As Dawkins said this morn.

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    I'm happy to address this :)

    "You call it undemocratic because it doesn't suit you agenda on this Brexit issue. I call it rational and reasonable. And you will know that other political experts and commentators will also argue this point - there are some issues of such great complexity and of such great constitutional importance - and which is so open to abuse by populist rantings - that they are simply not fit for a simplistic democratic vote by largely uninformed folk."

    No. I call it undemocratic because it's undemocratic. When you say that the people shouldn't be allowed a vote you are being undemocratic. It's not hard, it's contained in the word. Unless you are one of the undemocratic ones trying to wriggle. Like your good self. :)

    "other political experts..." So is it yourself or Dawkins that you are claiming to be a political expert there? Or both of you? Don't bother answering that, you've said enough already :D

    I absolutely agree that such a vote is open to abuse, which is why I stated earlier in the thread that the 'revelation' of the Brexit vote is that the political establishment will lie and lie and lie and not offer up facts in their campaigns. Why do I have to repeat that? Imho, this should be an area of huge public focus, but it isn't. Not helped by folk such as yourself....or Richard Dawkins.
    The answer to the issue is not less democracy, it's more of it! Or at least some of it :(

    Fair enough, you appear to believe that representative democracy in it's current form, works. You appear to believe that people shouldn't have a say in matters of import. Go you.

    However, I disagree.
    Bite me :p
    longboat likes this.
  2. And good night.
  3. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    Good night DA. Sleep tight :)
  4. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    6 minutes gone and you still haven't. :eek::eek:
  5. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    I have though. Honest :D
  6. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Christ, is this Monty Pythons "Ministry for Arguments" ?????
    P J Thompson likes this.
  7. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

  8. Good morning!

    Now, where were we?

    QUOTE="btiw2 A couple of things. Just because I'm familiar with someone's work it doesn't mean I agree with them. Ditto. Even if I agree with most of what they say it doesn't mean I defend everything they say. Ditto.

    After PJ posted the links you backed the comments, then doubled down, then tripled down, then quadrupled down. Yes, I can see that - but not for the reasons you suspect. I thought we were discussing 'reason' and sh** like that, not a character assassination.

    BTIW2: That was frustrating. If you'd just started with Devil's Advocate said:

    I have not, in this thread, tried to defend Dawkin's turn of phrase in 'that' tweet - I totally get why its bluntness may have offended, and I would also agree that a limited-character 'tweet' may not have been the best outlet for making it in the first place. I am answering now after it was others - including yourself - who have tried to do the opposite.

    then I'd have held back.

    Fair do's. Then again, if PJ had said: "He's a real sweetheart - but please note I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the actual content, but simply pointing out that he's a horrible person at times and therefore you can forget what he has to say about Brexit" way back in post #4, then much of this could have been avoided. Yes?

    Good. Sometimes we all need a smack in the gob. Too darned right :)
  9. You're obsessed.
  10. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Post #4? What are you on about? Post #4 is where I said:
    and I ... ah ... ummm ... errr ... oh ... ooops.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  11. :)
  12. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    It's reason, rationality, emotion and gut instinct that tells me that when Dawkins (and DA) say that people shouldn't get to vote on important issues, they are being undemocratic.

    How you and Dawkins can reasonably and rationally suggest it isn't undemocratic is beyond me. This brings both your and his reasoning and rationality into question.

    Good grief it's like walking through treacle or convincing HA that alternators need power.

    If you rely on things like appeals to authority, expect your examples of authority to be examined and questioned.
    If you regularly go about the place tackling the player not the ball, expect the same when you make appeals to authority. (However in this instance, I'm tackling both)
    Especially when they are undemocratic, insensitive intellectual snobs....

    I really am bored of this now.
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  13. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    It was interesting that R4 had to do a piece this morning attempting to clear up the latest mess caused by Dawkins. :D
  14. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    Surely what Dawkins is saying is that there are some big complex decisions that the general public should leave to those who have been elected and who are in a far better position to understand all the issues and come to a balanced and considered view. I would tend to agree with that, and Brexit being one of those issues. It comes down to which kinds of decisions should be put to the public in a referendum. It also has to do with how information is disseminated and how the "for" and "against" parties put their side of the argument.

    One of the big issues with the Brexit vote was the lies that were spewed by both camps. I firmly believe the public were not in a good position to vote on this topic since they didn't have a reasonable understanding of the consequences. That's partly due to the complexity of the topic and partly due to the way the campaigns were run.
  15. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Yes. I agree that is what Dawkins is saying.

    However, I tend to disagree that this was one of those issues.

    The question was a simple one.
    We didn't ask voters a technical question, they vote on the direction and rely on professionals (stifles laugh) to carry out their will.

    Yes, the consequences are difficult to explain to people, but information was available to the electorate without needing to trust the rhetoric from the campaigns.
    For financial consequences the FT and the Economist covered this, or papers from the LSE, or.. well, let's just say the electorate didn't have to get their facts from a bus or the Express.
    If the electorate felt that they'd "had enough of experts" - well, that's their right too. It's incredible, but that's how our franchise works.
    For legal and policy issues then most EU policies are available online and are surprisingly readable. They're often not read, but they are available.

    I believe that few people researched the economic and policy implications, but I don't want a governments that's so paternalistic that it doesn't trust its citizens.

    I'm also trying to console myself by taking the long view. I think the Brexit process and consequences will provide an education to the British people. Education's good, right?

    So half jokingly: I don't trust British citizens, I think we're idiots, but I don't want my Government to start thinking like that.
  16. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    You think successive governments haven't thought the British people are idiots?
  17. Surely, pretty much as Dr Bodgit says.

    Why do we have MP's? If not to to decide and sort the country's future and act in our best interests. It is why we vote for them (in theory anyway). It can be argued that it is not democratic.

    But if we have a referendum on something as important as Brexit, then why not on the NHS, or pensions, or defence policy, or transport, or any other subject?

    What makes us informed enough to vote on brexit directly, but nothing else.

    If that is what Dawkins is saying (or trying to), then I would like to see convincing arguments against it.

    As regards crime and scales of crime, every crime is different as are the reasons and complexities behind it. Take rape as an example (and I do not dismiss any rape as being not serioys to the injured person). There is rape at knifepoint, date rape, and 2 under 16 year olds having sex with both agreeing. But it is all rape. Does it all have the same result and need the same penalty? Maybe, maybe not, its not an argument I know enough about to decide. So lets not have a referendum about that.
    Dr Bodgit likes this.
  18. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    We know what the politicians say (not necessarily think) by using this link:"the british people are"

    I particularly like this one:

    See! Mr Cash doesn't think the British people are stupid. His taxi driver told him so.
    Perhaps we live in a cabrocracy. One driver, one vote - unless it's after eleven, I ain't voting south of the river after eleven.
  19. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I wouldn't say the British people are idiots, but they're hardly the most rationale lot. Which is why they shouldn't be trusted to make big decisions that affect us all.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice