Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 190 total)
  • The EU debate in Parliament tommorow…
  • mrmo
    Free Member

    The question that everyone should ask of everything they experience is what is the teller gaining from this.

    If you read the news, watch the TV, ask yourself what are you being told and why.

    For instance, why is the Sun anti Europe, does Murdoch have a reason to oppose the EU.

    It is the act of questioning that far too many do not do.

    mcboo
    Free Member

    If any of my kids comes home and says they want to do a degree in Media Studies I will disown them.

    grum
    Free Member

    It is the act of questioning that far too many do not do.

    Exactly. Look at the sources of information, assess their arguments, analyse them for potential bias. As a history student this was drummed into me.

    So mcboo – critical thinking is a bad thing? 😕

    No weaseling. 😛

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Grum – thinking is hard for many folk let alone critical thinking.

    CFH – did yu really post that seriously?

    CaptainFlashheart – Member

    It would rather depend on which branch of critical thinking they were taught, wouldn’t it? I suspect you would only allow your ‘right’ way of thinking to be taught.

    Critical thinking is the ability to decide for yourself from the evidcne offered.

    Laugh of the day this thread – swiveleyed loons abound

    Edukator
    Free Member

    Democracy involves every sane adult having a vote and being given the opportunity to decide major issues. And that everyone should be taught the skills needed to make good use of that vote and the responsibilities that go with it before they reach voting age.

    Anyone disagree?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Yes, I did. In your utopia, who would control what is taught and how?Who would control what evidence is presented?

    Also, why simply say that someone who disagrees with you is a ‘swivel eyed loon’ or an ‘idiot? Ever realized what that makes you?

    uplink
    Free Member

    so what would you do if voters refused to be ‘educated’ in politics and would rather choose how to vote after a Saturday night in the pub with their mates?

    bar them from voting?
    suspend all votes until such time as everyone takes it seriously?

    mrmo
    Free Member

    Yes, I did. In your utopia, who would control what is taught and how?Who would control what evidence is presented?

    and if you use critical thinking it does not matter what is presented, ask why what has been presented has been.

    is it beyond understanding that Blairs dossier was created to justify a decision? go back to DS’s CV thread, you present what assists your case and omit what does not.

    grum
    Free Member

    Yes, I did. In your utopia, who would control what is taught and how?Who would control what evidence is presented?

    Polly Toynbee obviously.

    so what would you do if voters refused to be ‘educated’ in politics and would rather choose how to vote after a Saturday night in the pub with their mates?

    bar them from voting?

    I dunno, this is the tricky bit. I like the use of ‘air quotes’ to try and make it sound like education is a bad thing BTW.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    CaptainFlashheart – Member

    Yes, I did. In your utopia, who would control what is taught and how?Who would control what evidence is presented?

    Ah – really – critcal thinkng is the ability to make decisions from teh evidence offered – there is no “‘right’ way of thinking to be taught” if you teach critical thinking – the two are mutually exclusive.

    Also, why simply say that someone who disagrees with you is a ‘swivel eyed loon’ or an ‘idiot? Ever realized what that makes you?

    Oh I don’t. There are folk I disagree with who I think are rational and I will engage / debate with them but some of the but some of the rhetoric on this thread is laughable in its sillyness.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    In your utopia, who would control what is taught and how?Who would control what evidence is presented?

    Clarkson ?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Nothing tricky about it, ffs! It’s their opinion! They are as entitled to it as you are, regardless of how your view differs from theirs.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    the whole point of electing a government is so that they can make the best informed decisions, having referenda defeats the purpose of the system?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Yup – thats what a representative democracy is and how it works

    mrmo
    Free Member

    Nothing tricky about it, ffs! It’s their opinion! They are as entitled to it as you are, regardless of how your view differs from theirs.

    Yup, it is there opinion, and for the number of people who have died so people can have a vote and die because of their vote it is only right people think about what they are doing.

    I believe Moral Hazard is one way of looking at it, or more specifically the disconnection to it experienced by the average voter.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    “swivel-eyed loon”, who said that? Ah, him. Well this is the second thread tonight I’m giving up on up on due to TJs insults. Just as well he only has one vote eh!

    derekrides
    Free Member

    Edukator – Member
    Democracy involves every sane adult having a vote and being given the opportunity to decide major issues. And that everyone should be taught the skills needed to make good use of that vote and the responsibilities that go with it before they reach voting age.

    Anyone disagree?

    10 million Sun readers can’t be wrong…

    As long as she’s got big tits.

    derekrides
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member
    Yup – thats what a representative democracy is and how it works

    But what happens when frequently those representatives prove to be corrupt, & incompetent time and again?

    grum
    Free Member

    Yup, it is there opinion, and for the number of people who have died so people can have a vote and die because of their vote it is only right people think about what they are doing.

    Exactly.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    I dunno, this is the tricky bit.

    Tricky but fundamental – and as you said to Mcboo, “no weasling!” 😉

    I agree with your and Edukator’s comments about the value of critical reasoning. Compared to when I was at school, subjects such as history and theology have progressed massively in this regard. I can’t comment with any authority on medja studies, but remain to be convinced.

    But grum, you really can’t have it both ways. A free and democratic society works in two ways. It gives us the freedom to express our views but it also imposes on us a tolerance for others views – however unpleasant and abhorrent they may be. But this is the price you have to pay to avoid censorship, which is far worse.

    FWIW – I think there is a problem with ‘the freedom of the press” as in reality that means the freedom of a minority of parties to manipulate public opinion. But equally, to surpress the press would be even worse. The legal system is there to defend us from when they break the law and otherwise we merely have to bite our lips when others express things that we dont believe in. Either that or listen intently to see if they have anything to learn from (far more likely!)

    One final thought/giggle before bed – I wonder if this thread has helped to explain why there are so many Old Etonions (and their like) in positions of influence!?! 😉

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    The press is relatively simple to sort out – sort out ownership to stop the concentration of power into one persons hands along with tougher regulation

    grum
    Free Member

    Tricky but fundamental – and as you said to Mcboo, “no weasling!”

    The weaseling thing was a reference to another thread. But I suppose no, much as I find the idea sort of appealing, no I don’t think you can take away the vote from people who haven’t made any kind of vague effort to understand what they are voting for/against.

    It gives us the freedom to express our views but it also imposes on us a tolerance for others views – however unpleasant and abhorrent they may be. But this is the price you have to pay to avoid censorship, which is far worse.

    Hmm… I don’t think the balance is correct at the moment. I mean Paul Dacre is the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission FFS!

    mrmo
    Free Member

    little things, if a paper has to print a retraction it should be given the same prominence as the original piece. No paper should publish a story they can not verify. bias is one thing lies something else. Politicians need to be held to account for their actions. Move away from soundbites give real details.

    Does anyone think the Conservatives really won the election, or was it a case that labour lost it?

    grum
    Free Member

    little things, if a paper has to print a retraction it should be given the same prominence as the original piece. No paper should publish a story they can not verify.

    Kelvin Mackenzie admits he only fact checked ONE story while he edited the Sun. And this is the standard we deem acceptable for a publication that influences millions?

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23997287-i-only-checked-the-source-of-one-story-when-i-was-sun-editor-and-that-landed-me-with-pound-1m-bill-for-elton-libel.do

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Grum – I know and I was was cheating and being selective using the word…but you hadn’t answered the question. 😉 Nice to agree with you (and blimey with TJ here) for a change. Must be a good weekend!

    I dont think its acceptable but equally cant deny any Tabloid readers their wish to read their chosen paper and to vote.

    Bon nuit!

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    A referendum on whether or not to stay in the EU would have a massive impact on the economic future of this country, as well as on the rest of Europe. I really don’t believe that’s a decision that should be made by a group of people who are largely ignorant of the implications of either choice, and who don’t have the intellectual powers to assess those implications critically and come to a reasoned choice.

    Rationally, it seems on a par with creating a panel of laypeople to decide on the most appropriate treatment in the NHS – they simply wouldn’t be equipped with the knowledge and skills to make an informed decision. These decisions should be taken by the people we elect to do that job, and they should be held to account for the quality of their decision making.

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    I also think that any decision about a referendum on EU membership should be held over until the Scottish referendum on independence – It’ll be a bloody faff if we have to rejoin in six years time or so, not to mention the cost of trying to control immigration from our 3rd world neighbours ten years down the line when the English economy collapses…

    dekadanse
    Free Member

    ‘Little E-N-G-L-A-N-D’ la la la di la…………

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    A referendum on the EU is stupid and pointless – do you really think withdrawal would be in the UKs best interests?

    Thankfully I haven’t tortured myself by reading this thread, but that comment by TJ at the start of the thread drew my attention. Was there ever a greater contradiction in one sentence ?

    If you tell someone that a referendum on the EU is stupid and pointless, then why ask them whether they think withdrawal would be in the UKs best interests ?

    That’s the whole point of the referendum – to ask them whether they think withdrawal would be in the UKs best interests. So if you don’t want to ask them that question, then why are you asking them that question ?

    tree-magnet
    Free Member

    It seems to me that some people are confusing the EU with the EEC. There is nothing to stop the UK withdrawing from the EU but keeping all economic ties.

    Switzerland. They’re pretty small, out of the EU and doing fine.

    As for denying the public a vote on something because “the papers are corrupt”? That’s a pretty poor excuse. People are allowed to make an opinion. Regardless of what they base it on.

    I agree with TJ on his point on representative government, but the point here is that we’ve been promissed a choice at various points and then been denied it. If the majority of the population want something, then to be honest, politicans should be making it happen. They are public servants, after all. Put in place, by us, to carry out our will.

    mcboo
    Free Member

    Jackie Ashley in the Guardian

    Nor should we have any time for the elitist argument that e-petitions allow populist campaigns to get going. We trust people, or we don’t. From the banking crisis to immigration, the danger of millions of people feeling they have been shut out of parliamentary debate is far worse than any danger in allowing “difficult” ideas to make it on to the floor of the Commons.

    As it happens, there was a lot of hype about hanging returning as an issue because of e-petitions: the last time I looked, it hadn’t exactly attracted a mass movement of supporters. Even if it does, then it is up to progressives to get out there, mobilise, argue their case and defeat the argument, rather than having any truck with trying to muffle it.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/epetitions-rescue-ailing-wheezing-democracy

    El-bent
    Free Member

    It seems to me that some people are confusing the EU with the EEC. There is nothing to stop the UK withdrawing from the EU but keeping all economic ties.

    Switzerland. They’re pretty small, out of the EU and doing fine.

    🙄

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    If the UK leaves the EU we will be shunned by the other countries. We are not seen in a good light anyway with continual moaning, our government sitting with the racists on the far right of the parliament, constant grandstanding and so on, continual criticisms and the frank xenophobia from the tory “eurosceptics” There is no chance of any half way house. and it would be disastrous to leave

    For example

    At one point in the exchanges, Mr Sarkozy was quoted as telling Mr Cameron: “We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15425139

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    And remember folks Margaret always dug her heals in at the EU but signed on the line every time when treaties came up

    kimbers
    Full Member

    sarkozy slapping down Cameron is a good example of the cons grandstanding for domestic consumption while. marginalising themselves in Europe

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    As for denying the public a vote on something because “the papers are corrupt”? That’s a pretty poor excuse. People are allowed to make an opinion. Regardless of what they base it on.

    so you dont mind that the opinion is based on a distortion of reality – what if it is based on a malicous falsehood say a dossier on WMD 😯

    Markie
    Free Member

    kimbers – sarkozy slapping down Cameron is a good example of the cons grandstanding for domestic consumption while. marginalising themselves in Europe

    Disagree. Sarkozy was having a strop because

    Cameron, however, got his fellow leaders to insert into the final communique recognition that laws on the single market must be upheld and a level playing field safeguarded for countries not in the euro.

    Sarkozy was the one grandstanding for the home crowd.

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    Poor old Dave isn’t having a good time at the moment – last week it was Alex Salmond telling him to wind his neck in over the Scottish Independence referendum, now it’s Sarkozy bitch slapping him over the Euro.

    Must feel like he’s back fagging for the bigger boys…

    derekrides
    Free Member

    Here’s a little test to illustrate our current ‘market’ situation within the EU, it works against each and everyone of you.

    Right now, if you want to sell say your high end bike and another guy in Germany also has the same bike for sale and you both choose to use ebay. Your bike would earn more in Germany currently due to the strength of the Euro but hey that’s another matter.

    The fact is he could advertise his on ebay here, but you can’t there.

    You can’t set up a German ebay account to circumvent the rules either. Even if you do happen to live there a while and set up the account, once you come back here you’re IP blocked from operating it.

    Just one of the many little trade ‘barriers’ within the so called free market that acts against us .

    Now that, the free market, is supposed to be one of the benefits of membership, never mind the constant imbalance in financial contribution which is heavily weighted one way..

    It’s one of many examples of Nationalistic tendencies that are rife in business in both France and Germany, I could cite lots of similar little annoyances I’ve experienced over the years by firms I work for and friends who work in businesses that get hamstrung trying to export British goods and services.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Sarkozy is displaying the usual, “little man” symptoms when faced with a crisis. He knows that he is facing the decimation of his banking industry as a result of the crisis with the obvious implications of Fr tax-payers having to fund the re-capitalisation of the banks. Merkel is stone-walling him and Cameron is too. This is the sign of his (understandable) desperation.

    Behind this is each player pandering to his/her domestic audience. In the meantime, the world is moving on leaving the Eu politicians trailing in its wake. Plus ca change….

Viewing 40 posts - 121 through 160 (of 190 total)

The topic ‘The EU debate in Parliament tommorow…’ is closed to new replies.