2015 UK Politics Megathread

[Pesda]

the UK voluntarily voted to join the EEC

wales was forcibly annexed into england

can you see the roots of the problem here? consent my arse.

True but the EEC does not exist anymore. The people who voted to join the EEC never voted to join an Union. There was no Wales back in the Middle Ages, their national indentity was formed within the UK. On other hand Scotland and Ireland have joined voluntarly.

Of course there was a Wales in the middle ages. The fact that for most of that time there wasn't a united Wales doesn't mean the principalites weren't Welsh.

[Pesda]

the UK voluntarily voted to join the EEC

wales was forcibly annexed into england

can you see the roots of the problem here? consent my arse.

If Wales is still upset about an occurrence in the 16th Century then I have no words.

And I think we can all see the enormous differences between the EEC we joined and the European Union that stands today (not including the intentions of the proponents of an 'ever closer union'.)

If you haven't noticed Wales has been dicked over many times before and since Henry thought "hey Wales should be England now lol." Some examples in the last hundred and few years include Tory governments we didn't vote for, cuts to S4C, the Barnett formula, destruction of the coal industry, Tryweryn, Penyberth, the Welsh Not, etc.

[Pesda]

I think it is a good idea to reduce the size of the arms industry, because the arms trade is evil and helps evil people do evil things. What we replace the arms industry with is less important.

I think it's a fundamentally dishonest argument to suggest that the arms industry can simply "retrain" in "relevant industries" by forcibly converting BAE Systems to be a wind turbine manufacturer.

That is bollocks.

I suppose we could use the buildings and infrastructure to manufacture many things, and a workforce could retrain to do anything. I would agree though it wouldn't be easy and I think it would take a while.

[Pesda]

I think it is a good idea to reduce the size of the arms industry, because the arms trade is evil and helps evil people do evil things. What we replace the arms industry with is less important.

You won't get worldwide disarmament, I can think of a number of countries that would not some that aren't particularly friendly. Therefore to unilaterally harm your own capabilities is not sensible. The UK arms industry is not really that big anyway, It's probably at the smallest it's been since the late 1700s early 1800s. It's barely 1% of GDP so it does not even fully supply our own military. Nor do I think it necessarily could.

I'm pretty sure that the Uk is an exporter of arms. And obviously it should be smaller than in the 1800's because we're not preparing to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen. And while I'd love to see worldwide total disarmament I'd be content with partial disarmament for now; we don't need a massive army and navy unless we want to invade other countries which we should avoid.

[CoraSpia]

You won't get worldwide disarmament, I can think of a number of countries that would not some that aren't particularly friendly. Therefore to unilaterally harm your own capabilities is not sensible. The UK arms industry is not really that big anyway, It's probably at the smallest it's been since the late 1700s early 1800s. It's barely 1% of GDP so it does not even fully supply our own military. Nor do I think it necessarily could.

I'm pretty sure that the Uk is an exporter of arms. And obviously it should be smaller than in the 1800's because we're not preparing to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen. And while I'd love to see worldwide total disarmament I'd be content with partial disarmament for now; we don't need a massive army and navy unless we want to invade other countries which we should avoid.

Shall we not use our moral alignment to hurt perfectly legal businesses?

[Pesda]

I'm pretty sure that the Uk is an exporter of arms. And obviously it should be smaller than in the 1800's because we're not preparing to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen. And while I'd love to see worldwide total disarmament I'd be content with partial disarmament for now; we don't need a massive army and navy unless we want to invade other countries which we should avoid.

Shall we not use our moral alignment to hurt perfectly legal businesses?

Why?

[CoraSpia]

Shall we not use our moral alignment to hurt perfectly legal businesses?

Why?

Because they have a right to do business, if they don't break the law...which they aren't doing.

[Pesda]

Why?

Because they have a right to do business, if they don't break the law...which they aren't doing.

Why do they have the right to do business if they are hurting people?

[CoraSpia]

Because they have a right to do business, if they don't break the law...which they aren't doing.

Why do they have the right to do business if they are hurting people?

They're not hurting people. They're making products that can hurt people, like cars and knives.

[Pesda]

Why do they have the right to do business if they are hurting people?

They're not hurting people. They're making products that can hurt people, like cars and knives.

I didn't know that the arms industry was making cars, unless you're talking about armored vehicles.
But they are hurting people. Giving someone the means to hurt is in itself a way of hurting people. And they profit from hurting people. How you can defend that I don't quite understand. You wouln't give a knife to a baby would you? So how is it okay to give guns to a warlord?

[CoraSpia]

They're not hurting people. They're making products that can hurt people, like cars and knives.

I didn't know that the arms industry was making cars, unless you're talking about armored vehicles.
But they are hurting people. Giving someone the means to hurt is in itself a way of hurting people. And they profit from hurting people. How you can defend that I don't quite understand. You wouln't give a knife to a baby would you? So how is it okay to give guns to a warlord?

I'm using analogies. Car companies make cars, which can hurt people.

And they're not 'giving' them to warlords, the government is.

[Pesda]

I didn't know that the arms industry was making cars, unless you're talking about armored vehicles.
But they are hurting people. Giving someone the means to hurt is in itself a way of hurting people. And they profit from hurting people. How you can defend that I don't quite understand. You wouln't give a knife to a baby would you? So how is it okay to give guns to a warlord?

I'm using analogies. Car companies make cars, which can hurt people.

And they're not 'giving' them to warlords, the government is.

You know an analogy is stupid if being literal appears less stupid.
Car companies make cars knowing there's a risk of an accident that hurts people. Arms companies make arms knowing that there's a near certainty they will be used deliberately to hurt people. It's like saying murder is comparable to accidental death. In fact it's saying exactly that.
"Yea I stabbed that kid fifty times but I shouldn't go to jail. His mother was driving him to school, she should have known how dangerous that is.Why isn't she on trial?"
They're giving arms to warlords; a middleman does not change that.

[The Nihilistic view]

You won't get worldwide disarmament, I can think of a number of countries that would not some that aren't particularly friendly. Therefore to unilaterally harm your own capabilities is not sensible. The UK arms industry is not really that big anyway, It's probably at the smallest it's been since the late 1700s early 1800s. It's barely 1% of GDP so it does not even fully supply our own military. Nor do I think it necessarily could.

I'm pretty sure that the Uk is an exporter of arms. And obviously it should be smaller than in the 1800's because we're not preparing to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen. And while I'd love to see worldwide total disarmament I'd be content with partial disarmament for now; we don't need a massive army and navy unless we want to invade other countries which we should avoid.

And we don't have a massive Army and Navy.

[Pesda]

I'm pretty sure that the Uk is an exporter of arms. And obviously it should be smaller than in the 1800's because we're not preparing to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen. And while I'd love to see worldwide total disarmament I'd be content with partial disarmament for now; we don't need a massive army and navy unless we want to invade other countries which we should avoid.

And we don't have a massive Army and Navy.

We're building those carriers, and are planning on making more WMD's.

[The Nihilistic view]

If Wales is still upset about an occurrence in the 16th Century then I have no words.

And I think we can all see the enormous differences between the EEC we joined and the European Union that stands today (not including the intentions of the proponents of an 'ever closer union'.)

If you haven't noticed Wales has been dicked over many times before and since Henry thought "hey Wales should be England now lol." Some examples in the last hundred and few years include Tory governments we didn't vote for, cuts to S4C, the Barnett formula, destruction of the coal industry, Tryweryn, Penyberth, the Welsh Not, etc.

I thought you were of a green persuasion? Surly the destruction of the coal industry should be a good thing?

[Pesda]

If you haven't noticed Wales has been dicked over many times before and since Henry thought "hey Wales should be England now lol." Some examples in the last hundred and few years include Tory governments we didn't vote for, cuts to S4C, the Barnett formula, destruction of the coal industry, Tryweryn, Penyberth, the Welsh Not, etc.

I thought you were of a green persuasion? Surly the destruction of the coal industry should be a good thing?

Not if that destroyes entire communities.

[The Nihilistic view]

And we don't have a massive Army and Navy.

We're building those carriers, and are planning on making more WMD's.

And when you have territories spread around the globe how else are you supposed to liberate them without carriers if they are invaded like the Falklands? Even with them it's questionable whether we could do that type of operation again without increasing the numbers of other escort ships.

We have less than 200 warheads, not enough to destroy Russia or any other nuclear power but enough to act as a deterrent to them and other conventionally armed nations. That seems entirely in proportion to me not massive in anyway.

When your military is of a size that just about has the capabilities to defend your interests and territory it's not massive.

[CoraSpia]

I'm using analogies. Car companies make cars, which can hurt people.

And they're not 'giving' them to warlords, the government is.

You know an analogy is stupid if being literal appears less stupid.
Car companies make cars knowing there's a risk of an accident that hurts people. Arms companies make arms knowing that there's a near certainty they will be used deliberately to hurt people. It's like saying murder is comparable to accidental death. In fact it's saying exactly that.
"Yea I stabbed that kid fifty times but I shouldn't go to jail. His mother was driving him to school, she should have known how dangerous that is.Why isn't she on trial?"
They're giving arms to warlords; a middleman does not change that.

No, they are making arms which are being used by the British government to give to warlords. Hurting the arms company isn't the answer, the answer is sorting out who we're selling our weapons too, and not arming unstable groups of rebels or tyrannical dictators. Pretty simple really: Can Jamaica purchase some new fighters from us to help its airforce (if it even has one)? Yes, certainly. Can the 'Free Syrian Army' purchase british-made tanks to fight a war in Syria, a country with lots of unstable elements? Uhm...sorry, but this time your application has been declined.

[Pesda]

We're building those carriers, and are planning on making more WMD's.

And when you have territories spread around the globe how else are you supposed to liberate them without carriers if they are invaded like the Falklands? Even with them it's questionable whether we could do that type of operation again without increasing the numbers of other escort ships.

We have less than 200 warheads, not enough to destroy Russia or any other nuclear power but enough to act as a deterrent to them and other conventionally armed nations. That seems entirely in proportion to me not massive in anyway.

When your military is of a size that just about has the capabilities to defend your interests and territory it's not massive.

The Uk shouldn't have territories thousands of miles away. If the people on those islands want to fly that ghastly flag then let them but I don't want to pay money or take lives to help them do that. And even if you decide you want to keep some territories so you can feel like you have a bigger penis killing people over that is evil.

The key thing about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is the "mass destruction" part. Any "mass destruction" is by definition "massive."

[Pesda]

You know an analogy is stupid if being literal appears less stupid.
Car companies make cars knowing there's a risk of an accident that hurts people. Arms companies make arms knowing that there's a near certainty they will be used deliberately to hurt people. It's like saying murder is comparable to accidental death. In fact it's saying exactly that.
"Yea I stabbed that kid fifty times but I shouldn't go to jail. His mother was driving him to school, she should have known how dangerous that is.Why isn't she on trial?"
They're giving arms to warlords; a middleman does not change that.

No, they are making arms which are being used by the British government to give to warlords. Hurting the arms company isn't the answer, the answer is sorting out who we're selling our weapons too, and not arming unstable groups of rebels or tyrannical dictators. Pretty simple really: Can Jamaica purchase some new fighters from us to help its airforce (if it even has one)? Yes, certainly. Can the 'Free Syrian Army' purchase british-made tanks to fight a war in Syria, a country with lots of unstable elements? Uhm...sorry, but this time your application has been declined.

If i gave you a fiver to give to Nihil then i would have given Nihil a fiver. If I give you a fiver knowing that my fiver is going to Nihil then I would have given Nihil a fiver.

[The Nihilistic view]

And when you have territories spread around the globe how else are you supposed to liberate them without carriers if they are invaded like the Falklands? Even with them it's questionable whether we could do that type of operation again without increasing the numbers of other escort ships.

We have less than 200 warheads, not enough to destroy Russia or any other nuclear power but enough to act as a deterrent to them and other conventionally armed nations. That seems entirely in proportion to me not massive in anyway.

When your military is of a size that just about has the capabilities to defend your interests and territory it's not massive.

The Uk shouldn't have territories thousands of miles away. If the people on those islands want to fly that ghastly flag then let them but I don't want to pay money or take lives to help them do that. And even if you decide you want to keep some territories so you can feel like you have a bigger penis killing people over that is evil.

The key thing about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is the "mass destruction" part. Any "mass destruction" is by definition "massive."

So we are anti self determination now?

[Pesda]

The Uk shouldn't have territories thousands of miles away. If the people on those islands want to fly that ghastly flag then let them but I don't want to pay money or take lives to help them do that. And even if you decide you want to keep some territories so you can feel like you have a bigger penis killing people over that is evil.

The key thing about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is the "mass destruction" part. Any "mass destruction" is by definition "massive."

So we are anti self determination now?

No I'm a pacifist now.

[The Nihilistic view]

So we are anti self determination now?

No I'm a pacifist now.

That's a worse ideology.

[Pesda]

No I'm a pacifist now.

That's a worse ideology.

I think pacifism is better than anti-self determination-ism.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's a worse ideology.

I think pacifism is better than anti-self determination-ism.

Pacifism ignores the realities of the world since it ignores or rather does not take into account why wars are fought, It's not black and white. Some wars are bad some wars are necessary as not fighting them would have worse consequences. Whilst being anti self determination is bad at least it deals with reality somewhat better.