Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

the_dark_side

ixtlan wrote: »

I fear we may be stretching this too far... but it is amusing...

Before the last referendum you had a progressive ailment that was going to lead to a limp. True you didn't really notice it, and even now you're not too sure. The doctors though, who have always been right before, are saying that it's only going to get worse and the longer you leave it the more complex the operation will be. In fact you have been told that without the operation/treaty you cannot go snowboarding/accept new states, as the risk of serious injury is too great

Ok... back to our patient, lying in his hospital room. Still not convinced he needs this operation, and afraid of it going wrong... so the experts come approach you and say... 'well Mr. Dark Side... your file says that you like football and poetry', to which you agree.

Some hours later Seamus Heany and Robbie Keane arrive at your bedside with grapes and Lucozade saying that they both feel that this operation is the right thing for me, even though I may not understand the documentation fully.
My reaction? What kind of a fool do the experts take me for!

PopeBuckfastXVI

You're starting to sound like some sort of religious nut, refusing medical treatment, because the science is gobbledygook and the work of the devil.

I think at this stage the doctors should give you a wheelchair, and let you head off and be a cripple, or have you declared legally insane and fix you anyway.

Either way they should decouple you from the 26 other patients in the room who are waiting to have the same operation, but can't until you stop wasting the doctors time.

Hmm, analogies are fun, but ultimately stupid.

oscarBravo

the_dark_side wrote: »

After attempting to read a condensed version of the Lisbon Treaty, I decided to look it up on youtube; one of the first short films I saw was a talk given by the Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde at an event that was organised by Irish MEP, MEP Kathy Sinnott.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

You would understand my viewpoint if you took a quick look at this short film (2.40 mins)

Leaving aside the fact that the forum charter specifically frowns on posting video links in lieu of argument, why are you willing to take what Bonde says at face value? He's not exactly an impartial source.

Tony EH

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Worst quoting ever. I never said that at all. All I said that is I'd expect a Yes vote to be returned in even greater numbers.

And why do you think you can read peoples minds over the 'internet tubes', with all this talk of "blaise posturing"? I have no problem with second referendums on any subject, but nor could I care less if you believe that or not.

Apologies, you actually stated "I can't say I'd be too worried about it...", which is in the same vein as "Id have no problem voting again...".

It's still a blase response.

No matter what way you try to dress it up, if a 'Yes' vote was ignored, the 'Yes' camp would be up in arms and I'd agree.

the_dark_side

so I decide to have the operation after much coaxing and convincing by all around me

When I come around I go look in the mirror, I look pretty much the same...
So when Im asked how do I feel... I dont seem to be able to project my voice as much, I have lost a few degrees of my lateral vision, and I seem a little shorter, or I could be imagining it.
So I storm into the expert's office...
'My operation hasnt turned out as I had expected it would. I thought you said there would be no noticeable changes, and little side effect! I want this put right... now!'

They reply, 'Sorry Mr. Dark Side, the procedure is irreversible. Dont worry about your loss of voice, we know you are still there, and as for your height, it will mean a bit of loss to your competitiveness, but you'll just have to get used to it... we warned you about this, look, its in section 12.a.3 paragraph 4... Im sorry Mr. Dark Side, you signed the disclaimer'

the_dark_side

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You're starting to sound like some sort of religious nut, refusing medical treatment, because the science is gobbledygook and the work of the devil.

I think at this stage the doctors should give you a wheelchair, and let you head off and be a cripple, or have you declared legally insane and fix you anyway.

Either way they should decouple you from the 26 other patients in the room who are waiting to have the same operation, but can't until you stop wasting the doctors time.

Hmm, analogies are fun, but ultimately stupid.

Thank you... you have illustrated exactly what I find is the attitude of many of the pro Lisbon lobby. Pontificating from 'on high' to the lowly peasantry, who could never comprehend the lofty structures of these greater plans. 'Cast aside these nuisances that wont comply with us, throw them into wheelchairs, they are technically insane...

deny this pleb of his right to decide, carry out the operation whether he wants it or not, he is clearly wasting our time...'

By the way, none of the 26 other patients want this operation either

P.S. Did I see someone use the analogy of a magic 8 ball somewhere earlier in this thread?

PopeBuckfastXVI

the_dark_side wrote: »

Thank you... you have illustrated exactly what I find is the attitude of many of the pro Lisbon lobby. Pontificating from 'on high' to the lowly peasantry, who could never comprehend the lofty structures of these greater plans. Cast aside these nuisances, throw them into wheelchairs, they are technically insane...

deny this pleb of his right to decide, carry out the operation whether he wants it or not, he is clearly wasting our time...

By the way, none of the 26 other patients want this operation either

P.S. Did I see someone use the analogy of a magic 8 ball somewhere earlier in this thread?

Actually it was more of a simile.

And I'm 'pontificating' (nice reference to my username!) to your analogous persona, being as we have strayed so far in the analogy, as to no longer be applicable to Lisbon, or reality.

But anything to stoke up a bit of righteous indignation eh?

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

so I decide to have the operation after much coaxing and convincing by all around me

When I come around I go look in the mirror, I look pretty much the same...
So when Im asked how do I feel... I dont seem to be able to project my voice as much, I have lost a few degrees of my lateral vision, and I seem a little shorter, or I could be imagining it.
So I storm into the expert's office...
'My operation hasnt turned out as I had expected it would. I thought you said there would be no noticeable changes, and little side effect! I want this put right... now!'

They reply, 'Sorry Mr. Dark Side, the procedure is irreversible. Dont worry about your loss of voice, we know you are still there, and as for your height, it will mean a bit of loss to your competitiveness, but you'll just have to get used to it... we warned you about this, look, its in section 12.a.3 paragraph 4... Im sorry Mr. Dark Side, you signed the disclaimer'

And if the operation is OK? After all, if you predicate your argument on the idea that there will be negative consequences, then it's really just a reprise of "vote No because bad stuff will happen".

On the analogy, though, it's interesting - how many posters would consider having, say, surgery to improve blood flow to the brain? Or - let's put it a slightly different way - how many would consider the use of 'concentration-enhancing' drugs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Thank you... you have illustrated exactly what I find is the attitude of many of the pro Lisbon lobby. Pontificating from 'on high' to the lowly peasantry, who could never comprehend the lofty structures of these greater plans. 'Cast aside these nuisances that wont comply with us, throw them into wheelchairs, they are technically insane...

deny this pleb of his right to decide, carry out the operation whether he wants it or not, he is clearly wasting our time...'

By the way, none of the 26 other patients want this operation either

Erm, no. I'm sorry - that particular claim is absolutely nothing more than hot air. If you like, you're welcome to claim that there are people in each of the 26 other countries that oppose Lisbon (in the analogy, that might translate to 'having doubts'), but I'm 100% sure you can't prove the truth of what you're claiming there.

reprovingly,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Tony EH wrote: »

Apologies, you actually stated "I can't say I'd be too worried about it...", which is in the same vein as "Id have no problem voting again...".

It's still a blase response.

No matter what way you try to dress it up, if a 'Yes' vote was ignored, the 'Yes' camp would be up in arms and I'd agree.

Considering I haven't noticed you making one Treaty-based argument on Lisbon (the only argument I have any respect for), I'm sure you'll be able to read with your interweb psychic ability that your opinion doesn't really matter to me. GL.

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if the operation is OK? After all, if you predicate your argument on the idea that there will be negative consequences, then it's really just a reprise of "vote No because bad stuff will happen".

On the analogy, though, it's interesting - how many posters would consider having, say, surgery to improve blood flow to the brain? Or - let's put it a slightly different way - how many would consider the use of 'concentration-enhancing' drugs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi, yes, I would take concentration enhancing drugs... but on the condition that I knew that they are safe, have been tested and are known to have no detremental side effects. I might also talk to other people who have taken them, plus I would do a bit of online research. In fact peppermint and lemongrass both are known to improve concentration.

There was a time though, where I did experiment with the unknown. No information was available to me about what I was taking, or what it may do to me, side effects etc. The only reason I tried this drug was because everyone else was doing it and told me it was great, even people who's opinion I respected, and who I thought of as being strong of character. Pure peer pressure...

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

Hi, yes, I would take concentration enhancing drugs... but on the condition that I knew that they are safe, have been tested and are known to have no detremental side effects. I might also talk to other people who have taken them, plus I would do a bit of online research. In fact peppermint and lemongrass both are known to improve concentration.

OK, and whose testing and analysis would you accept?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

There was a time though, where I did experiment with the unknown. No information was available to me about what I was taking, or what it may do to me, side effects etc. The only reason I tried this drug was because everyone else was doing it and told me it was great, even people who's opinion I respected, and who I thought of as being strong of character. Pure peer pressure...

And you voted No!

the_dark_side

K-9 wrote: »

And you voted No!

This is my very point, I didnt vote no. I voted 'Yes, I'll try some of those drugs that I know nothing about, everyone else seems happy to go along with it...'

In a way, its a bit like the way the people of Ireland were led along by our media, then by each other into buying property, even though there were those of us that stood back for a second and said... wait a minute, this place cant be worth €400,000, get a grip.... but these people were discredited, and laughed at.

And now, the majority that didnt listen to them, had wished they had

(I cant help turning everything into an analogy Ive just realised)

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, and whose testing and analysis would you accept?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have little choice but to accept the analysis of the people who test my antibiotics, toothpaste, lemsip, Anadin, wine, beer, eye drops, shampoo, etc. but only to a certain degree.

Evidence is abundant now, that consumers have been misled for years on the safety of products which have been released onto the market, where science has known otherwise, but have been paid to remain silent. There are many examples of this. Aspartame being one that springs to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame

Melamine being another more recent example (this is a scandal):

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=670

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

Erm, no. I'm sorry - that particular claim is absolutely nothing more than hot air. If you like, you're welcome to claim that there are people in each of the 26 other countries that oppose Lisbon (in the analogy, that might translate to 'having doubts'), but I'm 100% sure you can't prove the truth of what you're claiming there.

reprovingly,
Scofflaw

I am going to get back to you on this... a better way of putting it would have been to say that the majority of the 26 other countries were against it.. anyways

the_dark_side

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually it was more of a simile.

And I'm 'pontificating' (nice reference to my username!) to your analogous persona, being as we have strayed so far in the analogy, as to no longer be applicable to Lisbon, or reality.

But anything to stoke up a bit of righteous indignation eh?

I thought you might like the Pontiff reference :pac:... I think that you have me all wrong. My intention is not to stir the effluent... I am not anti Lisbon Treaty, I havent read it fully yet to draw this conclusion, but Im trying.

What I am vehemently opposed to is the dangers of blind loyalty to our political leaders..particularly in light of their their more recent administrative policies? Taking into account the position Ireland has now found itself in as a result of these policies, how on Earth are we to follow their advice on how we vote on this referendum?

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

I thought you might like the Pontiff reference :pac:... I think that you have me all wrong. My intention is not to stir the effluent... I am not anti Lisbon Treaty, I havent read it fully yet to draw this conclusion, but Im trying.

What I am vehemently opposed to is the dangers of blind loyalty to political leaders..are they not beyond criticism in regard to their administrative policies? And in light of the position Ireland has now found itself in as a result of these policies, how on Earth are we to follow their advice on how we vote on this referendum?

As it stands I read the Treaty before ever Cowen did, so to claim that I am following his advice in voting is nonsense - we're not following their advice, we're only voting the same way.

independently,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

Scofflaw wrote: »

Erm, no. I'm sorry - that particular claim is absolutely nothing more than hot air. If you like, you're welcome to claim that there are people in each of the 26 other countries that oppose Lisbon (in the analogy, that might translate to 'having doubts'), but I'm 100% sure you can't prove the truth of what you're claiming there.

reprovingly,
Scofflaw

I shoud have said 'most' countries would reject the treaty, not all... but dont take my word for it,

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

the_dark_side

the_dark_side wrote: »

This is my very point, I didnt vote no. I voted 'Yes, I'll try some of those drugs that I know nothing about, everyone else seems happy to go along with it...'

In a way, its a bit like the way the people of Ireland were led along by our media, then by each other into buying property, even though there were those of us that stood back for a second and said... wait a minute, this place cant be worth €400,000, get a grip.... but these people were discredited, and laughed at.

And now, the majority that didnt listen to them, had wished they had

(I cant help turning everything into an analogy Ive just realised)

I realise that the latest news on the swine flu vaccine is applicable to my previous analogy in this thread...... hands up everyone who will be going to the community centre for their swine flu vacine in a few months time?

I think I'll give it a skip

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

I shoud have said 'most' countries would reject the treaty, not all... but dont take my word for it,

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

I'm afraid there isn't anything I'd take McCreevy's word for either - indeed, I'm slightly more likely to take yours. What's a little perverse is that I'm sure the vast majority of No voters would agree that McCreevy's word is worthless - except, apparently, when he says something they agree with.

As to the swine flu vaccine - I'll be taking the advice of an old friend who's an epidemiologist, but I'm inclined to take it.

cordially,
Scofflaw