You answered your own question with your second line.
Answer to your ‘wasnt JUST to get out’ point is there in my last post.
Have a proper read instead of just jumping on ANOTHER anti Tory speech.
So you wanted out of the EU just to be put of the EU?
Is that correct?
Tell ya what Frangers, cba with your deliberate and usual ‘argument for arguments sake’ stance and tactic.
So interpret that as you like.
Aint getting into another long winded Brexit b/s spat.
If you want to know WHY I wanted Brexit, have a trawl through the numerous Brexit posts and arguments we have had in the past.
(And I bet you actually do that😳, you have far more time on your hands than I do for it.)
So you reckon both that Johnson delivered, and that you were betrayed?
We have already got Schrodinger’s border in NI/Eire/North Sea.
We now have Schrodinger’s Brexit. Both alive and dead.
Aye if ya like.
Just put this down in your …
'‘How many political arguments I think I won on Trucknet catalogue’ no doubt with a leather binder.
We know how important it is to you.
Look mate, it is what it is, we both at least agree that Brexit has turned to crap, what we do not agree on is how and why it is so.
F F S! how many times does it have to be said, this “£2000” is just a false claim by desperate Tories.
It is a false claim, but it is still making the news. It is doing it’s job.
Just like the fictious £350m it is getting a life of it’s own.
I don’t know whether or not it will convince anybody to change their minds but it is certainly reinforcing the beliefs of the faithful.
As an aside, I heard today of Brandolini’s Law, it is related to misinformation on the www.
Arguably an updated version of the old “A lie has spread around the world before the truth has got it’s boots on”
The effort involved in disproving a falsehood is an order of magnitude greater that that to produce the lie.
It was mentioned in an anti-vaxxer debunking video. It is easy to produce to whole range of falsehoods all the time, but takes real effort to find the true facts.
And the debunking seems to be much less profitable too. 
1 Like
Thing is Frangers, you mention anti vaxers being ‘debunked’ and ‘facts’ in the same sentence.
How do YOU define facts?
Opinions and statements from an official body?
Same official body who’s source of same opinions are organisations with a vested interest, such as pharmaceutical companies, and with a medical doctor on their books.attatched as back up.
Dont sound too much like genuine ‘facts’ to me in that context.
In this particular instance the false claims were due to a misrepresentation of publicly available data.
Whether it was due to a genuine ignorance of what the figures actually were or what they actually meant, or just a sick attempt to get clicks and therefore get money is uncertain.
The facts, that is the figures were disputed by no one.
What was disputed was what they actually meant.
There seems to be loads of it around at the moment regarding misunderstandings of what “Excess Deaths” data really are.
And grifters are making money from spreading ■■■■■■■■ masquerading as fact.
I’d say the facts are those that are agreed on by the worldwide scientific and medical communities.
There are people who choose not to accept science, despite it being independently verifiable - that is the very nature of science - and those that are comfortable with arguably mankind’s greatest achievement - a rational explanation of the world around us.
Anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, and of course the religionists like our MIA buddy Sploom and the million and one other loony sects… Meh, who cares if they prefer a life of fear and ignorance? Not me that’s for sure, I’ll leave analysis of those people to the psychologists and psychiatrists of the world.
Life is too short to worry about nut jobs.
As a parent, ask yourself this: If one of your children need urgent medical attention, who do you want treating them? Anti-vaxxers like struck-off doctor Andrew Wakefield and his followers, or someone learned in the ways of real science?
i know there are people that think having a pound in your pocket is more than having 1000 pounds in your pocket but most in the modern world (read since achamedies) most people have a basic understanding of how maths works
Not sure you can put anti vaxxers in the very same category as nut job flat earthers, or crazy overly relgious types tbf.
Ok a lot of em had some pretty wild sci fi esque theories, but also many had rational reasons for their opinions.
I’m a big believer in science, but the science in this case was still under heavy research, and rushed through after a hysterical knee jerk reaction, to what was essentially a particular bad flu, which in my view was blown way out of proportion .
4 years later on we look back and notice that the deaths were not in biblical proportions dropping in the streets style apocolypse type situations, as was first thought.
Also a lot of people have fell foul of these vaccinations.
I’m anti vax in the context of not having anymore of the ■■■■ things, after initially and uncharacteristically being misled and misguided… for whatever reason.
By the same token many people were took in by Thalidomide after science deemed it safe.
Most people are OK with arithmetic, and the simpler functions.
I am not so sure that many have a good understanding of chance and probability, so are not very good at understanding relative and absolute risk. The media is often populated by “numerically challenged” writers, with an arts degree and so write nonsense which is widely believed. It isn’t deliberate in those cases, but may be exploited by others.
An example of Brandolini’s law in action.
If you are genuinely interested I could try to explain a few issues with your post. If not I won’t bother.
I’ve done risk management… Try me on a few arguments…
It was different in my day though:
We had these concepts known as “Intrinisic” Risk and “Implied” risk…
Eg. “If Putin wins Ukraine, he’ll 100pc automatically invade the rest of Europe!” is an example of Implied risk. It’s only true if you believe it to be true.
Then there’s “Putin has nukes. If we nuke him, he’ll nuke us, and we’ll all die!” is an example of Intrinic Risk. The correct way to proceed is “Don’t take that risk”.
“If Putin dies, the war ends. Putin is dying of Cancer! This war ends Soon!” is an example of “Liar’s Risk” where the “implications” are falsely represented to start with.
“In the beginning, everything was Even Money.”
A mantra used by Professional Gamblers where they take advantage of the General Public’s poor perception of REAL risk implications.
“Never give a sucker even money” is another one.
There were a handful of people who we got told “Died after refusing a jab”… With some of those stories rather suspect.
There have been literally thousands of people that have died shortly after the jab, despite being under 50 and healthy prior to their sudden death.
Either the “Vaccine” didn’t work then, or it had fatal side effects in a greater risk percentage than the chance of dying of actual covid, assuming it is anything beyond the background death rate for the entire respiratory disease pantheon as I believe it to be…
Isnt it the case that what REALLY eats the Voters is when a politician says
“We promise this” and then says
"Sorry, we didn’t win a big enough majority to do it.
and
"We promise we won’t do THAT"
followed by
“Events, dear boy - Events We HAD to do that because…”
Bet of the Day:
Labour to win 250-299 seats. 50/1
Under 300 seats?
Pole Not Barge Touch With Do A
Care to hazard a guess how that cab re-arranged into a sentence?
Hmm…
Given your air of superiority on here, garnished with a soupcon of pomposity, I will kindly decline your bizzare offer to educate me to your (self perceived) level.
So thanks for the offer, but I will go with your second option.