LISBON TREATY PANIC IN TURKEY - Vote NO!

The Volt

I think we should make the people of Turkey aware of the UKIP's racist, sick leaflet distribution and see what kind of a response they give

ei.sdraob

Voltwad wrote: »

I think we should make the people of Turkey aware of the UKIP's racist, sick leaflet distribution and see what kind of a response they give

is there a Turkish equivalent of boards.ie?

I think the people there deserve to see the racist crap being send to our homes

by these unelected elites from Britain


/

The Volt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is there a Turkish equivalent of boards.ie?

I think the people there deserve to see the racist crap being send to our homes

by these unelected elites from Britain


/

*runs to google*

ei.sdraob

Voltwad wrote: »

*runs to google*

Whats really sickening

is that Turkish people might think

that we in Ireland are racist *****

when in fact these leaflets are being sent by certain scumbags from another country


:mad:

The Volt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whats really sickening

is that Turkish people might think

that we in Ireland are racist *****

when in fact these leaflets are being sent by certain scumbags from another country


:mad:

http://www.forumturkiye.com/

Only problem is that it's in Turkey. How are we going to approach this?

Scofflaw

Only problem is that it's in Turkey. How are we going to approach this?

My advice would be not to do it. That Irish people produce this kind of stuff is bad enough, without those of us who are against it putting it under Turkish people's noses. People like that are unrepresentative of Ireland - the place to make that clear would be on Youtube.

cordially,
Scofflaw

eightyfish

ei.sdraob wrote: »

she never heard of Occam's razor?

She doesn't shave.

The Volt

Scofflaw wrote: »

My advice would be not to do it. That Irish people produce this kind of stuff is bad enough, without those of us who are against it putting it under Turkish people's noses. People like that are unrepresentative of Ireland - the place to make that clear would be on Youtube.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Point taken, I just feel they've a right to know what they're being depicted as etc

DaSilva

Scofflaw wrote: »

Finally, what the hell is any sane person doing on the side of the kind of crude, lying, low-lives that would make this kind of racist vomit?

Scofflaw, are you saying that because there are morons on the 'vote no' side, that people should vote yes just to distance themselves from these people? This is the same "anything to get you to vote my way" approach the morons who made that video are taking.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also the font used to write the subtitles is the same font used to write *vote no* at the end, judging by its style it would be one of the defaults that come with the adobe premiere package.

Another big clue, is that the news caster is speaking Arabic, and Arabic is not very common in Turkey. Also you can make out that she mentions "Frankfurt", "Kurdistan" and "Turkiye" but never mentions Ireland or Dublin.

Also the news agency is Saudi Arabian as far as a I know.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whats really sickening

is that Turkish people might think

that we in Ireland are racist *****

I wouldn't worry about it much, there has already been plenty to damage our reputation in the past, I don't know if you remember the GAMA and "kebabs" things a few years back.

Scofflaw

DaSilva wrote: »

Scofflaw, are you saying that because there are morons on the 'vote no' side, that people should vote yes just to distance themselves from these people? This is the same "anything to get you to vote my way" approach the morons who made that video are taking.

No, it was simply an expression of revulsion. Nobody who votes No necessarily has any art, part, or connection with the kind of people who made this video - but on the other hand, I would certainly have a problem with anyone who defends the kind of tactics that have emerged in this referendum.

DaSilva wrote: »

Another big clue, is that the news caster is speaking Arabic, and Arabic is not very common in Turkey. Also you can make out that she mentions "Frankfurt", "Kurdistan" and "Turkiye" but never mentions Ireland or Dublin.

Also the news agency is Saudi Arabian as far as a I know.

I wouldn't worry about it much, there has already been plenty to damage our reputation in the past, I don't know if you remember the GAMA and "kebabs" things a few years back.

Good point. Makes one think, though, that this sort of thinking is more endemic than one might like.

I see the taxi posters follow the same kind of line - the turkey on the posters is a very obvious reference.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

Im a no voter and i find that video ridiculous.

Posted to paint all no voters as right wing loons.

More empty hyperbole from the yes side.

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html

Great article in todays sunday business post on the treaty. Typical left wing nutters that they are.

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Im a no voter and i find that video ridiculous.

Posted to paint all no voters as right wing loons.

More empty hyperbole from the yes side.

http://www.sbpost.ie/commentandanalysis/euro-federalists-bully-us-and-buy-our-vote-44635.html

Great article in todays sunday business post on the treaty. Typical left wing nutters that they are.

It's not posted "to paint all no voters as right wing loons". Get over the idea that absolutely everything is an attempt to paint someone or other as something or other.

It's a video that demonstrates a particular attitude - to Turkey, to immigration, to truth - that has surfaced in this referendum. It's not a joke, or a false flag operation.

regards,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not posted "to paint all no voters as right wing loons". Get over the idea that absolutely everything is an attempt to paint someone or other as something or other.

regards,
Scofflaw

well i cant figure out why else youd start a whole new thread on it only to do that.

GroundHog

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't usually post a Video OP (or any video) but this deserves special treatment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_gfc2IP1Hc

For those who can't see the video, it shows some kind of crowd scene at a Turkish airport, and features the following captions:



I find this sort of thing quite nauseating. It's also full of unintentional irony: first, the "missplling" (sic) in the caption about the misspelling, but more importantly, the map shown is of the Eastern Med, which, along with the tear in it, suggests that the scenes shown probably relate to Cyprus - the main reason why Turkey can't get into the EU.

To reiterate for those who are under a misapprehension:

(1) Lisbon has nothing to do with Turkish accession - there is no cap on numbers in Nice, so accession will be just as possible with a No vote as a Yes vote, it makes no difference.

(2) Turkey has currently completed only 1 chapter of 35 chapters that need to be negotiated before entry, and 8 chapters are currently blocked by the issue of Cyprus, and cannot be negotiated at all.

(3) If Turkey does accede to the EU (and Germany and France would both prefer that it doesn't), it is not likely to happen before about 2023, and even then there's likely to be at least a decade of 'transition' before Turks would be allowed freedom of movement.

Finally, what the hell is any sane person doing on the side of the kind of crude, lying, low-lives that would make this kind of racist vomit?

nauseated,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Really-Stressed wrote: »

well i cant figure out why else youd start a whole new thread on it only to do that.

Then perhaps you ought to broaden your outlook beyond the confines of winning a Yes or No vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

well thats not something id do on a thread devoted to such.

BlitzKrieg

video has been taken down by user

did someone report him?

thebman

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

video has been taken down by user

did someone report him?

Yeah me, first time I've reported a yt video too.

Just a little too crazy and wrong. I reported it for being racist.

I'm sure he'll have a new one up about yt censorship in a week.

BlitzKrieg

its the second lisbon video that has been taken down that I wrote a list of errors in the video that have been taken down

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Turkey has no chance of completing in 4 years - nor would there be any point in doing so, since both Sarkozy and Merkel are opposed to accession.

By the way, do you ever read to the end of a paragraph? Or do you just assume no-one will bother reading the link?



Really, O'Morris, that puts you rather further in the direction of the video than I would have thought you were comfortable with.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well at least we agree on some points. Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say with or without Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Well at least we agree on some points. Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say with or without Lisbon.

That's not in fact what was said but carry on anyway

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not in fact what was said but carry on anyway

It seems to be a widespread problems these days.

Poster 1: That point is is not true because ......

Poster 2: So what you are saying is all No voters are <insert sweeping generalisation that was never mentioned by the OP>

Poster 1:

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not in fact what was said but carry on anyway

Well if he agrees there is no point because Merkel and Sarkozy are against it, what infact is he saying?

Do I have to keep guessing until I get the answer right according to your view of the world?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Well if he agrees there is no point because Merkel and Sarkozy are against it, what infact is he saying?

Do I have to keep guessing until I get the answer right according to your view of the world?

What he's saying is that Turkey have no chance of getting in within 4 years because they have not met the requirements and even if they did, all member states would have to agree and Sarkozy and Merkel don't. His point is that even if Ireland doesn't vote against Turkish accession for whatever reason, Sarkozy and Merkel will so it will be blocked. They are not calling the shots, they are 2 of 27 nations that have an equal say in calling the shots. We have as much power to block Turkish accession as them.

rumour

I've checked the quote and no i'm right here, but your opinion is valid.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I've checked the quote and no i'm right here, but your opinion is valid.

Your opinion is that "Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say" but the reality is that every country has the final say and their say carries no more weight than ours. So how are you right here?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your opinion is that "Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say" but the reality is that every country has the final say and their say carries no more weight than ours. So how are you right here?

I was just agreeing with someone. I fail to see how you can give it any other meaning.

Opinion is entered by trying to give further meaning to the words I used, which is what you are doing, I never mentioned weight etc. So I am right with regard to what was infact displayed on the screen.

I'll let you have the last word as I feel you are compelled on this issue.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I was just agreeing with someone. I fail to see how you can give it any other meaning.

Opinion is entered by trying to give further meaning to the words I used, which is what you are doing, I never mentioned weight etc. So I am right with regard to what was infact displayed on the screen.

You said that "Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say" where the reality is that all 27 nations, including all 27 parliaments have the final say.

rumour wrote: »

I'll let you have the last word as I feel you are compelled on this issue.

I think it's hilarious when people say this. It goes thusly:

1. Poster makes an unfounded statement that they can't defend
2. Statement gets refuted
3. Poster makes his best effort to try to defend it or tries to back tracks
4. Statement gets refuted again

We then have a dilemma. The poster has a very weak position and if it continues any longer this will become even more apparent than it already is. But, like a lightning bolt from heaven, an idea comes: you say you'll "allow them to have the last word". The desired effect has many facets:

1. It attempts to portray that the issue is unimportant to you and that you care very little about it, although you cared enough to post it (you hope that no one notices this)
2. It attempts to convey that your opponent is making a fuss over nothing and that simply the act of replying will confirm this, regardless of what is said (you hope no one notices if the post destroys the original point). By making an ad hominem attack you are in fact attempting to have the last word by trying to make your opponent look ridiculous simply for replying to this "unimportant matter".
3. If your opponent calls your bluff by choosing to reply and you can't respond to what he said, it gives you the perfect excuse to duck out of the debate without admitting as much by saying that you don't care about the issue and that your opponent is laughable for continuing. Of course in saying this the poster has responded and therefore has not given anyone the last word. Usually at this stage the original unfounded statement is stuck somewhere in the post too (as it was in yours) in the vain hope that no one will notice that he is still making this statement that he apparently cares so little about and is merely insulting his opponent in the hopes that he will be shamed into not replying
4. If all goes well your opponent falls for this, you get to duck out without ever admitting that you were wrong and if you're really lucky you succeed in making someone who destroyed your point look ridiculous just for replying to you.

In short, "allowing someone to have the last word" is the last ditch attempt at an ad hominem attack by a defeated man. Luckily the good posters of boards do not fall for such things

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Turkey has no chance of completing in 4 years - nor would there be any point in doing so, since both Sarkozy and Merkel are opposed to accession.

Well at least we agree on some points. Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say with or without Lisbon.

Since accession requires unanimous acceptance, any country objecting prevents Turkey from acceding. The most prominent opponents at the moment are Sarkozy and Merkel, but the most persistent opponent is in fact Cyprus, for obvious reasons. Until Cyprus is prepared to accept Turkish accession, there will be no Turkish accession.

Presumably that means that Cyprus 'has the final say'? Do we live in a Cypriot-dominated EU?

amused,
Scofflaw

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said that "Merkel(Germany) and Sarkozy(France) have the final say" where the reality is that all 27 nations, including all 27 parliaments have the final say.



I think it's hilarious when people say this. It goes thusly:

1. Poster makes an unfounded statement that they can't defend
2. Statement gets refuted
3. Poster makes his best effort to try to defend it or tries to back tracks
4. Statement gets refuted again

We then have a dilemma. The poster has a very weak position and if it continues any longer this will become even more apparent than it already is. But, like a lightning bolt from heaven, an idea comes: you say you'll "allow them to have the last word". The desired effect has many facets:

1. It attempts to portray that the issue is unimportant to you and that you care very little about it, although you cared enough to post it (you hope that no one notices this)
2. It attempts to convey that your opponent is making a fuss over nothing and that simply the act of replying will confirm this, regardless of what is said (you hope no one notices if the post destroys the original point). By making an ad hominem attack you are in fact attempting to have the last word by trying to make your opponent look ridiculous simply for replying to this "unimportant matter".
3. If your opponent calls your bluff by choosing to reply and you can't respond to what he said, it gives you the perfect excuse to duck out of the debate without admitting as much by saying that you don't care about the issue and that your opponent is laughable for continuing. Of course in saying this the poster has responded and therefore has not given anyone the last word. Usually at this stage the original unfounded statement is stuck somewhere in the post too (as it was in yours) in the vain hope that no one will notice that he is still making this statement that he apparently cares so little about and is merely insulting his opponent in the hopes that he will be shamed into not replying
4. If all goes well your opponent falls for this, you get to duck out without ever admitting that you were wrong and if you're really lucky you succeed in making someone who destroyed your point look ridiculous

In short, "allowing someone to have the last word" is the last ditch attempt at an ad hominem attack by a defeated man. Luckily the good posters of boards do not fall for such things

Alternatively the opposite is true, your analaytical skills are based on a false premise, being limited to binary analysis can have that effect.

Perhaps I simply know I do not have a point to prove. For example in a two way conversation how correct is it for a third party to state fact?

If you have a definitive answer to that, I may read it for entertainment and may even respond but I am certainly going to LMAO. Am I being defeated?