Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Poland warns Brussels it will DESTROY the EU if it tries to punish Britain for leavin Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Ireland is our ace in the hole. There are a few countries that will feel the impact severely if we are punished to the point where the economic argument of union ceases to work.*

    I think it would be a huge political mistake if they punish us. A) we are acting on a democratic mandate, B) when we leave the EU our economy will be ~20% theirs.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    B) when we leave the EU our economy will be ~20% theirs.*
    That assumes the economy won't go to the junk, which it already had a great start in that department.

    Also, 'democratic mandates' don't mean that they will be favourable to you in any way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Being imperialistic, or having religious motives does not mean nationalism is inapplicable. If anything, certain writers consider them synonymous.

    As a word, it is modern, of course. As a concept, not at all.



    Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here.

    History does not necessitate a degree. If you're doing history, I'm getting ready to laugh further. But you haven't yet answered how that is relevant...? Have you ran out of silly things to say so you're swaying entirely off-topic?

    As expected, of course.

    Not much else to say. You said that religious nationalism does not exist. You said that the wars you yourself quoted had nothing to do with nationalism. You've added more stuff which is even more incorrect. The thing speaks for itself.
    You can't reply to "Why were the Viet Minh fighting?" with "yes". It had nothing to do with nationalism.

    Or, you're a pseduo-historian, making massive generalised claims based on ignorance, as proven by your woeful lack of knowledge of the causes of the Vietnam war.

    What's more likely - every single war for thousands of years, most of which you've never studied, were caused by the same thing, or you're wrong?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    You can't reply to "Why were the Viet Minh fighting?" with "yes". It had nothing to do with nationalism.

    Or, you're a pseduo-historian, making massive generalised claims based on ignorance, as proven by your woeful lack of knowledge of the causes of the Vietnam war.

    What's more likely - every single war for thousands of years, most of which you've never studied, were caused by the same thing, or you're wrong?
    More knee-jerk reactions. Got more?

    Where did I reply with a yes? The fact that you perceive it as such to evade the point is not my fault. But, it having nothing to do with nationalism when the certain parties had nationalism in their name is quite funny. Or perhaps you didn't know that. You certainly didn't.

    Here we go again. You keep naming me crap yet haven't even refuted your own points. You just keep throwing names thinking they prove your point, and which I have repeatedly destroyed. Nice argumentative skills!

    Give me a specific name and refute that nationalism was not causal and we'll discuss about it. But, given you mentioned the Crusades, where nationalism was central, you're just gonna reply with more knee-jerking.

    Keep it coming - I know it's the best you can do so won't argue on this point



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    More knee-jerk reactions. Got more?

    Where did I reply with a yes? The fact that you perceive it as such to evade the point is not my fault. But, it having nothing to do with nationalism when the certain parties had nationalism in their name is quite funny. Or perhaps you didn't know that. You certainly didn't.

    Here we go again. You keep naming me crap yet haven't even refuted your own points. You just keep throwing names thinking they prove your point, and which I have repeatedly destroyed. Nice argumentative skills!

    Give me a specific name and refute that nationalism was not causal and we'll discuss about it. But, given you mentioned the Crusades, where nationalism was central, you're just gonna reply with more knee-jerking.

    Keep it coming - I know it's the best you can do so won't argue on this point



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "Go look up why the Viet Minh were fighting - hint: it wasn't nationalism."

    "Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here."

    When you can't keep up to date with what you've said, that's pretty laughable.

    Also, try again - the cause of the Vietnam war wasn't nationalism. Don't worry though, I realise you won't back down as this is all clearly a product of your inferiority complex. Otherwise, why the aggression towards strangers on the internet over a topic you clearly are not an expert on?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    "Go look up why the Viet Minh were fighting - hint: it wasn't nationalism."

    "Yes, which originated from the alliance of the nationalist parties (and from which members were recruited from). You've outdone yourself here."

    When you can't keep up to date with what you've said, that's pretty laughable.

    Also try again - the cause of the Vietnam war wasn't nationalism.
    At least you're naturally non-smart - I thought you were trolling.

    You said I only gave a yes as an answer. Evidently, as you quote above, I didn't. Can't be that difficult now, can it?

    So, what was its cause? Are you going to tell me what your expertise deems as the cause or causes? Or are you going to repeat unsubstantiated claims yet again?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Poland would say that, because they have 5m Poles in the UK.

    Failure to negotiate means we would give the worst possible conditions for EU migrants.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    At least you're naturally non-smart - I thought you were trolling.

    You said I only gave a yes as an answer. Evidently, as you quote above, I didn't. Can't be that difficult now, can it?

    So, what was its cause? Are you going to tell me what your expertise deems as the cause or causes? Or are you going to repeat unsubstantiated claims yet again?
    I'm "non-smart", yet you think you can boil down every war in that has occurred to one factor. Hah. Again, I feel compelled to bring you back to the fact you're clearly compensating for something

    Also, telling you about the social divides in Vietnam would be highly off topic. So do what I first suggested, and go pick up a history book
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    I'm "non-smart", yet you think you can boil down every war in that has occurred to one factor. Hah. Again, I feel compelled to bring you back to the fact you're clearly compensating for something

    Also, telling you about the social divides in Vietnam would be highly off topic. So do what I first suggested, and go pick up a history book
    If you bothered to read me replies, I said cause isn't an absolutist concept. It's funny you're ignoring my direct answers to your idiotic claims, only to repeat later on that I did not give such answers.

    I already told you about that, and explained how it links to nationalism. As above, doing the usual picking up parts and ignoring others. So, look who needs to history book after all (especially for the Crusades, lol).

    Still waiting for something to back up your original claim. I gave sources and whatnot after all, so it's only fair. Gimmo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    If you bothered to read me replies, I said cause isn't an absolutist concept. It's funny you're ignoring my direct answers to your idiotic claims, only to repeat later on that I did not give such answers.

    I already told you about that, and explained how it links to nationalism. As above, doing the usual picking up parts and ignoring others. So, look who needs to history book after all (especially for the Crusades, lol).

    Still waiting for something to back up your original claim. I gave sources and whatnot after all, so it's only fair. Gimmo.
    I've already made it clear that I'm not here to give you a history lesson.

    Here are the two options:
    a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
    or
    b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

    There is literally nothing you can say that will make me think a) is the right option over b). Occam's Razor innit. :top:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    I've already made it clear that I'm not here to give you a history lesson.

    Here are the two options:
    a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
    or
    b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

    There is literally nothing you can say that will make me think a) is the right option over b). Occam's Razor innit. :top:
    You're not qualified to give any lessons re history. Seriously. The moment you said the Crusades were not caused by nationalism, you lost any credibility you could have had. All this from that point is knee-jerk reaction taking, as I said before.

    Still nothing to refute your point, other than baseless points. As I said, I didn't expect differently when you mentioned the Crusades. Just lol.

    You can keep going though however long you like.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Is this the same man who vitriolic tyrades against Russia are causing somewhat of a diplomatic incident and recently said he'd shoot down Russian aircraft?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Ok but it's a former prime minister so I don't think he really speaks for poland.

    If Tony Blair popped up right now saying we should go to war with Mexico, he's clearly not speaking for Britain is he.
    Although you wouldn't know it from the media. :rolleyes:

    Anyway, I think this guy is pushing at an open door, as there's no real sign that Merkel will want to 'punish' the UK, no matter what the Commission and Juncker say and she and the Germans call the shots.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    If you ever want to know what pushed nationalism forward it was you people. Liberalism is becoming ever more hated. Liberalism and Fascism share a core ideal and that is political correctness. Your efforts to create a liberal utopia has pushed people to nationalism. I am a remain voter but just know, what ever problems occur in the EU, it's the fault of people like you. Liberalism is poison
    People are sick of being told what to think, no freedom of debate, and feeling like they are being thought and speech-policed, by a quietly, sneeringly threatening mob. You are right in that they have so much in common with totalitarians, that's why we couldn't have any frank debates without the shrill sanctimony and left wing mobs for so long. I genuinely believe in another era, another political climate and a different orthodoxy, they could have been the people most enthusiastically propagandizing for totalitarian regimes. They say things like authoritarian means( on freedom of speech and the like, like you see with some younger generation mods here) justify liberal ends. No, the means show the person, the ends show what is the current status quo in debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You're not qualified to give any lessons re history. Seriously. The moment you said the Crusades were not caused by nationalism, you lost any credibility you could have had. All this from that point is knee-jerk reaction taking, as I said before.
    No interest in weighing in on the actual argunent, but do you realise that you dismiss everything anyone says as a knee-jerk response or reaction? Do you actually look at your own posts and manage somehow to see something superior, more considered and well-phrased?

    Still nothing to refute your point, other than baseless points. As I said, I didn't expect differently when you mentioned the Crusades. Just lol.

    You can keep going though however long you like.
    I think your answer is right there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    No interest in weighing in on the actual argunent
    Perhaps you should before going on about this. I mean really.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    but do you realise that you dismiss everything anyone says as a knee-jerk response or reaction? Do you actually look at your own posts and manage somehow to see something superior, more considered and well-phrased?
    Do I now? Because I actually backed up what I said with sources in the beginning. The other poster replied saying I'm wrong. Having asked him how and why, he just kept repeating that I am wrong.

    I'm not sure about your own argumentative skills, but repeating someone is wrong is not particularly strong without actually supporting it.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I think your answer is right there.
    Thanks for your contribution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Perhaps you should before going on about this. I mean really.



    Do I now? Because I actually backed up what I said with sources in the beginning. The other poster replied saying I'm wrong. Having asked him how and why, he just kept repeating that I am wrong.

    I'm not sure about your own argumentative skills, but repeating someone is wrong is not particularly strong without actually supporting it.



    Thanks for your contribution.
    I'm not trying to say that he is arguing better than you. I'm just drawing your attention to your tendency to dismiss everying as knee-jerk.

    You're not the only person on TSR who has a stock tactic for dismissing someone else's arguments, valid or otherwise. Perhaps I do too, but either way I just thought you might like to be aware of how heavily you use that phrase.

    I think it could rightly be said to be your knee-jerk response
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You're not qualified to give any lessons re history. Seriously. The moment you said the Crusades were not caused by nationalism, you lost any credibility you could have had. All this from that point is knee-jerk reaction taking, as I said before.

    Still nothing to refute your point, other than baseless points. As I said, I didn't expect differently when you mentioned the Crusades. Just lol.

    You can keep going though however long you like.
    Here are the two options:
    a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
    or
    b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

    How on earth can you think option 'a' is the right one? Delusions of grandeur. :top:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I'm not trying to say that he is arguing better than you. I'm just drawing your attention to your tendency to dismiss everying as knee-jerk.

    You're not the only person on TSR who has a stock tactic for dismissing someone else's arguments, valid or otherwise. Perhaps I do too, but either way I just thought you might like to be aware of how heavily you use that phrase.

    I think it could rightly be said to be your knee-jerk response
    I don't - considering he keeps repeating the same points again and again whilst refusing to actually answer my original question re giving me something substantiated, it is a knee-jerk reaction.

    Generally, perhaps. Here, not really.

    (Original post by geoking)
    Here are the two options:
    a) Every single war ever to have occurred has one cause, a claim made by someone with no expertise in the field.
    or
    b) Someone who is not an expert in the causes of war has made a mistake.

    How on earth can you think option 'a' is the right one? Delusions of grandeur. :top:
    ^ Here's your proof, offhegoes. How many times has he repeated this? I asked him one very simple thing - to actually give me a specific event and back his argument up with sources to show me I'm wrong.

    Instead, he keeps repeating how wrong I am and how he's the expert (an expert who can't provide sources it seems).

    Geo, I would be wary of using the 'expertise' card considering you made a horrible mistake re the Crusades, which is basic really.

    End of.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    People are sick of being told what to think, no freedom of debate, and feeling like they are being thought and speech-policed, by a quietly, sneeringly threatening mob. You are right in that they have so much in common with totalitarians, that's why we couldn't have any frank debates without the shrill sanctimony and left wing mobs for so long. I genuinely believe in another era, another political climate and a different orthodoxy, they could have been the people most enthusiastically propagandizing for totalitarian regimes. They say things like authoritarian means( on freedom of speech and the like, like you see with some younger generation mods here) justify liberal ends. No, the means show the person, the ends show what is the current status quo in debate.
    Liberalism, or better yet neo-liberalism is an agenda that was only ever going to rally opposition. If you are white, straight, English and male, you are effectively scum according to liberal groups. I know that sounds over the top but only look at small cases across the country. Double standards everywhere.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 10, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.