- Status
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Did you intentionally go from political to personal decision ? I am guessing because you understood if you stayed on political level, you had no chance to build a good argument.
Actually economic played a decision in all of them directly or indirectly. And it should. Buying a car when it makes no economic sense, or starting smoking when you have no money, or birthing kids when you can't feed them ? irresponsible.
But we are not speaking of personal life, you are committing a fallacy of analogy. We are speaking of voting and referendum or political decision. And there *all* boil down to economics.
I absolutely agree that the UK will leave the EU. To deny the referendum result would be foolish.
What the upcoming years (possibly even decades) will show is what kind of Brexit we'll end up with. It could be one where our relationship with the EU is essentially unchanged except for the fact that we're not members of the EU. We'd still be a member of the EEA (with all that implies in terms of the movement of people and adoption of EU legislation), still have to contribute to the EU budget and so on.
At the other end of the scale is the out-out as envisaged by hardline UKIPers. We're fully out of Europe (with all that entails) and facing the rest of the world.
The problem for people like me whose businesses are largely dependent on trade with the EU is that we don't even know what kind of post-Brexit situation we're aiming for, much less what we'll end up with. It's tough to "make plans for the future" when we have no idea what that future may involve.
Your standards of "plenty" appear to be fairly loose. I only found this:
Immigrants are an economic reason unless proven otherwise, a vague nationalistic concept of sovereignty is made up unless proven otherwise (UK is represented in European parliament which elects the 'unelected' European Commission). What else is there? You called the list "incomplete", and never provided another reason, or indeed an answer longer than two lines.
My question is entirely valid, and can't be answered the way you did. If you think otherwise please link the relevant post(s), or maybe expand on this "incomplete" list.
McHrozni
Well, if this is the way you see the world I actually feel very sorry for you. I tend to see it much more in human and environmental terms than that.
You really didn't try very hard, did you.
I won't fill in the blanks for you if that's what you're hoping for. I find it fairly interesting you were having this very same discussion last night and all you managed was to argue some clearly economic reasons weren't economic at all, e.g. here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11369645&postcount=1451
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11369476#post11369476
Your explanation to the contrary is, and I quote:
"No, they can't [be lumped neatly into economic]".
I'm sorry, I don't accept assertion as proof. Explain why fishing quotas and livelihoods of people in the third world aren't economic reasons, if you will. That's just abuse you'll have to accept, I apologize in advance.
McHrozni
Last edited:
You do realize I linked to this very same post, right? For good measure I even explicitly wrote about the arguments contained within. Either "completely disregarding" now means something completely different than what it meant five minutes ago, or it's actually you who isn't trying very hard.
Or maybe it's because you completely lack arguments and are just hoping the rest of us will give up.
I actually think it's the latter.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
Decision making is all about balancing competing priorities. If you reject hiring someone on the grounds of not liking their shoes and you ignore the fact that they have all the skills required for the job then your decision making ability is poor.
In the EU referendum the state of the UK economy is a key factor that should feature highly in the decision making.
If anything, that's an understatement. State of the economy and what directly follows from it (e.g. funding for NHS) was the overreaching factor, above and beyond all other factors combined. I actually doubt there was a reason given that isn't either economic or at least inherently linked to economy (e.g. immigrants and fishing quotas) to the point of being inseparable - or completely made up, like that sovereignty thing, of course.
Seeing as EU is primarily an economic union that is slowly getting political features, this isn't entirely unexpected either.
McHrozni
You know very well that you edited your post at the time I was composing mine. Your final version does indeed acknowledge the post I referred to. The original didn't.
It isn't me who is spuriously arguing that all decisions are economic (as if that makes any difference anyway). I simply have no interest in whether you are right or wrong in the general case. My own personal view is that economic arguments are only part of the picture. As I said, I genuinely feel sorry for people who only see the world through the prism of money.
Last edited:
I guess that's one way of winning an argument (at least in your own mind): declare everything that doesn't fit with your case to be non-existent or made up. Congratulations. You must feel so proud.
According to the time stamps, you'd probably be able to read it. Alas.
It makes quite a bit of a difference if you're arguing the main reasons for Leave aren't economic and then proceed to name reasons that are economic. It's somewhat disingenuous, to tell you the truth.
McHrozni
Right, right, because you guys totally named issues with EU that damaged national sovereignty that were real and not made up, right?
"I don't like X about the EU!"
"What? You made this up. Please show X is true before we continue."
"I guess that's one way of winning an argument (at least in your own mind): declare everything that doesn't fit with your case to be non-existent or made up."
Or in other words, please stop projecting your own faults on the rest of us, it is getting quite tiring. I also find it somewhat impolite.
McHrozni
Depends if he's anything like me and has a window open for a bit before responding, or takes more than a few seconds to compose a response.
Two minutes isn't all that long.
You'll be able to show where I did that then, presumably?
That's just about the definition of irony right there: you telling me (falsely) what my argument is, then defining all reasons as economic whether they are or aren't, and then you calling me a liar. Classic stuff.
True, it's possible. It really doesn't matter, he ignored the whole thing entirely in later posts anyway, declaring he had no interest whether I'm right or wrong on it.
Apparently non-economic reasons that no one is able to name trumped the very real economic considerations. That's the level of stealth Lockheed Martin would pay quite dearly for. Perhaps this is a chance for UK to reduce the economic impact?
McHrozni
Particularly as I was posting on the Chilcot report at 10.17. (ETA........and Pistorious at 10.14) I guess McHronzi thinks he is the main focus of my life right now.......
Last edited:
Yes, easily.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11370208&postcount=1504
If I misrepresented your argument in some way it would be much more effective if you corrected me and stated what your argument was, rather than whine about how I misrepresented your argument, and continued on with your silly innuendo.
Just saying. Unless your goal here is to stifle the debate about how bad Brexit is for the UK by trolling about what you did and didn't say, and which assumptions about your arguments are true and which aren't, you really are taking the very wrong road here.
Wait - is that your goal?
McHrozni
- Status