Off Topic UK / EU Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
superhorns said:
More likely put off by confrontational posters like yourself, and of course the clique, as well labelled by W-Y, are so well organised.
Click to expand...
Well let's look back... You posted several "advantages" of leaving the EU. I responded to each point that you made. You have yet to offer a counter argument to my rebuttal. Instead we have been deflected alone a path to where we are now. Not entirely sure what else I am supposed to think... As to "clique"...figment of the imagination, more like.
 
Hornet-Fez said:
Well let's look back... You posted several "advantages" of leaving the EU. I responded to each point that you made. You have yet to offer a counter argument to my rebuttal. Instead we have been deflected alone a path to where we are now. Not entirely sure what else I am supposed to think... As to "clique"...figment of the imagination, more like.
Click to expand...

You spoilt your post by the silly bullshit comment.
 
Leo said:
Can't remember how we disagreed on religion as I too am a staunch atheist. Stephen Fry's comments summed things up for me. Richard Dawkins is just a pussy. Trouble is I tend to respond to points and do not always see who has said what - especially in a debate that has several people going at once. I know I inadvertantly "accused" one poster on here of either being Christian or not being Christian (cannot now remember which) and he took umbridge as if it was deliberate and we have not exchanged a polite word since. Shame but there you go. I have managed to heal most rifts with others - even SH whose views are probably diametrically opposed to mine on almost everything.
I am a pacifist so it may be me not Cologne you disagreed on that.
Was it you that I had a "difference of opinion" with on what is a coward?
Like you I am impressed by the depth of music knowledge - mine is limited to which bands from the sixties and seventies I like and hating the Dudley Moore trio with a passion along with most jazz (sorry to many).
I like reading the match day threads but have little to offer. Used to like prediction leagues but don't like the Premiership / amalgam version so have stopped doing them.
Do we both agree that Cologne is colour blind - mixes up his green and red :)
Click to expand...
You forgot the black ie. the international anarchist colours <laugh>
 
Responding to a question during PMQs about the proposed important cabinet meeting regarding Brexit on Friday, the PM could not have been clearer with her answer. She said after Brexit the UK will be out of the single market, custom union, remit of the ECJ, regain control of the UK's fisheries and finally out of the CAP.

Nice to clear that up.
 
superhorns said:
Responding to a question during PMQs about the proposed important cabinet meeting regarding Brexit on Friday, the PM could not have been clearer with her answer. She said after Brexit the UK will be out of the single market, custom union, remit of the ECJ, regain control of the UK's fisheries and finally out of the CAP.

Nice to clear that up.
Click to expand...
I was staggered by her directness. Not only all of that but also that we would be free to do our own trade deals around the world.
I do not know if she thinks she can get a "deal"with the Eu on all that. It makes me wonder whether she is heading for a "no deal"
 
superhorns said:
Don't exaggerate Leo, We are both atheists and Watford supporters. Red wine, our wives, dislike of extreme politics? the list is endless. :emoticon-0100-smile
Click to expand...
Yep we both have a great sense of humour too - me Billy Connolly and you that brexit is good :)
(sorry - cheap! )
 
superhorns said:
We were done with your abusive opening response.
Click to expand...
Leo said:
The white poppy for me.
Click to expand...
But Leo, the one leads to the other. To be a true pacifist is not just to refrain from personal use of violence but also to not allow violence to be done on your behalf. Allowing that for the law to exist it must have recourse to some amount of legal violence or force (ie. a police baton if everything else fails) - then it follows that a true pacifist cannot use the legal system of the country on his own behalf. If an intruder comes into your house then it is not enough for the pacifist to abstain from physically throwing him out, but he must also abstain from having a policeman doing the same act on his behalf. Therefore a pacifist cannot use the legal apparatus of the state on his own behalf because that legal apparatus rests on the ultimate use of force. True pacifism rejects the use of force altogether, thereby placing you, at least with one foot, firmly in the Anarchist camp. So, welcome to the black international ! The red part I can work on later, because an Anarchist (in order to be fully in that camp) is also a Communist.
 
Leo said:
I was staggered by her directness. Not only all of that but also that we would be free to do our own trade deals around the world.
I do not know if she thinks she can get a "deal"with the Eu on all that. It makes me wonder whether she is heading for a "no deal"
Click to expand...

Yes, quite surprising how firm she was to both questions from ardent Brexiteers. Let's face it, the EU are looking for complete capitulation and total embarrassment for a member state daring to reject the project. I agree a 'no deal' is very much on the cards now. She needs to ensure not a penny is paid once we leave until a trade deal is agreed. Let the EU be responsible for installing a hard border in Ireland in the event of 'no deal'.

The EU's external borders already resemble Swiss Emmental. Expect lots of dodgy cross border shenanigans.
 
colognehornet said:
But Leo, the one leads to the other. To be a true pacifist is not just to refrain from personal use of violence but also to not allow violence to be done on your behalf. Allowing that for the law to exist it must have recourse to some amount of legal violence or force (ie. a police baton if everything else fails) - then it follows that a true pacifist cannot use the legal system of the country on his own behalf. If an intruder comes into your house then it is not enough for the pacifist to abstain from physically throwing him out, but he must also abstain from having a policeman doing the same act on his behalf. Therefore a pacifist cannot use the legal apparatus of the state on his own behalf because that legal apparatus rests on the ultimate use of force. True pacifism rejects the use of force altogether, thereby placing you, at least with one foot, firmly in the Anarchist camp. So, welcome to the black international ! The red part I can work on later, because an Anarchist (in order to be fully in that camp) is also a Communist.
Click to expand...
I never accept words from people that include "true" to qualify. What that means is it is just your definition.
A true Watford supporter etc etc
A pacifist does not use violence - end. If he lives in a society that uses violence he cannot help it and there is no obligation for him to impose his views on others. That would itself be violent. All a pacifist can do is not use violence himself and not advocate violence.
This is a way you often argue. You have your own opinions and then set definitions as if they are god given - they are not - they are Cologne given.
Theo summed it up earlier when he pointed out that you build your own hypothesis and work from that. Good luck but that is your game not mine.
As it happens the legal system is a way to help prevent and stop violence. Physical restraint is not something that a pacifist necessarily opposes. Usually a pacifist draws the line at killing and accepts in society that lesser forms of violence exist. He will not use violence himself.
Your example about a physical intruder and police is frankly comical. It may result from the Cologne definition but is not mine - nor I suspect 99% of people's whether or not they are pacifist.
In fact I think your whole post is tongue in cheek - but responded just in case you meant it.
 
Leo said:
I never accept words from people that include "true" to qualify. What that means is it is just your definition.
A true Watford supporter etc etc
A pacifist does not use violence - end. If he lives in a society that uses violence he cannot help it and there is no obligation for him to impose his views on others. That would itself be violent. All a pacifist can do is not use violence himself and not advocate violence.
This is a way you often argue. You have your own opinions and then set definitions as if they are god given - they are not - they are Cologne given.
Theo summed it up earlier when he pointed out that you build your own hypothesis and work from that. Good luck but that is your game not mine.
As it happens the legal system is a way to help prevent and stop violence. Physical restraint is not something that a pacifist necessarily opposes. Usually a pacifist draws the line at killing and accepts in society that lesser forms of violence exist. He will not use violence himself.
Your example about a physical intruder and police is frankly comical. It may result from the Cologne definition but is not mine - nor I suspect 99% of people's whether or not they are pacifist.
In fact I think your whole post is tongue in cheek - but responded just in case you meant it.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you just go by your first instinct and presume it was tongue in cheek ?
 
colognehornet said:
So why bother with the rest ?
Click to expand...
Because last time I queried if one of your posts was genuine or something like a devil's advocate or tongue in cheek you bit my head off and told me you did not post what you did not believe. So I played it both ways to be sure - and have had my head bitten off anyway. Perhaps you need to either admit you sometimes play a bit of a wind up or accept you will be taken at face value - it is not always possible to second guess you.
 
Leo said:
Because last time I queried if one of your posts was genuine or something like a devil's advocate or tongue in cheek you bit my head off and told me you did not post what you did not believe. So I played it both ways to be sure - and have had my head bitten off anyway. Perhaps you need to either admit you sometimes play a bit of a wind up or accept you will be taken at face value - it is not always possible to second guess you.
Click to expand...
I would have thought it was obvious from my last sentences Leo. As if I would classify you as an Anarchist. If I do attempt a wind up it is normally to bring a bit of humour into proceedings - which, judging by some of your more recent posts was sorely needed. No, I would certainly not classify you as an Anarchist because you are one of the most far right wing posters on here.
 
colognehornet said:
I would have thought it was obvious from my last sentences Leo. As if I would classify you as an Anarchist. If I do attempt a wind up it is normally to bring a bit of humour into proceedings - which, judging by some of your more recent posts was sorely needed. No, I would certainly not classify you as an Anarchist because you are one of the most far right wing posters on here.
Click to expand...
I will assume that your last few words there too is your sense of humour. However you are probably correct in that all right wing posters have chosen not to debate here bar one who comes under constant attack for his opinions - so middle of the road is the new far right.
I took you to be doing what some people do - make a point then say "oh, it was only a joke" when challenged.
Of course your sentence about anarchists was not serious but the rest is something you have argued before which is close to your belief.
I think you will find in many of my recent posts - at least with other people I have been having quite a bit of fun. However in debating with you it is more difficult as you claim to be serious, then not and who knows what odd ball beliefs you really hold. I honestly cannot fathom you - if you had your way I am sure we would turn the clocks back decades if not centuries. Fair enough but not for me. I like the modern technology and everything that goes with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back