• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Government to employ mind readers"

Collapse

  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I am jumping to the silly conclusion that someone who doesn't vote doesn't care what happens.
    Well we can't read their minds so we don't know.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 30 May 2015, 11:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    I thought that was clear. Anyone who doesn't vote for change doesn't want change. How do you jump to the conclusion that someone who doesn't vote for change does in fact want change? Unless UKIP are planning to employ mind readers of course.
    I am jumping to the silly conclusion that someone who doesn't vote doesn't care what happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Are you suggesting they don't want change?
    I thought that was clear. Anyone who doesn't vote for change doesn't want change. How do you jump to the conclusion that someone who doesn't vote for change does in fact want change? Unless UKIP are planning to employ mind readers of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    Holy Moley

    are youse STILL banging on about this.
    Any IT guy knows of a null


    value unknown


    abstension = null = value unknown
    It's an in/out referendum, or a yes/no referendum. It's a bool(ean).

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Holy Moley

    are youse STILL banging on about this.
    Any IT guy knows of a null


    value unknown


    abstension = null = value unknown

    Leave a comment:


  • TykeMerc
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change? I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU. Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.
    Indeed.

    There are 3 clear ways which one can vote in an election with a binary choice.

    Yes
    No
    Abstain

    Unless it's explicitly stated up front that all Abstentions are to be treated as Yes or No then they have to be treated as a third state which is don't care/don't know/can't decide.

    Depending how the democratic process is organised and run it can change whether the vote is valid, but in traditional UK "democratic" process it's irrelevant what percentage of the electorate makes up the abstain section, the only votes counted are the ones cast.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Are you suggesting that people who don't vote do want change?

    .
    Are you suggesting they don't want change?

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus
    I didn't say any such thing.

    We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

    This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.
    I'm happy to go on record now and say I completely support a referendum to decide whether Britain should be part of an EU superstate/Hitler Youth movement. Not that it'll be necessary as there's no support for that in Britain or anywhere else in the EU.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus, here is one that may reflect the changes we have seen.

    We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

    This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.

    Of course the boy scout organisation was a bunch of children led by adults. The EU is a bunch of adults being led by children

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change?
    Are you suggesting that people who don't vote do want change?

    I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU.
    And I agreed. But we are in the EU.

    Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.
    Pot, Kettle, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Can't argue with that.



    Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

    Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.
    your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus, here is one that may reflect the changes we have seen.

    We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

    This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Can't argue with that.



    Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

    Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.
    Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change? I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU. Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed to 18 million voting yes.
    Can't argue with that.

    Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.
    Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

    Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.
    so the tories won a massive landslide at the last election ?

    yippee

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.
    I am not sure you understand simple logic or simple English. Maybe it is because you are one of gods "chosen" mind readers but to me "not voting" means equally that the individual does not mind either way. If he or she does mind then I do not know what that person really wants and nor do you. Of course you seem to assume that you know what people want without asking them?

    So let us look at your argument.

    in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed o 18 million voting yes.

    Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.
    Last edited by DodgyAgent; 28 May 2015, 14:39.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X