Or maybe consider doing something you're good at? :kiss:

The Democrats ideal 2020 strategy is to continuously paint Trump as impeachable while never actually impeaching him, the attempt which (unless Trump does something to alienate significant numbers of Republicans) would certainly fail. That way they retain the high moral ground while eroding Trump's support among independents who are likely to be turned off by a partisan impeachment process (which may give fresh wings to the anti-establishment image Trump played on so well to get himself elected in the first place).

President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:up:

You're welcome, @Wallows :up:

This is going around in circles... — S

Yes, it is. Let's leave it at that

I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright. — Hanover

The EU is a club with mutual overall benefits not a foreign colonizer. Leaving it is dumb because you lose those benefits and gain very little in return, and in a no-deal scenario, it's not just dumb but very self-destructive. Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright.

(You may consider the fact that @S is willing to dump every principled argument he's made here in the probable face of no-deal threat as a mark of how not alright things could get.)

@S

In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened.

Remember my criteria @S?:

...here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.

1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.

All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda. — Baden

The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing

Btw @Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up:

Whereas you expressed support for it some time ago. — S

Yes, and I still do. =consistency. :wink:

You should go back and read your own posts. You gave the strong impression you were in principle against rerunning referendums in such short time periods (exactly what you now say you'll most likely support).

Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example, I would have preferred if a soft-Brexit deal had been struck), In which case, I don't know what the criticism was.

Glad to be in agreement I guess.

If we both agree a referendum is in principle desirable given a no-deal scenario then all the principled (anti-democratic etc) objections go out the window and we're left with accepting the referendum will most likely be justified.

Let's put it another way @S, when you (most likely) support the new referendum before the no-deal deadline, will you be supporting something anti-democratic or not?

Again, you've said it's most likely you will support a referendum and then you say that supporting a referendum in the same time-frame you are likely to support it is an attack on democracy. And you don't see how you've fallen into self-contradiction? Really?

Let's try again:

...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established. [i.e. a good idea to have a new referendum] — Bitter Crank

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible. — S

But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years [What you will most likely support], as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.* — S

*Bolding and text in square brackets mine.

Your position of most likely accepting a new referendum in a short period from now is almost indistinguishable from mine of accepting one now. The only difference is I'm not accusing myself of being anti-democratic.

No, I'm bothered. But being bothered about it isn't sufficient grounds for abandoning my position. — S

Yet you did. Then made a half-hearted attempt to unabandon it. Your position, whatever it is, is now utterly incoherent.

You've said the most likely scenario is the referendum will be justified within a short period (the deadline, is only a few months away):

Yet you still come out with stuff like this as if you believe it:

But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot. — S

Again, excepting an, in your own words, "unlikely if not impossible" scenario, you've agreed it would be a "good idea" (edit: now you've shifted to "better than the alternatives") to do exactly that. So, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff?

Eh, you've already just conceded the principle and agreed that a new referendum would be a good idea:

...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established. — Bitter Crank

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible. — S

The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again.

Except:

Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid. — S

No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over.

They could hold a second referendum, so why don't they? The democracy is obviously not allowing it. — Hanover

Whether or not to hold a second referendum is up to the government. It is allowed. We're not simply debating a hypothetical here.

If polling shows my congressman no longer popular, is it an insult to democracy that he continue to serve? Wouldn't the democracy have the power to decide how democratically elected decisions be reconsidered? — Hanover

Sure, but you could use the analogy with fixed-term elections just as easily to demand that the referendum be re-run after a few years just like elections are. There are no minimum or maximum terms for referenda. We've got to look at the justifications for re-running any given one in context. Which is what some of us have been trying to focus on here.

Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy? — Hanover

No.

I do believe it's fair to hold the voters to what they voted for, and I don't think any voter had the expectation that his vote was preliminary and that there'd be multiple additional referenda prior to leaving. That is, the vote to leave was really to leave. — Hanover

Why is it fair to prevent the voters from enacting a change to their mind? Who are you trying to serve here? Not them in this case as they, according to polls, want a new referendum. Who then? Your search for some abstract rule or principle to rely on hasn't turned up very much of legal or ethical substance to fall back on, so are we not left to focus primarily on what serves the people and their wishes? And if they wish for a new referendum (not multiple additional referenda btw) then what is your justification for denying them that?

You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue. — Hanover

I'm engaged in a weighting of priorities here not an absolute dismissal of all value to the opposing view. So, on the one hand, we have you saying "Indecisiveness is not a virtue and we must adhere to prior decisions because that's fair", and on the other hand, we have me saying "We have a referendum that was potentially won through cheating, the result of which was very close, that occurred a few years ago, that is now having potentially extremely serious unforeseen negative consequences, that polls say people want a chance to re-run, and that there is no legal or significant ethical impediment to rerunning, so let's rerun it."

Absolutely, and polls show that as a whole the British want another referendum, but some here will no doubt continue to argue that giving the people what they want, (which is a chance to change their mind given the dubious circumstances surrounding the last poll), is a terrible injustice to them and an insult to democracy.

Excuse the interjection, but @Ciaran, I think you've made your point. The back and forth beyond that has been deleted. Hope you can all get back to focusing on the text now.

Was caught in spam filter. Now restored.

Was caught in spam filter. Restored. Let's refer to it as a case of artificial stupidity.

For me, I guess he walks that line between pathetic and dangerous that men of inflated self-importance and fortunate political status often find themselves on. I expect he'll lose in the end, which will probably be the best thing for him.

Yes, I've heard Brexiteers like Jacob Rice-Mug and others say things like "Well, if May just gets rid of the backstop, I'll vote for her plan" as if there's a remote possibility the EU would agree to that, or as if the EU didn't need every member including the Republic to ratify the agreement, and as if the Republic would agree to anything that threatens the Good Friday agreement. I suspect though they know it's backstop or no deal and are actually willing to take no deal at any cost and want only to give the veneer of reasonableness to their position, being covered enough financially themselves not to care about the economic havoc that position would wreak on the rest of the country.

. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed — S

No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May.

https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-eu-wont-renegotiate-brexit-deal/

The rest of your responses are repetitive and pointless. I've already explained to you my reasons for thinking a new referendum justified in this case, and that I have no reason not to apply the same type of thinking to other referenda though obviously each case is different and would have to be judged in its particular context.

You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference? — S

Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done.

Right. There we were wasting time arguing ethics on the philosophy forum when we should have been speaking directly to Theresa May about all this.

What's a better adjective than "intelligent" to describe machines capable of doing certain tasks (e.g. calculations) that are analogous to those carried out using human intelligence and that distinguish these machines from those that cannot carry out such tasks?

@S
(Besides I said "if" not "if and only if", but I think you know that and aren't arguing seriously).

So, go ahead and cheat, so long you're careful enough not to violate all four of Baden's criteria. — S

Er, one of the criteria is cheating. :D

The topic of this discussion is Brexit. I'm giving you the reasons I think a new referendum is justified. Which unsurprisingly relate to Brexit. You first accused me of not wanting to apply these reasons to other referenda and said that made me inconsistent. But I said I would apply them to any referenda you wish to raise. Now you're saying doing that means I don't care about real justice or some other such blather. Sorry Sap but that's not worthy of further response.

Given the existence of past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading. — S

My argument doesn't imply that, so again you're wasting my time with nonsense. Every case should be treated according to similar considerations. If you can find another case where all my four criteria apply then obviously I'd argue for the same thing.

You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV. — S

You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament? Those are the negations of the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts.

Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate? — S

You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened. There is no better deal to be had. It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election.

The cheating of overspending has been already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom made punishment. You don't have that authority. If you don't how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get. — S

We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law.

And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone. — S

It's not even a referendum. And it should be obvious from the reporting that my criteria don't match up (there's no information on how close the result was and whether the spending could have affected it, for example). I could go on and detail the circumstances under which I think a byelection etc. should be rerun, which would be similar, but it's fairly irrelevant.

And other results. — S

Obviously, if whatever result you're talking about meets the same four criteria I've just outlined, you can take it I'd support a rerun.

I had a brief moment of charity. I'm over it now. :wink:

I'm not under any obligation to research other cases to try to help you out. If you want to raise a particular case, I'll test it against the criteria I've outlined above and respond.

Before I get strawmanned again, here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.

1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.

All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.

Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd. — S

There's a strawman to add to the red herrings. The logical consequence of arguing this particular referendum be rerun based on the particular circumstances I've outlined are not that every election should be overturned every time any lie is found. Hard to believe I have to explain that to you.