Britain leaving the EU

[Tiberius]

I didn`t say "no one" would trrade with you. (but you seem to enjoy to disingeniusly twisting words to make people look as if they said something they didn`t).

...and you enjoy not paying attention to people's posts and making massive assumptions about them.

I did not quote you anywhere in my response. I was not referring to anything you said when I made it. I was responding to HorribleOffensiveScouser's comment:

"we would be nothing but a small floating island with no friends. We DO NOT have the resources like America, Russia etc to be an independent nation, we are a tiny island."

Which as you can see, does seem to imply that getting out of the EU would mean nobody would trade with us.

So, kindly fuck you and your inability to know when someone is engaging you in conversation or not. Clearly you have not paid attention to my posts here, because if you had, you'd realise that when I'm responding to someone, I bloody well quote them.

[Something completely different]

Well maybe if you would have quoted him there wouldnt be that confusion.

So return of favor.

[Tiberius]

Odd, I thought I had. My bad on that point. Still, your jumping to conclusions is inexcusable.

[Something completely different]

Odd, I thought I had. My bad on that point. Still, your jumping to conclusions is inexcusable.

Yeah indeed.

Jumping to conclusions about what others may be thinking and whom they may be adressing or even trying to somehow dishonestly sum up and voice their opinion for them..........

Too many long fucking posts in this thread. I'll try to be concise:

It appears that some people in this thread believe that they have the right (or at least, the government does) to control what parents teach their children. This is of course entirely based on their own preconceptions about what is real; completely ignoring the preconceptions of others. In other words, it's an undeniably selfish position to hold.

Just because science is held as a good method for determining what is true by the majority of people, does not make it the only way of determining truth, nor does it give that majority a right to impose it on others. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were a science advocate in a sternly religious (and anti-science) country. Would you be fine with your countrymen denying you the right to teach your child your beliefs? I doubt it.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Science is not a method for establishing absolute truth. It is a method for establishing empirical truth, which is wholly different. For starters, whilst empirical truth is often seen as "more accurate" than other forms of truth because it can be verified and tested experimentally, one of the core principles of science is falsifiability...in other words; any "truth" obtained through science and empiricism must be able to be disproved in some way. If that possibility exists, empirical truth is not absolute truth.

Thus, whilst you may think science is the best method for obtaining truth, it isn't the only method, and there are plenty of people who believe other methods are either equal or better. To deny these people to teach their own children their views is an ultimate violation of their rights as both humans and as parents.

As for these children not being able to integrate into society; it seems that empirical evidence would cast doubts on your theory. You see, astoundingly, the vast majority of religious beliefs have no impact on people's everyday lives in society. The UK possibly proves this more than most countries; we are one of the most multicultural places on Earth, home to people of countless faiths and races, and we all seem to (for the most part) get on just fine. I have atheist friends, Christian friends, Muslims friends, and even Hindu friends. We all see the world differently; we all believe in different things, but we all respect each other enough to not make it as big an issue as you seem to want to make it.

Oh look, that wasn't very concise at all. I do apologise.

.............. is not ok.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15783-page-6.html

[Tiberius]

As you'll notice in that post, I don't mention anyone by name. It was a general statement about attitudes I'd seen in the thread. It was not a response to you; you decided to respond to it.

In this case, I made a comment that was directed at another member (but as I forgot to quote, it should have been taken as a general comment), and you again decided to respond to it, only you took it as an attack on something you had said, which was simply not the case. You then accused me of twisting your words, despite me not even quoting you once.

Oh, and also, let's not drag stuff from other forums from long long ago into this thread. If you want to make an issue out of it, kindly PM me.

[Jackalope]

Odd, I thought I had. My bad on that point. Still, your jumping to conclusions is inexcusable.

You did.

[Tiberius]

Nah, I just edited that in to make it more obvious to whom I was referring. TGAC was correct on that point, however it should be common forum etiquette that if someone makes a post, and it doesn't quote anyone or make it clear who they are responding to, the post should be taken as a general statement.

Even more so when what they say doesn't relate to what you have said. Instead of assuming "this person has twisted my words...I never said any of that", one should assume that they are not responding to you at all. At the very least, ask them for clarification before engaging them in a accusatory manner.

[Something completely different]

As you'll notice in that post, I don't mention anyone by name. It was a general statement about attitudes I'd seen in the thread. It was not a response to you; you decided to respond to it.

"some people". Imagine someone entering a room with a few obece people in it and screaming "Some people are ugly fat basterds" to then defend himself by stating: No I didn`t mean you personaly.

With this "some people" and your redicilous summery of "some peoples" opinion (which also happened to represent mine) in which you reworded it to be represented in as negative a light as possible, I felt that I had to respond, because it was simply disingenius.

True, it is sometimes easier to simply write beneat because one is also to lazy to press the reply button.

I will quote in future.

[Napoléon]

Group hug peeps. A thread about the EU really shouldn't cause this much of an issue :/

[HorribleOffensiveScouser91]

I'd vote to leave the EU, mainly because of the reasons Ace has already stated. I have no fundamental objections to the EU in general, but it should operate more like the United Nations than what it is now (which is basically one big European government).

---

I am a Brit and a Politics student. I, like most lower class Brits, know that Britain leaving the EU is ridiculous, we would be nothing but a small floating island with no friends. We DO NOT have the resources like America, Russia etc to be an independent nation, we are a tiny island.

The idea that nobody would trade with us if we were out of the EU is quite frankly ridiculous.

I did not say we wouldn't have anybody to trade with us but I'm not willing to engage in another one of your 'lets twist what he said debates' ... very interesting that you set up a website to debate with people yet you brand anyone who opposes your opinions as ridiculous.


P.S I have no issue with your belief we should leave the EU, it is a matter of personal view, mine is that we are better off in it.

---

As you'll notice in that post, I don't mention anyone by name. It was a general statement about attitudes I'd seen in the thread. It was not a response to you; you decided to respond to it.

"some people". Imagine someone entering a room with a few obece people in it and screaming "Some people are ugly fat basterds" to then defend himself by stating: No I didn`t mean you personaly.

With this "some people" and your redicilous summery of "some peoples" opinion (which also happened to represent mine) in which you reworded it to be represented in as negative a light as possible, I felt that I had to respond, because it was simply disingenius.

True, it is sometimes easier to simply write beneat because one is also to lazy to press the reply button.

I will quote in future.

Don't worry, re-wording what people have said and stating they have expressed themselves in the wrong way seems to be becoming an increasing debating technique of his. I'm getting used to it now

It seems he will stoop to major levels to 'win' a debate .... I personally believe that is debating for the wrong reasons, debating is about having discussions with others whose opinions oppose your own to learn more on the subject.