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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Intentionally misrepresenting of the truth is the definition of dishonest.
    They are not misrepresenting though. They are putting their side of the argument across.

    Every time one side says a fact or argument, there will be facts and counterarguments that the other side thinks the voter should know to give them a better understanding of "the truth" ie their point of view.

    Both sides see the world differently. Hence why they disagree. So what both sides would consider to "represent " the world as they see it differs. There is no way to objectively represent the world with a limited amount of information.

    If there was, there would be no need for all this campaigning. The government could just publish a leaflet giving all the relevant facts and arguments and that would be it. But that's impossible because if they tried to do that, both sides of the argument would never agree what should be included.

    It's kind of similar to our adversarial judice system. a defendant will probably feel the prosecution barrister is not giving a fair reflection of the true but the barrister is not dishonest. He is doing his job as an essential component of the system. You wouldn't expect him to give a balanced view. That is the job of the jury.

    Similarly, politicians have picked their sides and it is now their job to put their strongest submission to the public in support of the campaign they have chosen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    After you, educate me


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If the experts can't, how could I?

    But hey, you must be so clever, that you know what they say not just to be wrong, but to be so wrong that people who believe them are idiots.

    Who am I compared to the mighty paul514?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Do you have figures to show this?
    Literally every serious economic report published on the matter?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    They are not misrepresenting though. They are putting their side of the argument across.

    Every time one side says a fact or argument, there will be facts and counterarguments that the other side thinks the voter should know to give them a better understanding of "the truth" ie their point of view.

    Both sides see the world differently. Hence why they disagree. So what both sides would consider to "represent " the world as they see it differs. There is no way to objectively represent the world with a limited amount of information.

    If there was, there would be no need for all this campaigning. The government could just publish a leaflet giving all the relevant facts and arguments and that would be it. But that's impossible because if they tried to do that, both sides of the argument would never agree what should be included.

    It's kind of similar to our adversarial judice system. a defendant will probably feel the prosecution barrister is not giving a fair reflection of the true but the barrister is not dishonest. He is doing his job as an essential component of the system. You wouldn't expect him to give a balanced view. That is the job of the jury.

    Similarly, politicians have picked their sides and it is now their job to put their strongest submission to the public in support of the campaign they have chosen.
    Very interesting viewpoint. However, you cannot hide misrepresentation and lies behind the veil of "it's their side".

    If that was ok with you, you would be ok with people against gays telling others that guys are murderers, that they will harm others, etc. I mean after all they are just putting "their strongest submission to the public in the support of the campaign they have chosen".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Literally every serious economic report published on the matter?
    May want to read the entire discussion I had in this thread.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    Very interesting viewpoint. However, you cannot hide misrepresentation and lies behind the veil of "it's their side".

    If that was ok with you, you would be ok with people against gays telling others that guys are murderers, that they will harm others, etc. I mean after all they are just putting "their strongest submission to the public in the support of the campaign they have chosen".
    The difference is that in your example there is a disagreement to the facts. It is possible to more precisely define what you mean by "they are murderers" and you can test that statically. And anyone saying that would be quickly asked to back that opinion up with evidence. There is room for lies and numerous forms of dishonesty in establishing the facts. falsification of evidence etc.

    However, the facts here are basically agreed. People have accepted the £55m a day figure as being accurate and I am happy to accept we get £35m back for the sake of argument.

    The disagreement isn't about the facts. Of course if the leave campaign and cooked up 55m from falsified accounts or whatever, that would be dishonest but nobody is saying that.

    In my law analogy. Barristers cannot present evidence they know is dishonest without bringing it to the attention of the court. Just like if the leave campaign know 55m is wrong, they shouldn't use it.

    However, for many cases in law the facts are not disputed. When this happens, it is the barristers job to best present the facts and legal arguments to convince the judge. They can present whatever argues they want, it is up to the judge to decide if they are valid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    The difference is that in your example there is a disagreement to the facts. It is possible to more precisely define what you mean by "they are murderers" and you can test that statically. And anyone saying that would be quickly asked to back that opinion up with evidence. There is room for lies and numerous forms of dishonesty in establishing the facts. falsification of evidence etc.

    However, the facts here are basically agreed. People have accepted the £55m a day figure as being accurate and I am happy to accept we get £35m back for the sake of argument.

    The disagreement isn't about the facts. Of course if the leave campaign and cooked up 55m from falsified accounts or whatever, that would be dishonest but nobody is saying that.

    In my law analogy. Barristers cannot present evidence they know is dishonest without bringing it to the attention of the court. Just like if the leave campaign know 55m is wrong, they shouldn't use it.

    However, for many cases in law the facts are not disputed. When this happens, it is the barristers job to best present the facts and legal arguments to convince the judge. They can present whatever argues they want, it is up to the judge to decide if they are valid.
    And yet you conveniently ignore all of the non-measurable benefits.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    And yet you conveniently ignore all of the non-measurable benefits.
    I'm not ignoring anything. I acknowledge this is a small corner of the debate but it is nonetheless the topic that Op create this thread on.

    If something isn't measurable, then you don't need evidence to back it up. It's impossible to have evidence if it is not measurable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I'm not ignoring anything. I acknowledge this is a small corner of the debate but it is nonetheless the topic that Op create this thread on.

    If something isn't measurable, then you don't need evidence to back it up. It's impossible to have evidence if it is not measurable.
    We have moved on from the OP. We are now talking about misrepresenting and lying by omission.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    We have moved on from the OP. We are now talking about misrepresenting and lying by omission.
    Yeah I agree that is what we are talking about (well I am at least). I just don't understand why the fact there are non measurable benefits of the Eu is relevant to that discussion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Yeah I agree that is what we are talking about (well I am at least). I just don't understand why the fact there are non measurable benefits of the Eu is relevant to that discussion.
    Suppose you have two people. They stand behind a wall. They both jump. One jumps higher. Everyone can see he jumps higher.

    What not everyone can see is that the person jumping higher is standing on something, while the other is not.

    By loudly shouting from the rooftops the higher jumper must be better because everyone can see he jumped higher, and not questioning why he jumps higher, you are misrepresenting the situation.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    If the experts can't, how could I?

    But hey, you must be so clever, that you know what they say not just to be wrong, but to be so wrong that people who believe them are idiots.

    Who am I compared to the mighty paul514?
    Go on give it a try


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This doesn't take into account the immeasurable benefits the UK gets from free trade in services.
    Nor does it include the immeasurable cost of upholding the regulations

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The correct statistics for 2015 are as below:

    Annual contribution: £18 billion
    Rebate: -£5 billion
    Total before EU spending on the UK: £13 billion
    EU spending on the UK: -£4.5 billion
    Net contribution: £8.5 billion

    One thing to note is that we do not get to decide the area and projects in which the EU spends in the UK. This might be the reason why some prefer to use the £13 billion figure because we have no control on who's going to benefit. Despite this I think the fairest figure to use is £8.5 billion.

    This calculates to an average net daily payment of £23.3 million.
    As I always say to people, the net contribution and what is given are not the same, bremainers always give the net because it is smaller, the leavers give the pre rebate, both should give the post rebate. If I pay £1000 in tax and receive £500 of benefits, say, you would not say that I only paid £500 of tax, unless you are intentionally trying to make it sound better.

    Perhaps better would be to look over the pond where there are rebates on things. Suppose I paid $5200 of tax, got a rebate of $1300 and another $1300 in various forms of benefits from the government (just suppose). What we would see is the headline brexiters saying that I pay $100 per week in tax, the remainers saying I pay $50 and neither saying the correct figure of $75.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nor does it include the immeasurable cost of upholding the regulations



    As I always say to people, the net contribution and what is given are not the same, bremainers always give the net because it is smaller, the leavers give the pre rebate, both should give the post rebate. If I pay £1000 in tax and receive £500 of benefits, say, you would not say that I only paid £500 of tax, unless you are intentionally trying to make it sound better.

    Perhaps better would be to look over the pond where there are rebates on things. Suppose I paid $5200 of tax, got a rebate of $1300 and another $1300 in various forms of benefits from the government (just suppose). What we would see is the headline brexiters saying that I pay $100 per week in tax, the remainers saying I pay $50 and neither saying the correct figure of $75.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was only giving the statistics for everyone to use, because the OP was making an agenda but did not state the statistics and caveats.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Our expebses is 13bn
    We get 4.5bn back in various different grants .etc
    So total next expenditure is 8.5bn

    There are 252 working days in a year

    8.5bn/252 =33m every working day. If you was to count every single working day its around 23m a day.

    But think what are we getting for x amount of million per day. Free trade with no tarrifs but the impact of that is now less as we have significantly dropped on exports since 1970s
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drosstalk)
    Our expebses is 13bn
    We get 4.5bn back in various different grants .etc
    So total next expenditure is 8.5bn

    There are 252 working days in a year

    8.5bn/252 =33m every working day. If you was to count every single working day its around 23m a day.

    But think what are we getting for x amount of million per day. Free trade with no tarrifs but the impact of that is now less as we have significantly dropped on exports since 1970s
    The payments have increased since the year of figures you have used but your broadly in the right area


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The payments have increased since the year of figures you have used but your broadly in the right area


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well i did a quick google search and based my calculation on the first result and Indeed you are correct they was the figures for 14-15.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Just want to put this out there to combat this campaign of blatant lies coming from the out campaign.

    Over half of the money we give to the EU comes directly back to us in the form of a rebate. We then get more back in the form of science grants, development funding and agriculture subsidies.

    I don't understand how this lie keeps being spread. Do none of the out voters actually do any research of their own? Do they just parrot whatever they read in their tabloid of choice? Ridiculous.
    hahahahahahahahaha

    oh wow

    they give back half of the money they take off us, how generous of them to give us some of our own money back

    and I assume your school bully was a kind person for giving you back half of your lunch money?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Precisely.
    It would take years to rearrange a deal with EU on trade with the UK. Why would they need us? We aren't as big a power as people believe us to be. Countries have been queueing for years to get trade deals with the EU, and IMF free trade restrictions may also prevent us from gaining access to trade tariff reductions. Leaving the EU is a risk with potentially irreversible consequences.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by travelberry)
    It would take years to rearrange a deal with EU on trade with the UK. Why would they need us? We aren't as big a power as people believe us to be. Countries have been queueing for years to get trade deals with the EU, and IMF free trade restrictions may also prevent us from gaining access to trade tariff reductions. Leaving the EU is a risk with potentially irreversible consequences.
    Read the thread. This has been discussed extensively.
 
 
 
  • 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 rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.