Leavers' fake news continues to circulate

[ban-all-sheds]

As the thread is about Brexit then it is legitimate to include all strands of opinion relating to Brexit.

Not if they are unlawful.

And bear in mind that the corollary of that is that it is legitimate to include you being utterly buried under a torrent of vitriolic abuse telling you just how vile and primitive and unacceptable your opinions are every time you stick your sorry defective head above the parapet. Ideally what should happen every time you do it is that the post count in the topic immediately shoots up to the hundreds, with every one saying what a disgusting and shameful splot of scum not fit to be a member of society you are.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

for things like abortion and same-sex marriage rights to be different in Belfast vs Blackpool is as unacceptable as them being different in Belfast vs Bangor or Basingstoke vs Blackpool.

Different countries, different laws. By your logic above, every country in the world should have the same laws as England.

Of course it is OK - WT* is wrong with you?

You're equating a moral issue with a factual one. There are no facts to support the idea that being gay is OK, or that not allowing gay marriage in Blackpool is OK; they are moral issues and hence entirely subjective.

 

[jasonzyx]

Different countries, different laws. By your logic above, every country in the world should have the same laws as England.

BAS was referring to the UK, where NI (sorry the DUP) demands to be treated as an integral part of UK, but wants to retain its differences in the bits that it perceives as morally, politically, legally and religiously different.
I suspect you can see the irrationality of that. I assume you are fully aware that DUP want to retain the full integration of NI with UK? NI is a province, not a country. It has never been a sovereign independent country.

You're equating a moral issue with a factual one. There are no facts to support the idea that being gay is OK, or that not allowing gay marriage in Blackpool is OK; they are moral issues and hence entirely subjective.

They're moral, political, legal and religious issues. And the people that are subject to them are all UK citizens.
For example, it is illogical that a UK citizen in one part of the union is allowed same-sex marriage (with all the legal implications that follow), but in other part of that same union it is not allowed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Different countries, different laws.

But NI is NOT a different country, is it.

It is an area within ONE country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Surely you knew that?

If the people there want to claim "different countries, different laws" then let them become a different country.

 

[jasonzyx]

But NI is NOT a different country, is it.

It is an area within ONE country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Surely you knew that?

If the people there want to claim "different countries, different laws" then let them become a different country.

It's a province of GB. Never has been a sovereign independent country.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

For example, it is illogical that a UK citizen in one part of the union is allowed same-sex marriage (with all the legal implications that follow), but in other part of that same union it is not allowed.

Why is it illogical? Even neighbouring towns can have different by-laws, for example. Scale that up and you have different by-laws in different counties, and at a larger scale, different laws for different provinces, and different laws for different countries. Different strokes for different folks. I suspect this is part of the ideological divide between Leavers and Remainers; we leavers prefer the variety and diversity of choice, whereas Remainers prefer the familiarity and regularity encouraged by EU uniformity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why is it illogical? Even neighbouring towns can have different by-laws, for example. Different strokes for different folks.

Really?

You think that forbidding two people to get married in one town but allowing it in a neighbouring one is equivalent to whether people can play ball games or have dogs off a lead in a park?

If that does not perfectly illustrate the quality of the intellectual rigour you employ, I don't know what does.

You're equating a moral issue with a factual one. There are no facts to support the idea that being gay is OK, or that not allowing gay marriage in Blackpool is OK; they are moral issues and hence entirely subjective.

And there are no facts to say that they are not OK.

In the absence of facts to justify their repression, their repression must not be tolerated. Being homosexual is not a choice which someone makes, it's not a lifestyle they adopt, it is how they are, and if there are no facts which justify homosexuals being denied rights which heterosexuals have then they must not be denied them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's a province of GB. Never has been a sovereign independent country.

Precisely.

So what does that do to the standing of Gerry's "different countries, different laws" argument?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

You think that forbidding two people to get married in one town but allowing it in a neighbouring one is equivalent to whether people can play ball games or have dogs off a lead in a park?

How is two people wishing to be married any different from two people wishing to play a ball game?

And there are no facts to say that they are not OK...if there are no facts which justify homosexuals being denied rights which heterosexuals have then they must not be denied them.

Following your logic through, there is no fact which can justify marriage being a 'right' or not a 'right', therefore the government should have no say over who can marry whom, whatsoever; even children should be free to marry. Why then do we allow the government to dictate terms of marriage?

 

[jasonzyx]

How is two people wishing to be married any different from two people wishing to play a ball game?

Dear Marjorie Proops, I played a round of golf the other day. Does that mean I am financially dependent on my golf partner now? Do I have to make a will leaving all my worldly goods to them? If we choose not to play together anymore, do we have to discuss custody of the golf bag? If I also play a round with someone else, can my partner claim a complete separation of our belongings? Can my golf partner and I have a shared bank account.

 

[Notch7]

And bear in mind that the corollary of that is that it is legitimate to include you being utterly buried under a torrent of vitriolic abuse telling you just how vile and primitive and unacceptable your opinions are every time you stick your sorry defective head above the parapet. Ideally what should happen every time you do it is that the post count in the topic immediately shoots up to the hundreds, with every one saying what a disgusting and shameful splot of scum not fit to be a member of society you are.

oh look, a SJW getting his kicks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

oh look, a SJW getting his kicks.

Oh look - someone not fit to be at large in a civilised, tolerant society showing just how unfit he is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How is two people wishing to be married any different from two people wishing to play a ball game?

I'm afraid there are no words of a sufficiently low reading age for you which could be used to explain to you just how mind-bogglingly stupid that question is.

 

[durhamplumber]

I'm afraid there are no words of a sufficiently low reading age for you which could be used to explain to you just how mind-bogglingly stupid that question is.

You can always revert to "oh look mummy"!!..your favourite.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I'm afraid there are no words of a sufficiently low reading age for you which could be used to explain to you just how mind-bogglingly stupid that question is.

That's a fun way to say "I can't think of any fundamental philosophical difference". Two people consenting to do something of abritrary human contrivance, together. Throwing a ball to your friend is just as arbitrary as saying magic words to your friend in a special venue.