Out of Repect I ask Remainers to Refrain from posting in this thread

[EFLImpudence]

Brexit Party / UKIP party manifesto`s state that their MP`s do not want to represent the UK in the European Parliment .
So what is the logic in that , OK so they do not want the Job, so why do we have to vote for them ??
Dont vote for them and they wont get the Job (simps )

It does seem a daft situation where people are standing for positions in an organisation with which they disagree, so will do nothing to improve that organisation nor be able to abolish it or any of its policies.

Do you think that (the majority of) the voters (the thickies) realise that MEPs have no input on whether Parliament votes one way or the other?

The situation could be that the voters have voted for a majority of remain MPs (in 2017) and a lot (a majority?) of leave MEPs.

Such is the will of the people.

 

[JP_]

so they do not want the Job

of course they want the job - it pays a small fortune, and they'll get a massive payout when they get made redundant. It's a career move.
Farage has made a career (and hundreds of thousands of pounds) sitting in the Brussels pretending he doesn't want to be there.

Con artists the lot of them.

 

[Notch7]

your statement was wrong.

No it wasnt, it was and still is correct


This is what I wrote.

Thats certainly true, remainers are likely to be young people

That is factually correct, remainers are likely to be young people.

Although it could be argued that young people are more likely to vote Remain, it doesn't follow that they actually did so

It does follow that they actually did so. Because they did.
You cant ignore a known fact and state the opposite could theoretically true -what knid of nonsense is that

I think it might help you a lot if you try harder to focus ob the precise point being made, rather than going round the houses trying to prove some other spurious point not being discussed.

 

[Mfatic]

This is what I wrote.

Thats certainly true, remainers are likely to be young people

That is factually correct, remainers are likely to be young people.

Sigh!

Of the 13,000,000+ eligible young voters (18 - 40), only 5,334,352 voted Remain, a minority of young people.
Obviously,if you wished to restrict that age group to a smaller group of 18 -25, there would be even less 'young' voters.

Of the 16,000,000+ Remain voters, only 5,334,352 were young voters. Therefore the rest of Remain voters, a vast majority of them, were 40+ years old.

That means that Remainers are more likely to be not young people.

Your statement was factually and arithmetically incorrect.

If you wish to persist with your perverse opinion, no amount of proof or logic will dissuade you.
I do notice that you present not a jot of evidence or data to support your perverse opinion, merely bland assertions.

Whilst it is true that young voters are more likely to vote Remain, by the data and calculations, it is evident that they did not actually do so.

Because, the statement that "young voters are more likely to vote Remain" is true, does not make the reverse also true, that "Remain voters are more likely to be young people".

 

[Notch7]

That means that Remainers are more likely to be not young people.

That may be true.

However you have added in the word 'more' -so you are no longer responding to the post I made

arithmetically incorrect

You introduced numbers, not me. Therefore I cannot be arithmetically incorrect.

So this is the post I originally made:
remainers are likely to be young people

Here is a tip for you: You need to go back to the drawing board and provide proof that the opposite is true.

Ie you need to prove that remainers are not likely to be young people. Or you could try and prove that Leavers are likely to be young people.

Have a nice soothing cup of mint tea, you seem a bit uptight, I dont want you getting stressed

 

[Mfatic]

However you have added in the word 'more' -so you are no longer responding to the post I made

An irrelevant argument, and an illustration of tap-dancing around the issue.
The evidence and data still holds, that Remainers are not likely to be young people.

You introduced numbers, not me. Therefore I cannot be arithmetically incorrect.

As we both recognise, you have offered not a jot of evidence or data to support your statement, then or since.

So this is the post I originally made:
remainers are likely to be young people
Here is a tip for you: You need to go back to the drawing board and provide proof that the opposite is true.

If you dispute the evidence that I have already supplied, you are disputing the obvious. And no amount of evidence or data will dissuade you from your opinion.

you need to prove that remainers are not likely to be young people.

Proven beyond any doubt.
If you dispute the evidence that I have already supplied, you are disputing the obvious. And no amount of evidence or data will dissuade you from your opinion.

Or you could try and prove that Leavers are likely to be young people.

That is not the opposite and a completely different argument.
In fact, due to the disparity of the demographics of the age groups within the UK population, both statements are incorrect.
(remember the 75% of a little is a lot less than 90% of a lot)
Young people, especially those that vote, are in the minority! As you have already accepted!

Have a nice soothing cup of mint tea, you seem a bit uptight, I dont want you getting stressed

I'm not stressed. I find it incomprehensible that someone refuses to accept the evidence and is incapable of providing any evidence or data of their own, to support their argument.
As I said in other posts, this discussion forum resembles a bear pit, where posters consider it more of a test of their mettle than a development of understanding, and, if you cannot recognise when it is appropriate to take your own advice, how can you expect others to consider it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

this discussion forum resembles a bear pit

More like a cess pit.

 

[Mfatic]

Here is a tip for you: You need to go back to the drawing board and provide proof that the opposite is true.
Ie you need to prove that remainers are not likely to be young people. Or you could try and prove that Leavers are likely to be young people.

A more sensible, and demonstrable opposite statement would be, "Remainers and Leavers are likely to be older people".

That has already been proven in my provision of data, evidence ,and subsequent calculations.

 

[Notch7]

An irrelevant argument, and an illustration of tap-dancing around the issue

Bless

You completely change the meaning of my post, then claim that making such a claim is irrelevant.

The evidence and data still holds, that Remainers are not likely to be young people.

Mfatic says that 73% of 18 to 24 year olds voted remain

Mfatic says based on that information he thinks remainers are not likely to be young people.

Mfatic is most emphatic about this most intelligent interpretation and he stands by his claim:

Remainers are not likely to be young people (although 3/4 of them are).

 

[Mfatic]

Mfatic is most emphatic about this most intelligent interpretation and he stands by his claim: are not likely to be young people (although 3/4 of them are).

Absolutely, demonstrably correct. Remainers are not likely to be young people.
About ¼ of them are! As demonstrated by my presentation of data, evidence and subsequent calculations.
It is true that ¾ of young people that did vote, voted remain.
But as has been explained countless times, because one causal effect is true, it does not mean that the reverse is also true.
Again, you make bland assertions without any attempt to provide evidence or data to support your opinion.

A more sensible, and demonstrable opposite statement would be, "Remainers and Leavers are likely to be older people".

 

[Mfatic]

Notch, I've come to the conclusion that you simply cannot understand the difference between, "Reaminers are likely to be young people" and "Young people are likely to be Remainers".
Until you can appreciate the difference, you will persist with your misunderstanding, and refuse to consider that you could be wrong.

As I explained earlier, just because one effect is true, does not mean the reverse is applicable.
A desk can support a paper cup. A paper cup cannot support a desk.
A train can cross a bridge. A bridge cannot cross a train.
Wind can rustle the leaves in a tree. The leaves in a tree cannot rustle the wind.

I'm sure that you can think of numerous examples yourself.

 

[Notch7]

Notch, I've come to the conclusion that you simply cannot understand the difference between, "Reaminers are likely to be young people" and "Young people are likely to be Remainers".
Until you can appreciate the difference, you will persist with your misunderstanding, and refuse to consider that you could be wrong.

I dont need to consider it. I am correct.

Remainers are likely to be young people.

You need to look for the clues in the sentence.
It is the word likely
I havent qualified how likely nor have I inferred there is any arithmetic comparison to be made with any other group.

Oh and I also have not qualified 'young' my Dad is 90 years young

You simply dont like the fact I made an unqualified claim, that you had to qualify with own set of criteria to falsly attempt to prove me wrong.

Please dont make yourself stressed on my account -I cant help it if you persist with being wrong

 

[Mfatic]

Kangaroos are likely to be wild animals.
Wild animals are not likely to be kangaroos.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I dont need to consider it. I am correct.

Remainers are likely to be young people.

You need to look for the clues in the sentence.
It is the word likely
I havent qualified how likely nor have I inferred there is any arithmetic comparison to be made with any other group.

Oh and I also have not qualified 'young' my Dad is 90 years young

You simply dont like the fact I made an unqualified claim, that you had to qualify with own set of criteria to falsly attempt to prove me wrong.

You made an unqualifed claim which has to be unqualified because it is wrong.

Truly - it beggars belief that you cannot grasp it.

The fact that most of a subset of a population has a particular feature does not mean that an individual from the entire population who has that feature is a likely to be a member of that subset.

Even if more young people voted to remain than young people voted to leave, even if the ratio of remain:leave was higher than in any other age group, but in the rest of the population, the not-young, a higher absolute number of people voted remain than the absolute number of young voted remain, then how can a remainer be likely to be young?

You have made an assertion which is not borne out by any data.

If you believe that it is then please go away and come back with truthful, verifiable answers to these questions:

1. How many young people voted to remain?
2. How many not-young people voted to remain?

Not percentages, not ratios, actual absolute numbers.

 

[noseall]

remainers are likely to be young people

Not necessarily.