Another new Brexit thread

[George Hannah]

If you've got an hour spare this is well worth listening to -
The Perfect Storm: The United Kingdom, Brexit and Its History

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00081xc

 

[hilts]

Because youre frankly being very unclear with youre semantics and what you mean. Being dishonest follows upon an act of lying. So you base that act of lying on her changing her position? To be brank, changing one's position doesn't nessecarily need to amount to "lying" or "dishonesty", one can consider that circumstances can provide valid reasons for politicians to change position on a matter. Afcourse for a politician gotten into power on promises it's something else.

It’s always a great coincidence when a politician changes their mind and the result is hoping for more votes.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Thornberry does it; not a liar.
Johnson does it; totes liar!

Is that what you're arguing here?

Wut, why are you going off on such irrelevant matters? Thornberry and Johnson have nothing to do with the question wether or not "she's lying"? I hope you are familiar with the fallacy "tu quoque" as to understand that this sort reaction is irrelevant and best avoided?

 

[meltonblue]

That parliament,during September/October, would act to stop a No-Deal Brexit certainly would have happened - the acolytes have been playing the game of keep pushing the date back and wait for everybody to get fed up and have a 2nd referendum

The actions taken have ensured that they have had to act in a manner of high drama and now a GE can be undertaken against the backdrop of it being parliament against the people rather than simply 6 years of Conservative failure

The Conservatives may not win, but they have a better chance in a GE following this drama than they would have had. This is especially the case given the extent to which so much of the Remain support resides in constituencies that would never risk a Corbyn PM and the potential for that support in many marginal seats to be split between several parties against only one Leave party - so long as the BXP acts sensibly

You’ve got no idea on the first point there, had they shown they were making progress with the EU and not also gone with proroguing parliament when they did (and their motivations for doing it) then they’d have had the time to present a deal to parliament that could have got support and also wouldn’t have lost their majority. It’s not as if the WA was that far off by the end, they could potentiall have altered that enough to get support from the ERG and some Labour MPs who voted for the WA.

On your last point, I know a lot of leave voters who want to leave the EU but do not want a no deal Brexit. Although voting remain, I feel exactly the same. They won’t vote for the conservatives with Johnson in charge either. That’s what I mean about stop seeing remain and leave in such binary fashions.

 

[Ban-jani]

Oh yes we are done here, especially if you think I actually voted for him in the EU elections.

Once again you turn a conversation and debate about a different topic, Thornberry's bullshit, and skewer it into one about Farage. It's your MO, especially when you've lost the discussion.

Haha deflect is all the leave voters on here do.

You did say you voted for him, I don’t know if you did but from now on I won’t take your word for it.

 

[Metal Biker]

Wut, why are you going off on such irrelevant matters? Thornberry and Johnson have nothing to do with the question wether or not "she's lying"? I hope you are familiar with the fallacy "tu quoque" as to understand that this sort reaction is irrelevant and best avoided?

FIona Bruce managed to expose her last night. Thornberry squirmed as she realised her position was finally being exposed as nonsensical and disingenuous.

DId I stumble upon the president of the Emily Thornberry fan club?

 

[Damocles]

I hope you are familiar with the fallacy "tu quoque" as to understand that this sort reaction is irrelevant and best avoided?

Obviously you could do with brushing up on it.

Tu quoque doesn't apply here. He's not saying your argument is wrong because you're a hypocrite, he's just pointing out that you're a hypocrite.

Logically fallacies only apply if they're used to invalidate the argument, which isn't what he's doing.

 

[Ban-jani]

Thornberry is doing the opposite of lying.

That’s the whole fucking point.

 

[Metal Biker]

Haha deflect is all the leave voters on here do.

You did say you voted for him, I don’t know if you did but from now on I won’t take your word for it.

No I never said that I actually voted for him. You've got that very, very wrong.

From that basis you've formed your entire argument and it's wrong. When told different, you refuse to accept it and continue to hold your incorrect opinion of another on that incorrect basis. That is the very definition of bigotry.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Tu quoque doesn't apply here. He's not saying your argument is wrong because you're a hypocrite, he's just pointing out that you're a hypocrite.

Oo fiesty, so where would his prove be of that then? And why wouldn't that fall under an "ad hominem"?

It simply does not follow from arguments that either Thornberry or Johnson are/are not lying that therefore Fiona Bruce is lying, simple as that.

 

[Damocles]

Oo fiesty, so where would his prove be of that then?

In his post. He doesn't challenge the basis of the argument.

 

[hilts]

There's no "suspect".

That was her position months ago. Last night she revealed that even if she negotiated a soft brexit that she'd agree, she wouldn't publicly support it when she previously said she would support a labour devised soft brexit. Why are you not getting this?

It’s not hard is it? the difference between Thornberry now and previously is nothing at all. She just got herself pushed into a corner last night and the truth came out.

 

[Metal Biker]

Oo fiesty, so where would his prove be of that then?

It simply does not follow from arguments that either Thornberry or Johnson are/are not lying that therefore Fiona Bruce is lying, simple as that.

The hell?

FIona Bruce, last night, put a question to ET, that for many months now she had advocated that Labour, if voted in, would go to the EU to get a better deal than the Tories managed, one that removed May's red lines and protected jobs. This deal would then be presented to the public. At no point did she ever state that she would not support this deal. She presented the opinion she WOULD support the deal. But Bruce managed to finally get out of her that in truth, no she would not support this Labour deal, she would actually advocate remaining instead. She's been disingenuous this whole time.

 

[FlemishDuck]

In his post. He doesn't challenge the basis of the argument.

You make no sense. I challenge his usage of the word "lying", he followed up with a reaction "well others are (incorrectly?) argued to be lying too"? For the rest i was just asking clarity, can't help but pointing out that a "tu quoque" argument doesn't help much.

 

[Metal Biker]

You make no sense. I challenge his usage of the word "lying", he followed up with a reaction "well others are (incorrectly?) argued to be lying too"?

Is that what you're obsessed with? My usage of the word "lie"?

Would you have preferred "deceitful"? "Disingenuous"? "Dishonest"? "Shifty, two-faced, tricky"?

 

[joe123]

Thornberry is doing the opposite of lying.

That’s the whole fucking point.

i haven't seen anyone on here make the point, but playing devil's advocate, i can see the annoyance with negotiating a deal and then campaigning for remain - what's the motivation to get a good deal if you don't want people to vote for it.

However, I 100% back Labour's position on this in the sense that any deal, no deal and remain should be put back to the people to decide.

 

[Ban-jani]

No I never said that I actually voted for him. You've got that very, very wrong.

From that basis you've formed your entire argument and it's wrong. When told different, you refuse to accept it and continue to hold your incorrect opinion of another on that incorrect basis. That is the very definition of bigotry.

No you’re a liar and have been for a long period of time. I’m 100% sure you said you voted for the Brexit Party.

My argument on the actual topic remains the same and is true. Labour are telling you the truth and you don’t like it.

Call me a bigot one more time and I’ll report you.

 

[Ban-jani]

i haven't seen anyone on here make the point, but playing devil's advocate, i can see the annoyance with negotiating a deal and then campaigning for remain - what's the motivation to get a good deal if you don't want people to vote for it.

However, I 100% back Labour's position on this in the sense that any deal, no deal and remain should be put back to the people to decide.

Because they have to appeal to both sides to unite the country and give them the best choice.

They’re trying to do the decent thing and people are losing their heads over it.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Is that what you're obsessed with? My usage of the word "lie"?

Would you have preferred "deceitful"? "Disingenuous"? "Dishonest"?

Well i was wondering indeed if you used that word correct. I must say that asking someone if he finds a word like "dishonest" better when opposing to the usage of the word "lying" quite interresting given that it's almost synonymous really, to be fair for a second.

 

[hilts]

I’m also going to tell on anyone who disagrees with me, plus my dad is bigger than your dad.

Sniff

Anyhow anyone is free to vote for anyone they like, even if they said they could never vote for a antisemetic Labour Party. That wasn’t a lie it’s just a change of mind because Labour have completely changed and has nothing to do with being a remainer at all honest guv.