Brexited | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Brexited

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
Johnson's majority is so great he can disregard the nutters in the ERG and cut a softer deal - so some are saying.
Who, the Guardian? Fair to say all those people that claimed the Brexit vote was due to remainers not getting off their backside might want to revisit that theory. Even Jo Swinson was sent packing.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
20,975
6,524
Jo Swinson is Tory lite and was beaten by the SNP who are pro-Remain and pro-Scots independence.

Regardless of the form, Brexit will get done now and Europe is just as relieved about this as the most of the UK.
 

artball

labels are for canned food
Jul 30, 2013
3,734
1,488
here's a thought. England exits. Does the Australian flag lose the Union Jack? Does NZ? etc etc ... Scotland and Ireland and (Wales?) will be done with the UK because its not a United Kingdom, so surely this makes the Union Jack redundant?
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
37,978
7,207
It will be interesting to see what the Scots do if UK Brexit. They might try the independence route again but by rights they wouldn't be automatically back in the EU and they'd need to wait, unless the EU make some special provision for them.

Actually, won't be interesting, it'll be amusing. Much like US Politics is amusing. Struggle to understand how many Australians get so fanatical about what is happening in the States. Especially the die-hard Trumpites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,709
2,676
Actually, won't be interesting, it'll be amusing. Much like US Politics is amusing. Struggle to understand how many Australians get so fanatical about what is happening in the States. Especially the die-hard Trumpites.
Ahhhh come on Balooga, gotta love the Trumpster. Even if only for the way he's *smile* over the Dem's n the look on Pelosi's face when she just thinks about him, which must be about 24/7.

Something definitely weird in the world though, when BoJo gets re elected with a thumping majority n the first thing that happens is the losers start demonstrating in the streets 'coz they can't accept their mob got flogged.
 

Tazzytiger

Tiger Cub
Mar 1, 2008
39
12
Ahhhh come on Balooga, gotta love the Trumpster. Even if only for the way he's ****** over the Dem's n the look on Pelosi's face when she just thinks about him, which must be about 24/7.

Something definitely weird in the world though, when BoJo gets re elected with a thumping majority n the first thing that happens is the losers start demonstrating in the streets 'coz they can't accept their mob got flogged.
Yeah... that's what I don't get... the bit about demonstrating cause the got flogged. Same for here and America... Move on ffs
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
37,978
7,207
The irony is that the demonstrators are from the hard left, the supposed tolerant ones...!

Not sure why it's ironic at all. Tolerance has had to fight hard throughout history against intolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean lying down and taking it without lube from the intolerant.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
Not sure why it's ironic at all. Tolerance has had to fight hard throughout history against intolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean lying down and taking it without lube from the intolerant.
It is certainly ironic. You can’t claim to be tolerant if you are intolerant to the intolerant. These people aren’t tolerant. They are rude, humourless, boorish, sanctimonious and at worst, violent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
37,978
7,207
No, not irony at all if you understand how society actually operates in real life as opposed to purely theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
20,975
6,524
It is certainly ironic. You can’t claim to be tolerant if you are intolerant to the intolerant. These people aren’t tolerant. They are rude, humourless, boorish, sanctimonious and at worst, violent.

Read Karl Popper - link above.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
37,978
7,207
How can you understand how society actually operates in real life without a theory? Your statement doesn’t make sense.

My statement does make sense. You just need to avoid ignoring the word 'purely'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,293
664
Brisbane
Read Karl Popper - link above.
I don’t think it is a paradox, it is simply a matter of definition confusion. What does it mean to be tolerant? Seems that different people have different ideas of what this means. From what I can gather, to Popper, being tolerant means allowing people to use rational discourse to argue a point, whether you agreed with it or not. When people reject rational argumentation and resort to violence to resolve disputes, this would be an example of being intolerant. Popper then thinks that responding with violence in kind is also being intolerant. I think his understanding of intolerance in this instance is incorrect, hence why he called it a paradox.

As an aside, I don’t think Popper would refer to these people as tolerant, as they don’t believe in allowing differing opinions to be heard. They actively seek to crush dissenting opinions such as through racial discrimination laws, hate crime laws, forcing quotas onto company hiring practices, shouting bigot or racist at anyone that disagrees with them, trying to shout down speakers at universities, etc.

As another aside, I think if people want to say they are tolerant, this needs to be qualified. Tolerant of what? Without this, it implies they are tolerant of everything. Qualifying what the tolerance is for then removes the contradiction when they display intolerance. I think Popper’s understanding of tolerance works well (i.e. tolerance is the act of accepting dissenting opinions that are brought forth through argumentation) but his understanding of intolerance breaks down a bit as it is not contradictory to allow dissenting opinions/arguments to be openly heard while at the same time acting in self defence to prevent someone from harming you. People can muddy the waters here with tolerance/intolerance definitions. Is it intolerant to allow someone to argue a point in their house but not your house?
 
Last edited:

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
20,975
6,524
I don’t think it is a paradox, it is simply a matter of definition confusion. What does it mean to be tolerant? Seems that different people have different ideas of what this means. From what I can gather, to Popper, being tolerant means allowing people to use rational discourse to argue a point, whether you agreed with it or not. When people reject rational argumentation and resort to violence to resolve disputes, this would be an example of being intolerant. Popper then thinks that responding with violence in kind is also being intolerant. I think his understanding of intolerance in this instance is incorrect, hence why he called it a paradox.

As an aside, I don’t think Popper would refer to these people as tolerant, as they don’t believe in allowing differing opinions to be heard. They actively seek to crush dissenting opinions such as through racial discrimination laws, hate crime laws, forcing quotas onto company hiring practices, shouting bigot or racist at anyone that disagrees with them, trying to shout down speakers at universities, etc.

As another aside, I think if people want to say they are tolerant, this needs to be qualified. Tolerant of what? Without this, it implies they are tolerant of everything. Qualifying what the tolerance is for then removes the contradiction when they display intolerance. I think Popper’s understanding of tolerance works well (i.e. tolerance is the act of accepting dissenting opinions that are brought forth through argumentation) but his understanding of intolerance breaks down a bit as it is not contradictory to allow dissenting opinions/arguments to be openly heard while at the same time acting in self defence to prevent someone from harming you. People can muddy the waters here with tolerance/intolerance definitions. Is it intolerant to allow someone to argue a point in their house but not your house?

I'm sorry I asked