Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Lothian]

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

No, it can just as easily be an accusation against the group as a collective.
As an example it is perfectly acceptable to say "men are taller than women". Clearly some men are smaller than some women but as a group men are taller. Similarly brexiteers are less educated, more senile and less interested in politics.

However this is distraction, and to give another example of reference to a group rather than an individual trait, brexiteers are far happier playing Semantic games than offering a realistically agreeable workable brexit that will benefit the UK and its citizens.

 

[Belz...]

I see.

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

Dude, I've already answered that in #2626. Don't you read my responses to you?

 

[3point14]

After rumination, can we all accept:

Just because someone takes up an idiotic position, it doesn't mean they're an idiot.

 

[Wudang]

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.

So I take it you would support Trump's statement that the white supremacists in Charlottesville included "some very fine people"? It seems a logical intersection of your arguments.

 

[Belz...]

No, it can just as easily be an accusation against the group as a collective.
As an example it is perfectly acceptable to say "men are taller than women".

True. The original claim didn't appear to make that distinction, however.

However this is distraction

Agreed. I should never have gone on for this long. I didn't think my objection would be that controversial.

So I take it you would support Trump's statement that the white supremacists in Charlottesville included "some very fine people"? It seems a logical intersection of your arguments.

I'm sure he's technically correct, although I will note that voting for Brexit includes a whole lot of different reasons, while being a white supremacist... well, it's all based around the same idea, which I assume all of them share. Unless some of them were there for the BBQ afterparty.

 

[Lothian]

After rumination, can we all accept:

Just because someone takes up an idiotic position, it doesn't mean they're an idiot.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a goat.

 

[Belz...]

That is adorable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

See what I mean? I just gave you three /QUOTE]

No you didn't. You keep being told that and acting as if nothing was said.

The immigration thing boils down to simply not liking foreigners which isn't reasonable but mere prejudice

The democratic deficit thing disappears when you consider that the UK Parliament is equally undemocratic and boils down to not liking foreigners having a say in UK laws and is mere prejudice

The ever closer union thing disappears when you realise that the UK could stop any moves to ever closer union if it wanted to or leave at the point where it was a reality rather than a vague scaremongering slogan and surprise surprise boils down to just not wanting foreigners to have a say in UK laws and is mere prejudice.

For my mind for an argument to be reasonable it would need to do the following:

1. Identify an actual issue and explain why its an issue
2. Pinpoint the specific metrics on which it is supposed to have an impact and why those are important
3. Show how leaving the EU is the way to achieve improvement in those metrics
4. Show that steps can be taken upon leaving the EU to improve the situation without causing massive downsides which outweigh the benefits

So no it's not reasonable to say 'I want tighter control of immigration' unless you can answer some basic questions on how, why and how your way will be better. But that's the point at which each and every Brexiteer either runs away, changes topic or blusters something about 'the WILL OF THE PEOPLE (TM)'. That's not reasonable, it's sloganeering based on prejudice and ********.

I mean seriously Theresa May said we can replace unskilled workers with British people that we train up. How do you train someone to be unskilled??? And if it drives wages up to the point where British people will take the jobs (which I doubt would happen anyway but seems to be the lefty version of why this is good) then how does the NHS, Government, Councils, etc etc pay for these higher wages especially when the economy is put into a decline to achieve it? And if the answer is some imaginary magical system where we make exemptions for the people we need then how in the hell does that change anything and what's the point of going through all this?

Now tell me are those unreasonable questions in your view? If so can you explain why and if not can you explain to me why NOONE on the Leave side is willing to answer to them? Where are all the reasonable leavers with though through proposals and sensible answers to reasonable questions?

what is the answer to the NI border questions - I have seen more than one leaver suggest that the answer is for Ireland to 'rejoin' the UK. Is that 'reasonable' in your view?

And one final one.... I have heard it said that Chequers is the worst of both worlds. That being the case then shouldn't a reasonable leaver who holds that view agree that staying in the EU would be better than implementing Chequers?

 

[Lothian]

That is adorable.

Get the tissues out. link

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

a whole lot of different reasons,.

That's true. Some of them don't like all foreigners, some of them don't like dark skinned foreigners, some of them don't like Eastern Europeans and some of them don't like Muslims.

There's 4 different reasons right there.

I'm not sure there are 5 though.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The immigration thing boils down to simply not liking foreigners which isn't reasonable but mere prejudice

The democratic deficit thing disappears when you consider that the UK Parliament is equally undemocratic and boils down to not liking foreigners having a say in UK laws and is mere prejudice

Oh the UK has a "Racist and Prejudiced Votes Don't Count" law? Cool we need to get one of those in the US.

 

[Lothian]

Oh the UK has a "Racist and Prejudiced Votes Don't Count" law? Cool we need to get one of those in the US.

If we did this thread wouldn't have reached five posts never mind a fifth continuation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we did this thread wouldn't have reached five posts never mind a fifth continuation.

But that's sort of my point. They don't have that law.

"But they didn't know what they were talking about!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"
"But they are all racist and prejudiced!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"
"The decisions has put us into a no-win situation!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"

This is the discussion I keep having to have with the Left over here in the Colonies. The people you socially disenfranchised for unacceptable behavior aren't politically disenfranchised.

All the people you shut out of the conversation for being racist or stupid or toxic of dangerous or damaging... they then go vote.

And Trump and Brexit is what happens you socially disenfranchise politically viable people.

 

[jimbob]

The funny thing is, when I've engaged with Leave voters in real life, without fail the only or vast majority of the "reasons" they offer for having voted that ways are false. Either it's things that are nothing to do with the EU, gross distortions of thing that are to do with the EU, or outright lies. They are also invariably very resistant to being corrected. I don't think you appreciate just how pervasive the misinformation and disinformation has been.

Yes, in much the same way as Trump voters were taken in by talk of building border walls and bringing back the coal jobs etc etc etc. It was their stupidity and gullibility that allowed them to be manipulated that way. I suppose one could be picky and refrain from describing them as generally stupid and just stick to stupid in this particular respect.

This.

Those that are pro brexit fall into two camps:

Those who already have a load of money for whom Brexit is not a threat to their lifestyle, Bori, Rees-Mogg, et al.

Those who have been fooled into thinking it's a good idea. These people will suffer economically in the post Brexit world.

I have not encountered, in real life, through news, message boards and other media, a single Brexiteer who does not fit into one of these two camps.

Perhaps there's a whole horde of silent brexiteers with excellent reasoning skills who haven't spoken up or publicised their reasoning because they don't want to. I find this unlikely.

At the moment, 100% of those I have read, talked to or interacted with fall into one of the above categories.

This sums up my experience too.

 

[Belz...]

No you didn't.

And then he goes on to address the three. Brilliant.

The immigration thing boils down to simply not liking foreigners which isn't reasonable but mere prejudice

Your opinion.

The democratic deficit thing disappears when you consider that the UK Parliament is equally undemocratic

Your opinion.

and boils down to not liking foreigners having a say in UK laws and is mere prejudice

Appending this at the end of each of your claims does not bolster your case.

The ever closer union thing disappears when you realise that the UK could stop any moves to ever closer union if it wanted to

That is irrelevant, actually. If the UK is out of the EU the 'risk' of this union disappears as well.

and surprise surprise boils down to just not wanting foreigners to have a say in UK laws and is mere prejudice.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.



But then, I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But that's sort of my point. They don't have that law.

"But they didn't know what they were talking about!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"
"But they are all racist and prejudiced!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"
"The decisions has put us into a no-win situation!"
"Okay... but are they still allowed to vote?"

This is the discussion I keep having to have with the Left over here in the Colonies. The people you socially disenfranchised for unacceptable behavior aren't politically disenfranchised.

All the people you shut out of the conversation for being racist or stupid or toxic of dangerous or damaging... they then go vote.

And Trump and Brexit is what happens you socially disenfranchise politically viable people.

Except these people haven't been excluded from the conversation or socially disenfranchised. They have BEEN the conversation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And then he goes on to address the three. Brilliant.

Reasonable?

Your opinion.

Then you will be able to present a reasoned argument instead of a slogan?

Your opinion.

Then you will be able to present a reasoned argument instead of a slogan?

That is irrelevant, actually. If the UK is out of the EU the 'risk' of this union disappears as well.

No its VERY relevant if you can follow basic logic. If something can be achieved both inside and outside the EU (such as blue passports or preventing ever closer union) then it is not a reason FOR leaving the EU.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

Should I print it on the side of a bus then? You might think its reasonable then.

But then, I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

Its good to know we can find common ground on something.

 

[Belz...]

Reasonable?

Clearly, there is no objective measure for what's reasonable.

Then you will be able to present a reasoned argument instead of a slogan?

Then you will be able to present a reasoned argument instead of a slogan?

No its VERY relevant if you can follow basic logic. If something can be achieved both inside and outside the EU (such as blue passports or preventing ever closer union) then it is not a reason FOR leaving the EU.

You don't agree that it's a lot more likely to be achieved outside the EU?

Should I print it on the side of a bus then? You might think its reasonable then.

You do what you want with your own 'slogans' mate.

Its good to know we can find common ground on something.

I'll buy you a beer if I ever pass through your neck of the woods.

If you accept gifts from idiots, that is.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Except these people haven't been excluded from the conversation or socially disenfranchised. They have BEEN the conversation.

And they won it (for certain degrees of "win") and now people are trying to make that not true.

 

[3point14]

And they won it (for certain degrees of "win") and now people are trying to make that not true.

I think people are trying to point out that the 'win' was based on people being lied to, extensively.

If the non binding referendum had asked "All persons in the UK will be given £5000 from HM Treasury" and the answer had come back "yes", do you think that the government should then borrow the £325,000,000,000 required because enough people believed that the impossible was possible?

What the 'leave' campaign* said would happen and what has actually happened are two different things. Now, with the country on the brink of what 99% of all financial experts believe is a cliff to a recession, you believe we should still go ahead with forcing through the results of a non-binding referendum because one side 'won'? Jesus even Rees-Mogg recons it'll get worse for 50 years (for us, not for him) before it'll get better. I'm afraid I'll be dead by then.

The results of a non-binding referendum can be safely ignored if the alternative is a drop in the quality of life for all those not already comfortable with an independent income.




*You will note, also, that all prominent figures in the campaign to leave have ensured that, while us plebs have to leave the EU, they don't.

Nigel has made sure his kids have German Passports
Chris the Kiwi has purchased a Maltese Passport
Nigel Lawson has managed to rustle up a residents permit for his house in France
Rees-Mogg, the financial advisor is teling his clients to take their money out of the UK and put it in Europe.

If all of the above doesn't give the hint that they're lying bastards whi'll screw the entire country over for their own, selfish profit motives, I don't know what will.


You say the other side won? I say, so what? It doesn't matter. It's non-biding and based on lies. I don't care that they 'won', it means no more than a vote to give everyone in the UK a pony.

There is literally no obligation for my government to continue with this lunatic course of action.