leicsmac Posted 23 May Share Posted 23 May NB. Bridgen demeans his constituents and their intelligence with this utter tripe and the sooner he's no longer their representative, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionator Posted 23 May Share Posted 23 May 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: NB. Bridgen demeans his constituents and their intelligence with this utter tripe and the sooner he's no longer their representative, the better. Yeah I do realise it’s probably BS but the conspiracy side of the internet is becoming pretty convincing. Or maybe that says more about me. I know there’s nothing to indicate that the reason Sunak called the election is because he knows war is coming but it’s still a sobering thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox_favourite Posted 23 May Share Posted 23 May (edited) 5 hours ago, Lionator said: How likely do you think this is? I would question the fact that if the statement about Sunak is true, that he "doesn't want to be a war time prime minister" then why is he running for it? Also....a higher power, who? Aliens? Rudkin? Edited 23 May by fox_favourite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunge Posted 23 May Share Posted 23 May 7 hours ago, Lionator said: How likely do you think this is? What I would say is: If you’re worried about the first paragraph, take solace in the middle and last paragraphs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May (edited) 14 hours ago, leicsmac said: NB. Bridgen demeans his constituents and their intelligence with this utter tripe and the sooner he's no longer their representative, the better. And here we have an excellent example of why the tide is turning against the incumbent political class and why politicians like Bridgen will continue to garner more support. You genuinely believe that you know what’s best for those people better than they do don’t you? Edited 24 May by MarshallForEngland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May (edited) 24 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: And here we have an excellent example of why the tide is turning against the incumbent political class and why politicians like Bridgen will continue to garner more support. You genuinely believe that you know what’s best for those people better than they do don’t you? If we're heading for a world where folks like Bridgen can spout opinion without proof as fact and (more importantly) have votes based on it that are then used to shape policy, then we deserve all we get as a species. And it won't be pretty. Giving opinion that is in no-way evidence based is fine. Having it being used to then take action (almost always) isn't. Edited 24 May by leicsmac 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Fresh Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 17 hours ago, Lionator said: How likely do you think this is? Yeah and the Russians have also agreed to keep it a secret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May The internet really is a scary place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 16 hours ago, Lionator said: Yeah I do realise it’s probably BS but the conspiracy side of the internet is becoming pretty convincing. Right - because nothing says "convincing" like an emotionally charged, alt-right online platform promoting pseudoscientific bunkum , characterised by a lack of credible sourcing, and unproven/false claims hosting an individual that managed to get expelled by the Tories and ex-Reclaim Party anti-vaxxer. And naturally, the "conspiracy side of the internet" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May Antony Blinken is currently urging the president to lift restrictions on how Ukraine can use American arms and whether they can be launched into Russian territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: If we're heading for a world where folks like Bridgen can spout opinion without proof as fact and (more importantly) have votes based on it that are then used to shape policy, then we deserve all we get as a species. And it won't be pretty. Giving opinion that is in no-way evidence based is fine. Having it being used to then take action (almost always) isn't. Can the British electorate be trusted to decide for themselves whether or not something is sufficiently evidence-based for them? You have very astutely managed to see through Bridgen's thin veneer of credibility but the rest of our "species" simply cannot, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 52 minutes ago, SpacedX said: Right - because nothing says "convincing" like an emotionally charged, alt-right online platform promoting pseudoscientific bunkum , characterised by a lack of credible sourcing, and unproven/false claims hosting an individual that managed to get expelled by the Tories and ex-Reclaim Party anti-vaxxer. And naturally, the "conspiracy side of the internet" is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then. https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/ "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments. For example, a person using the Gish gallop might attempt to support their stance by bringing up, in rapid succession, a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments. The Gish gallop is also known as argument by verbosity, proof by verbosity, and shotgun argumentation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquay Gunner Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 32 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/ "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments. For example, a person using the Gish gallop might attempt to support their stance by bringing up, in rapid succession, a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments. The Gish gallop is also known as argument by verbosity, proof by verbosity, and shotgun argumentation." Trump has this down to a tee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxesDeb Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 55 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said: Can the British electorate be trusted to decide for themselves whether or not something is sufficiently evidence-based for them? You have very astutely managed to see through Bridgen's thin veneer of credibility but the rest of our "species" simply cannot, is that right? No. See Brexit for confirmation of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said: No. See Brexit for confirmation of this. This supports only the claim that the electorate can’t be trusted to agree with FoxesDeb. You might not agree with the outcome but dismissing it as the result of an incompetent electorate gets you nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 4 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said: Can the British electorate be trusted to decide for themselves whether or not something is sufficiently evidence-based for them? You have very astutely managed to see through Bridgen's thin veneer of credibility but the rest of our "species" simply cannot, is that right? Direct democracy where a sufficiently informed populace is able to decide on lots of aspects of policy on that are then enacted is the theoretical ideal. In practice, it is fatally flawed for a variety of reasons and the overall outcome will be fatal to our civilisation. That's why representative democracy is the model that is chosen in a lot of places and we have to rely on expertise to drive decision making in a lot of areas. After all, there's a reason that builders don't do open-heart surgery. I get where you're coming from, believe me, but the simple truth backed by empirical evidence of past actions is that allowing all such ideas and positions (at least on many matters) to have equal merit leads to a Mad Max outcome. Which is, to my mind, much worse than the 1984-style outcome you might foresee caused by the dismissal of such ideas in the matter of policymaking. But I can see why someone would think differently on that particular subject of outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post FoxesDeb Posted 24 May Popular Post Share Posted 24 May 3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said: This supports only the claim that the electorate can’t be trusted to agree with FoxesDeb. You might not agree with the outcome but dismissing it as the result of an incompetent electorate gets you nowhere. I don't disclose in my post which way I voted, so to assume the population voted in a different way from me, and therefore disagreed with me, is just that, an assumption. My point was more that many, many leave voters have since admitted that they 'didn't really know' why they voted for Brexit, and so my answer to your question: Can the British electorate be trusted to decide for themselves whether or not something is sufficiently evidence-based for them? is still no, especially given that there wasn't much evidence of the claims made by the politicians encouraging the leave vote, but people voted leave anyway. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 8 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said: https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/ "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the accuracy, validity, or relevance of those arguments. For example, a person using the Gish gallop might attempt to support their stance by bringing up, in rapid succession, a large number of vague claims, anecdotal statements, misinterpreted facts, and irrelevant comments. The Gish gallop is also known as argument by verbosity, proof by verbosity, and shotgun argumentation." Yes indeed, I'm aware. What's your point? You are free to refute anything in my reply. The response was to the notion that the conspiracy side of the internet was increasingly convincing. This assertion appears to be based upon a post on X by "Wide Awake Media" featuring Andrew Bridgen. What precisely lacked accuracy, validity or relevance? We can start with the ludicrous "Wide Awake Media" itself if you like. I'd rather not though, since I don't want to be banned from this thread. Could I suggest that you stop trolling it for everyone's sake. Wait, aren't you the pro-Putin guy that caused the original Ukraine thread to be deleted almost two years ago? 8 hours ago, Torquay Gunner said: Trump has this down to a tee. Indeed, so does Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 54 minutes ago, SpacedX said: Yes indeed, I'm aware. What's your point? You are free to refute anything in my reply. The response was to the notion that the conspiracy side of the internet was increasingly convincing. This assertion appears to be based upon a post on X by "Wide Awake Media" featuring Andrew Bridgen. What precisely lacked accuracy, validity or relevance? We can start with the ludicrous "Wide Awake Media" itself if you like. I'd rather not though, since I don't want to be banned from this thread. Could I suggest that you stop trolling it for everyone's sake. Wait, aren't you the pro-Putin guy that caused the original Ukraine thread to be deleted almost two years ago? Indeed, so does Putin. Trolling suggests nefarious motives, which I don’t have. We simply disagree on many things, I don’t think you are a troll because of that. I’m not “Pro-Putin” or anti-Putin. I am an immigrant in this country, I don’t have the legal right to vote here and I don’t presume to lecture the natives about who they vote for. By the way, Tucker Carlson made an interesting point during his visit to Moscow that one thing that shocked him is the total absence of any sort of Cult-of-Personality phenomenon around Putin. I think some have an idea that there are giant posters of him on the sides of buildings and a bust in every office, and that somehow people are forced to express admiration for him, like the endless clapping for Stalin. It really is not like that, he is simply the person who in the eyes of many Russians turned an impoverished, crime-ridden failing state into a clean, modern and relatively prosperous nation. Most remember real global isolation, scarcity of food and other products, terrible crime, hostile relations with the Chechens and associated metro bombings and many other serious problems. Since he has been in office the country has transformed in many ways. You might understand the Russians a bit more if you consider some of this. In any case, I have been very open about how I view this conflict and Russia’s position geopolitically. It has plausible national security concerns and has been expected to tolerate levels of belligerence that no other major world power would. But yes the old thread did get closed down. I actually don’t know exactly why, only the admins do. The point about Gish Gallop is that it takes minimal effort to produce and an extremely large amount of effort to refute. A hallmark of the last thread was say half a dozen people on here offering one or two shotgun style paragraphs to something I had posted, each of which contained a large number of claims and assumptions like your post earlier. Take just one part of yours for example: emotionally charged, alt-right online platform promoting pseudoscientific bunkum , characterised by a lack of credible sourcing, and unproven/false claims hosting an individual that managed to get expelled by the Tories and ex-Reclaim Party anti-vaxxer. To thoroughly rebut what you’ve written here would be to take each term used (emotionally charged, alt-right, pseudoscience, lack of credibility, unproven, anti-vaxxer), agree on what each of those things actually means and then make a case against each one. You would need at least a paragraph for each, when it took you just one or two lines to reel them all off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 3 hours ago, FoxesDeb said: I don't disclose in my post which way I voted, so to assume the population voted in a different way from me, and therefore disagreed with me, is just that, an assumption. My point was more that many, many leave voters have since admitted that they 'didn't really know' why they voted for Brexit, and so my answer to your question: Can the British electorate be trusted to decide for themselves whether or not something is sufficiently evidence-based for them? is still no, especially given that there wasn't much evidence of the claims made by the politicians encouraging the leave vote, but people voted leave anyway. Well forgive me but I thought that your point kind of collapses semantically if you yourself voted the same way as the electorate you’re calling untrustworthy. I do see your overall point though. Can we agree on what we mean by evidence? Perhaps it’s too far away from the Ukraine topic of the thread but I have a feeling it is also relevant here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May Some chat that vlad will agree to a ceasefire around current positions ………that’s a shock ! so how long are the west prepared to continue this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casablancas Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 1 hour ago, st albans fox said: Some chat that vlad will agree to a ceasefire around current positions ………that’s a shock ! so how long are the west prepared to continue this ? If he’s ready to draw the lines he must be up sh1t creek. Time to turn the pressure up and give Ukraine the green light to strike inside Russia with all means. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 4 minutes ago, casablancas said: If he’s ready to draw the lines he must be up sh1t creek. Time to turn the pressure up and give Ukraine the green light to strike inside Russia with all means. What would be the desired end objective of such a move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May 28 minutes ago, casablancas said: If he’s ready to draw the lines he must be up sh1t creek. Time to turn the pressure up and give Ukraine the green light to strike inside Russia with all means. More likely that xi has told him it’s time to see if he can do a deal. what he’s asking for now seems pretty similar to what he’s indicated he’d settle for in the past. I think he probably feels he’s shown that he can rebuff an6 attempts by ukraine to regain ground. However, I assume that new weapons now coming in from the west may move things back a little. I’m sure he’d settle for some adjustment east of the existing front line - not too much though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFCCHRIS Posted 24 May Share Posted 24 May All for them striking inside Russia with western weapons. They'll get used to it, they just love to make empty threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts