Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

BRITLAND

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

Recommended Posts

Uncle Sikee Atric
9 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

It's enshrined into law not to extend the extension, what did you expect?

 

There is a little problem....

103759273_181634626664964_54814413541263

 

Prepare to 'really' go it alone Bobby.  If Westminster is taking decisions without accepting input and criticism from the other Home nations, London will have to accept the huge 'egg on face' moment of becoming a broken group of former nations, Brexit is about to end the UK as well.  The best bit is the Tories will suck up like hell once they understand the implications, then spend god knows how long fighting among themselves while their region of influence becomes a Little England, no one else gives a flying feck about.

Just imagine, your passport has even less freedom of movement than what restrictions it's about to have placed on it?  By the time people like you are finished, you'll struggle to get out of Croydon without it needing a stamp.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

There is a little problem....

103759273_181634626664964_54814413541263

 

Prepare to 'really' go it alone Bobby.  If Westminster is taking decisions without accepting input and criticism from the other Home nations, London will have to accept the huge 'egg on face' moment of becoming a broken group of former nations, Brexit is about to end the UK as well.  The best bit is the Tories will suck up like hell once they understand the implications, then spend god knows how long fighting among themselves while their region of influence becomes a Little England, no one else gives a flying feck about.

Just imagine, your passport has even less freedom of movement than what restrictions it's about to have placed on it?  By the time people like you are finished, you'll struggle to get out of Croydon without it needing a stamp.

 

Make the M25 our border (and also include Gatwick Airport/we keep Gatwick, you can have Luton Airport) and to Hell with you I say.

 

Not one single f*ck given I'm afraid.

 

 

5 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

There is a little problem....

103759273_181634626664964_54814413541263

 

Prepare to 'really' go it alone Bobby.  If Westminster is taking decisions without accepting input and criticism from the other Home nations, London will have to accept the huge 'egg on face' moment of becoming a broken group of former nations, Brexit is about to end the UK as well.  The best bit is the Tories will suck up like hell once they understand the implications, then spend god knows how long fighting among themselves while their region of influence becomes a Little England, no one else gives a flying feck about.

Just imagine, your passport has even less freedom of movement than what restrictions it's about to have placed on it?  By the time people like you are finished, you'll struggle to get out of Croydon without it needing a stamp.

 

Also, what is your problem with Westminster?

 

You're just anti London and anti UK.

 

On 6/2/2020 at 11:32 AM, sivispacem said:

We can decide arbitrarily whether your posts are worthy of being read. It's glorious because I'm a control freak and this position of power gives me thrills, if I was in the Police I'd be a bad cop since I'm prone to changing reports and doing crap like this.

Figures.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:01 PM, DareYokel said:

Why create more busywork for yourselves when banning him would solve the problem? He's never going to learn and he'll never contribute anything worthy of reading.

You're an idiot.

 

I suppose you think the UK should have stayed in the EU too.

5 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

There is a little problem....

103759273_181634626664964_54814413541263

 

Prepare to 'really' go it alone Bobby.  If Westminster is taking decisions without accepting input and criticism from the other Home nations, London will have to accept the huge 'egg on face' moment of becoming a broken group of former nations, Brexit is about to end the UK as well.  The best bit is the Tories will suck up like hell once they understand the implications, then spend god knows how long fighting among themselves while their region of influence becomes a Little England, no one else gives a flying feck about.

Just imagine, your passport has even less freedom of movement than what restrictions it's about to have placed on it?  By the time people like you are finished, you'll struggle to get out of Croydon without it needing a stamp.

 

For Welsh and Scottish Ministers to decided not to participate, evidently doesn't stop the UK from meeting in their stead leaving them ironically in a position they want with the EU, that is to have no say at the table that governs them.

They chose not to join the meeting, but it didn't stop the meeting.

 

But let's be clear, I don't care if London becomes its own country.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
44 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Make the M25 our border

I thought you wanted to exit the EU, not rejoin it. If London separated from the rest of England, one of its first actions would be to apply for EU membership.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

I thought you wanted to exit the EU, not rejoin it. If London separated from the rest of England, one of its first actions would be to apply for EU membership.

Why?

Because the region voted to remain in 2016?

Who said London wouldn't be Singapore on the Thames?

The EU would never allow Singapore on the Thames to be in a deal with the EU little lone in the EU so why do think London would rejoin the EU when given the choice between Singapore on the Thames or EU?

You and a half waffle on.

 

Although, one of the first actions would be would be to party if we ever got independence from the UK.

England's a nice place and all but it's just not London, it's just not home.

London's already like it's own unofficial country in the UK, but if we left the UK, that could be cool.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
36 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why?

Because the region voted to remain in 2016?

 

It did, so it's almost certain it would vote to Rejoin again, probably with an increased majority as well, leading to it's return to the EU.

 

36 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Who said London wouldn't be Singapore on the Thames?

 

So you've gone from Europe is a muddy field, to the rest of the UK is a muddy field?

The irony in that single comment of yours is truly golden.

 

36 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

The EU would never allow Singapore on the Thames to be in a deal with the EU little lone in the EU so why do think London would rejoin the EU when given the choice between Singapore on the Thames or EU

 

Because Singapore On The Thames is a complete pipe dream and the real joke among the Brexsh*t fraternity.  Brexiters keep hoping for it, while forgetting the rest of the UK and feigning complete ignorance to the wishes of an increasingly disillusioned population.  No doubt Westminster will go all soft and start complaining when it faces it's own set of Article 50 applications, then fail to spot the irony of it's own behavior to the EU, because this time they're the ones with nations wanting to screw it over.

 

5 years ago the Independent Welsh voice was non-existent, today's polls suggest 25% of the Welsh population wants to leave the UK, so they've become a very vocal minority very quickly.  An astonishing Tory achievement if you ask me.
 

36 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Although, one of the first actions would be would be to party if we ever got independence from the UK.

England's a nice place and all but it's just not London, it's just not home.

London's already like it's own unofficial country in the UK, but if we left the UK, that could be cool.

 

Again, another example of have your cake and eat it....  Only you won't, because in London, Bobby's voice is the minority, and his roar becomes squeakier every day.

 

Besides, given the economic hits that's currently slumping the economy at record levels, tied to the potential 10% further hit possible due to Brexsh*tting behavior, it won't be Singapore On The Thames, it'll be North Somalia, given the smuggler's paradise you're opening up for and the demand for sea and fishing rights....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why?

Because pro-EU sentiment is exceptionally high in London, and the capital is also suffering the most significant economic impacts of Brexit. 

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Who said London wouldn't be Singapore on the Thames?

The UK government did, by chasing economic deals based primarily on primary and secondary industry (IE pandering to the ex-Labour heartlands of the North and Midlands who won Boris the last election) whilst ignoring the service sector (primarily domicile in major cities which tend not to vote conservative) which comprises 80% of UK GDP. 

 

The US services market is structurally biased towards US companies, and opportunities for market penetration are almost nonexistent. I have first hand experience of exactly how difficult it is; for one, most of the core US service industries of note have stringent nationality requirements for many roles, similar to national security clearances. So without a US domicile workforce and registered company it's basically unworkable.

 

The vast majority of tertiary economic activity takes place under our established EU trading relationships. Reaching a point at which we're able to practically deliver one tenth of that current output abroad is basically an impossibility without a comprehensive EU trade deal.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Singapore on the Thames

Which is a lovely idea but Singapore is a vaguely oppressive pseudo-meritocracy which is actually primarily controlled by a small number of family dynasties, with illiberal press, limited personal and political freedoms outside of the economic sphere, and where unskilled menial labourers like yourself are treated as borderline slaves. I have literally no idea why you'd possibly advocate an economic model that makes people like me very wealthy but leaves you in desperate poverty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)

Well first of all, the break up of the UK isn't happening despite @Uncle Sikee Atric wishing it was to teach Westminster a lesson, and second of all... I don't need a second of all because the first point was job done since @Uncle Sikee Atric based it on a delusion from his head about the imminent break up of the UK over Brexit; the UK's not breaking up.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
8 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Well first of all, the break up of the UK isn't happening despite @Uncle Sikee Atric wishing it was to teach Westminster a lesson, and second of all... I don't need a second of all because the first point was job done since @Uncle Sikee Atric based it on a delusion from his head about the imminent break up of the UK over Brexit; the UK's not breaking up.

 

Please prove that it won't happen.

You can't, nor can you admit the Tories are completely ignoring the devolved nations either.  They were supposed to meet at 18:00 on Friday to request the formal extension, but Gove made the call (via text message) before they even had a chance to voice their opinions, so why should they bother with a meeting that was already pointless?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Just now, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

Please prove that it won't happen.

You can't.

I don't have to.

 

You're the one saying it will, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
2 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

I don't have to.

 

You're the one saying it will, not me.

 

The only thing that will not happen for sure is London becoming North Somalia on it's own, Singapore On Sea is impossible, no matter how much the Tories try to big up their attempts to create it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)

on it is own?

 

@Uncle Sikee Atric

 

If you're going to be a Racist f*ckhead about the Somali Community, at least use the correct grammar.

 

On its own is 'on its own' not 'on it's own' you Racist fool.

 

No wonder you love the EU so much, Somali people got you on edge because they're Muslim or something like you're French or Dutch or German.

1 hour ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

The only thing that will not happen for sure is London becoming North Somalia on it's own, Singapore On Sea is impossible, no matter how much the Tories try to big up their attempts to create it.

It's Singapore on the Thames, not on Sea, you Muppet.

 

7 hours ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

The US services market is structurally biased towards US companies, and opportunities for market penetration are almost nonexistent.

Register an LLC in the US, make it a holding company of a UK based LTD for all it matters and make it an MNC.

I hear Delaware is great to do this because you don't have to have an HQ in DE to do this and there is no requirement for corporation tax in this haven.

No one in America is going to be biased against creating jobs in America; you say they're biased towards US companies? Well, create one then.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

People who hold Singapore as an incredible example has never been to Singapore. You think Germany is oppressive because you can't mow the lawn on weekends? You can't even chew bubble gum in Singapore! You want gum? You gotta get them from government approved suppliers. And your name gets put on a list. Oh and they were ranked 151st in press freedom in 2018.

 

Indeed, such a model country!!!! Let's all be like it!

 

Pathetic. Though your acknowledgement that the UK is a piece of sh*t is grand. So much for your patriotism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Tchuck said:

People who hold Singapore as an incredible example has never been to Singapore...

London turning into Singapore on the Thames doesn't mean London would copy their strict 'gotta flush by law' laws, London on the Thames is about an economic zone ensuring London's the world capital for commerce even more than it is today.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
8 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

No one in America is going to be biased against creating jobs in America; you say they're biased towards US companies? Well, create one then.

There's a myriad of issues with this approach which I'll go through in turn.

 

Firstly, the whole point of comprehensive trade deals is that you don't need to set up domicile operations within countries you're trading with as there are no barriers to cross border trade. You can already set up a US corporate presences without a UK-US trade deal, so it's effectively irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

The whole point in a trade deal is to create an economic framework in which the involved countries can deliver goods and services to each other fluidly and without tariffs or interruptions. This is evidently not going to happen with a UK-US trade deal as the US has no impetus to let UK service sector companies operate under an agreed framework, and the UK had completely ignored the service sector in the prioritised areas. So, I ask again, where are UK financial service organisations or consultancy services going to be able to trade once we leave the common market, given the answer to that clearly isn't "the US".

 

Not every organisation can afford the costs of setting up physical operations in the US, hiring a US workforce. Especially in a sector which has significant protectionist trade policies in place and where you're competing with long established brand names as a relative newcomer.

 

You appear to be exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of how trade deals work and what they comprise of; the entire point of a free trade deal is to remove the requirement to have domiciled operations within s country in order to do business there smoothly.

 

 

 

I also don't know why you'd think London would retain its status as the global financial markets infrastructure hub given that it's already seeing its position being eroded significantly by Frankfurt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
3 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

London turning into Singapore on the Thames doesn't mean London would copy their strict 'gotta flush by law' laws

Nah you're not getting it. One of the big arguments you used for getting away from EU was that EU countries were extremely backwards in regards to human rights. Which was a downright false assumption, as shown to you. But then you choose as the ideal country one who has worse records in human rights, and more draconian laws in some aspects. Do you not see the inconsistency in this?

 

Then, you made it quite clear you consider the rest of the UK to be pretty much just as backwards as Europe, which is hilarious given your so-called patriotism. 

 

But then, I don't expect you to understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tchuck said:

Nah you're not getting it. One of the big arguments you used for getting away from EU was that EU countries were extremely backwards in regards to human rights. Which was a downright false assumption, as shown to you. But then you choose as the ideal country one who has worse records in human rights, and more draconian laws in some aspects. Do you not see the inconsistency in this?

 

You're not getting SIngapore on the Thames being a tax haven of sorts on the Thames.

Whoever said Singapore on the Thames was anything but financial hub status?

You.

 

Your argument that Singapore on the Thames means a post Brexit London would mean adopting Singapore's human rights and laws, is stupid.

 

3 hours ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

 

 

I also don't know why you'd think London would retain its status as the global financial markets infrastructure hub given that it's already seeing its position being eroded significantly by Frankfurt.

When Japan UK USA UK deals come through we could undercut Frankfurt and the EU could trade with itself and China.

 

The UK Japan deal is interesting as this is the logical step for getting into the Pacific region.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

You're not getting SIngapore on the Thames being a tax haven of sorts on the Thames.

Whoever said Singapore on the Thames was anything but financial hub status?

The two kind of go hand in hand. A deregulated environment is a prerequisite of obtaining and maintaining the sort of status London does.

In fact, part of the challenge London has had over the last decade or so is that many of the firms operating there still believe there's too much regulation.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

When Japan UK USA UK deals come through we could undercut Frankfurt

You're not listening. 

 

How are we supposed to undercut Frankfurt when services aren't even on the table with these deals? 

Without favourable agreements on services, which Japan and the US would never concede to because they both want to maintain their own domestic service industries, then UK tertiary (IE service) production sold in these countries is still subject to tariffs and regulatory restriction.

Therefore we can't compete in the Japanese or US markets with domestic companies.

 

This is absolutely basic trade policy stuff, that you still seem so utterly oblivious to what it all means is frankly horrifying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

You're not getting SIngapore on the Thames being a tax haven of sorts on the Thames.

Whoever said Singapore on the Thames was anything but financial hub status?

You.

 

Your argument that Singapore on the Thames means a post Brexit London would mean adopting Singapore's human rights and laws, is stupid.

 

If you want a business atmosphere like Singapore, you're going to have to adopt the business models that make Singapore successful.  In other words, prepare to be at the very bottom of the pile Bobby.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

When Japan UK USA UK deals come through we could undercut Frankfurt and the EU could trade with itself and China.

 

The UK Japan deal is interesting as this is the logical step for getting into the Pacific region.

 

Multiple problems abound with this....

The UK US deal is something completely different and likely to take years, even if Trump does win, let alone the fact there's little to zero chance if he loses.

The EU already has a comprehensive deal with Japan, which the UK is walking away from as it leaves the EU, so Frankfurt undercuts London before the trade talks have even started, although financial services are not on that list, but data sharing is.

The current US / Japan trade deal is for low level items such as agri-products (about the highest level goods are race horses, interestingly) and some industrial products, the electronic agreements do not cover financial services agreements, just data sharing. (https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2019/september/fact-sheet-us-japan-trade-agreement )

 

The fact you're waffling on about unrealistic situations is frankly laughable.  The UK isn't going to offer an alternative to Europe any time soon.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK drop out of the G7 in coming years, making the UK an even lower prospect for future trade deals and a lower rung on the world stage.  All spearheaded by the same people who would wonder why it's happened.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
On 6/13/2020 at 10:06 AM, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

There is a little problem....

103759273_181634626664964_54814413541263

 

Prepare to 'really' go it alone Bobby.  If Westminster is taking decisions without accepting input and criticism from the other Home nations, London will have to accept the huge 'egg on face' moment of becoming a broken group of former nations, Brexit is about to end the UK as well.  The best bit is the Tories will suck up like hell once they understand the implications, then spend god knows how long fighting among themselves while their region of influence becomes a Little England, no one else gives a flying feck about.

Just imagine, your passport has even less freedom of movement than what restrictions it's about to have placed on it?  By the time people like you are finished, you'll struggle to get out of Croydon without it needing a stamp.

 

You really need to understand the difference between the Prime Minister and a First Minister.

The First Minister's authority stops at the border, but the Prime Minister's goes across the UK.

You may not like it, but the Prime Minister and Westminster have final say in the UK otherwise England would have a First Minister.

The Prime Minister doesn't have to listen to a First Minister, their authority stops at the border.

 

If it was up to me, London would have a First Minister, and be like Scotland or Wales, who have both the Prime Minister and a First Minister.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

You may not like it, but the Prime Minister and Westminster have final say in the UK

This isn't actually true. The devolved assemblies vary in exactly what powers they hold, but in each instance devolved powers are absolute; that its to say, Westminster cannot force legislation on devolved assemblies in areas which those assemblies hold the sole legislative power. Given than some of these areas include taxation policy, legal and court systems, transportation, education, environmental policy, food standards, agriculture, fisheries and healthcare, these are serious and legitimate concerns. It is effectively illegal and entirely unconstitutional for Westminster to legislate in these areas on behalf of the devolved assemblies, which is essentially what appears to be happening with post-Brexit trade and regulatory policies put forward by the government. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimbatron
On 6/1/2020 at 2:04 PM, sivispacem said:

Breaking your post into sub-points and rebutting them individually is pretty typical debating fare. I don't understand why you'd have an issue with it. My responses relate directly to aspects of your post; if you don't want those discussed then my suggestion would be to remove them next time.

 

This is a straw man though, because I've never asked for "laboratory" or "legal" standards of proof. In fact, you will note I didn't use the word "proof" at all except when paraphrasing your comments, I specifically used the word "evidence". 

 

I don't really feel like I should have to explain the meaning of evidence but I evidently do: "information based in measurement or empirical observation, which either self-evidently or through explanation supports a hypothesis."

 

Notwithstanding the fact that, according to you this isn't a personality or political discussion as you're apparently applying a psychological concept- so I would argue that necessarily you would require a higher standard of evidence.

 

My "framing of the debate" could be summarised "hypotheses that are not supported with evidence are inherently valueless", something which the vast majority of people would agree with.

 

Nothing to do with proof, nothing to do with discrediting. If you're going to argue core concepts, at least have the common decency to get them right.

 

Quote the specific examples you supplied in your previous posts, and explain how they meet the standards of evidence as defined above.

 

Is it possible for you to go five seconds without inventing a new and exciting way of straw-manning my positions?

 

Now you've completely reframed your argument as being something totally different. Evidently not content with simply misrepresenting my points, you've now begun misrepresenting your own. 

 

Your specific assertion was that Boris Johnson met the definition (that you provided) for psychopathy. The problem with that assertion is twofold;

 

1) the provided definition is, if not actually wrong, definitely not aligned with any qualified methodology for determining psychopathy, and;

 

2) the assertions that these criteria are met are unevidenced.

 

I don't see how I could be much clearer.

 

So you admit you didn't actually provide any evidence then? Glad we finally cleared that up. Anyway, this is yet another straw man; I don't think I've ever said explicitly you're wrong. If I have, please point to it.

 

You still seem to mistake my criticism of the content, coherence, evidence and defining assumptions of your argument as "holding an opposing position". I don't think I could be clearer on the subject but evidently you struggle with reading comprehension so hopefully the above is clear enough for you. Perhaps making it bold or bigger might work?

 

Politicians, in general, have a prolific and deserved reputation for mistruth. There's no controversy in that statement.

 

Again, you seem to miss the point here; it's you, not me, who chose to place perpetuation of falsehoods front and centre of his argument that Boris Johnson is a psychopath. All I have done is question whether this inherently represents a particularly effective litmus test. I would argue it does not; notwithstanding that a core aspect of political activity is focused on twisting evidence to fit organisational narratives which is fundamentally a dishonest action there are far too many other differential diagnoses to draw a conclusion.

 

And we also have little evidence that this extends beyond his professional life; being Machiavellian in one's approach to politics isn't really an indicator of compulsive or pathological lying. 

 

I've given a fairly categorical answer.

 

There was a lot more to your response than that one question, why are you do hesitant to see it discussed? Why include it if you have no interest in it being given scrutiny?

 

That's because it is.

 

We're pushing a dozen posts from you on the subject and we're still no closer to having a comprehensive and well-evidenced argument in support of your assertions.

 

I would counter that I've been exceptionally level-headed in the face of persistent misrepresentation, misquoting, straw man arguments and wilful ignorance all of which are at best a manifestation of poor discursive practices and at worst deliberate attempts to instigate a reaction.

 

If you want your contributions treated less contemptibly you could start by not descending into straw man arguments every five minutes.

There are several problems with the above. Just to quote yourself back to you, you say you only ever asked for evidence, but you were the one who asked for  burden of proof.

On 5/21/2020 at 5:24 PM, sivispacem said:

 

 

What you appear to have done here is invoke an Argument from Ignorance, essentially trying to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and onto someone else.

 

Personally I think this is an attempt to enter a subconscious impression in the readers mind that if something can't be proved 100% it should be immediately discounted. Whereas with so many things, this cannot be proven either way.

 

You asked earlier why I decided to start with the point of Boris Johnson being a liar - I thought it would be an interesting test of your response. It is the most obvious example of a bad trait, and examples have been mounting by the day recently. So a reasonable person would have no trouble with agreeing it. But now you are desperately dodging the question. I think you don't want say that he isn't a liar, or his lying his trivial, because you would look well, rather lacking in credibility. But equally you don't want to give a straight answer and say "yes hes is a liar, I agree with that point", because you are more interesting in appearing to win the debate than the substance of it. It's an attribute I remember from people on my PhD course who also went to a debating society. They'd know all these little debating theories, just like you, calling up things like "Argument of Ignorance", but would spend more time on such debating theories than the topic at hand - my personal suspicion was it was always a lazy approach rather than focusing on the subject.

 

This is similar to your choice of sub-edditing posts, not that this is generally a problem, but you have shortened them to take the context away. Rather than quote the whole piece as I have done above.

 

"Your specific assertion was that Boris Johnson met the definition (that you provided) for psychopathy. The problem with that assertion is twofold;

 

1) the provided definition is, if not actually wrong, definitely not aligned with any qualified methodology for determining psychopathy, and;

 

2) the assertions that these criteria are met are unevidenced.

 

I don't see how I could be much clearer."

 

You have had many digression not to do with this. If you had concisely laid this out, we could have kept the conversation more brief. To be clear I have never claimed categorically he is a psychopath, just that he ticks boxes on a list. It is fair for you to say there is not a universally agreed list - that point I would agree with. I would assert however, these are very common held characteristics. Please say which characteristics are not commonly associated with psychopathy, and which ones the list is missing. As for the lack of evidence:

 

"So you admit you didn't actually provide any evidence then? Glad we finally cleared that up." is such an example of your attempt at re-framing. I have never said that I had provided all the evidence I could, my objection to your line has been very clear, is that you have dismissed a case without hearing it, or providing evidence to the contrary - and done it in a deliberately condescending manner. I have now started to provide more evidence and, as mentioned above, are doing your level best to avoid acknowledging it properly without being able to thoroughly discredit it, and attempting to belittle your opponent.

 

This in particular, I must take issue with:

"Politicians, in general, have a prolific and deserved reputation for mistruth. There's no controversy in that statement."

This is what I would call an exceptionally weak case: when you said all politicians are liars, so we can discount Boris Johnson's. This ignores any scale of magnitude of the problem, and what other people do is arguably not relevant to the case. But moreover, by repeating this statement you play straight into the hands of so-called Populist politicians (the likes of Trump and Le-Pen to avoid any confusion, I'm not sure Populist is the right phrase for them). The claim that all politicians are liars, precisely because if people buy into that, then it provides them cover for their own lies. Whenever challenged about their own bad behaviour, their response is invariably "whataboutery", i.e. trying to deflect attention and potion other people as being just as bad. As some one who has a European flag on their profile, you ought to have a long hard think about the line you are taking here, and I would invite you to take it back, if you have some humility about you. I'd said this is actually rather more important than discussing Boris Johnson's personality type. It is propagating this type of argument that helps so-called populists, unless that is what you want?

 

With regards to Boris Johnson's lying being purely professional, I discount that. The evidence I have presented clearly shows examples in his personal life (affairs), and impulse lying - too quick to be pre-planning, i.e. one tactically delivered in a speech.

 

You aren't giving a categorical answer as you claim, it is a heavily qualified one. And this one should be easy. He is an obvious liar, and it is neither isolated, nor tactical. But I think you are more worried about giving any ground in an argument than actually the substance of case.

 

A simple yes know answer please, is he a liar?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

This isn't actually true. The devolved assemblies vary in exactly what powers they hold, but in each instance devolved powers are absolute; that its to say, Westminster cannot force legislation on devolved assemblies in areas which those assemblies hold the sole legislative power. Given than some of these areas include taxation policy, legal and court systems, transportation, education, environmental policy, food standards, agriculture, fisheries and healthcare, these are serious and legitimate concerns. It is effectively illegal and entirely unconstitutional for Westminster to legislate in these areas on behalf of the devolved assemblies, which is essentially what appears to be happening with post-Brexit trade and regulatory policies put forward by the government. 

Brexit's a UK thing, not an England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland thing... Therefore, the PM doesn't have to listen to a FM in regards to Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

There are several problems with the above. Just to quote yourself back to you, you say you only ever asked for evidence, but you were the one who asked for  burden of proof.

The term "burden of proof" is well understood and widely accepted; I cannot ask for a "burden of proof" because it's a philosophical and legal concept, the core tenet of which is that an individual making a claim that is disputed must provide evidence to substantiate their position.

Invoking the burden of proof doesn't actually require one to prove anything, only to provide evidence substantiation an assertion which is disputed. This is fairly basic stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

Personally I think this is an attempt to enter a subconscious impression in the readers mind that if something can't be proved 100% it should be immediately discounted.

If you actually bothered to read my previous posts, you would know that this notion runs entirely contrary to them. I actively acknowledge that nothing is one hundred percent provable, but also that hypotheses unsupported by evidence are intrinsically valueless. 

There's really only two things I'm advocating you do here:

  1. Provide evidence in support of your assertions, and;
  2. Show that you have considered and discounted alternative hypotheses.

You have barely scratched the surface of their first, and actively refuse to do the second.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

It is the most obvious example of a bad trait, and examples have been mounting by the day recently. So a reasonable person would have no trouble with agreeing it. But now you are desperately dodging the question.

I haven't dodged the question, I've responded to it. I can't be held responsible for your inability to comprehend or process that response.
At no point have I disputed the notion that Boris Johnson is a liar, in fact I have affirmed it. My point has consistently been that this far is not compelling evidence supporting your assertions and that you have failed to consider alternative hypotheses.

And all the straw men in the world will not provide you an escape hatch for that.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

They'd know all these little debating theories

They're not "debating theories"; I'm pointing out logical fallacies in your responses in the hope that you address them and come back with a coherent, evidenced argument that doesn't contain these.

They're not attempts to cast your central thesis as invalid, but they do invalidate your defence of it and suggest you aren't debating in good faith. The specific mention of argument from ignorance is important here because it accurately characterises your position, effectively "you haven't provided evidence that what I say isn't true, therefore it is". Which, as mentioned before, ignores the concept of burden of proof.

 

It's deeply infuriating to try and discuss rationally with someone who spends so much time ignoring basic principles of coherent discussion, misrepresenting your position and generally refusing to address counterpoints in any meaningful way.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

You have had many digression not to do with this.

This is manifestly untrue. Very little of any of my responses does not relate either directly or indirectly to one of these two tenets, and the majority of the material that doesn't is highlighting specific fallacies you've invoked.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

To be clear I have never claimed categorically he is a psychopath

I don't think I said you did, my words, as quoted above, were Boris Johnson met the definition (that you provided) for psychopathy.

If you define a horse as an "odd-toed ungulate mammal from the family Equidae" then you define a zebra as a horse, it doesn't however mean it is one.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

I would assert however, these are very common held characteristics.

Please say which characteristics are not commonly associated with psychopathy, and which ones the list is missing.

There's a couple of problems with this:

  • The basis on which you are making these assertion is unclear, and the onus on you is to evidence why your assertion that these characteristics are a reasonable descriptor.
  • That my issue is not with specific characteristics in all their colloquial glory but with your failure to use a properly accepted psychological definition such as PCL-r, which is far more granular in defining these characteristics and provides specific weighting to them.

For the record PCL-R lists the following indicators:

3-Table2-1.png

 

By my calculation:

 

7 of the above are described accurately in your summary

are what I would describe as "loosely alluded to", where you've said something that's sort of in the ball-park but isn't sufficiently specific.

11 are not covered at all.

 

So I would counter that based on the above evidence your definition set is inadequate, as less than 50% of the traits within the PCL-R are accurately reflected in your list.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

"So you admit you didn't actually provide any evidence then? Glad we finally cleared that up." is such an example of your attempt at re-framing.

You've been given ample opportunity to quote your own contributions before the extensive post on Johnson's history of lying that constituted evidence.

Your failure to do so is an admission that until that point you had not provided evidence; if you had as you kept insisting you would be able to cite it.

 

On the subject of reframing, you still seem to be insistent that I've argued you were categorically wrong. Whilst you're citing your previously supplied evidence, I'd be grateful if you could cite any comment I've made which led you to that conclusion, because I continue to maintain its a straw man you insist on invoking because you're unwilling or unable to address what are perfectly reasonable, coherent, well-explained and logically justified contentions with your previous contributions.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

my objection to your line has been very clear, is that you have dismissed a case without hearing it, or providing evidence to the contrary

It's my prerogative to dismiss a hypothesis without evidence offhand.

I don't need to "provide evidence to the contrary" unless I'm making a disputed counter-claim, which I'm not.

Even then it would be debatable whether I did, as its fallacious to try and ask someone to "prove a negative" as absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

As some one who has a European flag on their profile, you ought to have a long hard think about the line you are taking here, and I would invite you to take it back, if you have some humility about you. I'd said this is actually rather more important than discussing Boris Johnson's personality type. It is propagating this type of argument that helps so-called populists, unless that is what you want?

In these two sentences we have:

  • non sequitur (that the notion of questioning truthfulness of politicians helps populists)
  • An appeal to emotion (that it would be "humble" and therefore good for me to take back a perfectly defensible statement)
  • An inferred No True Scotsman fallacy (that I couldn't possibly be a supporter of the EU and hold a position contrary to yours)
  • red herring (that discussion of truthfulness in politicians is "most important" than the topic at hand)

Probably a few more if I looked harder.

 

The reality of party politics is that individuals are usually beholden to a central party line, regardless of evidentiary basis or justification. Ideology is usually the driving factor behind political position and policy making rather than sound evidence or science, and this has been the case long before Johnson and his ilk came into power. In fact contrary to your assertions that this suggestion invokes populist arguments, it does the exact inverse. Populist politicians are the most prolific in their use of mistruth to shape an agenda or to pursue ideological notions in the face of contrary evidence. But pretending that British politics was wholesome and truthful before the current administration is manifestly foolish, and is indeed part of the reason why populism has become so entrenched. It's the persistent failure to listen to scientific advice, properly justify policy and remain accountable and honest with the electorate that's resulted in the rise of right-wing populism and political nationalism.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

With regards to Boris Johnson's lying being purely professional, I discount that. 

"Little evidence" does not equate to "purely professional", you're misconstruing my point again.

Impulse lying does not preclude it being professional either.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbatron said:

A simple yes know answer please, is he a liar?

  

On 5/29/2020 at 11:25 PM, sivispacem said:

I don't think I've ever said, suggested, indicated or implied otherwise.

That's from nearly a month ago.

In case you struggle with nuance, it was a "yes" then and it remains a "yes.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Brexit's a UK thing, not an England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland thing... Therefore, the PM doesn't have to listen to a FM in regards to Brexit.

As I've outlined above, this is false. Westminster cannot make policy in devolved areas, therefore it is entirely wrong to say that the devolved assemblies have no say, because they factually and unequivocally do when matters of devolved policy are concerned. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Brexit's a UK thing, not an England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland thing... Therefore, the PM doesn't have to listen to a FM in regards to Brexit.

 

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

As I've outlined above, this is false. Westminster cannot make policy in devolved areas, therefore it is entirely wrong to say that the devolved assemblies have no say, because they factually and unequivocally do when matters of devolved policy are concerned. 

 

There's a handy fact sheet for you to digest :

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770709/DevolutionFactsheet.pdf

 

The table on sheet two is pretty interesting :

 

Health, social care, education and training, local government, transport, some taxation, justice, policing and sports and the arts are clearly marked as devolved for at least two nations and therefore in those areas they have their own rules and laws.  While trade policy may be marked as Westminster's business, the interesting flaw is agriculture, forestry and FISHERIES (especially).  Because while London has right of trade policy, they are not adhering to the laws and rules established by the devolved assemblies in pushing for the race to the bottom that they're busily trying to reach by cozying up to the US and playing hardball with the EU.

 

The devolved assemblies are already considering their next moves after Gove completely disregarded their opinions regarding a Brexit extension.  All three are considering votes that would ban any trade deals that doesn't meet the standards that their local food producers comply to under the current EU standards, therefore making any trade agreement regarding lower standard food illegal within their countries.  This would tie London's hands since they're forced to adhere to the laws of the devolved assemblies in all future trade deal discussions, because those trade deals are supposed to be nationwide.  Anything they do try could easily be proven in Court within the devolved regions as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

As I've outlined above, this is false. Westminster cannot make policy in devolved areas, therefore it is entirely wrong to say that the devolved assemblies have no say, because they factually and unequivocally do when matters of devolved policy are concerned. 

They chose not to be at the meeting because no matter what they say, there was no extension; no matter what they say about "we need an extension" they said it, it didn't happen because they're not the PM and the PM said no extension.

What is confusing about that?

Only you're saying the PM must listen to an FM, which isn't true.

The FM isn't the PM and the PM has final say.

 

Having no extension stops the EU from running out the clock and not moving, now the end is in sight thanks to the PM, the UK and EU can talk more serious.

Edited by ilovebender.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
12 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

They chose not to be at the meeting because

Their concerns were being rode over roughshod by a government that seems perfectly happy to violate constitutional norms in pursuit of Brexit by an arbitrary date?

 

13 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

What is confusing about that?

What's confusing is your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

 

13 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Only you're saying the PM must listen to an FM, which isn't true.

That's not what I'm saying you dolt. What I'm saying is that the British government has no legal right to make policy in devolved areas.

Nothing to do with the "PM listening to an FM" as you keep repeating, everything to do with the law of the land. 

The moment Westminster policy affects legislative areas devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff or Stormont, then Westminster must make reasonable mitigations. It's spelled out in the document posted on the last page, clear as day.

 

17 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Having no extension stops the EU from running out the clock

The only people "running out the clock" are the UK's negotiators, at the end of the day we're benefitted by a longer negotiating period more than the EU is.

We've already seen sweeping concessions made by the UK over the last 2 weeks as an act of desperation to prevent the collapse of talks, which probably wouldn't have happened if the artificial time pressure weren't there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
34 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

They chose not to be at the meeting because no matter what they say, there was no extension; no matter what they say about "we need an extension" they said it, it didn't happen because they're not the PM and the PM said no extension.

What is confusing about that?

 

The fact the meeting to state the devolved assemblies wishes was set for 6pm, yet Pob sent the text at 3pm, therefore the entire 6pm meeting was totally pointless, Gove had spoken and Scotland, Wales and NI were in a 'put up and shut up' situation.

 

What's confusing is why the the 6pm meeting was even considered in the first place?

 

Quote

Only you're saying the PM must listen to an FM, which isn't true.

The FM isn't the PM and the PM has final say.

 

In the areas where devolved lawmaking powers are the responsibility of the devolved assemblies, the First Ministers do have the say, no matter how much Boris tries to bluster his way out of yet another corner.

 

Quote

 

Having no extension stops the EU from running out the clock and not moving, now the end is in sight thanks to the PM, the UK and EU can talk more serious.

 

The only thing the UK is doing is folding faster than a Texas Hold'em player holding a 2 and a 7....  Lawmaking concessions and access to police databases have been capitulated already, more concessions will be rapidly following, without a doubt.

They've even gone to the stupidity of promising to maintain the rights of pets to travel freely, while ignoring the rights of their human owners, all because one Brexiter MP had a hissy fit over his labradors, the irony of the maintenance of EU pet passports while forcing humans to have blue passports is not going unnoticed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
2 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

What's confusing is why the the 6pm meeting was even considered in the first place?

What's wrong with a 6 pm meeting?

6 pm's a good a time as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

What's wrong with a 6 pm meeting?

6 pm's a good a time as any.

 

Apart from the insult, there's a very nice analogy even your feeble mind could comprehend....

 

You win a legitimate competition to earn a voucher that earns you 'all you can eat' at Morley's Fried Chicken for the next month.  So you rush over to the crowded branch with the voucher in hand, sign the paperwork, and then are told the competition voucher is invalid, the real voucher was claimed three hours earlier and you've just signed a contract to pay double for anything on Morley's Menu for the rest of your life.  You're then forced to stand there for the next hour while everyone else just points and laughs at you.

 

Now I can imagine you'll make some snide comment about not letting filth like Morley's never reach your stomach lining, but you get the idea about the insult issued to national assemblies by having spud-faced Pob lookalikes make important decisions without even letting those assemblies have a say in the matter.

If Gove had met the representatives at 15:00, then issued the text at 18:00, at least he would have had the common decency to listen to other opinions, but no.  Bobby's snide comment gives a fairly clear image of how most Tories seem to be thinking right now.  Well, it's helping with the public image, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
On 6/17/2020 at 11:45 AM, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

The devolved assemblies are already considering their next moves after Gove completely disregarded their opinions regarding a Brexit extension.  All three are considering votes that would ban any trade deals that doesn't meet the standards that their local food producers comply to under the current EU standards, therefore making any trade agreement regarding lower standard food illegal within their countries.  This would tie London's hands since they're forced to adhere to the laws of the devolved assemblies in all future trade deal discussions, because those trade deals are supposed to be nationwide.  Anything they do try could easily be proven in Court within the devolved regions as well.

 

The Scots have already moved and shown their hand since the time of this comment :

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/uk-food-standards-row-edinburgh-18560543?fbclid=IwAR2b73mDvDmGAJCsCoYEcN2jQbesATxoRkSdpwimBi1XXubjxhMyc24dY2o

 

In short, they're going through with the pledge to ensure their standards are kept to the current levels as a minimum.  Any attempt by London to lower food standards is going to be met with hostile opposition, not just by the national assemblies but also, by the supermarkets who are now joining the growing list of those that will not lower their own standards to meet some US / UK trade deal.

 

Another major spanner in the works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.