Printable View
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for a native speaker. Then again, it's you I'm talking to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Let me give you two hints:
a) When Nietzsche said that upon staring into the abyss the abyss would also stare back into you, he did not mean that in a positive way.
b) Jumping into an abyss is usually an act one does not recover from. At all.
I don't consider Brexit to be an abyss though. Hazir does and it was his turn of phrase that I was repudiating.
As for Tusk's 'place in hell' comments today, I think Milton summed it up best hundreds of years ago.
Quote:
Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat
That we must change for Heav’n, this mournful gloom
For that celestial light? Be it so, since he
Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
What shall be right: fardest from him is best
Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.
Actually, I don’t consider Brexit that. What I do consider jumping into the abyss is the clusterfuck your political class is setting you up for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And the funny thing is Randy, that you aren’t rich enough by a large margin to benefit from it. The pied pipers you so eagerly follow are. And what’s more; they are getting their money into safer havens than the UK.
You did an abysmal job of it, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Erm, that poem is not quite saying what you think it says. Basically, it's propaganda by Lucifer to make things look better than they are, so that his fellow fallen angels don't pillory him on the spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also, it's kind of funny how you're equating your position here with the king of hell. You do realize that Milton painted Satan as anything but a hero, right? Once again you show an aptitude for using the absolute worst of analogies...
You would be wise to read the rest of the poem:
Quote:
“To whom in brief thus Abdiel stern repli’d.
Apostat, still thou errst, nor end wilt find
Of erring, from the path of truth remote:
Unjustly thou deprav’st it with the name
Of Servitude to serve whom God ordains,
Or Nature; God and Nature bid the same,
When he who rules is worthiest, and excells
Them whom he governs. This is servitude,
To serve th’ unwise, or him who hath rebelld
Against his worthier, as thine now serve thee,
Thy self not free, but to thy self enthrall’d;
Yet leudly dar’st our ministring upbraid.
Reign thou in Hell thy Kingdom, let mee serve
In Heav’n God ever blessed, and his Divine
Behests obey, worthiest to be obey’d,
Yet Chains in Hell, not Realms expect: mean while
From mee returnd, as erst thou saidst, from flight,
This greeting on thy impious Crest receive.”
Oh I missed that he started comparing Brexit to going to hell. Now I understand his odd misunderstanding of me a bit better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'm also not sure how this is so much better. Yes, they'd be reigning over hell. But it would still be hell.
Pertinent points from beeb article today:
Brexit uncertainty drives down investment and stalls growth. Mitigated to some degree by strength in the labour market.Quote:
Originally Posted by =BBC
Uncertainty uncertainty uncertainty. Not good for anyone. If only the full extent of Brexit had been fully analysed, all repercussions known, and all amendments to policy/trade/borders/diplomacy etc ready to switch, before the referendum was held. Here's looking at you Cameron, you short-sighted nitwit. Not to mention given that knowledge the referendum result would be very different anyway.
I think you can blame Cameron of a lot, but not of having no plan for Brexit; he never wanted it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
It doesn't matter if he wanted Brexit or not. Calling a referendum without a plan for each outcome is grossly irresponsible.
It was a dumb move, but it was the natural culmination of several years of toxic, short-sighted Tory politics. The greatest fault lies with those politicians, pundits & media asshats who suckered voters into choosing the option they obviously had no idea how they'd deliver... and, of course, with the voters that let themselves be suckered, for whatever reason. The responsibility for delivering a palatable, workable Brexit lies with those who successfully pushed for Brexit and were tasked with sorting it out.
People pushing for what they believe in isn't wrong. Incidentally given the EU's refusal to negotiate until after A50 how could anyone know what a "workable" Brexit is, if you define workable as being something we could reach a deal with the EU over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Actually Vote Leave put down a fairly comprehensive set of entirely compatible guidelines as to what they were proposing, including where trade-offs were required. They didn't claim what was known to be impossible like suggesting we would remain in the Single Market and end Freedom of Movement. Or negotiate our own trade deals while remaining in the Customs Union. Some Leave supporters (like Dan Hannan) do back an EEA style solution and remaining in the Single Market (and thus not ending freedom of movement) but the worked out compromise was that we would leave the SM and end FoM.
What more could Leave campaigners have realistically done without either access to the Civil Service (Cameron had that) or to negotiate with the EU (who wouldn't negotiate prematurely)?
I'm sure that if you try really hard you can think of some strong counter examples to this bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I can't. I have always opposed no platforming even for those I vehemently and bitterly oppose.
Arguing for what you believe in isn't wrong. Though what you believe in certainly could be wrong.
To argue for something you believe in you need to be informed. I don't believe you have argued anything.
Telling the truth would have been a good start. Running a legal and ethical campaign would have been another.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Honesty would have meant; we do not like the idea we have to pool our sovereign powers with people who are not like us and who we often do not trust. For this we are going to uproot our economy and risk disturbing our relationship with our closest neighbors for a long time. But it is worth it because we rather be poor and free than rich and tied down.
I guess you're okay with letting the KKK and actual Nazis run through your streets then?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You should read Popper on that point.
Quote:
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Yes I am and I am ok with their opponents doing so too.
I agree with Popper here. "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
Rational arguments trump no platforming.
You conspiciously missed the following sentence. One sign for a deceitful mind: Cherry-picking quotes to make them say the complete opposite of what the larger context stands for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Because Popper would most empathically rip you a new one for this idiocy.
What he's arguing for is better summarized as: "No tolerance for intolerance."
And not your false-equivalency idiocy which landed you in this mess in the first place. You'd probably cheerfully place a anti-vaxxer next to an actual scientist and then argue that both positions are of equal value.
Again: When you try to use someone's arguments, read the whole of their arguments and not just the part you like. Your pathetic attempt to channel Milton shows how big a failure that can be, and you just showed it again with Popper.
I never said anything about value. I think anti-vaxxers are f***ing idiots who have a right to free speech and anyone with two brain cells to rub together have a right to criticise them. As for the rest of Popper's quote, there is a very important segment to it that you can't overlook, besides the bit I already quoted. "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
If anyone is using "fists or pistols" then absolutely we need to use force if necessary. If someone is using words then it isn't necessary yet. Your claim he is arguing for "no tolerance for intolerance" is utter bullshit, he explicitly says he is not saying that. Again "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies" - suppression should only be used if necessary.
Your idea of universal suppression of intolerance is what Popper literally called "unwise". Moron.
May I point you towards a very important word you seem to have overlooked in your analysis of his word?
"May". Not "will". This means, my dear Brexshiteer, this is merely a list of how you recognize the intolerant. But I fully expect that to fly over your head once again.Quote:
they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Oh, and by the way: The Nazis and the KKK which you were oh-so-fond-of to provide a platform for - they're not exactly known for their non-violent nature. But, hey, feel free to provide the scum of the earth a platform to spew forth their drivel from. You're absolutely deluded if you think that "free speech" is an absolute.
Why on Earth is that particular freedom to be put on a pedestal above everything else?
Because it's convenient. That way you yourself don't have to move your fat ass and do something. No, you can wallow in your smug self-satisfaction that you have done everything you can by not doing anything at all. And because you probably like it, deep inside yourself. As of yet, pretty much everyone who defends Nazis pretty much is a closet one himself.
Yes they may, and if they do then we can react accordingly. If anyone is violent then we need to stop that violence. I don't defend Nazi's I defend the right to everyone to non-violent free speech. To quote someone else I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This replies to your misunderstand of Popper better than I can.
https://www.libertarianism.org/colum...adox-tolerance
A confession:
Twitter Link
But they still haven't learned. What a bunch of douchenozzles.
Amsterdam municipality has calculated that so far 1937 new jobs were created in the Amsterdam area as the result of Brexit. This number is expected to rise well over 4000. FYI, Amsterdam has a population of about 800k. So if the number of 4000 is actually realized Brexit will have a significant effect on the local economy.
@RB: I'm curious to understand whether you want the EU to fail and whether you think Europe would be a better place without it.
No and not certain.
I'm happy for the EU to succeed I just don't think its right for the UK. I draw the analogy between Canada and the USA, Canadians don't want America to fail, nor would most say the world would be a better place without America, but nor do Canadians want to be Americans.
The analogy is wrong; Canada never was a part of the USA.
Canada not being part of the USA doesn't hurt the USA. The UK leaving the EU will cause all sorts of damage and suffering.