FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Data vs Source
Data vs Source
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. " The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. " As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. " Air thin on that moral high horse? 
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. " 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts?" The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $"The ait is thin up here, you're right. Credibility of source obviously comes in play but it's minor to the actual data imo. I take your classic example and tell you in the 50/60s we did not have the sources available today. It's actually fairly easy to find alternate data today. Whereas back then it was very difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. " Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $"So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example. When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u Hmrc data tables were incorrect ? When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying? On the renewables green cost vs gas. The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog. The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding." Never stopped Johnson or Truss | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate "Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding." Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
The ait is thin up here, you're right.
Credibility of source obviously comes in play but it's minor to the actual data imo.
I take your classic example and tell you in the 50/60s we did not have the sources available today. It's actually fairly easy to find alternate data today. Whereas back then it was very difficult."Totally agree on easier access to data BUT that is a double edged sword as we also have less idea on credibity! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
The ait is thin up here, you're right.
Credibility of source obviously comes in play but it's minor to the actual data imo.
I take your classic example and tell you in the 50/60s we did not have the sources available today. It's actually fairly easy to find alternate data today. Whereas back then it was very difficult.
Totally agree on easier access to data BUT that is a double edged sword as we also have less idea on credibity! "It's never gonna be perfect 
I'll still take data over 'he's a twitter nobody' any day of the week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate?" How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
"What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win'" You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. " Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense" I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sadly, in these days of ubiquitous conspiracy theories, offered as the truth, and biased opinion offered as "alternative facts" it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find the real truth. Whatever information is offered as actual, real, unimpeachable, data these days. Whatever bona fide is attached. There are always those who will refuse to belive it because it does not match their own, preconceived, ideas. I have no idea how this can be changed but as an example of the task in hand just consider religions. They have survived for millenia, predicated on self serving, word of mouth stories with virtually no solid scientific evidence to back them up. All this time they have often been used to commission and justify unspeakably evil acts as they continue to take "donations" from the "faithful" who have the least to give. " I agree , we now live in a post-truth world . Social media is to blame (mainly Twitter) where you get faceless, unqualified people publishing propaganda and bull shit fed to them by their paymasters. If a random person in the street came up to you and told you something would you believe them? The likes of Morleyman needs to wake up to the fact that I don’t trust or believe most things he ‘quotes’ on here and he will never trust or believe what the people like myself post either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts?" "The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding." "Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate?" The debate stops, as is appropriate if neither side knows what they're talking about. Hopefully, people will then have an incentive to go away and learn things, so that they can come back and have a meaningful discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? " There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. However, Reuter tells us that 'British wages are rising fastest in low-paid sectors where employers previously relied on workers from the European Union' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. " See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. " You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit." You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
"I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. " Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do."I am definitely guilty of it aswell, but the difference is, I know I am right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive"There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced. But no exception for governemnt recorded data. Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? " Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do."Hovis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. " You can look up wage Increases in e.u countries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do."I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
Hovis? "Mr discretion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation?" The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?"Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you." If someone receives a pay rise below inflation, they’ve still had a pay cut. If they want to celebrate it then fair play to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? " Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you. If someone receives a pay rise below inflation, they’ve still had a pay cut. If they want to celebrate it then fair play to them. " Semantics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals "But I have government data , parliament laws and the umpact papers to back it up. These are all government sources. You're saying they're lying? So you're calling the govenrment liars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. " I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you. If someone receives a pay rise below inflation, they’ve still had a pay cut. If they want to celebrate it then fair play to them. Semantics " Not at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you. If someone receives a pay rise below inflation, they’ve still had a pay cut. If they want to celebrate it then fair play to them. " That doesn't stop something being a move to a high wage economy. If your inflation is 17% and wage rise 15% Another economy inflation at 10% but wages go up 1% You are in a higher wage economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals
But I have government data , parliament laws and the umpact papers to back it up. These are all government sources.
You're saying they're lying?
So you're calling the govenrment liars"Like I said earlier, we are living in a post truth world and you just copy people of Twitter who cherry pick data to suit their narrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals
But I have government data , parliament laws and the umpact papers to back it up. These are all government sources.
You're saying they're lying?
So you're calling the govenrment liars"And btw, this government regularly lies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing." No you didn't but I can see how it's turned out. In real terms, people around the world haven't had increases. Tell me Brexit fucked the whole world. Wanna speak about what you first said about a poster spouting nonsense? Do you still believe that? Did you bother to check Reuters? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? Sometimes you need to read between the lines and know when or when not to push a whole argument onto something that is being presented in isolation. Wages, a person who is a builder or lorry driver has seen an increase in their take home pay, driven by demand for people to do those jobs outstripping the actual people available to do those jobs. It was first noticed during covid as building and haulage started to ramp back up, EU workers had gone back home leaving a gap. A person in one of those trades is likely to say that because of brexit my salary has increased and I have more work than ever. They don't need to look at the E2E, look into all of the different permutations of real term rise against inflationary pressures of x number of years. It is simply a pay rise due to brexit in their view, if you can understand that why would you then go on to say it isn't a rise based on real term data, it is clearly their lived experience. wouldn't a better response be: I'm glad to hear you got a pay rise, looks like things have worked out well for you. If someone receives a pay rise below inflation, they’ve still had a pay cut. If they want to celebrate it then fair play to them. Semantics Not at all. " Clearly it is, because you do not know the % increase of someones pay rise or their pay rises previously. What you are doing is holding dear to your argument and no matter the situation you are swinging it back to your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing. No you didn't but I can see how it's turned out. In real terms, people around the world haven't had increases. Tell me Brexit fucked the whole world. Wanna speak about what you first said about a poster spouting nonsense? Do you still believe that? Did you bother to check Reuters?" “You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals
But I have government data , parliament laws and the umpact papers to back it up. These are all government sources.
You're saying they're lying?
So you're calling the govenrment liars
And btw, this government regularly lies "Well then whenever you quote and article using government figures. I'll just say you are calling yourself a liar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
Everything you post about Brexit and trade deals
But I have government data , parliament laws and the umpact papers to back it up. These are all government sources.
You're saying they're lying?
So you're calling the govenrment liars
And btw, this government regularly lies
Well then whenever you quote and article using government figures.
I'll just say you are calling yourself a liar. "Like I said, this government regularly lies, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing. No you didn't but I can see how it's turned out. In real terms, people around the world haven't had increases. Tell me Brexit fucked the whole world. Wanna speak about what you first said about a poster spouting nonsense? Do you still believe that? Did you bother to check Reuters? “You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes.” " So as I always ask. Can your eoc celebrate that. If brexot is the factor. Ehy have our real term wages risen more than most e.u coutnries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing. No you didn't but I can see how it's turned out. In real terms, people around the world haven't had increases. Tell me Brexit fucked the whole world. Wanna speak about what you first said about a poster spouting nonsense? Do you still believe that? Did you bother to check Reuters? “You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes.” " That wasn't your first post on Brexit, but that's cool, we can ignore your first post. I retract that you've changed from wages 'wages in real terms'. It would be nice to have a discussion re. Wage increases due to Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd go a step further. State your claim. Quote to support. Provide reference (or sensible search terms). I'm finding threads are increasingly hard to follow as struggle to understand the posters view. Doesn't help that we seem to be in a period of personal spats here alongside a shocking quote function. And frequently the person making the claim is expect others to do the heavy lifting. If I look at the green thread, Im not even clear on what any person is arguing. Then pointed to a twitter thread. Then we are back to people baiting that it's a twitter post. I'm sure I'm equally as guilty. I can be lazy here. But imo this forum has started to deteriorate recently, probably worse than brexit times. Let's all be better. "Which I think is initially what I was trying to say but as usual you put it better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies" Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable."See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want... Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine. Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? The obvious solution to that problem is, if you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, stop talking until you have a better understanding. Indeed - and we’re all guilty of ignoring that from time to time. But if the other side of the argument are also as ignorant, what happens to debate? How would you know the 'other side' is ignorant if you're out of your depth? Kinda contradictory and just says 'I'm looking to win' You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes. Do you also know that Brexit has indeed driven up wages in certain sectors? Because it sounds like you're saying that's someone spouting nonsense I accept that wages have risen in some sectors, though dispute whether that’s solely down to Brexit or other factors, and that doesn’t change the fact that’s wages haven’t risen in real terms overall. Which is what I said earlier - one persons anecdote about their own job doesn’t dispute the overall result - but if they insist that ‘Brexit drove wages up’ because they’re personally getting a better salary now than they did in 2016, and they refuse to accept any another argument - who’s ignorant in that conversation? There are many reasons that wages haven't risen in 'real terms' and Brexit isn't one of them. See this is where I ask you for data to back that sweeping statement up. You don't think there are many reasons? If we speak in 'real terms', we're all fucked, Brexit or no Brexit. You said ‘Brexit isn’t one of them’ - that’s a statement that Brexit had no effect on wages failing to rise in real terms. I do indeed think there are several reasons, but I suspect Brexit is one of them. I’m surprised that you don’t. Brexit or no Brexit, in 'real terms' were all fucked. That's me saying that's whilst you can cite Brexit as a factor, we would still be in this situation without Brexit. I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that. I do notice how you skipped past the Reuters claim, is that because you can't argue with it? Who's being ignorant in this conversation? The Reuters claim doesn’t disprove what I said - anecdotal information about individual sectors doesn’t change the whole - we’re poorer in real terms since Brexit - and our economy hasn’t recovered from Covid as well as the predictions made had we remained in the EU. And your statement that ‘I have no way to back that up but you only have to look around the world to see that’ is the point of this thread, is it not? Clearly the thread has moved on mate. If I had the time or inclination I probably could show you data but I don't feel your interested. You've now started to change to 'real terms', in 'real terms', very very few have had increases, look around, its not just the UK, ergo, its not Brexit. I used ‘real terms’ in my first post on the topic. I’ve changed nothing. No you didn't but I can see how it's turned out. In real terms, people around the world haven't had increases. Tell me Brexit fucked the whole world. Wanna speak about what you first said about a poster spouting nonsense? Do you still believe that? Did you bother to check Reuters? “You can have a degree of knowledge but not 100%, but be aware enough and have enough savvy to know that someone is spouting nonsense - Brexit and wages (above) is a good example. Do I know every single economic impact on every single sector? No. Do I know that wages haven’t risen in real terms, and the economy has suffered a massive hit? Yes.” So as I always ask. Can your eoc celebrate that. If brexot is the factor. Ehy have our real term wages risen more than most e.u coutnries?" I didn’t say Brexit is ‘the’ factor. I said it is ‘a’ factor. And you’ve answered your own question. Some EU nations have had stronger real terms wage growth than the U.K - so it’s not a simple U.K vs EU thing. It’s very much a case-by-case situation, but there’s nothing to be gained by saying ‘Brexit hasn’t had an impact’ when it clearly has - it’s impacted our economy as a whole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck "I'll agree with you here that no doubt some data is suppressed. I think what Morley was asking though, is, is published data reliable? I think you've answered that with YES. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it." Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it." Boris Johnson - “This leader of the opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions—although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out - chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sadly, in these days of ubiquitous conspiracy theories, offered as the truth, and biased opinion offered as "alternative facts" it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find the real truth. Whatever information is offered as actual, real, unimpeachable, data these days. Whatever bona fide is attached. There are always those who will refuse to belive it because it does not match their own, preconceived, ideas. I have no idea how this can be changed but as an example of the task in hand just consider religions. They have survived for millenia, predicated on self serving, word of mouth stories with virtually no solid scientific evidence to back them up. All this time they have often been used to commission and justify unspeakably evil acts as they continue to take "donations" from the "faithful" who have the least to give. I agree , we now live in a post-truth world . Social media is to blame (mainly Twitter) where you get faceless, unqualified people publishing propaganda and bull shit fed to them by their paymasters. If a random person in the street came up to you and told you something would you believe them? The likes of Morleyman needs to wake up to the fact that I don’t trust or believe most things he ‘quotes’ on here and he will never trust or believe what the people like myself post either "The apparent anonymity of the internet does lead to those who simply want to make trouble inventing things that frighten or concern the more vulnerable people who take things at face value. In terms of personal insults to try and discredit another's argument; that is as old as time. A great writer in the past coined the phrase "Personal abuse is a sure sign of a weak case". It is as true today as it ever was.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?"You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer. And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now I really am out. I’ve paid no attention to the webinar "Don't worry you can tell them you watched it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!"You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sadly, in these days of ubiquitous conspiracy theories, offered as the truth, and biased opinion offered as "alternative facts" it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find the real truth. Whatever information is offered as actual, real, unimpeachable, data these days. Whatever bona fide is attached. There are always those who will refuse to belive it because it does not match their own, preconceived, ideas. I have no idea how this can be changed but as an example of the task in hand just consider religions. They have survived for millenia, predicated on self serving, word of mouth stories with virtually no solid scientific evidence to back them up. All this time they have often been used to commission and justify unspeakably evil acts as they continue to take "donations" from the "faithful" who have the least to give. I agree , we now live in a post-truth world . Social media is to blame (mainly Twitter) where you get faceless, unqualified people publishing propaganda and bull shit fed to them by their paymasters. If a random person in the street came up to you and told you something would you believe them? The likes of Morleyman needs to wake up to the fact that I don’t trust or believe most things he ‘quotes’ on here and he will never trust or believe what the people like myself post either
The apparent anonymity of the internet does lead to those who simply want to make trouble inventing things that frighten or concern the more vulnerable people who take things at face value.
In terms of personal insults to try and discredit another's argument; that is as old as time. A great writer in the past coined the phrase "Personal abuse is a sure sign of a weak case". It is as true today as it ever was. "It wasn’t an insult, I was being honest, I don’t believe him, he doesn’t believe me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy "I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility. An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck "Oh I know. It happens on my foi requests. They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae. An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil. I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named. I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum. But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way. They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM "He was never proven to have lied. That's why they changed the whole process to recklessly misled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China."I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies" "Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government?" "And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it." "Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM" So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on?" “This Government are building a record number of hospitals—a total of 48—across the country” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St."They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it. Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on?" Alexander was the leader of the Tory party and the PM, he regularly lied, can’t you see what is really going on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM
He was never proven to have lied.
That's why they changed the whole process to recklessly misled."PMSL, you’re proving my point , this is why I don’t believe anything you say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies" "Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it." "Boris Johnson - “This leader of the opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions—although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out - chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry.”" Technically that isn't a lie, because Keir Starmer did indeed not prosecute Jimmy Saville. But Boris knew full well that the reason for that was that no accusations had been made when KS was in position, so it was deliberately misleading, and I would have accepted it. But, as has already been pointed out, Boris Johnson is not a member of the current government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies" "Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it." "Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM" "So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on?" "Alexander was the leader of the Tory party and the PM, he regularly lied, can’t you see what is really going on?" Yes I can. I can see that you've made an untrue statement, you're unable to defend it, so you're moving the goalposts in the hope that no one will notice. Good luck with that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on? Alexander was the leader of the Tory party and the PM, he regularly lied, can’t you see what is really going on? Yes I can. I can see that you've made an untrue statement, you're unable to defend it, so you're moving the goalposts in the hope that no one will notice. Good luck with that." Can I be totally honest, I couldn’t care less what you think, you stick to being pedantic and trying to argue over tiny irrelevant details , it really is tedious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 22/06/23 12:44:33]" I seen it even though you've deleted. It's not pedantic to ask you to prove a 'blatant lie', you haven't done that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And btw, this government regularly lies Can you give an example of a lie told by a member of this government? And I do mean "lie", i.e. something that was untrue, and was known to be untrue by the person at the point they said it. Alexander regularly lied, I know you’re going to be pedantic and say that he isn’t in the ‘current’ government but he was the PM So you're happy to say "this government regularly lies", but you have no evidence to back that up. Can you see why some people might think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Boris, that you can't see what really going on? Alexander was the leader of the Tory party and the PM, he regularly lied, can’t you see what is really going on? Yes I can. I can see that you've made an untrue statement, you're unable to defend it, so you're moving the goalposts in the hope that no one will notice. Good luck with that. Can I be totally honest, I couldn’t care less what you think, you stick to being pedantic and trying to argue over tiny irrelevant details , it really is tedious "It's not irrelevant to ask people to back up FACTS. It's actually very relevant when we're talking of debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things."I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play. I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. " Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart "He is smart, and a parliamentary geek - Which is why I suspect he’d have known exactly whether or not Corbyn had voted on the issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment."Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart
He is smart, and a parliamentary geek - Which is why I suspect he’d have known exactly whether or not Corbyn had voted on the issue.
"But can you prove he lied? He went on to say that he got it wrong. Getting something wrong isn't necessarily a lie, you often tell us that yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd "Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart
He is smart, and a parliamentary geek - Which is why I suspect he’d have known exactly whether or not Corbyn had voted on the issue.
But can you prove he lied? He went on to say that he got it wrong.
Getting something wrong isn't necessarily a lie, you often tell us that yourself."No, like so many MP lies, it’s impossible to prove wrong - and that’s the infuriating part - we all know it’s a lie (and if it’s not, then he’s guilty of claiming something without checking). Same as his claim that Brexit wouldn’t cause check related delays at Dover. He knew it was nonsense, as we all did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart
He is smart, and a parliamentary geek - Which is why I suspect he’d have known exactly whether or not Corbyn had voted on the issue.
But can you prove he lied? He went on to say that he got it wrong.
Getting something wrong isn't necessarily a lie, you often tell us that yourself.
No, like so many MP lies, it’s impossible to prove wrong - and that’s the infuriating part - we all know it’s a lie (and if it’s not, then he’s guilty of claiming something without checking).
Same as his claim that Brexit wouldn’t cause check related delays at Dover. He knew it was nonsense, as we all did.
"I'm glad you're able to be the spokesperson for ALL. Not sure what I'd do without you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS " yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. Can you prove he was 'aware'? The thing with JRM is he's actually quite smart
He is smart, and a parliamentary geek - Which is why I suspect he’d have known exactly whether or not Corbyn had voted on the issue.
But can you prove he lied? He went on to say that he got it wrong.
Getting something wrong isn't necessarily a lie, you often tell us that yourself.
No, like so many MP lies, it’s impossible to prove wrong - and that’s the infuriating part - we all know it’s a lie (and if it’s not, then he’s guilty of claiming something without checking).
Same as his claim that Brexit wouldn’t cause check related delays at Dover. He knew it was nonsense, as we all did.
I'm glad you're able to be the spokesperson for ALL.
Not sure what I'd do without you "Alright, I’ll narrow it down. All who understood how borders and trade work* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. " I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government." What do you class as “current government”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government." He’s a (recent) former minister, serving (prominent) MP and a liar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”?" Since October 24th 2022, I presume. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sadly, in these days of ubiquitous conspiracy theories, offered as the truth, and biased opinion offered as "alternative facts" it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find the real truth. Whatever information is offered as actual, real, unimpeachable, data these days. Whatever bona fide is attached. There are always those who will refuse to belive it because it does not match their own, preconceived, ideas. I have no idea how this can be changed but as an example of the task in hand just consider religions. They have survived for millenia, predicated on self serving, word of mouth stories with virtually no solid scientific evidence to back them up. All this time they have often been used to commission and justify unspeakably evil acts as they continue to take "donations" from the "faithful" who have the least to give. I agree , we now live in a post-truth world . Social media is to blame (mainly Twitter) where you get faceless, unqualified people publishing propaganda and bull shit fed to them by their paymasters. If a random person in the street came up to you and told you something would you believe them? The likes of Morleyman needs to wake up to the fact that I don’t trust or believe most things he ‘quotes’ on here and he will never trust or believe what the people like myself post either
The apparent anonymity of the internet does lead to those who simply want to make trouble inventing things that frighten or concern the more vulnerable people who take things at face value.
In terms of personal insults to try and discredit another's argument; that is as old as time. A great writer in the past coined the phrase "Personal abuse is a sure sign of a weak case". It is as true today as it ever was.
It wasn’t an insult, I was being honest, I don’t believe him, he doesn’t believe me "No problem. You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not being personal about you or others on here. Just generically, those without cogent argument to combat another's point of view often resort to personal insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sadly, in these days of ubiquitous conspiracy theories, offered as the truth, and biased opinion offered as "alternative facts" it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find the real truth. Whatever information is offered as actual, real, unimpeachable, data these days. Whatever bona fide is attached. There are always those who will refuse to belive it because it does not match their own, preconceived, ideas. I have no idea how this can be changed but as an example of the task in hand just consider religions. They have survived for millenia, predicated on self serving, word of mouth stories with virtually no solid scientific evidence to back them up. All this time they have often been used to commission and justify unspeakably evil acts as they continue to take "donations" from the "faithful" who have the least to give. I agree , we now live in a post-truth world . Social media is to blame (mainly Twitter) where you get faceless, unqualified people publishing propaganda and bull shit fed to them by their paymasters. If a random person in the street came up to you and told you something would you believe them? The likes of Morleyman needs to wake up to the fact that I don’t trust or believe most things he ‘quotes’ on here and he will never trust or believe what the people like myself post either
The apparent anonymity of the internet does lead to those who simply want to make trouble inventing things that frighten or concern the more vulnerable people who take things at face value.
In terms of personal insults to try and discredit another's argument; that is as old as time. A great writer in the past coined the phrase "Personal abuse is a sure sign of a weak case". It is as true today as it ever was.
It wasn’t an insult, I was being honest, I don’t believe him, he doesn’t believe me
No problem. You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not being personal about you or others on here. Just generically, those without cogent argument to combat another's point of view often resort to personal insults. "Ah, my mistake, that is true, unfortunately | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. " And in the world of pedantry, everything before that is obviously irrelevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. " I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t!" I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM." I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!!" I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!!" Good point, using his logic , every time we have an any minister replaced we then have a new government?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things."What evidence who of my sources comes from tufton street? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie." "I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”?" I'm assuming it means anyone that has held office since Sunak came into power. You'd have to ask Fab to be certain, as he's the one who posted "this government regularly lies". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too "Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? I'm assuming it means anyone that has held office since Sunak came into power. You'd have to ask Fab to be certain, as he's the one who posted "this government regularly lies"." It does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM." "I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!!" It's not me being pedantic. Fab was the one who made the claim, and in his first response to me he made it clear that he didn't count Boris Johnson as being part of the 'current government'. I'm sure he'll come back to tell us all what he meant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry?" Exactly! So you cannot have it both ways! The Conservatives won the 2019 election and Johnson as leader of the party became PM. Whenever there is a change of Tory leader they become PM and people often ask why there is not an election for a new govt. Ergo there is continuity and therefore the same Govt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! It's not me being pedantic. Fab was the one who made the claim, and in his first response to me he made it clear that he didn't count Boris Johnson as being part of the 'current government'. I'm sure he'll come back to tell us all what he meant." I meant from 2019, Boris is no longer an MP, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
"How so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt." "I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry?" Surely you mean that you *do* agree that the current government is unelected, just like all other governments in the past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry? Exactly! So you cannot have it both ways! The Conservatives won the 2019 election and Johnson as leader of the party became PM. Whenever there is a change of Tory leader they become PM and people often ask why there is not an election for a new govt. Ergo there is continuity and therefore the same Govt!" The people who ask why there isn't an election for a new governement are normally opposition. They don't understand that we do not elect Government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
What evidence who of my sources comes from tufton street?"Based on my interaction with you , all your posts are from Tufton street, I am afraid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry? Surely you mean that you *do* agree that the current government is unelected, just like all other governments in the past." That one is definitely pedantry. I'll give you it though because I haven't been explaining myself correctly. We do not ever elect Governement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm assuming it means anyone that has held office since Sunak came into power. You'd have to ask Fab to be certain, as he's the one who posted "this government regularly lies"." "It does" OK. "I'm sure he'll come back to tell us all what he meant." "I meant from 2019, Boris is no longer an MP" Hang on, that's not what you said 2 minutes ago. Would you like to tell us what you really meant, and then stick to it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm assuming it means anyone that has held office since Sunak came into power. You'd have to ask Fab to be certain, as he's the one who posted "this government regularly lies". It does OK. I'm sure he'll come back to tell us all what he meant. I meant from 2019, Boris is no longer an MP Hang on, that's not what you said 2 minutes ago. Would you like to tell us what you really meant, and then stick to it?" From 2019, keep up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! It's not me being pedantic. Fab was the one who made the claim, and in his first response to me he made it clear that he didn't count Boris Johnson as being part of the 'current government'. I'm sure he'll come back to tell us all what he meant." Right so we are clear. JRM was Minister for Brexit Benefits (a non job for sure but a member of Cabinet nonetheless). Now he is not part of Sunak’s Cabinet (executive) but was part of the Conservative Government and we know that, pedantry aside, if you ask the man in the street what Govt is, they will say the Conservatives (and Civil Service often). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry? Exactly! So you cannot have it both ways! The Conservatives won the 2019 election and Johnson as leader of the party became PM. Whenever there is a change of Tory leader they become PM and people often ask why there is not an election for a new govt. Ergo there is continuity and therefore the same Govt! The people who ask why there isn't an election for a new governement are normally opposition. They don't understand that we do not elect Government." Oh they certainly understand. They just don’t care. Some of the same MP’s saying ‘we don’t need a GE, we have a mandate’ since 2019 were also saying ‘we must have a GE’ when Brown took over from Blair. I don’t blame them, it’s easy soundbites to appeal to your base. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck
Oh I know.
It happens on my foi requests.
They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae.
An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum
I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil.
I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named.
I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum.
But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way.
They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail.
"more info here please. Seems like you have a route that neither the gov nor refugee agencies are telling us about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement – it’s Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.” Jacob Rees-Mogg. A lie. I've not bothered to check whether that is untrue or not, because Jacob Rees-Mogg is not, and has never been, a part of the current government. What do you class as “current government”? Since October 24th 2022, I presume. I hope not as that would mean we have an unelected government! Either there is continuity from the general election in 2019 allowing for a change of party leader without needing to trigger a general election or there isn’t! I'm gonna assume 'current government' is the one Sunak formed when he became PM. I suspect that is what Discretion means but see my point. Technically the “current govt” has not changed since Johnson led the Conservatives to the General Election victory in 2019. Otherwise we have an unelected govt. If Discretion can be pedantic then so can I!!!! I seen your point. I don't agree that the 'current governement' is unelected though. We do not elect government, we elect members of parliament who then 'form a government'. Pedantry? Exactly! So you cannot have it both ways! The Conservatives won the 2019 election and Johnson as leader of the party became PM. Whenever there is a change of Tory leader they become PM and people often ask why there is not an election for a new govt. Ergo there is continuity and therefore the same Govt! The people who ask why there isn't an election for a new governement are normally opposition. They don't understand that we do not elect Government. Oh they certainly understand. They just don’t care. Some of the same MP’s saying ‘we don’t need a GE, we have a mandate’ since 2019 were also saying ‘we must have a GE’ when Brown took over from Blair. I don’t blame them, it’s easy soundbites to appeal to your base." Maybe that's the case about MPs. I was talking about the general public. MPs will always try to spin anyway they can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?"Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade, Want more spending from the state. Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax. Etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
What evidence who of my sources comes from tufton street?
Based on my interaction with you , all your posts are from Tufton street, I am afraid "Great. Go back to bed 10 year old child. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck
Oh I know.
It happens on my foi requests.
They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae.
An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum
I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil.
I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named.
I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum.
But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way.
They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail.
more info here please. Seems like you have a route that neither the gov nor refugee agencies are telling us about. "The detail is literally listed. The convention we signed says that all they have to do is show themselves to a border force official to claim asylum. This was before juxtaposed controls. Border force officials operate at the juxtaposed controls. I asked why in their list of total ports there were more ports than in the uk and if they could name the ports instead of sequencing them They refused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
What evidence who of my sources comes from tufton street?
Based on my interaction with you , all your posts are from Tufton street, I am afraid
Great. Go back to bed 10 year old child." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc"How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion. You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that. Let’s break down what you said: Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers. Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all. Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers. Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned. Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT. Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok). Centrist enough for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck
Oh I know.
It happens on my foi requests.
They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae.
An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum
I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil.
I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named.
I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum.
But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way.
They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail.
more info here please. Seems like you have a route that neither the gov nor refugee agencies are telling us about.
The detail is literally listed.
The convention we signed says that all they have to do is show themselves to a border force official to claim asylum.
This was before juxtaposed controls.
Border force officials operate at the juxtaposed controls.
I asked why in their list of total ports there were more ports than in the uk and if they could name the ports instead of sequencing them
They refused.
"do you mean the 1951 refugee convention? Or should I be looking up another one (unless you are going to quote the bit I need to look at) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?"I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you. You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre."Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks! You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective. Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc"I love the idea of a brexiter complaining about barriers to trade. That’s funny AF. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck
Oh I know.
It happens on my foi requests.
They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae.
An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum
I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil.
I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named.
I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum.
But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way.
They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail.
more info here please. Seems like you have a route that neither the gov nor refugee agencies are telling us about.
The detail is literally listed.
The convention we signed says that all they have to do is show themselves to a border force official to claim asylum.
This was before juxtaposed controls.
Border force officials operate at the juxtaposed controls.
I asked why in their list of total ports there were more ports than in the uk and if they could name the ports instead of sequencing them
They refused.
do you mean the 1951 refugee convention? Or should I be looking up another one (unless you are going to quote the bit I need to look at)"No can't remember which one. Think I'm the French one and the Belgian. I can't be bothered reading through the entire agreement again to find it https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/asylum-procedure/procedures/border-procedure-border-and-transit-zones/#_ftn1 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology."I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. The problem is that most are unable to dispute data due to ignorance of the subject - how many of us are climate experts? So the natural thing to do in that example is to side with the scientific majority. It’s all well and good presenting a contrary argument which may well have figures attached to it - but if that argument comes from a shady source, (for example a libertarian organisation that has taken funding from anti-climate campaigners/politicians) / it absolutely should be treated with immense caution. As I said, attack the figures, provide alternative figures. That shouldn't be too hard. Instead we find all too often people attacking a source. I'm of the belief that if you want to educate someone you need to show why they're wrong, not just tell them they're wrong. Air thin on that moral high horse?
Data v data argument will always collapse into source v source as credibility and agendas are always at play. Classic example being all the research done on lung cancer in 50/60s that was actually funded by the tobacco industry lobby bodies. All that actually matters is the short term almighty $
So are we saying when it comes to sources for as an example.
When I said Australian beef already was improved to the uk when we were in tbe e.u
Hmrc data tables were incorrect ?
When talking about immigration. When I provided the data for total immigrants from declared country of origin and the travel schemes for which they arrive via the government / ons was lying?
On the renewables green cost vs gas.
The link I posted yo Mr turvers blog.
The links he posted to government websites cfd contracts , prices, trading economics they're all made up?
What made you think this was aimed at you or solely at you? Stop being so sensitive
There's seemed to be no clarification. Just that studies can be influenced.
But no exception for governemnt recorded data.
Thank you for clarifying that governemnt sourced data is reliable.
See this is interesting. I won’t be able to prove this so take it with as much salt as you want...
Published govt data is indeed true and verifiable. It has to be by law. BUT... not all govt data is published. In fact there have been times when data that contradicts or undermines govt policy is suppressed, discarded, or forgotten. It happens more than you might imagine.
Now as I said, I know what my credentials are for talking about how govt works in the UK. I am not willing on a swinger site to prove my credentials. So if people do not believe me, then I really do not give a fuck
Oh I know.
It happens on my foi requests.
They can gove you the grand picture but not the subsequent minutiae.
An example I came across was asking for the data on all ports for illegal immigrants and requests for asylum
I was able ti view the numbers at eachnport( the porta were numbered) but the ports were more than tbe declared ports on uk soil.
I asked if the extra ports were the juxtaposed contro ports. I was told they couldn't answer this and each orts(numbered 1-500) couldn't be named.
I asked this because the international agreement on asylum claims mean younonly have to find a border force operator as a port( the port doesn't have to be in the country) and request asylum.
But often we would hear that they needed to enter the country to claim asylum. But if we have border force official in France and belgium( I think Netherlands too) you can do it that way.
They have to report the full figure. But not the individual detail.
more info here please. Seems like you have a route that neither the gov nor refugee agencies are telling us about.
The detail is literally listed.
The convention we signed says that all they have to do is show themselves to a border force official to claim asylum.
This was before juxtaposed controls.
Border force officials operate at the juxtaposed controls.
I asked why in their list of total ports there were more ports than in the uk and if they could name the ports instead of sequencing them
They refused.
do you mean the 1951 refugee convention? Or should I be looking up another one (unless you are going to quote the bit I need to look at)
No can't remember which one. Think I'm the French one and the Belgian. I can't be bothered reading through the entire agreement again to find it
https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/asylum-procedure/procedures/border-procedure-border-and-transit-zones/#_ftn1
"that's not a legal agreement I don't think. But I found this "In the UK there is no provision for asylum decisions to be taken at the border. An application for asylum may be made at the port of arrival" I guess you could say a port of arrival could be outside of the UK. However I found this in HoL library To claim asylum in the UK, a person must be physically in the UK. It is not possible to apply from outside the country, and there is no asylum visa https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-uk-policy/ Anyway, interesting tangent given the OP | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner)"
OK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Imagine that ON TOP of the current covid debt!!!!
Labour will overhaul the regulation
of our financial system, putting in
place a firm ring-fence between
investment and retail banking that
will protect consumers. We will
take a new approach to the
publicly-owned 5BS, and launch
a consultation on breaking up the
bank to create new local public
banks
They keep a bailed out bank. A d give it to the public.
In government, Labour would give
more people a stake – and a say
– in our economy by doubling the
size of the co-operative sector and
introducing a “right to own,” making
employees the buyer of first refusal
when the company they work for is
up for sale. We will act to ‘insource’
our public and local council services
Centrist policies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner)" Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings."Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along. Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right. That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right? You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an example when we discussed the "disaster budget" You mentioned you referred hunts budget on increasing corporation tax and not lowering it like I liz truss budgets. That's just the quick bottom point you made. You don't have to say you support higher corporation tax or such things explicitly. But if you mock liz truss budget but support sunaks as you did. And as you mentioned tax lowering. You espouse left of centre policies" Nope. A centrist can mix and match a range of policies. Some people accuse centrists of being fence sitters. I thing we are pragmatists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree." Corbyn was in thrall to Momentum (the far left in Labour). He was slightly more moderate than some of them but he was not a moderate and was not centre-left! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias! "Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree." I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. " We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner)
OK "Remember leading up to 2017 when May was being touted as potentially winning a hundred seat majority? Then the manifesto dropped, news coverage rules kicked in, and Labour stormed back to remove her majority altogether. The manifesto was popular no matter how many emojis you use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto'" Because Corbyn was the leader. Apologies for assuming you knew how labour politics works. And my point about Scandinavia is that we’re not talking about hard left policy creation here - it’s literally standard soc-dem - though the 2017 manifesto wasn’t as strict on wealth disparity as seen in some nations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto' Because Corbyn was the leader. Apologies for assuming you knew how labour politics works. And my point about Scandinavia is that we’re not talking about hard left policy creation here - it’s literally standard soc-dem - though the 2017 manifesto wasn’t as strict on wealth disparity as seen in some nations. " You didn't assume anything, or you wouldn't have tried to explain it to me. Labour's manifesto in 2017 was Left, not left-centre. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it won't make it so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto' Because Corbyn was the leader. Apologies for assuming you knew how labour politics works. And my point about Scandinavia is that we’re not talking about hard left policy creation here - it’s literally standard soc-dem - though the 2017 manifesto wasn’t as strict on wealth disparity as seen in some nations. You didn't assume anything, or you wouldn't have tried to explain it to me. Labour's manifesto in 2017 was Left, not left-centre. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it won't make it so." Having seen Morley’s opinions on what is left or right, I’m convinced that nobody here understands where the centre actually is. “Oh no. Corbyn wants to tax people a bit more if they earn over 80k” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto' Because Corbyn was the leader. Apologies for assuming you knew how labour politics works. And my point about Scandinavia is that we’re not talking about hard left policy creation here - it’s literally standard soc-dem - though the 2017 manifesto wasn’t as strict on wealth disparity as seen in some nations. You didn't assume anything, or you wouldn't have tried to explain it to me. Labour's manifesto in 2017 was Left, not left-centre. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it won't make it so. Having seen Morley’s opinions on what is left or right, I’m convinced that nobody here understands where the centre actually is. “Oh no. Corbyn wants to tax people a bit more if they earn over 80k”" Imagine being so up yourself that you believe only you know where centre is... You can try to worm out but your words were "I’m convinced that NOBODY here understands where the centre actually is", I've highlighted that one word for you. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong. If not with facts, you can find me some people here that will agree with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner) Maybe that's why you consider you're self a Soc-Dem. You think Corbyn is a moderate? Not sure you'll find many who agree. I didn’t say Corbyn was a moderate. I said the manifesto was what would be considered moderate by those in Scandinavia. The Labour manifesto isn’t the dreams of the leader - it’s produced by the party and voted on at conference. We're not in Scandinavia, we in the UK. I mean, you're the one who called it 'Corbyns manifesto' Because Corbyn was the leader. Apologies for assuming you knew how labour politics works. And my point about Scandinavia is that we’re not talking about hard left policy creation here - it’s literally standard soc-dem - though the 2017 manifesto wasn’t as strict on wealth disparity as seen in some nations. You didn't assume anything, or you wouldn't have tried to explain it to me. Labour's manifesto in 2017 was Left, not left-centre. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it won't make it so. Having seen Morley’s opinions on what is left or right, I’m convinced that nobody here understands where the centre actually is. “Oh no. Corbyn wants to tax people a bit more if they earn over 80k” Imagine being so up yourself that you believe only you know where centre is... You can try to worm out but your words were "I’m convinced that NOBODY here understands where the centre actually is", I've highlighted that one word for you. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong. If not with facts, you can find me some people here that will agree with you. " You’re not good with humour, are you? I’m increasingly convinced that you and Morley are the same person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
There is a direct correlation between what Morley says, has interest in, and the timing of that, with what various organisations that are part of this Tufton St mafia say/have interest in and the timing. Even more convinced now that we are not seeing original thinking and ideas but just regurgitation and paraphrasing of the Tufton script.
Knowing that, and the right wing agenda at play, it is little wonder he finds it difficult to understand where the centre ground actually is! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner)
OK
Remember leading up to 2017 when May was being touted as potentially winning a hundred seat majority?
Then the manifesto dropped, news coverage rules kicked in, and Labour stormed back to remove her majority altogether.
The manifesto was popular no matter how many emojis you use. ". However Teressa Msy still remained in power after support from the the and the 2019 election was a true reflection of what the electorate thought of Labour . Higher taxes only appeal to the something for nothing brigade. We should be encouraging a growing economy not attempting to damage it by excessive taxation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Left of centre politics isn’t a bad thing. In fact, when polled, they tend to be very popular. Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was what the Scandinavians would consider ‘moderate’ (and certainly not socialism), and it was an immensely popular manifesto. (2019 was a cobbled together dogs dinner)
OK
Remember leading up to 2017 when May was being touted as potentially winning a hundred seat majority?
Then the manifesto dropped, news coverage rules kicked in, and Labour stormed back to remove her majority altogether.
The manifesto was popular no matter how many emojis you use. . However Teressa Msy still remained in power after support from the the and the 2019 election was a true reflection of what the electorate thought of Labour .
Higher taxes only appeal to the something for nothing brigade. We should be encouraging a growing economy not attempting to damage it by excessive taxation "Why was 2019 a true reflection of the electorate but 2017 wasn’t? And high taxes actually appeal to those who want adequately funded services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In order to ensure the data is accurate you’d really need to collect it yourself which is obviously not feasible. The way in which data is collected can be manipulated by whatever parameters are set and how they are analysed. It also depends on how the raw data has been recorded in the first place. " Of course data can be manipulated to support a particular case, I think we all know that. However, I believe that just saying 'your source is shit' without offering anything alternative does nothing to help show the others the 'error of their ways'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias! "Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it. A centrist has centrist views. You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc. I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)"Economically at least, nobody should have wanted Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)"I'd be interested in knowing what you think a centrist is... I very much see myself as a mixture of left and right although I'd imagine quite a few here would put me firmly in the RIGHT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw ironically on this subject. Birldn just got caught with their proverbial pants down Quoting a article from uk in a changing Europe. Quoting that hundreds of thousands of people verifiable left.the country in lockdown. Using a paper that even itself said its source in 2020 and 2021 was not reliable a d its source in general for migrants in working sectors couldn't be relied on. " Much better to use unnamed twitter sources, innit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)"Go on then! Tick tock! Just because someone doesn’t fit your view of where they sit on the political spectrum doesn’t mean you are correct. It is your opinion and nothing more. I bet you describe yourself as centre-right but you are clearly further to the right. Your views have been distorted by spending so much time absorbing right wing thinking in your echo chambers that you have lost perspective. You are a product of Tufton St doing exactly what they set out to do. The whole “I’m centre-right” is a fallacy to make your views seem less extreme and more palatable (to yourself as well as others). Even now you are persisting with your misapprehensions. As a centrist I will have some left of centre views and some right of centre. I have no doubt you can pull out some left of centre views but that doesn’t mean I am left wing. BTW it is ok to admit to being right wing. You are entitled to your views and beliefs. Just stop trying to package it up as something it is not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)
Go on then! Tick tock!
Just because someone doesn’t fit your view of where they sit on the political spectrum doesn’t mean you are correct. It is your opinion and nothing more. I bet you describe yourself as centre-right but you are clearly further to the right.
Your views have been distorted by spending so much time absorbing right wing thinking in your echo chambers that you have lost perspective. You are a product of Tufton St doing exactly what they set out to do.
The whole “I’m centre-right” is a fallacy to make your views seem less extreme and more palatable (to yourself as well as others).
Even now you are persisting with your misapprehensions. As a centrist I will have some left of centre views and some right of centre. I have no doubt you can pull out some left of centre views but that doesn’t mean I am left wing.
BTW it is ok to admit to being right wing. You are entitled to your views and beliefs. Just stop trying to package it up as something it is not!"Indeed. You see people like Lawrence Fox claiming to be ‘centre-right’ - they’re right wing (and in his case, extremist) but scared to own it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)
I'd be interested in knowing what you think a centrist is...
I very much see myself as a mixture of left and right although I'd imagine quite a few here would put me firmly in the RIGHT."For me keeping levels of government the same. Not handing power to a foreign policy maker. But not reducing your own. Conservatism is aboutnrunningna surplus typically in govenrmwnt, left of centre a deficit centre would be attempting to maintain neither deficit nor surplus. Immigration but controlled. Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled Centre policies wouldn't necessarily mean agreeing with all strikes. But some. It would mean acknowledging that the NHS got a bumper pay deal it got a back dated pay rise and requesting 18% or whatever it was for nurses and teachers as well is left of centre thinking and that tbe private sector didn't get that hike without moving jobs. It would also acknowledge that some thing work better in the private industry. We have had our discussion on Royal mail, rsil, water, electricity, etc and acknowledging that if they want it nationalised that's a left of centre policy but it can be nationalised at the going and shareholders compensated for the value of their shares. ( no one ever mentioned fair compensation, just nationalisation) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled " This is abject nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw ironically on this subject. Birldn just got caught with their proverbial pants down Quoting a article from uk in a changing Europe. Quoting that hundreds of thousands of people verifiable left.the country in lockdown. Using a paper that even itself said its source in 2020 and 2021 was not reliable a d its source in general for migrants in working sectors couldn't be relied on. " Did I? Fine will find another when I get time. There are many. The thing with you is it is not what you say, or believe, it is the way you say it. You have such a superiority complex and patronise everyone. Nobody on here clashes with so many people which is telling in itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled This is abject nonsense." Abject nonsense in your opinion but I asked for his opinion and he was providing it to me. It doesn't need to be an argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)
I'd be interested in knowing what you think a centrist is...
I very much see myself as a mixture of left and right although I'd imagine quite a few here would put me firmly in the RIGHT.
For me keeping levels of government the same. Not handing power to a foreign policy maker.
But not reducing your own.
Conservatism is aboutnrunningna surplus typically in govenrmwnt, left of centre a deficit centre would be attempting to maintain neither deficit nor surplus.
Immigration but controlled.
Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled
Centre policies wouldn't necessarily mean agreeing with all strikes. But some. It would mean acknowledging that the NHS got a bumper pay deal it got a back dated pay rise and requesting 18% or whatever it was for nurses and teachers as well is left of centre thinking and that tbe private sector didn't get that hike without moving jobs.
It would also acknowledge that some thing work better in the private industry.
We have had our discussion on Royal mail, rsil, water, electricity, etc and acknowledging that if they want it nationalised that's a left of centre policy but it can be nationalised at the going and shareholders compensated for the value of their shares. ( no one ever mentioned fair compensation, just nationalisation)"Judging by your views here I'm firmly in the centre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled This is abject nonsense. Abject nonsense in your opinion but I asked for his opinion and he was providing it to me. It doesn't need to be an argument." It’s not an argument at all. The centre right generally believe in immigration which fulfils a need - even some of our more batshit Tory MP’s accept that immigration is essential to the U.K economy, and it should be managed as such. Those who want no immigration at all (if such people exist outside of the UKIP/BNP mob) are not centre right. The centre left and centre are generally more relaxed on immigration, but still want there to be rules and checks. The batshit far left, typically are closer to the right on immigration, albeit for different reasons - to protect the existing workforce rather than any dislike of foreign workers. George Galloway is a good example of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled This is abject nonsense. Abject nonsense in your opinion but I asked for his opinion and he was providing it to me. It doesn't need to be an argument. It’s not an argument at all. The centre right generally believe in immigration which fulfils a need - even some of our more batshit Tory MP’s accept that immigration is essential to the U.K economy, and it should be managed as such. Those who want no immigration at all (if such people exist outside of the UKIP/BNP mob) are not centre right. The centre left and centre are generally more relaxed on immigration, but still want there to be rules and checks. The batshit far left, typically are closer to the right on immigration, albeit for different reasons - to protect the existing workforce rather than any dislike of foreign workers. George Galloway is a good example of this. " Left of and right of... the further you go from centre, the more extreme. When centre is your starting position anything left of and right of can be a multitude of different attitudes. I understood what he meant and being he was answering me, I'm cool with him not being 'exactly on point'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm challenging all on both sides of any given argument to attack data rather than source. We see it all too often here, you don't like what someone has to say so you personally attack the source and don't even bother to look at what they're showing. You know I truly believe if we looked at data and analysed it rather than 'he's a nutter' 'he's a twitter nobody' 'he's a climate change denier', we may actually find ourselves agreeing with each other at times. Peace out. 100% I have asked people to challenge the data or asked on occasions to prove where some 1 was wrong. This from gudging, to gully, to the current one. They cite government papers,ons / destabilised stats. But because it doesn't fit their narrative and they probably can't find the rebuttal. It's easier to attack the person. Also on this. It would help if , instead kf reading what you want to read and interpret from a headline. Read the article in full before posting and if it cites a data source. Check the data source. Being fair though Morley you too are guilty of confirmation bias and never post any counter arguments. I see someone who must have a lot of spare time to dig around and read a lot of material. Most people (rightly or wrongly) spend far less (or any) time researching in any detail and for the most part post based on gut feel and belief. At the end of the day the politics forum on a swinger website is not going to be the go to destination for detailed political and economic debate
Feel free other confirmation bias to highlight particular arguments.
I am totally guilty of confirmation bias. We all are. I can actually only think of one regular poster who manages to consistently walk a neutral line. The rest of us rarely do.
I asked for what you felt I had had confirmation bias in?
You are pro-Brexit, pro-Johnson, pro-Truss with a right-wing free market libertarian bias that is fed by sources who are under the influence of Tufton St lobbying groups masquerading as “think tanks” that are very generously funded by right wing pressure groups in the USA that want to undermine anything considered left wing or socialist (such as the EU and the NHS) to open markets for American companies to plunder and make very rich people even richer.
And that’s fine and is your prerogative. But you only cite one side of any argument and sources which confirm your bias, in order to win your arguments. Most people do it!
You started off really well and ended in full on conspiracy
I didn’t though. That is the stated aim of those behind the funding of the various Tufton St organisations. It is all about the mega rich becoming meg richer. The problem is that “conspiracy theories” have become a joke and a useful tool that enables less savoury (can’t think of a better word now and that would of course depend in one’s POV) activity to be conflated with outlandish stupid theories to undermine credibility.
An example is Covid. At the height of the pandemic the theory that it could be the result of a lab leak was stamped on by conflating that with “deliberate lab leak” and “bio-weapon” and “agenda 21” etc etc. And yet look now. An accidental lab leak from a lab with poor bio-security that was studying coronaviruses for gain of function is back on the table. Saying that, the reason (or a reason) it is back on the table is down to geo-politics and the Western view of China.
I meant that his sources are under the influence of Tufton St.
They could be “under the influence” which implies some form of direct control, or “influenced by” which is clearly indirect. But the influence is real and evident and Morely repeats it.
Either way, that is fine. Anyone can have any view. We just need to recognise our bias as we all have it. As a centrist I know I flip flop around and seemingly contradict myself on some things.
I agree we should all be able to either see or be told that confirmation bias is in play.
I just don't agree that all of Morleys sources are 'under the influence of Tufton St'. It could be said for some of them possibly, I doubt all, and I doubt it could ever be proven. Hence my 'conspiracy' comment.
Ah I see your point. I said “all”. Ok yes my bad! Maybe not “all” but certainly “some” and based on wording used I would say “most” of his primary go to sources. But then this is you and me discussing it rather than Morley which is perhaps a bit odd
Maybe as 2 of the centrists in the room, we can actually have disagreements and rather than it turning into a shitshow, we can both help each other see our errors at times
That's why we can discuss numerous different subjects and yet here we are still being civil, even after many disagreements
WE NEED MORE CENTRISTS
yeah CENTRISTS ARE THE BEST fuck all you right wingers and lefties!!!!
You lot with your myopic ideologies squabbling all the time! Come up here on the fence eating popcorn and we can cherry pick the best from both sides of what is normally a binary argument!
CENTRISTS ROCK
and have hot wives too
Based on my interaction with you you are not centrist I am afraid.
How so?
Don't want controlled immigration, prefer more government intervention, prefer more barriers to trade,
Want more spending from the state.
Want higher taxes for rich, Want higher corporation tax.
Etc etc
How interesting that you have ascribed those things to me. Would be interested to see you quote any of my posts that support that assertion.
You see my observation of you is that, like many people in the UK, your political views have been pulled so far to the right by those you are influenced by (Tufton St) that you are unable to actually see where the middle is. I expect you would describe yourself as Centre-Right but I would say you are more right wing than that.
Let’s break down what you said:
Don't want controlled immigration = I have never said that. I support sensible immigration that is dynamic to the needs of the job market but I do not conflate that with asylum seekers.
Prefer more government intervention = again where have I said that? I believe in appropriate regulation and safeguards to protect workers and consumers rather than a wild west free for all.
Prefer more barriers to trade = not true I do not want trade deals that are actually detrimental to British businesses, workers and consumers.
Want more spending from the state = again no I want spending in the right places. I also believe national infrastructure including utilities should be state owned.
Want higher taxes for rich = ha ha seriously! I am a 45% tax payer so no I don’t WANT higher taxes. What I have said in the past is that i would reluctantly accept a small increase (eg go to 46%) if that really could solve some of the poverty issues in this country. I am also against IHT.
Want higher corporation tax = again no I have not said that (show me where I have). My bugbear is that corporate tax (legal) avoidance needs to be clamped down on. Companies should pay tax in the country where they makes sales generating revenue and not have corp structures that allows holding companies in low tax regimes who cross charge IP royalties that effectively make national operations loss making. I would also clamp down (hard) on corporate profiteering and price gouging (you’ll say that is Govt intervention and I will say yes, some is ok).
Centrist enough for you?
I'm not going to get into a full discussion with you.
You're replies on discussion topics put you firmly on the left of centre.
Ha ha that is demonstrably not the case so I will take that as your admission you are wrong. Thanks!
You are so far to the right (not saying you are far right) you have lost perspective.
Being a centrists means having an understanding and acceptance that there are good and bad things in both socialist and capitalist ideologies without having to be a beholden to a single (often myopic and frequently tribal) ideology.
I gave my my opinion on what you've previously stated. Your weak attempts to justify yourself as centrist won't change your historic postings.
Proven you wrong Morley. You only have your opinion and that doesn’t change my politics or make my points remotely weak. I have been posting here for some time and been clear about my politics all along.
Tell me which of my posts show I am not a centrist? And remember, just because I believe in some things that you would consider to be left wing, I also believe in some things that are centre right.
That is the very epitome of centrism. You do understand that don’t you? You do understand how the political spectrum works right?
You are starting to show that you would benefit from taking some time out from your echo chamber(s) and actually listen to some views that do not simply support your confirmation bias!
Ah again with the confirmation bias an no evidence of it.
A centrist has centrist views.
You have shown left of centre views on all I mentioned. Socially, economically,politics etc.
I can list your rambling about Tufton street truss boris, Rwanda, tax immigration, brexit( yes if you're centrist you should have wanted brexit.)
I'd be interested in knowing what you think a centrist is...
I very much see myself as a mixture of left and right although I'd imagine quite a few here would put me firmly in the RIGHT.
For me keeping levels of government the same. Not handing power to a foreign policy maker.
But not reducing your own.
Conservatism is aboutnrunningna surplus typically in govenrmwnt, left of centre a deficit centre would be attempting to maintain neither deficit nor surplus.
Immigration but controlled.
Right of centre is not wanting immigration , left of centre is wanting more. Centrist is wanting it controlled
Centre policies wouldn't necessarily mean agreeing with all strikes. But some. It would mean acknowledging that the NHS got a bumper pay deal it got a back dated pay rise and requesting 18% or whatever it was for nurses and teachers as well is left of centre thinking and that tbe private sector didn't get that hike without moving jobs.
It would also acknowledge that some thing work better in the private industry.
We have had our discussion on Royal mail, rsil, water, electricity, etc and acknowledging that if they want it nationalised that's a left of centre policy but it can be nationalised at the going and shareholders compensated for the value of their shares. ( no one ever mentioned fair compensation, just nationalisation)
Judging by your views here I'm firmly in the centre."DITTO
Morley cannot fathom that people may not plot a direct and linear course along the political spectrum. It is increasingly common that people have become binary and tribalist in their views and no longer see nuance or grey areas. It is a case of “if you don’t fully agree with me then you are in the other tribe”.
He also fails to see that sometimes people lay devil’s advocate and are contrary for the sake of debate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Btw ironically on this subject. Birldn just got caught with their proverbial pants down Quoting a article from uk in a changing Europe. Quoting that hundreds of thousands of people verifiable left.the country in lockdown. Using a paper that even itself said its source in 2020 and 2021 was not reliable a d its source in general for migrants in working sectors couldn't be relied on. Did I? Fine will find another when I get time. There are many. The thing with you is it is not what you say, or believe, it is the way you say it. You have such a superiority complex and patronise everyone. Nobody on here clashes with so many people which is telling in itself." It's not a superiority complex but usually talking from a position where I bothered to read up. I dont just read a link and assume it says whatbi think it says. I had to defend my stance on against ignorant posts on here on many subjects that kept changing the goalposts. As I keep reverting back to. I told all the regular posters 8 months ago about the legal asylum routes I was resoundingly told these weren't correct. Then it shift to " well how many use them" Then it shifted to " they couldn't use them in lockdown" Then it shifted to "We could do more" It wasn't until you yourself quoted a guardian article agreeing with what I said a few months ths later that I pointed out to you and you acknowledged it. Again. With hormone beef I think I was 1 of 2 voices in here pointing out it cant be sent to the uk and the uk has an approved meat supplier list from Australia. From others I was told that Australia never imported meat here. I pointed out the aus gov website which said it did I pointed out the hmrc data site which pointed out it did. I then got a 10 day ban for doing it. I was told that Australia fta was a win for the aussiea and same with new zealand. I pointed out the inapxt assessments available then it became..."Well it's not a big enough increase" I was told resoundingly that green was cheaper than fossil fuels. I said it wasn't. Then a person put together a through analysis of the bids process, market data, companies House data,coat of construction and inflation of the whole of the wind industry and people said they couldn't be arsed reading the source. I have provided many links to government sourced data. Migrant boat arrivals, told people how to view the approved farms etc etc. I shouldn't have to do this. If you're going to speak on a subject read the paper being quoted in an article. As your example on the jd portes survey. He extrapolated the data from the lfs survey which is NOT a population survey. Had you have bothered to download the paper you'd have seen the severe limitations he acknowledges. It's not superiority. It's actually that I just go and read. Instead kf believing a guardian, daily mail, express, mirror headline. You accuse me of confirmation bias. But I am not the 1 reading headlines and just believing a website is being honest or that the data says what bthe headline puts out. These seems more of a you problem not verifying your source data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
