Safety that's why we should get out of the EU

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, he'll say I can't be sure because I wasn't there and I should have included a link to back it up from Asteroids.com.

 

[jadekitty]

I have a feeling we may stay in the EU but more boundaries, I dont think camron wants to leave and he can rig it how he wants

 

[PBC_1966]

It's very noticeable that the anti-EU campaigners have nothing to say, except spreading their Fear of Foreigners.

Not me. But it is very noticeable that many EU supporters seem to try to equate being anti-EU with being either afraid of or against foreigners. I'm not sure how many are so confused that they really can't tell the difference and how many just try to use it as the "If you're anti-EU you're a bigoted, xenophobic racialist" line of attack.

 

[gasbanni]

http://dailym.ai/1UYbEbo

No excuses ........Out is the only sensible answer.

 

[Himaginn]

My bet is that you are afraid of Brexit (

How about discussing the topic, and not me?
If you want to start a thread about me, then do so.
But gasbag tried that already.

Point proven.

You are silly sometimes, brigadier. If you said the world is flat, and I thought that is so silly it's not worthy of a response, you think you can claim you've proven your point.
Talk sense!
I did credit you with a bit more intelligence than that. But if you insist on proving me wrong, I'll only provide a feeble, fragile counter-argument.

 

[Himaginn]

Perhaps a better question for you would be: "is davie jones and fender fundamentally lacking in intellectual capacity because they cannot differentiate between sound reasoning and fallacious argument?"

And yet you feel uncomfortable with folk discussing you in this thread..

Of course. It's a thread about security in Europe.
If you wish to start another thread that does not connect me or associate me with security in Europe, I'd be quite content.

 

[Himaginn]

The same applies to EFLI.
A discussion started along the lines of "Does anyone disagree that the dinosaurs were forced into distinction by a plague of blood-sucking fleas, which swept the earth. Similar to the extinction of Elephants as happened in Cambodia." is a whole load of suppositions on which to base a discussion.

No, it isn't. It is a question (albeit you have omitted the question mark).
The answer is, I am sure, simply "NO" - end of matter.
Questions do seem to confuse you and seem to be the only things for which you don't have a reply.

A point about syntax does not negate the proposition, nor render it undebatable or indisputable.
I missed out the question mark because it was not a question, not even a rhetorical question. It didn't need an answer because it was an analogy or example of an elliptical fallacious argument.
Questions based on elliptical fallacious premises need reducing to a level at which the basic premise can be agreed.
It has not been agreed that immigration, in UK or in USA leads to cheap labour. Neither is it agreed that lack of accommodation is automatically associated with immigration.
It has not even been agreed that the USA, per se, is a success.

 

[Davie Jones]

Perhaps a better question for you would be: "is davie jones and fender fundamentally lacking in intellectual capacity because they cannot differentiate between sound reasoning and fallacious argument?"

And yet you feel uncomfortable with folk discussing you in this thread..

Of course. It's a thread about security in Europe.
If you wish to start another thread that does not connect me or associate me with security in Europe, I'd be quite content.

But the views that you hold do have a link with the security in Europe in my opinion and so discussions about you within this thread are valid..

 

[EFLImpudence]

How can anyone debate such twaddle?

"Does anyone ..." is not a question. What nonsense.

 

[Himaginn]

How can anyone debate such twaddle?

"Does anyone ..." is not a question. What nonsense.

You want to go off at a tangent, discussing the minutia of syntax and punctuation, to avoid the discussion about your elliptical fallacious argument?
That is a question!

 

[Brigadier]

My bet is that you are afraid of Brexit (

How about discussing the topic, and not me?
If you want to start a thread about me, then do so.
But gasbag tried that already.

Point proven.

You are silly sometimes, brigadier. If you said the world is flat, and I thought that is so silly it's not worthy of a response, you think you can claim you've proven your point.
Talk sense!
I did credit you with a bit more intelligence than that. But if you insist on proving me wrong, I'll only provide a feeble, fragile counter-argument.

Afraid to respond to the rest of the original post, then.

 

[Himaginn]

Afraid to respond to the rest of the original post, then.

You mean this lot:

Brexit has no previous applicable analogue, that I'm aware of.

What's to say? "Brexit has no previous applicable analogue."
What the effing eck does that mean? Do you mean that Brexit has no previous applicable analogy?
An analogy is a similar conceptual example. I'm sure I could think of one. If I do, does it render your affirmation redundant?

Therefore, all scenarios of what may happen upon Brexit are speculative; there are no absolutes, only opinions (read, vested interests, one way or the other).

Or maybe some reasonable good estimates if an applicable analogy is applied. But even speculation can be reasonably accurate if correctly applied.
Brexit supporters are refusing to even speculate on scenarios concerning Brexit, so how can anyone speculate on the results. If those arguing for Brexit refuse to propose probable scenarios, it's not possible to imagine the end game or comment on it.
What Remain-ers have been doing is to highlight all the possible scenarios that Brexit could generate and demonstrate the self-destructive policy of Brexit.

Similarly, all "IN" arguments are based on "how good you've got it", with no control situation to compare it with.

There are some analogous control scenarios to compare: Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein, Iceland.

EFLI has pointed this out (a few times, IIRC) already.

EFLI has made many inane comments about who knows, or, it's just speculation, or, it's hypothetical. But he keeps making those inane comments about quite a few things. I wouldn't call it a constructive argument.

But you keep falling back on this pompously-delivered "fallacious argument" retort.

Now you're just into insults without examples or specific relevant explanations.

My bet is that you are afraid of Brexit (in poker parlance, you'll stick with the safe hand, rather than risk the better one not turning up), afraid of having any debate that might show Brexit in a positive light, so are trying (succeeding) in shutting down any discourse.

This was, and still is your opinion, which I don't think is worthy of a response.
To accuse me of being afraid of your silly and inexplicable comments is pomposity at its worst.
It needed a challenge to even bother responding. Moreover, it demonstrates your arrogant self-opinion if you considered your comment so important.
I repeat, I didn't bother responding to the majority of it because I didn't consider it worthy of a response.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

What's to say? "Brexit has no previous applicable analogue."
What the effing eck does that mean? Do you mean that Brexit has no previous applicable analogy?

An analogue is something that can be likened to something else by analogy. Pedantry is distraction, not debate.

What Remain-ers have been doing is to highlight all the possible scenarios that Brexit could generate and demonstrate the self-destructive policy of Brexit.

Almost. The remainers have been highlighting all the possible negative scenarios. The Brexiters have been highlighting all the positive scenarios. You then derail the subject, claim later that no one has mentioned any positive scenarios, and suggest they come up with some. Repeat ad nauseum.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How can anyone debate such twaddle?
"Does anyone ..." is not a question. What nonsense.

You want to go off at a tangent, discussing the minutia of syntax and punctuation, to avoid the discussion about your elliptical fallacious argument?
That is a question!

No it isn't - despite the question mark.

What is wrong with you? That is a question.


You are an idiot. That is a statement

 

[Davie Jones]

warning.



//www.diynot.com/diy/threads/forum-rules-general-info.19448/