Science0 min ago
Straight Question For Zacs And The Other Remainiacs...
74 Answers
Ignoring all the dilly dallying since June 23rd. Do you personally think that ultimately the result of the referendum should be implemented?
Answers
It shouldn't be a case of "but they started it!" as a defence. There's also a difference between calling someone wrong, and calling them stupid.
But, I agree, a certain poster who shall remain nameless (although let's call him Mikey, for the sake of argument), really didn't cover himself in glory with all that "stopid" stuff. It was embarrassing.
But, I agree, a certain poster who shall remain nameless (although let's call him Mikey, for the sake of argument), really didn't cover himself in glory with all that "stopid" stuff. It was embarrassing.
I think it is an almost perfect analogy of the remain camp. How else can you describe people that want to stay in an abusive and corrupt organisation that has delusions of mega statehood?
Brainwashed and too frightened of what will happen to them when they are shoehorned out the door. Seems pretty close to the mark for the things I have heard. No one ever thinks they have been brainwashed. But all of a sudden a careing and concerned loved one stages an intervention. Snatches them away from the cult and debrief them.
Everyone had their reasons for leave or stay. That we can agree on.
The general consensus for leave are much talked about. In short Regain sovereignty, regain control of boarders, trade, laws, migration in all its forms boost collaboration that benefits the U.K. With the wider world etc.
What are the reasons for staying? Whatever the reply is say it without the words loss of.
Brainwashed and too frightened of what will happen to them when they are shoehorned out the door. Seems pretty close to the mark for the things I have heard. No one ever thinks they have been brainwashed. But all of a sudden a careing and concerned loved one stages an intervention. Snatches them away from the cult and debrief them.
Everyone had their reasons for leave or stay. That we can agree on.
The general consensus for leave are much talked about. In short Regain sovereignty, regain control of boarders, trade, laws, migration in all its forms boost collaboration that benefits the U.K. With the wider world etc.
What are the reasons for staying? Whatever the reply is say it without the words loss of.
... in years to come, the majority who are still alive may have wanted to be in the EU and will be so grateful that they lost that vote. They will not suffer the stress of desperately trying to get out for themselves and seeing a younger generation try to foil them. In further years to come future generations will be glad those who are no longer with them did not betray them with short term thinking, but instead voted to make the country in control of itself once more, thus making it a nation worthy of the name.
The problem I have with that argument cassa is that it's essentially irrefutable -- not because it is correct, but because almost by definition any argument raised against it can be simply dismissed because, well, I would say that wouldn't I? I've been brainwashed.
It's a modern equivalent, really, of witch-hunting or witch trials. Or maybe Morton's fork. Maybe a mixture of both. Anything, though, that amounts to "either you agree with me, or you are brainwashed", is just a position that doesn't deserve any respect in discourse.
And, besides, if all else fails, I could always just reverse the argument: maybe you were brainwashed by the right-wing media into hating an organisation that, while obviously no perfect, brings benefits that are well worth the bureaucratic structures. And how can you refute that one? After all, that's just what a brainwashed person would say.
It's a modern equivalent, really, of witch-hunting or witch trials. Or maybe Morton's fork. Maybe a mixture of both. Anything, though, that amounts to "either you agree with me, or you are brainwashed", is just a position that doesn't deserve any respect in discourse.
And, besides, if all else fails, I could always just reverse the argument: maybe you were brainwashed by the right-wing media into hating an organisation that, while obviously no perfect, brings benefits that are well worth the bureaucratic structures. And how can you refute that one? After all, that's just what a brainwashed person would say.
We are all brainwashed to one degree or another. Marketing and advertising does it brilliantly. Politics feeds into our own wants and fears and how we can best achieve our shared aims.
But who is more likely to have been brainwashed and/or coerced with threats in this case? People who want to stay in an abusive and corrupt organisation or those that want to leave it?
But who is more likely to have been brainwashed and/or coerced with threats in this case? People who want to stay in an abusive and corrupt organisation or those that want to leave it?
It still remains a rotten argument. I wasn't threatened, personally or otherwise. Your description of the EU is being set up as indisputable fact, when it's simply not. You are welcome, of course, to draw whatever analogy you like, but that doesn't make the analogy correct or meaningful.
When we joined the EC in the early 1970s it was with the understanding that the body was (a) going to evolve, and (b) as members, we were expected to adhere to the rules. As and when those rules changed, the UK had a full part in the discussions, but of course being one member out of many means that our views on any changes were not necessarily in the majority. In fact though this has been true of every member nation of the EU/ EC, etc.
It isn't bullying or abusive to ask people, or even tell them, to adhere to the rules of a club which they joined as an equal member. The same is true of the EU. I don't recognise your description, or analogy with domestic abuse, as even remotely accurate.
When we joined the EC in the early 1970s it was with the understanding that the body was (a) going to evolve, and (b) as members, we were expected to adhere to the rules. As and when those rules changed, the UK had a full part in the discussions, but of course being one member out of many means that our views on any changes were not necessarily in the majority. In fact though this has been true of every member nation of the EU/ EC, etc.
It isn't bullying or abusive to ask people, or even tell them, to adhere to the rules of a club which they joined as an equal member. The same is true of the EU. I don't recognise your description, or analogy with domestic abuse, as even remotely accurate.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.