The 1634 trial of Galileo was pivotal in the relationship of Western civilisation to science. By finding Galileo 'greiviously suspect of heresy' the Church implied science is heretical. Rather than welcome science as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, they divorced science as a tool from science as a understanding of reality, allowing that science be used to drive the Industrial Revolution, but protecting the religious, political and economic ideological architecture from any responsibility to science as truth. Consequently we have nuclear weapons and climate change, but don't have a species identity or limitless clean energy from magma!

You've gotta laugh; if you don't you'll cry! — counterpunch

You and I are very much of the same mind; but I still think you need to let it go. Harbouring resentment over the conduct of the 2016 referendum - to get back on topic, is probably not good for you. The 2019 general election decided the matter! The public had the chance to vote to repeal Article 50 - and they declined. You can't argue with that. Anyhow, nice talking with you, but I have to split!

at least our tomb will be decorated with gold! — counterpunch

That's some cold consolation! The EU was the ideal vehicle for tackling climate change. They had the ability to coordinate the policies of 28 nation states - including Britain. And now, we're racing to the bottom to compete with India and China - who are far more populous, and a lot poorer. Remember when Jeremy Hunt said "Britons will be working like Chinese sweatshop labourers"?

It is a fait accompli - forget it. Move on! — counterpunch

Move on to what? A bonfire of red tape - to undercut the EU, and further exclude British business from the second largest free market in the world? Sounds great!

it was crooked AF. People have no idea. — counterpunch

I knew Cameron was a brexiteer. You only have to examine his political history - and it's completely obvious that he should never have been the spokesman for Remain.

He was a brexitter - holding the Remain camp down while letting his pals in the Tax Payer's Alliance run rampant with the Leave campaign. Cameron's media strategist - Suzi Squire, worked for Dominic Cummings at the Tax Payer's Alliance - and the TPA ran the Leave campaign. Cameron was in bed with the Leave campaign.

He provided for the referendum, made that impossible 'tens of thousands' pledge on immigration - "or vote me out." His renegotiation was doomed to fail from the outset - and as soon as he touched back down on British soil, a failure - he announced he would be the face of Remain.

Cameron lost on purpose for Remain. And I haven't even scratched the surface. The Brexit referendum was the most corrupt piece of political theater in modern political history.

Did you happen to catch the report produced by "a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson" recommending a "bonfire of red tape." Sounds so much better than "a race to the bottom on workers rights, wages, health and safety, food standards, animal welfare and environmental standards."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/

Hate to say I told you so!

Artificial selection indicates sexual selection where the reproductive choices are made by man rather than the pigeon, or the sheep. So artificial selection is a subset of sexual selection - in contrast to natural selection, which is concerned with surviving long enough to breed.

Do you think Darwin was mad when he titled his second book: 'The Descent of Man' - given that evolution is generally speaking, a process of weeding out, shouldn't it be: 'The Ascent of Man'?

Or do you suppose he coined the phrase in relation to the religious idea of Creation at the beginning of time, that implies a descent from the ideal into corruption?

With regard to the human species, as the only intellectually intelligent animal, I think it important to stress the direction of knowledge over time, from less and worse, toward more and better.

Yet the reception of Darwin's works by a religious world, ranged from muted to outraged via outright mockery. So maybe he was angry when he chose the term 'descent.'

Let's find out. I've reported your posts as off topic. This topic doesn't need witless trolling. It's too serious. Please stop it.

You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam. — S

Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of, what I presume aspires to wit?

Wait, I know! Why don't we just programme a spambot to do this for us? — S

I do admire your ability to address a really serious issue like brexit; something I maintain will permanently disable our ability to address global scale threats like climate change by promoting a deregulated race to the bottom, that could re-ignite the fires of sectarian violence in Ireland, cause Scotland to declare independence, permanently alienate our nearest and largest trading partners - a policy that was forced on the country by the corruption of democratic process, and manipulation of the electorate's perceptions with a concerted campaign of lies and incitement to xenophobia bordering on racism, and do so without ever getting serious? How do you dance on the edge of the abyss like that? How do you just not care?

Just seen this tweet:

Petition: 'Scroungers' Cameron should not be receiving a final salary pension after costing this country untold billions with a corrupt referendum for a failed policy. He must not be allowed to draw upon the public purse for the rest of his life.

Right on!

The evidence showing Cameron was a brexiteer is overwhelming; and I can only assume there's a Public Interest Immunity Certificate in place to gag the media on this subject, because PIIC's not only cover the subject in question, but the very existence of the PIIC itself.

No. You can derive it from the contents description in his book, the first paragraph of Chapter IV and by reading Chapter IV in its entirety. You can find it when you google "sexual selection" as well. I don't need to repeat verbatim what can be easily found by following the link or using Google. — Benkei

Then I'll simply thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

If you think so, post the appropriate passage so everyone can see what you mean.

Even more to the point, Darwin opens the presentation of his new theory in On the Origin of Species with a chapter on selective breeding, which had been well-known in England, and had been studied by Darwin before he wrote his magnum opus (he bred pigeons himself). Darwin does not even get to natural selection until the fourth chapter of the book. The very obvious point of his chosen terminology is to draw an analogy between the purposeful actions of a farmer and the unconscious processes elsewhere in nature. He argues that on an abstract level such seemingly disparate phenomena can be described by the same process: variation and selection. So natural selection here is compared with artificial selection (both Darwin's terms). Is it "anthropocentric"? Well, of course it is - appropriately so! — SophistiCat

Close, but no cigar! You have all the right notes here - they're just not quite in the right order.

Natural selection is a term that distinguishes selection due to the high mortality rate of animals from hunger, cold, heat, predation and so on, from sexual selection. Both are means by which only a select few are able to pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations - one due to death before breeding, the other from not being chosen as a mate by the opposite sex. So, it's not a redundant term, and it is not employed to distinguish natural from supernatural, nor primarily - to distinguish natural selection from selective breeding by pigeon fanciers, or farmers.

You're a naturalist? How so? Do you walk around naked?

The argument in your first paragraph can be boiled down to three words: "ought from is." It is an idea proposed by David Hume (1711-76)

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning...when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Wonderfully poetic, and in a shallow sense, correct. No list of facts adds up to a value. One cannot derive ought from is. Yet as Hume notes, we do so all the time. If one accepts a scientific understanding of reality, the reason for this presents itself fairly readily.

Human beings were for the longest time, hunter-gatherers living in kinship tribal groups - not at all unlike chimpanzee troops in social structure. Chimpanzees have social hierarchies, and morality of sorts - where they groom eachother and share food, and remember who reciprocates, and who doesn't. Relating this dynamic to human tribal evolution - it's safe to assume that moral behavior was promoted by sexual selection and natural selection, where moral behavior promoted both the individuals breeding prospects, and the success of the tribe relative to other tribes.

The consequence of this is that there's an innate moral sensibility ingrained into human beings by tribal evolution, and so a list of facts does have moral implication for us - even while logically, no list of facts adds up to a value. Hume's conjecture is thus incomplete, yet has been widely employed to dismiss scientific understanding as morally neutral, or worse yet, morally vacuous.

As I've already written almost as much as you have, just on your first paragraph - I'm only going to add that scientific understanding has progressed in leaps and bounds since the advent of the computer, necessary both for communication and large calculations. I hope we will continue the discussion and address the issues you raise, but it would require a ridiculously lengthy post to do so here.

Brexit has given me a new appreciation of what Marx meant by class consciousness. Not working class consciousness - obviously, not even the Labour Party has that! But class consciousness nonetheless!

There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
— karl stone

I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves. — fdrake

Okay. Wolves - take note!

The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it. — fdrake

There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!

The alpha thing, like iron and spinach turned out not to be true. Unfortunately both became popular and well cited enough to enter popular culture. — fdrake

Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo!

I think the crux of the matter is that, few are talented enough to upset the applecart, and the less talented majority are not merely put out when it happens, but unqualified to judge.

I'm watching this Ted talk on the origins of language - and wondering why memetic theory, does not explain the apparent disparity between the views of archaeologists and anthropologists on the one hand, and biologists on the other - (12:20) that there was a sudden event at the dawn of human intellect - biologists reject on the basis of rate of genetic change and no obvious increase in cranial capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q

To my mind, a sort of conceptual evolution seems an obvious candidate to explain behavioural change evidenced in human artifacts, that has no obvious biological corollary.

Yes, sweetie, but I'm the alpha, and as long you don't you forget that, we'll get along just peachy. — S

Great, well, that so, I'm assuming you agree with everything I've said, and can't think of anything to add or question.

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."
— karl stone

I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment. — S

I'm kinda disappointed to get your post. Are we chatting now? Sharing funny youtube clips? Are you and I - like, girlfriends?

If science is truth, why do scientists contradict each other? If a scientific consensus is truth, why are scientific consensuses of the past contradicted by scientific consensuses of today? And how do you know scientific consensuses of today won't be contradicted by those of tomorrow? — leo

With regard to scientific method and epistemology - any scientist will affirm, that all scientific conclusions are held to be provisional in lieu of further evidence; but I'm not speaking as a scientist. I'm speaking as a political philosopher - using ordinary language, to compare two conceptions of reality. I use the term truth in a less than philosophically exacting manner - but am making a comparison between a religious, political and economic ideological worldview - and a scientific understanding of reality. It's thus fair to say that science is true, whereas ideology isn't true. Ideology is conventional.

For example, from the 17th century until 1979 it was true that the capital city of China was Peking. Now that's not true. It's now Beijing. But one cannot, by the same token argue that the Copernican system of planetary motion was not true - merely because it was superseded by Newton, then Einstein. Compared to several references in the Bible to the Earth 'fixed in the heavens' - Copernican planetary motion is true. Darwinian evolution lacked the mechanism for the transmission of characteristics from one generation to another - but compared to the idea of creatures created fully formed and fixed by God, Darwinian evolution is true. Not as true as the neo-Darwinian synthesis with genetics, that describes today's understanding - and maybe not as true as some future appreciation of how epigenetics functions over time, but true. The bacterial theory of infection - compared to evil spirits, or miasmas - is true. I could go on, but the point, I hope is clear.

If you take the sum total of scientific knowledge, it paints an increasingly valid and coherent, broad brush stroke picture of reality - that's true, and that matters. It doesn't matter if some detail changes as science discovers more. It matters that we understand rather than suppress a scientific understanding of reality, and that we apply technology responsibly, as opposed to applying technology as dictated solely by religious, political and economic ideology.

This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. — karl stone

Just to be clear, those are the government's words, not mine. I would point out the assumption that people voted for reasons related solely to the proposition on the ballot paper, is patently false. The Leave campaign lied egregiously, and incited discontent on many fronts, and then funneled all that discontent into a vote to leave the EU, in the most crooked ever episode in British political history.

I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions? — Echarmion

I'd have to disagree. To manipulate democratic processes in this way requires an exquisite understanding of how things work. For example, consider Cameron making the referendum a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people,
— Government response to the petition – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”. (see above)

It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work. — Echarmion

Have no illusions, they know brexit doesn't work. A catastrophic no deal brexit was the plan all along. Remember, this is the party that opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage/low regulation jobs market attractive to immigration, that sold off council housing and refused to build more, that sold off all the utilities at knock down prices to their pals in the city, that subsidized low wages and high rents with tax payer's money - starving local councils and public services of funding, and refused to remove jobless migrants as allowed under EU law.

This is the Party that blamed Labour for the 2008 financial crash - that was actually caused by banking deregulation under Thatcher, and imposed 10 years of unnecessary and counter productive austerity. This is the Party that provided for the referendum, that had one foot in each campaign, and is pursuing a no deal brexit for the excuse it will provide to do the same thing all over again, only worse.

John Proctor; MEP - in the ECR, the far right European political party founded after the 2009 European elections at the behest of the then, Conservative Party leader - David Cameron.

The same David Cameron who cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010, while pledging to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - "or vote me out" - who announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.

The same David Cameron who launched highly publicized "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was doomed to fail because his demands required treaty change, and who - upon arriving back in Britain, with his failure still fresh in the air, appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

The same David Cameron who kept Theresa May in position as Home Secretary for six years, while she screeched about the Human Rights Act, sacked the long term head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, let 660,000 migrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum.

The same David Cameron who appointed his aide Craig Oliver to oversee the Remain campaign, and recommended Oliver for a knighthood on leaving office, having made a pig's fucking ear of the case for Remain!

...thinks Donald Tusk's remarks are bizarre!

Dear Karl Stone,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”.

Government responded:

The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.

The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Almost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.

Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.

In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.

The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.

The deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations.

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.

Department for Exiting the European Union

This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories. — Tim3003

I'd have thought those in government were above absurd conspiracies - but we are where we are!

In a speech in Brussels yesterday, EU Council President Donald Tusk described brexit as:

"Following (from) the decision and the will of the UK authorities."

It's the third such intervention I'm aware of, in which he's speaking over the shoulders of our government to the British people. Another was saying recently, both in a speech and on twitter:

"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."

And the other, was relayed on BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" - when Tusk said:

"I told David Cameron, there's no appetite for revolution in Europe. He told me he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea."

What Mr Tusk is making clear with these comments, is that the UK government, particularly Cameron and May, were complicit in the corrupt 2016 referendum. I have been saying this for some time now - and it's really very clear when one examines the facts.

Cameron took the UK out a centrist alliance in the EU, and joined right wing anti federalists, cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010 - while promising tens of thousands - or vote me out, then dictated a referendum by making it a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked.

Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.

I get that reaction a lot. Don't worry about it - it's fine. It seems to me, that writing on a philosophy forum, you should be able to encompass and handle a contrast between the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies, and a scientific understanding of reality - without flipping out, and going all ad hom, but clearly, you're not a philosopher!

Instead, you're one of the people who need be afforded their illusions, even as scientific ideas are applied to direct the application of technology, to secure a sustainable future. The pertinent principle is "existential necessity" - which both justifies adopting science as truth, i.e. to address problems it's necessary to address for humankind to continue to exist, and at the same time limits the implications of science as truth - thus affording people like you your ideologically described identities and purposes. Because honestly, it doesn't matter what you think. Probably best you don't.

I disagree.

It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult. By the way, well done on playing victim. — Benkei

Your link is a Bill - not an Act. It's not law. It's a proposal - the validity of which has not been examined by Parliament. A bill can say anything. Bills are often amended because they're not structured legally. Further, it proposes a course of action in the event of a referendum. That's not the question.

In the simplest possible terms the question is: Could Theresa May revoke Article 50 if she wanted to?

I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.

It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am.

Yup, that's what I mean. If you can't identify a single person who meets your standard of "accepting a scientific understanding of reality" then you have no basis upon which to propose that we should give human beings ever more power at an ever faster rate. According to your own posts there is literally no one on Earth currently capable of managing the new powers emerging from the knowledge explosion, and yet you want to release these new powers anyway. — Jake

Great. Me! That was easy. Sadly, almost everyone else is operating within an ideological environment - drawing their identities and purposes, their beliefs and terms of analysis from those ideas, existing between them, as if in a collective consciousness. It's thus very difficult for people to see beyond those ideas, to the scientific reality. But I've been doing this for years, and truly have tried to adjust my thinking in relation to scientific truth.

For example, I accept that humankind is a single species - which evolved on this planet, emerged from Africa around 70,000 years ago - and spread in all different directions. I see the commonalities in cultures rather than the differences - like for example, writing, music, art, architecture, agriculture, pottery, jewelry, and so on and on - things human beings do, only in culturally distinct ways.

I find this contrasts dramatically with the ideological idea of other peoples, of other religions and other nations, viewed as alien - because of the acceptance of ideological ideas in themselves, on their own terms. It's difficult, because people do consider those ideas definitive - and treat me as coming from a particular religious, national, socio-economic class group - relative to their own. I haven't encountered anyone who thinks like I do - and to be honest, I go back and forth. I'm not crazy. But it is a useful additional perspective.

It's good faith.
— karl stone

It is. See? Not so hard to admit you're wrong is it? — Benkei

You tell me. What are you admitting you're wrong about? Is it just just the 'good fate' thing? Because to my mind, that's the least of the things you're wrong about. I think you should apologize for your behavior, and stop trolling people - don't you?

Yes, it's precisely because this is a forum it is in good faith to take issue with someone pretending to know the answer when in fact they don't. That doesn't require me to know the answer to the discussion but here it is any way: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0306/cbill_2017-20190306_en_2.htm#l1g3

You're welcome. — Benkei

To begin with, your link doesn't answer the question. The question concerns the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, by whom - given the powers conferred by the Notification of Withdrawal Act. Your link has many of the same words in it - but is a Bill, concerned with a possible referendum, that provides, in the event of a Remain vote, for automatic repeal of all the Withdrawal Acts.

You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling.

Backing Brexit will cost Labour more votes than Iraq war, leaked poll warns
Written by: Matt Foster Posted On: 7th February 2019

Backing Brexit would be more damaging to Labour's electoral fortunes than the Iraq war, a stark poll handed to Jeremy Corbyn's top team has warned.

ITV News and the Guardian report that the confidential document was sent to pro-Corbyn pressure group Momentum by the TSSA union, and has been circulating among Shadow Cabinet ministers.

It warns Labour that backing Brexit will cost the party 45 seats at a snap election, compared with 11 for opposing Britain's departure. "There can be no disguising the sense of disappointment and disillusionment with Labour if it fails to oppose Brexit and there is every indication that it will be far more damaging to the party’s electoral fortunes than the Iraq war," it says.

“Labour would especially lose the support of people below the age of 35, which could make this issue comparable to the impact the tuition fees and involvement in the coalition had on Lib Dem support.”

The party would also risk losing five of its seven MPs in Remain-supporting Scotland if it supports Brexit, the study says.

Amid calls for Mr Corbyn to back a second referendum, the poll claims that three-quarters of Labour voters would vote to 'Remain' if one were called.

It also suggests any new centrist party vowing to oppose Brexit could hoover up Labour voters, with 17% of Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 supporters saying they would be "very likely" to back a new party that came out against Britain's EU exit.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/101666/backing-brexit-will-cost-labour-more-votes-iraq

As a forum participant it behoves you to act in good fate which you're not when you're bluffing. I call it out. And you can pretend it was just a discussion between you and another person but it wasn't as you posted it in a forum which is a free for all for anybody to react to anything. — Benkei

It's good faith. And as you raise the idea, do you think wading into someone else's disagreement without a clue what it's about, like a troll - trying to get a rise, is acting in good faith? If it's not acting in good faith, and if you don't know, for certain - what the answer to the disagreement is, by both your own standards, should you not shut up now?

You don't know and it would behove you to act accordingly. If you don't know for certain and argue the way you did then you're not doing philosophy but you're just bluffing. — Benkei

It's behoove. And as you raise the idea, does it behoove you to wade into the middle of someone else's disagreement? What's it got to do with you? Are you saying you know how the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, interacts with the powers provided by the Notification of Withdrawal Bill? If you don't know, for certain, then by your own standards - does it not behoove you to mind your own business?

Or you can try not taking a position on a minor point you're running a risk of being wrong on and instead try to find out the answer by asking a question. Just taking a position whichever one strikes your fancy in the moment just makes you sound like a loudmouth that thinks his opinion is relevant on every (minor) topic. Just a tip, eh! — Benkei

Thanks ever so much for the tip - only to bring you up to speed, I'm not wrong. I'm in dispute with someone who thinks I'm wrong, but I'm not. ...probably. It would take vast amounts of research to settle the matter. I'm not doing that. You all caught up? Good.

Or perhaps you can not be so opiniated about matters you don't know the details of. — Benkei

I don't think that's likely. I'll gladly run the risk of being wrong on such a minor point of fact. It's almost inescapable. Can you tell me off the top of your head how the EU court's decision, that Article 50 can be revoked, plays out with regard to the specific powers afforded Theresa May in the Notification of Withdrawal Bill - not to be confused with the Withdrawal Bill, or the Withdrawal Agreement? Would you spend two days researching it, just to make some minor point on an obscure forum? No? Well, neither would I.

Yes, don't let facts get in your way of feeling righteous about how stupid all the politicians and Brexiters are. — Benkei

The point at issue is a minor one, hidden in the comparison of two lengthy legal documents - and it's just not worth the effort. I haven't called anyone stupid. But don't let that fact get in the way of your inferiority complex.

Who exactly are you suggesting to be capable of responsible management? Who exactly has this scientific understanding of reality you can never stop talking about? Who exactly? You have no idea. Thus... A fantasy plan. — Jake

What a stupid question. Who exactly? You mean like Mr Smith of 33 Elm Tree Lane, Nicetown, Anywhere. You want height, weight, date of brith, shoe size and star sign? Who exactly? You have no idea. Thus... a stupid question.