Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 20, 2016, 06:03:30 PM
-
I was struck in the different regard for experts we saw shown by Gove and Cameron on the Question Time specials. Both, I suspect, exaggerating their position, which is like most of us, experts that agree with us are right.
Following on from that, I thought the article linked to is interesting.
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/political-dangers-of-letting-claptrap-win-over-facts-34813655.html
-
Good article, NS, but then we can also catagorically state that some of the pronouncements from the Bremain side have been no less lies.
The problem is that, unlike Trump, neither Brexit nor Bremain have any proven indicators to fall back on. This has never happened before, in any organisational shape or form. As such, there is no 'track record' to fall back on as evidence one way or the other. Everything is a combination of gut-feeling and guesswork - by politicians and experts alike.
-
I was struck in the different regard for experts we saw shown by Gove and Cameron on the Question Time specials. Both, I suspect, exaggerating their position, which is like most of us, experts that agree with us are right.
Following on from that, I thought the article linked to is interesting.
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/political-dangers-of-letting-claptrap-win-over-facts-34813655.html
But this is how politics works, it knows that most people haven't a clue and so they can manipulate them. For real democracy to be alive and well the people need to be educated so they can at least start to have an informed opinion and idea of what the facts are - and a press etc. that give a broad landscape of the various viewpoints.
-
Good article, NS, but then we can also catagorically state that some of the pronouncements from the Bremain side have been no less lies.
The problem is that, unlike Trump, neither Brexit nor Bremain have any proven indicators to fall back on.
Incorrect. A vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo. We know roughly what that is going to be like, it'll be the same as now.
-
Incorrect. A vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo. We know roughly what that is going to be like, it'll be the same as now.
Yeah, recession and spending cuts to please the neo-liberals.
-
Hullo FF, good to see you again. We are well out of the worst of recession now (and it was not nearly as bad as the previous recession which was horrendous!). In any case, the recession wasn't exclusive to the UK or the EU - it was worldwide.
-
Good article, NS, but then we can also catagorically state that some of the pronouncements from the Bremain side have been no less lies.
not sure of the relevance of the 'but' here. The article is not primarily about outright lying, and I've already covered that I think Cameron is using experts here in away he wouldn't if they didn't support his case.
The problem is that, unlike Trump, neither Brexit nor Bremain have any proven indicators to fall back on.
What is it that Trump has to fall back on that is useful to cover incorrect statements?
This has never happened before, in any organisational shape or form. As such, there is no 'track record' to fall back on as evidence one way or the other.
What has never happened before?
Everything is a combination of gut-feeling and guesswork - by politicians and experts alike.
I suggest you reread the article as this sort of statement is precisely the sort of relativism and anecdotalism that is the real issue it's raising. It is the mindset that goes 'meteorologists know nothing because there were these times I remember them being wrong'. It's a combination of availability bias and a misunderstanding of probability.
-
Incorrect. A vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo. We know roughly what that is going to be like, it'll be the same as now.
That's a lie. The Ever-Closer-Union federal state is the aim so the status quo isn't on offer.
-
That's a lie. The Ever-Closer-Union federal state is the aim so the status quo isn't on offer.
For the Eurozone that's an inevitability if it is to survive. We aren't in the Euro.
-
Looked at the title again - forgot that I'd already responded, and wondered whether it was something to do with London taxi drivers. ;)
-
Oh Hope, I am so glad you said that because I've thought exactly the same every time I've seen the title!
-
It's all Uber's fault.
-
Well they are international.
-
Yeah, recession and spending cuts to please the neo-liberals.
We are not having a recession now.
-
I think Cameron is using experts here in away he wouldn't if they didn't support his case.
This is, of course true, but to does not negate why they say.
-
For the Eurozone that's an inevitability if it is to survive. We aren't in the Euro.
If that is the case for the EZ then their federal bloc vote of 19 will always win the case in the EU so making the rest of the members votes worthless and so dragging everyone down the federal route.
-
If that is the case for the EZ then their federal bloc vote of 19 will always win the case in the EU so making the rest of the members votes worthless and so dragging everyone down the federal route.
Do you even understand what the word "veto" means.
-
Do you even understand what the word "veto" means.
Yes. In the EU absolutely nothing, except as a way to trick the people that there is a way out when there isn't as it will never be used by those who have been bribed by the EU with OUR money.
-
I was struck in the different regard for experts we saw shown by Gove and Cameron on the Question Time specials. Both, I suspect, exaggerating their position, which is like most of us, experts that agree with us are right.
Following on from that, I thought the article linked to is interesting.
http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/political-dangers-of-letting-claptrap-win-over-facts-34813655.html
I thought you were a fan of Sturgeon, biggest spinner ever, truly the heir to Blair.
-
I thought you were a fan of Sturgeon, biggest spinner ever, truly the heir to Blair.
Irrelevant non sequitur
-
Yes. In the EU absolutely nothing,
The EU had a plan to penalise Chinese steel imports because they were dumping it below cost. It might have saved the Tata steelworks in Port Talbot.
The UK vetoed the plan.
So not absolutely nothing.
-
The EU had a plan to penalise Chinese steel imports because they were dumping it below cost. It might have saved the Tata steelworks in Port Talbot.
The UK vetoed the plan.
So not absolutely nothing.
That was a specific case. And I agree it was wrongly used. I was referring to general cases where the British people would be affected by issues that were seen and talked about long before they occurred, such as Turkey joining the EU. They say they have this veto for things like that but then renege on using it for the British good thereby effectively lying to the people.
-
That was a specific case.
Yes and "absolutely nothing" means no specific cases.
I was referring to general cases where the British people would be affected by issues that were seen and talked about long before they occurred, such as Turkey joining the EU.
Why wouldn't the EU treaty letting Turkey into the EU not be a specific case. Why wouldn't a veto have worked there?
Of course, no veto has been used against Turkey because the question of their membership hasn't arisen yet. And there is no chance of the UK vetoing it when it does arise because morons like you voted to give up our veto along with any other influence we might have had.
They say they have this veto for things like that but then renege on using it for the British good thereby effectively lying to the people.
You just can't help lying can you.
-
Why wouldn't the EU treaty letting Turkey into the EU not be a specific case. Why wouldn't a veto have worked there?
Of course, no veto has been used against Turkey because the question of their membership hasn't arisen yet. And there is no chance of the UK vetoing it when it does arise because morons like you voted to give up our veto along with any other influence we might have had.
It is the presentation or flagging up of the possibility of using the veto in the future is what I'm talking about. They try to reassure people that it is there and could be used but in fact our elite politicians wouldn't use it because they are pro-EU and so pro Turkey. So the whole thing is a sham.
-
It is the presentation or flagging up of the possibility of using the veto in the future is what I'm talking about. They try to reassure people that it is there and could be used but in fact our elite politicians wouldn't use it because they are pro-EU and so pro Turkey. So the whole thing is a sham.
Maybe they wouldn't use the veto because they are more informed than you are. Maybe they would use the veto because they are pandering to the xenophobic voice of England. Either way, there is not option to use it now so there is now no chance of the xenophobes stopping the Turkish coming to Britain.
-
Maybe they wouldn't use the veto because they are more informed than you are. Maybe they would use the veto because they are pandering to the xenophobic voice of England. Either way, there is not option to use it now so there is now no chance of the xenophobes stopping the Turkish coming to Britain.
Why? We have control of our borders...
-
Why? We have control of our borders...
That's what I've been telling you all along, but you just ignored the facts.
-
That's what I've been telling you all along, but you just ignored the facts.
Only out of the EU!!!