Author Topic: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.  (Read 27307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16663
  • Karma: 1430
  • aka Daria
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #315 on: July 03, 2016, 08:45:44 PM »
Summarised if I may:

I have a different opinion to Benji and dislike him personally.

Therefore Benji is wrong, wrong, wrong

Therefore his opinion is dangerous and uninformed and ill-thought out and he must not be able to represent any of his views by way of voting.

Better the Government make our decisions for us than risk someone like Benji or many people like Benji (that I disagree with) make decisions for us. Welcome to Big Brother

I think you need to work on removing the bias from your summaries.  :laugh:
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #316 on: July 03, 2016, 10:05:12 PM »
Except I also disagree with you on what happened in these last three months.

Not that it matters it changes nothing. Would have been better all around if it were not started initially. All hindsight stuff I suppose, just not exactly necessary.

We can stop any time you like.

You called me intellectually dishonest, made no reasonable argument on it and continued to double down on something untrue and now accuse me of being a bigot and a liar.

But it is up to and on me.

Nope you don't pull me into the sewer with you and then say "Up to you whether you want to acknowledge you are dirty or not". That too is unreasonable.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #317 on: July 03, 2016, 10:11:45 PM »
While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

But what makes you think the politicians are A, more informed and B, representing your best interests?

It makes sense for specialized experts to make decisions within their field when it's a question of specific knowledge, like what treatment will cure a certain disease. But whether a country should stay part of the EU has far-reaching consequences over a broad range of disciplines. Questions of economics, foreign relations, global trade, immigration, domestic policy, etc. Each one is a field specialized enough to have its own formal program of study. Political leaders can't possibly be an expert on everything. They may have advisors, but their time is carefully regimented and information is filtered by staff who have jobs on the line and pressure to tell them what they want to hear.

Nobody may be forcing the populace to do their own research, but look at the debates that have been flourishing between people of all intelligence and education levels. People want to be informed and they want to have a hand in their own destiny. It's passing the buck to blame them for the sensationalized crap in the media. Somewhere somebody is making an executive decision about what to air.

On the second point, political leaders are no less subject to bias than an average citizen. They're taking into account what will further their careers, what will get them more votes, how they are being funded by special interest groups. The vote is a simple yes/no, but that means the largest political parties take black and white sides. Taking the vote away from the population takes away an individual's power to have a nuanced position, for example to have voted one party into office based on a campaign issue unrelated to the Brexit question, and then later to disagree with the stance that party has taken on Brexit.

Besides, the point has been brought up that the popular vote is not legally binding. Nothing happens until the government submits the official withdrawal notice to the EU. Why would you give up even an unofficial vote?

Well said Pyraxis. It was a shit idea, Odeon. Not saying your next idea will be shit. It may well be inspired,  recent track record notwithstanding.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108783
  • Karma: 4477
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #318 on: July 04, 2016, 12:49:03 AM »
While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

But what makes you think the politicians are A, more informed and B, representing your best interests?

Not much, actually, and this is the main problem with democracy. Generally, the politicians we have--just as those in the UK--are less than well-informed and ill suited to decide on most things.

Here, while you vote for a person (there are names on the ballots, and we choose people on three levels, from the local to the national), generally speaking you vote for a party whose ideas are as good a match as possible for what you believe in, and then hope for the best.

Their saving grace, frequently, is that they can actually appoint experts to study the issues at hand before doing anything and so, unlike a referendum such as Brexit where the decision is made over night by people who never have to be accountable, the hope is that slightly wiser and less rash decisions can be arrived at. It all happens over a longer period of time and the decision-makers remain accountable for their actions. Do a few sufficiently bad decisions and you on't have an office after the next election.

A referendum that messes up a country much like Brexit has--the short-term effects are in plain view and the longer term ones are becoming clearer as we speak--has no such advantages and so the very same people who made the last bad decision can be asked to make a new one.

No accountability.

Quote
It makes sense for specialized experts to make decisions within their field when it's a question of specific knowledge, like what treatment will cure a certain disease. But whether a country should stay part of the EU has far-reaching consequences over a broad range of disciplines. Questions of economics, foreign relations, global trade, immigration, domestic policy, etc. Each one is a field specialized enough to have its own formal program of study. Political leaders can't possibly be an expert on everything. They may have advisors, but their time is carefully regimented and information is filtered by staff who have jobs on the line and pressure to tell them what they want to hear.

Nobody may be forcing the populace to do their own research, but look at the debates that have been flourishing between people of all intelligence and education levels. People want to be informed and they want to have a hand in their own destiny. It's passing the buck to blame them for the sensationalized crap in the media. Somewhere somebody is making an executive decision about what to air.

"People want to be informed"?

I have to disagree. Some, sure, absolutely, but all too many, no. It's an issue that is an emotional one because it has been made to be about independence and the EU having superstate ambitions, and rather than taking a few steps back, people talk about the EU having some ridiculous regulations in place over the size of bananas (which *is* silly and pointless and stupid, but of little consequence if you look at the larger scheme of things) and let that be the deciding factor.

It's the same with immigration and so many other issues. People let their emotions do the work.

Quote
On the second point, political leaders are no less subject to bias than an average citizen. They're taking into account what will further their careers, what will get them more votes, how they are being funded by special interest groups. The vote is a simple yes/no, but that means the largest political parties take black and white sides. Taking the vote away from the population takes away an individual's power to have a nuanced position, for example to have voted one party into office based on a campaign issue unrelated to the Brexit question, and then later to disagree with the stance that party has taken on Brexit.

Agreed about the politicians--they are as biased as you and me. Which, again, strongly speaks for not having referendums that are allowed to be decisive. The decision is reduced to a yes/no matter over night, without any nuances left, and the politicians, already as biased as we are, are forced into being black and white rather than at least being allowed to use panels of experts, debating the issue in the all-important legislative bodies, and so on.

Now, the default is not to have a *legislative*, governing, debate on what is perhaps the most important decision in decades in the UK, and so what is left is to pick a leader whose is supposedly only to implement that rash decision while minimising damage.

Quote
Besides, the point has been brought up that the popular vote is not legally binding. Nothing happens until the government submits the official withdrawal notice to the EU. Why would you give up even an unofficial vote?

It's not legally binding but it could equal political suicide for those MPs who do not accept it, bringing out the worst in a democracy, namely the immediate fear for losing your job.

There is the fact that in the UK, legislation can only be repealed by other legislation, so it could well be that the PM cannot legally invoke Article 50 without a Parliamentary decision on that 1972 Act that governs the current state of things.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108783
  • Karma: 4477
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #319 on: July 04, 2016, 12:55:13 AM »
I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

Yeah this is a load of crap. I know you don't suffer fools, but I didn't know you went as far as thinking they should not be allowed to vote in a democracy. Every citizen should be equal under the law, because every citizen will have to live with the consequences of the vote. A country is not private property for an educated elite to be fucking around with.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

Summarised if I may:

I have a different opinion to Benji and dislike him personally.

Therefore Benji is wrong, wrong, wrong

Therefore his opinion is dangerous and uninformed and ill-thought out and he must not be able to represent any of his views by way of voting.

Better the Government make our decisions for us than risk someone like Benji or many people like Benji (that I disagree with) make decisions for us. Welcome to Big Brother

Seriously, Al? Why lie?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108783
  • Karma: 4477
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #320 on: July 04, 2016, 12:56:46 AM »
Except I also disagree with you on what happened in these last three months.

Not that it matters it changes nothing. Would have been better all around if it were not started initially. All hindsight stuff I suppose, just not exactly necessary.

We can stop any time you like.

You called me intellectually dishonest, made no reasonable argument on it and continued to double down on something untrue and now accuse me of being a bigot and a liar.

But it is up to and on me.

Nope you don't pull me into the sewer with you and then say "Up to you whether you want to acknowledge you are dirty or not". That too is unreasonable.

And so you've started lying and misrepresenting my posts. Well done, "mate". If you want an all-out flame war, you're off to a good start.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108783
  • Karma: 4477
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #321 on: July 04, 2016, 12:58:46 AM »
While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

But what makes you think the politicians are A, more informed and B, representing your best interests?

It makes sense for specialized experts to make decisions within their field when it's a question of specific knowledge, like what treatment will cure a certain disease. But whether a country should stay part of the EU has far-reaching consequences over a broad range of disciplines. Questions of economics, foreign relations, global trade, immigration, domestic policy, etc. Each one is a field specialized enough to have its own formal program of study. Political leaders can't possibly be an expert on everything. They may have advisors, but their time is carefully regimented and information is filtered by staff who have jobs on the line and pressure to tell them what they want to hear.

Nobody may be forcing the populace to do their own research, but look at the debates that have been flourishing between people of all intelligence and education levels. People want to be informed and they want to have a hand in their own destiny. It's passing the buck to blame them for the sensationalized crap in the media. Somewhere somebody is making an executive decision about what to air.

On the second point, political leaders are no less subject to bias than an average citizen. They're taking into account what will further their careers, what will get them more votes, how they are being funded by special interest groups. The vote is a simple yes/no, but that means the largest political parties take black and white sides. Taking the vote away from the population takes away an individual's power to have a nuanced position, for example to have voted one party into office based on a campaign issue unrelated to the Brexit question, and then later to disagree with the stance that party has taken on Brexit.

Besides, the point has been brought up that the popular vote is not legally binding. Nothing happens until the government submits the official withdrawal notice to the EU. Why would you give up even an unofficial vote?

Well said Pyraxis. It was a shit idea, Odeon. Not saying your next idea will be shit. It may well be inspired,  recent track record notwithstanding.

Your contributions so far are stellar, of course, but still, why not produce an actual argument instead of extending your pissy mood all over the board?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #322 on: July 04, 2016, 01:19:52 AM »
While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

But what makes you think the politicians are A, more informed and B, representing your best interests?

It makes sense for specialized experts to make decisions within their field when it's a question of specific knowledge, like what treatment will cure a certain disease. But whether a country should stay part of the EU has far-reaching consequences over a broad range of disciplines. Questions of economics, foreign relations, global trade, immigration, domestic policy, etc. Each one is a field specialized enough to have its own formal program of study. Political leaders can't possibly be an expert on everything. They may have advisors, but their time is carefully regimented and information is filtered by staff who have jobs on the line and pressure to tell them what they want to hear.

Nobody may be forcing the populace to do their own research, but look at the debates that have been flourishing between people of all intelligence and education levels. People want to be informed and they want to have a hand in their own destiny. It's passing the buck to blame them for the sensationalized crap in the media. Somewhere somebody is making an executive decision about what to air.

On the second point, political leaders are no less subject to bias than an average citizen. They're taking into account what will further their careers, what will get them more votes, how they are being funded by special interest groups. The vote is a simple yes/no, but that means the largest political parties take black and white sides. Taking the vote away from the population takes away an individual's power to have a nuanced position, for example to have voted one party into office based on a campaign issue unrelated to the Brexit question, and then later to disagree with the stance that party has taken on Brexit.

Besides, the point has been brought up that the popular vote is not legally binding. Nothing happens until the government submits the official withdrawal notice to the EU. Why would you give up even an unofficial vote?

Well said Pyraxis. It was a shit idea, Odeon. Not saying your next idea will be shit. It may well be inspired,  recent track record notwithstanding.

Your contributions so far are stellar, of course, but still, why not produce an actual argument instead of extending your pissy mood all over the board?

Well the counter is to the idea that the citizens have no idea about such thing as what may be in their own best interests is that perhaps collectively they do.
Perhaps the counter to the idea that issues are polarised and black or white is the idea that there may be numerous reasons for someone agreeing to an idea or not.
Perhaps the idea that politicians and their advisors are moral arbiters and altruistic creatures with a vested interest for the citizens of the country they represent, is a thought that perhaps for various reasons politicians may not always make the best decisions or have the citizens's interests at heart.
Maybe instead of saying that everything for a nation pulling out of the EU is doom and gloom from this day on, is a counter that until relatively recent times they needed no EU and going independent is not historically unknown. They were independent for many years.
Maybe people have not been tricked or swayed as you make out but have simply not chosen what you wanted them to choose.
Maybe they are not all scared into it or all racially motivated, or too stupid to get it, maybe they simply made a choice for reasons that were just as good as your want for them to stay in.
As for Benji being too stupid, yeah I get it, he's stupid, I am pissy and you are the intellectual and moral superior.....but maybe not.
Maybe democracy is simply being able to accept that as part of a society we need to accept that to function in a Democratic society we have to accept majority opinions count. Even when we do not agree with them.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #323 on: July 04, 2016, 03:06:55 AM »
I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

Yeah this is a load of crap. I know you don't suffer fools, but I didn't know you went as far as thinking they should not be allowed to vote in a democracy. Every citizen should be equal under the law, because every citizen will have to live with the consequences of the vote. A country is not private property for an educated elite to be fucking around with.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

A referendum to decide on those matters, however, is never about responsibility since the people are easily swayed and susceptible to all kinds of horror stories and irrationality, and once they've voted they'll just go back to whatever they were doing, without any accountability or responsibility whatsoever. It's everyone's fault and it's no-one's fault. The question itself is a simple yes/no and so there doesn't have to be a thorough analysis of anything, just an instinct or a feeling, a quick vote, and that's it.

The idea that a referendum is the ultimate form of democracy and thus must make sense is an illusion. You might as well allow the general population to vote on treatment options for the sick in a hospital.

Witness the "morning after" the Brexit vote, when many leave voters rather uncharacteristically realised that they had been lied to and admitted it, thousands of them going out in the streets to protest. It's unheard of right after an election, which is as it should be because the idea of democracy should actually not be to vote on government decisions but to vote on a government to do it in their place.

So if you want to be upset with me for not wanting the general population to vote on this sort of thing, go right ahead. Benji has illustrated rather well why the idea is so bizarre in the first place.

Summarised if I may:

I have a different opinion to Benji and dislike him personally.

Therefore Benji is wrong, wrong, wrong

Therefore his opinion is dangerous and uninformed and ill-thought out and he must not be able to represent any of his views by way of voting.

Better the Government make our decisions for us than risk someone like Benji or many people like Benji (that I disagree with) make decisions for us. Welcome to Big Brother

Seriously, Al? Why lie?

Summarised if I may:

I have a different opinion to Benji and dislike him personally.

So there is a lie here? So tell us all that you actually like Benji and have the same opinions. No? Not a lie? I CAN back this up. No, we good?


Therefore Benji is wrong, wrong, wrong


You believe he is right, right, right? No? I can show where you think he is an idiot for his opinions, So good here too? Okay.


Better the Government make our decisions for us than risk someone like Benji or many people like Benji (that I disagree with) make decisions for us.

While the above is specifically against Benji, I think allowing people (including me, btw) to vote on something like this is a very bad idea. There is no way most know, or are able to learn, enough to make a competent decision.

Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote, it's also about responsibility and accountability. We can, and perhaps should, elect our leaders, the idea being that they are competent enough to handle this sort of thing and if not, we'll pick someone else the next time. The idea is that THEY are competent enough to handle the big decisions that we simply cannot, or that they in turn can nominate experts who can.

I wrote "effectively". But then, you not understanding the difference is really why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. You simply aren't capable of deciding anything more important than ...

Sorry, I tried to think of something there to be nice, but couldn't. You shouldn't be allowed to decide anything, tbh.

No lie here either.

Welcome to Big Brother

Was this the big one? "The lie?"
I said welcome to Big Brother as an allusion to the Orwellian future nightmare of the totalitarian governing Big Brother government of 1984. So this is analogous in my mind to treading down that rather bleak path...except for the fact of course that making off-hand sarcastic analogies is not lying.

Seriously, Al? Why lie?

Here is a much more interesting question. As i did not lie, and you by suggesting I did were not telling the truth, does that make YOU a liar or a hypocrite? I will accept either.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #324 on: July 04, 2016, 03:15:12 AM »
Except I also disagree with you on what happened in these last three months.

Not that it matters it changes nothing. Would have been better all around if it were not started initially. All hindsight stuff I suppose, just not exactly necessary.

We can stop any time you like.

You called me intellectually dishonest, made no reasonable argument on it and continued to double down on something untrue and now accuse me of being a bigot and a liar.

But it is up to and on me.

Nope you don't pull me into the sewer with you and then say "Up to you whether you want to acknowledge you are dirty or not". That too is unreasonable.

And so you've started lying and misrepresenting my posts. Well done, "mate". If you want an all-out flame war, you're off to a good start.

I have yet to see the posts that I have been lying and misrepresenting you though at least a couple of posts that you lied about me in, are contained in my signature. Is this a "I know what you are but what am I?" tactic? if so I think I have little to fear from this threat of a flame war.

I fear a flame war nor more than I fear a callout. If you want to do this, fire away, I don't give a shit.

As for whether this is an accurate description of things:

You called me intellectually dishonest, made no reasonable argument on it and continued to double down on something untrue and now accuse me of being a bigot and a liar.

But it is up to and on me.

Nope you don't pull me into the sewer with you and then say "Up to you whether you want to acknowledge you are dirty or not". That too is unreasonable.

It appears that way to me and I am more than happy to argue the point.

You did not call me intellectually dishonest? You did not double down? You did not call me a bigot? You did not call me a liar? You did not say "We can stop it any time YOU like"? I can point to all of this.

Again, and I have mentioned it before, you fished for a reaction from me and now you have it. Enjoy it. Personally I would have thought it a silly thing to do.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 11:05:13 PM by Al Swearengen »
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline rock hound

  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Karma: 363
  • Gender: Male
  • The Lurker at the Threshold.
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #325 on: July 04, 2016, 08:39:05 AM »
And more from Pea!   8)  Enjoy the debate!   8)

"This is what happens when you let the politicans dictate the country, folks.

http://www.infowars.com/leftist-politician-its-worse-when-swedish-men-rape-women-than-when-immigrants-do/

I feel really bad for Sweden being the EU cucks. Glad Benji, FourAceDeal and I voted for #Brexit.

Post that when you can, please.
Leftist Politician: It's "Worse" When Swedish Men Rape Women Than When Immigrants Do » Alex...
Because migrants come from a different culture.
infowars.com
Chat Conversation End
Type a message...

"Some books are to be tasted.  Others to be swallowed.  And some few to be chewed and digested."  --Sir Francis Bacon

"Civilization exists by geologic consent.  Subject to change without notice."  --Will Durant

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16663
  • Karma: 1430
  • aka Daria
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #326 on: July 04, 2016, 06:12:29 PM »
But what makes you think the politicians are A, more informed and B, representing your best interests?

Not much, actually, and this is the main problem with democracy. Generally, the politicians we have--just as those in the UK--are less than well-informed and ill suited to decide on most things.

Here, while you vote for a person (there are names on the ballots, and we choose people on three levels, from the local to the national), generally speaking you vote for a party whose ideas are as good a match as possible for what you believe in, and then hope for the best.

Their saving grace, frequently, is that they can actually appoint experts to study the issues at hand before doing anything and so, unlike a referendum such as Brexit where the decision is made over night by people who never have to be accountable, the hope is that slightly wiser and less rash decisions can be arrived at. It all happens over a longer period of time and the decision-makers remain accountable for their actions. Do a few sufficiently bad decisions and you on't have an office after the next election.

A referendum that messes up a country much like Brexit has--the short-term effects are in plain view and the longer term ones are becoming clearer as we speak--has no such advantages and so the very same people who made the last bad decision can be asked to make a new one.

No accountability.

What would you see as suitable accountability? It seems to me that everyone's having to live with the consequences of the vote, and they'll continue to do so. UK citizens working in Europe and Europeans working in the UK are going to have their lives overturned. Anyone with investments in the pound or in UK business are getting repercussions.

"People want to be informed"?

I have to disagree. Some, sure, absolutely, but all too many, no. It's an issue that is an emotional one because it has been made to be about independence and the EU having superstate ambitions, and rather than taking a few steps back, people talk about the EU having some ridiculous regulations in place over the size of bananas (which *is* silly and pointless and stupid, but of little consequence if you look at the larger scheme of things) and let that be the deciding factor.

It's the same with immigration and so many other issues. People let their emotions do the work.

I think you're right that panels of experts are needed, and more time to realistically consider the repercussions. The campaign was handled abysmally. Rushed, swamped with sensationalism, appealing to the worst of human nature. Which seems to be par for the course for elections all over the world. I don't think the answer to that is to take the vote away from people though. I think the answer is education and enforced wait times.

The system seems to be self-correcting to a degree, though. Since Cameron stepped down, everyone has to wait while the party in charge comes up with somebody else to chaperone the exit. Or to stonewall until the next national election. And it seems like they're going to take their sweet time, like you said about Parliament maybe needing to debate the 1972 Act, even with the EU pressuring them to make the official call.

Agreed about the politicians--they are as biased as you and me. Which, again, strongly speaks for not having referendums that are allowed to be decisive. The decision is reduced to a yes/no matter over night, without any nuances left, and the politicians, already as biased as we are, are forced into being black and white rather than at least being allowed to use panels of experts, debating the issue in the all-important legislative bodies, and so on.

While I don't like questions being reduced to black and white, and especially don't like the enforced two-party system in the USA, I'm not sure how staying vs leaving the EU could be voted on in a way other than black and white - whether it was elected representatives making the vote, or citizens. Even if it was made more complex, ie one party advocating leaving now, one party advocating negotiations with the hard threat of leaving if certain demands weren't met, and one party advocating staying, it would be hard for the middle party to actually enact their line in the sand and make good on their promise. Maybe it would have been better to have the economic/policy/etc studies and governmental debate before taking the vote to the people.
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16663
  • Karma: 1430
  • aka Daria
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #327 on: July 04, 2016, 06:18:41 PM »
Well the counter is to the idea that the citizens have no idea about such thing as what may be in their own best interests is that perhaps collectively they do.
Perhaps the counter to the idea that issues are polarised and black or white is the idea that there may be numerous reasons for someone agreeing to an idea or not.
Perhaps the idea that politicians and their advisors are moral arbiters and altruistic creatures with a vested interest for the citizens of the country they represent, is a thought that perhaps for various reasons politicians may not always make the best decisions or have the citizens's interests at heart.
Maybe instead of saying that everything for a nation pulling out of the EU is doom and gloom from this day on, is a counter that until relatively recent times they needed no EU and going independent is not historically unknown. They were independent for many years.
Maybe people have not been tricked or swayed as you make out but have simply not chosen what you wanted them to choose.
Maybe they are not all scared into it or all racially motivated, or too stupid to get it, maybe they simply made a choice for reasons that were just as good as your want for them to stay in.
As for Benji being too stupid, yeah I get it, he's stupid, I am pissy and you are the intellectual and moral superior.....but maybe not.
Maybe democracy is simply being able to accept that as part of a society we need to accept that to function in a Democratic society we have to accept majority opinions count. Even when we do not agree with them.

You and Benji both, talking about acceptance. This is a part of your argument that I don't understand. As in the vote is done, people should stop thinking and analyzing? It's really up to each individual when they've come up with a satisfactory understanding of what happened, you can't stop the process just because you're sick of hearing about it. It seems natural that the side which lost the vote is looking at how things could be done differently next time, and what were the flaws in the process. After all, if leaving the EU was the wisest decision, it shouldn't matter if there's more debate. With time, the minority position will be proven wrong, and the people debating have no influence on that rushing tide.

Edit: It's like the people who underestimate Trump. First they thought he wouldn't win the primary. Now they're thinking he won't win the election. There's going to be a hell of a lot of gnashing of teeth if he does. That's pretty much a fact of human nature.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2016, 06:21:22 PM by Pyraxis »
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #328 on: July 04, 2016, 06:55:06 PM »
My thoughts on this is they pushed for a vote and will of the people and got it.
Now of course more could have been done to influence an amount of voters to different position by the vote was asked for and now the result is in. Time to get on with things.

Secondly, pretending now that people collectively are too stupid, too uneducated and misled, sit badly with me. The effort to continually infantise adults. Censor the internet for them, take away difficult choices and treat them all like mindless sheep. Sorry, I don't agree. The people who generally do are either government /corporate representatives who would benefit from treating constituents/customers are sheep or individuals on a intellectual or moral highhorse trying to highlight that they are special and better than most people
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16663
  • Karma: 1430
  • aka Daria
Re: Brexit omelette with ham and cheese.
« Reply #329 on: July 04, 2016, 07:06:24 PM »
My thoughts on this is they pushed for a vote and will of the people and got it.
Now of course more could have been done to influence an amount of voters to different position by the vote was asked for and now the result is in. Time to get on with things.

But you haven't actually offered a reason to get on with things. If you want to, no one's stopping you. But why try to make others do the same?

Actually, I should ask for clarification on that. Are you saying the government should get on with things and submit the official exit request? Or that average people should get on with things and quit discussing it?
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.