Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Belz...]

Can you tell me at what point in my search for flying elephants I am allowed to proclaim that they don't exist? Because it seems that the answer is 'never'.

There's a bit of a difference between finding something that we can all agree is an elephant that flies, and a person which you will find smart or reasonable, since the latter is necessarily a judgment call; the former is rather not.

I realise this is an interesting philosophical diversion all about sheep on mountainsides being observed by Scottish engineers and, to a degree, teapots around mars, but it's not relevant here.

Well as stated earlier I have no power to overturn Brexit so it's entirely academic to me, even if I may feel the downturn here. I can only affect politics in Canada. I also have a tendency to not get emotinally involved in topics, unless the discussion gets personal. Sorry if I feel too detached.

Not out of hand, no.

I disagree, obviously.

 

[ceptimus]

No. There hasn't been a second referendum.

I never said there has been, so I don't know why you began with 'No'.

 

[baron]

You seem to be ignoring several of us pointing out that the reasons Leave votes themselves have given for voting that was don't stack up. Not even in a positive/negative balance, but in factual reality. It's not even, "i voted Leave because I think X is more important than Y," but more, "I voted Leave because of X," where X is something that is nothing to do with the EU.

Christ almighty, that's how people always vote! You think all other referendums and elections are executed on the basis of every voter doing an in depth analysis on the objective facts? Most people in general elections don't even listen to the policies, they just vote for the same party they voted for previously and even when they do vote on the strength of a specific topic it's the same damn thing because we all know those promises will not achieve fruition. Democracy is the will of the people, not the will of the people you deem to have performed due diligence.

The barrel-bottom scraping excuses by sore losers for trampling over democracy are just hilarious. You lost. BREXIT is almost here. Suck it up.

 

[3point14]

There's a bit of a difference between finding something that we can all agree is an elephant that flies, and a person which you will find smart or reasonable, since the latter is necessarily a judgment call; the former is rather not.

No, it's the exact same form.

- Despite an extensive search, I have found no evidence of flying elephants, therefore I proclaim they don't exist.

Just substitute 'well informed brexiteer' for 'flying elephant'.

You seem to think that my position is impossible. That there must be a well informed pro brexit position. and, because of that belief, you think I'm just prejudiced.

Let me ask you this - what evidence would you accept as proof of the veracity of my position? What would I need to show you to get you to change your mind?

Well as stated earlier I have no power to overturn Brexit so it's entirely academic to me, even if I may feel the downturn here. I can only affect politics in Canada. I also have a tendency to not get emotinally involved in topics, unless the discussion gets personal. Sorry if I feel too detached.

I really don't think you're detached at all.

I disagree, obviously.

Obviously.


Okay, so, I really want to know, now, what I need to show you to have you accept my position. Can you tell me?

 

[Belz...]

No you really didn't.

Yeah, I really did.

I posted a hypothetical opinion that was based in facts; that the UK could have a tigher control of its immigration policies outside the EU, and that someone who thought that was really important would be justified in voting Leave. That the UK doesn't entirely have its hands tied in these matters doesn't change that. Yes, I also made the point that being factually wrong doesn't necessarily make one unreasonable, so long as the person believes they are factually correct, but that doesn't change the hypothetical or its value.

Added to that were the questions of EU democratic deficits, which is ripe for disagreement, sure, but another reasonable point of contention. There's also the question of an "ever-closer union" which might not be something that someone wants, etc. I don't find any of those unreasonable.

However, in the end I think staying with the EU was the better choice, especially now in light of what we know about Russian interference. If the Russians want the EU to break apart, it's one more reason to keep it together.

You don't like Brexiteers being called stupid. We get it. Tough luck.

You've got a point there. Still, it's my opinion that calling all these people idiots is ignoring their points and grievance and, even if it were true, would be counter-productive anyway.

Now do you have anything to add on the actual discussions of worth?

I like you too, Archie.

(snip) Because unless someone can this is going to be incredibly bad for everyone.

I agree. See, we can agree!

 

[Belz...]

No, it's the exact same form.

It's the same form, but the things being discussed are of a very different nature.

You seem to think that my position is impossible.

Let's say that I find it highly unlikely.

That there must be a well informed pro brexit position. and, because of that belief, you think I'm just prejudiced.

No I've seen reasonable pro-brexit arguments, which I've attempted to summarise here. That in the end I disagree with the conclusion doesn't make them unreasonable. As for prejudice, I'll withdraw that.

Let me ask you this - what evidence would you accept as proof of the veracity of my position?

I already agree with your general position. Remain was the better choice.

I really don't think you're detached at all.

What does that mean? You think I have some sort of stake in brexit? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Ian Osborne]

The barrel-bottom scraping excuses by sore losers for trampling over democracy are just hilarious. You lost. BREXIT is almost here. Suck it up.

Perhaps you'd like to share a reasonable argument for BREXIT then? Belz is having trouble, and I'm sure he'd appreciate the help.

 

[ceptimus]

Utter nonsense. As always, the election was fought on multiple issues. The fact that the Tories - the more natural Brexit flag bearers - did worse than the position they were already in speak volumes.

Everything you quoted was factual. I didn't say there had been three votes on Brexit - I said there have been three votes "concerning" Brexit. It's a fact that Brexit was a major influence on all three of those votes.

Do you deny that Labour also promised to implement Brexit in their general election manifesto? Of course, you can't because it's a fact. One of those "facts" that Remain supporters would like to ignore when they preach their own "alternative facts".

Can you point to a party that was an "Oppose Brexit flag bearer" that did well in the election? Another inconvenient fact for you.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps you'd like to share a reasonable argument for BREXIT then? Belz is having trouble, and I'm sure he'd appreciate the help.

See what I mean? I just gave you three and you're acting once again as if nothing was said. This exactly the kind of thing I was talking about: if you plus your ears when someone makes an argument, it's easy to then claim they haven't made a good one.

 

[baron]

Perhaps you'd like to share a reasonable argument for BREXIT then? Belz is having trouble, and I'm sure he'd appreciate the help.

That's not the point I'm making. Or rather, it is, in that the justification stage is now over. People have made their decision, it's done and dusted. Whether that decision was based on objective facts, wishful thinking, misinterpretation or tea-leaves, it's been made. I have my own reasoning, of course I do, but restating it here, now, is just an academic exercise and would serve no purpose. To restate; a decision made by demonstrably faulty logic (assuming that premise is even correct) is, democratically speaking, the exact equal to one made by deep analysis of the facts. That's how democracy works.

 

[GlennB]

There's a bit of a difference between finding something that we can all agree is an elephant that flies, and a person which you will find smart or reasonable, since the latter is necessarily a judgment call; the former is rather not.

There are undoubtedly Brexiteers who are brain surgeons, nuclear scientists and the like. They're 'smart' in the general sense but stupid in this particular one. But a lot of Brexiteers are more like Trump's 'deplorables' - ignorant, racist types who were given a chance to express that ignorance on a critical subject, then proceed not to give a damn about the mess they're going to create (until, maybe, they have to get in the slow immigration queue when they arrive in Spain for their holiday, or have to pay more for imported food, or maybe even lose their jobs).

The proof of that pudding comes when you ask them to explain their 'good' reasons for leaving and they invariably fail utterly, or don't even try, and wave the very obvious heavy disadvantages of Brexit away. But several posters have pointed this out already and it doesn't seem to carry any weight for you. How big does the sample need to be before one can come to a conclusion on the subject?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

One of those "facts" that Remain supporters would like to ignore when they preach their own "alternative facts".

Sorry but can you point to a single Remain supporter denying or ignoring that Labour supported leaving the EU at the last election? Or that they still do for that matter?

It's something I have been very strong in my condemnation of Labour for.

 

[Belz...]

There are undoubtedly Brexiteers who are brain surgeons, nuclear scientists and the like. They're 'smart' in the general sense but stupid in this particular one.

Well if by "stupid" we mean both "picked the worst choice" and "are acting stupidly on this specific issue" then I guess we could call all of them stupid, but that's not usually how the term is used.

But a lot of Brexiteers are more like Trump's 'deplorables'

Oh, I know a lot of them are. That isn't the argument I was going against. It's the idea that they _all_ are.

The proof of that pudding comes when you ask them to explain their 'good' reasons for leaving and they invariably fail utterly, or don't even try, and wave the very obvious heavy disadvantages of Brexit away.

Maybe they shouldn't ask the so-called 'deplorables', then?

How big does the sample need to be before you can come to a conclusion on the subject?

If you're going to make an accusation against 100% of the group, then it should be true for 100% of them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The proof of that pudding comes when you ask them to explain their 'good' reasons for leaving and they invariably fail utterly, or don't even try, and wave the very obvious heavy disadvantages of Brexit away. But several posters have pointed this out already and it doesn't seem to carry any weight for you. How big does the sample need to be before one can come to a conclusion on the subject?

Again "Democratically decided decisions shouldn't count if you can prove one side demonstrably doesn't know what they are talking about" would undo democracy as a concept.

 

[Belz...]

Again "Democratically decided decisions shouldn't count if you can prove one side demonstrably doesn't know what they are talking about" would undo democracy as a concept.

 

[3point14]

If you're going to make an accusation against 100% of the group, then it should be true for 100% of them.

That's exactly the same as saying you can't make an accusation against the group, because you can never, ever be certain that you've observed the entire group.

 

[Belz...]

That's exactly the same as saying you can't make an accusation against the group, because you can never, ever be certain that you've observed the entire group.

That's usually true, which is my point. You can say general things about a group, but you can't say that about all members unless you know all of them individually. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[Information Analyst]

Everything you quoted was factual. I didn't say there had been three votes on Brexit - I said there have been three votes "concerning" Brexit. It's a fact that Brexit was a major influence on all three of those votes.

Do you deny that Labour also promised to implement Brexit in their general election manifesto? Of course, you can't because it's a fact. One of those "facts" that Remain supporters would like to ignore when they preach their own "alternative facts".

Can you point to a party that was an "Oppose Brexit flag bearer" that did well in the election? Another inconvenient fact for you.

No, I don't deny that the Corbyn-led Labour leadership promised Brexit for its own reasons; nor do I deny that the views of MPs, members, and voters are not nearly as in favour of it as Corbyn and his inner circle. Your reasoning is nonsense, though. With the two main parties officially endorsing the wafer-thin and purely advisory referendum result, the choice between them was based on other issues. The idea that everyone opposing Brexit would have instead opted for the Lib-Dems is pie in the sky.

 

[Information Analyst]

Again "Democratically decided decisions shouldn't count if you can prove one side demonstrably doesn't know what they are talking about repeatedly lied and broke election law" would undo democracy as a concept.

FTFY.

 

[3point14]

That's usually true, which is my point. You can say general things about a group, but you can't say that about all members unless you know all of them individually. It's not a difficult concept.

I see.

Can I ask what evidence I need to show you to have you accept my position?