I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in. — unenlightened

I'd like to think we still have an ideologically principled and spiteful Europe that hands out vindictive punishments that damages its own self interests. It sounds very old school American, and I would gain much respect for France if it told the UK to fuck off for having left the party in the first place and they can't just come back now because they've gotten all lonely. My thinking is that newfangled Europe has lost its fangs, but maybe I'm wrong.

Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times. — Baden

There are allegations that Leave broke rules regarding the spending cap, but it's also clear that Remain spent more than Leave and benefited from a government funded leaflet supporting their cause. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/27/did-vote-leave-cheat-to-win-the-brexit-referendum . As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about such violations because at the end of the day the will of the people was presented. Had votes been thrown away or people voted twice, then I'd care. I also have a general problem with funding caps because it violates my First Amendment sensibilities. Democracy, voting, free speech, and free press, in their purest and finest forms, are shouting matches.

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof. — Baden

My references to Ireland's exit was only to make the point that the value of autonomy goes far beyond economic gain. That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. If the US could form a special economic alliance with Germany, for example, that would most likely lead to greater economic prosperity, but it would also grant greater power to Berlin in deciding American economic policy, there'd be a 0% chance it'd be accepted by America. It feels very much like that is what is going on in the UK right now, and for that reason I think all these economic doom arguments miss the point. Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. Most nations are motivated by a sense of kinship, mutual values, history, and all sorts of other things that demand self-governance. I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain as being xenophobic and racist, and that will only strengthen Leave's resolve. I know how this ends. Trump gets elected.

What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make — Baden

And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square. Nothing's perfect of course. I'm less troubled by misstatements and misrepresentations during the campaign than I am cheating during the process (like stuffing the ballot box or blocking votes). Voting is a free for all, and everyone has to exercise their due diligence in deciding how to vote. That's what democracy is.

Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here). — Baden

Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically, yet we all know that economics should always be the primary driver in determining whether a nation seeks sovereignty, right? I think Ireland's doing ok now, but I don't know if anyone is left.

The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". — Baden

This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. What actually is happening is that the Euro is undervalued compared to what a single nation deutschmark would be and that has allowed Germany to increase its exports and profit handsomely . https://economicquestions.org/germany-unfair-trade-advantages/ The argument isn't that Germany has propped up its weaker neighbors and thereby permitted them to become worthy customers now enjoying previously unforeseen wealth, but it is that Germany is unfairly benefiting from a relatively weak Euro and making less competitive nations even less competitive.

That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least.

My general response to your hyper-litigious position, which essentially submits any disagreeable voter outcome to a do over if any irregularity can be found, is worse than the problem it seeks to solve. We must assume, absent some extreme case, that each side of the political battle wages its best fight for its position, and if it doesn't, it pays the price with a loss. To do otherwise attacks the heart of democratic decision making.

In other words, the Brexits won. Game over. Stop bitching at the refs to achieve in the courtroom what you couldn't achieve on the playing field. These efforts of yours at fairness are really just efforts to force through a minority position that you think is obviously right despite it being less popular. Go back to the gym, work harder, and get them next time.

If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here.

It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics. — Michael

I expect diligence on the part of your leaders as well as allowances on the part of other European nations in making sure people don't die of curable diseases. I'm not saying Brexit doesn't matter as I'm sure it will have economic consequences, but I truly think that your concerns that there will a real lack of basic goods and services is alarmist.

I'm not trying to persuade them. I'm saying that there is justification for holding a second referendum. — Michael

Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule.

And also that Brexit should just be cancelled without bothering with a second referendum. — Michael

I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea.

Just want to add that Facebook is not just one website among many, one product offering among many. In some parts Facebook is pretty much synonymous with Internet, which makes it more like a utility, for better or for worse. So what Facebook does (or does not do) is not just a private business decision - it has a global social impact. — SophistiCat

No, it is but one website among many and it is nothing like a utility. If you don't want to communicate via Facebook, then don't. I don't. If I don't like my water, power, sewage, or gas company, it's not like I can shop somewhere else. If I don't like my social media site, I can find another way to communicate.

This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated. — Michael

Sure, and if the choice were made to stay, there'd be people arguing that they didn't realize what staying really meant. That's the thing about decisions. You are stuck with the information you have when you decide.

For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit. — Michael

Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours.

My assessment from thousands of miles of way is that the decision to leave was ideological and wasn't based upon a review of the pros and cons of leaving versus staying. It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. It's about autonomy, self-governance, self-reliance, and a general view that Brits believe they know what's best for Brits better than anyone else. The opposition will interpret all that as racism and xenophobia I'm sure though.

Why not? You might not feel your expression is limited in any way, but what about your neighbor who does feel limited by such bans? — Bitter Crank

But can you require that Tumblr and Facebook allow the posting of pornography? That seems more oppressive than allowing them to prohibit it. There's the possibility that the Tumblr creators are like the Nobels, horrified that their innovation has been used for the forces of evil. Could be. I don't know the fuckers. Maybe they've made their good fortune and can now afford to live sanctimoniously. I, for one, would live sanctimoniously if it weren't so expensive. I don't even like to pay extra for non-abused chicken. It's likely abused chickens are more tender anyway.

At any rate, I would expect that porn on the internet will continue somewhere and somehow despite this bump in the road and that everyone will still be able to enjoy all the flavors of their choice. I'd also expect that someone new will arrive at the scene to provide a platform for whatever depravity is profitable. To assume otherwise would assume this great big capitalistic machine that controls our lives no longer works, and that just can't be.

Is it possible to have a civil response to being physically attacked? If not then is it not impossible to say someone acted uncivil when being attacked? — Medicp251

The rules of civility do not require that one commit suicide and fall on their sword when confronted with an attack. You have the right to scratch, claw, and maim if it means your survival.

A more topical and perhaps complicated question is whether one is required to civilly respond to non-physical attacks, when the attack is against some closely held belief. Such has arisen in the American political climate where Hillary Clinton said, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." That asks the question of when incivility is permissible even absent physical attack.

And so do the same rules apply with regard to when we may be uncivil in physical attacks as non-physical?

Those are nasty and the center of them is usually 1000 degrees.

I was thinking of ordering one too, but I'm on this low carb diet right now.

Whatever floats your boat. — Wallows

A penny saved is a penny earned.

You're not a Stoic or a cynic, you're just a guy sitting next to his computer beside a stack of old pizza boxes.

Keep in behind closed doors, if you will... — Wallows

Don't tell me how to express my love.

Boggles my mind. You two should find a room and parade away there. — Wallows

Don't assume we haven't.

What makes you interesting is that you truly don't care what others think, exuding an unapologetic confidence in your chosen path of shiftlesness.

I'm still laughing over my last post.

Yeah, no shit.

What's your take on willpower? You seem to have an abundance of it. — Wallows

You do too. You just will to talk about your lack of willpower. You've got 6,100 posts yet you insist you can't do anything.

For example, if he were to escape the box, and see someone getting killed, what would he think? — ben

He'd think about how he lived his whole life in a box only to escape to see a murder. If I were that man from the box, I'd start to question the meaning of life, or at least the meaning of my life. That box man has had a really rough go of things.

If I say, "I looked, and it is not raining," we may properly assume I looked at "it" and made that determination, which means that "it" is not a dummy pronoun, but something that can be seen and assessed.

"It" is "the meteorological conditions outside." — Terrapin Station

"It" references a generalized state of being, making no specific reference to outside or the meteorological conditions because your sentence has no context. In the paragraph: "I got a new job selling cars and I'm making all sorts of money. It's not just drizzling a little money here and there on the showroom floor. It's raining," "it" doesn't reference the meteorological conditions and "rain" doesn't even reference cloud precipitation.

It's not a kindergartener issue. It's a serious linguistic issue. — Baden

It would strike me that the only serious linguistic issue would be one where a speaker could not convey his thoughts due to formal rules in place, yet that never seems to occur. In fact, I'd think that the speakers would just modify the rules so they could say what they wanted to.

The thought conveyed with "it is raining" is that rain is descending from the sky above There is likely some historical reason we use "it" to refer vaguely to the generalized state of being in the world around us, but why might this matter? When I take a shower in the morning, I don't wonder where I might take it. That's just how you say it. And if you tell someone that you are going to now engage in showering, you're communicating two things: you are going to take a shower and you're not a native English speaker.

You truly only read the opening line and the last line of a post, don't you? :roll: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Kind of funny.

To respond to your WHOLE post now that you've made me, my middle age has not brought about putting on my comfy pants. I seem to be working harder these days, going to the gym more, adjusting to the kids being at college (but they're not all that far away), and whatever else I'm up to. Nothing is more anxiety producing for me than sitting still. I was at jury duty the other day, hoping to be chosen so I could ruin someone's life, and I saw everyone slouched down in their chairs waiting to be called, but I honestly couldn't just sit there. I was walking around for at least 2 hours. How do people sit still? Then I thought if everyone were like me (a Utopian thought btw), you'd have had hundreds of people just pacing around an auditorium. Maybe I'd feel at home in a place like that.

Did I tell you I bought a new puppy. He's huge! His ears are as big as an elephant's.

Cute puppy :love: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think it might be part basset hound because of the big ears. He sure does go through his chew toys though!

Cool. Looks good. But is this an observation, so that it just so happens that all sentences have a subject; or is it a definition, as in, if it doesn't have a subject, it's not a sentence? — Banno

Choice B, in order to be a sentence, it must have a subject by definition, but a fully formed thought need not have an explicit subject, as in @jamalrob's statement above where he said "fascinating." What's the subject of that statement? It is a fully formed thought with a clear meaning though.

Also, note that the word "fascinating" doesn't even mean fascinating in the sarcastic way he used it. I think what it really means here that it's not really all that fascinating.

I looked up how the various languages conveyed "It is raining." German says es regnet, meaning it raining (leaving out the "is"). French does the same with il pleut, leaving out the is. Moving away from Indo-European languages, Hebrew (using English letters) is yorad geshem, literally meaning rain is descending. It seems just a matter of convention. English uses the word "is" just to denote tense, as in "it is raining," instead of "It was raining" or "it will rain." Other languages don't resort to the word "it" to denote a general state of being (like Hebrew).

Consider also the sentence "It is raining cats and dogs" with "cats and dogs" being the direct object, although really the direct object isn't an object at all because there are literally no cats and dogs falling from the sky. "Cats and dogs" in the sentence means "heavily" and describes how it is raining, making the objects (cats and dogs) actually an adverb (It is raining heavily). The fact that "it" in "it is raining" has no clear referent is as irrelevant as "cats and dogs" not actually referring to cats and dogs in the sentence "it is raining cats and dogs."

What is the philosophical import of the question? The meaning of the sentence is not in dispute, which means at best you've found an anamolous grammatical structure in English. If the word "glurk" meant "rain is falling from the sky," what would the subject of the sentence "glurk" be? It'd be rain, even though "rain" appears nowhere in the sentence. What this means is that we look to the contextual meaning of the sentence for the subject and not the actual words within the sentence, but what does this show of great significance?

I got a new puppy today at the corner market. He's very playful.

if the cow flexes intensely while one's arm is all the way into the cow, it can break one's arm. — Bitter Crank

You're not a farmer, so you know this how?

I don't think that the age requirements should be abolished, I just think that they should be based on some form of scientific data and as far as I can see, they aren't. Is there any history I'm missing? What criteria should these laws be based on? — MonfortS26

It can be based upon any criteria the society wants it be set on. We set speed limits on roadways on the amount of safety we want to assure (0 mph is safest), how much fuel economy we want to have (in the 1970s interstate speed was lowered from 70 to 55), and the amount of time we want to save by allowing people to go faster. Not all of these questions are scientific, but are based upon values we have.

The age of consent is the same. We have expectations for children versus adults, and we don't want our 10 years old having sex and signing contracts.

Age of consent moves with the changing values. In the southern US, historically, the age of consent for sex was 14, but older in the north and Europe, 16 and sometimes 17. More recently, the south has raised its age under the thinking that children need protection, while Europe has dropped its age, now with the thought that children should have more freedoms.

There is also an advantage to a certain figure be decided, even if it doesn't apply well to everyone, as opposed to setting a rule that allows evaluation on a case by case basis.

That's not a bad guess, but more like this:

No one has ever actually seen me, either on this board or anywhere. I'm a Ninjew. I just made that up. I know it sounds like that's one I've been saving for just the right time, but, no, it's a Hanoriginal. I'm on fire. Fire I tell you.

In case you live under a rock, the Netflix documentary, 'Making of a Murderer', presents the trial and conviction of Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, for the murder of Teresa Halbach — Marchesk

It turns out I live under a rock, never having heard of this documentary. I might watch it now though. I don't watch much TV or Netflix. I can't get the interwebs to go through my TV box right now, and I don't feel like calling the Hopper people to splain it to me. Maybe this'll motivate me.

She should sleep with the ex’s new partner. — Michael

Nice. The forbidden lady on lady love. While contrary to all I hold dear, I cannot seem to avert my eyes from it.

Was "ex-sex" a side dish at your Thanksgiving table? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As a Hanover family tradition, I line all my exes up between the turkey and green beans and give them all a good rogering while doing an Irish jig with @baden's Aunt Mildred. She is a feisty one, but not so much so that she earns a place in the rogering line. Not yet at least.

I think he does care. In fact I think, and I could be totally off base but I think, he thinks, that he cares about you soo much that he feels you can do better with someone other than himself. That is actually caring but it cuts both of you short of the CHANCE for your caring to grow. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If I might comment upon the oddness of discussing the pain of the breakupee while the breakuper is in the room.

I too didn’t read all the posts so my suggestion wouldn’t work either. I do however condone it for those times it will. Bonus points for sleeping with the ex’s new partner and best friend together, even if that does offend your conservative sensibilities. — Michael

In that regard I'm less a conservative and a bit more liberal/grossly reckless.

I think everyone should sleep with everyone, if for no other reason than to be sure everyone is sufficiently rested.

The pointer is on all of you.