UK General Election 2017

[Pannonian]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.

Then what's the empirical evidence of what ISIS is and what they intend to do? In particular, where they relate to us. Rather than a general argument of empirical evidence trumps primary sources, show me where or how empirical evidence trumps primary sources in this particular case.

[Sarmatian]

Then what's the empirical evidence of what ISIS is and what they intend to do? In particular, where they relate to us. Rather than a general argument of empirical evidence trumps primary sources, show me where or how empirical evidence trumps primary sources in this particular case.

Before I answer that, I have to ask you to define "us"? British, Europeans, Christians, non-Muslims...?

[Pannonian]

Before I answer that, I have to ask you to define "us"? British, Europeans, Christians, non-Muslims...?

Britain.

[Sarmatian]

So, the question is how does the agenda of a specific political organization (ISIS) relate to a specific country (UK).

Shouldn't be too hard to answer. Based on available evidence and trends, they want you hurt, bowed, broken, defeated... to a degree that you become irrelevant on the world stage, at least in the area that concerns them.

[Pannonian]

So, the question is how does the agenda of a specific political organization (ISIS) relate to a specific country (UK).

Shouldn't be too hard to answer. Based on available evidence and trends, they want you hurt, bowed, broken, defeated... to a degree that you become irrelevant on the world stage, at least in the area that concerns them.

Hang on. They specifically said that what we do on the world stage is secondary to what we are, which is not them. What do you have to counter the primary source which I'd quoted?

Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?

That's 2 questions. The first relates to evidence. The second is asking for your opinion.

[Idaho]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.

It's his pattern. He finds one element or piece of evidence that can be bent to fit under his existing canopy of beliefs and then that becomes his default defence - to demand everyone engages with this factual object the same way he does.

[Pannonian]

It's his pattern. He finds one element or piece of evidence that can be bent to fit under his existing canopy of beliefs and then that becomes his default defence - to demand everyone engages with this factual object the same way he does.

Then on what grounds do you dismiss the primary evidence of their intentions?

[Idaho]

Then on what grounds do you dismiss the primary evidence of their intentions?

On the grounds that a manifesto created by, and tailored for disillusioned western born Muslims is window dressing to the primary engines driving isis in the middle east. I suggest you read more about the great gulf that exists between local Arab fighters in isis and "foreign fighters". The same occurred in Afghanistan. The imported radicals have starkly different agendas and cultures to the locals.

A quick dig found this. Probably plenty more recent stuff:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014...ihadi-fighters

May because they are all the same to you, doesn't mean that are all the same to them.

[Idaho]

Latest reported remarks from Corbyn get my thumbs up:

"London overheats and the cost of living there rises, while communities in to much of the rest of the country have seen their local economies hollowed out, industries decline and stable jobs gone."

He adds that too many people are "trapped in precarious low-paid work while a few at the top get much richer".

The UK must "harness the talents... in every nation and region" and cannot "try to sustain its economy on the back of the growth of the financial sector in one corner of England".

[Pannonian]

On the grounds that a manifesto created by, and tailored for disillusioned western born Muslims is window dressing to the primary engines driving isis in the middle east. I suggest you read more about the great gulf that exists between local Arab fighters in isis and "foreign fighters". The same occurred in Afghanistan. The imported radicals have starkly different agendas and cultures to the locals.

A quick dig found this. Probably plenty more recent stuff:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014...ihadi-fighters

May because they are all the same to you, doesn't mean that are all the same to them.

What foreign fighters and local Arab fighters? The locals here are Britons.

[Husar]

What foreign fighters and local Arab fighters? The locals here are Britons.

Yes, and it says they're the ones doing all the suicide bombings.

[Pannonian]

Yes, and it says they're the ones doing all the suicide bombings.

And in the latest case, his sister, who is as close to the primary source as you're going to get given the original didn't leave any notes behind, said that he was motivated to do so from seeing victims of US bombs.

[Husar]

And in the latest case, his sister, who is as close to the primary source as you're going to get given the original didn't leave any notes behind, said that he was motivated to do so from seeing victims of US bombs.

Yes, this single piece of irrevocable primary source evidence clearly proves how irrational Britons are and how their school system is just one big failure.

[Pannonian]

Yes, this single piece of irrevocable primary source evidence clearly proves how irrational Britons are and how their school system is just one big failure.

Yup, and this single poster shows how this single poster tries to pin absolutely everything on Britain and how it's all the fault of the British. This episode has shown me what victim blaming means.

[Sarmatian]

Hang on. They specifically said that what we do on the world stage is secondary to what we are, which is not them. What do you have to counter the primary source which I'd quoted?

You've asked for an answer based on available empirical evidence, relating specifically to ISIS and UK.

If you want to discuss the truthfulness of their "manifesto", ie. whether their stated intentions accurately reflect their behaviour, we need a slightly bigger sample than 1 (UK).

Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?

I'm not sure what is the right answer here. On purely moral terms, probably yes. In practical terms, it's debatable.

[Husar]

Yup, and this single poster shows how this single poster tries to pin absolutely everything on Britain and how it's all the fault of the British. This episode has shown me what victim blaming means.

Your tears are like butter in my hair.

I'll take that as an apology for your extrapolating from a sample size of one.

[Pannonian]

You've asked for an answer based on available empirical evidence, relating specifically to ISIS and UK.

If you want to discuss the truthfulness of their "manifesto", ie. whether their stated intentions accurately reflect their behaviour, we need a slightly bigger sample than 1 (UK).

I'm not sure what is the right answer here. On purely moral terms, probably yes. In practical terms, it's debatable.

1 > 0. The questions I want to ask are, why are ISIS, al-Qaeda and their like attacking the UK, and how do we end it? Talking about foreign policy means nothing to me, as I already favour us having nothing to do with the middle east, thus removing the interference argument. In any case, I once believed in that argument, except that evidence coming up refutes that argument. I've taken on that evidence and changed my belief in what it is that causes ISIS and other Islamists to attack the UK.

Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?

[Sarmatian]

1 > 0. The questions I want to ask are, why are ISIS, al-Qaeda and their like attacking the UK, and how do we end it? Talking about foreign policy means nothing to me, as I already favour us having nothing to do with the middle east, thus removing the interference argument. In any case, I once believed in that argument, except that evidence coming up refutes that argument. I've taken on that evidence and changed my belief in what it is that causes ISIS and other Islamists to attack the UK.

I'm guessing withdrawing militarily and politically from ME would be a start. Stop providing direct and indirect assistance to those who won't withdraw. Stop dominating international political fora. There are ways to start and see if you're going in the right direction.

But, as Furunculus states, being a great power means exerting influence on others, and dealing with the occasional backlash.

Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?

Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

[Husar]

If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?

Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

Isn't that a completely false and insincere argument anyway? Where is the reciprocal treaty due to which all the middle easterners are in the UK and how many UK citizens are in Saudi Arabia because of the same treaty? What kind of reciprocity are we talking about?
And why exactly do the wishes of ISIS count regarding the treaties the UK has with say, Lebanon? Is Lebanon suddenly responsible for the things ISIS wishes for? Should UK policy be based on the same logic as that of islamic terrorists who blow up British children because they dislike US actions? Is ISIS logic now the new gold standard of logic and something we should aspire to?

[Pannonian]

I'm guessing withdrawing militarily and politically from ME would be a start. Stop providing direct and indirect assistance to those who won't withdraw. Stop dominating international political fora. There are ways to start and see if you're going in the right direction.

But, as Furunculus states, being a great power means exerting influence on others, and dealing with the occasional backlash.

Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.

How do we disregard the evidence of the official ISIS rag and what "The Beatles" are supposed to have said? Any "westerners" (which includes Japanese as well) caught on ISIS territory have been executed, other than those serving ISIS. While we're not going to do the same to Muslims, that approach, which has few exceptions so far, does not suggest the exclusion only applies to those in the military, political and economic spheres. And that empirical evidence is backed up by the ISIS mouthpiece, which voices the philosophy that underpins this approach: we're going to be persecuted for as long as we're different from them.

[Beskar]

Some reports are suggesting a hung parliament. Though the breakdown is that young people are majority labour, old people are majority conservative, the middle are 50/50. Given the Baby Boomers are biggest demographic and most likely to vote, still going to be a Conservative win.

[Greyblades]

This despite that the conservatives have been doing their utmost to fuck up thier inevitable victory.

[LittleGrizzly]

Corbyn has done well to bring it back around, despite all the attempts at sabotage from within Labour he might actually do better than his predecessor which is pretty incredible given the circumstances. It is looking a lot closer than I thought it would.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Corbyn has done well to bring it back around, despite all the attempts at sabotage from within Labour he might actually do better than his predecessor which is pretty incredible given the circumstances. It is looking a lot closer than I thought it would.

After reading Pannonian, I think Labour would do better than predicted if their candidates managed to tie their shoes properly. Or maybe he just isn't a Corbyn fan....

[Pannonian]

After reading Pannonian, I think Labour would do better than predicted if their candidates managed to tie their shoes properly. Or maybe he just isn't a Corbyn fan....

Just about anyone could have done better than Corbyn against the stack of incompetence that is May. May has managed to make Corbyn almost look like he knows what he's doing. May has managed to make Corbyn look like he's interested in reaching out to floaters (at least in comparison with her). Corbyn is the master of rallies to the already converted whilst avoiding anyone who might disagree with him. May has been avoiding all engagements altogether. If she really does have more important things to do than engage in public debate, why the hell did she call an election in the first place?

[Idaho]

I'm so disappointed that Corbyn refuses to promise nuclear apocalypse. The deeply held conviction to murder millions is an essential prerequisite in any leader.

[Pannonian]

I'm so disappointed that Corbyn refuses to promise nuclear apocalypse. The deeply held conviction to murder millions is an essential prerequisite in any leader.

You mean he puts himself over Labour policy as voted on in the last conference? Just like he did with the EU, incidentally. Labour party policy as stated in the manifesto is secondary to what the Dear Leader wants.

[Idaho]

The manifesto explicitly says he must obliterate somewhere with nuclear fury? Must have missed that page. Could you quote?

[Pannonian]

The manifesto explicitly says he must obliterate somewhere with nuclear fury? Must have missed that page. Could you quote?

I'm pretty sure the last manifesto supported being part of the EU. While the last Labour conference voted in favour of Trfdent. Unless you're taking on Corbyn's idea of sending the submarines out without missiles. That was a genius idea from him, keeping the union jobs whilst keeping him in with the CND crowd he's spent his career courting.

[Greyblades]

The deeply held conviction to do anything to[ do his utmost to protect the lives of his people is an essential part of leadership, if he cant even lie about his unwillingness to retaliate the protection of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.