EU membership referendum debate thread

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 06 Jul 2016, 11:14

johnhemming2 wrote:
Automaton wrote:Only for the already powerful, who use it as a tool for further subjugation :
I mean knowledge is powerful for everyone not just those who are themselves powerful.

It is an equaliser.

It can be an equaliser, but certainly not always, and it's generally a whole lot more useful for those who already have power.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 14:12

Or perhaps those who have power understand the importance of getting accurate information more than those who don't.

I really don't understand the thesis that argues for the merits of ignorance.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Jul 2016, 15:02

johnhemming2 wrote:Or perhaps those who have power understand the importance of getting accurate information more than those who don't.

I really don't understand the thesis that argues for the merits of ignorance.

Then they often go on to misrepresent that information.............

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 06 Jul 2016, 15:09

johnhemming2 wrote:Or perhaps those who have power understand the importance of getting accurate information more than those who don't.

Oh dear me... so the reason knowledge is useful to the powerful is that they're also more intelligent now? Ah, the wisdom of politicians...

johnhemming2 wrote: I really don't understand the thesis that argues for the merits of ignorance.

No-one here is arguing for that.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 15:51

I started with the thesis that it was a good idea to work out what the truth is rather than just read things that don't challenge your world view.

Various people disagreed with me.

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 06 Jul 2016, 16:13

johnhemming2 wrote:I started with the thesis that it was a good idea to work out what the truth is rather than just read things that don't challenge your world view.

Various people disagreed with me.

If that was what you were saying, then you did a rather poor job of putting it across I'm afraid, and I doubt if anyone here would have argued with it if you had said it as clearly as you just did. You implied something quite different..

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 17:24

This is how it started:

Automaton wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:True that it used to be harder to get to the truth. However, it is still the case that people rarely try to find out the truth. They are normally happy reading sources that don't challenge their worldview.
People are normally happy reading sources that don't challenge their worldview because it gives them a feeling that they are right; it comes from insecurity and fear. It's the behaviour of disempowered people, who fear losing what little control they have. Finding out (and even worse, acting on) the truth means change, and change is risky and hard work, and they're already working hard enough (and struggling to do so). But in a democratic system that praises competition above all else, and rewards the 'winners' at the cost of the 'losers', they really don't stand a chance (there must always be many more losers than winners).
So please don't blame 'the people' for the mess we're in; they're as powerless as puppets.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Jul 2016, 17:52

Yes, indeed it is because you made a point about humans and their interaction with information in the absence of any context of power in which that interaction (or lack of) takes place. Which makes it a disingenuous point.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 18:15

It doesn't relate to power. I think it is worthwhile for everyone to try to get accurate and reliable information.

Your (Little John) approach is to try to stop people posting with whom you disagree.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Jul 2016, 18:22

johnhemming2 wrote:It doesn't relate to power. I think it is worthwhile for everyone to try to get accurate and reliable information

Obfuscation

Your (Little John) approach is to try to stop people posting with whom you disagree.

Misdirection

You are a politician alright

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 18:30

I don't see how what I say is unclear.

What is it about what I said that confuses you?

How is what I have said "difficult to understand". How could it be simplified so that it is is not Obfuscated?

It is entirely relevant that you are someone who likes to stop people saying things that you disagree with. Stopping freedom of speech is a tool to avoid people learning the truth.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Jul 2016, 22:18

How is Little John able to stop people saying anything on PS? It is not possible for that to happen. Disagreeing with someone is valid, though not necessarily endearing. If someone makes a questionable statement here, then it is reasonable to question it. The OP then has the facility available to reply. It's called debate. You question points made by others. We all make points from time to time which are biased to some extent, or in some cases just wrong. It's how government operates too.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 06 Jul 2016, 22:53

He has tried to get me banned from the forum on a number of occasions.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 06 Jul 2016, 23:04

woodburner wrote:How is Little John able to stop people saying anything on PS? It is not possible for that to happen. Disagreeing with someone is valid, though not necessarily endearing. If someone makes a questionable statement here, then it is reasonable to question it. The OP then has the facility available to reply. It's called debate. You question points made by others. We all make points from time to time which are biased to some extent, or in some cases just wrong. It's how government operates too.

UE, I think it was, made a thread arguing for this joker being kicked off here. I agreed with him. Hemming is indeed a poisonous establishment shill. However, not my finest moment, but I'm certainly not sorry for the sentiment behind it.

Given Hemming's politician's instinct for not actually engaging in honest debate which was, of course, the basis of the sentiment, he likes to use the regurgitation of this as a method of distraction whenever he is cornered on some point of argument. Which, it goes almost without saying, is pathetic. But, there we are. I suppose we or, rather, I should be grateful since it only serves to illustrate his contempt for honest intellectual debate and so undermines anything else he may have to say.

I am guessing here, but I suspect his politician's weasel instincts inform him that this is likely to be a weak point for me since many of my posts are infused, one way or another, with a moral outrage. Not as an affectation, but just because that's the way I am built I guess. He will know full well that for me to have sided with an argument for the banning of someone on here, in a moment of moral weakness, would go against pretty much everything else I believe in and would not sit well with me subsequently. Therefore he likes to have a poke at that particular scab every now and then simply because he can. Which, I would argue, says more about him and his modus operandi that it does about me. But, as I said, there we are.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 07 Jul 2016, 07:29

Little John wrote:Given Hemming's politician's instinct for not actually engaging in honest debate,

What have I said that was not true?