Page 110 of 113 FirstFirst ... 106085100101102103104105106107108109110111112113 LastLast
Results 2,181 to 2,200 of 2247

Thread: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

  1. #2181
    Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    764

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    @Exarch: Maybe because they don`t care about Britain? Or they`ll have investments, that will directly profit through a after-brexit-chaos, like Reese-Mogg has.

  2. #2182
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    An accusation of hypocrisy is an accusation of arguing in bad faith. It isn't the same as suggesting that someone is merely mistaken. (Cue the inevitable pedantry over the definition of the word hypocrisy)
    Only I did not suggest that someone is merely mistaken, I've been clearly speaking of a double-standard, whether due to ignorance or not, sth that has been shown numerous times.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is simply a rearranged version of the same false deduction. The Brexit Party's primary concern being the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union isn't evidence that favouring the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is tantamount - or even related to - endorsing no domestic constitutional change. You have literally offered zero evidence with regard to voter preferences vis-a-vis the United Kingdom's domestic constitutional settlement.
    A deduction is not false because you don't like it. And their primary concern being that means they are clearly a lot more interested in that than anything else. Including issues that fall on the same category of concern as this reasoning for leaving. Which is enough to accuse them of double-mindedness yes. That is hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I don't know why you're having such difficulty with this concept. Supporting the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union doesn't imply that you think Westminster is without fault (ie optimal); it implies that you think it less suboptimal than the European Union. So you're correct that I don't think that for a institution to be "endorsed as not undemocratic" (weird wording) it has to be "absolutely optimal". Then again, I never made that argument in the first place so your point is functionally irrelevant.
    You complained that I removed the "absolutely optimal" part, now you never made that argument. See, we are in agreement. That part was never there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Better not had, I might end up hypocritically paying more attention to a scratch than a missing limb.
    I can see that. You are raising quite a fuss about perceived disproportionate EU deficiencies while having no leg to stand on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is the prejudice which caused you to accuse people who voted to leave the European Union of being hypocrites. I knew it'd come out eventually.
    What would come out eventually? The "prejudice" that brexiteers tend to be less educated? That "prejudice" is actually provable and has been shown by numerous sources. Do you actually doubt it? No? Wanna move the goalposts again? There is always time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You're implying that the two are mutually exclusive. On the contrary they're contingent upon each other.
    Nonsensical argument. Wanting Brexit is not dependent on wanting to fix the UK's democracy. In fact one could argue that shifting the failures of the UK's democracy to the EU was a contributor to Brexit. Making this an example of scapegoating.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The argument you accused of being hypocritical is the most common reason provided by people who voted to leave the European Union. So while you are technically correct, relying on pedantry to score a point is hardly worthy of praise.
    So the democratic deficiencies of the EU have now been promoted to the most common reason for Brexit? Well I suppose then the hypocrisy on that camp is even stronger. And btw, I would take my technically correct over your patently wrong any time of the day.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It means that you're argument is non sequential: that your conclusion (which you labelled A+B+C) doesn't logically follow your rationale (A, B and C). So yeah, it is that.
    Only it does. So no, it is not that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I don't think you could have chosen a softer interpretation of the word hypocrisy.
    I did not see you say invalid interpretation. Why did I not see you say invalid? Does it mean it's valid? I bet it means it's valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's reasonably amusing that a few lines ago you were arguing that Brexiteers were too ignorant to even know what sovereignty meant but now you're trying to convince me that they were informed enough to be hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid.
    Actually I can, watch me. Before I spoke of Brexiteers at large, here I spoke of more realized Brexiteers as evidenced by me mentioning Brexiteer politicians. See? Wasn't that hard to have my cake and eat it too was it? Bet Brexiteers could learn a thing or two about cake from me here.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Pointing out the existence of a minor democratic deficiencies isn't "an excellent example" of anything other than the roundly acknowledged fact that the Westminster is itself imperfect. Though, for what must be the hundredth time, Westminster doesn't have to be absolutely optimal in order for someone to support leaving the European Union for democratic reasons and not be a hypocrite.
    I never said this was a minor deficiency, you said that. You want to tell me now how picking the undisputed leader of the executive, the leader of the government, the prime minister of the UK in a fashion where only a tiny fraction of the electorate actually has a say is a minor deficiency?
    Last edited by Alastor; June 24, 2019 at 05:00 AM.

  3. #2183

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    Only I did not suggest that someone is merely mistaken, I've been clearly speaking of a double-standard, whether due to ignorance or not, sth that has been shown numerous times.
    What on earth am I reading? The whole point of the comment you're responding to here was to highlight that you weren't merely accusing Brexiteers of being mistaken - that you were accusing them of acting in bad faith. Now you're acting as if the purpose of that comment was to show the opposite. The lack of basic comprehension in the argument you make here is laughable.

    A deduction is not false because you don't like it.
    Your deduction is false because its predicated on poor reasoning. At this point you aren't even bothering to confront the criticism, you've just retreated into blind denialism. The extent of your "argument" here is "nuh uh!"

    And their primary concern being that means they are clearly a lot more interested in that than anything else. Including issues that fall on the same category of concern as this reasoning for leaving. Which is enough to accuse them of double-mindedness yes. That is hypocrisy.
    This accusation is devoid of any coherence whatsoever. You might as well be arguing that family solicitors are "double-minded" for specializing in divorce proceedings over criminal law or that maths teachers are hypocrites for not teaching history. I'm running out of words and analogies to describe how nonsensical your points are.

    You complained that I removed the "absolutely optimal" part, now you never made that argument. See, we are in agreement. That part was never there.
    Except that's not even remotely what I argued. If you're going to employ the constant use of staw man arguments, you really have to make them more convincing than this.

    What would come out eventually? The "prejudice" that brexiteers tend to be less educated? That "prejudice" is actually provable and has been shown by numerous sources. Do you actually doubt it? No? Wanna move the goalposts again? There is always time.
    "Provable" in the same way that racial IQ arguments are provable? The rationale you employ here is not merely empty, its cringe worthy. At the start of this conversation I wouldn't have believed that anyone could seriously have thought that a specific incendiary accusation was proven by a the existence largely unrelated correlative trend. Yet here you are, making two such claims. At least you've clarified that this mindless assault on reason that you've been engaged in for the better part of an entire day is actually just an expression of bigotry.

    Nonsensical argument. Wanting Brexit is not dependent on wanting to fix the UK's democracy. In fact one could argue that the failures of the UK's democracy were a contributor to Brexit. Making this an example of scapegoating.
    The United Kingdom's democratic deficit cannot be properly addressed whilst it is part of the European Union. Ergo, meaningful democratic reform is contingent upon the success of the Brexit movement. Another failed attempt at argumentative shape shifting on your part.

    So the democratic deficiencies of the EU have now been promoted to the most common reason for Brexit? Well I suppose then the hypocrisy on that camp is even stronger. And btw, I would take my technically correct over your patently wrong any time of the day.
    "Now been promoted"? You're continuing to dig this hole where you expose your own ignorance whilst at the same time chastising others for their supposed ignorance.

    Only it does. So no, it is not that.
    Blind, repetitious, denialsm. You really must do better than this.

    I did not see you say invalid interpretation. Why did I not see you say invalid? Does it mean it's valid? I bet it means it's valid.
    Valid, but contextually bizarre. Using this definition what you're in effect saying is that people voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not on the basis of genuinely held beliefs, but as as an act of virtue signalling - that it was all just a way of trying to show that they had more "noble" principles than they actually do. No one finds such a ridiculous line of reasoning convincing.

    Actually I can, watch me. Before I spoke of Brexiteers at large, now I spoke of more realized Brexiteers as evidenced by me mentioning Brexiteer politicians. See? Wasn't that hard to have my cake and eat it too was it? Bet Brexiteers could learn a thing or two about cake from me here.
    "Now I spoke of more realized Brexiteers": what incoherent drivel. I'd be amazed if anyone had learned anything from your "contribution" to this thread.

    I never said this was a minor deficiency, you said that.
    Yes, and?

    You want to tell me now how picking the undisputed leader of the executive, the leader of the government, the prime minister of the UK in a fashion were only a tiny fraction of the electorate actually has a say is a minor deficiency?
    I feel like this was addressed at the start of the exchange. Go and look there.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; June 24, 2019 at 05:27 AM.

  4. #2184
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    What on earth am I reading? The whole point of the comment you're responding to here was to highlight that you weren't merely accusing Brexiteers of being mistaken - that you were accusing them of acting in bad faith. Now you're acting as if the purpose of that comment was to show the opposite. The lack of basic comprehension in the argument you make here is laughable.
    I said whether it's due to ignorance or not. Lacking self-awareness doesn't mean one is arguing necessarily in bad faith you know. It does still make accusations of hypocrisy pertinent though. But then again we have here someone who spoke of pedantry and is trying his best to be as pedantic as possible about the meaning of the word. Oh what am I saying, we have here someone whose sole argument is to attack my skills of comprehension. A thinly veiled ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Your deduction is false because its predicated on poor reasoning. At this point you aren't even bothering to confront the criticism, you've just retreated into blind denialism. The extent of your "argument" here is "nuh uh!"
    Well it must fit quite well with your "yuh huh" then.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This accusation is devoid of any coherence whatsoever. You might as well be arguing that family solicitors are "double-minded" for specializing in divorce proceedings over criminal law or that maths teachers are hypocrites for not teaching history. I'm running out of words and analogies to describe how nonsensical your points are.
    I might, if divorce lawyers were actually making a case against the other lawyers, or if maths teachers against the other teachers, over shared deficiencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Except that's not even remotely what I argued. If you're going to employ the constant use of staw man arguments, you really have to make them more convincing than this.
    Yes, we agree, so don't make a deal about me not addressing what you never said.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Provable" in the same way that racial IQ arguments are provable? The rationale you employ here is not merely empty, its cringe worthy. At the start of this conversation I wouldn't have believed that anyone could seriously have thought that a specific incendiary accusation was proven by a the existence largely unrelated correlative trend. Yet here you are, making two such claims. At least you've clarified that this mindless assault on reason that you've been engaged in for the better part of an entire day is actually just an expression of bigotry.
    Provable in the same way as there are surveys that show the majority of highly educated people voting for remain and vice-versa. And I wouldn't call the assumption that less educated people are less likely to understand terms such as sovereignty wrong or bigoted. On the other hand it is quite nice to see you keep those ironclad refutations via ad hominem coming. Good, good.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The United Kingdom's democratic deficit cannot be properly addressed whilst it is part of the European Union. Ergo, meaningful democratic reform is contingent upon the success of the Brexit movement. Another failed attempt at argumentative shape shifting on your part.
    Of course it can. That just may be your most preposterous claim yet. Or have you forgotten that in the EU or not the UK remains fully sovereign? As evidenced if anything by the very fact that it can leave. If the UK ever decides how that is. But by all means go ahead and tell me what meaningful democratic reform has the EU blocked?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Now been promoted"? You're continuing to dig this hole where you expose your own ignorance whilst at the same time chastising others for their supposed ignorance.
    Oh really? By all means again, give me the survey that says that democratic deficiencies in the EU is the primary reason. The last survey I saw listed immigration control as the number one reason for voting to leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Valid, but contextually bizarre. Using this definition what you're in effect saying is that people voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not on the basis of genuinely held beliefs, but as as an act of virtue signalling - that it was all just a way of trying to show that they had more "noble" principles than they actually do. No one finds such a ridiculous line of reasoning convincing.
    So valid, thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Now I spoke of more realized Brexiteers": what incoherent drivel. I'd be amazed if anyone had learned anything from your "contribution" to this thread.
    I would argue at least as much, if not more than what they learnt from yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Yes, and?
    And since it is not claimed to be a minor deficiency, because indeed it's not, it does make for a good example. And will continue to make for a good example, till proven otherwise, however often you attempt to weasel the word minor in front of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I feel like this was addressed at the start of the exchange. Go and look there.
    I have. And I have replied. Why don't you go look there?
    Last edited by Alastor; June 24, 2019 at 06:41 AM.

  5. #2185

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I said whether it's due to ignorance or not. Lacking self-awareness doesn't mean one is arguing necessarily in bad faith you know. It does still make accusations of hypocrisy pertinent though. But then again we have here someone who spoke of pedantry and is trying his best to be as pedantic as possible about the meaning of the word. Oh what am I saying, we have here someone whose sole argument is to attack my skills of comprehension. A thinly veiled ad hominem.
    Incoherent babble which bears no relation to the comment which it purports to be a response to.

    Nevertheless, here is you, not more than a few posts ago, arguing that in order to show hypocrisy "it is enough to demonstrate that their [Brexit voter's] preferred institution also suffers from the same problem [democratic deficit] and they are aware". Now you're arguing that hypocrisy can be shown whether ignorance is present or not. You can't even go 2 minutes without contradicting yourself.
    Well it must fit quite well with your "yuh huh" then.
    Mindless, repetitious denialism.

    I might, if divorce lawyers were actually making a case against the other lawyers, or if maths teachers against the other teachers, over shared deficiencies.
    This baseless criticism has been soundly refuted more times than I care to remember.

    Yes, we agree, so don't make a deal about me not addressing what you never said.
    Incoherent babble.

    And I wouldn't call the assumption that less educated people are less likely to understand terms such as sovereignty wrong or bigoted. On the other hand it is quite nice to see you keep those ironclad refutations via ad hominem coming. Good, good.
    This was the claim: "I have heard enough Brexiteers on the radio to know you must be quite high indeed if you think most of them even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty". Stop trying to spin this self-evidently bigoted, anecdotal statement being anything other than the prejudicial rant that it is.

    What would be hilarious were it not so sad is that you once fell over yourself to agree with me that liberals often bring up "cliched arguments that they wouldn't accept in other domains" such as "they [their political opponents] aren't smart enough". Now here you are, without a shred of self-awareness, making that exact same argument and expecting it to stick whilst at the same time having the audacity to accuse others of hypocrisy. Absolutely pathetic.

    Of course it can. That just may be your most preposterous claim yet. Or have you forgotten that in the EU or not the UK remains fully sovereign? As evidenced if anything by the very fact that it can leave. If the UK ever decides how that is. But by all means go ahead and tell me what meaningful democratic reform has the EU blocked?
    So now you're arguing that the United Kingdom's theoretical ability to leave the European Union proves that it has the power to solve its democratic deficit without leaving the European Union. This being despite the fact that you've previously argued that both organizations sharing the same democratic deficiencies is an illustration that leaving the European Union would solve nothing. What risible, contradictory drivel.

    Oh really? By all means again, give me the survey that says that democratic deficiencies in the EU is the primary reason. The last survey I saw listed immigration control as the number one reason for voting to leave.
    Westminster being unable, on account of its commitments to various European treaties, to act on its own mandate is itself an extension of the democratic deficiencies caused by being an EU member state.

    So valid, thank you.
    Blind avoidance of the criticism in favour of a soundbite response - yet again.

    And since it is not claimed to be a minor deficiency, because indeed it's not, it does make for a good example.
    It not being claimed as minor deficiency by you is an irrelevance. I know you didn't claim that; my position isn't contingent on you having done so. There wasn't, and isn't, any reason for you to point out that my claim was not yours.

    And will continue to make for a good example, till proven otherwise, however often you attempt to weasel the word minor in front of it.
    Another mindless repetition of the false proposition that imperfections in Westminster prove that voting to leave the European Union was hypocritical.

    I have. And I have replied. Why don't you go look there?
    Because I'm not the one demanding an answer to a previously answered question. That's you.

  6. #2186
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Nevertheless, here is you, not more than a few posts ago, arguing that in order to show hypocrisy "it is enough to demonstrate that their [Brexit voter's] preferred institution also suffers from the same problem [democratic deficit] and they are aware". Now you're arguing that hypocrisy can be shown whether ignorance is present or not. You can't even go 2 minutes without contradicting yourself.
    There is a difference between calling someone a hypocrite and calling an argument hypocritical. In the latter case the person can realize their hypocrisy once properly informed. Or, as shown, double-down on it. But yeah keep the inane arguments coming, I wouldn't want to spoil your fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This baseless criticism has been soundly refuted more times than I care to remember.
    The reason you can't remember any of those times is because they never occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This was the claim: "I have heard enough Brexiteers on the radio to know you must be quite high indeed if you think most of them even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty". Stop trying to spin this self-evidently bigoted, anecdotal statement being anything other than the prejudicial rant that it is.
    Right. Only, my anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, it is a proven fact that the less educated voted for Brexit. And it is a fair assumption to make that the less educated would be less likely to have a good understanding of complex political concepts such as sovereignty. You want to argue it is not the case? Sure go ahead. But to accuse me of bigotry you need substantially more than that. I have not dismissed your understanding of sovereignty yet for instance, despite you evidently falling into the same camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    What would be hilarious were it not so sad is that you once fell over yourself to agree with me that liberals often bring up "cliched arguments that they wouldn't accept in other domains" such as "they [their political opponents] aren't smart enough". Now here you are, without a shred of self-awareness, making that exact same argument and expecting it to stick whilst at the same time having the audacity to accuse others of hypocrisy. Absolutely pathetic.
    Oh my. You actually went scouring old threads to find sth, anything even remotely relevant that you could throw at me? Are you that desperate? Very well then, here it goes. I apologize for ever having the nerve to agree with you on a completely unrelated topic once upon a time. Even though technically I fell over myself to agree with James Phillips, not you per se. Ok? Are we good now? Can we continue this current discussion? Or do you have sth irrelevant from 2015 or sth to bring up now? I mean I haven't made that many posts, if you spent a couple of hours you can probably go through all of them.

    So after witnessing you discover new lows in your pathetic quest for a rebuttal, let's focus for a second on what the argument actually was. You argued that it "is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself." I countered that such nuances would be lost on the majority so the argument can't be shown to be about that. Particularly when you consider that Brexiteers are indeed made up primarily from the lesser educated segments of British society. Even if a good number subscribes to this take that the nation state is the most democratic unit of governance, the majority would be unable to explain why. Hell, you have failed to explain why. Their preference would simply be the result of bias, of nationalism, indeed of hypocrisy. Perhaps my wording was slightly more dismissive than that, which I can easily excuse by bringing up just how aggressively dismissive your entire conduct towards me has been, but regardless my point was clear enough. Despite that you just blew a gasket or sth again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So now you're arguing that the United Kingdom's theoretical ability to leave the European Union proves that it has the power to solve its democratic deficit without leaving the European Union. This being despite the fact that you've previously argued that both organizations sharing the same democratic deficiencies is an illustration that leaving the European Union would solve nothing. What risible, contradictory drivel.
    So no examples of any meaningful democratic reforms blocked by the EU then? Can't say I'm surprised.
    To reiterate, in the vain hope I will get an actual answer. The EU can't be holding back the UK from fixing its mess because the UK remains fully sovereign. And indeed that fact is also showcased by the very pertinent fact that the UK can opt to leave, as indeed it chose to do. As for the democratic deficiencies of the EU, they only have an effect on the UK because the UK allows them to. Which is a direct byproduct of the fact that the UK indeed is and has always been sovereign. Once the UK leaves the EU, the only thing that will change is that the EU scapegoat won't be there for UK politicians to use in order to shield themselves from criticism. Then again I'm not worried about them, they'll find other scapegoats.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Westminster being unable, on account of its commitments to various European treaties, to act on its own mandate is itself an extension of the democratic deficiencies caused by being an EU member state.
    I missed the capitulation that forced the UK to agree to those treaties. As did the rest of the world. Because you see the UK freely agreed to these treaties. Represented by its democratically elected governments. Or do you want to tell me that after Brexit the UK will not enter into any treaty again? Of course it will and those treaties will also have commitments. That's how it goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Blind avoidance of the criticism in favour of a soundbite response - yet again.
    Very self-aware response. Congrats. [/sarcasm]

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It not being claimed as minor deficiency by you is an irrelevance. I know you didn't claim that; my position isn't contingent on you having done so. There wasn't, and isn't, any reason for you to point out that my claim was not yours.
    There is, when you are presenting it as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Another mindless repetition of the false proposition that imperfections in Westminster prove that voting to leave the European Union was hypocritical.
    Again it was using that particular argument that I called hypocritical. Not the act of voting to leave by itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Because I'm not the one demanding an answer to a previously answered question. That's you.
    An inadequate answer. So hardly an answer. That way I'm not the one doing what you describe either.

  7. #2187

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    There is a difference between calling someone a hypocrite and calling an argument hypocritical. In the latter case the person can realize their hypocrisy once properly informed. Or, as shown, double-down on it. But yeah keep the inane arguments coming, I wouldn't want to spoil your fun.
    Watching you try to back pedal out of your bigoted statements is rather amusing: keep trying, I'm enjoying it.

    The reason you can't remember any of those times is because they never occurred.
    Mindless, repetitious denialism.

    Right. Only, my anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, it is a proven fact that the less educated voted for Brexit. And it is a fair assumption to make that the less educated would be less likely to have a good understanding of complex political concepts such as sovereignty. You want to argue it is not the case? Sure go ahead. But to accuse me of bigotry you need substantially more than that. I have not dismissed your understanding of sovereignty yet for instance, despite you evidently falling into the same camp.
    You must do better than merely restating your original point without addressing the criticism of it. You attempted to shape shift your bigoted argument into something more palatable, and when called out for it, you simple reiterated the amended version. If you're going to insist on making incendiary statements, at least have the courage to own them.

    Oh my. You actually went scouring old threads to find sth, anything even remotely relevant that you could throw at me? Are you that desperate? Very well then, here it goes. I apologize for ever having the nerve to agree with you on a completely unrelated topic once upon a time.
    The evident hypocrisy of your current stance vs. your previously held stance is there for all to see. In the first case we have you strongly agreeing that generalized references to intelligence make for poor justifications and in the second we have you using such a strategy in order to chastise those with whom you disagree. Now that's what a double-standard looks like.

    Even though technically I fell over myself to agree with James Phillips, not you per se. Ok? Are we good now? Can we continue this current discussion? Or do you have sth irrelevant from 2015 or sth to bring up now? I mean I haven't made that many posts, if you spent a couple of hours you can probably go through all of them.
    I suppose blind denial is the only real way out of this for you other than simply to concede and apologize properly. I understand though: at this point you're just mounting a defense of your ego rather than the accusations you've been making.

    So after witnessing you discover new lows in your pathetic quest for a rebuttal, let's focus for a second on what the argument actually was. You argued that it "is as much about the nature of the electoral unit(s) that should constitute a sovereign democratic polity as it is about the mechanics of the system itself." I countered that such nuances would be lost on the majority so the argument can't be shown to be about that.
    Do you have any evidence that the majority of voters don't know the difference between the concepts of national and supranational, or are you just making another breathtakingly arrogant claim? I genuinely have no idea why you think anyone would just accept these outlandish and offensive claims you make at face value.

    Particularly when you consider that Brexiteers are indeed made up primarily from the lesser educated segments of British society. Even if a good number subscribes to this take that the nation state is the most democratic unit of governance, the majority would be unable to explain why. Hell, you have failed to explain why.
    These variations on the "people didn't know what were voting for" and "people who disagree with me are thick" arguments are intellectually vapid. Do try to present something less tedious.

    Their preference would simply be the result of bias, of nationalism, indeed of hypocrisy.
    All preferences are the result of bias, that's why they're called preferences. Christ alive, its like you've collapsed into an inverted form of your "definitive proof" argument. And I see we have a repetition of the baseless allegation of hypocrisy once again. "Oh look some people have different preferences to me and that's biased hypocrisy". How amusingly ludicrous.

    Perhaps my wording was slightly more dismissive than that, which I can easily excuse by bringing up just how aggressively dismissive your entire conduct towards me has been, but regardless my point was clear enough. Despite that you just blew a gasket or sth again.
    So you're justifying your bigotry on the basis that I reacted unfavourably toward your bigotry? Lol. You just keep topping your own farcical attempts to justify yourself. On the plus side I haven't laughed this much for ages.

    So no examples of any meaningful democratic reforms blocked by the EU then? Can't say I'm surprised.
    The European Union's record on democratic reform isn't relevant; no one has raised that as a concern hitherto. You're arguing with yourself again.

    To reiterate, in the vain hope I will get an actual answer. The EU can't be holding back the UK from fixing its mess because the UK remains fully sovereign. And indeed that fact is also showcased by the very pertinent fact that the UK can opt to leave, as indeed it chose to do. As for the democratic deficiencies of the EU, they only have an effect on the UK because the UK allows them to. Which is a direct byproduct of the fact that the UK indeed is and has always been sovereign. Once the UK leaves the EU, the only thing that will change is that the EU scapegoat won't be there for UK politicians to use in order to shield themselves from criticism. Then again I'm not worried about them, they'll find other scapegoats.
    No one is claiming that the European Union has agency in restricting the United Kingdom. The argument is that the United Kingdom cannot solve its democratic deficit whilst part of the European Union. This really isn't that hard to grasp.

    I missed the capitulation that forced the UK to agree to those treaties. As did the rest of the world. Because you see the UK freely agreed to these treaties. Represented by its democratically elected governments. Or do you want to tell me that after Brexit the UK will not enter into any treaty again? Of course it will and those treaties will also have commitments. That's how it goes.
    Am I going to have to show you the countless examples of me - some of which are almost certainly in this thread - blaming Westminster politicians for the state of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union or are you going to confess to making straw man arguments? No one is arguing that European politicians are responsible for the United Kingdom being tied to the treaties; they're arguing that they want the United Kingdom's association with the treaties to be discontinued. Again, this shouldn't be hard to fathom.

    Very self-aware response. Congrats. [/sarcasm]
    Here is me offering a criticism of your argument:

    "Using this definition what you're in effect saying is that people voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not on the basis of genuinely held beliefs, but as as an act of virtue signalling - that it was all just a way of trying to show that they had more "noble" principles than they actually do. No one finds such a ridiculous line of reasoning convincing. "

    Here is you mindlessly dismissing it so as to not have to engage with it:

    "So valid, thank you."

    Here is me criticizing you for trying to avoid said meaningful engagement:

    "Blind avoidance of the criticism in favour of a soundbite response - yet again."

    Here is you justifying your dismissive attitude with an insult:

    "Very self-aware response. Congrats. [/sarcasm"

    It's not really possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who behaves in a manner as evidenced above. You've been doing this almost since the start of the conversation too. The first example of disruptive argumentation I can recall was when you mindlessly construed my unequivocal opposition to your silly point as being agreement. Yet when I challenge you on said disruptive techniques, you retort either by restating the same baseless denials or by parroting the charge made against you. And so as funny as witnessing your regress into the rhetorical abyss is, it does get rather boring after a while.

    There is, when you are presenting it as such.


    I'm not and haven't.

    Again it was using that particular argument that I called hypocritical. Not the act of voting to leave by itself.
    This pedantic point has already been addressed; re-raising it serves no value.

    An inadequate answer. So hardly an answer.
    If you want to have a discussion about why the PM isn't always elected leader of his/her party prior to the general election which empowers their party we can do that - it just isn't really relevant to a discussion about Brexit. You know non of this really is. That's why no remain voting politician ever uses the central argument you've been making. It's the sort of self-defeating claptrap that I'd expect from a provocative left wing publication, not something worthy of being seriously debated.

    That way I'm not the one doing what you describe either.
    Incoherent.

  8. #2188

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Kaufmann with a good article on Brexit, immigration and voter preferences:
    Leavers may prefer Salvini’s Fortress Europe to Boris’s Global Britain

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/leavers-may-pr...form=hootsuite

  9. #2189
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You must do better than merely restating your original point without addressing the criticism of it. You attempted to shape shift your bigoted argument into something more palatable, and when called out for it, you simple reiterated the amended version. If you're going to insist on making incendiary statements, at least have the courage to own them.
    What criticism? You have leveled no relevant criticism, just accusations. And the initial statement was meant as a snappy retort that you then proceeded to blow out of proportions. After challenged about it, I explained my rationale behind that comment. What you call "the amended version". So I don't see how I don't own it. What I refuse to accept is your "amended versions" of it, what you chose to read into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The evident hypocrisy of your current stance vs. your previously held stance is there for all to see. In the first case we have you strongly agreeing that generalized references to intelligence make for poor justifications and in the second we have you using such a strategy in order to chastise those with whom you disagree. Now that's what a double-standard looks like.
    You don't seem to be applying the same rigorous standards to accusations of hypocrisy you demand from others when you are the one leveling them. One could say that in itself is hypocritical. And do you need another reminder of what this argument is about? Because there are findings that show that Brexit was the preferred option of the less educated. Also I'm not sure what you think I tried to justify. It was a retort to your claim that for the majority the EU's democratic deficiencies were the number one reason for Brexit. I have repeatedly explained the rationale behind the retort. Now add that your claim has no bearing, as evidenced by numerous surveys that point at other reasons as the number one reason for Brexit and your argument collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I suppose blind denial is the only real way out of this for you other than simply to concede and apologize properly. I understand though: at this point you're just mounting a defense of your ego rather than the accusations you've been making.
    The arrogance displayed here is astonishing. So you are actually saying I owe you an apology now?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Do you have any evidence that the majority of voters don't know the difference between the concepts of national and supranational, or are you just making another breathtakingly arrogant claim? I genuinely have no idea why you think anyone would just accept these outlandish and offensive claims you make at face value.
    As I already said this was an assumption backed by the facts that these are complex issues and Bretixeers are made up preferentially by the less educated. The logic behind that assumption is rather sound. But being an assumption it can of course be wrong. So if those facts it's based on are wrong, show how. If you have other evidence that contradict it, go ahead and present them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    These variations on the "people didn't know what were voting for" and "people who disagree with me are thick" arguments are intellectually vapid. Do try to present something less tedious.
    Oh people may have well known what they were voting for. What I disputed was that it was what you stated it to be. And again surveys don't back you up. As for people that disagree with me, being thick. Remind me, did I call you thick? Are you telling me I should? You know, this is indeed beginning to get rather tiresome.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    All preferences are the result of bias, that's why they're called preferences. Christ alive, its like you've collapsed into an inverted form of your "definitive proof" argument. And I see we have a repetition of the baseless allegation of hypocrisy once again. "Oh look some people have different preferences to me and that's biased hypocrisy". How amusingly ludicrous.
    Ah right, pedantry. Of course. It was about time for some more of that. You are perfectly aware of what I meant here when I spoke of a preference based on bias. I meant not one based on rational arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So you're justifying your bigotry on the basis that I reacted unfavourably toward your bigotry? Lol. You just keep topping your own farcical attempts to justify yourself. On the plus side I haven't laughed this much for ages.
    No I am simply stating that my tone should not come as a surprise, as it fits the tone that you have set in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The European Union's record on democratic reform isn't relevant; no one has raised that as a concern hitherto. You're arguing with yourself again.

    No one is claiming that the European Union has agency in restricting the United Kingdom. The argument is that the United Kingdom cannot solve its democratic deficit whilst part of the European Union. This really isn't that hard to grasp.
    What are you talking about? This was in response to your claim that the UK can't enact meaningful democratic reform while in the EU. That must obviously mean that the EU somehow is stopping such attempts. Why else would it matter? I asked for examples, you had none. The next logical step is that since the EU is not stopping those meaningful democratic reforms, then if they are not happening it's because the UK doesn't really want them to happen. And that has nothing to do with the EU and won't change via Brexit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Am I going to have to show you the countless examples of me - some of which are almost certainly in this thread - blaming Westminster politicians for the state of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union or are you going to confess to making straw man arguments? No one is arguing that European politicians are responsible for the United Kingdom being tied to the treaties; they're arguing that they want the United Kingdom's association with the treaties to be discontinued. Again, this shouldn't be hard to fathom.
    Well why not. Dragging up old posts is clearly a talent of yours. Even if they are irrelevant. And I see, after having to apologize, now I also have to confess. What's next? Public penance for my sins? But I'm curious what is your vivid imagination painting as a straw man argument this time? It is hardly the EU's fault if the UK wants out of those treaties. It is afterall a right it has as a sovereign state. But if the argument provided in favour of such a move is the "democratic deficiency" of the EU that "blocks meaningful democratic reform", while in fact that democratic deficiency is present in the UK and even more so all issues attributed to the EU's influence on the UK have the UK's seal of approval, that is a hypocritical argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Here is me offering a criticism of your argument:

    "Using this definition what you're in effect saying is that people voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not on the basis of genuinely held beliefs, but as as an act of virtue signalling - that it was all just a way of trying to show that they had more "noble" principles than they actually do. No one finds such a ridiculous line of reasoning convincing. "

    Here is you mindlessly dismissing it so as to not have to engage with it:

    "So valid, thank you."

    Here is me criticizing you for trying to avoid said meaningful engagement:

    "Blind avoidance of the criticism in favour of a soundbite response - yet again."

    Here is you justifying your dismissive attitude with an insult:

    "Very self-aware response. Congrats. [/sarcasm"

    It's not really possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who behaves in a manner as evidenced above. You've been doing this almost since the start of the conversation too. The first example of disruptive argumentation I can recall was when you mindlessly construed my unequivocal opposition to your silly point as being agreement. Yet when I challenge you on said disruptive techniques, you retort either by restating the same baseless denials or by parroting the charge made against you. And so as funny as witnessing your regress into the rhetorical abyss is, it does get rather boring after a while.
    I did not respond to that "criticism" because it was not relevant. You argued my definition of hypocrisy was weak. I pointed out that even if it is so that doesn't make it invalid. You agreed and then you sidetracked. Good for you.

    Now lets see what the majority of your criticism throughout this discussion has actually been like:
    "Mindless, repetitious denialism."
    "What risible, contradictory drivel. "
    "What meaningless tosh. "
    Etc

    Add to that a healthy degree of pedantry and arrogance, shifting goalposts and constant unsubstantiated personal accusations of hypocrisy. Yes, clearly you are an authority on meaningful discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I'm not and haven't.
    Sure whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If you want to have a discussion about why the PM isn't always elected leader of his/her party prior to the general election which empowers their party we can do that - it just isn't really relevant to a discussion about Brexit. You know non of this really is. That's why no remain voting politician ever uses the central argument you've been making. It's the sort of self-defeating claptrap that I'd expect from a provocative left wing publication, not something worthy of being seriously debated.
    God forbid they attack the sacred cow. Of course they wouldn't. That would be like sawing off the branch of the tree they are standing on. Regardless this topic would be worthy of discussion, but I agree that it is not directly relevant to Brexit. For me here it is enough to point out that Brexiteers in this thread and elsewhere were livid that the Commission for instance is selected by a few elected officials. When they are about to get a second prime minister(a post significantly more consequential for the UK than any Commission) in a row elected by a small fraction of the electorate. And they aren't really raising as much of a fuss. Or even a fuss. I suppose they could make it right if along with the Brexit party, Brexiteers formed a UKexit party. Down with the undemocratic Westminster too.
    Last edited by Alastor; June 25, 2019 at 02:35 AM.

  10. #2190
    Exarch's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    20,686

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morifea View Post
    @Exarch: Maybe because they don`t care about Britain? Or they`ll have investments, that will directly profit through a after-brexit-chaos, like Reese-Mogg has.
    Losing access to EU markets and the free travel in Schengen isn't worth a few hundred million but who knows wtf these british aristocrats are thinking; it's absurd that these idiots think they'll have better deals with a FTA in the british commonwealth countries, especially when they won't be able to finalise any trade deals until after Brexit.

  11. #2191
    Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    764

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    Losing access to EU markets and the free travel in Schengen isn't worth a few hundred million but who knows wtf these british aristocrats are thinking; it's absurd that these idiots think they'll have better deals with a FTA in the british commonwealth countries, especially when they won't be able to finalise any trade deals until after Brexit.
    I wholeheartly agree. The Problem is the british attitude to ascribe those excentric buffons like Johnson, Reese-Mogg and Farrage any kind of political skill.

    And now lets fly away, we don`t want to disturbe the epic dialog between epic_fail and Alastor

  12. #2192

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morifea View Post
    I wholeheartly agree. The Problem is the british attitude to ascribe those excentric buffons like Johnson, Reese-Mogg and Farrage any kind of political skill.

    And now lets fly away, we don`t want to disturbe the epic dialog between epic_fail and Alastor
    Considering the collection of politicians in America and Europe, this attitude is not exactly unique to the British.

  13. #2193

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    Losing access to EU markets and the free travel in Schengen isn't worth a few hundred million but who knows wtf these british aristocrats are thinking; it's absurd that these idiots think they'll have better deals with a FTA in the british commonwealth countries, especially when they won't be able to finalise any trade deals until after Brexit.
    1) The UK won't be banned from EU markets, it'll be treated according to WTO rules in the worst case and since the Uruguay round tariffs have been lower than they have ever been in history. Let's stop pretending it'll be this gigantic difference.

    2)The affluent euroskeptics, though influential, are a tiny minority of Brexiteers. The vaste majority are working class or lower middle class people (see source I posted previously) who are losing off thanks to EU policies.

    So let's stop pretending uh?
    Being governed by institutions that clearly shun democracy (see Juncker ''There's no democratic decisions against EU treaties'' - Malmstrom ''we are not here to serve the people'') but actively serve oligarchies and seek to restrict electoral influence with supranational rules isn't simply worthy an additional, tiny reduction in tariffs.
    The EU should have been about democracy and prosperity. It has failed both for most of the people unless you are part of the globalist elite.

  14. #2194

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    What criticism? You have leveled no relevant criticism, just accusations.
    I grow tired of repeating myself. For the nth time, the criticisms of your position are as follows:

    1. The contention that lower average rates of educational attainment among leave voters is evidence for the accusation that leave voters are ignorant of the concept of sovereignty is a patent non sequitur.
    2. Said accusation bears alarming similarities to discriminatory racial theories which seek to invoke IQ trends as an excuse for dismissing the interests and concerns of non whites.
    3. You are a hypocrite, both for having made an argument the rationale for which you have previously disavowed and for using bigoted reasoning to accuse others of ignorance.
    4. Even if the accusation that leave voters are too ignorant to understand their own choice were true (which it isn't), it would not only serve only to disprove your initial allegation that those voters were acting in bad faith but also the legitimacy of democracy as a form of governance.

    You have routinely responded to the criticisms made against you with the following techniques:

    A. By Blindly refuting the existence of the criticism (as is evidenced by the denial that I'm currently responding to);
    B. By Shape shifting your claims and offering contorted semantic reasoning so as to evade scrutiny and;
    C. By simply repeating the same debunked points ad nauseam.

    And the initial statement was meant as a snappy retort that you then proceeded to blow out of proportions. After challenged about it, I explained my rationale behind that comment. What you call "the amended version". So I don't see how I don't own it. What I refuse to accept is your "amended versions" of it, what you chose to read into it.
    See point B. You've been attempting to walk back the bigoted nature of your initial claim whilst at the same time trying to justify having made it. Unfortunately for you, even the amended accusation is still predicated on the same faulty (that is non sequential) reasoning of the first. For this reason, it too can be discarded.

    You don't seem to be applying the same rigorous standards to accusations of hypocrisy you demand from others when you are the one leveling them. One could say that in itself is hypocritical. And do you need another reminder of what this argument is about? Because there are findings that show that Brexit was the preferred option of the less educated.
    At no point have I disputed the existence of the correlation which shows that leave voters had lower average standards of educational attainment. What is being disputed is your suggestion that the aforementioned correlation is evidence for the incendiary claim that most leave voters don't "even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty". So let's briefly consider that in more detail. What you've done is lifted a generalized trend, isolated it from all other variables and then applied it as evidence for the validity a specific accusation. And this you did in the most incendiary way possible without even bothering to offer an analysis of educational attainment as an independent factor. So that, my dear fellow, is why your point has all the intellectual trappings of a bait thread on 4Chan.

    Also I'm not sure what you think I tried to justify. It was a retort to your claim that for the majority the EU's democratic deficiencies were the number one reason for Brexit. I have repeatedly explained the rationale behind the retort. Now add that your claim has no bearing, as evidenced by numerous surveys that point at other reasons as the number one reason for Brexit and your argument collapses.
    This is too incoherent for me to respond to.

    The arrogance displayed here is astonishing. So you are actually saying I owe you an apology now?
    You owe the apology as much to yourself and the board as you do to me.

    As I already said this was an assumption backed by the facts that these are complex issues and Bretixeers are made up preferentially by the less educated. The logic behind that assumption is rather sound.
    No, it isn't "sound" logic at all. It's utterly abysmal. I've explained above why this assumption is little more than tabloid memery. And what on earth does "Bretixeers [sic] are made up of preferentially by the less educated" mean by the way?

    But being an assumption it can of course be wrong. So if those facts it's based on are wrong, show how. If you have other evidence that contradict it, go ahead and present them.
    The correlation isn't wrong, it's the conclusions you draw about them which are. It'd be like me arguing that remain voters have are too inexperienced to comprehend the issues because they tend toward youth or that Trump voters must understand economics better than Democrats because the richest segments of American society are more likely to vote Republican. As I say, its tabloid memery.

    Oh people may have well known what they were voting for.
    If they didn't know what sovereignty was but voted on the basis of recovering sovereignty then by extension, according to your argument, they didn't know what they were voting for.

    What I disputed was that it was what you stated it to be. And again surveys don't back you up. As for people that disagree with me, being thick. Remind me, did I call you thick? Are you telling me I should? You know, this is indeed beginning to get rather tiresome.
    This is too incoherent for me to respond to.

    Ah right, pedantry. Of course. It was about time for some more of that. You are perfectly aware of what I meant here when I spoke of a preference based on bias. I meant not one based on rational arguments.
    Yes, I can see why you'd think that one of, if not the most, successful model of political organization in all of human history was predicated on irrational arguments. Careful now, you're making me laugh again.

    No I am simply stating that my tone should not come as a surprise, as it fits the tone that you have set in this discussion.
    The "tone" of the discourse does tend to become poisoned when your opening argument is predicated on an insult.

    What are you talking about? This was in response to your claim that the UK can't enact meaningful democratic reform while in the EU. That must obviously mean that the EU somehow is stopping such attempts. Why else would it matter?
    The treaties of the European Union prevent the United Kingdom from enacting meaningful democratic reform because they oblige Westminster to delegate far too much of its decision making power abroad. That doesn't mean that the EU is preventing the United Kingdom from abandoning or renegotiating the treaties. Once again, this really isn't difficult to fathom.

    I asked for examples, you had none. The next logical step is that since the EU is not stopping those meaningful democratic reforms, then if they are not happening it's because the UK doesn't really want them to happen. And that has nothing to do with the EU and won't change via Brexit.
    No, that's not the "next logical step". See above for more details.

    Well why not. Dragging up old posts is clearly a talent of yours. Even if they are irrelevant.
    Well you would argue that your hypocrisies are irrelevant whilst accusing others of hypocrisy wouldn't you? That's what hypocrites do.

    And I see, after having to apologize, now I also have to confess. What's next? Public penance for my sins?
    Putting a stop to your ceaseless tirade of ludicrous propositions would do just fine.

    It is hardly the EU's fault if the UK wants out of those treaties.
    It is partially the EU's fault that the majority of British voters want to abandon the treaties.

    It is afterall a right it has as a sovereign state. But if the argument provided in favour of such a move is the "democratic deficiency" of the EU that "blocks meaningful democratic reform", while in fact that democratic deficiency is present in the UK and even more so all issues attributed to the EU's influence on the UK have the UK's seal of approval, that is a hypocritical argument.
    You are just inventing what you want the arguments against the European Union to be in a desperate attempt to prove the "muh hypocrite" argument. The position isn't that the EU "blocks" meaningful democratic reform, it's that it requires far too much power be delegated away from national parliaments. The fact that no one, as far as I'm aware, has managed to formally introduce legislative proposals to the European Parliament demanding that Lisbon and Maastricht be retracted is only evidence that it, for obvious reasons, would never be accepted. The much more logical route, therefore, is to demand that national parliaments disengage from the writs which bind them to the European Union.

    I did not respond to that "criticism" because it was not relevant. You argued my definition of hypocrisy was weak. I pointed out that even if it is so that doesn't make it invalid. You agreed and then you sidetracked. Good for you.
    So a catastrophic flaw in your argument - believing that leave voters were primarily motivated by a desire to virtue signal - isn't relevant? What bollocks.

    Now lets see what the majority of your criticism throughout this discussion has actually been like:
    "Mindless, repetitious denialism."
    "What risible, contradictory drivel. "
    "What meaningless tosh. "
    Etc

    Add to that a healthy degree of pedantry and arrogance, shifting goalposts and constant unsubstantiated personal accusations of hypocrisy. Yes, clearly you are an authority on meaningful discussion.
    "Yet when I challenge you on said disruptive techniques you retort either by restating the same baseless denials or by parroting the charges made against you". Well that was predictable wasn't it?

    Sure whatever.
    Blimey he's conceded a point - I think a capitulation might be on the horizon boys!

    God forbid they attack the sacred cow. Of course they wouldn't. That would be like sawing off the branch of the tree they are standing on. Regardless this topic would be worthy of discussion, but I agree that it is not directly relevant to Brexit. For me here it is enough to point out that Brexiteers in this thread and elsewhere were livid that the Commission for instance is selected by a few elected officials. When they are about to get a second prime minister(a post significantly more consequential for the UK than any Commission) in a row elected by a small fraction of the electorate. And they aren't really raising as much of a fuss. Or even a fuss. I suppose they could make it right if along with the Brexit party, Brexiteers formed a UKexit party. Down with the undemocratic Westminster too.
    Yeah, Brexit voters aren't making a fuss about Westminster's behaviour. What abject hypocrites. Oh wait.

  15. #2195
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I grow tired of repeating myself. For the nth time, the criticisms of your position are as follows:

    1. The contention that lower average rates of educational attainment among leave voters is evidence for the accusation that leave voters are ignorant of the concept of sovereignty is a patent non sequitur.
    2. Said accusation bears alarming similarities to discriminatory racial theories which seek to invoke IQ trends as an excuse for dismissing the interests and concerns of non whites.
    3. You are a hypocrite, both for having made an argument the rationale for which you have previously disavowed and for using bigoted reasoning to accuse others of ignorance.
    4. Even if the accusation that leave voters are too ignorant to understand their own choice were true (which it isn't), it would not only serve only to disprove your initial allegation that those voters were acting in bad faith but also the legitimacy of democracy as a form of governance.

    You have routinely responded to the criticisms made against you with the following techniques:

    A. By Blindly refuting the existence of the criticism (as is evidenced by the denial that I'm currently responding to);
    B. By Shape shifting your claims and offering contorted semantic reasoning so as to evade scrutiny and;
    C. By simply repeating the same debunked points ad nauseam.
    1. That was an assumption based on facts. It may not be sth that has been investigated properly, via polls, or at least not that I am aware of, but it is not a non sequitur. The connection between the facts and the assumption makes sense, the logical step is small.
    2. You continue to sling mud. No it doesn't bear any similarity, I did not dismiss these interests or concerns. I did not dismiss the existence of problems. In fact I spoke of existing deficiencies again and again. What I questioned was whether a large number of people have correctly identified the source of their woes. Considering even political theorists are still arguing over the future of democracy, that is not an unfair statement to make.
    3. That's an ad hominem. Not your first. Undoubtedly not your last.
    4. Not all the people that voted Brexit are ardent Brexiteers. There are various categories in their ranks. Not only is that obvious, but I even alluded to it earlier. In fact not all Brexiteers have used the argument in question either.

    And as for ABC, that's, I guess, your opinion or sth. But it definitely is not factual. I claim there is no criticism, when it really isn't there. Above you provided some criticism and I responded. The shape shifting claim is hardly sth you have shown. Except perhaps by taking certain parts of the debate out of context and blowing them out of proportion. A classic technique I guess, if all you care about is scoring points, but no more than that. And the statements I am repeating are indeed not debunked. So there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    See point B. You've been attempting to walk back the bigoted nature of your initial claim whilst at the same time trying to justify having made it. Unfortunately for you, even the amended accusation is still predicated on the same faulty (that is non sequential) reasoning of the first. For this reason, it too can be discarded.
    I saw it. I have not. And it is not. The only thing that can be discarded safely is your ineffective retort.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    At no point have I disputed the existence of the correlation which shows that leave voters had lower average standards of educational attainment. What is being disputed is your suggestion that the aforementioned correlation is evidence for the incendiary claim that most leave voters don't "even understand the meaning of the word sovereignty". So let's briefly consider that in more detail. What you've done is lifted a generalized trend, isolated it from all other variables and then applied it as evidence for the validity a specific accusation. And this you did in the most incendiary way possible without even bothering to offer an analysis of educational attainment as an independent factor. So that, my dear fellow, is why your point has all the intellectual trappings of a bait thread on 4Chan.
    It was in response to what you claimed was the number one concern for the majority of people that voted to leave. It was not out of thin air. Was the comment incendiary, perhaps, but then again you haven't exactly been the poster boy of measured debate here. I bet a good number of your "refutations" would fit in 4Chan quite well indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is too incoherent for me to respond to.
    Oh boy, does this mean you conceded the point? I guess it's fair to assume so considering you are doing the same thing when I consider your comments too worthless to respond to.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You owe the apology as much to yourself and the board as you do to me.
    In that you are half right. Or 1/3 right rather. I do owe myself an apology. For having ever taken you seriously. But that's my business.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No, it isn't "sound" logic at all. It's utterly abysmal. I've explained above why this assumption is little more than tabloid memery. And what on earth does "Bretixeers [sic] are made up of preferentially by the less educated" mean by the way?
    It means that the majority of less educated people voted in favour of Leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The correlation isn't wrong, it's the conclusions you draw about them which are. It'd be like me arguing that remain voters have are too inexperienced to comprehend the issues because they tend toward youth or that Trump voters must understand economics better than Democrats because the richest segments of American society are more likely to vote Republican. As I say, its tabloid memery.
    So unlike what you said above it is indeed not a non sequitur. If the correlation is not wrong then it can't be. Even if the conclusions I am drawing from it are wrong. Which btw I freely admitted is a possibility. If I didn't know better, I'd say we are making progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If they didn't know what sovereignty was but voted on the basis of recovering sovereignty then by extension, according to your argument, they didn't know what they were voting for.
    Or perhaps this was not what was their chief concern as I have already said. Not all people think the same. For example, it's possible they were voting leave because they wanted to stick it to London, indeed there are surveys that show they did that and that's just one example. These voters knew what they were voting for and was not sovereignty. Now you may argue that in that case this was an exercise in self-harm, ok but I'm not the one arguing that people always behave perfectly rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is too incoherent for me to respond to.
    So I guess that's another point you concede then.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Yes, I can see why you'd think that one of, if not the most, successful model of political organization in all of human history was predicated on irrational arguments. Careful now, you're making me laugh again.
    Sigh. What I said was that for many people their belief in that model is not predicated on having knowledge of those rational arguments. But rather on bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The "tone" of the discourse does tend to become poisoned when your opening argument is predicated on an insult.
    My initial argument was a well deserved put down on the hypocrisy displayed by a fair number of Brexiteers. It's not my fault you took it personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The treaties of the European Union prevent the United Kingdom from enacting meaningful democratic reform because they oblige Westminster to delegate far too much of its decision making power abroad. That doesn't mean that the EU is preventing the United Kingdom from abandoning or renegotiating the treaties. Once again, this really isn't difficult to fathom.
    What power has the UK delegated to the EU that blocks it from enacting "meaningful democratic reform" that would correct its deficiencies. I still have not seen you present one example of such a reform under discussion that becomes impossible due to the EU.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Well you would argue that your hypocrisies are irrelevant whilst accusing others of hypocrisy wouldn't you? That's what hypocrites do.
    Another ad hominem. Sad to see someone reduced to this level of debating really.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Putting a stop to your ceaseless tirade of ludicrous propositions would do just fine.
    Not quite done yet thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It is partially the EU's fault that the majority of British voters want to abandon the treaties.
    Perhaps. But let's not forget that the EU is not some alien entity that exists in a vacuum. The member states are collectively deciding its policy. The UK being a powerful voice inside the EU means that whatever fault you attribute to the EU, a fair portion of that goes straight back to the UK.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You are just inventing what you want the arguments against the European Union to be in a desperate attempt to prove the "muh hypocrite" argument. The position isn't that the EU "blocks" meaningful democratic reform, it's that it requires far too much power be delegated away from national parliaments. The fact that no one, as far as I'm aware, has managed to formally introduce legislative proposals to the European Parliament demanding that Lisbon and Maastricht be retracted is only evidence that it, for obvious reasons, would never be accepted. The much more logical route, therefore, is to demand that national parliaments disengage from the writs which bind them to the European Union.
    You have yet to show one example of that. Now you are mentioning specific treaties. So what inside these two treaties restricts suggested "meaningful democratic reforms"? Perhaps my understanding of how the EU works is all wrong, here is your chance, show me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So a catastrophic flaw in your argument - believing that leave voters were primarily motivated by a desire to virtue signal - isn't relevant? What bollocks.
    This imagined flaw was indeed not relevant to your challenge over the meaning/use of the word hypocrisy yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    "Yet when I challenge you on said disruptive techniques you retort either by restating the same baseless denials or by parroting the charges made against you". Well that was predictable wasn't it?
    Quite.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Blimey he's conceded a point - I think a capitulation might be on the horizon boys!
    And following this rationale you have conceded two. Check above. Blimey indeed.
    Last edited by Alastor; June 25, 2019 at 03:55 PM.

  16. #2196

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    1. That was an assumption based on facts. It may not be sth that has been investigated properly, via polls, or at least not that I am aware of, but it is not a non sequitur. The connection between the facts and the assumption makes sense, the logical step is small.
    It's been explained to you on multiple occasions why the assumption is nonsense. Try paying attention.

    "What you've done is lifted a generalized trend, isolated it from all other variables and then applied it as evidence for the validity a specific accusation. And this you did in the most incendiary way possible without even bothering to offer an analysis of educational attainment as an independent factor. So that, my dear fellow, is why your point has all the intellectual trappings of a bait thread on 4Chan."

    2. You continue to sling mud. No it doesn't bear any similarity, I did not dismiss these interests or concerns. I did not dismiss the existence of problems. In fact I spoke of existing deficiencies again and again. What I questioned was whether a large number of people have correctly identified the source of their woes. Considering even political theorists are still arguing over the future of democracy, that is not an unfair statement to make.
    The rationale you're employing is literally identical to that of the discriminatory race IQ arguments you have previously claimed to oppose. Once again you make no attempt to address this beyond saying "no it isn't" and then offering, as a form of damage control, a newspeak version of your bigoted proclamation.

    3. That's an ad hominem. Not your first. Undoubtedly not your last.
    Well that's not a denial then. Makes a change at least.

    4. Not all the people that voted Brexit are ardent Brexiteers. There are various categories in their ranks. Not only is that obvious, but I even alluded to it earlier. In fact not all Brexiteers have used the argument in question either.
    Irrelevant. Even were I to be sympathetic to you and grant you this little attempt to walk back the scope of your claims, the argument you made remains self-defeating. You claimed that Brexiteers were hypocrites for arguing that they wanted sovereignty returned in full to parliament. You simultaneously accused the same people of not even know what sovereignty was. So either they're ignorant or they're hypocrites. Pick one, not both.

    And as for ABC, that's, I guess, your opinion or sth. But it definitely is not factual. I claim there is no criticism, when it really isn't there.
    So that would be a blind denial that you've been using blind denial as a strategy?

    Above you provided some criticism and I responded. The shape shifting claim is hardly sth you have shown. Except perhaps by taking certain parts of the debate out of context and blowing them out of proportion. A classic technique I guess, if all you care about is scoring points, but no more than that. And the statements I am repeating are indeed not debunked. So there.
    So that would be an attempt to shape shift in order to deny that you've been shape shifting then. You're walking back your positions whilst flagrantly lying about walking back your positions.

    I saw it. I have not. And it is not. The only thing that can be discarded safely is your ineffective retort.
    Continuing to flagrantly lie about having walked back your position.

    It was in response to what you claimed was the number one concern for the majority of people that voted to leave. It was not out of thin air. Was the comment incendiary, perhaps, but then again you haven't exactly been the poster boy of measured debate here. I bet a good number of your "refutations" would fit in 4Chan quite well indeed.
    I see no attempt to refute my criticism here. I dismantled the abysmal reasoning you used to argue that most leavers didn't understand what sovereignty was, but rather than trying to address that, you make some largely unrelated remark about the origin of your accusation being a response to a claim of mine. The only part of your comment which bears a direct relevance to my criticism is your admission that your comment was "perhaps" incendiary - which you seem to justify by using a variation of whataboutist rationale.

    Oh boy, does this mean you conceded the point? I guess it's fair to assume so considering you are doing the same thing when I consider your comments too worthless to respond to.
    Why would your incoherence by evidence of my concession?

    In that you are half right. Or 1/3 right rather. I do owe myself an apology. For having ever taken you seriously. But that's my business.
    Shame your statistically analyses aren't as proficient in the rest of the thread as they are here.

    It means that the majority of less educated people voted in favour of Leave.
    So it means something that hasn't been proven then? The statistic is that people who voted to leave had, on average, lower levels of educational attainment - not that the majority of less educated people voted in favour of leave.

    So unlike what you said above it is indeed not a non sequitur. If the correlation is not wrong then it can't be. Even if the conclusions I am drawing from it are wrong.
    Oh, so you actually don't know what a non sequitur is then. Allow me to educate you.

    A non-sequitur is "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement". Your argument being a non-sequitur is not contingent upon the correlation being incorrect; its contingent on the conclusion you drew from the correlation being an illogical extension of it - which it is. Hence non sequitur.

    Which btw I freely admitted is a possibility. If I didn't know better, I'd say we are making progress.
    When you accept that you didn't know what a non sequitur was, we might be.

    Or perhaps this was not what was their chief concern as I have already said. Not all people think the same. For example, it's possible they were voting leave because they wanted to stick it to London, indeed there are surveys that show they did that and that's just one example. These voters knew what they were voting for and was not sovereignty. Now you may argue that in that case this was an exercise in self-harm, ok but I'm not the one arguing that people always behave perfectly rational.
    So you attempt to justify and excuse your bigotry with yet more bigotry. "Oh, I'm not saying that they all were ignorant of sovereignty, some of them just wanted to stick it London in an act of self-harm". Utterly laughable. At this rate, the hole your digging for yourself is going to reach Australia.

    So I guess that's another point you concede then.
    Why would your incoherence by evidence of my concession?

    Sigh. What I said was that for many people their belief in that model is not predicated on having knowledge of those rational arguments. But rather on bias.
    A claim for which you have presented zero evidence. Oh wait, I forgot that you can just resort that all powerful non sequitur to justify whatever ludicrously bigoted argument you like. "Oh what, leave voters were proportionally less educated than remainers? Cool, I can now claim, whenever I want and without providing further evidence, that a majority of leavers have irrational views!"

    My initial argument was a well deserved put down on the hypocrisy displayed by a fair number of Brexiteers. It's not my fault you took it personally.
    The problem is, not only did you present no argument which showed hypocrisy, but you also decided to implicate all leave voters in your little whinge: that's why your argument was bigoted rather than just wrong.

    What power has the UK delegated to the EU that blocks it from enacting "meaningful democratic reform" that would correct its deficiencies. I still have not seen you present one example of such a reform under discussion that becomes impossible due to the EU.
    The European Union "blocking" things isn't the argument being made. It's that so long as the United Kingdom remains in the European Union any domestic reform is effectively irrelevant because British democracy is ultimately subservient to pan-European treaties. Now if creeping unionization didn't exist the argument would be marginally different - but only marginally so.

    Another ad hominem. Sad to see someone reduced to this level of debating really.
    The person who started this debate by calling other's hypocrites now reduced to complaining of ad homs because he was exposed for his own hypocrisy. I'd say that was rather amusing all in all.

    Not quite done yet thank you.
    Yeah, gotta get all the way down under!

    Perhaps. But let's not forget that the EU is not some alien entity that exists in a vacuum. The member states are collectively deciding its policy. The UK being a powerful voice inside the EU means that whatever fault you attribute to the EU, a fair portion of that goes straight back to the UK.
    Crikey, that has to be the first point you've made in two long posts which isn't instantly disagreeable.

    You have yet to show one example of that. Now you are mentioning specific treaties. So what inside these two treaties restricts suggested "meaningful democratic reforms"? Perhaps my understanding of how the EU works is all wrong, here is your chance, show me.
    See above. It isn't that the treaties themselves contain specific clauses that explicitly restrict meaningful reform, its that they delegate power to the European Union both to make policy regarding, and to have the final say on, issues ranging from international labour flows to human rights. Lisbon, in particular, poses a significant democratic problem because it paved the way for the entry of the eastern bloc countries and instituted qualified majority voting. This simultaneously diluted the United Kingdom's influence within the EU whilst also empowering pro-EU adminstrations - which is of course exactly why they moved toward it.

    This imagined flaw was indeed not relevant to your challenge over the meaning/use of the word hypocrisy yes.
    So no meaningful response to the criticism...yet again.

    Quite.
    Parroting the accusation of parroting! May your infinite regress be truly eternal.

    And following this rationale you have conceded two. Check above. Blimey indeed.
    I haven't made an argument on the basis of "sure whatever" as of yet, so this can be disregarded as incoherent.
    Last edited by ep1c_fail; June 25, 2019 at 06:06 PM.

  17. #2197
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,028

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Political violence wasn't started or popularized by Nazis, nor is there any association between the two. The fact that Antifa violently respond to far-right movements is a sign of a healthy and responsible polity, not authoritarian groupthink. Indeed, political violence is often the most effective and most responsible method to prevent normalization of abhorrent ideas.

  18. #2198
    Alastor's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    1,308

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's been explained to you on multiple occasions why the assumption is nonsense. Try paying attention.
    An explanation has been given multiple times indeed. A false one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The rationale you're employing is literally identical to that of the discriminatory race IQ arguments you have previously claimed to oppose. Once again you make no attempt to address this beyond saying "no it isn't" and then offering, as a form of damage control, a newspeak version of your bigoted proclamation.
    I actually have explained why it's not "literally identical". But when your entire argument devolves to a "yes it is", my "no it isn't" should suffice.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Well that's not a denial then. Makes a change at least.
    Not really a change. I have not bothered with a fair number of your insults.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Irrelevant. Even were I to be sympathetic to you and grant you this little attempt to walk back the scope of your claims, the argument you made remains self-defeating. You claimed that Brexiteers were hypocrites for arguing that they wanted sovereignty returned in full to parliament. You simultaneously accused the same people of not even know what sovereignty was. So either they're ignorant or they're hypocrites. Pick one, not both.
    Oh your majesty is unwilling to grant me a reprieve? Woe is me. And what I argued is that many Brexiteers seem to pretend democratic deficiencies are an EU-only issue, which is hypocritical. I never spoke of all Brexiteers and indeed it's reasonable to say that even if some Brexiteers are hypocrites, some others can still be ignorant. Stop twisting and turning my arguments to fit your criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So that would be a blind denial that you've been using blind denial as a strategy?
    Denial yes. Blind denial no.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So that would be an attempt to shape shift in order to deny that you've been shape shifting then. You're walking back your positions whilst flagrantly lying about walking back your positions.
    My position was never what you shape shifted it into for me to walk back. I have elaborated what I meant and still believe that the nuances of the political system would be lost on a good part of the electorate, even more so for the less educated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I see no attempt to refute my criticism here. I dismantled the abysmal reasoning you used to argue that most leavers didn't understand what sovereignty was, but rather than trying to address that, you make some largely unrelated remark about the origin of your accusation being a response to a claim of mine. The only part of your comment which bears a direct relevance to my criticism is your admission that your comment was "perhaps" incendiary - which you seem to justify by using a variation of whataboutist rationale.
    That was not anything new, it was sth I mentioned several posts back. And I have addressed your criticism in 2 different parts of that very post. I'm not going to keep saying the same thing because you keep repeating the same accusations 30 different times per post.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Why would your incoherence by evidence of my concession?
    Because it's a dodge. You claimed incoherence, you didn't show it. In the same fashion I could simply call your entire post incoherent and dismiss it. And as you argued elsewhere that would be a concession.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So it means something that hasn't been proven then? The statistic is that people who voted to leave had, on average, lower levels of educational attainment - not that the majority of less educated people voted in favour of leave.
    More pedantry.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Oh, so you actually don't know what a non sequitur is then. Allow me to educate you.

    A non-sequitur is "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement". Your argument being a non-sequitur is not contingent upon the correlation being incorrect; its contingent on the conclusion you drew from the correlation being an illogical extension of it - which it is. Hence non sequitur.
    Educate me? When you have no clue what you are talking about? I'll pass. An assumption does not have to be a non sequitur if it is incorrect. It can be backed by erroneous findings for instance. It will logically follow but will still be wrong. In order not to be a non sequitur it's enough to follow logically, which it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    When you accept that you didn't know what a non sequitur was, we might be.
    As I said, I do know better.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    So you attempt to justify and excuse your bigotry with yet more bigotry. "Oh, I'm not saying that they all were ignorant of sovereignty, some of them just wanted to stick it London in an act of self-harm". Utterly laughable. At this rate, the hole your digging for yourself is going to reach Australia.
    Now I'm beginning to think you don't know what bigotry means. It would explain a number of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A claim for which you have presented zero evidence. Oh wait, I forgot that you can just resort that all powerful non sequitur to justify whatever ludicrously bigoted argument you like. "Oh what, leave voters were proportionally less educated than remainers? Cool, I can now claim, whenever I want and without providing further evidence, that a majority of leavers have irrational views!"
    If I could provide hard evidence like you seem to want, I would not need to make assumptions. And seriously how is it bigoted to assume the obvious, that many people are not interested in the nuances of politics and are not familiar with the rational arguments (whatever those may be) that show the superiority of the nation state. Is it bigoted to assume that most don't have expert knowledge in medicine too?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The problem is, not only did you present no argument which showed hypocrisy, but you also decided to implicate all leave voters in your little whinge: that's why your argument was bigoted rather than just wrong.
    I have presented an example for that. Very first post of this discussion you can go check.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The European Union "blocking" things isn't the argument being made. It's that so long as the United Kingdom remains in the European Union any domestic reform is effectively irrelevant because British democracy is ultimately subservient to pan-European treaties. Now if creeping unionization didn't exist the argument would be marginally different - but only marginally so.
    You are yet to show what part of those treaties present an obstacle to that elusive "meaningful democratic reform".

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The person who started this debate by calling other's hypocrites now reduced to complaining of ad homs because he was exposed for his own hypocrisy. I'd say that was rather amusing all in all.
    Saying that an argument is hypocritical and calling one a hypocrite are not exactly the same. Making a general comment and directly attacking the character of your interlocutor are not the same thing. There is a reason why one is an ad hominem and the other isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    See above. It isn't that the treaties themselves contain specific clauses that explicitly restrict meaningful reform, its that they delegate power to the European Union both to make policy regarding, and to have the final say on, issues ranging from international labour flows to human rights. Lisbon, in particular, poses a significant democratic problem because it paved the way for the entry of the eastern bloc countries and instituted qualified majority voting. This simultaneously diluted the United Kingdom's influence within the EU whilst also empowering pro-EU adminstrations - which is of course exactly why they moved toward it.
    What power has been delegated to the EU that blocks the meaningful democratic reforms needed to fix the deficiency in the UK? What democratic deficiency in the UK is the entry of the eastern block countries or qualified majority voting on EU matters facilitate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Parroting the accusation of parroting! May your infinite regress be truly eternal.
    Curses now? Are you gonna start using your voodoo dolls next?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I haven't made an argument on the basis of "sure whatever" as of yet, so this can be disregarded as incoherent.
    Not rude enough for you huh?
    Last edited by Alastor; June 25, 2019 at 08:02 PM.

  19. #2199
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    1,883

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post


    Anyway guys, Im not sure this thread is as much about EU being (un)democratic and to which degree as it should be more about brexit....

    I would just add that EU needs reforms, that without UK the power of Germany/France will be harder to check for V4 countries and that democracy is never perfect...comparing EU to USA, UK democracy...it is not worse. Comparing to Russia, China...heh, EU is pretty good in such comparison.

  20. #2200

    Default Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    An explanation has been given multiple times indeed. A false one.
    Blind denialism. Either confront the criticism or admit you were wrong.

    I actually have explained why it's not "literally identical". But when your entire argument devolves to a "yes it is", my "no it isn't" should suffice.
    You have done no such thing. All you've done is lie about the nature of my part of the exchange in a desperate attempt to avoid conceding how abysmal your argument actually is.

    Not really a change. I have not bothered with a fair number of your insults.
    You've not bothered with much aside from deflecting and evading. You stopped partaking in the discourse some time ago: for you this is now about nothing more than protecting your ego and having the last word.

    Oh your majesty is unwilling to grant me a reprieve? Woe is me.
    Hang on, you're the one whose "ignorant uneducated peasant" arguments are in tandem with 18th century aristocrats, not me.

    And what I argued is that many Brexiteers seem to pretend democratic deficiencies are an EU-only issue, which is hypocritical. I never spoke of all Brexiteers and indeed it's reasonable to say that even if some Brexiteers are hypocrites, some others can still be ignorant. Stop twisting and turning my arguments to fit your criticism.
    This retort is irrelevant for the same reason that it was previously. Whether or not you were speaking about "all Brexiteers" has no bearing on your contradictory claims with respect to their alleged faults. On the one hand you want them to be hypocrites who ignore Westminster's deficiencies, but on the other you want them to be fools who don't understand what's going on.

    Denial yes. Blind denial no.
    Of course it's blind. You're playing the "I have to say something" card - and have been for a long time. You've stopped even offering the pretense of reason to almost all of your points.

    My position was never what you shape shifted it into for me to walk back.
    You're continuing to flagrantly lie about having made PR amendments to your claims in an effort to make them appear less bigoted.

    I have elaborated what I meant and still believe that the nuances of the political system would be lost on a good part of the less educated.
    You mean you've attempted to embellish your small minded comments out of embarrassment.

    That was not anything new, it was sth I mentioned several posts back. And I have addressed your criticism in 2 different parts of that very post. I'm not going to keep saying the same thing because you keep repeating the same accusations 30 different times per post.
    So first you falsely complained that I hadn't offered any criticism, then when I restated the criticism that I supposedly had never provided you claim to have previously addressed it. What utterly laughable drivel. Just admit that you have no meaningful response rather than persisting with these attempts to sabotage the discussion in the hopes that eventually I'll go away and you can avoid having to own up to your dreadful arguments.

    Because it's a dodge. You claimed incoherence, you didn't show it. In the same fashion I could simply call your entire post incoherent and dismiss it. And as you argued elsewhere that would be a concession.
    Maybe if you read your own replies before rushing to respond for the sake of responding this wouldn't be an issue. When you make comments such as "As for people that disagree with me, being thick." (yes that's the full sentence) I have to point out that they're incoherent because they self-evidently are.

    More pedantry.
    Yes, because spending more than 30 seconds considering the wording and relevance of statistics is pedantry. Maybe if you'd been more pedantic you'd have seen how your own use of the data was so patently absurd.

    Educate me? When you have no clue what you are talking about? I'll pass.
    That's a shame. Had you accepted the education you wouldn't have continued to embarrass yourself on this point.

    An assumption does not have to be a non sequitur if it is incorrect. It can be backed by erroneous findings for instance. It will logically follow but will still be wrong. In order not to be a non sequitur it's enough to follow logically, which it does.
    Since your comment here is an irrelevant straw man of my previous remarks, allow me to refer to your previous "argument".

    "So unlike what you said above it is indeed not a non sequitur. If the correlation is not wrong then it can't be."

    Here you indicate that you actually believe that the existence of a correlation between two statements disallows the possibility that they can be non sequential. Rofl. This really is just degenerating into idiocy of the highest order from you now. I honestly hope you're trolling.

    As I said, I do know better.
    Yeah, at how to be laughably wrong.

    Now I'm beginning to think
    About bloody time.

    If I could provide hard evidence like you seem to want, I would not need to make assumptions. And seriously how is it bigoted to assume the obvious, that many people are not interested in the nuances of politics and are not familiar with the rational arguments (whatever those may be) that show the superiority of the nation state.
    This comment is ironic, insulting, self-defeating, irrelevant and hilarious in equal measure. I thought you'd reached the epitome of you vacuousness with your comments on non sequential arguments, but no, the crescendo was still very much to come. Needless to say, I'm hardly surprised that you're employing these sort of bigoted anti-democratic arguments as part of an extended defense of the European Union. What's even more laughable is that you see this supposed lack of interest "in the nuances of politics" as an obstacle to proper engagement with ancient national parliaments but not to proper engagement with a lumbering dysfunctional confederation of 30 odd disparate countries which is role-playing as a superstate.

    Is it bigoted to assume that most don't have expert knowledge in medicine too?
    Because being familiar with rational political arguments is comparable to being a medical expert. \_(ツ)_/ .

    I have presented an example for that. Very first post of this discussion you can go check.
    You presented what you thought was an example but wasn't - which is what tends to happens when you're motivated by bigotry rather than reason.

    You are yet to show what part of those treaties present an obstacle to that elusive "meaningful democratic reform".
    I've literally just explained it to you. Stop wasting my time with this trolling.

    Saying that an argument is hypocritical and calling one a hypocrite are not exactly the same. Making a general comment and directly attacking the character of your interlocutor are not the same thing. There is a reason why one is an ad hominem and the other isn't.
    Ah, more newspeak. Do you actually think this attempt to anthropomorphize a series of word (ie. an argument) into something with moral agency is convincing? An argument can be inconsistent or self-defeating minus its maker, not hypocritical. Though it really doesn't matter because the context of your remarks proves that you're lying about what your intentions were and are. This is just a further attempt to walk back your previously made incendiary remarks.

    What power has been delegated to the EU that blocks the meaningful democratic reforms needed to fix the deficiency in the UK?
    "The European Union "blocking" things isn't the argument being made. It's that so long as the United Kingdom remains in the European Union any domestic reform is effectively irrelevant because British democracy is ultimately subservient to pan-European treaties."

    What democratic deficiency in the UK is the entry of the eastern block countries or qualified majority voting on EU matters facilitate?
    It isn't that the treaties themselves contain specific clauses that explicitly restrict meaningful reform, its that they delegate power to the European Union both to make policy regarding, and to have the final say on, issues ranging from international labour flows to human rights. Lisbon, in particular, poses a significant democratic problem because it paved the way for the entry of the eastern bloc countries and instituted qualified majority voting. This simultaneously diluted the United Kingdom's influence within the EU whilst also empowering pro-EU adminstrations - which is of course exactly why they moved toward it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •