Scrutable

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:08 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:48 pm

No I've actually gone and dug out data, and I actually read the sources I cite before I post them. I wish you would.

Like posting a photo of the toilet paper shelves being empty in a Sydney supermarket as evidence of EU trucker shortages.

I wasn't posting it as evidence of EU trucker shortages, I was posting it as evidence of global supply chain issues. I posted other links as evidence of EU trucker shortages (as did others). You are confused.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:11 pm

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:08 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:48 pm

No I've actually gone and dug out data, and I actually read the sources I cite before I post them. I wish you would.

Like posting a photo of the toilet paper shelves being empty in a Sydney supermarket as evidence of EU trucker shortages.

I wasn't posting it as evidence of EU trucker shortages, I was posting it as evidence of global supply chain issues. I posted other links as evidence of EU trucker shortages (as did others)

Oh yes, you morphed the argument into one of trucker shortages in Australia due to lockdowns. Completely failing to discover that truckers in Australia are exempt from lockdowns while working.

I am bored and pointing out the stupidity of arguments of anti-vaxxers has its value.

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:19 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:11 pm

Chris Preston wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:08 pm

Like posting a photo of the toilet paper shelves being empty in a Sydney supermarket as evidence of EU trucker shortages.

I wasn't posting it as evidence of EU trucker shortages, I was posting it as evidence of global supply chain issues. I posted other links as evidence of EU trucker shortages (as did others)

Oh yes, you morphed the argument into one of trucker shortages in Australia due to lockdowns. Completely failing to discover that truckers in Australia are exempt from lockdowns while working.

I am bored and pointing out the stupidity of arguments of anti-vaxxers has its value.

I said ‘supply shortages’ which can be caused by many points in the chain, not just drivers.

I’m putting you on ignore now because you dont really want to have a conversation, but rant at me over mischaracterisations of what I wrote

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:22 pm

I’m putting you on ignore now because you dont really want to have a conversation, but rant at me over what I wrote

Lol!

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:20 pm

jdc wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:56 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:43 pm

Does this change with time?

this seems to be the first time they've asked this question.

It seems like we're stuck with anecdotes in that case. It's like this in my area https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/wes ... d-21665383 (I don't live in yorkshire, further south in the east midlands)

How is it where you live ?

Definitely seeing more gaps on shelves than usual but there don't seem to be shortages of essentials.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 5:38 pm

I have Tom muted because he's so abusive and angry. The argument opens with 'everybody who disagrees with me is a f.cking moron', which tells me I should keep the cloth over that particular bird's cage.

Well, you're making a big mistake there. Even if someone is being rude or abusive, they may make valid points and knowledge is power, so you're better off reading the material anyway. You may find a good point, in which case you have learned something, even if you only find a erroeous arguments, that is also useful as it provides a way to understand why you differ, which is one of the things which helps you convince someone else.

Even Junker agrees with me on this one https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... accine-war

That article contains nothing to support your point that the UK benefited from Brexit. While Juncker criticised the EU strategy, that was not saying that each country should have acted independently and the EU is a hindrance - it meant that the EU strategy was wrong but the correct strategy was something else that should still have been done as the EU.

A much more relevant article, which goes into more detail about what he said, is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... at-with-uk

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:36 am

The conservative press is delighted brexit is allowing us to unilaterally change visa rules to solve the problem in a way EU countries cannot.

Yes. It shows just how deluded they are, since the UK was never part of the Schengen Area, so was always able to vary its rules however it liked. This is typical pro-Brexit misinformation.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:40 am

Well, you're making a big mistake there. Even if someone is being rude or abusive, they may make valid points and knowledge is power, so you're better off reading the material anyway. You may find a good point, in which case you have learned something, even if you only find a erroeous arguments, that is also useful as it provides a way to understand why you differ, which is one of the things which helps you convince someone else.

I've had enough experience of Tom to know that not agreeing with a narrow spectrum of opinions on any topic just prompts lots of extreme ranting.

Even Junker agrees with me on this one https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... accine-war


That article contains nothing to support your point that the UK benefited from Brexit. While Juncker criticised the EU strategy, that was not saying that each country should have acted independently and the EU is a hindrance - it meant that the EU strategy was wrong but the correct strategy was something else that should still have been done as the EU.

I only used the quote to demonstrate he acknowledged the EU strategy was wrong. I think this focus on what 'could have been' within the EU is misguided, focus on what actually happened.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:43 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:36 am

The conservative press is delighted brexit is allowing us to unilaterally change visa rules to solve the problem in a way EU countries cannot.

Yes. It shows just how deluded they are, since the UK was never part of the Schengen Area, so was always able to vary its rules however it liked. This is typical pro-Brexit misinformation.

Looking at what Schapps claimed, he says it is because brexit allowed him to change driving test rules for truckers. I was wary of directly quoting anything Schapps said as fact though.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:36 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:43 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:36 am

The conservative press is delighted brexit is allowing us to unilaterally change visa rules to solve the problem in a way EU countries cannot.

Yes. It shows just how deluded they are, since the UK was never part of the Schengen Area, so was always able to vary its rules however it liked. This is typical pro-Brexit misinformation.

Looking at what Schapps claimed, he says it is because brexit allowed him to change driving test rules for truckers. I was wary of directly quoting anything Schapps said as fact though.

aka "even I accept this is probably drivel but I'm not going to stop now".

Which EU HGV driving test rules are we now free from, that we have now changed? Do we now get to teach our lorry drivers to drive on the left? Perhaps braking distances are in imperial measures? Have we changed the air lines connecting the trailer to red, white and blue?

It's sad to see Shelly knows Johnson & Co are shameless liars. But trots out their lies nonetheless.

He knows Johnson lied to him with the claim Brexit allowed faster vaccine approval. But he doesn't get pissed at Johnson. He doesn't begin to suspect Johnson's other claims. He carries on, preferring to accept lies than change "sides".

A healthy society is one where liars get shamed. The fundamental consequence of Brexit is that truth is rejected instead of the liars. It leaves Sheldrake in a pretty grim position: join in with the lying or lose face to his "enemies".

plodder wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:58 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:36 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:43 am

Yes. It shows just how deluded they are, since the UK was never part of the Schengen Area, so was always able to vary its rules however it liked. This is typical pro-Brexit misinformation.

Looking at what Schapps claimed, he says it is because brexit allowed him to change driving test rules for truckers. I was wary of directly quoting anything Schapps said as fact though.

aka "even I accept this is probably drivel but I'm not going to stop now".

Which EU HGV driving test rules are we now free from, that we have now changed? Do we now get to teach our lorry drivers to drive on the left? Perhaps braking distances are in imperial measures? Have we changed the air lines connecting the trailer to red, white and blue?

I think you went in a bit hard there. I am using couched language like ‘schapps claims’ precisely because I know, and acknowledge there is a very good chance he is lying. I am well aware of our cabinet’s shortcomings and I wont be voting Tory next time.

My argument is not that brexit has made this better, merely that brexit is not a significant cause.

I honestly think people who think leaving the EU had no impact on our vaccine programme are deluding themselves though.

I am worried this is a cry for help. If it is, please, go and talk to your GP and show them how you habitually behave online, and get someone to talk to about whether this might be related to some deep-rooted issues about how you relate to people in the real world. A few months of chatting to a professional and you'll be far less in need of this ridiculous attention seeking.

plodder wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:04 am

I am worried this is a cry for help. If it is, please, go and talk to your GP and show them how you habitually behave online, and get someone to talk to about whether this might be related to some deep-rooted issues about how you relate to people in the real world. A few months of chatting to a professional and you'll be far less in need of this ridiculous attention seeking.

I am completely sane. Super sane.

I dont recall trying to rebut one of your points by telling you that needed professional help. Not even when you were rude to me. Have a think about that.

There is an EU driving license directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32006L0126

This was very useful as it meant that people could use their national license to drive all round the EU.

If you look at Annexes II and III you can see the driving test requirements. They look sensible to me and are pretty general so there is room for national interpretation. If Britain is to make the HGV license much easier to pass that might well have an effect upon road safety.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:19 am

It's sad to see Shelly knows Johnson & Co are shameless liars. But trots out their lies nonetheless.

He knows Johnson lied to him with the claim Brexit allowed faster vaccine approval. But he doesn't get pissed at Johnson. He doesn't begin to suspect Johnson's other claims. He carries on, preferring to accept lies than change "sides".

A healthy society is one where liars get shamed. The fundamental consequence of Brexit is that truth is rejected instead of the liars. It leaves Sheldrake in a pretty grim position: join in with the lying or lose face to his "enemies".

You are deacribing a looking-glass reality where Cameron’s, the BOE’s and the Treasury’s grim predictions came true. They didnt. Not even close. You are floundering around in this stupid zeitgeist of ‘we could totally have still rolled out vaccines faster than the rest of the EU without leaving’ whilst unable to explain why none of them did what you claim was so easily done. Absurd.

Read this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... n.amp.html

You were the one lied to.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:11 am

There is an EU driving license directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32006L0126

This was very useful as it meant that people could use their national license to drive all round the EU.

If you look at Annexes II and III you can see the driving test requirements. They look sensible to me and are pretty general so there is room for national interpretation. If Britain is to make the HGV license much easier to pass that might well have an effect upon road safety.

I’m not sure if the plan is to make it much easier to pass or whether its about shortening some delay in the process that isnt about a practical skill test.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:13 am

You were the one lied to.

You know Johnson stood in front of the £350 million bus and lied to you.

I know you're only pretending to believe Johnson isn't a liar, for troll/contrarian purposes. But that's worse than being a Boris Believer, because you are consciously attacking truth itself. It's shameful.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:18 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:11 am

There is an EU driving license directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32006L0126

This was very useful as it meant that people could use their national license to drive all round the EU.

If you look at Annexes II and III you can see the driving test requirements. They look sensible to me and are pretty general so there is room for national interpretation. If Britain is to make the HGV license much easier to pass that might well have an effect upon road safety.

I’m not sure if the plan is to make it much easier to pass or whether its about shortening some delay in the process that isnt about a practical skill test.

Process for taking tests is decided nationally as far as I can tell. The directive didn’t appear to get into that level of detail.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:34 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:13 am

You were the one lied to.

You know Johnson stood in front of the £350 million bus and lied to you.

I know you're only pretending to believe Johnson isn't a liar, for troll/contrarian purposes. But that's worse than being a Boris Believer, because you are consciously attacking truth itself. It's shameful.

This is silly hyperbole. The 350 million claim was actually pretty accurate, after our rebate went. This is a silly crutch that people who cannot accept the referendum result still bang on about. Let it go. https://order-order.com/2019/07/04/judg ... ss-figure/

I am well aware what sort of bullshitter Johnson is, and wont be voting Tory next time. I do not yet see unambiguously good alternatives in our political system. I will favour people with the guts to oppose vaccine passports and keep us out of colonial wars

This is so humiliating for you.

You know Johnson is a liar but you keep repeating his lies anyway.

The words associated with Sheldrake become "gullible" and "moron", sometimes taking it in turns with "useful idiot".

lpm wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:18 am

This is so humiliating for you.

You know Johnson is a liar but you keep repeating his lies anyway.

The words associated with Sheldrake become "gullible" and "moron", sometimes taking it in turns with "useful idiot".

When you’re reduced to these kind of splenetics after literally being shown a court ruling supporting what I just said you know you have left the camp of reason. Be well, LPM

Well it's great that you're giving that money to the NHS now so as to avoid having to raise National Insurance or anything.

The 350 million claim was a lie, and was called out by the UK Statistics Authority, Full Fact, More or Less, and pretty much anyone else who you might want to listen to if you were interested in accurate statistics.

That said, it was a clever lie (or perhaps an accidentally useful one, depending on whether you tend towards conspiracy or cockup in your interpretation of events). The immediate, and understandable, reaction to the lie from those on our side of the Brexit debate was to point out vociferously that it was a lie, and to explain why it was a lie, with reference to our rebate from the EU, among other factors. The problem is that the result is an argument about precisely how much we contribute to the EU budget. That's an argument the Leave camp were probably happy about because, even if they lost it, they would still, in a sense, have won. We were one of the richer nations in the EU so we we were going to be net contributors to its budget to some extent, however you analysed it. Someone who found the 350 million argument persuasive was unlikely to change their mind even if they were forced to downgrade their estimate of our contribution to 250 million, or some other figure. And of course the more time people spent arguing over 350 million vs 250 million vs whatever, the less attention was devoted to issues that could have done more damage to the Leave camp.

Obviously those on our side of the argument saw the lie in a wider context. We might have hoped that Johnson's brazen persistence with it would make everyone realise that he couldn't be trusted on other matters. But anyone who has followed an argument about statistics on the internet, or in the media, will realise that they just don't work like that. If someone lies about statistics, people's attitude to the lie depends on how the statistic fits into their world view. From our side of the fence, Johnson's lie is yet further proof of his untrustworthiness. From a Leaver point of view, Remainer pushback over rebates and other economic issues is probably just an attempt to shut down debate on an important issue by spurious quibbling about methodology.

There's no point crying over spilt milk, but would have been sensible to deal with the lie with a resigned shrug, and concentrate on the sort of strategies that worked in previous referendums for the side that wanted to keep the status quo (in particular strategies that leverage the fact that the side that wants to change it doesn't usually agree on exactly how it should be changed).