(12-13-2018, 11:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure I did...with an example of how your example happens all the time. Since you cannot provide an example of a national referendum in the US you chose to correlate it to a hypothetical situation. I explained that "voting to change the law" happens all the time. And, yes, within the voting cycle. Which is what I have been talking about with Brexit all along.
It does from what I am talking about as a, wait for it....hypothetical. I know you understand those.
As we have elections every year that's kind of a moot point. Recalls, by their nature, are to remove elected officials before their re-election time.
Oh...you never said it was over...just that it had to be done because people voted and they can't vote on it again.
Sounds like it's over if you can't do anything to change it ever.
But speaking of "changing words" you keep insisting that *I* am saying their SHOULD be a new referendum. Something I never said.
In fact you completely ignore my questions about other possibilities given the difficulty they are having in putting through BREXIT. If it goes through with or without a plan I cannot control nor am I "advocating" for anything. I have discussing how government works, how future elections might effect the results of the referendum and if things COULD change in the future.
So I'm gonna say your used the right words about the wrong person:
You were correct that I misstated this though:
Correct...just make a complete sham of the democratic process.
My bad.
Dill is the one that assigned you to the Pro "should" team; a stance which you did not refute. Any issues with putting words in your mouth should be addressed to him; but we both know that's not going to happen.
Simple question (I know) which is more a more relevant examples that allows us to be placed in the shoes of the Brits (you know the subject of the OP) mine of a National vote for the legalization being slow-rolled by Congress or your endless examples of us electing Government officials.
I am not SSF and you still could not find an example of what you claimed.
I'll depart this back and forth now. You can take up your "just saying" with someone else if they wish to entertain it.
(12-13-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill is the one that assigned you to the Pro "should" team; a stance which you did not refute. Any issues with putting words in your mouth should be addressed to him; but we both know that's not going to happen.
Indeed he did (you said he wasn't qualified to do so though) and I considered refuting my being "pro" but this how he explained it:
Quote:The pros appear to agree that voters do not have to remain stuck in a bad vote. And changing votes and revoting is not a threat to democracy but an expression of it. Second opportunities are good. Perhaps voters have learned something since the last vote.
The bolded is why I didn't "have issues" with Dill. Generalized? Sure. But I didn't call say he wasn't qulaified to give an ubiased view either.
(12-13-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Simple question (I know) which is more a more relevant examples that allows us to be placed in the shoes of the Brits (you know the subject of the OP) mine of a National vote for the legalization being slow-rolled by Congress or your endless examples of us electing Government officials.
Your hypothetical is closer...but still a hypothetical. And one that has no bearing on my questions about future elections and how that might affect the Brexit move.
(12-13-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I am not SSF and you still could not find an example of what you claimed.
Indeed. I don't beleive I said YOU said it, just that it was said. And upon further review I admitted I was wrong* and corrected my statement.
(12-13-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll depart this back and forth now. You can take up your "just saying" with someone else if they wish to entertain it.
Well thanks for your input. Not sure you every understood what I was discussing but it was interesting nonetheless.
*Just in case anyone doesn't know what that word means when applied to themselves:
Quote:not correct or true.
"that is the wrong answer"
synonyms: incorrect, mistaken, in error, erroneous, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, fallacious, wide of the mark, off target, unsound, faulty; informalout
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
OOooooo, two guys on the internet largely agree on a topic but for one key difference!!! You got him!!!! You must be up to seven or eight e-points now, congrats. Like I said, Tucker Carlson could take smarmy lessons from you.
(12-13-2018, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OOooooo, two guys on the internet largely agree on a topic but for one key difference!!! You got him!!!! You must be up to seven or eight e-points now, congrats. Like I said, Tucker Carlson could take smarmy lessons from you.
I admitted I made a mistake. I didn't "get" anyone.
Not sure what your point is.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(12-13-2018, 11:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill is the one that assigned you to the Pro "should" team; a stance which you did not refute. Any issues with putting words in your mouth should be addressed to him; but we both know that's not going to happen.
(12-13-2018, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed he did (you said he wasn't qualified to do so though) and I considered refuting my being "pro" but this how he explained it: The bolded is why I didn't "have issues" with Dill. Generalized? Sure. But I didn't call say he wasn't qulaified to give an ubiased view either.
Dill was describing a principle to which all the Whigs appeared to adhere--that re-votes or ok and are not in themselves violations of democracy. That, in itself, did not lock them into a demand for another referendum.
Dill should have used the term "Whig" instead of "pro" to set up his party ranks. That would have ended the understandable confusion.
So this looks like Dill's bad, though of course he will never admit it.
(12-12-2018, 10:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read the whole thing, but I only pasted this for brevity. I don't disagree with most of what you say here. However, I disagree that the circumstances warrant another referendum vote in the case of the Brexit question itself. They voted to leave, and they elected a Parliament to handle the negotiations after that occurred.
That's not an unreasonable position. And you Brexit Tories are right to be concerned about the losers of a vote "undoing" results to get what they want. If the party in control of Parliament works to sabotage the vote by framing the exit for delay or maximum damage, then I agree with you all that that is indeed anti-democratic, wrong, etc. Previous disinformation, Russian interference, the projected £500+ drop in median household income etc., don't justify a minority taking it upon themselves to right things outside the electoral process
But if I again may risk speaking for the Whigs, the question for them is whether a re-vote would be reasonable or not at this point, two years later, as the required adjustments to Brexit, the losses especially, become clearer. Speaking for myself, I see my assent to a re-vote as separate from other actions the might be simultaneously going on to stall or sabotage Brexit. I would not agree that a re-vote is right simply because the Conservatives are deliberately stalling implementation. A re-vote resulting from that, I agree, would not be just or legitimate. It has to be product of new debates and evidence that a clear majority no longer supports Brexit.
This might interest thread participants. The article makes four good points--too long to reproduce in entirety, but I did copy in the 4th point below, which addresses the crazy optimism about what will happen once the Continental gates close.
The original Brexit delusions — that it would bring huge benefits at no real cost — flow out of some deeper delusions in British society.
When you talk to people here, whether they support Brexit or oppose it, they tend to evince a decidedly un-British optimism about what leaving the European Union will mean. Often, it seems to begin with the assumption that Britain is still a great power, that the world needs Britain more than Britain needs the world.
One London banker told us that he opposed Brexit. But he expressed what seems to be a common view among remainers, especially those whose livelihoods depend on open borders and trade. The European Union relies too much on the British economy to allow a painful separation, he said, and in the end its member-states will eagerly grant a favorable trading deal.
Should any other issues come up — say, uncertain status for the million or so Brits living elsewhere in Europe — surely the European Union will do whatever it takes to keep London happy.
Maybe so, but this optimism seems at odds with Britain’s reality as Europe’s second-largest economy after Germany, perhaps soon to be third after France.
Britain, many seem to believe, may no longer have the empire. And it may no longer be joined at the hip of the United States in dictating global affairs, as it was in the Cold War. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s still special in a way that guarantees its success.
Owen Paterson, a Conservative lawmaker who joined hardline Brexiteers in unsuccessfully voting to remove Ms. May this week, argued that Britain could succeed without the European Union because, among other reasons, “we occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade.”
It’s difficult to resolve policy disputes over Brexit without addressing these lingering beliefs that Britain is still a major power best served by setting out on its own and dictating terms to a grateful world.
(12-13-2018, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: This might interest thread participants. The article makes four good points--too long to reproduce in entirety, but I did copy in the 4th point below, which addresses the crazy optimism about what will happen once the Continental gates close.
The original Brexit delusions — that it would bring huge benefits at no real cost — flow out of some deeper delusions in British society.
When you talk to people here, whether they support Brexit or oppose it, they tend to evince a decidedly un-British optimism about what leaving the European Union will mean. Often, it seems to begin with the assumption that Britain is still a great power, that the world needs Britain more than Britain needs the world.
One London banker told us that he opposed Brexit. But he expressed what seems to be a common view among remainers, especially those whose livelihoods depend on open borders and trade. The European Union relies too much on the British economy to allow a painful separation, he said, and in the end its member-states will eagerly grant a favorable trading deal.
Should any other issues come up — say, uncertain status for the million or so Brits living elsewhere in Europe — surely the European Union will do whatever it takes to keep London happy.
Maybe so, but this optimism seems at odds with Britain’s reality as Europe’s second-largest economy after Germany, perhaps soon to be third after France.
Britain, many seem to believe, may no longer have the empire. And it may no longer be joined at the hip of the United States in dictating global affairs, as it was in the Cold War. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s still special in a way that guarantees its success.
Owen Paterson, a Conservative lawmaker who joined hardline Brexiteers in unsuccessfully voting to remove Ms. May this week, argued that Britain could succeed without the European Union because, among other reasons, “we occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade.”
It’s difficult to resolve policy disputes over Brexit without addressing these lingering beliefs that Britain is still a major power best served by setting out on its own and dictating terms to a grateful world.
That's a fascinating, and 100% subjective, argument.
(12-14-2018, 12:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what "100% subjective" means in the context of light-toned explanation of British behavior for Americans.
It means the same thing it would mean in any other context, that the information being presented was subjective.
Quote:Owen Patterson didn't argue Britain is in the ideal time zone for trade?
He did, and that's his subjective opinion.
Quote:The abovementioned London banker didn't say the EU relies too much on the British economy; his views aren't representative?
He did, and that's his subjective opinion.
Quote:GB still IS joined at the hip with the US when it comes to foreign policy?
Also a subjective opinion. Looks like what I meant when I said the information was 100% subjective was that the information was 100% subjective. Refreshingly direct, no?
(12-14-2018, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It means the same thing it would mean in any other context, that the information being presented was subjective.
He did, and that's his subjective opinion.
He did, and that's his subjective opinion.
Also a subjective opinion. Looks like what I meant when I said the information was 100% subjective was that the information was 100% subjective. Refreshingly direct, no?
No. Circular. repetitive. Are you making a "subjective" judgment to declare subjective judgments--what? Useless, invalid, unreliable?
I asked what you meant by "100% subjective" to see if your assessment offers any means of discriminating between valuable and non valuable information in the article. If so, the means is not there on the surface. But when I ask for clarification, I only get more surface.
If asked "what do you mean by 100% subjective?" then your answering "that the information was subjective" provides nothing new. Like going to a dictionary to look up the word "specious" and being told: "it means what it always means in every sentence it is used."
But "subjective" can mean different things in different (i.e. "any other") contexts. Further, all value judgments are subjective, yet arguments based on values can be perfectly valid and sound. Not useless or false, though "subjective," as you appear to imply.
Factual judgments are not subjective, when they are actually factual judgments. But facts mean little unless they can be interpreted, or something can be inferred from them. They cannot be evaluated without values, which are "subjective." So every evaluation is in some sense "subjective," yet we still have ways of discriminating between good and bad subjective judgments. I don't see any recognition of that possibility or effort to achieve it, in a claim, repeated, that a multifaceted description of English political behavior is "100% subjective." Calling such arguments '100% subjective" is either trivial (like pointing out that a sentence is made up of 100% words) or mistaken, or informed by some hidden, inarticulable (and "subjective") assumption.
You might agree that statements by the banker and Patterson can be accepted as a factual report. After that you might disagree with either inferences they make or inferences made by the reporter, based upon their statements. You could assign various degrees of credibility to them.
But nothing is clarified at all by simply calling the whole "100% subjective." On the face that appears incorrect, and subjective grounds or elements do not, prima facie, render their points meaningless, useless, or otherwise invaluable.
(12-14-2018, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Circular. repetitive. Are you making a "subjective" judgment to declare subjective judgments--what? Useless, invalid, unreliable?
I asked what you meant by "100% subjective" to see if your assessment offers any means of discriminating between valuable and non valuable information in the article. If so, the means is not there on the surface. But when I ask for clarification, I only get more surface.
If asked "what do you mean by 100% subjective?" then your answering "that the information was subjective" provides nothing new. Like going to a dictionary to look up the word "specious" and being told: "it means what it always means in every sentence it is used."
But "subjective" can mean different things in different (i.e. "any other") contexts. Further, all value judgments are subjective, yet arguments based on values can be perfectly valid and sound. Not useless or false, though "subjective," as you appear to imply.
Factual judgments are not subjective, when they are actually factual judgments. But facts mean little unless they can be interpreted, or something can be inferred from them. They cannot be evaluated without values, which are "subjective." So every evaluation is in some sense "subjective," yet we still have ways of discriminating between good and bad subjective judgments. I don't see any recognition of that possibility or effort to achieve it, in a claim, repeated, that a multifaceted description of English political behavior is "100% subjective." Calling such arguments '100% subjective" is either trivial (like pointing out that a sentence is made up of 100% words) or mistaken, or informed by some hidden, inarticulable (and "subjective") assumption.
You might agree that statements by the banker and Patterson can be accepted as a factual report. After that you might disagree with either inferences they make or inferences made by the reporter, based upon their statements. You could assign various degrees of credibility to them.
But nothing is clarified at all by simply calling the whole "100% subjective." On the face that appears incorrect, and subjective grounds or elements do not, prima facie, render their points meaningless, useless, or otherwise invaluable.
That's a lot of words to say nothing. Let's try to be succinct, I'll illustrate.
When someone claims that Britain is in the ideal time zone for trade are they stating a fact or their opinion based on subjective criteria?
When someone claims that the EU relies too much on the British economy are they stating a fact or their opinion based on subjective criteria?
Does the fact that both statements are clearly the subjective opinion of one person automatically make them inaccurate? Clearly, no. Does the same fact make them any more important, or based in fact, than the opinion of anyone posting on this message board? Clearly, no.
It's good that you'll have the whole weekend to mull this one over. A small aside, no need for a pontificating overly verbose response.
(12-14-2018, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's good that you'll have the whole weekend to mull this one over. A small aside, no need for a pontificating overly verbose response.
If you say my response was "pontificating" and "overly (?) verbose," are you stating a fact or an opinion based upon subjective criteria?
(12-14-2018, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a lot of words to say nothing. Let's try to be succinct, I'll illustrate.
When someone claims that Britain is in the ideal time zone for trade are they stating a fact or their opinion based on subjective criteria?
When someone claims that the EU relies too much on the British economy are they stating a fact or their opinion based on subjective criteria?
Does the fact that both statements are clearly the subjective opinion of one person automatically make them inaccurate? Clearly, no. Does the same fact make them any more important, or based in fact, than the opinion of anyone posting on this message board? Clearly, no.
That "lot of words" at least pushed you outside circular definition. (And we may be referring back to them soon, as I suspect your argument harbors an unstated assumption about the equality of all "opinion" and "subjective criteria.")
If someone claims Britain is in the ideal time zone for trade, he could be stating a fact if there is indeed some connection; but for the sake of argument, let's say this positive evaluation of Britain's economic future post-Brexit is based upon "opinion" and "subjective criteria."
Same for the claim that the EU relies too much on the British economy.
How could these statements, whose occurrence you don't dispute, then NOT be factual support for Fisher and Taub's argument that many Brits evince an optimism about Brexit that belies their actual economic reality?
If they are support, then it is unclear why your response should be "That's a fascinating, and 100% subjective, argument." It is an inductive argument, based upon observation of facts--in this case statements by British citizens. If those citizens' statements are "opinion," as opposed to what you call "fact," then that helps Fisher and Taub's conclusion. It does not make THEIR argument "subjective."
(12-14-2018, 10:35 PM)Dill Wrote: If you say my response was "pontificating" and "overly (?) verbose," are you stating a fact or an opinion based upon subjective criteria?
Yes.
Quote:That "lot of words" at least pushed you outside circular definition. (And we may be referring back to them soon, as I suspect your argument harbors an unstated assumption about the equality of all "opinion" and "subjective criteria.")
No it didn't. It solicited unnecessary exposition that any logical adult would not require.
Quote:If someone claims Britain is in the ideal time zone for trade, he could be stating a fact if there is indeed some connection; but for the sake of argument, let's say this positive evaluation of Britain's economic future post-Brexit is based upon "opinion" and "subjective criteria."
Same for the claim that the EU relies too much on the British economy.
How could these statements, whose occurrence you don't dispute, then NOT be factual support for Fisher and Taub's argument that many Brits evince an optimism about Brexit that belies their actual economic reality?
It could be a fact, sure. Any subjective based opinion could be factual. In the absence of said facts we must, however, refer to the opinion as subjective.
Quote:If they are support, then it is unclear why your response should be "That's a fascinating, and 100% subjective, argument." It is an inductive argument, based upon observation of facts--in this case statements by British citizens. If those citizens' statements are "opinion," as opposed to what you call "fact," then that helps Fisher and Taub's conclusion. It does not make THEIR argument "subjective."
Because your link did not contain the facts you allude to above. Hence, their argument must be firmly identified as subjective until these facts are brought forth for consideration.
No it didn't. It solicited unnecessary exposition that any logical adult would not require.
It could be a fact, sure. Any subjective based opinion could be factual. In the absence of said facts we must, however, refer to the opinion as subjective.
Because your link did not contain the facts you allude to above. Hence, their argument must be firmly identified as subjective until these facts are brought forth for consideration.
Firmly identifying an argument as "subjective" doesn't firmly do anything here, if you are missing the point of the argument, likely misrecognizing premises AS the argument.
Fisher and Taub are not trying to prove that Britain is in an ideal time zone for trading, nor that the EU depends on British trade. They argue that many Brits exhibit an unfounded optimism about the British economy after Brexit. People may exhibit such optimism without "facts" or "links." And if they do, that they express optimism itself becomes a fact, even if their optimism is based on "opinion."
The only "facts" Fisher and Taub need at the moment to make their case is a sampling of statements to this effect by other Brits. They provide these. You have not said they made them up. Why would links be necessary? To what? To prove what? If those statements proffered as evidence are "firmly subjective" then that increases the likelihood Fisher and Taub are right. And that their argument is not "subjective" in your sense.
(12-13-2018, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: This might interest thread participants. The article makes four good points--too long to reproduce in entirety, but I did copy in the 4th point below, which addresses the crazy optimism about what will happen once the Continental gates close.
The original Brexit delusions — that it would bring huge benefits at no real cost — flow out of some deeper delusions in British society.
When you talk to people here, whether they support Brexit or oppose it, they tend to evince a decidedly un-British optimism about what leaving the European Union will mean. Often, it seems to begin with the assumption that Britain is still a great power, that the world needs Britain more than Britain needs the world.
One London banker told us that he opposed Brexit. But he expressed what seems to be a common view among remainers, especially those whose livelihoods depend on open borders and trade. The European Union relies too much on the British economy to allow a painful separation, he said, and in the end its member-states will eagerly grant a favorable trading deal.
Should any other issues come up — say, uncertain status for the million or so Brits living elsewhere in Europe — surely the European Union will do whatever it takes to keep London happy.
Maybe so, but this optimism seems at odds with Britain’s reality as Europe’s second-largest economy after Germany, perhaps soon to be third after France.
Britain, many seem to believe, may no longer have the empire. And it may no longer be joined at the hip of the United States in dictating global affairs, as it was in the Cold War. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s still special in a way that guarantees its success.
Owen Paterson, a Conservative lawmaker who joined hardline Brexiteers in unsuccessfully voting to remove Ms. May this week, argued that Britain could succeed without the European Union because, among other reasons, “we occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade.”
It’s difficult to resolve policy disputes over Brexit without addressing these lingering beliefs that Britain is still a major power best served by setting out on its own and dictating terms to a grateful world.
I always kind of admire that "we're awesome, people want to be us, and and we'll figure it out" attitude. They have a pretty good history of doing it as well.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Quote:What happens if Parliament rejects the deal? It's not very clear.
The default position would be for the UK to leave the EU without a deal, but the government would have up to 21 days to suggest another way forward to MPs.
Possibilities (explained here in more detail) include the prime minister being allowed to have a second go at getting her deal accepted by Parliament.
So will we definitely leave on 29 March 2019? It is written into law that the UK will be leaving on that date at 11pm UK time.
But if there is no deal, or Parliament rejects the deal, it is impossible to say with any certainty what will happen next.
According the NPR there was some big news on this today. Admittedly, I cannot comprehend all that's going on. Seems like Ireland is a big sticking point and May possibly makes Trump look like Global leader of the year.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
