View Poll Results: in or out?
in
17
38.64%
out
18
40.91%
shake it all about
9
20.45%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll
In, or out
#46
Re: In, or out
The 'leave' crew haven't exactly been clean, honest and shiny either. The whole thing has been a farce imo. BB's comments were totally out of order though.
#47
Re: In, or out
Theoretically you might find a racist who's pragmatic and able to see that 'remain' is the best economic option - but then they would likely have a more nuanced view of race as well.
The 'all terrorists are Muslims' is obviously factually incorrect - quite a few christian terrorists for one, together with those that are terrorists for other than religious reasons.
In terms of set theory, the two cases aren't the same.
#48
Re: In, or out
Makes me laugh that the main argument of the remain squad seems to be belittling the intelligence of the Brexit mob. Well Beckham has joined the remain crew so that's that one blown out of the water.
Also saw a Billy Bragg quote 'not all Brexit voters are racist, but all racist voters are Brexit'
Now this really pisses me off, because if I said to Billy 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims' he'd immediately slam me as a racist and fail to see that both comments have an equal footing in the truth stakes
twat
Also saw a Billy Bragg quote 'not all Brexit voters are racist, but all racist voters are Brexit'
Now this really pisses me off, because if I said to Billy 'Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims' he'd immediately slam me as a racist and fail to see that both comments have an equal footing in the truth stakes
twat
#49
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: In, or out
Mind, practically speaking, a racist voter IS likely to be for leaving.
Theoretically you might find a racist who's pragmatic and able to see that 'remain' is the best economic option - but then they would likely have a more nuanced view of race as well.
The 'all terrorists are Muslims' is obviously factually incorrect - quite a few christian terrorists for one, together with those that are terrorists for other than religious reasons.
In terms of set theory, the two cases aren't the same.
Theoretically you might find a racist who's pragmatic and able to see that 'remain' is the best economic option - but then they would likely have a more nuanced view of race as well.
The 'all terrorists are Muslims' is obviously factually incorrect - quite a few christian terrorists for one, together with those that are terrorists for other than religious reasons.
In terms of set theory, the two cases aren't the same.
#50
Re: In, or out
Mind, practically speaking, a racist voter IS likely to be for leaving.
Theoretically you might find a racist who's pragmatic and able to see that 'remain' is the best economic option - but then they would likely have a more nuanced view of race as well.
The 'all terrorists are Muslims' is obviously factually incorrect - quite a few christian terrorists for one, together with those that are terrorists for other than religious reasons.
In terms of set theory, the two cases aren't the same.
Theoretically you might find a racist who's pragmatic and able to see that 'remain' is the best economic option - but then they would likely have a more nuanced view of race as well.
The 'all terrorists are Muslims' is obviously factually incorrect - quite a few christian terrorists for one, together with those that are terrorists for other than religious reasons.
In terms of set theory, the two cases aren't the same.
The problem with the statement is not about whether it is technically true, it is about the underlying negative association that is being made between something unpleasant and a group of people that do not deserve to be associated with that unpleasant thing.
#52
Re: In, or out
It's kind of like saying that vegetarians are correlated with road accidents. It doesn't say that vegetarianism causes road accidents, or that road accidents cause vegetarianism - just that they are correlated (through those who want to be healthy being more likely to be vegetarian, and to go jogging by the road).
'negative association' seems to be code for 'personally I think correlation = causation and I'm going to use it as an excuse to complain'. As such it's in that class of "unthoughts" some types try to impose; that personally I'll have nothing to do with.
Oh, and the primary argument for BRExit has been on the basis of immigration - which is why they haven't put forward a very good argument, and why racists are going to be attracted to that option. They could have said that the EU was unstable and prone to collapse because they wouldn't reform - but they didn't.
#53
Re: In, or out
Nope, would be fine by me, since it's basically a true statement, and it even goes to great pains to give a directionality to the correlation linkage.
Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I hear a lot of correlation and no claim of causation. What I hear is racists tend to favour BRExit, but not that racists cause BRExit, nor that BRExit causes racism.
It's kind of like saying that vegetarians are correlated with road accidents. It doesn't say that vegetarianism causes road accidents, or that road accidents cause vegetarianism - just that they are correlated (through those who want to be healthy being more likely to be vegetarian, and to go jogging by the road).
'negative association' seems to be code for 'personally I think correlation = causation and I'm going to use it as an excuse to complain'. As such it's in that class of "unthoughts" some types try to impose; that personally I'll have nothing to do with.
Oh, and the primary argument for BRExit has been on the basis of immigration - which is why they haven't put forward a very good argument, and why racists are going to be attracted to that option. They could have said that the EU was unstable and prone to collapse because they wouldn't reform - but they didn't.
Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I hear a lot of correlation and no claim of causation. What I hear is racists tend to favour BRExit, but not that racists cause BRExit, nor that BRExit causes racism.
It's kind of like saying that vegetarians are correlated with road accidents. It doesn't say that vegetarianism causes road accidents, or that road accidents cause vegetarianism - just that they are correlated (through those who want to be healthy being more likely to be vegetarian, and to go jogging by the road).
'negative association' seems to be code for 'personally I think correlation = causation and I'm going to use it as an excuse to complain'. As such it's in that class of "unthoughts" some types try to impose; that personally I'll have nothing to do with.
Oh, and the primary argument for BRExit has been on the basis of immigration - which is why they haven't put forward a very good argument, and why racists are going to be attracted to that option. They could have said that the EU was unstable and prone to collapse because they wouldn't reform - but they didn't.
Inevitable really
#54
Re: In, or out
Although the polls are saying it's too close to call, I reckon it will be remain
And so it should be - UK should never have joined but they did and now, economically, it would be too disruptive to leave
The same scenario played out in the Scotch referendum - it looked like leave was going to romp home but in the end it was a resounding victory for stay
Always look at the betting market - they didn't get as wealthy as they are by getting shit wrong
And so it should be - UK should never have joined but they did and now, economically, it would be too disruptive to leave
The same scenario played out in the Scotch referendum - it looked like leave was going to romp home but in the end it was a resounding victory for stay
Always look at the betting market - they didn't get as wealthy as they are by getting shit wrong
#55
Re: In, or out
Nope, would be fine by me, since it's basically a true statement, and it even goes to great pains to give a directionality to the correlation linkage.
Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I hear a lot of correlation and no claim of causation. What I hear is racists tend to favour BRExit, but not that racists cause BRExit, nor that BRExit causes racism.
It's kind of like saying that vegetarians are correlated with road accidents. It doesn't say that vegetarianism causes road accidents, or that road accidents cause vegetarianism - just that they are correlated (through those who want to be healthy being more likely to be vegetarian, and to go jogging by the road).
'negative association' seems to be code for 'personally I think correlation = causation and I'm going to use it as an excuse to complain'. As such it's in that class of "unthoughts" some types try to impose; that personally I'll have nothing to do with.
Oh, and the primary argument for BRExit has been on the basis of immigration - which is why they haven't put forward a very good argument, and why racists are going to be attracted to that option. They could have said that the EU was unstable and prone to collapse because they wouldn't reform - but they didn't.
Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I hear a lot of correlation and no claim of causation. What I hear is racists tend to favour BRExit, but not that racists cause BRExit, nor that BRExit causes racism.
It's kind of like saying that vegetarians are correlated with road accidents. It doesn't say that vegetarianism causes road accidents, or that road accidents cause vegetarianism - just that they are correlated (through those who want to be healthy being more likely to be vegetarian, and to go jogging by the road).
'negative association' seems to be code for 'personally I think correlation = causation and I'm going to use it as an excuse to complain'. As such it's in that class of "unthoughts" some types try to impose; that personally I'll have nothing to do with.
Oh, and the primary argument for BRExit has been on the basis of immigration - which is why they haven't put forward a very good argument, and why racists are going to be attracted to that option. They could have said that the EU was unstable and prone to collapse because they wouldn't reform - but they didn't.
And don't tell me what I think. I do believe that the negative association has been used extensively by the Remainers. I was irritated when a friend of Jo Cox announced "let's not link this to Brexit". Whereby doing exactly that.
You haven't read anything on the EU being unstable and unwilling to reform. You have either been on Neptune or perhaps you have choosen to only read the articles on immigration because you think calling the Leave campaigner racist is the only way to win. There is plenty of other reading around, if you were really interested well try googling, maybe start looking for some of Michael Gove's statements.
As for racism and Brexit, well the majority of Europeans are Caucasian just like the majority of Brits. So why would a racist be particularly bothered about Europeans living here. The white racists would be more bothered about blacks and Asians surely, even the British born ones. So do you mean that people that are concerned about uncontrolled immigration are likely to vote for Brexit?
#56
Re: In, or out
Always seems strange to me that people can't actually read what said. ISIS are at least 99% muslim. It's not debatable, its not contentious, its simply a fact.
And in part the axioms of ISIS are founded in the idea of a caliphate, which derive from islam and the successor of the prophet (and forms one of the key differences between sunni and shia). An idea at least as stupid as the christian rapture.
However, they other half is the same murderous *****wittery that always happens when people go looking for power and use wars as an excuse to let the animal out.
#57
Re: In, or out
Wow, not a trace of irony ....
Always seems strange to me that people can't actually read what said. ISIS are at least 99% muslim. It's not debatable, its not contentious, its simply a fact.
And in part the axioms of ISIS are founded in the idea of a caliphate, which derive from islam and the successor of the prophet (and forms one of the key differences between sunni and shia). An idea at least as stupid as the christian rapture.
However, they other half is the same murderous *****wittery that always happens when people go looking for power and use wars as an excuse to let the animal out.
Always seems strange to me that people can't actually read what said. ISIS are at least 99% muslim. It's not debatable, its not contentious, its simply a fact.
And in part the axioms of ISIS are founded in the idea of a caliphate, which derive from islam and the successor of the prophet (and forms one of the key differences between sunni and shia). An idea at least as stupid as the christian rapture.
However, they other half is the same murderous *****wittery that always happens when people go looking for power and use wars as an excuse to let the animal out.
The result of the referndum will be to remain, I am sure. It will not be based upon those that have firm views for remain or leave. It will be the result of the undecideds or the indifferents that will vote for status quo.
The Project Fear campaign of the remain, the accusations of racism towards anyone that votes leave plus the government spending and clout they have been able to bring to the campaign which Leave could not hope to match. A once in a lifetime opportunity will be missed.
Last edited by Bermudashorts; Jun 22nd 2016 at 7:29 pm.
#58
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 44
Re: In, or out
I see that at least one poster here had returned their voting papers by 31st May.
My old local authority did not even send out overseas postal voting papers until 3rd June and mine reached me yesterday (22nd June) despite being sent by "Advanced Mail First Class", whatever that means.
I knew last week that my chance of voting was stuffed anyway, given the expected delivery time given on Australia Post's website but it does annoy me.
Why, with all the technology available now, cannot such voting be done electronically?
My old local authority did not even send out overseas postal voting papers until 3rd June and mine reached me yesterday (22nd June) despite being sent by "Advanced Mail First Class", whatever that means.
I knew last week that my chance of voting was stuffed anyway, given the expected delivery time given on Australia Post's website but it does annoy me.
Why, with all the technology available now, cannot such voting be done electronically?
#59
Re: In, or out
Although the polls are saying it's too close to call, I reckon it will be remain
And so it should be - UK should never have joined but they did and now, economically, it would be too disruptive to leave
The same scenario played out in the Scotch referendum - it looked like leave was going to romp home but in the end it was a resounding victory for stay
Always look at the betting market - they didn't get as wealthy as they are by getting shit wrong
And so it should be - UK should never have joined but they did and now, economically, it would be too disruptive to leave
The same scenario played out in the Scotch referendum - it looked like leave was going to romp home but in the end it was a resounding victory for stay
Always look at the betting market - they didn't get as wealthy as they are by getting shit wrong
Expert pollsters say that in all referenda (some prefer the plural form referendums) the 'status quo' always firms in the days leading up to and on the day of voting. Obviously in this case the status quo is Remain.
#60
Re: In, or out
I didn't say it wasn't a fact, I said quite the opposite. I said that it is not fair to make the association between Muslim and ISIS. In the same way it is not fair to make the association between Leave voter and racist. These connections, using words in the same sentence are all mind games.
The result of the referndum will be to remain, I am sure. It will not be based upon those that have firm views for remain or leave. It will be the result of the undecideds or the indifferents that will vote for status quo.
The Project Fear campaign of the remain, the accusations of racism towards anyone that votes leave plus the government spending and clout they have been able to bring to the campaign which Leave could not hope to match. A once in a lifetime opportunity will be missed.
The result of the referndum will be to remain, I am sure. It will not be based upon those that have firm views for remain or leave. It will be the result of the undecideds or the indifferents that will vote for status quo.
The Project Fear campaign of the remain, the accusations of racism towards anyone that votes leave plus the government spending and clout they have been able to bring to the campaign which Leave could not hope to match. A once in a lifetime opportunity will be missed.