The EU is being outrageously pathetic
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SHallowvale
Why?
From a realpolitik perspective and a moral (you would say ideological) perspective (I'm socially conservative)
Original post by Starship Trooper
From a realpolitik perspective and a moral (you would say ideological) perspective (I'm socially conservative)
May you elaborate further? What benefits would we see, be it from a "realpolitik" perspective or a moral perspective?
Original post by SHallowvale
May you elaborate further? What benefits would we see, be it from a "realpolitik" perspective or a moral perspective?
So that's quite a complex and multi faceted question. I will try and keep it brief. In short the liberal hegemony that has existed since the end of cold war is collapsing and we are entering a new duopoly between 'liberal' states (US and Western Europe) Vs 'Conservative' states (Russia, China and eastern Europe)... This is a slight oversimplification but is broadly correct.
I am almost certain that the 'conservative' states will win (and deservedly so). Liberalism is in dissaray and falling apart under its own contradictions.
The US is not going to be able to afford to garrison Europe and act as the world politice even if it's population wanted it too. All over Europe right wing populists are growing and even if they are not successful are hugely disrupting the business as usual - eg see Sweden where you have FIVE partppies working together to stop the Sweden Democrats.
Then you get to domestic issues-
High immigration from disparate groups leads to social incohesion and wealth inequality benefitting the few. Observe BLM groups defacing Churchill statues, Kurds having street wars with Turks in Germany and the dumpster fire that was Sweden.
In order to unite such disparate groups as above including liberals and sexual and ethnic minorities liberals have to unite them against white majority and social conservatives to divide and conquer (the same applies in reverse also).
In an attempt to try and combat the above liberal countries have to introduce even tougher speech laws, attacks on civil liberties and censorship: undermining their own freedoms.
So far the EU appears to have threatened blocked a country’s border without discussing it with the government.
Broken the Northern Ireland protocol treaty.
Threaten to steel Intellectual property.
Intimidate the only pharmaceutical company producing vaccines not for profit.
Spent less per capita on vaccine research by a factor of at least 4 compared to the U.K. and US.
It has however managed to make
Poorer European country’s rely on one of the most expensive for profit vaccines that has been developed by a German bio tech company who’s main European production hub is a German pharmaceutical giant.
Relied on an unproven French vaccine and planned around that working.
The EU has also tried to use the moral argument against vaccine nationalism by demanding that 17% of the worlds vaccine supply be rushed to 5% of the worlds population.
Broken the Northern Ireland protocol treaty.
Threaten to steel Intellectual property.
Intimidate the only pharmaceutical company producing vaccines not for profit.
Spent less per capita on vaccine research by a factor of at least 4 compared to the U.K. and US.
It has however managed to make
Poorer European country’s rely on one of the most expensive for profit vaccines that has been developed by a German bio tech company who’s main European production hub is a German pharmaceutical giant.
Relied on an unproven French vaccine and planned around that working.
The EU has also tried to use the moral argument against vaccine nationalism by demanding that 17% of the worlds vaccine supply be rushed to 5% of the worlds population.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Starship Trooper
So that's quite a complex and multi faceted question. I will try and keep it brief. In short the liberal hegemony that has existed since the end of cold war is collapsing and we are entering a new duopoly between 'liberal' states (US and Western Europe) Vs 'Conservative' states (Russia, China and eastern Europe)... This is a slight oversimplification but is broadly correct.
I am almost certain that the 'conservative' states will win (and deservedly so). Liberalism is in dissaray and falling apart under its own contradictions.
The US is not going to be able to afford to garrison Europe and act as the world politice even if it's population wanted it too. All over Europe right wing populists are growing and even if they are not successful are hugely disrupting the business as usual - eg see Sweden where you have FIVE partppies working together to stop the Sweden Democrats.
Then you get to domestic issues-
High immigration from disparate groups leads to social incohesion and wealth inequality benefitting the few. Observe BLM groups defacing Churchill statues, Kurds having street wars with Turks in Germany and the dumpster fire that was Sweden.
In order to unite such disparate groups as above including liberals and sexual and ethnic minorities liberals have to unite them against white majority and social conservatives to divide and conquer (the same applies in reverse also).
In an attempt to try and combat the above liberal countries have to introduce even tougher speech laws, attacks on civil liberties and censorship: undermining their own freedoms.
I am almost certain that the 'conservative' states will win (and deservedly so). Liberalism is in dissaray and falling apart under its own contradictions.
The US is not going to be able to afford to garrison Europe and act as the world politice even if it's population wanted it too. All over Europe right wing populists are growing and even if they are not successful are hugely disrupting the business as usual - eg see Sweden where you have FIVE partppies working together to stop the Sweden Democrats.
Then you get to domestic issues-
High immigration from disparate groups leads to social incohesion and wealth inequality benefitting the few. Observe BLM groups defacing Churchill statues, Kurds having street wars with Turks in Germany and the dumpster fire that was Sweden.
In order to unite such disparate groups as above including liberals and sexual and ethnic minorities liberals have to unite them against white majority and social conservatives to divide and conquer (the same applies in reverse also).
In an attempt to try and combat the above liberal countries have to introduce even tougher speech laws, attacks on civil liberties and censorship: undermining their own freedoms.
What makes you think that the 'Conservative' states will 'win'? And 'win' what, exactly?
You still haven't said what benefits we would get, either politically or morally, from joining with countries like Russia, Poland and Hungary. The topic itself is very broad, so perhaps narrow it down to the moral benefits?
Original post by SHallowvale
What makes you think that the 'Conservative' states will 'win'? And 'win' what, exactly?
You still haven't said what benefits we would get, either politically or morally, from joining with countries like Russia, Poland and Hungary. The topic itself is very broad, so perhaps narrow it down to the moral benefits?
You still haven't said what benefits we would get, either politically or morally, from joining with countries like Russia, Poland and Hungary. The topic itself is very broad, so perhaps narrow it down to the moral benefits?
I believe they win because of the reasons stated above (social incohesion of liberal states) and will win in the sense that the west 'won' the cold war. Liberal states will be driven into a series of worsening crises which will impact their ability to project power (both hard and soft)
The moral benefits will be being able to address the problems I listed that liberal states possess which we are prevented from dealing with effectively by various international laws and NGOs tied to liberal state institutions. These also encapsulate the moral dimension of liberal states which is: secular, multicultural and individualist which I believe leads to a consumerist and nihilistic (evil in my view) culture as opposed to the Christian/ National Communitarianism promoted by Conservative states.
This is of course, rose tinted and generalised (but still broadly true) I'm not for a second saying that conservative states do not have issues like corruption or other problems. That said I do believe that they are better equipped to deal with their problems than the West theirs. Through communism the eastern states have gone through a traumatic process which is what the west is going through now through the gradual abolition of religion and liberty and as such are better equipped to deal with turmoil than western ones.
If you would like to understand my views more I suggest you read/ listen to the IR scholar Professor John Mearsheimer and the UK Journalist Peter Hitchens (I don't agree with them on everything but they're broadly right)
Original post by Starship Trooper
I believe they win because of the reasons stated above (social incohesion of liberal states) and will win in the sense that the west 'won' the cold war. Liberal states will be driven into a series of worsening crises which will impact their ability to project power (both hard and soft)
The moral benefits will be being able to address the problems I listed that liberal states possess which we are prevented from dealing with effectively by various international laws and NGOs tied to liberal state institutions. These also encapsulate the moral dimension of liberal states which is: secular, multicultural and individualist which I believe leads to a consumerist and nihilistic (evil in my view) culture as opposed to the Christian/ National Communitarianism promoted by Conservative states.
This is of course, rose tinted and generalised (but still broadly true) I'm not for a second saying that conservative states do not have issues like corruption or other problems. That said I do believe that they are better equipped to deal with their problems than the West theirs. Through communism the eastern states have gone through a traumatic process which is what the west is going through now through the gradual abolition of religion and liberty and as such are better equipped to deal with turmoil than western ones.
If you would like to understand my views more I suggest you read/ listen to the IR scholar Professor John Mearsheimer and the UK Journalist Peter Hitchens (I don't agree with them on everything but they're broadly right)
The moral benefits will be being able to address the problems I listed that liberal states possess which we are prevented from dealing with effectively by various international laws and NGOs tied to liberal state institutions. These also encapsulate the moral dimension of liberal states which is: secular, multicultural and individualist which I believe leads to a consumerist and nihilistic (evil in my view) culture as opposed to the Christian/ National Communitarianism promoted by Conservative states.
This is of course, rose tinted and generalised (but still broadly true) I'm not for a second saying that conservative states do not have issues like corruption or other problems. That said I do believe that they are better equipped to deal with their problems than the West theirs. Through communism the eastern states have gone through a traumatic process which is what the west is going through now through the gradual abolition of religion and liberty and as such are better equipped to deal with turmoil than western ones.
If you would like to understand my views more I suggest you read/ listen to the IR scholar Professor John Mearsheimer and the UK Journalist Peter Hitchens (I don't agree with them on everything but they're broadly right)
What sort of solutions would you like to see to the "liberal state" problems you listed above that are not already attainable given our current international relationships? Why should we move to something less secular and less multicultural, when the world itself is (rightfully) becoming increasingly secular and multicultural?
I'd also point out that the two issues you've listed are not the sort of issues that are going to break the UK, let alone any other country. BLM protesters defacing a statue, for example, is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Original post by SHallowvale
What sort of solutions would you like to see to the "liberal state" problems you listed above that are not already attainable given our current international relationships? Why should we move to something less secular and less multicultural, when the world itself is (rightfully) becoming increasingly secular and multicultural?
I'd also point out that the two issues you've listed are not the sort of issues that are going to break the UK, let alone any other country. BLM protesters defacing a statue, for example, is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
I'd also point out that the two issues you've listed are not the sort of issues that are going to break the UK, let alone any other country. BLM protesters defacing a statue, for example, is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
+I would want to make the UK a 'safe space' for heterosexual Christian families
+Much stricter laws around immigration and deporting foreign terrorists or just executing them
+Harsher sentences for severe crimes
+Scrapping 'No fault Divorce'
+Banning Porn
Among other things (Most of these would count as HR violations and even if successful would cost a huge amount of money. Some of these Poland for example are doing but are facing lots of international and domestic pressure to stop.
I do not think the world is getting more multicultural or secular other than the West and that this is not a good thing for us but again this is my perspective. I think society was far better overall for the majority of the population in the 50's than presently.
History is littered with things that people thought trivial at the time but turned out to have major consequences on the future. This is one of many canaries in the coalmine. Sure it might be dealable with now whilst UK in a majority white country what about when the BAME population doubles? You don't have to imagine: watch the riots in America - entire cities ablaze and whole communites devastated.
(If you support BLM then fair enough you may view the riots as a just cause I just disagree with your views. Of course the implementation of my policies will also lead to probable violence too)
Original post by Starship Trooper
+I would want to make the UK a 'safe space' for heterosexual Christian families
+Much stricter laws around immigration and deporting foreign terrorists or just executing them
+Harsher sentences for severe crimes
+Scrapping 'No fault Divorce'
+Banning Porn
Among other things (Most of these would count as HR violations and even if successful would cost a huge amount of money. Some of these Poland for example are doing but are facing lots of international and domestic pressure to stop.
I do not think the world is getting more multicultural or secular other than the West and that this is not a good thing for us but again this is my perspective. I think society was far better overall for the majority of the population in the 50's than presently.
History is littered with things that people thought trivial at the time but turned out to have major consequences on the future. This is one of many canaries in the coalmine. Sure it might be dealable with now whilst UK in a majority white country what about when the BAME population doubles? You don't have to imagine: watch the riots in America - entire cities ablaze and whole communites devastated.
(If you support BLM then fair enough you may view the riots as a just cause I just disagree with your views. Of course the implementation of my policies will also lead to probable violence too)
+Much stricter laws around immigration and deporting foreign terrorists or just executing them
+Harsher sentences for severe crimes
+Scrapping 'No fault Divorce'
+Banning Porn
Among other things (Most of these would count as HR violations and even if successful would cost a huge amount of money. Some of these Poland for example are doing but are facing lots of international and domestic pressure to stop.
I do not think the world is getting more multicultural or secular other than the West and that this is not a good thing for us but again this is my perspective. I think society was far better overall for the majority of the population in the 50's than presently.
History is littered with things that people thought trivial at the time but turned out to have major consequences on the future. This is one of many canaries in the coalmine. Sure it might be dealable with now whilst UK in a majority white country what about when the BAME population doubles? You don't have to imagine: watch the riots in America - entire cities ablaze and whole communites devastated.
(If you support BLM then fair enough you may view the riots as a just cause I just disagree with your views. Of course the implementation of my policies will also lead to probable violence too)
The UK already is a safe space for heterosexual Christian families. Strict immigration laws, deporting foreign terrorists, harsher sentences for severe crimes, scrapping 'No fault divorce' and banning pornography are all possible given our current international relations. We don't need to side with Russia, Poland or Hungary to get any of these done. Furthermore, why should we want to get any of these done?
Why was life better for people in the 50s than it is today? Did you live in the 50s yourself?
What has the UK being a majority white country got to do with whether people who graffiti a statue are 'dealable'?
Original post by SHallowvale
The UK already is a safe space for heterosexual Christian families. Strict immigration laws, deporting foreign terrorists, harsher sentences for severe crimes, scrapping 'No fault divorce' and banning pornography are all possible given our current international relations. We don't need to side with Russia, Poland or Hungary to get any of these done. Furthermore, why should we want to get any of these done?
Why was life better for people in the 50s than it is today? Did you live in the 50s yourself?
What has the UK being a majority white country got to do with whether people who graffiti a statue are 'dealable'?
Why was life better for people in the 50s than it is today? Did you live in the 50s yourself?
What has the UK being a majority white country got to do with whether people who graffiti a statue are 'dealable'?
I disagree- not only do they face censorship for their views but also certain things should be prohibited and others privileged such as marriage. I can't say what social practices should be stopped because it will subject me to censorship.
I do not believe they are achievable in a liberal state and Im confident that groups like the ECHR would agree. There are of course ways to get around it eg* , I suppose and it would be possible to in effect be an illiberal liberal state but this really bothers me- if we don't follow a Law we should just scrap it.
No we don't have to get support from Poland et al to do those things but they will naturally be more sympathetic to the cause and ideally join us.
I have already given arguments as to why i would support some of the above.
I have already given reasons for why I would support the above. In the case of porn I believe it is doing terrible damage to men and society and often leads to addiction. I also believe that abstinence lin this area leads to increased testosterone, confidence and well-being.
You can read Peter Hitchens 'abolition of Britain' as to why I think we have made a number of huge mistakes since the 50s (theres lots of YouTube videos about it too if you're skint but you should read it).PH did
Live through the 50s and is pretty frank about how bad some of it is and isn't sentimental about it.
Many people have the bizarre idea that minority ethnic people should naturally respect important people in western history who usually fail to meet today's PC standards such as the Founding Father's or Cecil Rhodes . I do not think we should have to erase our heritage or apologize for what our ancestors did to protect the feelings of immigrants. I'm not necessarily against Multi racial democracy in theory but I strongly support a dominant monoculture.
*https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/russian-federation-constitutional-court-allows-country-to-ignore-echr-rulings/
Original post by Starship Trooper
I disagree- not only do they face censorship for their views but also certain things should be prohibited and others privileged such as marriage. I can't say what social practices should be stopped because it will subject me to censorship.
I do not believe they are achievable in a liberal state and Im confident that groups like the ECHR would agree. There are of course ways to get around it eg* , I suppose and it would be possible to in effect be an illiberal liberal state but this really bothers me- if we don't follow a Law we should just scrap it.
No we don't have to get support from Poland et al to do those things but they will naturally be more sympathetic to the cause and ideally join us.
I have already given arguments as to why i would support some of the above.
I have already given reasons for why I would support the above. In the case of porn I believe it is doing terrible damage to men and society and often leads to addiction. I also believe that abstinence lin this area leads to increased testosterone, confidence and well-being.
You can read Peter Hitchens 'abolition of Britain' as to why I think we have made a number of huge mistakes since the 50s (theres lots of YouTube videos about it too if you're skint but you should read it).PH did
Live through the 50s and is pretty frank about how bad some of it is and isn't sentimental about it.
Many people have the bizarre idea that minority ethnic people should naturally respect important people in western history who usually fail to meet today's PC standards such as the Founding Father's or Cecil Rhodes . I do not think we should have to erase our heritage or apologize for what our ancestors did to protect the feelings of immigrants. I'm not necessarily against Multi racial democracy in theory but I strongly support a dominant monoculture.
*https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/russian-federation-constitutional-court-allows-country-to-ignore-echr-rulings/
I do not believe they are achievable in a liberal state and Im confident that groups like the ECHR would agree. There are of course ways to get around it eg* , I suppose and it would be possible to in effect be an illiberal liberal state but this really bothers me- if we don't follow a Law we should just scrap it.
No we don't have to get support from Poland et al to do those things but they will naturally be more sympathetic to the cause and ideally join us.
I have already given arguments as to why i would support some of the above.
I have already given reasons for why I would support the above. In the case of porn I believe it is doing terrible damage to men and society and often leads to addiction. I also believe that abstinence lin this area leads to increased testosterone, confidence and well-being.
You can read Peter Hitchens 'abolition of Britain' as to why I think we have made a number of huge mistakes since the 50s (theres lots of YouTube videos about it too if you're skint but you should read it).PH did
Live through the 50s and is pretty frank about how bad some of it is and isn't sentimental about it.
Many people have the bizarre idea that minority ethnic people should naturally respect important people in western history who usually fail to meet today's PC standards such as the Founding Father's or Cecil Rhodes . I do not think we should have to erase our heritage or apologize for what our ancestors did to protect the feelings of immigrants. I'm not necessarily against Multi racial democracy in theory but I strongly support a dominant monoculture.
*https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/russian-federation-constitutional-court-allows-country-to-ignore-echr-rulings/
Could you give examples of the sort of censorship that heterosexual Christian families face? With regards to everything else, all you've really given me are a list of things you think should happen with little to no reason why you believe what you believe.
What damage do you think porn is doing to men / society? Do you have any evidence that porn leads to addiction? Having searched, there is very little evidence that abstinence raises testosterone (studies are either conflicted or have very small sample sizes), nor can I find anything regarding confidence or well-being.
I'm not really interested in what Peter Hitchen's believes; I'm interested in what you believe. If this is the reason why you have your beliefs then you should be able to relay the ideas that were given in that book.
Original post by SHallowvale
Could you give examples of the sort of censorship that heterosexual Christian families face? With regards to everything else, all you've really given me are a list of things you think should happen with little to no reason why you believe what you believe.
What damage do you think porn is doing to men / society? Do you have any evidence that porn leads to addiction? Having searched, there is very little evidence that abstinence raises testosterone (studies are either conflicted or have very small sample sizes), nor can I find anything regarding confidence or well-being.
I'm not really interested in what Peter Hitchen's believes; I'm interested in what you believe. If this is the reason why you have your beliefs then you should be able to relay the ideas that were given in that book.
What damage do you think porn is doing to men / society? Do you have any evidence that porn leads to addiction? Having searched, there is very little evidence that abstinence raises testosterone (studies are either conflicted or have very small sample sizes), nor can I find anything regarding confidence or well-being.
I'm not really interested in what Peter Hitchen's believes; I'm interested in what you believe. If this is the reason why you have your beliefs then you should be able to relay the ideas that were given in that book.
Censorship online (through Selectively applied ToS) , censorship at university campus's and for being fired for religious beliefs around certain ungodly practises. It is legal to be A Christian but it's not legal to be a Christian and talk about things from s religious perspective as it may offend people.
If you think I haven't given you any reasons to why I think what I do then I suggest you read again- I believe I have been very clear. I do not agree morally with social liberalism and think that it produces an ugly, shallow inferior society of soy men. I do not need some Goldman Sachs study to prove that to you just open your eyes: this society is sick. Thank God it'll be over soon.
I'm not going to waste either of our time any more on this subject. Good day
Original post by SHallowvale
Could you give examples of the sort of censorship that heterosexual Christian families face? With regards to everything else, all you've really given me are a list of things you think should happen with little to no reason why you believe what you believe.
What damage do you think porn is doing to men / society? Do you have any evidence that porn leads to addiction? Having searched, there is very little evidence that abstinence raises testosterone (studies are either conflicted or have very small sample sizes), nor can I find anything regarding confidence or well-being.
I'm not really interested in what Peter Hitchen's believes; I'm interested in what you believe. If this is the reason why you have your beliefs then you should be able to relay the ideas that were given in that book.
What damage do you think porn is doing to men / society? Do you have any evidence that porn leads to addiction? Having searched, there is very little evidence that abstinence raises testosterone (studies are either conflicted or have very small sample sizes), nor can I find anything regarding confidence or well-being.
I'm not really interested in what Peter Hitchen's believes; I'm interested in what you believe. If this is the reason why you have your beliefs then you should be able to relay the ideas that were given in that book.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs
Original post by Starship Trooper
Censorship online (through Selectively applied ToS) , censorship at university campus's and for being fired for religious beliefs around certain ungodly practises. It is legal to be A Christian but it's not legal to be a Christian and talk about things from s religious perspective as it may offend people.
If you think I haven't given you any reasons to why I think what I do then I suggest you read again- I believe I have been very clear. I do not agree morally with social liberalism and think that it produces an ugly, shallow inferior society of soy men. I do not need some Goldman Sachs study to prove that to you just open your eyes: this society is sick. Thank God it'll be over soon.
I'm not going to waste either of our time any more on this subject. Good day
If you think I haven't given you any reasons to why I think what I do then I suggest you read again- I believe I have been very clear. I do not agree morally with social liberalism and think that it produces an ugly, shallow inferior society of soy men. I do not need some Goldman Sachs study to prove that to you just open your eyes: this society is sick. Thank God it'll be over soon.
I'm not going to waste either of our time any more on this subject. Good day
I'm well aware of what you believe, what you haven't said is why you believe it. If you elaborate on this then we can actually have a conversation. All you've done at the moment is preach, and when pressed on anything you fall back to 'It's just what I believe'.
Why does social liberalism produce an "ugly, shallow inferior society of soy men"? In what way is society sick? I've 'opened my eyes' plenty and I think that social liberalism is great thing to have; I am incredibly happy that I am living now rather than, say, 60 or 70 years ago.
@SHallowvale
I'm well aware of what you believe, what you haven't said is why you believe it. If you elaborate on this then we can actually have a conversation.
I believe what I believe because of what I've read and seen and how it matches up with my life and formed my worldview which I have independently. But we can continue this conversation if you can show me why you believe what you do in the way you wish me to.
Why?
; I am incredibly happy that I am living now rather than, say, 60 or 70 years ago.
How do you know you wouldn't have been happier and more fulfilled back then?
Other than modern technology, what do you like about living now that you think is better than in the past?
I'm well aware of what you believe, what you haven't said is why you believe it. If you elaborate on this then we can actually have a conversation.
I believe what I believe because of what I've read and seen and how it matches up with my life and formed my worldview which I have independently. But we can continue this conversation if you can show me why you believe what you do in the way you wish me to.
I think that social liberalism is great thing to have
Why?
; I am incredibly happy that I am living now rather than, say, 60 or 70 years ago.
How do you know you wouldn't have been happier and more fulfilled back then?
Other than modern technology, what do you like about living now that you think is better than in the past?
Original post by fenton484
They’re jealous of the fact we approved a vaccine before them and now they’re salty because they’ve vaccinated sweet FA of their population whilst we’ve done like 10%. First they spread propaganda about our vaccine, then they demand they give OUR vaccines to them, then they threaten to block the export of Pfizer vaccine. This shows firstly, we are better off outside of this gangster-mafia like club, and secondly, the EU are being pathetic. They should just accept they f*ckrd up, and give us our vaccines.
So many here are partisan to the EU, anything agaist the EU cannot be said. But yes it's a ..so......
Let me get this straight.....
We signed a deal with Astra Zeneca for X amount of vaccine 3 months ago.
The EU came sniffing last month when they realised it worked.
They now want all of there allocation BEFORE we get what we requested and signed up for THREE MONTHS EARLIER.
Yea ... no mate get ****ed off
Original post by Starship Trooper
@SHallowvale
I believe what I believe because of what I've read and seen and how it matches up with my life and formed my worldview which I have independently. But we can continue this conversation if you can show me why you believe what you do in the way you wish me to.
Why?
How do you know you wouldn't have been happier and more fulfilled back then?
Other than modern technology, what do you like about living now that you think is better than in the past?
I believe what I believe because of what I've read and seen and how it matches up with my life and formed my worldview which I have independently. But we can continue this conversation if you can show me why you believe what you do in the way you wish me to.
Why?
How do you know you wouldn't have been happier and more fulfilled back then?
Other than modern technology, what do you like about living now that you think is better than in the past?
I could answer both of your questions using the same response you gave me: "I believe what I believe because of what I've read and seen and how it matches up with my life and formed my worldview which I have independently.". Do you see now how non-informative this is?
Why do I like social liberalism? To give just one example, as a sexual minority social liberalism gives me more rights and opportunities than a socially conservative system would do. About 60 or 70 years ago my current relationship would have been illegal, and if it were not illegal then I would likely have been ostracised by the wider community. I'm far happier now, given that almost all people do not judge me for something that I was born with and which is of absolutely no consequence to them.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Burton Bridge
So many here are partisan to the EU, anything agaist the EU cannot be said. But yes it's a ..so......
Let me get this straight.....
We signed a deal with Astra Zeneca for X amount of vaccine 3 months ago.
The EU came sniffing last month when they realised it worked.
They now want all of there allocation BEFORE we get what we requested and signed up for THREE MONTHS EARLIER.
Yea ... no mate get ****ed off
Let me get this straight.....
We signed a deal with Astra Zeneca for X amount of vaccine 3 months ago.
The EU came sniffing last month when they realised it worked.
They now want all of there allocation BEFORE we get what we requested and signed up for THREE MONTHS EARLIER.
Yea ... no mate get ****ed off
You make it sound unreasonable that a bloc (although we should probably treat it as a country for simplicity here) wants to see the vaccines produced there used on its citizens other than perfidious foreigners?
Lets be frank, we might not like it and its vacine nationalism at its finest but if the shoe were on the other foot i guarentee everyone would be cheering the UK telling those uppity foreigners to get ****ed.
The EU might have shanked the requisition and roll out of vaccines and this *former* move to potentially block exports of a vaccine is hardly covering them in glory but it is utterly risible anyone here would be supporting the UK exporting vaccines to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. We might not like it but i'll eat my hat if any sort of rationale majority would be in favour of harming ourselves for the sake of others, this being exactly the situation the EU was/is looking at...
Original post by Napp
You make it sound unreasonable that a bloc (although we should probably treat it as a country for simplicity here) wants to see the vaccines produced there used on its citizens other than perfidious foreigners?
.... and leavers are the xenophobes?
Original post by Napp
Lets be frank, we might not like it and its vacine nationalism at its finest but if the shoe were on the other foot i guarentee everyone would be cheering the UK telling those uppity foreigners to get ****ed.
The EU might have shanked the requisition and roll out of vaccines and this *former* move to potentially block exports of a vaccine is hardly covering them in glory but it is utterly risible anyone here would be supporting the UK exporting vaccines to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. We might not like it but i'll eat my hat if any sort of rationale majority would be in favour of harming ourselves for the sake of others, this being exactly the situation the EU was/is looking at...
Lets be frank, we might not like it and its vacine nationalism at its finest but if the shoe were on the other foot i guarentee everyone would be cheering the UK telling those uppity foreigners to get ****ed.
The EU might have shanked the requisition and roll out of vaccines and this *former* move to potentially block exports of a vaccine is hardly covering them in glory but it is utterly risible anyone here would be supporting the UK exporting vaccines to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. We might not like it but i'll eat my hat if any sort of rationale majority would be in favour of harming ourselves for the sake of others, this being exactly the situation the EU was/is looking at...
No I don't think so, let's look at it this way. You have been arguing with your former boss for years about ordering PPE for your staff which report to you. Your former boss said
"yea, go ahead but if I deside that the PPe you buy isnt correct at any time I finally pull my finger out my arse, I'll over rule you and you will have to explain to why you gave wasted the company owners money (taxpayer) directly to the owner (electorate)"
So for years you buy the minimum you dare to tik you over, untill his lord ship authorises it! So finally you are free from this ****head overload, you plan and order PPE for your guys 3 month in advance of the cold weather. You agree a price and date with a supplier and then you get a phone call from said company saying "mmmm we are giving the supply you ordered 3 months ago to mr snail bigboots."
What's your response?
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Burton Bridge
.... and leavers are the xenophobes?
No I don't think so, let's look at it this way. You have been arguing with your former boss for years about ordering PPE for your staff which report to you. Your former boss said
"yea, go ahead but if I deside that the PPe you buy isnt correct at any time I finally pull my finger out my arse, I'll over rule you and you will have to explain to why you gave wasted the company owners money (taxpayer) directly to the owner (electorate)"
So for years you buy the minimum you dare to tik you over, untill his lord ship authorises it! So finally you are free from this ****head overload, you plan and order PPE for your guys 3 month in advance of the cold weather. You agree a price and date with a supplier and then you get a phone call from said company saying "mmmm we are giving the supply you ordered 3 months ago to mr snail bigboots."
What's your response?
No I don't think so, let's look at it this way. You have been arguing with your former boss for years about ordering PPE for your staff which report to you. Your former boss said
"yea, go ahead but if I deside that the PPe you buy isnt correct at any time I finally pull my finger out my arse, I'll over rule you and you will have to explain to why you gave wasted the company owners money (taxpayer) directly to the owner (electorate)"
So for years you buy the minimum you dare to tik you over, untill his lord ship authorises it! So finally you are free from this ****head overload, you plan and order PPE for your guys 3 month in advance of the cold weather. You agree a price and date with a supplier and then you get a phone call from said company saying "mmmm we are giving the supply you ordered 3 months ago to mr snail bigboots."
What's your response?
My response is that aside from the vague similarities between your example and what happened they still miss my point. Which was that despite the EU shanking their vaccine requisition by taking so long its rather hypocritical of anyone to now take aim at the EU for not wanting to export vaccines to foreigners when they can be used on their citizens. As i said, if the shoe were on the other foot everyone who is currenty using this to score cheap brexit points would be singing a very different tune.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- pathetic fallacy
- Pls help me mark my answer
- Should i include my sat score in mycambridge application
- applying on enrollment day
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Trophy hunting: Botswana threatens to send 20,000 elephants to Germany
- How much money do I need to move out?
- Parents working abroad
- International Student Loan Providers
- No friends, how to cope
- Don’t want to car share due to anxiety how can I get out of this?
- Wrong fee status (scotland home and RUK)
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Politics Edexcel 2024 predictions
- Is there anything more attractive than a guy who takes mirror selfies?
- Does anyone know a good way to set up a proper study routine and remain motivated?
- i’m struggling to get over my ex.
- UKFPO eligibility application rejected
- Confusio
- maintenance loan
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?