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

Why I will vote to Leave the EU - From an alternative viewpoint Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Please see my post no 132.
    Your post 132 does not have any evidence. I thought you were the one hammering about logic, when you are not interested in providing evidence with your claims about me. Facts are not facts without evidence to back them up, especially with these accusations:

    'Clearly you know nothing about international law.'

    'Again you are out of step with the main LEAVE arguments'

    'This is just fantasy.'

    'I understand that English is not your first language'

    'You clearly have no sense of European history.'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also I did not suggest trading with the USA in replacement for our trades with the EU, if I did please quote me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The key word is 'requirements', this includes parliamentary approval and submitting the application...
    So, you did not intend to use the word "immediate" and despite using the present tense in a definite form ("considering we meet the requirements"), you actually meant in a future tense and an indefinite form ("considering that we may meet the requirements in the future").

    So, yes, if that is what you had written then you would not have suggested that the UK would have automatically joined EFTA upon exit from the EU.

    I am so glad we have settled that point.

    What you are arguing is that if someone asked you if you met the requirements to hold a pilot's licence you could say "yes" - even though you had never flown a plane or passed any of the tests required. Because in the future you might do those things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Your post 132 does not have any evidence…
    Please see my post no 132.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    So, you did not intend to use the word "immediate" and despite using the present tense in a definite form ("considering we meet the requirements", you actually meant in a future tense and an indefinite form ("considering that we may meet the requirements in the future".

    So, yes, if that is what you had written then you would not have suggested that the UK would have automatically joined EFTA upon exit from the EU.

    I am so glad we have settled that point.

    What you are arguing is that if someone asked you if you met the requirements to hold a pilot's licence you could say "yes" - even though you had never flown a plane or passed any of the tests required. Because in the future you might do those things.
    'The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.'

    I will map out the logical steps in this statement, hopefully can you understand better.

    1. Meet the requirements (approval from parliament, submission of application, accepting EFTA terms).

    2. Immediate membership.

    This is what my statement said, and you interpreted it wrong. This does not mean upon leaving the EU, the UK will 'automatically' join the EFTA.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Also I did not suggest trading with the USA in replacement for our trades with the EU, if I did please quote me.
    This is called building an argument by analogy.

    What I am saying is that the UK would be in a weak position negotiating with the EU, because the larger party almost always has the upper hand. I try to expand upon this example for you by indicating that the UK would be in a weak position negotiating with USA (a larger opponent), as I think it is well established that the USA is a difficult opponent to take on in the international arena.

    This form may not be familiar in the fields of maths and engineering, but please be assured that it is a perfectly mainstream form of debate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Please see my post no 132.
    Glad we got this sorted, and with such logic from your lack of evidence.

    Statements:

    'Clearly you know nothing about international law.'

    'Again you are out of step with the main LEAVE arguments'

    'This is just fantasy.'

    'I understand that English is not your first language'

    'You clearly have no sense of European history.'

    Your responses:

    'You have provided the proof through your statements. I'm not really interested in debating your hurt feelings, and I doubt anyone else wants to read about them either.'

    'Please see my post no 132.'

    Why don't you specify what sort of proof you deducted from my statements? Or can I expect another 'Please see my post no 132.' to avoid answering?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    'The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.'

    I will map out the logical steps in this statement, hopefully can you understand better.
    The problem you are having is that you are using all of these terms in the present tense:

    (a) The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.
    This is nothing like:

    (b) The UK may be free to join EFTA if we meet the requirements of membership some time in the future.
    I fully accept that you actually meant (b), but what you wrote was (a), which has a significantly different meaning (whatever way you try to spin it).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This is called building an argument by analogy.

    What I am saying is that the UK would be in a weak position negotiating with the EU, because the larger party almost always has the upper hand. I try to expand upon this example for you by indicating that the UK would be in a weak position negotiating with USA (a larger opponent), as I think it is well established that the USA is a difficult opponent to take on in the international arena.

    This form may not be familiar in the fields of maths and engineering, but please be assured that it is a perfectly mainstream form of debate.
    No, please quote me. Unless you can quote me on this there is nothing you can base your analogy on. Argument by analogy does not apply in this case as I have already stated twice explicitly that I do not believe that we will, can or should replace EU trades with USA trades.

    There are several routes as I have stated, such as (1) joining the EFTA, (2) staying in the EEA or (3) signing trade agreements with individual countries. Which route we choose to take will depend on the situation that arises. Routes 1 and 2 should eliminate the possibility of your scenario.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Why don't you specify what sort of proof you deducted from my statements? Or can I expect another 'Please see my post no 132.' to avoid answering?
    Some time ago you wrote that you were no longer going to engage in debate with me. You seem not to be able to hold yourself to your own stated aims.

    However, if you check my post no 122 you will see that I address your hurt feelings on an individual basis. This is built upon the evidence that you have provided yourself, as stated in my post no 132.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    The problem you are having is that you are using all of these terms in the present tense:



    This is nothing like:



    I fully accept that you actually meant (b), but what you wrote was (a), which has a significantly different meaning (whatever way you try to spin it).
    ''The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.''

    My sentence is correct. It is a basic sentence stating that:

    1. The UK is free to join the EFTA.

    2. Considering we meet the requirement (approval from parliament, submission of application, accepting EFTA terms) there is immediate membership to the EFTA.

    You can ask anybody unbiased party to judge on this and I can assure you this is exactly what will be deducted from my statement. You may be a rare exception.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Some time ago you wrote that you were no longer going to engage in debate with me. You seem not to be able to hold yourself to your own stated aims.

    However, if you check my post no 122 you will see that I address your hurt feelings on an individual basis. This is built upon the evidence that you have provided yourself, as stated in my post no 132.
    Then quote the evidence you said I have 'provided', and then explain why it would justify your statements as facts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    No, please quote me. Unless you can quote me on this there is nothing you can base your analogy on. Argument by analogy does not apply in this case as I have already stated twice explicitly that I do not believe that we will, can or should replace EU trades with USA trades.
    You really are getting yourself into quite a tizzy aren't you? I am not indicating in any way, shape or form that you are advocating trade with the USA. That would not be debate by analogy that would be debate by induction.

    What I am very clearly doing, in making the analogy, is stating that bigger parties almost always have the upper hand. ie the USA has the upper hand in almost all treaties it negotiates (the exceptions being those it undertakes with the EU and China where it does not hold the balance of power, or at least is not so dominant). If you accept that argument, then I think it follows that, whatever the balance of trade between the two entities, the EU has the upper hand in any negotiations with the UK (because the EU is substantially larger than the UK).

    This is an argument by analogy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    My sentence is correct.
    What you wrote and what you meant are two very different things. I have gone through this more than once with you, I am not going to do so again.

    I accept that you did not mean that the UK's membership of EFTA would be immediate upon Brexit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Then quote the evidence you said I have 'provided', and then explain why it would justify your statements as facts.
    Your statements are scattered throughout this thread. I have justified my statements in post no 122. I have clarified this in post no 132.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    What you wrote and what you meant are two very different things. I have gone through this more than once with you, I am not going to do so again.

    I accept that you did not mean that the UK's membership of EFTA would be immediate upon Brexit.
    If you look at the explanations, you will see that they were word for word what I wrote, I only split it in 2 sentences so you can understand better. Therefore what I meant and wrote were exactly the same thing.

    This really invalidates your claim that 'you keep arguing that the UK would automatically be a member of EFTA, so why would there be a need for negotiations/trade agreements?' on post 129.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You really are getting yourself into quite a tizzy aren't you? I am not indicating in any way, shape or form that you are advocating trade with the USA. That would not be debate by analogy that would be debate by induction.

    What I am very clearly doing, in making the analogy, is stating that bigger parties almost always have the upper hand. ie the USA has the upper hand in almost all treaties it negotiates (the exceptions being those it undertakes with the EU and China where it does not hold the balance of power, or at least is not so dominant). If you accept that argument, then I think it follows that, whatever the balance of trade between the two entities, the EU has the upper hand in any negotiations with the UK (because the EU is substantially larger than the UK).

    This is an argument by analogy.

    My statement: 'I did not suggest trading with the USA in replacement for our trades with the EU, if I did please quote me.'

    Your response is that this is 'argument by analogy', which it is not from my statement's context.

    And only now you clarify that the analogy is on trade power.

    As I said 'There are several routes as I have stated, such as (1) joining the EFTA, (2) staying in the EEA or (3) signing trade agreements with individual countries. Which route we choose to take will depend on the situation that arises. Routes 1 and 2 should eliminate the possibility of your scenario.'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If you look at the explanations, you will see that they were word for word what I wrote, I only split it in 2 sentences so you can understand better. Therefore what I meant and wrote were exactly the same thing.
    Look at how you have had to rearrange and embellish what you have written in order to clarify what you meant:

    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    ''The UK is free to join the EFTA, of which there is immediate membership considering we meet the requirements.''



    1. The UK is free to join the EFTA.

    2. Considering we meet the requirement (approval from parliament, submission of application, accepting EFTA terms) there is immediate membership to the EFTA.
    There is no immediacy in:

    (approval from parliament, submission of application, accepting EFTA terms)
    This really invalidates your claim that 'you keep arguing that the UK would automatically be a member of EFTA, so why would there be a need for negotiations/trade agreements?' on post 129.
    I accept that you meant something else, I do not accept that you wrote this. Therefore my point was a valid interpretation of what you wrote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Your response is that this is 'argument by analogy', which it is not from my statement's context.

    And only now you clarify that the analogy is on trade power.
    Your statement's context was that the UK held the balance of power because it is a net importer from the EU. My argument, by analogy, is that your logic in this is flawed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Your statements are scattered throughout this thread. I have justified my statements in post no 122. I have clarified this in post no 132.
    Post 122:

    These are not accusations, they are just statements of fact.

    Your knowledge of international law is negligible - you have shown this. You keep making the statement that the UN is only a peacekeeping organisation. If that's true then what peacekeeping function does UNICEF perform? What is the peacekeeping element in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Where is the peacekeeping element in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child?

    Your desires for an EU settlement are out of step with the mainstream - you say that you care nothing about immigration, where this is the central bone of contention for many.

    Your suggestions that things can be settled, post-Brexit, quickly and easily are 100% pure fantasy - the mere fact of having a referendum has started to have a negative effect on the economy.

    Your English uses unusual terms, or words in unusual ways, that is not in the British idiom. You initially made the point yourself that you were an immigrant to the UK. It shouldn't be that much of a surprise to you that there isn't a 1:1 relationship between what you think you write and the way that is interpreted.

    Your suggestion that the EU is the "worst recipe" that one could come up with for Europe is simply risible - just look at Europe's recent history. Half of the continent is not much more than 25 years removed from communism. Greece, Spain and Portugal are not much further removed from military dictatorships. We don't need to go much further back for very dark days indeed across our continent. Even Liam Fox acknowledges that the EU has played a significant role bringing positive change in this area. But for you the EU is the worst possible option!?

    I am sorry you are so deeply offended by these simple statements, and you wish to launch accusations against me to try to divert attention from the facts. But this won't stop me pointing out the errors in your logic or that you won't address difficult questions.

    Post 132:

    'You have provided the proof through your statements. I'm not really interested in debating your hurt feelings, and I doubt anyone else wants to read about them either.'

    Evidence on accusations:

    None.


    Let me put the whole situation in dialogue context:

    You: 'Clearly you know nothing about international law.'

    Me: This is a fact or your opinion?

    You: A fact.

    Me: Do you have evidence to support this 'fact'?

    You: From what you said.

    Me: So quote what I said.

    You: They are scattered all over this thread.

    -------

    Still no evidence.
 
 
 
  • 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

    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

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