CBC’s Hockey Night in Canada window set to close

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

If the CBC receives a billion dollars per year (averaging out to 31 dollars per year per canadian), I'm getting one damn good deal.

That's nice. You're getting that deal at my expense, and I almost certainly make less money than you do.

That's $31 per year per Canadian whether they watch it or not.

I think everyone agrees it's a pretty big ripoff when all cable subscribers are required to subsidize sports networks out of their cable fees whether they watch sports or not. And those folks have the option of cancelling their cable. We don't have the option of unsubscribing from the government.

The CBC isn't there to just flush all of our money down the drain, it's there to give access to those of us who need it.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, needs access to over-the-air TV. I had no television at all for years on end, and I never missed it. Today, I only subscribe to cable TV because it's cheaper to get a phone + Internet + cable bundle than just phone + Internet; and the only thing I ever use the TV for is to watch hockey. No doubt you all would have to do without my scintillating contributions to this board if I threw away my TV set, but I think we would all survive somehow.

If the federal government cancelled the CBC tomorrow and put the money into broadband infrastructure, so that people in remote parts of the country would be better served by the Internet, I would rejoice. The Internet can give you access to the world — or only to lolcats and porn, but it's your own choice. The CBC only gives you access to what the CBC chooses to put on the air — and it does not give you any means of talking back.

[Boreal]

The CBC is cultural and intellectual infrastructure. In addition, it completes its mandate while stimulating the Canadian economy, nationally and regionally. It gives Canadians enhanced connectivity from Coast to Coast to Coast while providing programming that can enhance Canadian well being. It fulfils a vital role that private broadcasters cannot fulfill because it has a goal of enhanced Canadian well being, not simply profit.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/arts/story/1.999030

In calculating CBC's overall impact, Deloitte considered the effect of a CBC that did not have a public mandate or a parliamentary allocation and was forced to rely on advertising and other commercial revenue streams. This kind of broadcaster would contribute much less to the economy because it would be forced to buy more foreign programming, would crowd out private broadcasters and would contribute less to creative communities across Canada, the study says.

Oversimplifying the government funding of public broadcasting to "I pay for it whether I use it or not" or "I can get all of that from the internet" is ridiculous. It sounds like statement straight out of the Edmonton Oiler book of management. Maybe I should have "a choice" to Cherry pick what infrastructure projects I choose to fund because I don't have the mental capacity to understand the complexity involved in bringing products to and from market. Oversimplifying things to this kind of rhetoric is toxic.

The benefits of utilizing infrastructure (physical, cultural , or intellectual) are not straightforward. Like most economic development, it's diverse, variant. And much like venture capitalism, it is highly unpredictable to discern where and when MASSIVE benefits that dwarf the original investment can and will occur.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

The CBC is cultural and intellectual infrastructure.

Which is easily duplicated by the private sector. It made sense to have a public broadcaster in the 1950s, when television was cutting-edge technology and long-distance broadcasting required a massive investment in things like microwave relay towers. It makes no sense now.

In addition, it completes its mandate while stimulating the Canadian economy, nationally and regionally.

Broken window fallacy. Government spending stimulates the economy if and only if the economic activity produced by the spending exceeds the activity that would have been produced if the money had been left in the taxpayers’ hands to spend themselves. This is asserted but not proved.

It gives Canadians enhanced connectivity from Coast to Coast to Coast while providing programming that can enhance Canadian well being.

It gives connectivity to the government and its hand-picked producers and actors, not to the public at large. The public are merely required to sit there and passively consume what the CBC chooses to offer them. This ‘enhances Canadian well-being’ only if you assume that the government knows better what Canadians need than they know themselves, which again, is asserted but not proved — and very unlikely on the face of it.

It fulfils a vital role that private broadcasters cannot fulfill because it has a goal of enhanced Canadian well being, not simply profit.

You have learnt your lessons well, and you shall have a cookie with 100% Canadian content. As for me, I prefer to pursue my own idea of well-being, and not have it defined for me by a shiny-bottomed bureaucrat in Toronto.

Oversimplifying the government funding of public broadcasting to "I pay for it whether I use it or not" or "I can get all of that from the internet" is ridiculous.

But in fact, I do pay for it whether I like it or not, and I can get all of that from the Internet (and much more besides). If you consider it ridiculous to cite obvious facts, then you need to re-examine your standards of ridicule.

It sounds like statement straight out of the Edmonton Oiler book of management.

Irrelevant ad hominem, and silly besides, since you assert an analogy without in any way explaining where the alleged similarity lies. But perhaps you think I am so stupid that I will be shamed into changing my considered views by the utterance of the taboo-word ‘Edmonton’. I can assure you that I am not.

Maybe I should have "a choice" to Cherry pick what infrastructure projects I choose to fund because I don't have the mental capacity to understand the complexity involved in bringing products to and from market.

Disagreeing with statist rhetoric is not evidence against anyone’s mental capacity. I will not be buffaloed by insinuations that I am mentally defective, since I have abundant proof that this is not the case. If anyone in this conversation lacks mental capacity, it is yourself, for blithely assuming that your opponents are ipso facto stupid.

Oversimplifying things to this kind of rhetoric is toxic.

Really? What are the toxic effects of ‘this kind of rhetoric’ on the human system? What is its LD50? Does it, in fact, have such effects at all? Or are you merely being rhetorical yourself, to the point of plain absurdity? I conjecture the latter.

The benefits of utilizing infrastructure (physical, cultural , or intellectual) are not straightforward.

Indeed. Which is why one must carefully investigate the alternatives, and allocate the limited resources available where they will do the most good. The CBC is not an instance of this; it is merely a case of allocating resources where they have been allocated for more than 70 years past, because the bureaucracy acts as a lobby for its own continuance.

Like most economic development, it's diverse, variant.

The CBC is a political and ideological monoculture. If you want diverse and ‘variant’ broadcasting, you had better leave it to the voices of the citizenry than to a self-perpetuating bureaucratic monolith.

And much like venture capitalism, it is highly unpredictable to discern where and when MASSIVE benefits that dwarf the original investment can and will occur.

We have been waiting now since 1936. Where are these massive benefits of which you speak?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Irrelevant ad hominem, and silly besides, since you assert an analogy without in any way explaining where the alleged similarity lies. But perhaps you think I am so stupid that I will be shamed into changing my considered views by the utterance of the taboo-word ‘Edmonton’. I can assure you that I am not.



Disagreeing with statist rhetoric is not evidence against anyone’s mental capacity. I will not be buffaloed by insinuations that I am mentally defective, since I have abundant proof that this is not the case. If anyone in this conversation lacks mental capacity, it is yourself, for blithely assuming that your opponents are ipso facto stupid.



Really? What are the toxic effects of ‘this kind of rhetoric’ on the human system? What is its LD50? Does it, in fact, have such effects at all? Or are you merely being rhetorical yourself, to the point of plain absurdity? I conjecture the latter.



Indeed. Which is why one must carefully investigate the alternatives, and allocate the limited resources available where they will do the most good. The CBC is not an instance of this; it is merely a case of allocating resources where they have been allocated for more than 70 years past, because the bureaucracy acts as a lobby for its own continuance.



The CBC is a political and ideological monoculture. If you want diverse and ‘variant’ broadcasting, you had better leave it to the voices of the citizenry than to a self-perpetuating bureaucratic monolith.



We have been waiting now since 1936. Where are these massive benefits of which you speak?

Did anyone else notice that this post by Jay Random started off like a normal person talking until the part where his mental capacity was questioned, then it was like he went on google and started looking up smarter ways to say things, and it came off really unnatural.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Did anyone else notice that this post by Jay Random started off like a normal person talking until the part where his mental capacity was questioned, then it was like he went on google and started looking up smarter ways to say things, and it came off really unnatural.

I write like that all the time in my day job, no Google required. When I post on here, I dumb it down for the rest of you schmucks.

If nobles_point wants to call people mentally incapable, then I shall do him the honour of assuming he is capable enough to understand my language when the gloves come off. If he needs subtitles, he’s not as smart as he thinks.

[CliffFletcher]

Pacifists still have to pay for a military whose operations have little to do with defending the territory of Canada. Those without cars still have to contribute to the massive state subsidization of roads. People without children pay taxes that go to public education. Such is life in the modern state. If you find those contributions unfair, express your disapproval in the democratic arena by supporting like-minded candidates.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Pacifists still have to pay for a military whose operations have little to do with defending the territory of Canada. Those without cars still have to contribute to the massive state subsidization of roads. People without children pay taxes that go to public education. Such is life in the modern state. If you find those contributions unfair, express your disapproval in the democratic arena by supporting like-minded candidates.

You appear to be saying that you should not express your disapproval in words by, you know, expressing your disapproval. How on earth are you supposed to find like-minded candidates to support, if nobody is speaking their minds?

[Boreal]

Very succinct. There is no point in furthering this discussion with someone who is fundamentally anti-government, and can't understand the difference between humour and 'ad hominem'. I'm not going to waste my time trying. May your free choice reign as we cannibalize a sense of collective community and mutual understanding. Later.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You appear to be saying that you should not express your disapproval in words by, you know, expressing your disapproval. How on earth are you supposed to find like-minded candidates to support, if nobody is speaking their minds?

No. This is a public forum and you can say what you like. And I can challenge what you say. In this case, I'm challenging the notion that public finding for the CBC is wrong because a lot of citizens don't want it. In a modern democracy we pay for all sorts of things some of us don't want or need. There's no consensus on what we need to fund publicly. That lack of consensus isn't peculiar to the CBC.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by nobles_point

Very succinct. There is no point in furthering this discussion with someone who is fundamentally anti-government, and can't understand the difference between humour and 'ad hominem'. I'm not going to waste my time trying. May your free choice reign as we cannibalize a sense of collective community and mutual understanding. Later.

I said that I would be fully in favour of redirecting the CBC’s funding into Internet infrastructure — that is, spending tax moneys on high-value modern infrastructure, instead of using it to maintain an obsolete infrastructure suited to the age of unidirectional mass media. That is hardly the attitude of someone who is ‘fundamentally anti-government’.

If a thing does not need to be done at all, then government does not need to do it. I should think that would be uncontroversial — except to the sort of person who thinks that all government activity is sacred, and that a government program once started must go on forever.

As for the difference between humour and ad hominem, the two are not mutually exclusive. An insulting remark does not cease to be insulting because it happens to be funny. I would have expected a person of your superior mental capacity to know that.

As for ‘cannibalizing a sense of collective community’: If our sense of collective community is determined by the programming of the CBC, and would not exist without it, then it is such a poor thing that we might as well unplug the life-support system. A real community does not cease to exist just because there is no state propaganda machine to tell it what to think.

[Poe969]

I'm still trying to figure out what monolith means.....

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I'm still trying to figure out what monolith means.....

It means a big rock, such as Kelly Hrudey's head.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

1. Broken window fallacy. Government spending stimulates the economy if and only if the economic activity produced by the spending exceeds the activity that would have been produced if the money had been left in the taxpayers’ hands to spend themselves. This is asserted but not proved.

2. Irrelevant ad hominem, and silly besides, since you assert an analogy without in any way explaining where the alleged similarity lies.

3. Disagreeing with statist rhetoric is not evidence against anyone’s mental capacity. I will not be buffaloed by insinuations that I am mentally defective, since I have abundant proof that this is not the case. If anyone in this conversation lacks mental capacity, it is yourself, for blithely assuming that your opponents are ipso facto stupid.

4. What is its LD50? I conjecture the latter.

5. The CBC is a political and ideological monoculture.

1. The parable of the broken window concerns opportunistic spending in relation to destruction or the remediation of said destruction. It can't possibly apply in relation to the CBC

2. Actually, that wasn't as hominem. As hominem is a personal attack on someone, as "Sounds like a theory from Edmonton Oilers management" is in no way an attack on you as a person, in fact, it attacks your theory. An example of ad hominem would be the questioning of mental capacity, if you're going to use Latin, use it properly.

3. This would be an example of you engaging in an ad hominem attack on the other poster. As well, "buffaloed" means to intimidate or confuse. As the original poster quite obviously did not use his as hominem attack as a means to intimidate or confuse, you are either using the word improperly, or you do not understanding the post you quoted. As well, if you are to infer that the other poster was trying to "buffalo" you by questioning your mental capacity, then it is fair to assume you too are attempting the same. Add to that the fact that you used several possible fallacies (divine fallacy, argumentum r silentio, etc) to argue against a ad hominem attack, then I would say your entire argument is a bit silly. Plus, Ipsos facto means "by the fact itself", which is not how he claim to the conclusion on your intelligence.

4. You used conjecture improperly, as what you said amounts to this, "My theory is this: b, I theorize B." It's redundant, you could have just said assumed, instead of swinging for the fence and missing, it makes your arguments look ill-advised when your speech selections are equally so.

5. It should be explained to anyone interested that the Monolithic Ideology System was invented by Korea, and applies to an entire government body. Applying it to a television station is borderline ridiculous. It's scale and difference of intent makes your use in reference to CBC implausible at best. Unless you meant that the CBC is simply an organization that acts as an organization, in which case your use of "political" and "ideological" would be misplaced.

If you're going to use latin, or bring up informal fallacies, ensure you're using the words properly and not filling your argument with a variety of fallacies. It hurts the credibility of your argument when you make such attempts and miss so consistently. How is anyone to take you seriously if you can't even handle the language you're attempting to use?

Originally Posted by flameswin

Did anyone else notice that this post by Jay Random started off like a normal person talking until the part where his mental capacity was questioned, then it was like he went on google and started looking up smarter ways to say things, and it came off really unnatural.

Exactly.
Now, perhaps back to a little more CBC talk and a little less questioning of mental stability from those two!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by strombad

1. The parable of the broken window concerns opportunistic spending in relation to destruction or the remediation of said destruction. It can't possibly apply in relation to the CBC

Actually, broken window theory is routinely used to cover any situation where resources are taken from the public at large and redirected to special interests: see Bastiat, Hazlitt, and others.

2. Actually, that wasn't as hominem. As hominem is a personal attack on someone, as "Sounds like a theory from Edmonton Oilers management" is in no way an attack on you as a person, in fact, it attacks your theory. An example of ad hominem would be the questioning of mental capacity, if you're going to use Latin, use it properly.

Speaking of Latin, there is no such expression as ‘as hominem’. Comparing me to the management of the Edmonton Oilers (apart from being blazingly silly), on a Calgary Flames message board, was an obvious attempt to impute guilt by association — which is generally recognized as one of the forms of ad hominem. ‘Look at the stupid Oiler lover, haw haw!’ was essentially the burden of that particular remark.

3. This would be an example of you engaging in an ad hominem attack on the other poster.

No, because I pointed out the specific fallacy in his argument: the fact that he based his accusation of mental incapacity solely on the fact that I disagreed with him on a contentious political issue, not citing any other evidence in his support. I do not in fact believe that nobles_point is lacking in intellectual capacity; but when he accused me of lacking such capacity, he was, in fact, making an unintelligent (and unsupported) remark. A single foolish remark is very poor proof of intellectual deficiency, but a political disagreement is no proof at all. I am sorry if I did not make the comparison sufficiently explicit and precise for your liking.

As well, "buffaloed" means to intimidate or confuse. As the original poster quite obviously did not use his as hominem attack as a means to intimidate or confuse, you are either using the word improperly, or you do not understanding the post you quoted.

I interpreted his remark as an attempt to intimidate me into remaining silent by implying that I was too stupid to understand what the argument was about. I refuse to be manipulated in that way.

Add to that the fact that you used several possible fallacies (divine fallacy, argumentum r silentio, etc) to argue against a ad hominem attack, then I would say your entire argument is a bit silly.

If you would be good enough to supply instances of ‘divine fallacy’ and argumentum e silentio in my post, to say nothing of ‘etc.’, I should then be able to respond. As it is, I have no idea what you are talking about; and I am bound to suspect that you don’t, either.

Plus, Ipsos facto means "by the fact itself", which is not how he claim to the conclusion on your intelligence.

The only evidence he offered in support of his conclusion was that I disagreed with him. That was ‘the fact itself’ to which I was referring. I thought I made that sufficiently clear.

4. You used conjecture improperly, as what you said amounts to this, "My theory is this: b, I theorize B." It's redundant, you could have just said assumed, instead of swinging for the fence and missing, it makes your arguments look ill-advised when your speech selections are equally so.

Thank you, I did not use ‘conjecture’ improperly. I offered a choice of two alternatives, and then specified that I supported the second one. At no point did I employ a construction equivalent to ‘My theory is this: I theorize B’.

5. It should be explained to anyone interested that the Monolithic Ideology System was invented by Korea, and applies to an entire government body. Applying it to a television station is borderline ridiculous. It's scale and difference of intent makes your use in reference to CBC implausible at best.

If you think the word ‘monolith’ was invented solely for the purpose of referring to the politics of the Korean peninsula, you need to read more widely. I was not referring to that usage, nor was I implying it.

Unless you meant that the CBC is simply an organization that acts as an organization, in which case your use of "political" and "ideological" would be misplaced.

No, I meant that the CBC is an organization that promotes a specific political ideology to the exclusion of competing points of view (which, by the way, is no part of the purpose for which it was established and voted public funds). It is difficult to make such a claim without using ‘political’ or ‘ideological’.

If you're going to use latin, or bring up informal fallacies, ensure you're using the words properly and not filling your argument with a variety of fallacies.

If you’re going to lecture me about using fallacies, then you might point to the statements you conceive to be fallacious, instead of merely asserting that the fallacies are there. Accusation without evidence hardly contributes to the discussion.

It hurts the credibility of your argument when you make such attempts and miss so consistently.

It hurts the credibility of yours when you fail to grasp the meaning of plain declarative sentences, and instead jump to strange conclusions about Korean politics and argumentum e silentio.

How is anyone to take you seriously if you can't even handle the language you're attempting to use?

Is it that I cannot handle the language, or that your understanding of it is so limited that you routinely mistake my meaning? Your inability to identify the ad hominem attack I referred to, among other things, suggests to me that the latter may well be the case.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I write like that all the time in my day job, no Google required. When I post on here, I dumb it down for the rest of you schmucks.

I had no idea one could make a job out of writing Aaron Sorkin fan fiction.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I had no idea one could make a job out of writing Aaron Sorkin fan fiction.

One can’t (outside of academia), but there are surprisingly many jobs that require it on the side.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Speaking of Latin, there is no such expression as ‘as hominem’. Comparing me to the management of the Edmonton Oilers (apart from being blazingly silly), on a Calgary Flames message board, was an obvious attempt to impute guilt by association — which is generally recognized as one of the forms of ad hominem. ‘Look at the stupid Oiler lover, haw haw!’ was essentially the burden of that particular remark.

Thank you, I did not use ‘conjecture’ improperly. I offered a choice of two alternatives, and then specified that I supported the second one. At no point did I employ a construction equivalent to ‘My theory is this: I theorize B’.

Is it that I cannot handle the language, or that your understanding of it is so limited that you routinely mistake my meaning? Your inability to identify the ad hominem attack I referred to, among other things, suggests to me that the latter may well be the case.

Oh, an attack on a typo.
Your intelligence is unrivalled sir.

You theorised two options and then eliminated one of your theories, thus, you claimed your theory and then proceeded to repeat your theory. You used the word improperly.

Instead of addressing each item in which you attempt to explain away your improper use of language, I'll just say this:
It is common knowledge of any knowledgable or properly articulate writer that you should know your audience and speak directly to then. If you, as a writer, can not properly express yourself through the written word in a way that is understood by your audience, then that is a failing of your own. Perhaps I did misunderstand EVERY part of what you said, the problem here is that you were unable to articulate yourself properly to be understood.

Since you claim you dumb down your speech to suit this audience, may I suggest you quit pretending, and actually speak properly. Speak to your audience, do not attempt to fool them with your attempts at elevated conversation. You're not great at it, and you're speaking directly to someone who didn't use the same sort of language, so you simply come off as arrogant and fake.

Sorry bro, find another typo to attack.

[HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's nice. You're getting that deal at my expense, and I almost certainly make less money than you do.

Considering I am paying my way through university right now living off rice cakes and peanut butter, I guarantee I have you beat.

That's $31 per year per Canadian whether they watch it or not.

I think everyone agrees it's a pretty big ripoff when all cable subscribers are required to subsidize sports networks out of their cable fees whether they watch sports or not. And those folks have the option of cancelling their cable. We don't have the option of unsubscribing from the government.

I pay (when I'm making money, and paying for what food I can afford) for the roads that get you to and from work every day. I walk. I pay for the airports, provincial/national parks, and other amenities that I don't have the luxury of using, but are provided by the government. But I benefit from other people being able to use them to ship the goods, and provide policing, and let other people have nice trips to the mountains in clean parks.

Like someone else alluded to, the CBC is a cultural institution, and provides me Canadian content that no other private broadcaster ever would.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, needs access to over-the-air TV.

Following that logic, nobody needs access to the Internet right? Because that's a luxury as well and not a necessity.

and the only thing I ever use the TV for is to watch hockey.

So why the hell don't you just get GameCenter Live????

If the federal government cancelled the CBC tomorrow and put the money into broadband infrastructure, so that people in remote parts of the country would be better served by the Internet, I would rejoice. The Internet can give you access to the world — or only to lolcats and porn, but it's your own choice. The CBC only gives you access to what the CBC chooses to put on the air — and it does not give you any means of talking back.

Ok, I have to admit. This is a pretty noble idea. I would support this to a degree. But I still would want the CBC around over the internet to provide true Canadian arts and culture. That, I believe, is worth keeping around.

[JobHopper]

Have they renewed yet, apparently the current contract is just for this season. I want HNIC to stick around for sure. You can get caught up by what's going on around the league just by tuning in to the Hot Stove Lounge.

The problem I have with TSN is that it's become more about the talking heads over there and not about the game. The original HNIC theme pretty much died over there, I wonder what that lady think$ about that now. The new HNIC theme is even more popular, that tells you a lot right there.

Besides, how can you replace Don?

[EM11]

late to the thread. But isn't the argument against public subsidy of the CBC for hockey made moot by the fact that TSN receives public subsidies as well? It's not just television - all private enterprise is subsidized in one way or another in Canada. Singling out the CBC is terribly misleading.