So what did you vote for?

Media articles about money-saving topics
macliam
Posts: 7542
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:26 am
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1331 times
Been thanked: 6435 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by macliam » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:27 pm

Boro Boy wrote:
pabenny wrote:
Boro Boy wrote:Why would any Democratic Briton want to sell away their sovereignty and democracy to a ever increasing powerful EU Body in which you have no real control over?
Because the benefits of uniting with our neighbours are worth having
Because we're better off as part of larger grouping than standing alone
Because we have more influence on the inside than on the outside


Funny how easily people forget that people died for democracy; so hard to achieve but so easy to give away... :wave:
When, exactly?
Most people fought because they were obliged to do so - and they were fighting against something.
The interpretation that they were fighting for anything is largely a retrospective justification by the victors.

- and nobody fought for you to use their sacrifice as a prop in your campaign...... You've tried the "non-democratic" smear several times and been disproven - by continuing you just demonstrate how thin your argument is.
Thanked by: blythburgh, Chadwick
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

parchedpeas
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:34 pm
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 330 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by parchedpeas » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:59 pm

Boro Boy wrote:
pabenny wrote:
Boro Boy wrote: Funny how easily people forget that people died for democracy; so hard to achieve but so easy to give away... :wave:
Where's the democracy in Theresa May's plan? Rule takers with no say, in perpetuity.

You'll need to move your argument on to something else now. Anything else. Eventually you'll realise that you DIDN'T know what you were voting for and you're NOT getting what you wanted.

This whole episode is a catastrophe for everyone, whichever way they voted.
Thanked by: blythburgh, Chadwick

pabenny
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 1031 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by pabenny » Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:45 am

I've noticed a consistent debating technique here amongst those who are anti-EU and pro-Brexit.

They make claim that's either demonstrably false (EU army) or make an unsupported assertion (largely along the grounds of 'in is bad, out will be better'). The false claim is shown to be just that; when asked to support their assertion, they cannot give any specific examples.

The anti-EU/pro-Brexit debaters then go quiet. Or introduce another false claim or unsupported assertion. It's all starting to become rather predictable.
Thanked by: blythburgh

Chadwick
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 698 times
Been thanked: 1864 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by Chadwick » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:51 pm

Boro Boy wrote:Funny how easily people forget that people died for democracy; so hard to achieve but so easy to give away... :wave:
Funny how easily people forget that after those deaths, we said "Never again".
We set about rebuilding Europe in a way that would prevent another violent clash of nation states. We created a way for us to work together and depend on each other for mutual support. The intention was that it would be impossible for any one country or interest to dominate the rest. We would cooperate and work together, not just pushing own own interest the whole time.

That is the legacy of the world wars in Europe.

Not some jingoistic 'we're better than them' nonsense.
Thanked by: blythburgh

Chadwick
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 698 times
Been thanked: 1864 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by Chadwick » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:03 pm

pabenny wrote:I've noticed a consistent debating technique here amongst those who are anti-EU and pro-Brexit.

They make claim that's either demonstrably false (EU army) or make an unsupported assertion (largely along the grounds of 'in is bad, out will be better'). The false claim is shown to be just that; when asked to support their assertion, they cannot give any specific examples.

The anti-EU/pro-Brexit debaters then go quiet. Or introduce another false claim or unsupported assertion. It's all starting to become rather predictable.
Regrettably, that is the heart of the problem.

It doesn't matter what the facts are. There are a substantial number of people who believe that the shortcomings of their lives are due to the EU. It doesn't matter if the opposite is true, and it doesn't matter if there is overwhelming evidence to back that up. It doesn't matter that they are told this by people better experienced or informed, or who have done more research or analysis.
It doesn't matter that the figureheads they follow can offer no evidence to support their view, or suggest a way forward that would achieve their aims. It doesn't matter that when those figureheads are given the opportunity to achieve their stated aims, they fail and/or resign. It doesn't matter that those figureheads are saying one thing, but doing another.

They still believe.

And even when they are substantially worse off as a result of their actions, they will believe they are better off.

It's like trying to convince a religious person that there is no god. They might agree with everything you say, and will then say a prayer for you.

Or, it's like Boro Boy making claims that can be proven false, but he still believes, and simply moves on to the next fallacy to back up his belief.

Boro Boy
Posts: 3331
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by Boro Boy » Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:47 pm

Chadwick wrote:
pabenny wrote:I've noticed a consistent debating technique here amongst those who are anti-EU and pro-Brexit.

They make claim that's either demonstrably false (EU army) or make an unsupported assertion (largely along the grounds of 'in is bad, out will be better'). The false claim is shown to be just that; when asked to support their assertion, they cannot give any specific examples.

The anti-EU/pro-Brexit debaters then go quiet. Or introduce another false claim or unsupported assertion. It's all starting to become rather predictable.
Regrettably, that is the heart of the problem.

It doesn't matter what the facts are. There are a substantial number of people who believe that the shortcomings of their lives are due to the EU. It doesn't matter if the opposite is true, and it doesn't matter if there is overwhelming evidence to back that up. It doesn't matter that they are told this by people better experienced or informed, or who have done more research or analysis.
It doesn't matter that the figureheads they follow can offer no evidence to support their view, or suggest a way forward that would achieve their aims. It doesn't matter that when those figureheads are given the opportunity to achieve their stated aims, they fail and/or resign. It doesn't matter that those figureheads are saying one thing, but doing another.

They still believe.

And even when they are substantially worse off as a result of their actions, they will believe they are better off.

It's like trying to convince a religious person that there is no god. They might agree with everything you say, and will then say a prayer for you.

Or, it's like Boro Boy making claims that can be proven false, but he still believes, and simply moves on to the next fallacy to back up his belief.

If you want to see a classic example of patronisation look no further than above...! Superb example...! :wtf:

treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority.
"she was determined not to be put down or patronized"
synonyms:
treat condescendingly · treat with condescension · condescend to · look down on · talk down to · put down · humiliate · treat like a child · treat as inferior · treat with disdain · treat scornfully/contemptuously · be snobbish to · look down one's nose at!


Do we really need this?

Boro Boy
Posts: 3331
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by Boro Boy » Wed Nov 21, 2018 7:54 pm

Chadwick wrote:
Boro Boy wrote:Funny how easily people forget that people died for democracy; so hard to achieve but so easy to give away... :wave:
Funny how easily people forget that after those deaths, we said "Never again".
We set about rebuilding Europe in a way that would prevent another violent clash of nation states. We created a way for us to work together and depend on each other for mutual support. The intention was that it would be impossible for any one country or interest to dominate the rest. We would cooperate and work together, not just pushing own own interest the whole time.

That is the legacy of the world wars in Europe.

Not some jingoistic 'we're better than them' nonsense.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am concerned that we were tying ourselves to a non-democratic body...! I have detailed from experience that and never mentioned anything about jingoism. It seems that some on here when they feel they are loosing an argument either invent things or get personal or worse still - both...! :wave:

pabenny
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 1031 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by pabenny » Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:10 am

Oh dear.
"I'm upset because I'm being patronised"
"You're putting words in my mouth"
"you're getting personal"
(paraphrased)

Those whose arguments are exhausted and disproved often move away from the subject and start to turn on their opponents.

Patronising? I don't find that anywhere above. Treating scornfully? When claims are made that the poster cannot or will not support with evidence or meaningful examples - yes that deserves scorn.

Jingosistic? Nobody ever applies that to themselves and in fact the word was used of some of the anti-EU sentiment - like the post saying that the EU system bears no resemblance to the UK Parliamentary Democratic system. This had the clear inference that the UK system was superior.
Thanked by: blythburgh

parchedpeas
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:34 pm
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 330 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by parchedpeas » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:24 am

Ok, here's my problem with the Brexit fan 'democracy' argument.

What's happening now in Westminster IS our democracy. What Theresa May is doing IS our democracy. When the house vote on the bill that IS our democracy. Whatever happens after that IS our democracy, even if it ends up with a second referendum and us not leaving.

That's the sovereignty of Parliament, right there. But they'll still rant and rave and say it's anti-democratic.
Thanked by: blythburgh

Boro Boy
Posts: 3331
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1827 times
Contact:

Re: So what did you vote for?

Post by Boro Boy » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:41 am

parchedpeas wrote:Ok, here's my problem with the Brexit fan 'democracy' argument.

What's happening now in Westminster IS our democracy. What Theresa May is doing IS our democracy. When the house vote on the bill that IS our democracy. Whatever happens after that IS our democracy, even if it ends up with a second referendum and us not leaving.

That's the sovereignty of Parliament, right there. But they'll still rant and rave and say it's anti-democratic.
The question was never Westminster and introducing it just clouds the issue; which seems to be the strategy of remainers!

I think however (to be fair to both sides) there is no such thing as the perfect Brexit - as they say "You can't keep everyone happy all the time...!"
Thanked by: blythburgh

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests