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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    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.
    I believe you. You can add the cruelty, let's not call it otherwise, of the English class system, and plus the massive generational power imbalance that has gone on between boomers and X over millennials(I am amongst the older end of millennials), and a younger white male guy who is further down the class ladder is effectively the dumping grounds for all the spite, lies and hypocritical condemnation of society at once. #Killallwhitemen is an acceptable hashtag as well apparently.

    Oh, and with the utopians or liberal bigots, freedom of speech is, somewhat disturbingly, not regarded as valuable. I can already tell the generational divide, just by seeing how much young mods shut down on here, or by seeing younger people in the referendum campaign. It's like a militant groupthink...they talk about being more formally educated but apparently it's in what to think, not how to think; it bears no relation to independent thought.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    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.



    ^ 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.
    It really doesn't sound like he's making knee-jerk responses if he's repeating the same thing. His posts may be poor in terms of substance, but they don't seem to be:

    "an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    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.



    ^ 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.
    I'm not an expert, but neither are you. You've turned a thread about something else entirely now into boiling every war ever waged in the history of humanity into one reason.

    Either you're a genius, worthy of a Nobel prize, or a kid with a jumped up ego who is grossly simplifying war. Give me one logical reason why on earth I would think you're the former and not the latter, because Occam's Razor suggests you're wrong. And that's logic, not a 'knee-jerk reaction'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    It really doesn't sound like he's making knee-jerk responses if he's repeating the same thing. His posts may be poor in terms of substance, but they don't seem to be:

    "an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive."
    The basic, and most correct, definition of a knee-jerk reaction is "occurring quickly and without thought". Considering he's been accusing me of all those things repeatedly instead of actually defending the argument he himself started, the definition applies spot on here.

    (Original post by geoking)
    I'm not an expert, but neither are you. You've turned a thread about something else entirely now into boiling every war ever waged in the history of humanity into one reason.

    Either you're a genius, worthy of a Nobel prize, or a kid with a jumped up ego who is grossly simplifying war. Give me one logical reason why on earth I would think you're the former and not the latter, because Occam's Razor suggests you're wrong. And that's logic, not a 'knee-jerk reaction'.
    Erm, remember who quoted whom first? Seriously.

    I have asked for one single thing in the whole thread - give me a war that hadn't nationalism as one of its causes and substantiate it with sources.

    What have you been doing instead? Repeating again and again how I am not qualified, how I am not an expert and crap like that (literally an ad-hominem).

    Your original post mocked me and urged that I pick up a history book. Well, since you've read all those history books out there, substantiate your claim. Simple, right?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHistoryKid)
    Lol who even is Poland?
    Very intelligent comment from you. Well done you ignorant idiot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The basic, and most correct, definition of a knee-jerk reaction is "occurring quickly and without thought". Considering he's been accusing me of all those things repeatedly instead of actually defending the argument he himself started, the definition applies spot on here.
    The definition implies that the his post should be affected by the either the emotion of the moment or the speed with with he responded not giving time for thought.

    Perhaps he made an initial knee-jerk response and is now stubbornly sticking by it, but it seems more apparent to me that he is simply responding to you in the way he feels is most appropriate - hence not a knee-jerk response.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well I agree with the chairman. Why should Brussels penalize us for choosing to leave the EU? It was our decision, and they should accept it. It's all about money, that's all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The basic, and most correct, definition of a knee-jerk reaction is "occurring quickly and without thought". Considering he's been accusing me of all those things repeatedly instead of actually defending the argument he himself started, the definition applies spot on here.



    Erm, remember who quoted whom first? Seriously.

    I have asked for one single thing in the whole thread - give me a war that hadn't nationalism as one of its causes and substantiate it with sources.

    What have you been doing instead? Repeating again and again how I am not qualified, how I am not an expert and crap like that (literally an ad-hominem).

    Your original post mocked me and urged that I pick up a history book. Well, since you've read all those history books out there, substantiate your claim. Simple, right?
    There's no point arguing with you as you have delusions of grandeur - you criticise people for "knee-jerk reactions" and yet, without any accreditation to your name, are laughably claiming that every single war in the history of man has the same cause

    Your entire argument is brought down by Occam's Razor. Discussion over
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    The definition implies that the his post should be affected by the either the emotion of the moment or the speed with with he responded not giving time for thought.

    Perhaps he made an initial knee-jerk response and is now stubbornly sticking by it, but it seems more apparent to me that he is simply responding to you in the way he feels is most appropriate - hence not a knee-jerk response.
    Knee-jerk reactions are not subjective - they are objective. Him thinking it's appropriate (which I am not really sure how you know so) doesn't detract from this.

    (Original post by geoking)
    There's no point arguing with you as you have delusions of grandeur - you criticise people for "knee-jerk reactions" and yet, without any accreditation to your name, are laughably claiming that every single war in the history of man has the same cause

    Your entire argument is brought down by Occam's Razor. Discussion over
    Yes yes. Go on saying the same thing that you've said in your last 10 posts. That I have no accreditation/I'm not qualified .
    whatnot.

    That principle is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. An array of fallacies, however, run deep in what you say.

    So, as expected from the 10th time now, you are unable to support your original statement and instead resort to ad-hominems. Discussion has been over long ago.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Knee-jerk reactions are not subjective - they are objective. Him thinking it's appropriate (which I am not really sure how you know so) doesn't detract from this.
    "Knee-jerk reaction" is an expression, not a scientific term. Of course it is subjective, since it describes a response that is affected by emotion and is given quickly.

    At what point do we stop having an emotional response? How soon is too soon to response in a measured way?

    If you knew exactly how affected by emotion he was or how much he rushed into a response you may be able to get into a discussion about whether, in your subjective opinion, his response was a knee-jerk one. But you have literally no idea to what extent he was or wasn't either of those things.

    You can guess as much as you like, just as much as I'm guessing that you are responding in a knee-jerk fashion - reacting whilst indignant at my contention, not taking te time to think through my points.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    "Knee-jerk reaction" is an expression, not a scientific term. Of course it is subjective, since it describes a response that is affected by emotion and is given quickly.

    At what point do we stop having an emotional response? How soon is too soon to response in a measured way?

    If you knew exactly how affected by emotion he was or how much he rushed into a response you may be able to get into a discussion about whether, in your subjective opinion, his response was a knee-jerk one. But you have literally no idea to what extent he was or wasn't either of those things.

    You can guess as much as you like, just as much as I'm guessing that you are responding in a knee-jerk fashion - reacting whilst indignant at my contention, not taking te time to think through my points.
    Emotion doesn't really have to do anything with it (thus I prefer my definition from merriam-webster).

    Essentially, it means replying quickly for the sake of replying, rather than actually offering a substantive point of view to contribute to the discussion.

    Alas, you're going out of your way to sound smart, so I'll just let you have it. Whatever you say, then
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)

    Yes yes. Go on saying the same thing that you've said in your last 10 posts. That I have no accreditation/I'm not qualified .
    whatnot.

    That principle is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. An array of fallacies, however, run deep in what you say.

    So, as expected from the 10th time now, you are unable to support your original statement and instead resort to ad-hominems. Discussion has been over long ago.
    You want to argue fallacies yet fail to acknowledge Occam's Razor. Hah.

    Let me finally make clear how absurd you are being (answer yes or no): Are you claiming that every war ever waged can be reduced to the cause of nationalism, with the full knowledge that you have zero qualifications in any academic field that would aid you in coming to such a conclusion?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by TheCryingRemain)
    he country's former Prime Minister said that, far from deterring other countries from leaving, any attempts to punish the UK will only accelerate the break up of the beleaguered bloc.

    Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the influential chairman of the ruling Law and Justice Party, also aimed a torpedo at close neighbours Germany, saying the rest of Europe "cannot allow" Angela Merkel to sink the EU by refusing to negotiate.

    His comments yet again expose the growing division on the continent over how to deal with the fallout of last week's historic Brexit vote.

    Poland is a deeply eurosceptic country and has been dismayed by Britain's vote to leave the bloc as it feels it has lost its biggest ally in the fight against Brussels federalism.

    Read More:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...slaw-Kaczynski
    hahaha Poland is weak
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    You want to argue fallacies yet fail to acknowledge Occam's Razor. Hah.

    Let me finally make clear how absurd you are being (answer yes or no): Are you claiming that every war ever waged can be reduced to the cause of nationalism, with the full knowledge that you have zero qualifications in any academic field that would aid you in coming to such a conclusion?
    Didn't you say discussion was over? Seems one's ego has to be inflated regardless.

    I'm saying one thing; provide a specific event with backed up sources to substantiate your original post. Is that a lot to ask for?

    You keep repeating how I'm not qualified (like seriously, how many more times do I have to say this?) and whatnot, yet you're the one who systematically refuses to support what you claimed in the first post.

    I'm not here to play childish games - you made the claim that I need to pick up a history book, so support that point. Your ad-hominems only further diminish your zero-level credibility (and THAT is a feat).

    [PS: I don't want to 'argue' fallacies (erm...) - you've been using several, not least ad-hominems, repeatedly. Occam's Razor is entirely irrelevant because it does not apply here. Using fancy terms is not going to make you seem more knowledgable you know. Particularly so when they're used incorrectly.]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Didn't you say discussion was over? Seems one's ego has to be inflated regardless.

    I'm saying one thing; provide a specific event with backed up sources to substantiate your original post. Is that a lot to ask for?

    You keep repeating how I'm not qualified (like seriously, how many more times do I have to say this?) and whatnot, yet you're the one who systematically refuses to support what you claimed in the first post.

    I'm not here to play childish games - you made the claim that I need to pick up a history book, so support that point. Your ad-hominems only further diminish your zero-level credibility (and THAT is a feat).

    [PS: I don't want to 'argue' fallacies (erm...) - you've been using several, not least ad-hominems, repeatedly. Occam's Razor is entirely irrelevant because it does not apply here. Using fancy terms is not going to make you seem more knowledgable you know. Particularly so when they're used incorrectly.]
    "Let me finally make clear how absurd you are being (answer yes or no): Are you claiming that every war ever waged can be reduced to the cause of nationalism, with the full knowledge that you have zero qualifications in any academic field that would aid you in coming to such a conclusion?"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    "Let me finally make clear how absurd you are being (answer yes or no): Are you claiming that every war ever waged can be reduced to the cause of nationalism, with the full knowledge that you have zero qualifications in any academic field that would aid you in coming to such a conclusion?"
    Once you answer my question, I'll answer yours. It goes both ways you see.

    Let's see.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Once you answer my question, I'll answer yours. It goes both ways you see.

    Let's see.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I asked first, and as this is the linchpin to your entire argument, let's cut to the point and get it out of the way Just a simple yes or no....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    I asked first, and as this is the linchpin to your entire argument, let's cut to the point and get it out of the way Just a simple yes or no....
    No, you didn't. I've been asking this from the first post.

    Answering my question will also answer yours. Go ahead.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No, you didn't. I've been asking this from the first post.

    Answering my question will also answer yours. Go ahead.
    I gave you an answer - "Vietnam" and am not willing to lecture you on why your childishly simplistic view of it is wrong. Come back after you've done a little more than read a paragraph on Wikipedia about it.

    But, before you leave to expand your knowledge beyond skim reading wiki pages, answer my question
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geoking)
    I gave you an answer - "Vietnam" and am not willing to lecture you on why your childishly simplistic view of it is wrong. Come back after you've done a little more than read a paragraph on Wikipedia about it.

    But, before you leave to expand your knowledge beyond skim reading wiki pages, answer my question
    You mentioned Vietnam, to which I answered how it WAS caused by nationalism (both internally and externally). You also mentioned the Crusades, which was laughable as I've already said.

    Perhaps go back and read the replies before going over the same thing again and again.

    I'm still waiting for that specific war. Alternatively, show me how I'm wrong re Vietnam, since you're so certain you're right.

    Then I shall answer.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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