650+622=1272
622/1272=0.49

Therefore 49% of UK trade is with the EU not 44%.

If you don't even understand your own figures or can't read:

"The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2017, UK exports to the EU were £274 billion (44% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £341 billion (53% of all UK imports)."

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

You are not adding anything to this conversation.

UK trades more with the rest of the World than the EU. This is obvious since UK trade with EU accounts for 44% of GDP — Inis

You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU.

Halfway through this. Definite thumbs up too. The section on education is particularly spot on and gels with my experience (only I never expressed my frustrations as consistently eloquently and effectively as he does his).

:lol:

I suppose it's possible that like Terrapin he thinks we're all morons, in which case maybe both of them should get a room and work at repopulating the world with geniuses.

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission. — Inis

So...? About half of the UK's total trade is with the EU:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

https://www.predictit.org/markets/5/World

Chances of official Brexit by the deadline currently hovering at around 25% according to those with skin (i.e. hard cash) in the game. Even that's generous, I'd say. Read a bit more about parliament's power to thwart Brexit and anti-Brexit Tory rebels like Oliver Letwin and you'll see why.

E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/cross-party-alliance-of-mps-tells-may-we-will-stop-no-deal-brexit

Another lesson in how not to write an OP. Please argue for your view on the answers to these questions before inviting others' opinions. If you can't, come back when you can and try again.

But how long would the EU be willing to grant the extension for? — Inis

I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones.

You may as well try and nail some jello to a wall.

I'm deleting the racist image now. Be more careful about what you post in future.

No, it doesn´t — DiegoT

Yes, it does. What point was it supposed to make and why did you choose that pic to make it?

[Racist image] — DiegoT

This requires an explanation.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/eu-could-extend-brexit-deadline-if-london-provides-good-reason-11130682

I'm not stuck on the nomenclature. Just making the point that the testicles angle is probably not the most effective evidence for the overall issue darth wants to highlight.

We should allow lying under oath too. What possible good could it do to put legal pressure on folks to tell the truth in a court of law? :chin:

It is a common trope, especially in film: a man gets hit in the testicles and comedically falls down in pain. This is supposed to be funny. — darthbarracuda

I have to admit I'm not immune to that reaction. In fact, I'm all for slapdick comedy. :halo:

But... it's unnecessary as evidence to establish the existence of patriarchal oppression, for which much more direct empirical data is available:

e.g. https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

Well, call me a Pollyanna, but I still reckon Jacob Mouse-Mugg is more likely to get eggs Benedict all over his face rather than the Bulldog's breakfast of Brexit he so covets.

She wiggled her way out of supporting a hard Brexit by dumping her red lines in the Irish sea. As a consequence there was a leadership challenge which she wiggled her way out of losing by promising to step down at the next election. Then she wiggled her way out of having to support the soft Brexit she didn't really want either by conspiring to lose the vote on it by a record margin. Next she'll wiggle out of no-deal by extending the deadline or some other such maneuver by getting the moderates in her party to rebel against her. And finally she'll find a way to wiggle out of any Brexit at all by getting Labour or some cross-party alliance to leave her no other choice. That's a lot of wiggling for someone stuck in a cornfield.

(Just to see off any potential strawmen. I'm not against free speech, only absolutism in the area. I think the U.S. has the balance about right.)

I'm convinced that May will find a way to wiggle out of the Brexit that she never wanted and blame someone else for it. She's good like that.

Does that hurt her husband? If speech is causal to harm, how could that not harm her husband (while it could maybe harm a husband who speeks German)? What are the physical differences in each case? — Terrapin Station

Do a bit of reading. Words can have lasting physical effects in some circumstances*. That those circumstances may be more limited than the effects of physical trauma is a matter of degree not type therefore there is no justification for the absolute cleavage of speech acts from physical acts re the principle of rights and (legal) responsibilities.

*E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201010/sticks-and-stones-hurtful-words-damage-the-brain

Give an example of two people's bodies acting completely differently to the same "physical" force a la a punch, knife stab, etc. — Terrapin Station

Tiresome. Do you not realize that a punch in the stomach of x power that could be enough to cause serious damage to the organs of, and even kill, a child may have little or no discernible physical effect on a professional boxer, for example?

Anyway, I'm done.

Well, I reckon DT is doing a fantastic job. (Of losing the next election and causing irrevocable damage to the Republican party's image.) I wish everybody would just let him get on with it.

Two people's bodies can not react completely differently to the same "physical" force, such as a punch — Terrapin Station

This is obviously false unless the word "completely" is mercilessly gerrymandered to fit your pre-determined position. I was going to give an example to explain why but I don't believe anyone but you at this point would continue to argue on the, to put it charitably, extremely tenuous basis you have been to try to establish the distinction you want to. So, we've probably said enough.

@Terrapin Station You've got yourself in a muddle and are resorting to an absurd level of special pleading. An aggressive act (whether it be a speech act or a physical act) may be carried out with an intention to do a high degree of harm and may actually do a high degree of harm, and an aggressive act (whether it be a speech act or a physical act) may effect a very different level of harm depending on who the recipient of the act is. Combine those two facts and you have no way to make a clear enough distinction between speech acts and physical acts to justify completely absolving the former of the principle of rights and responsibilities, including legal responsibilities, while maintaining it for the latter.

speech can't be shown to be causal to any particular harm, because regardless of the speech in question, we could take two different people and expose them to the same speech and they'd react completely differently. — Terrapin Station

"physical assault can't be shown to be causal to any particular harm, because regardless of the assault in question, we could take two different people and expose them to the same assault and they'd react completely differently."

Your idea as expressed above seems to the core of your case, but can you see now how the argument fails to make any clear distinction between harmful speech acts and other types of harmful acts which I presume you are not calling to be legalized? Also, you seem to reject the general principle that the complement of the accordance of rights is the burden of responsibilities including legal responsibilities. Where do you stand on that? If you think rights in the case of speech acts should be accorded without any legal responsibilities at all, you've again made no case for that except the failed argument above.

It's really the second half of my post that's most important. I see you hand waving on the issue of potential harm through verbal means. Speech acts are nonetheless acts and acts (wrt legal responsibility) need to be assessed in terms of harm and intention to harm, no?

If the intimidation involves threats, revealing personal information, slandering, or making impossible for you to communicate (like hacking attacks to your website) this is punishable by law. — DiegoT

I know. And that's how it should be, which is what I'm arguing in contrast to the absolutist position.

So, it's fine and dandy to psychologically torture vulnerable targets with threats and intimidation and that shouldn't be controlled. It's their own fault because they should just... what? Toughen up? You don't understand psychology and you don't understand humans. Typical of an ideological absolutist stuck in their favourite meme.

Look, if you're going to consider legally controlling anything, you look at intention and effect. So, for example, if the intention of a man who regularly calls a young woman living alone and threatens to come to her apartment and torture her to death is to destroy her mental health and cause her suffering, and the result is her mental health is damaged and she suffers, why would we not legally protect the victim? What advantage would occrue to society in not allowing the law to step in in extreme cases? The point here is that your hand waving cannot make the reality that speech can seriously harm and is often intended to seriously harm go away. You need to deal with that and then justify why these cases—where the level of malicious intent and potential harm is high—do not merit attention by the law when even minor physical assaults that cause no lasting harm do. You haven't done that and so as yet you have no case.

Ah, the good old bad old days... :starstruck:

@Paul hasn't frequented this incarnation of the forum since the early days. There's plenty of back-story spread across a few of the early discussions that helps to explain what happened, e.g.:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/40/pf-sold-for-20800
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/34/new-owner-announcement-at-pf/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/33/things-at-the-old-place-have-changed
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2/welcome-pf-members

I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station

Just to add to @Hanover's examples, what about a sustained written and verbal campaign of intimidation aimed at psychologically torturing a vulnerable target? Fine and dandy? Or should it be recognized for what it is, i.e. a purposeful attempt to do harm, and treated as such?

A problem I have had with fiction is that it seems like lying — Andrew4Handel

If the reader knows it's fiction, it's not a form of deceit, so whatever form of lying remains is fairly harmless.

There's a danger of getting too caught up in semantics here, I guess. I suppose there's a certain amount of creativity involved in academic writing etc., but there are also a bunch of rules and conventions and practices (e.g. re sourcing) that mitigate, sometimes very specifically, against creativity whereas traditional creative writing has much less of that and is much more driven by the imagination. So, we're probably not really so much in disagreement as using terms in different ways (as another example, technical writing and academic writing, I'd see as distinct too).

I think the point of writing a novel is to entertain people in some way. — Andrew4Handel

Ideally, the point of writing a novel (worth anything) is to give a reader something they couldn't have got without reading it, whether that be a type of unique experience or knowledge or whatever form of edification. If it's to be worth anything of lasting value, it wouldn't be simply another entertainment, of which there is no shortage and that can be got at a moment's notice just about anywhere. It's not elitist to recognize that or to try to understand the value that's placed on classics.

[Edit: Cross posted with above]

You can just PM me your preferred name and I'll change it.

Honest criticism for an actually aspiring writer is one thing. What you did was nip it in the bud. — Bitter Crank

Alright. Maybe it was a bit full-on considering the context. I will say I've seen writers go on for years at the same not-very-good level while receiving all the while warm well-intended praise/encouragement that only serves to prevent them improving, but, yes, criticism can be misplaced too.



:grin:

Anyhow, my intention isn't to put Andrew off. Developing a decent writing style is achievable with hard work. Actually having something interesting to impart is the really tricky part and I haven't criticized him on that score

...don't show it to bury the baby before it is born Baden. — Bitter Crank

Completely honest criticism is what any aspiring writer should want before anything else. Writing is not some special profession where you don't have to be good and everyone should just pat you on the back for trying. If an apprentice carpenter builds a chair that looks like it's going to fall apart the moment someone sits on it, he gets told it's a piece of crap and to start again. And that's how he gets good and we all get to sit around without hurting our asses. Same with writing. It's not something everybody can just do or that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a skill and it's hard and you're not doing anyone any favours by pulling punches on their apparent ability or lack thereof.

That's sounds OK. My suggestion simply is that if you want to be a writer, try to maintain, first and foremost, a consistently high level of quality in everything you write, including your posts here. That type of discipline will bleed positively into your work.