The Student Room Group

Brexit: a Canadian's perspective

Scroll to see replies

Original post by offhegoes


"when you finally conceded that the Ottomans were worse than us."

No, I haven't said that at all. Feel free to browse our exchanges and refresh your memory.

Original post by offhegoes
I haven't said the Ottoman Empire wasn't worse.


Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

You like Latin! :smile:
Reply 41
Perhaps we should have a national holidays to celebrate that, whilst the British Empire did many terrible things, other empires also did terrible things? Name suggestions?
Reply 42
Original post by JezWeCan!
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

You like Latin! :smile:


I also haven't said that the sky isn't red. Surely you grasp that you've produced a much more textbook non-sequitur this time?
Original post by offhegoes
I also haven't said that the sky isn't red. Surely you grasp that you've produced a much more textbook non-sequitur this time?


If you weren't admitting that the Ottoman Empire was worse, what were you saying then?

Why make the comment at all?

Statements that are made to no purpose, which don't follow on from the preceding sense...now what are they termed? Hmmm... I've got it!

Non sequiturs. :biggrin:
Reply 44
Original post by JezWeCan!
If you weren't admitting that the Ottoman Empire was worse, what were you saying then?

Why make the comment at all?

Statements that are made to no purpose, which don't follow on from the preceding sense...now what are they termed? Hmmm... I've got it!

Non sequiturs. :biggrin:


Instead of discussing the atrocities commited by the British Empire, you have repeatedly clung to the defence that I must be wrong because the Ottoman Empire was, in your opinion worse.

My statement was to help you avoid slipping into the strawman fallacy of portraying my argument as being that the British Empire was the worst in order to attack that premise, instead of actually arguing the points I made.

So let's sum this up so far. You're telling me I said things which I didn't say. You're insisting I actually did say them, going as far as using the language of formal logic to assert the point despite their being no logic to your conclusion. So instead you're dismissing what I said as being irrelevant to the discussion. No doubt you'll come up with more reasons why I'm wrong and ill-informed without ever actually going to the bother of disputing anything I've said, instead resorting to ad-hominem attacks and harking back to what you felt I meant.

Hope to be proved wrong. Doubt it.

The British Empire commited an array of atrocities and these should be remembered as part of its history.
Original post by offhegoes


The British Empire commited an array of atrocities and these should be remembered as part of its history.


History is an interpretation of events in which some facts are emphasised and others down played or not mentioned at all.

It tells us more about the time it is written, almost, than it does about the time written about.

Plus, the longer ago the events described, the greater the perspective. We can see the consequences, longer term. As a Chinese thinker when asked in the later twentieth century what he thought were the consequences of the French Revolution remarked "it is too early to tell."

What we find of interest, worth remembering is different to what a historian a hundred years hence will notice.

We are too close to the end of Empire to form a balanced perspective. What we are currently witnessing is a time in which the "atrocities" are being over
emphasised, in my view, at the expense of the many many many positives.

That there were "atrocities" no-one denies. But they must be considered in relative terms, in contradistinction to other Empires. And by the standards of the time.

And balanced against the achievements which were of world historical importance. The British Empire rivals the Roman as a force for civilisation and good in the world.

Why do you (and you represent a shallow, group think trend) constantly emphasise how dreadful the Empire was, and never acknowledge (do you even realise?) the immense achievements?

Yes let's face up to the wickedness of the past, but it is all we ever hear about the British Empire.

(The Turks are different, they err in the other direction, denyng the Armenian holocaust even happened. That is even worse)

As I said in an earlier post, in the long term history will be very kind to the British Empire.

Anyway, I am done on this thread, wasted enough time on it, so won't reply to any response. Fill your boots. Goodbye!
Reply 46
Original post by JezWeCan!

Why do you (and you represent a shallow, group think trend) constantly emphasise how dreadful the Empire was, and never acknowledge (do you even realise?) the immense achievements?

Anyway, I am done on this thread, wasted enough time on it, so won't reply to any response. Fill your boots. Goodbye!


Couldn't resist one last unsubstantiated ad hominem attack could you :wink:
Original post by XcitingStuart
But it is undemocratic, you fool.

We elect / vote in people (MPs) who can vote for/against / propose legislation in the House of Commons (UK).

We elect / vote in people (MEPs) who can not propose, appeal or amend legislation in the European Parliament (EU).


You lose me as to why you'd sacrifice your democracy for something with little economic benefits.

Spoiler

The decrease in living costs and the increase in wages benefits everyone.


"fool" :biggrin:

"We elect / vote in people (MEPs) who can not propose, appeal or amend legislation in the European Parliament (EU)."


This is oversimplification and false. In fact, the below excerpt is from your own link

wikipedia
Under the co-decision procedure, they (the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union) each have up to three readings of legislative proposals put forward by the European Commission in which they can each amend the proposal, but must ultimately approve a text in identical terms for it to be passed


Complaining you are not getting your way undemocratic


....Now lets see your "economic" reasons:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler


... So really your "economic" reasons are just astonishing and ludicrous :colonhash:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TaintedLight
"fool" :biggrin:



This is oversimplification and false. In fact, the below excerpt is from your own link



Complaining you are not getting your way undemocratic


....Now lets see your "economic" reasons:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

... So really your "economic" reasons are just astonishing and ludicrous :colonhash:


I don't have time to reply in full right now, but in reply to point 2, just because a country finds it unfavourable, doesn't mean they'd stop trading with us.
Original post by TaintedLight
This is oversimplification and false. In fact, the below excerpt is from your own link


So you're quoting a source that agrees with their point to try to rebut their argument, I must say I've not seen that done in some time.

As for your economic point too, you do realise how insulting that comment is to America because it implies that suddenly America is incapable of negotiating several things at a time, and if I were you I would be listening to Trump, not Obama, I don't see how the current president is relevant when they're leaving office in 7 months.

As for EU foreign aid, you might want to take a look at how much it is and where it goes, and then how to help people.

Neither the gross budget contribution often used, nor the net are good measures, the best figure is the post rebate figure.
Original post by XcitingStuart
I don't have time to reply in full right now, but in reply to point 2, just because a country finds it unfavourable, doesn't mean they'd stop trading with us.


Take your time :yy:

Original post by Jammy Duel
So you're quoting a source that agrees with their point to try to rebut their argument, I must say I've not seen that done in some time.

As for your economic point too, you do realise how insulting that comment is to America because it implies that suddenly America is incapable of negotiating several things at a time, and if I were you I would be listening to Trump, not Obama, I don't see how the current president is relevant when they're leaving office in 7 months.

As for EU foreign aid, you might want to take a look at how much it is and where it goes, and then how to help people.

Neither the gross budget contribution often used, nor the net are good measures, the best figure is the post rebate figure.


You sit back and stick to reading. I'll deal with any of the above if Stuart brings it up.

Meanwhile, do you plan to respond in the other brexit thread?
Original post by The Roast
Hear! Hear!

I fear that the 18-24 year cucks will be the end of it though...



Original post by Dandaman1
I've been watching the Brexit debate unfold from "across the pond" with great interest (a lot of us have, actually). As someone who lived in the UK for a while, I see it as a second home. Therefore I find myself with an emotional stake in this.

My feeling, shared by many here it seems, is that you should leave. You're obviously not happy with your relationship with the EU, and why you would opt to remain shackled to something so undemocratic and restrictive is hard to understand. That choking, beaurocratic mass pulls you in ever closer by the decade. It eats away at your sovereignty, your identity, and castrates your economic and democratic freedom. Now you're being given what will probably be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave.

Use it.

Will there be economic repercussions? Probably, but Britain is a strong nation, with strong diplomatic ties outside of Europe. See this as an opportunity to start something fresh, to build beyond Europe, and win back some pride.

What great nation can't even determine most of its own economic policies, control its own borders, or decide some of the most basic things about products and services?


No, the reason why we're remaining is because we are international country. We WILL remain, here some things I don't get about brexiters:

> Why leave when we're #1 in soft power in the world because of EU.
> Why leave EU if we're expected to be EU biggest economy in near future.
> Why leave if we can go anywhere in Europe easily.
> What about people who are on low wages/going to university/getting part-time job as a student? Unemployment will obviously rise.. what about those people hm? Wouldn't lack of investment and inflation sky-rocket tution fees again?
Original post by TaintedLight
Take your time :yy:



You sit back and stick to reading. I'll deal with any of the above if Stuart brings it up.

Meanwhile, do you plan to respond in the other brexit thread?


Which one, most probably?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ckfeister
No, the reason why we're remaining is because we are international country. We WILL remain, here some things I don't get about brexiters:

> Why leave when we're #1 in soft power in the world because of EU.
> Why leave EU if we're expected to be EU biggest economy in near future.
> Why leave if we can go anywhere in Europe easily.
> What about people who are on low wages/going to university/getting part-time job as a student? Unemployment will obviously rise.. what about those people hm? Wouldn't lack of investment and inflation sky-rocket tution fees again?


Because it isn't due to the EU
Because there is more to it than being the biggest Economy, if the size of the economy were everything then why has 40 years of reform achieved nothing?
Because we can easily travel after leaving too, last time you went to the continental EU did you need your passport? You'll find the answer is yes, so what exactly is changing? We go from no visa and a passport to...no visa and a passport.
And rise by how much for how long and recovering when? Oh, I forgot, everybody is too busy being a short termist.

If we're such an international country then why are we shutting out the world and not embracing it?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Because it isn't due to the EU
Because there is more to it than being the biggest Economy, if the size of the economy were everything then why has 40 years of reform achieved nothing?
Because we can easily travel after leaving too, last time you went to the continental EU did you need your passport? You'll find the answer is yes, so what exactly is changing? We go from no visa and a passport to...no visa and a passport.
And rise by how much for how long and recovering when? Oh, I forgot, everybody is too busy being a short termist.

If we're such an international country then why are we shutting out the world and not embracing it?

Posted from TSR Mobile


What on Earth you on about? Go and look at everything you see see where its all made from, not everything is European, barely anything is. This " rise " also affects us in short-term because its us who is PAYING THE DEBT being WORSE OFF in short-term, also not to forget short-term could be 10 years or I could be 30 years by then I'd be middle aged and don't want that to happen as its almost half of my life time.
We should help Europe fixing these problems, not leaving it then throwing the entire project away, don't forget who came up with the idea.. CHURCHILL, what will he do?
Original post by ckfeister
What on Earth you on about? Go and look at everything you see see where its all made from, not everything is European, barely anything is. This " rise " also affects us in short-term because its us who is PAYING THE DEBT being WORSE OFF in short-term, also not to forget short-term could be 10 years or I could be 30 years by then I'd be middle aged and don't want that to happen as its almost half of my life time.
We should help Europe fixing these problems, not leaving it then throwing the entire project away, don't forget who came up with the idea.. CHURCHILL, what will he do?


Sort term as in a few years, merely to reconcile the treasury reports necessitates either no real impact, or a stronger economy for it (or, far more likely, they are inaccurate). It also has to be remembered that increasing a debt that you write off has no effect on what is paid back.

And Churchill did not create the idea, he endorsed it, and he wouldn't have had us join in the first place.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Sort term as in a few years, merely to reconcile the treasury reports necessitates either no real impact, or a stronger economy for it (or, far more likely, they are inaccurate). It also has to be remembered that increasing a debt that you write off has no effect on what is paid back.

And Churchill did not create the idea, he endorsed it, and he wouldn't have had us join in the first place.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I have a personal reason to why I'm voting in. I know remain side is doing lies about we be poorer blah blah, we won't be much. My main reason to remain: get a part-time job and get df out of my parents house.
Original post by ckfeister
I have a personal reason to why I'm voting in. I know remain side is doing lies about we be poorer blah blah, we won't be much. My main reason to remain: get a part-time job and get df out of my parents house.


And somehow leaving makes finding part time work an impossibility?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
And somehow leaving makes finding part time work an impossibility?

Posted from TSR Mobile


More harder, obviously unemployment will rise could only be a little but will lower chance of getting a job.
Original post by ckfeister
More harder, obviously unemployment will rise could only be a little but will lower chance of getting a job.


Good English tends to help

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest