UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Ifreann]

Also worth noting is that no one is eating dogs.

It's still early days for Brexit.

You make a good point.

[Vassenor]

Also worth noting is that no one is eating dogs.

It's still early days for Brexit.

#eattherich

[The New California Republic]

Also worth noting is that no one is eating dogs.

It's still early days for Brexit.

I'd rather not eat a doggo, I'd rather eat a spuddo.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeah it does.

there's a difference between "let's not eat dogs" and "no one should be allowed to eat dogs lest they find the police coming knocking"

Eh.
Noone should be allowed to sell dog meat. I agree arresting people for eating them would be disproportionate. Same as "No, you can't sell human meat" and "Okay, you can eat your friends corpse since they outlined it in the will."

[Hydesland]

Yeah it does.

there's a difference between "let's not eat dogs" and "no one should be allowed to eat dogs lest they find the police coming knocking"

There is a difference but the latter is also good.

[Souseiseki]

there's a difference between "let's not eat dogs" and "no one should be allowed to eat dogs lest they find the police coming knocking"

There is a difference but the latter is also good.

would you be offended if i said this is how we ended up with tons of the bad laws we have today?

[Souseiseki]

ironically, this makes ostro's and dumb ideologies concerns about immigration semi-justified. msulism, jews, hindus, etc. aren't going to actually accept that what the UK thinks is its watertight argument about how their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are natural and moral and baked into the evolution of humanity (this was primarily ostro's argument, though it's common with others as well) while their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are just made up nonsense which has no place in lawmaking in a secular and rational society. they're going to think you're hypocritical bullshitters and as they get more political and cultural influence they're going to push harder and harder for the same protections you have, the right to stop people eating things they don't want them to eat if they feel strongly enough against it included. like many other bad laws, it sets a precedent that people are going to pretend isn't being set and implicitly introduces more arbitrary elements into the laws that undermine the principles they are ostensibly based on.

[Ifreann]

We have to ban foreigners so we can ban eating dogs.

We have to ban eating dogs because foreigners might eat dogs.

You spin me right round, baby, right round

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU

These sorts of opinion shifts are why there needs to be a public vote on the final deal. Or it would if the Leave side wasn't suddenly deathly afraid of the people continuing to have a say in something that is supposed to be about the will of the people.

[Dumb Ideologies]

We have to ban foreigners so we can ban eating dogs.

We have to ban eating dogs because foreigners might eat dogs.

You spin me right round, baby, right round

Is this interview on or off the record?

[Ostroeuropa]

ironically, this makes ostro's and dumb ideologies concerns about immigration semi-justified. msulism, jews, hindus, etc. aren't going to actually accept that what the UK thinks is its watertight argument about how their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are natural and moral and baked into the evolution of humanity (this was primarily ostro's argument, though it's common with others as well) while their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are just made up nonsense which has no place in lawmaking in a secular and rational society. they're going to think you're hypocritical bullshitters and as they get more political and cultural influence they're going to push harder and harder for the same protections you have, the right to stop people eating things they don't want them to eat if they feel strongly enough against it included. like many other bad laws, it sets a precedent that people are going to pretend isn't being set and implicitly introduces more arbitrary elements into the laws that undermine the principles they are ostensibly based on.

You're assuming they wouldn't push for those things regardless of what we push for.

[Dooom35796821595]

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU

These sorts of opinion shifts are why there needs to be a public vote on the final deal. Or it would if the Leave side wasn't suddenly deathly afraid of the people continuing to have a say in something that is supposed to be about the will of the people.

Right, because that’s no reflection on the remain sides insistence on sabotaging Brexit.

If anything it could be leveraged to get more concessions out of the EU if we remain, like a substantially reduced membership fee and actual reform, but it won’t, because politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Souseiseki]

ironically, this makes ostro's and dumb ideologies concerns about immigration semi-justified. msulism, jews, hindus, etc. aren't going to actually accept that what the UK thinks is its watertight argument about how their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are natural and moral and baked into the evolution of humanity (this was primarily ostro's argument, though it's common with others as well) while their restrictions on what can and cannot be eaten are just made up nonsense which has no place in lawmaking in a secular and rational society. they're going to think you're hypocritical bullshitters and as they get more political and cultural influence they're going to push harder and harder for the same protections you have, the right to stop people eating things they don't want them to eat if they feel strongly enough against it included. like many other bad laws, it sets a precedent that people are going to pretend isn't being set and implicitly introduces more arbitrary elements into the laws that undermine the principles they are ostensibly based on.

You're assuming they wouldn't push for those things regardless of what we push for.

they might still push for it but you're going to look a lot worse if you push for it first. what right would you have to tell them they cannot push for it when you have done the exact same?

[Souseiseki]

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU

These sorts of opinion shifts are why there needs to be a public vote on the final deal. Or it would if the Leave side wasn't suddenly deathly afraid of the people continuing to have a say in something that is supposed to be about the will of the people.

Right, because that’s no reflection on the remain sides insistence on sabotaging Brexit.

If anything it could be leveraged to get more concessions out of the EU if we remain, like a substantially reduced membership fee and actual reform, but it won’t, because politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

lol if we sabotaged brexit by forcing the government into taking an option that's proven to work we wouldn't be anywhere near the mess are we are in today

[Hydesland]

There is a difference but the latter is also good.

would you be offended if i said this is how we ended up with tons of the bad laws we have today?

Basically all laws are made this way - it seems you've gone into libertarian derp mode.

[Hydesland]

You're assuming they wouldn't push for those things regardless of what we push for.

they might still push for it but you're going to look a lot worse if you push for it first. what right would you have to tell them they cannot push for it when you have done the exact same?

This is so bizarre: "what right do you have to not approve our laws when you have approved other laws in the past"?

[Ostroeuropa]

You're assuming they wouldn't push for those things regardless of what we push for.

they might still push for it but you're going to look a lot worse if you push for it first. what right would you have to tell them they cannot push for it when you have done the exact same?

Basing it on secular rationales and refusing to even consider religious ones?

[Hydesland]

The real problem is that it's hard to justify banning eating of dogs while allowing the slaughter of other animals - it's things like this that would make our laws seem more arbitrary, but that just means the debate should probably focus there, not the other direction.

[Vassenor]

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that More than 100 seats that backed Brexit now want to remain in EU

These sorts of opinion shifts are why there needs to be a public vote on the final deal. Or it would if the Leave side wasn't suddenly deathly afraid of the people continuing to have a say in something that is supposed to be about the will of the people.

Right, because that’s no reflection on the remain sides insistence on sabotaging Brexit.

If anything it could be leveraged to get more concessions out of the EU if we remain, like a substantially reduced membership fee and actual reform, but it won’t, because politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How is Brexit being sabotaged, anyway?

[Souseiseki]

would you be offended if i said this is how we ended up with tons of the bad laws we have today?

Basically all laws are made this way - it seems you've gone into libertarian derp mode.

i haven't gone into libertarian derp mode. it's true most laws boil down to the same sentiments, but there's a reason we have very specific rules on what laws can and cannot be made.

they might still push for it but you're going to look a lot worse if you push for it first. what right would you have to tell them they cannot push for it when you have done the exact same?

This is so bizarre: "what right do you have to not approve our laws when you have approved other laws in the past"?

it's not bizarre. "what right do you have to complain about us making beef illegal because it offends us when you made eating dog illegal because it offended you?". it's not like we're talking about how people need to support the hairbrush ban because taxation is theft so you're all shits how do you do oppose this after supporting slavery.

Basing it on secular rationales and refusing to even consider religious ones?

oh, you misunderstand, the restrictions on beef in india are there for hygiene reasons and to improve farming!

feels are feels no matter what way you slice it. the fact that their feels are influenced by religion and yours are not does give them some special weight. they will invent secular rationales.

The real problem is that it's hard to justify banning eating of dogs while allowing the slaughter of other animals - it's things like this that would make our laws seem more arbitrary, but that just means the debate should probably focus there, not the other direction.

oh does this mean we're agreed that banning dogs and only dogs is extremely hypocritical and arbitrary?

good luck convincing britain to go vegan

[The Huskar Social Union]

We have to ban foreigners so we can ban eating dogs.

We have to ban eating dogs because foreigners might eat dogs.

You spin me right round, baby, right round

Is this interview on or off the record?

... fuck are you recording? shit get this off, GET THIS OFF

[Dooom35796821595]

Right, because that’s no reflection on the remain sides insistence on sabotaging Brexit.

If anything it could be leveraged to get more concessions out of the EU if we remain, like a substantially reduced membership fee and actual reform, but it won’t, because politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How is Brexit being sabotaged, anyway?

How is it not. The EU acting like jackarses. the Conservatives making a bloody mess of it. Labour doing.....well who knows what Labours doing, only that it’s bad. The press acting like it’s the start of the apocalypse. The remainers pulling a Farrage and demanding another referendum with the option to stay in with no change.

Right, because that’s no reflection on the remain sides insistence on sabotaging Brexit.

If anything it could be leveraged to get more concessions out of the EU if we remain, like a substantially reduced membership fee and actual reform, but it won’t, because politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

lol if we sabotaged brexit by forcing the government into taking an option that's proven to work we wouldn't be anywhere near the mess are we are in today

We’d have one less problem. Still have all the others.....so still quite a mess.

[Hydesland]

i haven't gone into libertarian derp mode. it's true most laws boil down to the same sentiments, but there's a reason we have very specific rules on what laws can and cannot be made.

Don't eat animals we keep as pets and greatly cherish and admire in our society is a specific and reasonable rule.

it's not bizarre. "what right do you have to complain about us making beef illegal because it offends us when you made eating dog illegal because it offended you?".

That would be a very weak argument and nobody should be convinced that we should now ban beef because of it. It would also be a super fringe minority imposing rules on the majority - you could not compare that to the majority imposing rules the majority agrees are good.

oh does this mean we're agreed that banning dogs and only dogs is extremely hypocritical and arbitrary?

No, because there are obvious differences between how we cherish dogs and how we cherish chickens, but I can see how people could press on the issue effectively.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

How about guinea pigs, are the also going to be off the menu?

[Souseiseki]

Don't eat animals we keep as pets and greatly cherish and admire in our society is a specific and reasonable rule.

"keep as pets" is borderline meaningless since many of the animals we eat are kept as pets.

That would be a very weak argument and nobody should be convinced that we should now ban beef because of it. It would also be a super fringe minority imposing rules on the majority - you could not compare that to the majority imposing rules the majority agrees are good.

the issue is what happens if they become the majority or they start getting real political power. would it then be just for them to tell you that you can no longer eat beef because they have decided they now cherish and admire cows and now you have to as well?

yes, the ability of the majority to arbitrarily impose their ideas on the minority is one of the primary weaknesses of democracy and something that every major democracy tries to limit to at least some extent. why is eating dogs, as an inherent act, so bad that it should be banned? if it is truly deserving of being banned then a ban would stand up regardless of whether the majority wanted it. if there no compelling reason it should be banned beyond the mere fact that people think it should be then the ban is not just. it's true that you could argue all our animal abuse laws are fundamentally just moral feelings under the same logic, but that still leaves the question of inconsistency and why the fact people cherish them means that those that do not cherish them in the same way must do so.