More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no point using the ridiculous argument by analogy. Either use logic or admit you are not going to bother.

I'm being asked for logic by someone who would buy a car without checking it over first? :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You must specify the gap, say what it is gap and argue why it is dangerous. You have spotted no gap let alone a deductive argument why it is dangerous.

You may not have spotted the gap, I have because I read the document with an open mind, obviously you haven't.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think you have missed something. The matter is referred back to the council, this doesn't mean the council can force a decision on you, it means the council is responsible for progressing the negotiations. Otherwise who is? Or should it just be forgetten about?

You've missed my point. It should never get to the stage where part of the Eu is run on one set of rules while a minority has another. All member states should agree to any changes before they're implemented. It's very simple logic, but you can't grasp this simple concept.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I heard a German Diplomat on RTE 1 the Saturday after the referendum saying there is nothing wrong with that. I have heard several other commentators saying that.

And since when has a politician saying something made it automatically truth and law. A diplomat saying their is nothing wrong with it is just saying he feels nothing wrong with breaking EU law.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps you could quote the exact EU law being broken.

Article N of the Treaty of the European Union:

Article N wrote:

1. The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

2. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened in 1996 to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided, in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles A and B.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd go with the first definition of rherotic from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

"the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast."

I googled it, went to the first result (wikipedia) and read the first line: "The art of speaking or writing effectively", but this is side stepping the issue, where you say that I'm exaggerating my points, it seems that you're choosing not to see them.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It doesn't matter. You were trying to make a point that EU operational changes could be forced on us. This was categorically incorrect.

And you are completely missing the point that with the new Treaty, EU operational directives can go ahead without the approval of Irish voters, with a delay of 2 years until European Council intervention.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

May I ask are you a member of Libertas or Sinn Fein? It was a lie they were propagating during the debate.

No, and my point contains no lie.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What I think it really illogical is to vote on debating tactics of Fianna Fail. Again I remind you, it was vote on the treaty. If it was vote on the debating tactics of Fianna Fail, I would have voted no myself.

Why is it illogical to vote based on the tactics of the supporting group? Fianna Fail claimed to understand the article (amazing considering they never actually read the entire thing) and yet never once actually tried to explain it, they just dictated to the nation to vote "yes", because its good for for the country. If it was so good for the country then why could this not be explained ad nauseum how this was the case? Was it too much hassle to explain the benefits of such a wonderful treaty to us uneducated plebs, the no voters? Was it easier to just tempt us with claims of a better Ireland, claims they couldn't back up? Do you see their tactics as "the ends justify the means"?

thesoulfulldude

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

well actually my argument here would be

they should not make you vote on a number of topics with a yes or no. its like me asking you

i want to bring in abortion in ireland and make it legal, i also want to outlaw people over 50 from driving. i also want to be a nutural country when it comes to europe going to war.

do you agree?
yes
no



so although you might agree about 2 of the 3 you will still vote no because you dont want one of them to come into law. thats a simple fact and its a joke that they wanted us to make the same decision on this topic


sorry for the spelling (dyslexic)

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm only talking about one type of democratic process, the European process for making changes to the European Treaty. Rhetoric is just the art of speaking well and there's no problem using the argument of "democratic process" when you are talking about a specific process.

If you bothered to check that dictionary reference you would see what is meant by the word rhetoric. You haven't speficied which type od democratic process you are talking about and why you have picked that type over other types.

True, the problem is we were dictated to, to vote "yes"

More rhetoric.

Would it not have been better for the politicians to sit down, actually read the document and then explain why we should vote "yes" in the first place.

Well it would more objective if we had an independent body that did that. We have a referendum commission you know. We also have a broad range media.

You'd have to wonder how Ireland has gotten anything done in the last 100 years.

Because we have never been in this mess before.

Which simple concept?

I have gone through the logic of it. But you are incapable of finding any sort of logical problem with it.

pH

thesoulfulldude wrote: »

well actually my argument here would be

they should not make you vote on a number of topics with a yes or no. its like me asking you

i want to bring in abortion in ireland and make it legal, i also want to outlaw people over 50 from driving. i also want to be a nutural country when it comes to europe going to war.

do you agree?
yes
no

so although you might agree about 2 of the 3 you will still vote no because you dont want one of them to come into law. thats a simple fact and its a joke that they wanted us to make the same decision on this topic

OK you've picked extreme hot potato points but let's work with them.

Remember this was "A Treaty", not everything in it is exactly what the people of Ireland (or you personally) wanted. It's a game of give and take, a negotiation, so there are items in the treaty that the Irish government agreed to only because they got something in return.

It's ludicrous to suggest that after negotiating a treaty the Irish can now just remove all the points we don't particularly like (while keeping our points in the treaty)

Yes there may have been things in the treaty that and not exactly what Ireland would have wanted, but they were arrived at via negotiation.

There are 2 ways of negotiating such a treaty:

Have nothing in it that any of the members objects to. You'd pretty much have a black sheet of paper.

or

Have some give and take - "In an ideal world we wouldn't want clause a and b in the treaty, but in return for agreeing to them we've gotten clause x and y."

Lisbon contains give and take (for *all* countries) just because there's some items in there that you disagree with is still not a good reason to reject the entire treaty.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm being asked for logic by someone who would buy a car without checking it over first? :rolleyes:

No you are benig asked by someone who understands arguing by analogy is not logical.

You may not have spotted the gap, I have because I read the document with an open mind, obviously you haven't.

More facile rhetoric "open eyes". You claimed to haev spotted a gap and you didn't spot any gap.

You've missed my point. It should never get to the stage where part of the Eu is run on one set of rules while a minority has another.

It already is at that stage, ever hear of the Euro?

All member states should agree to any changes before they're implemented. It's very simple logic, but you can't grasp this simple concept.

It's been negated.

Article N of the Treaty of the European Union:

That's your best point and one of the best points I have heard so far from any no voter.

Here is a link to it if anybody wishes to see.
http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html

It's worth discussion.

I googled it, went to the first result (wikipedia) and read the first line: "The art of speaking or writing effectively", but this is side stepping the issue, where you say that I'm exaggerating my points, it seems that you're choosing not to see them.

If you read down a bit further the part about Plato when it talks about sophistry. Rhetoric has always had a connotation associated with it and a meaning associated with it that matches the context I am using it in.

And you are completely missing the point that with the new Treaty, EU operational directives can go ahead without the approval of Irish voters, with a delay of 2 years until European Council intervention.

No. We are back to the Crotty case here. If the changes infringe our constitution, they must be ratified by referendum.

Why is it illogical to vote based on the tactics of the supporting group? Fianna Fail claimed to understand the article (amazing considering they never actually read the entire thing) and yet never once actually tried to explain it, they just dictated to the nation to vote "yes", because its good for for the country. If it was so good for the country then why could this not be explained ad nauseum how this was the case? Was it too much hassle to explain the benefits of such a wonderful treaty to us uneducated plebs, the no voters? Was it easier to just tempt us with claims of a better Ireland, claims they couldn't back up? Do you see their tactics as "the ends justify the means"?

It's a bit like an ad hominen or ignore the identity of the arguer.
More info here:

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic.html

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm only talking about one type of democratic process, the European process for making changes to the European Treaty. Rhetoric is just the art of speaking well and there's no problem using the argument of "democratic process" when you are talking about a specific process.
If you bothered to check that dictionary reference you would see what is meant by the word rhetoric. You haven't specified which type of democratic process you are talking about and why you have picked that type over other types.

Read my post, the part you just quoted. What’s the problem here? Constant avoidance of what I'm saying and repeatedly calling everything I say exaggeration just makes your argument weak. I'm using plain English here, if you can't understand my points then how can you claim to have understood the Treaty?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

True, the problem is we were dictated to, to vote "yes"
More rhetoric.

How is it rhetoric? We were told by the politicians who we elected to represent us to vote yes on a document they could not fully explain to us because they had not read it. There was no debate about the treaty, no explanation of pros and cons. There was no attempt on the part of the government to try to educate the people so that we could make the decision. the politicians made the decision for us and dictated to us how to vote, and in this country thats not how representation works.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it would more objective if we had an independent body that did that. We have a referendum commission you know. We also have a broad range media.

And yet you claim the reason for most no votes is ignorance. Do you think all the no voters covered their eyes and ears to block out the "broad range media" so that when the referenda came along they could vote in ignorance?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because we have never been in this mess before.

Since when has been acceptable to do the wrong thing because it causes less of a mess?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have gone through the logic of it. But you are incapable of finding any sort of logical problem with it.

Which logic is that? That having a situation where (as you put it) " Politicians must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed" is a bad thing? Thats their job. This is how Ireland has been run since we got our independence. A politician decides on a change to the constitution for whatever reason, those who agree try to convince the people to vote yes and vice-versa. When the people vote against a change because it was never explained fully by the supporters who couldn't fully understand it themselves, then this shows a major leap of intelligence for the public. Who in their right mind would agree to a contract they didn't understand? Where's the logic in that?

robindch wrote:

The Treaty is 300 pages of sentence fragments, out-of-context paragraphs and the like. Basically a diff file if you're familiar with software. I doubt that few have read it, since it's the consolidated treaty that matters and that's 150 pages or so of relatively straightforward text (which I still wager that 99% of the population hasn't read either).

Actually the entire consolidated treaty is 479 pages, I downloaded it. It wasn't extracts of the consolidated treaty that was sent to each home by the government (telling every one to vote yes), it was extracts from the amendments to the treaty, thats why so many people found it so hard to understand, it kept referring to the original treaty, which very few people would have.

robindch wrote:

If you have a problem with the process that produced this treaty -- ie, unelected, staffer civil servants who negotiate treaties which implement public policy as defined by elected representatives -- then I suggest you start a revolution and come up with a better system.

I have no problem with process, politicians everywhere get the civil servants to do most of the work like that. I have a problem when someone says its wrong to vote against it because of all the hard work that went into it.

robindch wrote:

I think I've explained it often enough that a referendum vote which is decided because of something other than the topic of the referendum is not democratic. Yes, it's a vote, but no, it is not a democratic vote. If you cannot see this why this is so at this stage, then there's little point in discussing this any further.

An uneducated democratic vote is still democratic. To have a democratic vote all you require is that every one gets an equal vote, not that every one votes for the same reason. I do completely agree that the people should be as educated as possible on the topics under debate, but the yes vote failed to educate people as much as the no vote.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Read my post, the part you just quoted. What’s the problem here? Constant avoidance of what I'm saying and repeatedly calling everything I say exaggeration just makes your argument weak. I'm using plain English here, if you can't understand my points then how can you claim to have understood the Treaty?

Are you reading my posts? I made the point that no two democratic processes are the same and challenged you to name which one you were referring to.

How is it rhetoric? We were told by the politicians who we elected to represent us to vote yes on a document they could not fully explain to us because they had not read it. There was no debate about the treaty, no explanation of pros and cons. There was no attempt on the part of the government to try to educate the people so that we could make the decision. the politicians made the decision for us and dictated to us how to vote, and in this country thats not how representation works.

Use of the word dictated to.
As for there being no "debate" about the treart, that's ridiculous. As is your assertion there was no effort to educate. This is up to the referendum commision.

And yet you claim the reason for most no votes is ignorance. Do you think all the no voters covered their eyes and ears to block out the "broad range media" so that when the referenda came along they could vote in ignorance?

70% of no voters said they thought it would be easy to renegotiate Lisbon. 40% said they voted no because they understand it.

Since when has been acceptable to do the wrong thing because it causes less of a mess?

Stick to the point please I made a logical argument.

"There is no other logical possible course of action and either of the above two would mean it would take infinity to get anything done." which you attempted to rebutt by saying we've been ok the last 100 years. That is not a rebuttal because we have never being in this situation before.
It would make more sense if you rebutted the original point, instead of going off on a tangent.

Which logic is that? That having a situation where (as you put it) " Politicians must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed" is a bad thing? Thats their job. This is how Ireland has been run since we got our independence. A politician decides on a change to the constitution for whatever reason, those who agree try to convince the people to vote yes and vice-versa. When the people vote against a change because it was never explained fully by the supporters who couldn't fully understand it themselves, then this shows a major leap of intelligence for the public. Who in their right mind would agree to a contract they didn't understand? Where's the logic in that?

Well there's two very obvious problems with your argument:
1. Firstly, you think the politicans should just keep negotaiting until the people are happy. You seem to think this is quite a simple process. The problem is that there are myriad of reasons why people voting no. To just plain ignorance to protest voting. Your reason might be solved, but then they might do absolutely nothing for anybody else who voted no. Even they co-incidentally do. Malta might have huge problems with that and pull the hole thing down. You can't have consensus and absoluteness.

2. The reason you give, not being able to understand the treaty. What do you expect? For cowen to ask the Germans and French, to remove all the big words? Do you seriously think a legally binding document, between 27 nations to be simple and easily understood by people, many of whom have no interest in politics or democracy.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No you are benig asked by someone who understands arguing by analogy is not logical.

I'm arguing with some-one who believes that arguing by analogy is not logical, but this does not make it so. Arguing by analogy is logical, its just not perfect as any analogy that perfectly matches the situation thats being argued is that situation. While it would be better for me to argue my points based on their merits, you continuously fail to understand them, so I have to simplify them into little stories that you can understand. Obviously they're either not simple enough, otr they're too good, because you don't do anything but attack my method of arguing as opposed to thge points I've made.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

More facile rhetoric "open eyes". You claimed to haev spotted a gap and you didn't spot any gap.

I have spotted a gap. I've pointed out the gap. You don't see a gap so you use "rhetoric" to try to claim I'm exaggerating.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It already is at that stage, ever hear of the Euro?

There's a big difference between countries having different currencies in Europe and countries being subjuct to different European Laws.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's been negated.

And yet other countries are going forward with their ratification processes.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's your best point and one of the best points I have heard so far from any no voter.

Here is a link to it if anybody wishes to see.
http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html

It's worth discussion. [/QUOTE]

Then lets discuss.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you read down a bit further the part about Plato when it talks about sophistry. Rhetoric has always had a connotation associated with it and a meaning associated with it that matches the context I am using it in.

I was reading it in terms of the first line, but it doesn't matter know as I now know what you're meaning when you say it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. We are back to the Crotty case here. If the changes infringe our constitution, they must be ratified by referendum.

But if they aren't, and as long as 4/5ths of the member states agree with them, then by the Lisbon Treaty's rules they can be implemented in those countries and their is a two year waiting period before anything is about what ever conflicts that may arise. The new treaty is supposed to be more efficient and yet they are going to have a situation where there is a two year wait before the European Council gets a refferal to any problems in the implementation onf changes to the treaty.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's a bit like an ad hominen or ignore the identity of the arguer.
More info here:

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic.html

If an arguer can argue from a point of complete neutrality, then this should be the case, however our government were not arguing from a point of neutrality. They did not tell us the pros and cons of voting yes or no, just to vote yes. When the arguer is arguing from a point of bias, then their identity (and trustworthiness) will tell us something about why they are arguing for their position. It isn't wrong to argue against the identity of a (biased) arguer as well as the pojnts they make.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm arguing with some-one who believes that arguing by analogy is not logical, but this does not make it so. Arguing by analogy is logical, its just not perfect as any analogy that perfectly matches the situation thats being argued is that situation.

No it's a common trick for sophistry. You can't give out about Politicians not explaining the treaty and then using your own techniques which are classical logical mistakes.

I have spotted a gap. I've pointed out the gap. You don't see a gap so you use "rhetoric" to try to claim I'm exaggerating.

You spotted no gap.

There's a big difference between countries having different currencies in Europe and countries being subjuct to different European Laws.

Economic is arguably bigger and more important.

Then lets discuss.

Fine. It should be a in separate thread.

If an arguer can argue from a point of complete neutrality, then this should be the case, however our government were not arguing from a point of neutrality. They did not tell us the pros and cons of voting yes or no, just to vote yes. When the arguer is arguing from a point of bias, then their identity (and trustworthiness) will tell us something about why they are arguing for their position. It isn't wrong to argue against the identity of a (biased) arguer as well as the pojnts they make.

It is illiogical. You are voting on Lisbon not on FF's tactics.
You have violated two logical rules therE:
1. Identidy of the arguer.
2. Beg the question

thesoulfulldude

pH wrote: »

just because there's some items in there that you disagree with is still not a good reason to reject the entire treaty.

yes it does. thats the point of this you dont ask a person to make a decision without knowing all the facts! and no average joe is going to read (i dont know how big the document was but it wasnt easy reading) and expect them to understand and agree to all the give or takes. when it comes to a vote you give a simple question with a simple answer!

what should have been done here is the core elements should have been taken out and voted for the rest should be decided between our countrys reps, thats there feckin job!


and also whats the point in giving me an option if your going to say, this is as fair as its going to get so i expect you to vote yes. kinda defeats the point of letting us vote eh?

pH

thesoulfulldude wrote: »

yes it does. thats the point of this you dont ask a person to make a decision without knowing all the facts! and no average joe is going to read (i dont know how big the document was but it wasnt easy reading) and expect them to understand and agree to all the give or takes. when it comes to a vote you give a simple question with a simple answer!

I think you're missing the point, all negotiations require compromise, meaning that there are some points (articles) you like and some you don't. You can't then at a later stage just cherry pick those you like, you have to look at the entire balance of the negotiations, what you gain and what you give up. Looking at individual points in isolation (to accept/reject them) is pointless.

Only if you consider the things you lose are outweighed by the things you gain can you sensibly consider rejecting the negotiated treaty. Of course there are going to be points in the treaty that are not 100% in Ireland's favour (it wasn't the "What can we all do for the Irish treaty"), suddenly 'discovering' them and saying no is frankly stupid.

thesoulfulldude

pH wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, all negotiations require compromise, meaning that there are some points (articles) you like and some you don't. You can't then at a later stage just cherry pick those you like, you have to look at the entire balance of the negotiations, what you gain and what you give up. Looking at individual points in isolation (to accept/reject them) is pointless.

Only if you consider the things you lose are outweighed by the things you gain can you sensibly consider rejecting the negotiated treaty. Of course there are going to be points in the treaty that are not 100% in Ireland's favour (it wasn't the "What can we all do for the Irish treaty"), suddenly 'discovering' them and saying no is frankly stupid.

your more easy going than most people. why give something up if we dont have to? also this is probably the biggest thing we've had to vote on, the bottom line is if its not clear what your voting DONT vote on it and if there is something you realise could cause harm to us down the road then vote no.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

me wrote:

it's the consolidated treaty that matters and that's 150 pages or so of relatively straightforward text

Actually the entire consolidated treaty is 479 pages, I downloaded it.

You must have a differently set edition to mine (link above somewhere, which has 35 pages of preamble, 145 pages of consolidated treaty, 120 pages of additional protocols, 5 pages of annexes, 25 pages of declarations and 30 pages of renumbering info, and an index and some other bits and bobs, for a total of 392 pages of PDF).

The 145 pages of the consolidated treaty itself is easy enough to read, though as I said the Lisbon Treaty itself is completely unreadable, since it's an updating exercise. I don't recall anybody from either campaign pointing this fairly obvious fact out.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It wasn't extracts of the consolidated treaty that was sent to each home by the government (telling every one to vote yes) [...] it kept referring to the original treaty,

The Referendum Commission's document (what I presume you're referring to) wasn't a piece of yes-side propaganda, but a scrupulously even-handed description by a high-court judge of what the referendum was all about.

While it's arguable whether or not the RC should have provided the consolidated text, it wasn't part of its terms of reference, and in any case, the consolidated treaty was available on the internet for the 1% of people (like me ) who were actually interested in reading it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have a problem when someone says its wrong to vote against it because of all the hard work that went into it.

I'm sure somebody said that, but it sure wasn't me!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An uneducated democratic vote is still democratic.

Nope, a vote which is carried one way or the other by people voting because of something else is not rationally democratic (ie, the voting issue is not relevant). Permit that, and you get the kind of daft and useless voting patterns that you see in the Eurovision where the music takes second place to the nationality.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a valid "democratic process".

pH

robindch wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a valid "democratic process".

Yes, taken to an extreme if the people were asked to vote "Yes" or "No" on issue X (and we'll tell you what issue X is after the vote), then even though at the end of the day it was a "democratic process" no one could argue that it was democracy.

Therefore we must assume that as well as people voting, democracy inherently contains some sense that people know what they're voting on, from there it's a small step (and semantic quibbling to "understanding what they're voting on").

It brings up interesting questions about democratic representation, but inherently an uneducated democratic vote is exactly the same as a vote on an unknown issue, neither being a true democratic process.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you reading my posts? I made the point that no two democratic processes are the same and challenged you to name which one you were referring to.

Are you reading your posts? You challenge me to name which process I'm referring to while quoting me saying "I'm only talking about one type of democratic process, the European process for making changes to the European Treaty." How many different ways do you want me to say it?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Use of the word dictated to.
As for there being no "debate" about the treart, that's ridiculous. As is your assertion there was no effort to educate. This is up to the referendum commision.

Who spectactularly failed their job.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

70% of no voters said they thought it would be easy to renegotiate Lisbon.

Which just shows the "broad media range" and the referendum commission failed.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

40% said they voted no because they understand it.

Is this a typo?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Stick to the point please I made a logical argument.

"There is no other logical possible course of action and either of the above two would mean it would take infinity to get anything done." which you attempted to rebutt by saying we've been ok the last 100 years. That is not a rebuttal because we have never being in this situation before.
It would make more sense if you rebutted the original point, instead of going off on a tangent.

You have no rebuttal as we have been in this situation every time a refendum came up for the last 100 years. The only difference has been that the referendums have been smaller (except the nice treaty), so that if the people said no they had to drop it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well there's two very obvious problems with your argument:
1. Firstly, you think the politicans should just keep negotaiting until the people are happy.

That is their job.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You seem to think this is quite a simple process. The problem is that there are myriad of reasons why people voting no. To just plain ignorance to protest voting. Your reason might be solved, but then they might do absolutely nothing for anybody else who voted no. Even they co-incidentally do. Malta might have huge problems with that and pull the hole thing down. You can't have consensus and absoluteness.

When you have a treaty with so many amendments you are going to end up with different objections from different people. Did you expect all the different people from all the different walks of life to all have the same problem with the treaty?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. The reason you give, not being able to understand the treaty. What do you expect? For cowen to ask the Germans and French, to remove all the big words? Do you seriously think a legally binding document, between 27 nations to be simple and easily understood by people, many of whom have no interest in politics or democracy.

I'd hope Cowen doesn't need the big words removed to understand the treaty himself. The treaty didn't need to be simplified, but an unbiased simplified explanation needed to be given and it wasn't.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Therefore we must assume that as well as people voting, democracy inherently contains some sense that people know what they're voting on, from there it's a small step (and semantic quibbling to "understanding what they're voting on").

Yes, that's about the height of it -- if, as an electorate, you want to know if a measure is approved of or not by the electorate, then you really do have to assume that the electorate is actually voting on the issue. If you can't assume so, then you can't likewise assume that the electorate actually disapproves of the measure.

Relatedly, I don't know whether they do it in schools these days, but the design and comparison of voting systems, like the mathematics of queues, is one of those things which I think would make sense to include in a basic maths curriculum. One doesn't have to go to the lengths of this (excellent) voting system analysis though:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No it's a common trick for sophistry. You can't give out about Politicians not explaining the treaty and then using your own techniques which are classical logical mistakes.

My techniques are not classical logical mistakes. Every education system, every law system, all human learning uses explanation by analogy, explanation by simplified version to explain. Any and all problems come when people forget that the analogy is just an example, a story, and that you have to discard and go back, after understanding the analogy, to re-understand the problem. Any problems with this is because you don't know how to use analogy properly, and that isn't my problem.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You spotted no gap.

I spotted the gap, I explained the gap, you have failed to recognize it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Economic is arguably bigger and more important.

Economic, which is subject to those laws?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is illiogical. You are voting on Lisbon not on FF's tactics.
You have violated two logical rules therE:
1. Identidy of the arguer.
2. Beg the question

Already explained that "identity of the arguer" only applies if you are sure the arguer is completely unbiased. How have I "begged the question"? Where is my supposition?
If I keep violating logical laws why can't you point out how my points are wrong, as opposed to how I'm arguing with the wrong rules?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you reading your posts? You challenge me to name which process I'm referring to while quoting me saying "I'm only talking about one type of democratic process, the European process for making changes to the European Treaty." How many different ways do you want me to say it?

Ok. Your point is this is the democratic process, tough luck euro-crats!.
Firstly being pendantic, this is not the democratic procress, it's a democratic process. What's important is whether this democratic procress has being subverted or not. What we disagree on is that I claim it has, you claim it hasn't. Agree on that point?

Who spectactularly failed their job.

I agree many politicians were very poor at arguing the yes side. But where we agree on this issue, I think many people were also failed on their democratic duty by being so poorly informed. I substantiated this by quoting the survey in which 70% thought a treaty would be easy to negotiate.

Which just shows the "broad media range" and the referendum commission failed.

Well if you think they failed, you must be a closet yes voter! Welcome aboard.

Is this a typo?

40% said no because they could not understand it.

You have no rebuttal as we have been in this situation every time a refendum came up for the last 100 years. The only difference has been that the referendums have been smaller (except the nice treaty), so that if the people said no they had to drop it.

Well that's ridiculous. Referendums on Europe are far more complex and have for more complicated consequences when there is a no vote. A no vote on abortion does not create a major impasse for our situation in Europe.

That is their job.

This is an impossible job. You seem not to grasp the concepts of treaties, consensus and compromise.

When you have a treaty with so many amendments you are going to end up with different objections from different people. Did you expect all the different people from all the different walks of life to all have the same problem with the treaty?

No I expect the principles of negotiation and consensus. They have worked very well in Europe.

I'd hope Cowen doesn't need the big words removed to understand the treaty himself. The treaty didn't need to be simplified, but an unbiased simplified explanation needed to be given and it wasn't.

As I said before. We have a referendum commission and very broad range of media.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My techniques are not classical logical mistakes.

1. Argument by analogy
2. Ad hominen
3. Beg the question.

Every education system, every law system, all human learning uses explanation by analogy, explanation by simplified version to explain.

Explanation by analogy is different to argument by analogy.

Already explained that "identity of the arguer" only applies if you are sure the arguer is completely unbiased. How have I "begged the question"? Where is my supposition?
If I keep violating logical laws why can't you point out how my points are wrong, as opposed to how I'm arguing with the wrong rules?

You vote no because the politicians didn't do a good job arguing it.

Premise: Politicians did a bad job arguing it
Conclusion: Vote no to lisbon

This is called begging the question because the premise does not imply the conclusion.

The argument by analogy was the car hood one.

Dades

Jasus, Tim, enough of the argument by analogy ad hominen logic!

I say that not as a mod, rather as someone who has to read every post!

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Jasus, Tim, enough of the argument by analogy ad hominen logic!

I say that not as a mod, rather as someone who has to read every post!

I see where you are coming from. Myself and Mark need to wrap it up as we are going around in circles.

I have spotted a gap, no you have n't, yes I have, no you haven't, yes I have, no you haven't, yes I have, no you haven't, yes I have, no you haven't, yes I have, no you haven't.

JC 2K3

You might be spiraling towards something, but the diametric reduction and the incrementation of the z-value could be too small to be noticable.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You might be spiraling towards something, but the diametric reduction and the incrementation of the z-value could be too small to be noticable.

And you never answered post 176!

JC 2K3

Apologies, I missed it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And do you think we should make that clear now, so that the other countries can make a decision as to what they will do or do you think we should them stew for a while, prepare for these elections under new rules as they have already communicated to us that that is what they want to do and then break it to them?

I still can't understand why countries would continue to prepare for elections under the new rules if these rules have been rejected. If it's a legal necessity for all countries to ratify the treaty then it's a legal necessity for all countries to ratify the treaty. The only legal progression in my eyes is to continue to operate under Nice rules, because if the Treaty of Lisbon is not dead, it is indefinitely postponed.

Now I'm not talking here about the validity of our rejection of the treaty, just in a logical manner pertaining to how the EU operates legally.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok. Your point is this is the democratic process, tough luck euro-crats!.
Firstly being pendantic, this is not the democratic procress, it's a democratic process. What's important is whether this democratic procress has being subverted or not. What we disagree on is that I claim it has, you claim it hasn't. Agree on that point?

I agree a complete balls was made in the process when the Irish people weren't properly educated in the treaty when it came time for voting, I just don't think that this is entirely the peoples fault. I can understand the euro-crats being annoyed at the government for not doing their job properly, but I don't agree with them being annoyed at the Irish people for voting the way they did, given the circumstances.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well if you think they failed, you must be a closet yes voter! Welcome aboard.

??? I said they failed to educate the people, not me. I educated myself in the treaty up to the point where I saw a reason to vote no (my posts about Article 48 of the new treaty changing Article N of the old).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Explanation by analogy is different to argument by analogy.

Arguments are made of two or more people explaining their points of view. If an argument has no explanations then there is no way for one side to convince the other that their way of thinking is right.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You vote no because the politicians didn't do a good job arguing it.

Premise: Politicians did a bad job arguing it
Conclusion: Vote no to lisbon

This is called begging the question because the premise does not imply the conclusion.

The argument by analogy was the car hood one.

My premise was that people didn't understand the treaty so my conclusion was that it was right for them to not accept it without understanding it:

Premise: People didn't have a full understanding of the treaty by the time came to vote.
Conclusion: They voted no because they didn't understand what they were voting for.

You and Dades are right in that we should avoid just going in circles with the logic stuff so I'll wrap up with this:
I believe that the Irish people where right for voting against the treaty because they didn't understand it (70% believing that the treaty would be easy to renegotiate is simply a result of the people not understanding the treaty, it stems from the same issue.). I believe that the reason people didn't understood the treaty was because it was never properly argued against by the government. Most of the no vote campaigns where completely wrong, but the government and the referndum commission completely failed to make sure the people understood how wrong they where.

An Fear Aniar

[trolling]

*ahem*

politics.ie

[/trolling]



.

robindch

The Yes-side as seen by some of the no-side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms

Hope run_to_da_hills sees this -- jackboots at no extra charge!

Dades

Anyone watching the Germany v Turkey game on RTE last night hear Brady's comment when the signal from Switzerland was lost for the second time?

He suggested the Europeans were getting us back for Lisbon!

Dave!

yeah that was class Billo's reference to the German CB's as being called 'the twin towers', and the jokes that followed, were a bit risky too :pac:

Scofflaw

Regarding the OP - Lisbon, for me, and hands down. You may (or may not) have noticed...

cordially,
Scofflaw