|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing.
While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this.
|
On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 22:58 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 22:51 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:49 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:44 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 21:58 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 21:15 DickMcFanny wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I'm tired of this shit. Nobody has ever said "all" of them are heinous and evil. Nobody even used the word 'evil'.
It's the same discussion every time, it's like talking to a wall.
You get the same discussion because you're furthering the same points. Please consider the casual difference between saying something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I question how we keep considering Saudi Arabia as our great ally and let it spread wahabism everywhere." and something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I don't want to accept refugees." Notice how one targets radical islam, and one targets muslims. Notice how you're always here to support the second. Understand why the wall is met. My point precisely. From 'our' point of view, the term 'radical Islam' is a tautology. Mainstream Islam, not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, not Wahhabism, would be considered off-the-spectrum-far-right and radical by any measure if it didn't have the privilege of being a minority religion and thus being above critical inspection. The notion that people who were indoctrinated by this cancerous ideology from a very young age would just leave it at the door isn't just absurd, it's demonstrably wrong. In that case I don't understand why you react negatively when you're accused of targeting all of them. That's clearly what you're doing. Because you can criticize an ideology or idea without being racist towards those who were indoctrinated by it. The policies that you recommend based on this criticism apply on people, not ideas. Only because we lack the intellectual honesty to make the distinction. That is a sentence devoid of meaning. Intellectual honesty is my favorite internet buzzword for "people that refuse to agree with my smart point of view". It's my favourite buzzword for "I accept evidence, even if it contradicts parts of my (liberal) world view". But whatever, I didn't go into this actually thinking I could penetrate the bubble.
You may want to review your style of argument, evidence and the conclusion trying to prove, rather than assuming everyone who doesn’t agree is dishonest with themselves.
|
Those who must live with the results of the eu referendum the longest want to remain.
They are trying to spin it nicely but this is just complete bullshit lol.
Noone knows how long people have to live with the referendum results. If Britain goes out for 4 years and then rejoins then everyone only had to deal with it for 4 years.
I doubt anyone genuinely believes that Britain will remain completely independent from Europe over the next 69 years lol. That is such a long term,impossible to predict.
Yet it is being used as an argument here,on how the older generation is deciding on the future of the younger generation,a future they wont live themselves. This is such a complete bs argument when it comes to democracy. It would go for every democratic decision. The younger people always have to live longer with it then the older people if nothing would change.
They also did contribute less to the current society then older people,yet they still get the same vote.
Its how democracy works. Seeing this spin honestly makes me sick.
|
On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this.
"I don't care" is an opinion
|
On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this.
It can be that they see the points of both sides, believe, the EU is an important institution, but also see into what it has transformed during the last couple of years. They would vote for leave, but are too scared of the consequences.Or they would vote for remain, but are even more scared of the consequences.
|
On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this.
Not voting is also a rendered opinion. Stop thinking it isn't.
|
On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 22:58 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 22:51 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:49 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:44 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 21:58 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 21:15 DickMcFanny wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I'm tired of this shit. Nobody has ever said "all" of them are heinous and evil. Nobody even used the word 'evil'.
It's the same discussion every time, it's like talking to a wall.
You get the same discussion because you're furthering the same points. Please consider the casual difference between saying something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I question how we keep considering Saudi Arabia as our great ally and let it spread wahabism everywhere." and something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I don't want to accept refugees." Notice how one targets radical islam, and one targets muslims. Notice how you're always here to support the second. Understand why the wall is met. My point precisely. From 'our' point of view, the term 'radical Islam' is a tautology. Mainstream Islam, not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, not Wahhabism, would be considered off-the-spectrum-far-right and radical by any measure if it didn't have the privilege of being a minority religion and thus being above critical inspection. The notion that people who were indoctrinated by this cancerous ideology from a very young age would just leave it at the door isn't just absurd, it's demonstrably wrong. In that case I don't understand why you react negatively when you're accused of targeting all of them. That's clearly what you're doing. Because you can criticize an ideology or idea without being racist towards those who were indoctrinated by it. The policies that you recommend based on this criticism apply on people, not ideas. Only because we lack the intellectual honesty to make the distinction. That is a sentence devoid of meaning. Intellectual honesty is my favorite internet buzzword for "people that refuse to agree with my smart point of view". It's my favourite buzzword for "I accept evidence, even if it contradicts parts of my (liberal) world view". But whatever, I didn't go into this actually thinking I could penetrate the bubble.
Let's talk more about your last post. If we had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between people and ideas, a policy against refugees would target ideas and not people? There is no world view in which this is remotely logical, so this wasn't a rational post. You've just thrown "intellectual honesty" into a sentence cause you think it makes you look like you have a point.
Have you ever considered that if all you can resort to to explain your position is nonsensical one-liners, perhaps you were in a bubble of your own?
|
On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 22:58 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 22:51 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:49 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:47 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:44 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 22:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 21:58 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 21:15 DickMcFanny wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I'm tired of this shit. Nobody has ever said "all" of them are heinous and evil. Nobody even used the word 'evil'.
It's the same discussion every time, it's like talking to a wall.
You get the same discussion because you're furthering the same points. Please consider the casual difference between saying something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I question how we keep considering Saudi Arabia as our great ally and let it spread wahabism everywhere." and something like "I have concerns about radical islam, but I don't want to paint "all" of them as heinous and evil. Which is why I don't want to accept refugees." Notice how one targets radical islam, and one targets muslims. Notice how you're always here to support the second. Understand why the wall is met. My point precisely. From 'our' point of view, the term 'radical Islam' is a tautology. Mainstream Islam, not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, not Wahhabism, would be considered off-the-spectrum-far-right and radical by any measure if it didn't have the privilege of being a minority religion and thus being above critical inspection. The notion that people who were indoctrinated by this cancerous ideology from a very young age would just leave it at the door isn't just absurd, it's demonstrably wrong. In that case I don't understand why you react negatively when you're accused of targeting all of them. That's clearly what you're doing. Because you can criticize an ideology or idea without being racist towards those who were indoctrinated by it. The policies that you recommend based on this criticism apply on people, not ideas. Only because we lack the intellectual honesty to make the distinction. That is a sentence devoid of meaning. Intellectual honesty is my favorite internet buzzword for "people that refuse to agree with my smart point of view". It's my favourite buzzword for "I accept evidence, even if it contradicts parts of my (liberal) world view". But whatever, I didn't go into this actually thinking I could penetrate the bubble.
You are a fuckwit, there you go ban me I don't want to post on a forum with this degenerate.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
|
On June 24 2016 23:08 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this. Not voting is also a rendered opinion. Stop thinking it isn't.
On June 24 2016 23:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this. "I don't care" is an opinion
No, that's what a blank vote expresses.
|
On June 24 2016 23:08 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this. Not voting is also a rendered opinion. Stop thinking it isn't.
No, it's just laziness.
|
Stolen from Reddit:
If other countries leave the EU as well:
FRuckoff
Byegium
Departugal
Czechout
Italeave
Nethermind
Finish
Austria la Vista
|
On June 24 2016 23:04 pmh wrote:
Those who must live with the results of the eu referendum the longest want to remain.
They are trying to spin it nicely but this is just complete bullshit lol.
Noone knows how long people have to live with the referendum results. If Britain goes out for 4 years and then rejoins then everyone only had to deal with it for 4 years.
I doubt anyone genuinely believes that Britain will remain completely independent from Europe over the next 69 years lol. That is such a long term,impossible to predict.
Yet it is being used as an argument here,on how the older generation is deciding on the future of the younger generation,a future they wont live themselves. This is such a complete bs argument when it comes to democracy. It would go for every democratic decision. The younger people always have to live longer with it then the older people if nothing would change.
They also did contribute less to the current society then older people,yet they still get the same vote.
Its how democracy works. Seeing this spin honestly makes me sick.
Britain will not be allowed to "rejoin in 4 years" or anything like that.
|
On June 24 2016 23:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
Stolen from Reddit:
If other countries leave the EU as well:
FRuckoff
Byegium
Departugal
Czechout
Italeave
Nethermind
Finish
Austria la Vista
Good ones :-)
Finish is good :-)
|
TFW you triple dare someone as a joke and then they do it with tragic results.
|
On June 24 2016 23:14 Plansix wrote:TFW you triple dare someone as a joke and then they do it with tragic results.
Which is why protest votes are a stupid thing that can do serious damage that even those voting in protest do not want.
|
On June 24 2016 23:11 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:08 Taf the Ghost wrote:On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this. Not voting is also a rendered opinion. Stop thinking it isn't. No, it's just laziness.
Honestly all referendums should contain an option 'I disagree that this referendum is being held' and 'I don't care about this referendum'. We missed that in our Ukraine referendum as well.
|
On June 24 2016 23:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
Stolen from Reddit:
If other countries leave the EU as well:
FRuckoff
Byegium
Departugal
Czechout
Italeave
Nethermind
Finish
Austria la Vista
Hahaha, gold.
Personally I interpret the old/young divide as the elders who know better saving the youth from their short-sightedness. So long as we're making stupid biased statements because they support our desired result...
|
On June 24 2016 23:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:11 sharkie wrote:On June 24 2016 23:08 Taf the Ghost wrote:On June 24 2016 23:02 OtherWorld wrote:On June 24 2016 21:41 farvacola wrote:
Only folks who have no experience with or knowledge of what voter turnout typically looks like are going to consider a 70%+ turnout a bad thing. While that's true that 70% turnout is huge for an election, we're talking about a referendum here, and an important one at that. For idea of a referendum-based democracy to work, almost everyone in the population needs to voice its opinion, because as sharkie said, there's no way 13 million people don't have an opinion on this. Not voting is also a rendered opinion. Stop thinking it isn't. No, it's just laziness. Honestly all referendums should contain an option 'I disagree that this referendum is being held' and 'I don't care about this referendum'. We missed that in our Ukraine referendum as well.
I wager a very high percentage of those who would vote such an option will simply remain home instead because it is not worth the effort of standing in line.
|
On June 24 2016 22:23 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 22:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 24 2016 22:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So was there any truth to what Nigel Farage said that there are polls in Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands that majority of people want a referendum to leave the EU? Not really. The Netherlands I am not sure about but Sweden is atm more pro EU than England is and I think that so is Denmark. the danish better be. they brought the curved cucumber regulations over us, they stick till the end.
Germany tried to fuck with our cinnamon-buns and liquorice pibes - thanks to Merkel we are much more divided on the issue then you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
