| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament 23:11 - Jul 25 with 41942 views | StokieBlue |
Nice to see them all taking it so seriously, after all it was only 42.6C in Paris today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49092653
SB [Post edited 25 Jul 2019 23:12]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:53 - Aug 8 with 2204 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:24 - Aug 8 by eireblue |
Well we can't really discuss things on a level playing surface, can we.
You have a different culture, you assume I have an Anglo-Saxon culture, and apparently that makes it difficult for me to understand you.
You would be much better finding the reference yourself, and arguing it out with that poster. |
I think we can discuss things on a level playing field. Our different cultures may mean we have different interpretations, but that shouldn't affect the discussion.
I don't assume you have an Anglo-Saxon culture. In fact, I've pointed out at least twice to you that it appears to me that English is not your first language (and if I'm wrong, then you probably either spoke a different language growing up or spend a lot of time speaking another language on a daily basis). I do not think for a second you're from an anglo-saxon culture. Rather, I imagine (like me) you are a mix of cultures and those cultures will affect your interpretations of the world around you.
You made an assumption there. Your assumption was wrong.
You said earlier in this thread "What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same. You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias."
Firstly, I never said "all Anglo-Saxons are the same".
Secondly, you appear to be guilty of the very bias you accuse me of having.
If you don't want to link the poster's comments about Eisenhower in context, yet insist on using them to make a point, you may as well just snipe from the sidelines. And I'm sure your doing so will delight a couple of other forum members enormously. [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 16:02]
|  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:08 - Aug 8 with 2177 views | giant_stow |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:53 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
I think we can discuss things on a level playing field. Our different cultures may mean we have different interpretations, but that shouldn't affect the discussion.
I don't assume you have an Anglo-Saxon culture. In fact, I've pointed out at least twice to you that it appears to me that English is not your first language (and if I'm wrong, then you probably either spoke a different language growing up or spend a lot of time speaking another language on a daily basis). I do not think for a second you're from an anglo-saxon culture. Rather, I imagine (like me) you are a mix of cultures and those cultures will affect your interpretations of the world around you.
You made an assumption there. Your assumption was wrong.
You said earlier in this thread "What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same. You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias."
Firstly, I never said "all Anglo-Saxons are the same".
Secondly, you appear to be guilty of the very bias you accuse me of having.
If you don't want to link the poster's comments about Eisenhower in context, yet insist on using them to make a point, you may as well just snipe from the sidelines. And I'm sure your doing so will delight a couple of other forum members enormously. [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 16:02]
|
Hats off mrs, its very tricky to pin you down or get you to admit to making a mistake.
(this may be a backhanded compliment)
(And yes i am sniping form the sidelines, but only gently) |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:09 - Aug 8 with 2176 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:53 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
I think we can discuss things on a level playing field. Our different cultures may mean we have different interpretations, but that shouldn't affect the discussion.
I don't assume you have an Anglo-Saxon culture. In fact, I've pointed out at least twice to you that it appears to me that English is not your first language (and if I'm wrong, then you probably either spoke a different language growing up or spend a lot of time speaking another language on a daily basis). I do not think for a second you're from an anglo-saxon culture. Rather, I imagine (like me) you are a mix of cultures and those cultures will affect your interpretations of the world around you.
You made an assumption there. Your assumption was wrong.
You said earlier in this thread "What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same. You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias."
Firstly, I never said "all Anglo-Saxons are the same".
Secondly, you appear to be guilty of the very bias you accuse me of having.
If you don't want to link the poster's comments about Eisenhower in context, yet insist on using them to make a point, you may as well just snipe from the sidelines. And I'm sure your doing so will delight a couple of other forum members enormously. [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 16:02]
|
"Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way."
It maybe the case we don't even agree on how applying skepticism to a topic is really defined.
I am happy for you to keep guessing at my culture, and assume any associated lens.
I was merely making observations, rather than trying to draw strong conclusions. |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:21 - Aug 8 with 2164 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:09 - Aug 8 by eireblue |
"Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way."
It maybe the case we don't even agree on how applying skepticism to a topic is really defined.
I am happy for you to keep guessing at my culture, and assume any associated lens.
I was merely making observations, rather than trying to draw strong conclusions. |
"Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way"
What's wrong with that?
Are you denying that you have had significant exposure to anglo-salon culture?
If so, are you saying that your dominant/formative culture does not share some of the judgemental or fault finding qualities of an anglo-saxon one?
If you are saying both of those things, then I'm sure discussions between us will be richer for the variety of interpretation you will bring to them. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:34 - Aug 8 with 2148 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:08 - Aug 8 by giant_stow |
Hats off mrs, its very tricky to pin you down or get you to admit to making a mistake.
(this may be a backhanded compliment)
(And yes i am sniping form the sidelines, but only gently) |
That's interesting. And thanks... possibly.
It may be that people here are trying to "pin me down", that fits with the anglo-salon cultural trait of trying to demonstrate that someone is wrong.
Similarly, "being tricky to pin down" suggests that someone is avoiding a pinning down which is due. I don't look at things that way. People have different opinions, sometimes they are minority. If anyone seriously believes that my opinions are dangerous, they should take a walk through the history of Maoist China or Soviet-run East Germany and at how they dealt with dangerous minority opinions.
If people think I'm "wrong", then people should provide examples (rather than say "the whole thread is an example" or "read through the thread again - everybody else can see them"). If not, it just comes across as a lame attempt to silence me.
What's a discussion forum for, after all? | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:38 - Aug 8 with 2143 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:21 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
"Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way"
What's wrong with that?
Are you denying that you have had significant exposure to anglo-salon culture?
If so, are you saying that your dominant/formative culture does not share some of the judgemental or fault finding qualities of an anglo-saxon one?
If you are saying both of those things, then I'm sure discussions between us will be richer for the variety of interpretation you will bring to them. |
I am not denying or stating any of those things.
The things I am saying are in my posts.
You seem to find them judgmental.
I was simply making observations.
Your comment about the UK and the size of its military just reminded me of something I learnt on here, i.e. people like Eisenhower have warned of the growth of the military and industrial complex. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:45 - Aug 8 with 2136 views | giant_stow |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:34 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
That's interesting. And thanks... possibly.
It may be that people here are trying to "pin me down", that fits with the anglo-salon cultural trait of trying to demonstrate that someone is wrong.
Similarly, "being tricky to pin down" suggests that someone is avoiding a pinning down which is due. I don't look at things that way. People have different opinions, sometimes they are minority. If anyone seriously believes that my opinions are dangerous, they should take a walk through the history of Maoist China or Soviet-run East Germany and at how they dealt with dangerous minority opinions.
If people think I'm "wrong", then people should provide examples (rather than say "the whole thread is an example" or "read through the thread again - everybody else can see them"). If not, it just comes across as a lame attempt to silence me.
What's a discussion forum for, after all? |
"What's a discussion forum for, after all?"
Indeed. Personally, I often don't agree with you, but you make for good reading, so thanks for that. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:01 - Aug 8 with 2122 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:38 - Aug 8 by eireblue |
I am not denying or stating any of those things.
The things I am saying are in my posts.
You seem to find them judgmental.
I was simply making observations.
Your comment about the UK and the size of its military just reminded me of something I learnt on here, i.e. people like Eisenhower have warned of the growth of the military and industrial complex. |
"I was simply making observations". Not exclusively. You were also making assumptions.
Observations like "you assume I have an Anglo-Saxon culture"(pg16) and "What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same."(pg10) are in fact assumptions.
If these are your observations, then you need better vision (or English classes). [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 17:04]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:56 - Aug 8 with 2093 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:01 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
"I was simply making observations". Not exclusively. You were also making assumptions.
Observations like "you assume I have an Anglo-Saxon culture"(pg16) and "What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same."(pg10) are in fact assumptions.
If these are your observations, then you need better vision (or English classes). [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 17:04]
|
My observations I was taking about was in reference to size of UK military and Eisenhower’s warning on the growth of a military and industrial complex.
However the start of this sentence doesn’t appear to have a qualifier “People from an Anglo-Saxon culture....”.
That is an accurate observation. [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 18:01]
| | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 23:40 - Aug 8 with 2018 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:56 - Aug 8 by eireblue |
My observations I was taking about was in reference to size of UK military and Eisenhower’s warning on the growth of a military and industrial complex.
However the start of this sentence doesn’t appear to have a qualifier “People from an Anglo-Saxon culture....”.
That is an accurate observation. [Post edited 8 Aug 2019 18:01]
|
Again, please link me to the forum post you're taking about. It seems to be very clear in your head and apparently relevant to my earlier comments. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:13 - Aug 9 with 1939 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 23:40 - Aug 8 by caught-in-limbo |
Again, please link me to the forum post you're taking about. It seems to be very clear in your head and apparently relevant to my earlier comments. |
Which post? The one about Anglo-Saxons?
If so, that was around page 10.
Or do mean the other post about the Eisenhower quote?
Your comment on the small size of the UK military, just reminded me of the Eisenhower quote, which I first read on here. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:52 - Aug 9 with 1928 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:13 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
Which post? The one about Anglo-Saxons?
If so, that was around page 10.
Or do mean the other post about the Eisenhower quote?
Your comment on the small size of the UK military, just reminded me of the Eisenhower quote, which I first read on here. |
I'm talking about the Eisenhower post which you first read on this site. It would be good to read it in the context in which it was presented.
But not to worry if you can't dig out the original post, I think you'll find it's in your interest not to do so.
Here is the thread in question: Just to cheer everyone up - Brexit economic suicide by BlueinBrum 11 Dec 2017 18:30I'm as bored of Brexit as anyone but I'm going to keep sharing this sort of stuff because i think it's vitally important that we keep talking about the dangers and implications of Brexit for the country.
I found a good comment beneath the following article which concisely sums up my fears for the UK economy as a result of Brexit. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/brexit-city-of-london-jobs-ey-dublin-frankfurt
"Seeing banking jobs and manufacturing jobs relocate to rEU is only the start of it. What will kill the UK is the loss of tax revenue and foreign exchange earnings that will occur as a result of the relocation to Ireland and the Continent of financial services, as well as car making, aerospace, pharmaceuticals (all areas in which the UK excels — don’t believe the pundits who say “we don’t make anything anymore”. It is not true). No Government of any party will be politically able to make spending cuts or tax rises of the magnitude necessary to balance the books, so they will borrow and print money. This relies as Mark Carney once said on the kindness of strangers who will only lend for so long as they believe in the viability of the UK economy. Once investors see the economy fail, as exports tumble while imports continue to rise and the ability to earn vital foreign exchange declines, they will either stop lending altogether or demand extortionate interest rates which will only make the situation worse. An old fashioned Sterling crisis will follow.
How will the UK Government respond? Expect another IMF bailout, just like the 1970s. Expect also exchange controls to come back, preventing UK nationals for taking their money abroad, and expect new rules on pensions requiring significant proportions of savings to be “invested” with the UK Government in the form of bonds. Needless to say this will sold to the public as reducing “risk” to them from volatile investments, but the interest rates will be very unfavourable as they always are for any compulsory investments. Ultimately expect these loans to the Government to be turned into life time annuities so hard earned savings never have to be paid back at all. Anyone arguing against all this will be deemed "unpatriotic".
Expect benefits to be cut. The poor will suffer as they always do, but the middle classes used to a lifestyle of foreign holidays and German cars will be hardest hit of all. Read up about Britain in the 1970s, or Argentina 20 years ago, where living standards fell by half, people, were not able to access their bank accounts and US Dollar accounts were compulsory changed to worthless Pesos. The state will always survive, and they will happily destroy their people to protect the state. The current disregard for the interests of the economy by the current crop of politicians just goes to prove my point."
The thread was about Brexit, as was my comment which provoked your comment in this thread.
"I think I once knew a poster who would have been in favour of a smaller military." is also an assumption and therefor an example of bias. [Post edited 9 Aug 2019 10:53]
| |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:06 - Aug 9 with 1920 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:52 - Aug 9 by caught-in-limbo |
I'm talking about the Eisenhower post which you first read on this site. It would be good to read it in the context in which it was presented.
But not to worry if you can't dig out the original post, I think you'll find it's in your interest not to do so.
Here is the thread in question: Just to cheer everyone up - Brexit economic suicide by BlueinBrum 11 Dec 2017 18:30I'm as bored of Brexit as anyone but I'm going to keep sharing this sort of stuff because i think it's vitally important that we keep talking about the dangers and implications of Brexit for the country.
I found a good comment beneath the following article which concisely sums up my fears for the UK economy as a result of Brexit. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/brexit-city-of-london-jobs-ey-dublin-frankfurt
"Seeing banking jobs and manufacturing jobs relocate to rEU is only the start of it. What will kill the UK is the loss of tax revenue and foreign exchange earnings that will occur as a result of the relocation to Ireland and the Continent of financial services, as well as car making, aerospace, pharmaceuticals (all areas in which the UK excels — don’t believe the pundits who say “we don’t make anything anymore”. It is not true). No Government of any party will be politically able to make spending cuts or tax rises of the magnitude necessary to balance the books, so they will borrow and print money. This relies as Mark Carney once said on the kindness of strangers who will only lend for so long as they believe in the viability of the UK economy. Once investors see the economy fail, as exports tumble while imports continue to rise and the ability to earn vital foreign exchange declines, they will either stop lending altogether or demand extortionate interest rates which will only make the situation worse. An old fashioned Sterling crisis will follow.
How will the UK Government respond? Expect another IMF bailout, just like the 1970s. Expect also exchange controls to come back, preventing UK nationals for taking their money abroad, and expect new rules on pensions requiring significant proportions of savings to be “invested” with the UK Government in the form of bonds. Needless to say this will sold to the public as reducing “risk” to them from volatile investments, but the interest rates will be very unfavourable as they always are for any compulsory investments. Ultimately expect these loans to the Government to be turned into life time annuities so hard earned savings never have to be paid back at all. Anyone arguing against all this will be deemed "unpatriotic".
Expect benefits to be cut. The poor will suffer as they always do, but the middle classes used to a lifestyle of foreign holidays and German cars will be hardest hit of all. Read up about Britain in the 1970s, or Argentina 20 years ago, where living standards fell by half, people, were not able to access their bank accounts and US Dollar accounts were compulsory changed to worthless Pesos. The state will always survive, and they will happily destroy their people to protect the state. The current disregard for the interests of the economy by the current crop of politicians just goes to prove my point."
The thread was about Brexit, as was my comment which provoked your comment in this thread.
"I think I once knew a poster who would have been in favour of a smaller military." is also an assumption and therefor an example of bias. [Post edited 9 Aug 2019 10:53]
|
No, it was definitely a quote, possibly presented in a picture, but definitely not a YouTube video.
You seem very exercised by this? | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:08 - Aug 9 with 1918 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:06 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
No, it was definitely a quote, possibly presented in a picture, but definitely not a YouTube video.
You seem very exercised by this? |
Yes, it's interesting. See if you can dig it out for me. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:37 - Aug 9 with 1913 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:08 - Aug 9 by caught-in-limbo |
Yes, it's interesting. See if you can dig it out for me. |
I am not sure why that is so relevant?
I am sure if you managed to find one post, and you seem motivated, you can find others, if you need to.
What is sort of interesting, is that you do seem very engaged with this for some reason.
It has occurred to me, you are sometimes reluctant to be definitive about things.
But you did make a definitive statement about the size of the UK military, so maybe this is a topic that you have a depth of knowledge and passion about.
Me, not so much.
I know others like military type topics, maybe someone would like to discuss the optimal size of the UK military with you.
Is that what you are looking for out of this? | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 14:14 - Aug 9 with 1881 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:37 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
I am not sure why that is so relevant?
I am sure if you managed to find one post, and you seem motivated, you can find others, if you need to.
What is sort of interesting, is that you do seem very engaged with this for some reason.
It has occurred to me, you are sometimes reluctant to be definitive about things.
But you did make a definitive statement about the size of the UK military, so maybe this is a topic that you have a depth of knowledge and passion about.
Me, not so much.
I know others like military type topics, maybe someone would like to discuss the optimal size of the UK military with you.
Is that what you are looking for out of this? |
I think you're getting a bit excited here.
Yes, I'm frightened by a military industrial complex. When countries get together to form a military union they get to a point where constant military intervention is necessary to justify the complex's existance. Peace time is not good in capitalist countries with a large military industrial complex. The UK's own military has been scaled down to such a point in recent years that it needs to be part of a greater military union, a military industrial complex. Yes, I want smaller militaries in the sense that I don't want a system which needs constant intervention to support its own existance. An independent UK military, along with independent French, German. Italian, Spanish militaries is what I want, but not one giant complex. I want peace time to be good for national / European / western / global economies, not a problem. [Post edited 9 Aug 2019 21:11]
| |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 14:31 - Aug 9 with 1873 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 14:14 - Aug 9 by caught-in-limbo |
I think you're getting a bit excited here.
Yes, I'm frightened by a military industrial complex. When countries get together to form a military union they get to a point where constant military intervention is necessary to justify the complex's existance. Peace time is not good in capitalist countries with a large military industrial complex. The UK's own military has been scaled down to such a point in recent years that it needs to be part of a greater military union, a military industrial complex. Yes, I want smaller militaries in the sense that I don't want a system which needs constant intervention to support its own existance. An independent UK military, along with independent French, German. Italian, Spanish militaries is what I want, but not one giant complex. I want peace time to be good for national / European / western / global economies, not a problem. [Post edited 9 Aug 2019 21:11]
|
Not really excited.
BTW that post you mentioned, there was an unanswered question.
You seem definitive that the UK military is too small.
Well we seem to have had some peace in Europe, whilst linking and co-operating across industry and military. And that was one of the objectives that Churchill thought would be a desirable outcome of integration.
Just an observation.
I don’t see any exact measurements in your post about what would be the correct size.
In order to asses that something is too small, you should also be able to give an indication of what would be more correct. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:23 - Aug 9 with 1852 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 14:31 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
Not really excited.
BTW that post you mentioned, there was an unanswered question.
You seem definitive that the UK military is too small.
Well we seem to have had some peace in Europe, whilst linking and co-operating across industry and military. And that was one of the objectives that Churchill thought would be a desirable outcome of integration.
Just an observation.
I don’t see any exact measurements in your post about what would be the correct size.
In order to asses that something is too small, you should also be able to give an indication of what would be more correct. |
Yep. Far too excited.
You read assumptions in others' posts and call out bias.
You quote people incorrectly.
You make assumptions of your own and call them observations.
You refer to previous posts to support your assumptions yet show no intent to link those posts.
I've rarely agreed with you, but until now you've been a competent poster. You offer little apart from criticism, and provide none of the substance you ask of others.
Needless to say we'll meet again and play out an almost identical scenario before too long.
Your MO is identcal to a few others on the forum. I guess it's all you can do. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:45 - Aug 9 with 1833 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:23 - Aug 9 by caught-in-limbo |
Yep. Far too excited.
You read assumptions in others' posts and call out bias.
You quote people incorrectly.
You make assumptions of your own and call them observations.
You refer to previous posts to support your assumptions yet show no intent to link those posts.
I've rarely agreed with you, but until now you've been a competent poster. You offer little apart from criticism, and provide none of the substance you ask of others.
Needless to say we'll meet again and play out an almost identical scenario before too long.
Your MO is identcal to a few others on the forum. I guess it's all you can do. |
That seems harsh, judgemental even.
If something is in “quotes”, then it is a quote. I don’t think I have ever misquoted something.
I have admitted before I personally have a bias, it isn’t difficult. Everyone does.
I think you have implied you think I am from different cultures and backgrounds, and suggest I can’t understand your logic.
I agreed, that is why I said, we can’t really have a debate.
But you have seemed keen to continue.
Now, that response does seem somewhat irrelevant for a simple question.
If the UK military is too small, according to you, what metrics are you using and what size should it be? | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:00 - Aug 9 with 1823 views | Stu_Magoo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 15:35 - Aug 8 by lowhouseblue |
no, no, no. always intentional.
jeez it's quiet on here.
day after tomorrow will (i think) be the first time I've ever watched a third division game. that it should come to this. |
No really. I was enjoying a "work poo" (which is where you poo on their time and not your own) and clicked a downer whilst scrolling. |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:00 - Aug 9 with 1820 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 16:45 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
That seems harsh, judgemental even.
If something is in “quotes”, then it is a quote. I don’t think I have ever misquoted something.
I have admitted before I personally have a bias, it isn’t difficult. Everyone does.
I think you have implied you think I am from different cultures and backgrounds, and suggest I can’t understand your logic.
I agreed, that is why I said, we can’t really have a debate.
But you have seemed keen to continue.
Now, that response does seem somewhat irrelevant for a simple question.
If the UK military is too small, according to you, what metrics are you using and what size should it be? |
Why don't you link the post from the past that started all of this before anything else?
That would be the decent thing to do. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:49 - Aug 9 with 1806 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:00 - Aug 9 by caught-in-limbo |
Why don't you link the post from the past that started all of this before anything else?
That would be the decent thing to do. |
Because it is irrelevant.
Some people think a large military and industrial complex is bad.
You want a larger UK military.
One comment triggered a remembered post.
I think this discussion is illustrating something relevant.
Observations don’t contribute to a debate.
You made a definitive statement about the UK military.
It is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 05:44 - Aug 10 with 1747 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 17:49 - Aug 9 by eireblue |
Because it is irrelevant.
Some people think a large military and industrial complex is bad.
You want a larger UK military.
One comment triggered a remembered post.
I think this discussion is illustrating something relevant.
Observations don’t contribute to a debate.
You made a definitive statement about the UK military.
It is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be. |
I post this: "Britain's military, which is a pitiful affair for the economy we have, is tied to France and Europe (and NATO) and will remain tied into Europe irrespective of what happens to NATO in the next few years." and you respond with this:
"I think the UK's army is possibly too big."
You took my comment and made the assumption that I was saying our military was too big. I actually said it was tied to France and Europe. I think a military which depends on another country and whose dependence has increased on precisely the body it plans to leave (since the Brexit vote) is pitiful.
Then you say: "I think I once knew a poster who would have been in favour of a smaller military." That's a spectacularly vague thing to say, so I ask for a link to the post in question. You say such a link is irrelevant.
Then you continue to create a whole narrative and attribute it to me in order to attack it. Highlights include:
"Your comment about the UK and the size of its military just reminded me of something I learnt on here"
- but I never mentioned the size of the UK's military. And...
"But you did make a definitive statement about the size of the UK military, so maybe this is a topic that you have a depth of knowledge and passion about."
- No I didn't. You did. And...
"I know others like military type topics, maybe someone would like to discuss the optimal size of the UK military with you."
-There you go again. I'm pretty sure I hadn't mentioned the size of our military once, but you keep on about it. And...
"You seem definitive that the UK military is too small."
- No, I said no such thing. Although you said way back on the previous page at 14:47 that you "think the UK's army is possibly too big."
But you continue to press me on a claim I never made (only one that you assumed I made) with:
"If the UK military is too small, according to you, what metrics are you using and what size should it be?"
Incredible how you've created a position for me out of thin air, and then asked me for metrics to justify that position.
I'm still baffled by this, so I ask you again for the link to where I'm supposed to have held such a view. But no, it's irrelevant. So you double down with the false position you have created for me:
"You want a larger UK military." and the cherry on the cake:
"You made a definitive statement about the UK military. It is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be."
No I didn't make any such definitive statement about our military. Not in this thread anyway. Perhaps I made it in the post you seem unable to provide me with a link to. You are the only person who mentioned the size of the UK perhaps military being wrong when you said:
"I think the UK's army is possibly too big."
So, it's actually you who made "a definitive statement about the UK military." And "it is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be."
Perhaps, after you've done that, I might find it in my patient nature to elaborate on the reasons I have already given why I think our military is pitiful.
Over to you. State why the size might be too big, based on what metrics, and the size it should be. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:11 - Aug 10 with 1693 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 05:44 - Aug 10 by caught-in-limbo |
I post this: "Britain's military, which is a pitiful affair for the economy we have, is tied to France and Europe (and NATO) and will remain tied into Europe irrespective of what happens to NATO in the next few years." and you respond with this:
"I think the UK's army is possibly too big."
You took my comment and made the assumption that I was saying our military was too big. I actually said it was tied to France and Europe. I think a military which depends on another country and whose dependence has increased on precisely the body it plans to leave (since the Brexit vote) is pitiful.
Then you say: "I think I once knew a poster who would have been in favour of a smaller military." That's a spectacularly vague thing to say, so I ask for a link to the post in question. You say such a link is irrelevant.
Then you continue to create a whole narrative and attribute it to me in order to attack it. Highlights include:
"Your comment about the UK and the size of its military just reminded me of something I learnt on here"
- but I never mentioned the size of the UK's military. And...
"But you did make a definitive statement about the size of the UK military, so maybe this is a topic that you have a depth of knowledge and passion about."
- No I didn't. You did. And...
"I know others like military type topics, maybe someone would like to discuss the optimal size of the UK military with you."
-There you go again. I'm pretty sure I hadn't mentioned the size of our military once, but you keep on about it. And...
"You seem definitive that the UK military is too small."
- No, I said no such thing. Although you said way back on the previous page at 14:47 that you "think the UK's army is possibly too big."
But you continue to press me on a claim I never made (only one that you assumed I made) with:
"If the UK military is too small, according to you, what metrics are you using and what size should it be?"
Incredible how you've created a position for me out of thin air, and then asked me for metrics to justify that position.
I'm still baffled by this, so I ask you again for the link to where I'm supposed to have held such a view. But no, it's irrelevant. So you double down with the false position you have created for me:
"You want a larger UK military." and the cherry on the cake:
"You made a definitive statement about the UK military. It is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be."
No I didn't make any such definitive statement about our military. Not in this thread anyway. Perhaps I made it in the post you seem unable to provide me with a link to. You are the only person who mentioned the size of the UK perhaps military being wrong when you said:
"I think the UK's army is possibly too big."
So, it's actually you who made "a definitive statement about the UK military." And "it is your problem to state why the size is wrong, based on what metrics, and the size it should be."
Perhaps, after you've done that, I might find it in my patient nature to elaborate on the reasons I have already given why I think our military is pitiful.
Over to you. State why the size might be too big, based on what metrics, and the size it should be. |
What I made was an observation, and expressed a bit of an opinion.
I stated a couple of times that I was simply making an observations.
I also referenced this isn’t a topic I have much interest or knowledge in.
Simply making a set of observations, doesn’t actually contribute to a sceptical debate. You can create a lot of puff and noise, that gives an illusion of debate. As we have just done.
A sceptical approach to climate change would be to take into consideration that there is current a very high 90s percentage consensus on the topic of climate change. There are different ways of phrasing climate change, but broadly we know what people mean.
It is somewhat interesting during the climate change postings, I think you said it was irrelevant for you to post certain things, because of your position.
In order to shift from a consensus position, a skeptic approach will be to require a degree of intellectual rigour, very clear evidence, and testable hypotheses.
You seem to have approached this particular discussion, in a somewhat of a judgemental way.
You have been very particular about phrasing.
You now seem to think important to have verifiable metrics.
I don’t actually care about your thoughts on the size of the UK military debate.
What Is more interesting is that it is seemingly okay to throw in some observations about a topic, claim that it somehow adds to a debate, and then claim some cultural difference as the reason that people can’t understand your logic.
We can understand your logic.
You mostly talk bullocks, about minority positions, and claim it is open minded, it’s that basic. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:07 - Aug 10 with 1675 views | Ryorry |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:11 - Aug 10 by eireblue |
What I made was an observation, and expressed a bit of an opinion.
I stated a couple of times that I was simply making an observations.
I also referenced this isn’t a topic I have much interest or knowledge in.
Simply making a set of observations, doesn’t actually contribute to a sceptical debate. You can create a lot of puff and noise, that gives an illusion of debate. As we have just done.
A sceptical approach to climate change would be to take into consideration that there is current a very high 90s percentage consensus on the topic of climate change. There are different ways of phrasing climate change, but broadly we know what people mean.
It is somewhat interesting during the climate change postings, I think you said it was irrelevant for you to post certain things, because of your position.
In order to shift from a consensus position, a skeptic approach will be to require a degree of intellectual rigour, very clear evidence, and testable hypotheses.
You seem to have approached this particular discussion, in a somewhat of a judgemental way.
You have been very particular about phrasing.
You now seem to think important to have verifiable metrics.
I don’t actually care about your thoughts on the size of the UK military debate.
What Is more interesting is that it is seemingly okay to throw in some observations about a topic, claim that it somehow adds to a debate, and then claim some cultural difference as the reason that people can’t understand your logic.
We can understand your logic.
You mostly talk bullocks, about minority positions, and claim it is open minded, it’s that basic. |
"You mostly talk bullocks, about minority positions, and claim it is open minded, it’s that basic ..."
- and bullocks produce
 |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
