Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show me where I said that please? I said it's what they do for a living...



How noble of them. Time to accept the result. The argument wasn't good enough before, it isn't now.



Oh yeah, those racist, fascist lies? Bad leavers...And they call them 'remoaners' as well y'know? :zzz:



Where did I say I was neutral, or make any statement alluding to it? Once again, show me?

Oh, that's right... I didn't. I asked Pienaar's if the statement he made was a claimed neutrality. And he's been far from neutral; although a lot less rabid than one or two I could mention :)

Why should I pull up @Old Blue 2 ? Don't agree entirely with what was said about the dough, the amount and what it could/should be spent on - but I disagree with paying the EU anything anyway.

1. You said you're not remotely arsed who said what. That's a pretty conclusive acceptance.

2. The point is that the failings of th campaign have been accepted by one side but not by the other yet you claim balance.

3. See point 2

4. I apologise I thought by having a go at someone for not being neutral you may have been claiming to be so yourself.

5. I thought you would probably pull him up considering you acknowledged what he said was a lie 1 page later.
 
Article is mostly about Trump but applies with the EU debate.

In the age of Trump, why bother teaching students to argue logically?

In the EU debates, you had Gove actually say the words "people are sick of experts".

It's actually insane. I mean, the clue is in the word "expert" really - what's the point in knowing anything about anything if what you say is completely ignored because you bothered to actually learn about it?

We live in a disgustingly stupid world, infested by idiots.
 
Article is mostly about Trump but applies with the EU debate.

In the age of Trump, why bother teaching students to argue logically?

That does miss the point a bit.

I think the key thing linking Trump and Brexit is that in both cases you had a clear majority of the people who had run the two countries for the past thirty years all on one side of the argument, and that these people who themselves had a long and demonstrable record of fibs over a wide variety of issues. Both elections then came down to a choice between one side that was responsible for the state the country was in and one side that mostly wasn't; it should surprise few people that the people who weren't responsible won.
 
That does miss the point a bit.

I think the key thing linking Trump and Brexit is that in both cases you had a clear majority of the people who had run the two countries for the past thirty years all on one side of the argument, and that these people who themselves had a long and demonstrable record of fibs over a wide variety of issues. Both elections then came down to a choice between one side that was responsible for the state the country was in and one side that mostly wasn't; it should surprise few people that the people who weren't responsible won.

I take your point, that's not wrong - but it doesn't defy the article.

In a sense, voting because you're angry (and voting for a man who has no regard for you) because your annoyed at the other candidate isn't really logical is it? It's based on emotion, sure, but the US election was The Establishment 1 vs. The Establishment 2.
 
Evidence regarding this claim or do you just know?

Go have a look at the humanities. It's just God awful such as gender studies.

On my course we had to learn about racism and sexism. The argumentation was awful. The lack of logic from the professors and the students was astounding.

Have you heard of the safe spaces?
 
In the EU debates, you had Gove actually say the words "people are sick of experts".

It's actually insane. I mean, the clue is in the word "expert" really - what's the point in knowing anything about anything if what you say is completely ignored because you bothered to actually learn about it?

We live in a disgustingly stupid world, infested by idiots.

those sort of statements do go some way to proving your point.

'An Expert, is somebody who knows more and more about less and less.'...some call that 'can't see the wood for the trees'
Or
'Experts say in theory; Bumblebees can't fly.
Or
The same experts that built 'The un-sinkable Titanic'
Or
The same Experts who said Brexit would never happen.
Or...
 
1. You said you're not remotely arsed who said what. That's a pretty conclusive acceptance.

2. The point is that the failings of th campaign have been accepted by one side but not by the other yet you claim balance.

3. See point 2

4. I apologise I thought by having a go at someone for not being neutral you may have been claiming to be so yourself.

5. I thought you probably pull him up considering you acknowledged what he said was a lie 1 page later.

1.That's right. I went on what I know. ME. Not what some plum (Either side, it makes no odds) tried to palm me off with. Just because boris, ids & the likes happen to share some of my EU views it doesn't mean I agree entirely with them....Same goes for Corbyn. I'm totally autonomous from MP's of all colours.

2. Again...Where did I claim to be balanced? That's three times you've tried it and it'll be the third time you can't show evidence of it. Just stop it. BTW Pt1 isn't an exclusive claim of balance, it's one of judgement.

And yes - remain failed. Don't know why people blame the winning side for winning. The tactics were the same on both sides, so it's just hard bun imo.

3. See point 2

4. Apology accepted. ;)

5. What lie? You mean my reply to @Tubey 's reply to @Old Blue 2 about the £350m?

And a bargain at twice that, eh? :coffee:

Sarcasm, squire. Apologies for there not being a sarcasm font. I thought the emoji might give people a clue.

And now I've got errands to do - in this weather, as well :(
 
Go have a look at the humanities. It's just God awful such as gender studies.

On my course we had to learn about racism and sexism. The argumentation was awful. The lack of logic from the professors and the students was astounding.

As a recent graduate, an "evidence based" approach to the profession was drilled into us from pretty much day one. None stop. The ones who couldn't get their heads around it to a decent extent were not there three years later wearing silly robes and paying extortionate amounts for a photograph.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top