|
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 23:07 Diabolique 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. 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.
Those with a better appreciation of history about how the EU came about understand that what the EU has become was always the intention. It was never what they sold it to the public as, but we've seen enough of countries having to "vote until they get it right" over the years to understand the game that was being played. It's always been about a small group of the Elites controlling the masses through an army of bureaucrats. That goal they accomplished, quite effectively, I might add.
But actions cause reactions and everything was going great until the EU started to become a straight-jacket on the economies and started enforcing rules & regulations that no one that has to deal with them had any say in the creation. Petty tyrannies add up, let's just hope we don't get actual wars as a result.
I'll let a British MP that's rather dead explain the major issue, that's going to set the stage for the next 20-30 years of European history.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
―Henry John Temple Palmerston
|
On June 24 2016 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:14 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:09 ahswtini wrote:
scientists baffled 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.
This is why a double referendum is needed. The “Are you for sure?” referendum.
|
On June 24 2016 23:08 Linear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You have done nothing but insult, make uneducated comments and just spam this thread since the vote.
Be glad when you are gone so we can carry on discussing without you interrupting every other page with silly posts.
Its too early to say whats going to come of this Brexit, everything is uncertain at the moment, however its understandable people are anxious.
|
On June 24 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:15 Gorsameth wrote: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. This is why a double referendum is needed. The “Are you for sure?” referendum.
Meh I long for the day when we can pass control to an artificial intelligence who will actually work in our best interests without all this stupid feelings stuff getting in the way.
|
On June 24 2016 23:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Of course you could have policies that targeted ideas without targeting refugees, starting with a zero tolerance policy for harmful religious practices. But it's tiresome to explain this every single time because people just call it racist.
|
On June 24 2016 23:18 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:07 Diabolique 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. 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. Those with a better appreciation of history about how the EU came about understand that what the EU has become was always the intention. It was never what they sold it to the public as, but we've seen enough of countries having to "vote until they get it right" over the years to understand the game that was being played. It's always been about a small group of the Elites controlling the masses through an army of bureaucrats. That goal they accomplished, quite effectively, I might add. But actions cause reactions and everything was going great until the EU started to become a straight-jacket on the economies and started enforcing rules & regulations that no one that has to deal with them had any say in the creation. Petty tyrannies add up, let's just hope we don't get actual wars as a result. I'll let a British MP that's rather dead explain the major issue, that's going to set the stage for the next 20-30 years of European history. “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” ―Henry John Temple Palmerston
If you appreciate history why don't you go read it yourself then?
It always was. The myth around which the EU has grown is that ministers and their officials always planned gradually, but inexorably, to subordinate the nation state to a higher European order. In the words of Vaclav Klaus, a former prime minister of the Czech republic, countries would "dissolve in Europe like a lump of sugar in a cup of coffee". But although Monnet and some of those around him did indeed dream of a European superstate, the politicians who made use of their ideas did not. The pooling of sovereignty found in the treaties first of Paris and then of Rome - which created the European Economic Community in 1957 - was designed to save the nation state, not bury it. Europe's governments have jealously guarded their powers ever since.
www.economist.com
|
On June 24 2016 23:18 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:07 Diabolique 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. 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. Those with a better appreciation of history about how the EU came about understand that what the EU has become was always the intention. It was never what they sold it to the public as, but we've seen enough of countries having to "vote until they get it right" over the years to understand the game that was being played. It's always been about a small group of the Elites controlling the masses through an army of bureaucrats. That goal they accomplished, quite effectively, I might add. But actions cause reactions and everything was going great until the EU started to become a straight-jacket on the economies and started enforcing rules & regulations that no one that has to deal with them had any say in the creation. Petty tyrannies add up, let's just hope we don't get actual wars as a result. I'll let a British MP that's rather dead explain the major issue, that's going to set the stage for the next 20-30 years of European history. “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” ―Henry John Temple Palmerston
Very well written. Exactly. There were tens, hundreds of petty tyrannies ... and they added up ... but still, the whole was in the interest of the most people, so they somehow survived it. Just in the last few years, the EU elites got the feeling, they can do whatever they decide and nobody else has a word in it. The EU has become very "Marxist" in their ideology, and we from the Eastern Europe see, how much it is getting similar to the previous Soviet Union, where we were still independent countries, but we were absolutely not independent and whenever we would have a different opinion than the leaders of Soviet Union, we would be severely punished. And we do not want to be part of such a society anymore. And neither wants the UK.
|
On June 24 2016 23:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:15 Gorsameth wrote: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. This is why a double referendum is needed. The “Are you for sure?” referendum. Meh I long for the day when we can pass control to an artificial intelligence who will actually work in our best interests without all this stupid feelings stuff getting in the way.
"AI here, found solution for maximum comfort per human: minimize the humans."
Also, Germain , since we will never pass an exit referendum in the next decade.
|
On June 24 2016 23:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:15 Gorsameth wrote: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. This is why a double referendum is needed. The “Are you for sure?” referendum. Meh I long for the day when we can pass control to an artificial intelligence who will actually work in our best interests without all this stupid feelings stuff getting in the way.
Great, who build your AI, and according to what agenda?
It's like that completely surreal thread about technocracy, a few years ago. Like, technocrats are "neutral", as if there were a neutrality and objectivity in politics. There is none.
|
On June 24 2016 23:25 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course you could have policies that targeted ideas without targeting refugees, starting with a zero tolerance policy for harmful religious practices. But it's tiresome to explain this every single time because people just call it racist.
Please tell me how your policy of having zero tolerance for harmful religious practices, in a context where we have established one past ago that in your view "islam" is a harmful religious practice, doesn't apply on muslims?
|
well thank god i did post about 'actually, if people want to leave then so be it, if that stops people stfu on whining about immigrant (for example) then it will make me laugh on what will people blame on next'.
Exactly, i am so surprised when my friends text me in the early morning, like, jesus christ.
I for one, want EU to go real hard on this, as in, screw negotiation, you want out, you get it. UK has always been the 'special snowflake' and thats exactly why so many people here are delusional about alot of things in reality (and guess who are the majority of the people who voted Out). I cannot believe the 'good days' i enjoy since recession doesn't even last more than 5 years. Well, time to plan ahead, 2 years count down. Seriously i really hope Out is Out.
|
On June 24 2016 23:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:25 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 23:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course you could have policies that targeted ideas without targeting refugees, starting with a zero tolerance policy for harmful religious practices. But it's tiresome to explain this every single time because people just call it racist. Please tell me how your policy of having zero tolerance for harmful religious practices, in a context where we have established one past ago that in your view "islam" is a harmful religious practice, doesn't apply on muslims?
Engage thought police robot. Stop the spread of harmful political movements like communism….I mean religions like Islam. Sorry, I reverted my programming from the cold war.
|
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
Do a Geldof and give em the two fingered salute!
![[image loading]](http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Bob-Geldof-680759.jpg)
|
On June 24 2016 23:34 BurningSera wrote:
well thank god i did post about 'actually, if people want to leave then so be it, if that stops people stfu on whining about immigrant (for example) then it will make me laugh on what will people blame on next'.
Exactly, i am so surprised when my friends text me in the early morning, like, jesus christ.
I for one, want EU to go real hard on this, as in, screw negotiation, you want out, you get it. UK has always been the 'special snowflake' and thats exactly why so many people here are delusional about alot of things in reality (and guess who are the majority of the people who voted Out). I cannot believe the 'good days' i enjoy since recession doesn't even last more than 5 years. Well, time to plan ahead, 2 years count down. Seriously i really hope Out is Out.
2 years count down is not running. And will probably not be running for another year, until the elections in France are done. And who knows, a second referendum with the question "Are you sure?" is still possible.
|
A second referendum is really going to play into the "vote until you agree with the EU" argument of Eurosceptics everywhere. Pretty sure this Brexit is going to happen - the question is, when and how. Even the Remain side is by and large saying they will respect the vote and implement it.
|
On June 24 2016 23:41 LegalLord wrote:
A second referendum is really going to play into the "vote until you agree with the EU" argument of Eurosceptics everywhere. Pretty sure this Brexit is going to happen - the question is, when and how. Even the Remain side is by and large saying they will respect the vote and implement it.
Yes, the "Are you sure?" referendum will result in 70/30 win. But the UK will still have the question, what to do with Scotland? What to do with Northern Ireland? I don't know.
|
What i find annoying is the younger generation blaming the older voters "we have to live with this" it's not like the older voters are simply going to disappear in the next 20-40 years, we all have to live with it.
What an extremely selfish way to act.
|
Brits, how likely do you think it is that you'll actually leave the single market?
|
On June 24 2016 23:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:34 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 23:25 DickMcFanny wrote:On June 24 2016 23:08 Nebuchad wrote:On June 24 2016 23:01 DickMcFanny wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course you could have policies that targeted ideas without targeting refugees, starting with a zero tolerance policy for harmful religious practices. But it's tiresome to explain this every single time because people just call it racist. Please tell me how your policy of having zero tolerance for harmful religious practices, in a context where we have established one past ago that in your view "islam" is a harmful religious practice, doesn't apply on muslims? Engage thought police robot. Stop the spread of harmful political movements like communism….I mean religions like Islam. Sorry, I reverted my programming from the cold war.
At least in those times people didn't go "Please, I'm just against communism, I have no problem with communists, have some intellectual honesty."
|
rofl i remember, that Lisbon referendum ran twice, and the results of Ireland changed to what EU wanted hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
