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

64% of TSR want to remain in the EU... share your vote watch

  • View Poll Results: How will you be voting in the EU referendum?
    Remain
    2,378
    56.27%
    Leave
    1,024
    24.23%
    Don't know yet
    278
    6.58%
    Won't be voting
    546
    12.92%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So would it therefore be a fair thing to say that to be right/conservative is to hate freedom and to support mass murder of foreigners?

    Of course I wouldn't, because both statements are utterly moronic.
    That doesn't sound very convincing given the present "conservative" government and its mass migration figures.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    That doesn't sound very convincing given the present "conservative" government and its mass migration figures.
    Oh look! Facts getting in the way of blinkered prejudicial views!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So would it therefore be a fair thing to say that to be right/conservative is to hate freedom and to support mass murder of foreigners?

    Of course I wouldn't, because both statements are utterly moronic.
    You can't seriously suggest a liberal/left voter does not support one of their core principles and that is mass uncontrolled migration and no borders. This was a concept created by the left/liberals. Every left/liberal party has it as their main policy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Oh look! Facts getting in the way of blinkered prejudicial views!
    Indeed, your views are quite incompatible with the facts of Tory mass immigration.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    You can't seriously suggest a liberal/left voter does not support one of their core principles and that is mass uncontrolled migration and no borders. This was a concept created by the left/liberals. Every left/liberal party has it as their main policy
    Cite that this is a core principle for 'the left', please. Fun fact: favouring being less discriminatory about immigrants is not the same as wanting unrestricted immigration.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    Indeed, your views are quite incompatible with the facts of Tory mass immigration.
    Oh wow, my point really went over your head, didn't it? I was not saying that right-wingers are like that: I said that to make such a statement would be moronic, exactly like how 'To be liberal/left is to support uncontrolled mass migration and no borders' is a moronic statement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CleverSquirrel)
    To be honest, leaving the EU makes more sense than staying in, we spend soo much for just staying the EU alone, there more benefits for leaving than staying in :yep:
    You see, that is exactly the kind of headline grabbing, emotional argument that Brexit campaigners use.

    And it's not even true...

    Yes, in terms of pure monetary input on part of the government the UK is a net payer. But that does not take into considerations any of the benefits of being in the EU that you cannot measure by simple A pays B and B pays A.

    For one it's rather ironic that the mayor of London wants to leave - does he really think leaving will have no impact on London's financial market? I guess gathering support for a possible run at PM is more important to him than his city.

    ps, I am actually for the UK to leave, and there are some good arguments for it, but if I actually were a UK citizien I would vote no.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Oh wow, my point really went over your head, didn't it? I was not saying that right-wingers are like that: I said that to make such a statement would be moronic, exactly like how 'To be liberal/left is to support uncontrolled mass migration and no borders' is a moronic statement.
    Yes, and your point was meaningless, like I tried to explain, because most right wingers clearly have no desire to kill other groups whereas many leftist want open borders and benefits for everybody.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is sad
    I'm voting leave all the way


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    Yes, and your point was meaningless, like I tried to explain, because most right wingers clearly have no desire to kill other groups whereas many leftist want open borders and benefits for everybody.
    Still waiting for proof of that last bit, chum.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Still waiting for proof of that last bit, chum.
    Look at what the UN does. Do they ever even speak of an asylum roof? They don't give a damn. All they do is complain whenever a sovereign country resists. Africa is going to double its population in the next 50 years and they would love to pour all of them into Europe, which has a dying population.

    The socialist PM of Sweden, allied with Labor, etc: No limit for the number of immigrants they can take.

    http://avpixlat.info/2015/04/30/lofv...sinvandringen/


    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    Look at what the UN does. Do they ever even speak of an asylum roof? They don't give a damn. All they do is complain whenever a sovereign country resists. Africa is going to double its population in the next 50 years and they would love to pour all of them into Europe, which has a dying population.
    Um, because that's nothing the UN has any direct control over, being an intergovernmental organisation? And the UN is left-wing now?

    Is everything foreign left-wing to you?

    This is the most out-of-the-park attempt at a justification I have yet seen.

    The socialist PM of Sweden, allied with Labor, etc: No limit for the number of immigrants they can take.

    http://avpixlat.info/2015/04/30/lofv...sinvandringen/
    One, single, solitary, foreign example? Come on. You can do better than that. Post from a Labour party pamphlet, or the Lib Dems.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by gladders)
    Speaking as one who is pro-EU I do not share this sentiment - I don't think the world will become one large union (and nor do I feel it is inherently desirable).
    A lot of academics and philosophers think it's inevitable if humanity is going to have a long term future. You might not like it, but a world government is very likely necessary if humans are going to deal with the global challenges imposed by technology.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    A lot of academics and philosophers think it's inevitable if humanity is going to have a long term future. You might not like it, but a world government is very likely necessary if humans are going to deal with the global challenges imposed by technology.
    If you say so. I have no particular dog in that fight, but I don't think the world - and especially the UK - is ready or willing for it yet and I am not going to do anything to accelerate such broad and distant objective. A century ago it was assumed world communism was inevitable.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by gladders)
    If you say so. I have no particular dog in that fight, but I don't think the world - and especially the UK - is ready or willing for it yet and I am not going to do anything to accelerate such broad and distant objective. A century ago it was assumed world communism was inevitable.
    With all due respect, these problems aren't going to go away just because people aren't "willing for it yet". Unfortunately it could well be the case that a major catastrophe is required before people accept that it's actually necessary. The kind of problems I'm discussing are climate change, nuclear terrorism/accidents, biological war/terrorism/accidents, pandemics, artificial intelligence, etc. All of these are potential global catastrophic risks (some more likely than others), none of which we currently have adequate international systems to prevent. A lot of people seem to think that we're still in the 19th Century, living in a steady state world where something that has always worked can be expected to work in the future. It's undeniable that we need international bodies capable of imposing legally binding legislation on countries and the failure of the world to deal with climate change is a perfect case-in-point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    A lot of academics and philosophers think it's inevitable if humanity is going to have a long term future. You might not like it, but a world government is very likely necessary if humans are going to deal with the global challenges imposed by technology.
    Humanity will slaughter itself before it comes to that.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by brainhuman)
    Humanity will slaughter itself before it comes to that.
    Well that's what we're trying to prevent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    With all due respect, these problems aren't going to go away just because people aren't "willing for it yet". Unfortunately it could well be the case that a major catastrophe is required before people accept that it's actually necessary. The kind of problems I'm discussing are climate change, nuclear terrorism/accidents, biological war/terrorism/accidents, pandemics, artificial intelligence, etc. All of these are potential global catastrophic risks (some more likely than others), none of which we currently have adequate international systems to prevent. A lot of people seem to think that we're still in the 19th Century, living in a steady state world where something that has always worked can be expected to work in the future. It's undeniable that we need international bodies capable of imposing legally binding legislation on countries and the failure of the world to deal with climate change is a perfect case-in-point.
    Possibly, and as I said, I am not inherently opposed to it. I prefer to look at the need for such a thing on a case-by-case basis, rather than seeing a world government as an objective in and of itself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Um, because that's nothing the UN has any direct control over, being an intergovernmental organisation? .
    The UN are the ones making the refugee treaties that force local weak politicians to comply. There are no limits in these treaties. Politicians only say "we have to follow UN rules" blah blah.

    So basically, the UN has control, because it imposes obligations
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal document in defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of states. The 1967 Protocol removed geographical and temporal restrictions from the Convention.
    http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

    Yes, the UN is an extremely leftist organisation.
    (Original post by gladders)
    One, single, solitary, foreign example? Come on. You can do better than that. Post from a Labour party pamphlet, or the Lib Dems.
    Current PM of Sweden seems pretty relevant to me. I haven't spent a lot of time in the UK so I'm sure that others will find better examples. But I also provided an example from the UK if you read my edit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Well that's what we're trying to prevent.
    I have lost faith that we will achieve that.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.