The numbers are in...

[AngleEyes]

that is Christmas Day, it’s fact.

It is, just as UK is still in Europe. Pedantry usually involves excessive attention to details.
Colloquially, most people would accept that 00:15 is a late evening rather than an early morning.
One wouldn't normally say I stayed up until early morning, in reality 00:15, (which would suggest 3 ,4, or 5 o clock in the morning), rather than I stayed up late until just after midnight.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

Colloquially, most people would accept that 00:15 is a late evening rather than an early morning.

no

 

[AngleEyes]

So let me get this straight: You consider yourself and many European nations 'civilised' for celebrating something you say never happened? You've just revealed yet another hypocritical facet to your persona.

That argument is a non-starter, for two reasons:
a) ellal is not suggesting, nor implying that other European nations are 'civilised' because they celebrate Christmas. That would be a nonsensical argument because many, many nations celebrate Christmas, and it doesn't indicate 'civilisation'. It would be like arguing that the Aztecs were civilised because they practised human sacrifice.
b) It wouldn't be hypocritical to make a baseless argument. That would be nonsensical.

 

[AngleEyes]

no

So when you're still up after midnight, you say it's 'early', rather than it's late?

 

[Deleted member 292770]

So when you're still up after midnight, you say it's 'early', rather than it's late?

accept that 00:15 is a late evening rather than an early morning.

You specified late evening. Evening ends at 10/11 surely?

 

[Deleted member 292770]

It shows how flawed a referendum is. Politicians are elected to represent their constituencies, not to be ordered to follow any specific course of action.
And the majority of MPs wanted to remain in the EU.
It was only because Brexiteers threatened them with being deselected (or in the case of ERG actually sacking them) in the next elections that the gutless politicians preferred to keep their jobs rather than keep their integrity.

Brexiteers being constituents.
glaring contradiction again.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

00:15 is a late evening

Where did night go?

 

[AngleEyes]

Brexiteers being constituents.
glaring contradiction again.

You're not understanding the concept of a representative democracy.
Think of it like employing a solicitor to represent you. You don't then (normally) insist on the solicitor following your specific instructions. You expect them to apply their knowledge and experience of complex issues.
In the case of UK's representative democracy, you choose the candidate that you think most closely represents your political opinion. You then, in the main, leave it up to the MP to make the best decision for all his/her constituents, even if that is not in the best interests of those who voted for him/her.
Of course you can contact that MP as often as you wish during their tenure, to express your political desires, but at the end of the day, the MP makes the best decision for all their constituents.

 

[Deleted member 292770]

the MP makes the best decision for all their constituents.

Your use of ambiguity does not cover up the glaring contradiction.

 

[Notch7]

Brexiteers being constituents.
glaring contradiction again.

what is best for constituents is not the same as what they choose to vote for.

Same with anti vaxxers

 

[Deleted member 292770]

what is best for constituents is not the same as what they choose to vote for.

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is ?. Which implies every vote is wrong , regardless.

 

[AngleEyes]

Your use of ambiguity does not cover up the glaring contradiction.

Sorry, but I'm a complete loss as to what my use of ambiguity means, never mind where I'm supposed to have used it.

As for a glaring contradiction, I've no idea what you are referring to.
If you want to present some kind of counter argument against my comments, you're going to have to do a little better than clutching some words out of thin air that have no relevance.
For starters, and to help you form a coherent argument:
Where is the ambiguity, and
where is the contradiction?

 

[AngleEyes]

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is ?. Which implies every vote is wrong , regardless.

Do you realise how ridiculous your comment is;
If every vote is wrong, then there's no point in voting, and the Leave vote was just as wrong as the Remain vote.

If you need an analogy to help you understand Notch7's concept, assume you ask a bunch of 5 year olds, what do they want for dinner, sweeties, or meat and two veg?
Can you understand how they would probably vote for sweeties, whereas the meat and two veg would be far better for them?

Why do you think there's never been a referendum on hanging?

 

[Deleted member 292770]

If every vote is wrong

notchs’ words not mine.

the Leave vote was just as wrong as the Remain vote.

agreed.

sweeties, or meat and two veg?

Just notchs opinion .
Obviously more of the electorate thought it was more like salad or meat and two veg.

the MP makes the best decision for all their constituents.

Based on the majority of his constituents opinions or his own . You were not clear

As for a glaring contradiction,

No you removed the whole post. Nice that you could see it for yourself though when it was pointed out to you.

 

[AngleEyes]

If every vote is wrong,

notchs’ words not mine.

Where did Notch7 say this?

If every vote is wrong, then there's no point in voting, and the Leave vote was just as wrong as the Remain vote.

agreed.

It was part of a conditional sentence. It was not a stand alone statement. You're being very devious in cutting out the very relevant part of the sentence.

sweeties, or meat and two veg?

Just notchs opinion .

WTF are you on about now? As far as I am aware, Notch7 has never uttered the words: "meat and two veg". It was part of an analogy. Do you understand what an analogy is?

the MP makes the best decision for all their constituents.

Based on the majority of his constituents opinions or his own . You were not clear

Based on what he considers is best for his constituents.

As for a glaring contradiction,

No you removed the whole post. Nice that you could see it for yourself though when it was pointed out to you.

Don't be such an idiot. I removed nothing.
All you've done is proven that you were saying words that you'd plucked out of the air and they had no relevance.