Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)
Empirical means it's information that's been gathered through sensory data input, actually. Aka, my own experiences. It's distinct from 'rationalist' data, which is worked out in an abstract intellectual fashion (which is what you appear to be searching for). Derives from the word 'empiricism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Basic academic philosophical usage in line with the etymological origins of the word and epistemology. You may have some alternative definition of the word, but that's mine. That help?

Yes I'm well aware of the meaning. I'm glad to see you are admitting you insulted people. First step on the road to recognising the issue I suppose is acceptance of what you have inferred about some people. Based on your empirical evidence you have stated that some supporters are gullible on your own personal experience - however you've not stated why and how or whether that was biased by your won personal perceptions. Hence the insult as you have neither verified what made them gullible or what you believe actually makes them gullible. Hence it was just a statement that a proportion of the group are gullible .

I didn't miss the or, it was a list, but you are still insulting a proportion. Alternatively your experience only revolves around one person and heavily weighting that experience to a larger group of people? The latter of course is just slurring the group as a whole to make a point rather than based on any real evidence (as the issue with anecdotal evidence is that it can always be skewed by who you know.)

Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.

Well, glad that's cleared up then.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Well I'll take that as an apology and acceptance.

You can take it however you like, mate.

Moving swiftly on from that little bit of banter, I'm torn right now between spoiling my vote, and voting Lib Dem. I don't particularly approve of their current manifesto, but in voting for them, I know they're never going to win my seat, and it'll hopefully give them a bit of a morale boost to buck up their ideas. Because I don't think I can bring myself to vote for either main party, and it would be nice if they wrested back third place.

The one thing I gotta say.

Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..

Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?

Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?

Is terror really the most important thing facing the UK government though?

Not healthcare, education, economy, or a rapidly aging population, but terror?

 feeder wrote:
Is terror really the most important thing facing the UK government though?

Not healthcare, education, economy, or a rapidly aging population, but terror?

True.. Its one of several big issues. Just because we elect corbyn they ain't gonna stop trying.

The fact his budget by my basic calculation costs a extra 15-20 billion off his manifesto pledges, with a 100% tax rise yeild. Not sure on his economics, neither have a amazing wonder plan but spending more is good... We still have to pay it back and still have to work out ways to make it sustainable if possible. Ie no devt increase.

Healthcare is a budget issue however minus massive nhs reform, it needs a bottem up refit as right now I admit it ain't exactly in peak condition, and has not been for a good decade or more. I doubt things where rosey and entirely up to peak when brown and Blair where in power.

Economy... That's too tied with brexit to split.
But .... Do labour have a shadow brexit minister? I've not seen much of his shadow cabinet bar abbot.

In terms of UK lives lost and treasure spent, terrorism is very far down the priority list of problems.

That doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it's questionable how much good an occasional drone attack in the Yemen or Syria actually does to reduce terrorism in the UK. Intelligence gathering is much more important.

The reason the NHS looks bad now is because it has declined significantly from the peak of performance it achieved in the Blair and Brown spending era. It has declined in part because the past two governments cut back spending compared to demand. As with terrorism, there are various different things that could be done to address this situation.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Well I'll take that as an apology and acceptance.

You can take it however you like, mate.

Great, thanks for being reasonable. Glad we resolved the conflict.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
The one thing I gotta say.

Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..

Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?

Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?

It's questionable whether a drone strike has ever really kept someone in the UK safe. Most terror attacks in the UK have been based from the UK so to resolve these you would have needed to undertake drone strikes on our country.

The issue is that if you never have any correspondence or communication then you can never solve the issue. We can bomb areas all we want but this is only likely to drive people further into the arms of the terrorists. Any military strike likely leads to some civilian damage. From the people that are affected by such strikes the perception is the same. They just see one large explosion and a lot of dead bodies. Suppose ISIS were camped out next to a school or hospital and the drone strike takes out not only ISIS but a good number of civilian casualties (lets say 22 children in the school from shrapnel and so on). From our perspective it is 'justified' because it may have saved UK lives potentially in the future (on the assumption that they got through security and beat the police/MI5 in covering their tracks). For the parents of those children they just see a random act of violence by the 'west' one large explosion and a lot of dead children. They don't know there was an ISIS cell and would likely question why it should be taken out next to a school. And just like we are influenced by a biased press so will they be. Like the Daily Fail/Sunday Express and Brexit they will have headlines that propagate simple solutions to complex issues, fail to explain all the facts and just generally write in a way that antagonises the populace. This then drives more people to the recruiters who say "Look the west are killing our children, come fight those evil people". They then kill us and the cycle repeats. The only thing that happens by putting more guns on the table is more people get killed.

You need people that are willing to overlook that they are talking to terrorist groups and find the more moderate people in those groups to try and convince them that there is a different way. Usually its by people in the background because a lot of people will condemn them for what they are doing (as here). However in Corbyn has a been a lot more high profile about that he has attempted to do this. But it takes time. It will take a couple of generations of little violence for the memories to be wiped away (basically those that affected need to die) because then you havefull generations that have only ever had peace and they will then be a lot less willing to start the cycle a fresh because they don't have the same level of anger from the memories of each side killing the others children or parents.

Condemning someone for talking to the other side (regardless of how barbaric) and trying to prevent such things is short sighted as you will never then solve the problem. In the end you want to isolate those that are driving the terrorism (and that basically want power for themselves) so they just don't have the support of a large group of people. If you want to safeguard the long term future of UK citizens you need to sit down and talk even if the people on the other side have committed some particularly loathsome acts because you need to break the cycle of violence.



In other news I can imagine there is some significant panic in Conservative HQ today after the latest YouGov poll. They've analysed by constituency and they are reckoning that if we went to the polls tomorrow that we are heading for a hung parliament.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/election-pollster-tory-losses-hung-parliament_uk_592defc4e4b0c0608e8c56fa?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

The question is that if this did happen do you think May would resign as in the end she went to polls thinking she could get a massive majority?

 jhe90 wrote:
The one thing I gotta say.

Corbyns comments on IRA , contact with political wing etc, unwilling to sanction drone strikes vs isis, one of most evil terror groups recently that aq said they went too far .
Also Hamas, and such..

Can we trust this guy to be the leader in times of a terror threat, Islamic terror cells and people willing to kill kids for a point.?

Not saying current lot are innocent, far from it. But is Corbyn the man to stand up, yo make tough calls if we get attacked, and give orders that may result in peoples deaths to safe guard the UK?

Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?

You could also argue that Mays slashing of police budgets and numbers (including the local beat cops) is directly linked to terrorist activity, as in the Manchester case. The guy was reported to them several times but fell through the cracks as there wasn't the resources. Local cops with local information could likely have done something about it too, but again, they all got cut back.

So do we really think a Tory/May government is actually going to solve the issue?

Middle England will never vote for Corbyn.

May will get a majority of sorts, but it won't be big enough to quell dissent from Tory backbenchers out to cause mischief in the Brexit negotiations.

It's a scenario I've seen played out so many times before in regard to the Conservatives and Europe.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.

To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.

It depends on what you mean by wealth. As stated previously at £30k you still get a choice in what you do. I can easily find studio flats for £450pcm in the south east which a 30K salary easily covers. Go to £700pcm and you can get a terraced house. The wealth is because you have a choice. You can even decided to commute because you have about £2k pcm to play with. OK so you are not going to be living the high life but you still have plenty of choices relatively. Now consider that 70% of the population are earning less than this and 1% less than about 11k. Relatively for these people £30k is wealth they could only imagine. £450pcm is half their salary in any month before bills, they have no choices everything goes on essentials only. There's no money for fun, for educating yourself further to improve yourself and so on. I'm not saying 30k makes life easy but by the vast majority of the rest of the population you are wealthy.

I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.

Remind me never to move to Britain. Too expensive country. Not that Britain even wants me foreigners coming so win-win.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-

a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.

Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....

So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.

I have a lock button right beside the submit post button. Keep that in mind if you people want to keep acting like children with the bickering and being rude.

John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us

And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.

tneva82 wrote:

I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.

I make a bit more than that, my mortgage is about £350, and I spend about £250 getting to work (61km). Household bills are easily another £200, plus £100 in council tax (based on home value). That's on the cheaper end of the scale because I live somewhere pretty cheap in the North.

There are some rail commutes at about £410/month (£5k/year).

Herzlos wrote:

Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?

The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.

I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?

The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.

I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.

We're in trouble if May has to go on live television during any negotiation

Okay, this one made me laugh.



All I can hear is



with the crappy anti-copyright infringement music from DVD openings.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.

I'll hold my hand up and admit (which I did with Ketara but you need to follow the conversation)

If I've missed others I apologise for not jumping on those either as they are all the same, must have scanned some posts.

that I missed the comment from Yodhrin and would agree that it is no different. I oppose generally any generalisations based on a selective and anecdotal view of the world. People are individuals and should be treated as such. It is OK to make assertions based on facts (for example that the proportion of people voting for Brexit were generally older and less educated) because it comes from scientific analysis of data. It's not acceptable to say that a proportion of the voters are "accessories to murder", "gullible" or "idiots for voting Brexit" etc because that infers both an intrinsic understanding of another persons view and is also biased by yours/my own opinion that what they are saying. Hence it is very subjective.

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Do you want a leader who is trying to prevent terrorism in the long term via peace talks, or one who's happy to try and suppress it in the short term (and making it worse in the long term) by heavy handed measures and blowing the gak out of other countries?

The first, naturally. At the same time though, a leader does need to be decisive, especially since they're the one with their finger on our big red nuclear button if everything goes to hell. There's also a certain degree of principle involved; when the Falklands was invaded it was a point of vast importance that we take it back militarily. Acceding to negotiations purely because the other side points a gun at you is not a good way to govern, and a dereliction of duty to the citizens involved. As Chamberlain found out, appeasement is not always the solution, and a leader does need to know when to draw a red line and make a decision.

I'm not sure Corbyn's capable of that. I know he waffles on about utopian world scenarios given half the chance, and it all sounds wonderful, but things are rarely so clean-cut. May might make more turns than a merry-go-round, but I don't think she lacks for resolve in that regard, at least.

I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

And just who would that puppet master be?

tneva82 wrote:


I make less than 30k£(tad less than 25k specifically) in a year(pre-taxes). Albeit my home is just 405£ or so. Need to use 100£ or so to commute to work(55km one way). Is everything else in UK really THAT expensive compared to Finland? I can afford yearly trip to Japan and still have bit of savings left. Don't think myself particularly wealthy but not poor either.

Remind me never to move to Britain. Too expensive country. Not that Britain even wants me foreigners coming so win-win.

It's an unfortunate side effect of the UKs increasing divide between the *very* wealthy (so top 10% or so) and the not so wealthy to poor. It's particularly problematic in the South East and London area because that area has had massive investment to accommodate the banking and associated service industry. The main cost for a lot of people is rent or mortgages. Most people like to live in pleasant less crowded areas but there is so much demand and so little housing in the area that house prices sky rocket (way beyond the actual cost of building such a house ever is). On top of this a rental business will just charge rates that are a shy under mortgage repayments because of the capital nature of the market. That means that if you are renting then the ability to build up a deposit to buy a house is nigh impossible. Top this off with lowest house building rates since the 1920s; households with less people per person and a significant fraction of the south east population having inherited by good fortune ridiculously expensive houses. To afford to live this then drives people working there to charge higher prices and the situation escalates.

If you avoid London (most of it is horrible anyway outside the central historic areas) and the SE then living costs can become more reasonable outside a few other notable areas (Oxford/Cambridge/central Manchester etc). If you wanted to live in the NE /NW then things are a lot more reasonable. This is why one of the reasons there a lot of complaints that successive governments have never really encouraged significant investment outside of London relatively.

This might sound strange to people, but in many respects, this is probably a good general election to lose.

It'll take years to sort out the Brexit fallout, and the economic problems that go with it, so if I were involved in politics, I'd be stroking my chin in a Machiavellian manner and be planning to make my move in 2022. ready to capitalise on the incumbent government getting blamed for the mess.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


So you'll call out Ketara for "insulting people", but when Yodhrin goes on a rant about how all Tory voters are an "accessory to murder "...you have no comment? Hypocrite.

I'll hold my hand up and admit (which I did with Ketara but you need to follow the conversation)

If I've missed others I apologise for not jumping on those either as they are all the same, must have scanned some posts.

that I missed the comment from Yodhrin and would agree that it is no different. I oppose generally any generalisations based on a selective and anecdotal view of the world. People are individuals and should be treated as such. It is OK to make assertions based on facts (for example that the proportion of people voting for Brexit were generally older and less educated) because it comes from scientific analysis of data. It's not acceptable to say that a proportion of the voters are "accessories to murder", "gullible" or "idiots for voting Brexit" etc because that infers both an intrinsic understanding of another persons view and is also biased by yours/my own opinion that what they are saying. Hence it is very subjective.

Thankyou, Whirlwind. I'm sorry for over-reacting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us

And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.

Nah this party has it in the bag already...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/watch-the-cba-partys-election-campaign-video-now_uk_592d2efbe4b053f2d2addad2?utm_hp_ref=uk


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Thankyou, Whirlwind. I'm sorry for over-reacting.

No worries, things can get heated and the issue with forums I find is that individual conversations can become disjointed especially when they started several pages back.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
John Curtice has got a haircut, which can only mean that election coverage is upon us

And for all this talk of narrowing polls, Tory panic, and hung parliaments, come 10pm on June 8th, as the second hand creeps towards the hour mark, I fully expect David Dimbleby to call a Tory win, as the contents of the BBC's exit poll is revealed to the nation.

Nah this party has it in the bag already...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/watch-the-cba-partys-election-campaign-video-now_uk_592d2efbe4b053f2d2addad2?utm_hp_ref=uk

In many respects I don't blame people for not voting - the choices on offer are pretty feeble. I'm not going to mention vision, or grand plan. You know where I stand on that.

"Pick up a dog so it can see things from your point of view"...

OK, I'll hold my hands up. I used to do that with my dog.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We're in trouble if May has to go on live television during any negotiation

Corrected that for you...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

And just who would that puppet master be?

I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.

Herzlos wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'm not sure May can stick to any decision unless her puppet master has a firm grip of the handle. She seems incapable of making a decision, defending it and then sticking to it. And since thats with low pressure stuff, what would happen with anything serious?

And just who would that puppet master be?

I don't actually know. But she very much gives the impression that she's being told what to do by more than 1 person, with different agendas.

By all accounts, May has her inner circle, a small inner circle, and the cabinet is largely excluded from the decision making process, hence the disastrous U-turns with ministers being hung out to dry.

In the long run, that will cause a lot of grief.