are you saying we should have a dictatorship because the masses are to daft to have a vote on anything more complex than the x factor ?
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
You know I'm not going to let you go over such comments as above.
Tell me, Bruce, how do you know that many have not? Do you know how many did?
Let me answer that for you. You haven't a bloody clue, Bruce. You continue, week after week, to make groundless assertions just to further your own agenda. I can see right through it every time.
You see, as you well know, Bruce, I am too schooled in research and legal matters over the decades for bull to get past me.
'He who asserts must prove', matey, he who asserts must prove...
Neveryourfault
Player Valuation: £950k
Its out! how many times do we have to have a poll!! The people have spoke
BREXIT no more immigration
BREXIT no more immigration
Perfectly highlights how dangerous our media are
Okay, answer me this. In what other sphere of life do we let completely untrained people contribute to important things? Even Red Cross volunteers have to show a basic aptitude for first aid etc. Why do we think it a bastion of virtue to let people who don't know how many states are in the EU decide on whether the EU is a good thing?
There are various proposals out there, whether it's giving people basic citizenship type tests, and those who score higher having more weight to their votes than those who don't.
Before you cry foul, we already do that by virtue of the voting age, and of course we decry that prisoners can not currently vote either, so we already make judgements on who is and is not suitable to vote in elections.
Okay, so we're in a situation whereby neither of us know the minds of every person in the country. It seems the standard approach here is that I try and use studies of the same to gain an insight (and note I said an insight, not a perfect insight, for perfect insight is close to impossible). You on the other hand seem happy to assume you know everything about the population, that they were all incredibly well informed, and so on, all from the comfort of your own mind.
In other words, both of us are naturally in a position of ignorance as to the intentions of others. I try and gain evidence from people that have studied the matter, whereas you seem happy not to. How does that make your view more valid than mine? Again, I'm not saying these studies provide a perfect representation of the public, but they are considerably better than nothing, which is where you're currently at.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Your polemic on here's hardly worth replying to Bruce, you're not even giving respect to those engaging with you, but in brief:
Firstly, your argument appears to be circular, unless you're a political expert, you shouldn't be commenting on this, according to your beliefs.
Secondly, reinforcing what a few other have been trying to tell you, I suppose you never consult a medic/take action when in pain as you are not a neurologist and don't understand your nervous system and the messages it sends.
Firstly, your argument appears to be circular, unless you're a political expert, you shouldn't be commenting on this, according to your beliefs.
Secondly, reinforcing what a few other have been trying to tell you, I suppose you never consult a medic/take action when in pain as you are not a neurologist and don't understand your nervous system and the messages it sends.
In what way is what I've said polemic? Is it a bad thing to expect people who vote to have rudimentary knowledge over that which they're voting? If democracy is to in any way work, that would seem to be a basic requirement.
I don't think knowing how many states are in the EU or that Switzerland is not a member state is a particularly onerous requirement, and certainly wouldn't mark one out as an expert, yet it would show a small degree of knowledge about that which you're being asked to vote. Yet few people appear to know even these very simple things.
And for the record, this isn't a case of saying leave voters are dumb, remain voters are smart, because the stats show that ignorance was equal pretty much across the spectrum.
You've just made my point for me. If I'm in pain, I consult those skilled enough to do something about it, I don't go to Uncle Bob who was the champion at Operation each Christmas, and just because he's had a pain in his foot before, he knows what to do about it.
You know that leaving the EU isn't going to stop immigration, don't you?
The majority of immigrants come from outside the EU.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
You're right, we ought to educate our citizens better in order to improve our 'democracy', but the simple route for you to understand your fallacy (excepting circularity) is to concentrate on the fact that the citizens don't implement the decisions themselves, that's why we employ a vast quantity of technicians (and staff) to do so.
You'll note that this line of debate was triggered but yet another utterance that politicians either are, or are not, following the 'will of the people'. In other words, both in the UK and US, politicians are expected to do exactly what the electorate asked them to do, so citizens are having a huge input into the actual implementation of decisions.
It's akin to selecting the England manager on the basis of a national vote, whereby not only do you get football fans with a degree of knowledge participating, but also people who openly dislike England, those who dislike football, and those with absolutely no idea about anything to do with the game, but by god they expect to garnish their right to choose the next manager. Surely we can agree that such a scenario would be madness?
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
You know I'm going to reply to this part of your post, don't you Bruce!
I hope this post is relatively short, but it may evolve into a long post in order to reply fully to your points.
You use studies to reinforce your point. I have no problem with that, per se, but you do not qualify the studies you use, nor give a relative evaluation of the validity of those studies. I will provide an example later of how flawed studies can be.
You say this: "...You on the other hand seem happy to assume you know everything about the population, that they were all incredibly well informed, and so on, all from the comfort of your own mind..." I must call you out on this, Bruce. I have never claimed to know everything about the population. On the contrary, I have stated that you, and others, cannot possibly claim to know everything about the population, and how the population thinks. You've got no chance of turning that one back on me, Bruce, and in trying to do so, casts you in a poor light.
I agree that we are both in a position of ignorance (ignorance in the sense of not knowing the views of the whole population). That is a given, and it would be a fool who claimed to know such a thing.
As for this: "...I try and gain evidence from people that have studied the matter, whereas you seem happy not to..." Again, you are turning things around to suit your agenda. You pull studies to reinforce your already entrenched views. I challenge that, on the basis that studies cannot always be claimed to be 100%, nor 100% perfect. "...considerably better than nothing...". Sometimes, nothing is better than certain kind of 'studies'.
And now, as mentioned in paragraph three above, I'll give you an example of how flawed a 'study' can be. Study in the sense of evaluating information, and arriving at a completely wrong conclusion.
For decades, from the 1960s onwards, the Messerschmitt 110 German twin-engined fighter was stated in books/works to be a complete failure in the Battle of Britain (BoB). That it was easy prey for the defending RAF fighters. That eventually in the BoB it needed fighter escort itself from the single-engine Messerschmitt 109. So where did all this come from? Must be some factual information available to go some way to support those contentions.
Well the Messerschmitt 110 DID suffer considerable losses in the BoB. So did the Messerschmitt 109. The 109 has always been lionised as a great fighter aircraft, casting the 110 deep in its shadow. The 109 units had all the stars: Galland, Mölders, Wick. Is this a myth? We shall see.
So lets look at actual figures, with reference to a recent work by Christer Bergström. Losses of 110s in the BoB were 196. Losses of 109s in the BoB were 534. Interesting so far. Combat claims for the 110 were 290; for the 109, 760. So, when one sets one figure against the other, it comes out as follows: claim to loss ratio for the 110 = 1.48:1; claim to loss ratio for the 109 = 1.42:1. Hmm. These figures show that the 110, on balance, was the better fighter in the skies of southern England in 1940 than the 109, on a pro rata basis!
But lots of authors and writers of articles have pronounced for decades that the 110 needed fighter escort from the 109s over England during the BoB. Where did that come from? I'll tell you. On August 26th 1940 Göring had a rant at his Commanders, and on hearing of the 110 losses to date (without reference to any other figures) lambasted them and said the 110s should receive escort. It never happened. All the 110 aircrew I interviewed over the decades always laughed at the suggestion that they received fighter escort from 109s. The ONLY 110 unit to receive fighter escort was a unit callede Erprobungsgruppe 210 (Test Wing 210), a fighter-bomber unit. The first fighter-bomber unit in the world. As they were weighed down with external bombs, and therefore slower than the normal fighter 110, they were given escort to the target. Having discharged their payload, they reverted to being fighters (notwithstanding the bomb racks still in place on the aircraft). So, here's another myth busted which has perpetuated over the decades (and still does in the minds of many people even today).
My point in giving all of the above, is that one can call on the studies of others, and those others could (and certainly DO in the case of the examples I have shown above) get matters completely wrong.
Ergo, Bruce, one can call upon studies to reinforce one's own views and opinions, but once those studies veer into personal views & opinons, one can set no greater store by them than one's own opinions.
Damn, it is a long post!
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
You know I'm going to reply to this part of your post, don't you Bruce!
I hope this post is relatively short, but it may evolve into a long post in order to reply fully to your points.
You use studies to reinforce your point. I have no problem with that, per se, but you do not qualify the studies you use, nor give a relative evaluation of the validity of those studies. I will provide an example later of how flawed studies can be.
You say this: "...You on the other hand seem happy to assume you know everything about the population, that they were all incredibly well informed, and so on, all from the comfort of your own mind..." I must call you out on this, Bruce. I have never claimed to know everything about the population. On the contrary, I have stated that you, and others, cannot possibly claim to know everything about the population, and how the population thinks. You've got no chance of turning that one back on me, Bruce, and in trying to do so, casts you in a poor light.
I agree that we are both in a position of ignorance (ignorance in the sense of not knowing the views of the whole population). That is a given, and it would be a fool who claimed to know such a thing.
As for this: "...I try and gain evidence from people that have studied the matter, whereas you seem happy not to..." Again, you are turning things around to suit your agenda. You pull studies to reinforce your already entrenched views. I challenge that, on the basis that studies cannot always be claimed to be 100%, nor 100% perfect. "...considerably better than nothing...". Sometimes, nothing is better than certain kind of 'studies'.
And now, as mentioned in paragraph three above, I'll give you an example of how flawed a 'study' can be. Study in the sense of evaluating information, and arriving at a completely wrong conclusion.
For decades, from the 1960s onwards, the Messerschmitt 110 German twin-engined fighter was stated in books/works to be a complete failure in the Battle of Britain (BoB). That it was easy prey for the defending RAF fighters. That eventually in the BoB it needed fighter escort itself from the single-engine Messerschmitt 109. So where did all this come from? Must be some factual information available to go some way to support those contentions.
Well the Messerschmitt 110 DID suffer considerable losses in the BoB. So did the Messerschmitt 109. The 109 has always been lionised as a great fighter aircraft, casting the 110 deep in its shadow. The 109 units had all the stars: Galland, Mölders, Wick. Is this a myth? We shall see.
So lets look at actual figures, with reference to a recent work by Christer Bergström. Losses of 110s in the BoB were 196. Losses of 109s in the BoB were 534. Interesting so far. Combat claims for the 110 were 290; for the 109, 760. So, when one sets one figure against the other, it comes out as follows: claim to loss ratio for the 110 = 1.48:1; claim to loss ratio for the 109 = 1.42:1. Hmm. These figures show that the 110, on balance, was the better fighter in the skies of southern England in 1940 than the 109, on a pro rata basis!
But lots of authors and writers of articles have pronounced for decades that the 110 needed fighter escort from the 109s over England during the BoB. Where did that come from? I'll tell you. On August 26th 1940 Göring had a rant at his Commanders, and on hearing of the 110 losses to date (without reference to any other figures) lambasted them and said the 110s should receive escort. It never happened. All the 110 aircrew I interviewed over the decades always laughed at the suggestion that they received fighter escort from 109s. The ONLY 110 unit to receive fighter escort was a unit callede Erprobungsgruppe 210 (Test Wing 210), a fighter-bomber unit. The first fighter-bomber unit in the world. As they were weighed down with external bombs, and therefore slower than the normal fighter 110, they were given escort to the target. Having discharged their payload, they reverted to being fighters (notwithstanding the bomb racks still in place on the aircraft). So, here's another myth busted which has perpetuated over the decades (and still does in the minds of many people even today).
My point in giving all of the above, is that one can call on the studies of others, and those others could (and certainly DO in the case of the examples I have shown above) get matters completely wrong.
Ergo, Bruce, one can call upon studies to reinforce one's own views and opinions, but once those studies veer into personal views & opinons, one can set no greater store by them than one's own opinions.
Damn, it is a long post!
You've rubbished every piece of research that's been posted during the post referendum debate in which the conclusions don't tally with you preconceived opinions though. Whilst producing nothing at all to back up your own view on why they're supposedly flawed or some other contrary piece of research which counters the findings.
You've simply dismissed them with nothing more than a flippant "they've not asked everyone have they" type response.
Dangerous game that Bruce picking who can and cannot vote on certain issues leaves it wide open to corruption , we will exclude a certain number of people to get are own way.
Not very libral of you that excluding people on grounds of education ect , as it would mostly affect the poorest people with a worse education.
As for prisoners i wouldnt let them vote , if they chose to live outside of societies laws , why should they have the right to vote on them.
Not very libral of you that excluding people on grounds of education ect , as it would mostly affect the poorest people with a worse education.
As for prisoners i wouldnt let them vote , if they chose to live outside of societies laws , why should they have the right to vote on them.
Bruce the OUT vote won get over it!
James Braxton on LBC at 10 am listen to him and cry in your cup of tea with him, he blames everything on brexit we have punched ourselves in the face - I turn him off before I try to punch him in the face via my radio - a wet Liberal who can not accept a democratic vote!
he admits to being a wet Liberal - he is becoming ,monotonous, its unbelievable, any top job he as aspired has gone up in smoke!
Last edited:
And they'll come from the EU anyway.
But of course he doesn't know that, it's pointless even asking that question to someone yelling "no more immigration" I'm afraid.
- Status