I shouldn't keep poking, but I guess I will.
In the post immediately preceding this one, I remarked on the political and logical incoherence of those in favour of dismantling Status of Women Canada and similar programmes. In a nutshell, the primary argument that is used against SWC is that it doesn't fund entities that work to counteract its influence and mandate. This argument is made by people who apparently believe that the government shouldn't fund things that counteract its influence and mandate. And who worry about wasting money.
I netted a couple of commenters from the other side of the aisle. Rather than defend the contradiction, they instead revealed the motive behind the transparently propagandistic incoherence.
The first one, SUZANNE, is a longtime anti-abortion campaigner on the Canadian interwebs. Her moral position is one held as absolute moral truth delivered from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. And yet she writes:
This agency, which operates supposedly operates to better my welfare, operates without any input from me
It used to be "father knows best". Now it's "feminists know best".
It is simply undemocratic for an agency or for a movement to claim to speak in my name or work on behalf of my welfare, without consulting what I want.
From this we can deduce that she holds that government policy on the matter of women should not only be relative, but relative to her moral desire. This she holds to be the pinnacle of democracy.
Behind door number 2, we have frequent libertarian troll, lrC. lrC belongs to the wing of libertarianism that holds that the ability of the rich to dispose of their wealth/power is the highest form of liberty. This form of libertarian prides itself as being grounded in the ultimate in materialism. It is frequently associated with invocations to the economic axis of the Vienna Circle and their associates and descendents. Ironically, lrC tells us,
In writing this post, you've laid bare the fallacy underpinning most of what you stand for: the assumption that you and your fellow travellers are equipped to measure utility and good on behalf of others.
Whatever lrC believes---and he could be the very few admitted relativist naive-libertarians---one has to admit that one finds the moral and epistemological relativism in this statement to be quite striking.
This "relativism for me and not for thee" is, alas, a common phenomenon on the other side of the aisle. No doubt there is some logical contortion that they have to help weasel themselves out of it.