for CKA’s Banner and Mission Statement. You made the accusation, now let’s see you back it up.

$1:
“If CKA merchandise were made in sweatshops or made by a company that operates sweatshops, would that not be supporing sweatshops?”


Firstly, I challenged you show me where it “SAYS” CKA directly supports sweatshops? Where is it? Where is the official endorsement of sweatshops? Besides, show me the irrefutable evidence that not only demonstrates each and every piece of clothing on this site is made in a sweatshop, but that CKA was consciously aware of this fact at the time of ordering as well. Let’s see what you got on this one.

$1:
“Funny, I don't remember ever using that defence.”


Didn’t you endorse it when you justified for rabblewatch? Didn’t you write the following, “It's not about chastising "others for the acts he can’t abstain from himself," It's about chastising others for committing acts that they claim to be against. This is along the same lines of: Do As I Say, Not As I do.”?
Besides, you still failed to challenge its core legitimacy. If rabblewatch can use, why can’t CKA? Dodge away!

$1:
“Is this an attempt at humour?”


Was that an attempt at a comeback? Damn.

$1:
“Enough with the ad hominem attacks please.”


Good one, hypocrite! Didn’t you just post that I am a “mindless buffoon”? It’s right in this rebuttal post! You can’t even manage to practice what you preach in ONE post! Damn, you really are a dumb, pitiful animal. Hey, look another ad hominem! Damn, this is too easy

Besides, you have only 1 post left to fix your infantile attempt at obfuscating your blatant argumentative fallacy with pitiful self-congratulatory declarations of victory. You’ll dodge, but when you do, I predicted it.

Keep trying…

   



twister @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:43 pm

could be worse could be made in china ( as most textiles are) or indonesia, Korea, Laos, thialand, India....Brasil
So big deal Made in USA made in Canada... everybody wants stuff thats cheap pretty soon made in america or Canada won't exist....

   



Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:46 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Oh, no. Mustang1 hates me with a deep and unsatisfied passion.



Oh…come on, I don’t hate you with a deep and unsatisfied passion. Not entirely, at any rate. :wink:

But I do find this PM_Duthers to be suspiciously supportive of another entirely unscrupulous and cowards “former” poster. I can’t prove anything, but it does seem awfully convenient.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:46 pm

PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
I'm not going to read his blog to you. Especially since I don't see the point. Anyone else here can read for themselves, I don't need to demonstrate it to you.

Oh okay, so you really don't have an argument then. I see.

$1:
Oh, no. Mustang1 hates me with a deep and unsatisfied passion.

We don't even post in response to each other anymore.

But as far as you and your best buddy go, there would have been a question of ip addresses if many people hadn't thought you were the same person.

What does this have to do with anything? I am not "friends" with rabblewatch, and never claimed to be. It's just that we are on the same side of the debate.


You're not addressing anything here. If you later have a point to make, post something.

   



Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:52 pm

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
I'm not going to read his blog to you. Especially since I don't see the point. Anyone else here can read for themselves, I don't need to demonstrate it to you.

Oh okay, so you really don't have an argument then. I see.

$1:
Oh, no. Mustang1 hates me with a deep and unsatisfied passion.

We don't even post in response to each other anymore.

But as far as you and your best buddy go, there would have been a question of ip addresses if many people hadn't thought you were the same person.

What does this have to do with anything? I am not "friends" with rabblewatch, and never claimed to be. It's just that we are on the same side of the debate.


You're addressing anything here. If you later have a point to make, post something.


I agree – his first foray into this thread was,

$1:
“My god this is absolutely hilarious! The left beaten by their own retarded rules!

Also, wtf is with this "no deep integration with the USA" bs? WE DEPEND ON THE USA FOR OUR EVERY NEED. And it's a good thing too.


Sounds rather bombastic, combative and opportunistic. It also appeared to be a blatant attack on a site that he/she freely chooses to participate in – a rather uncivilized “re-emergence” to say the least.

Makes me wonder why post at all, if you feel the need to slam Trev and his site?

   



REPLY

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next