Chach

55 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The issue isn’t that he wanted to leave or better his career the issue is what happened in the process of him eventually leaving, having read your post you give valid reasons for him wanting to go which most would accept but you don’t mention what happened when all the formalities had been agreed  between him and both clubs and he went to Chelsea to have is medical and complete the signing. You can say he didn’t want to go there as an injured player but what difference that makes I do not know, he still gets the dream move he wanted and doesn’t take the risk that they buy someone else, and he can do his rehabilitation with his new club and immerse himself in his club. Anyway besides all that and you believing he didn’t want to sign with an injury, then why would you go to the club on the day of medical and to complete the signing. It doesn’t take a lot of working out as to what happened that day even using your lenses it’s pretty clear to see Chelsea saw a clear way of saving twenty million and not having to pay for his wages or rehabilitation, and with possibly a little more money he has agreed to that scenario. Now that might not be perfectly correct but it’s a damn lot closer to being the truth than he decided 30 minutes or before completion of the deal that he didn’t want to sign because he was injured, come on Chach really if you would have said at the last minute his mum and dad rang him as Evertonian’s  pleading with him not leave, I may thought hmm is that a possibility then dismissed it as I dismiss that at the last minute he decided not to sign because he was injured. 

How are you now drawing Chelsea into the conspiracy, they were happy to take him with the injury.

It's much more likely, looking at it with both eyes that he fancied going to Spurs or another team who weren't prepared to take him injured so decided to get fit and look at his options, its not like he thought he was walking into the first 11 of Chelsea week in week out.

What I don't get and I am happy to hear the opposing argument is what is this idea that we are entitled to wring every penny out a player who by and large has been decent servant to the club and in the context of football cost us nothing?

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

I think it’s more the manner in how he left. You can be honest and honourable or you can cost the club that looked after you from being kid £20 million to feather your own nest, not what you would expect from a home grown player and Everton fan. 

That relationship was symbiotic though Palfy, there are other less monomaniacal lenses to view the situation through in the spirit of even handedness for someone who as you say was home grown and an Everton fan.

If you are leaving your boyhood club to try and better yourself for what will likely be the best contract you sign in your career is it not a reasonable expectation between the player and club that you go in circumstances that give you the best chance of succeeding rather than straight to the treatment table?

Now to add to the conspiracy he must have faked an injury!

At the time I thought his relationship with balloon head was one  of the main factors that contributed to his departure, now in the cold light of day and with 20/20 hindsight it might have been he was best placed as someone who had grown up with the club to see the writing on the wall, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to see there's a problem with the culture under the new ownership.

We've got a diamond called Ross Barkley
A toffee that comes from Wavertree
He plays along side Abdoulaye Doucouré
Together at Everton FC
And when you're in the blue
We'll sing this song for you
Because Barkley is a toffee through and through.

It's a yes from me.

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

183,037 cases today, scary.

 

We had one local case of a backpacker who came over the border with it from Queensland and the Premier cancelled all major NYE music events, reintroduced compulsory masks indoors in public places and banned dancing except at weddings, we are now up to about 5 local cases.

We're scheduled to open up intrastate and international borders on Feb 5 when we reach 90% double jabbed, we've had so little practice I suspect it's going to be a shit show.

21 hours ago, Matt said:

Yes. I did. Comparing crops with illnesses in people isn't not even remotely relevant. 

Completely relevant, the technology is identical and the early advancement to use in humans helps demonstrate it's safety.

The majority of experts surveyed conclusively agree genome editing poses no significant risks to the economy, environment, human health or society. This sample of experts thought existing national regulations work to discourage genome editing in many countries; a view that was strongly held in Europe.The current generation of genomic technologies, including genome editing, challenges existing precautionary-based governance approaches. The 2018 CJEU ruling on mutagenesis and the resulting experts' reaction reflect such challenges. A number of EU states are calling for a coalition to update the EU GM legislation with regards to NBTs (Fortuna, 2019). This signals that respective regulatory systems are dysfunctional as they do not support advancement of innovative plant breeding. Our expert panel suggest this is because discussions concerning the risks associated with genome editing, and targeted breeding techniques generally, are driven more by socio-political factors than by scientific principles.

On 29/09/2021 at 16:25, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58711230

This is not encouraging at all. There are reasons strict rules are in place. Although they prevent profit, so I guess fuck nature, horray money. 

What's that supposed to mean, did you even read the article?

Gene editing /therapy are going to be at the forefront of medical breakthroughs, since the discovery of CRISPR Cas9 in 2006 it's already progressed to human trials to treat disease caused by genetic mutations formed the *natural* way.

On 24/09/2020 at 18:47, Palfy said:

We live in a fucked up world mate, and unfortunately we live under the shadow of the two most fucked up Government's in the western world. 
Welcome to the pleasure dome. 

Not even close old mate, you live in a country where every politician in the parliament are all varying flavours of milquetoast liberal, the rest of the western world are voting in people with roots in actual fascism and actual nazism

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006

We have been living in the most peaceful, prosperous period of human history for the last 85 years and a good part of that has to be attributed to relatively benign US hegemony.

The Dunning-Kreuger effect is a cognitive bias that it's very useful to be aware of but cognitive distortions are probably doing the most damage to our politics right now.

Have a read up on catastrophising and have a cup of tea.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/catastrophizing

On 05/05/2020 at 23:11, Palfy said:

We could switch that and say the main problem here is you don’t say what you mean, and find it hard to deal with people who do, hence why Pete gets to you so much. 
Your wanking jibe was not said in the context of what you are saying now, that is clear for all to see, I can’t find any other conclusions to what you meant other than you believe some on here have run the conservatives off the forum and are now wanking in some form of sexual gratification for doing so. 
For me that isn’t an attack on someone’s political beliefs that’s a personal attack on someone’s character, but of course I’m wrong because you don’t do that. 

Well we'll have to agree to disagree I think the the context was perfectly clear, but I do agree that I was saying the left/liberal members of this forum pile on the few conservatives who post on here in a dishonest way. Making extreme strawmans of their arguments when they even bother to address the actual argument. This is a demonstrable fact.

Nobody on these forums "gets to me" at all, particularly people that aren't even liberal and who don't see other members of society as their political equals. Those people are the reasons that democracies fail and become autocratic and all side of politics should censure them even when it's not convenient. 

16 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Well there you go Chach you are what you accuse others of, I’m not trying to offend you mate that’s why I haven’t used any offensive remarks towards you, and why you don’t feel offended. 
But you’re style is to attack others that don’t agree with you, yet complain when other’s do the same to you. 
I think it should be closed because all it’s doing is breeding a lot of whiners and whinging, and you contribute to that. 
If you are going to give it at least be prepared to take it, and remember in life we are not all the same and you are no better than anyone else on this forum. 
So to write that we at least got rid off the last conservatives fellas so wank on, is not the truth and if you genuinely believe that was the objective, then what does that say about you as a person, that you would still want to engage with people like that. 
I think it is only right that you name the people you believe have been guilty of wanking because they’ve forced or caused conservatives to leave?

And why is it so ridiculous to close the political threads on a football forum, bar you having nothing else to contribute on here, like I said there are numerous site’s were you can go and engage your need to talk politics, and you never know you might find more people who are interested in what you have to say, and you might find that more engaging. 
Don’t take it personally please it’s just a thought. 

My style is to attack your political arguments when I disagree with them Palfy, you might take it personally it's perfect natural but it still doesn't make it a personal attack.

I think one of the main problems here is your inclination to take comments literally rather than figuratively, a political circle jerk is a slang term for people in a political echo chamber who only like to have their opinions repeated back to them it is not literally people wanking, same if someone paraphrases a famous quote about "best argument against democracy" it's just a rhetorical device, not an empirical truth.

Let me know if you required any further clarification with "riddles" above.

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

Chach please stop talking in riddles you said the best argument against democracy was this thread, you said it in away as to blame us for conservatives removing themselves from the thread, but seem to absolve yourself from any responsibility of what happens on this thread, that is why I said you are a part of the problem, because you are one of the main contributors to the thread, but you don’t see it that way because you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable than the man stood next to you who has a different view and different way of expressing his views. 
Now I come from a background were a spade is called a spade, I think you like to say a lot and preach to people, but like all good politicians you talk well but say nothing of any worth. 
Now if this place offends or affects you so much you have a choice like all of us not to participate. 
I have looked at when all the political threads started on this forum the first being Brexit in 2016 and the other 4 or 5 after, this as I said before is meant to be a forum for Everton supporters to discuss Everton FC topics, John struck a chord with me when he said this place had gone down hill since the Brexit thread opened, and he is probably right, the mods should consider closing political threads and getting back to the basics of what this forum was designed for. 
And for people like yourself Chach who cannot live without there daily in take of political I know better than you, there are plenty of place you can indulge yourself but for all of us should it be here?

You're not saying anything that bothers or offends me Palfy. Telling me I don't have to participate if I don't like it is not an argument or any kind of meaningful contribution to the discussion and don't make me responsible for the way my posts make you feel I have never attacked you personally, the way you do me.

You've typed out paragraphs there and barely made an argument other than you don't like my style which is also not an argument. If you don't think there's any substance take some of your own advice stop fucking replying.

Close the politics threads? Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

14 hours ago, Palfy said:

Chach you are part of the problem even though you think you know the answers you don’t stop adding to the argument against democracy. 

I don't think I've ever said that I think I have any answers Palf, but I'd like to think that I am not ignorant to the vast complexities of the situations we're discussing so I am always surprised that pointing out that calling the other side selfish/nazis/fascists/c*nts is a bad strategy is met with either opprobrium or silence.

For the record there's no argument against democracy, it's not perfect because it has human nature rooted in tribalism to contend with but has demonstrably delivered the fairest societies in the history of humanity.

22 hours ago, pete0 said:

If it's there quote it, especially don't remember you answering at the eighth time of asking. If it's not there then apologise for being the manipulative liar you are. 

If you're concerned about a person coming into the country and the only basis you have for being concerned is that they weren't born here then yea that racist/fascist. 

What brexit policy did you agree with?

What immigration policy did you disagree with, and why? 

What do you mean by polite society? 

Who said anything about pro rape? You said we should accept people think differently. Rapist, racist, and tories all think differently to me. Why should I tolerate any of them, they all fall into the same bracket that they put their own selfish needs a head of the overall well being of everyone. 

FFS Pete, this is what you do every time your wafer thin arguments are taken apart, refuse to engage with the actual argument, strawman the fuck out of everything. demand I provide a list of non related evidence to something that was a hypothetical. 

If you can't engage with the actual argument then you will be ignored, and not with the ignore button just regular ignored like you way you ignore a small petulant child.

15 minutes ago, pete0 said:

So we should be understanding that people think differently for example rapists? That was a typo, was meant to be racists but I've left it as it reinforces the points more so. 

You're getting warm Petey, if someone is promoting an idea that they are superior to another group of people on the basis of immutable characteristics then that person is a racist and you can comfortably refer to them as such, voting for Brexit on the other hand or being concerned that immigration isn't all upside for everyone is not necessarily racist.

Being pro rape people is not a political viewpoint that anyone holds in polite society and you thinking it reinforces the point demonstrates how muddy your thinking is.

37 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Went mental, expand, better yet quote it and prove it. Likewise quote me and respond to my points. 

As for the lying accusation, highlight it. If not apologise. 

Its all there in black and white in the other thread for anyone to read, Pete.

2 minutes ago, pete0 said:

You don't engage? What do you call this.. Oh you mean you don't engage when you can't defend your fascist cruel values.. Oh okay. 

Again with your lies. Quote were I have been dishonest or man up and apologise. 

Its all there in black and white in the other thread for anyone to read, Pete.

You posted an article by a left wing think tank arguing that the government didn't spend enough money making people aware that their poor lifestyle choices could lead to early death and then peddled that as evidence that the government were analogous to murderers. I pointed the fallacious nature of the argument, you went mental.

I made the point not to say that left wing think tanks shouldn't be making those arguments, but that the other side of the aisle have a perfectly reasonable counter argument that people should also take some responsibility for their own health and that it might not be the taxpayers job to fund everything that your caring heart desires and that not telling people not to smoke is not the same as giving them lung cancer.

You then went off half cocked demanding evidence that they hadn't murdered people with their outrageous lack of spending which was where your dishonesty increased to the point you didn't deserve a response. I predict we'll get somewhere close to that position with your next post.

14 minutes ago, pete0 said:

I'd say history is the best argument against democracy. Please feel free to explain how it is perfectly fine to push fear and lies to get into power though. Or better yet to into hiding again after me calling you out last time. Still waiting for a response by the way. 

I don't engage with you Pete because you're not an honest interlocutor. Ironically with all your anti-conservative ranting, from what I've seen from you on here you don't even believe in liberal values and spout more hate than the people you accuse of the same thing.

On 04/04/2020 at 04:29, MikeO said:

For now if these threads get abusive again they'll be closed.

13 hours ago, MikeO said:

Watching "Brassed Off" (brilliant film) and just got to this bit.

Tories are psychopaths.mov

 

12 hours ago, pete0 said:

Mad that that party ever got in after Thatcher. Half the county are scum bags and/or morons. What policies do they actually have to justify the cruelty? What is actually now better thanks to them? Seriously who supports this shit? 

As a species we really have come a long way in our tolerance and acceptance of people who don't look like us, but fuck me have we got a way to go with people who don't think like us.

I have no doubt that if we survive the coming multapocalypses this sort of myopic political intolerance will be viewed as something akin to the way we look at racism now. For now though the best argument against democracy must surely be 5 minutes reading this thread.

At lease we chased off the last conservatives though hey, wank on fellas!

17 hours ago, Sibdane said:

The polls think so, but they got it wrong about Clinton. It is a good sign that Fox News has Biden beating Trump in FL and PA. 

To be fair to the pollsters she did win the popular vote by 2% and was predicted to win by 3%. They break out a few other weighting issues in this piece,

https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2019/11/19/a-field-guide-to-polling-election-2020-edition/

Apparently a lot of undecideds went disproportionately Trump's way which is curious, I would love to know why that might have been.

This poll called it for Trump the entire campaign, have dug around to find out what they might do differently but no joy. Will certainly be watching this one this campaign, but if this was supposed to predict popular vote, technically and ironically it was the furthest out.

18 hours ago, Sibdane said:

I think I misunderstood your question. 

I meant do you think any others are winnable, a couple of polls have come out since saying its tight in Texas and North Carolina.

Such a dick move.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/28/amash-announces-exploratory-committee-for-president-219357

12 hours ago, Sibdane said:

A lot of Midwest states and Texas. 

Texas! That would be something else. I just checked, they haven't elected a Democratic President since Jimmy Carter.

On 24/04/2020 at 21:38, Sibdane said:

 

I do watch Fox News. I'm from the South; it's everywhere here. It's the  main news source for people in my area and the surrounding ones.

The bold above is why I'm not swayed. 

Is there any other other states in play in your opinion other than Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio (seems unlikely) Penn and Florida?

On 24/04/2020 at 19:33, Matt said:

Your WWE comparison is true for some but not all, it’s a blanket statement with nothing to back it up with. Im not going to waste time searching for a study when I’ve got first hand experience and that you’d just dismiss out of hand. Plus a replicable study would take decades so it’s entirely pointless discussing further. 
 

For what it’s worth, Fox News / Daily Mail / etc and the likes of The Guardian / Independent are one in the same to me; extreme bias preying on people to divide the population further. 

Holy fuck mate you are just getting worse and worse and ironically proving my point, you have your intuitions and you're not interested in looking at any evidence that contradicts it, exactly like Trump voters. You've been presented with mountain of good analysis/data by experts in the field but then declare you're going to stick with your n of 1 anecdotes.

What your are actually proposing is a blank slate view of humanity which has been debunked to death, explains nothing about anything. If you dig down to the actual reasons of our current political discord they actually explain quite lot, not only that but you also see it parallels with history which you are doomed to repeat if you ignore it.

Try and explain the US Civil War, or Reagan and Thatcher with your "biased media preying on people" hypothesis, see how far you get.

Edit: if you want a bigger than N of 1 but still not scientific example of how things get polarised with no one giving an inch and descending into uncivilised behaviour you need only go and have a look at the Brexit/GE whatever thread.

Read the first few pages and see how reasonable everyones position is and contrast it with the end of the thread.

2 hours ago, Matt said:

These aren't stupid people I'm talking about, they're very kind and intelligent people. But they buy the horseshit because there's been a careful divide created over their lifetime and in the last couple of years Fox News has gone out of their way to create this divide further for their own gain; the more there's a divide,

Provide any replicable study that can demonstrate this phenomenon you describe here is actually a thing. Just one.

I've said i before and I'll keep saying it, this is the social/political science version of flat earth theory/climate change denial.

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Friends is a TV show. Fox is a corporation of many things but if we're talking purely about Fox News, it's a propaganda machine. The stories are usually presented completely without fact, it's the equivalent of the Daily Mail but televised. Not all, but the majority. Even when there's something that cannot be lied about, their go to either "yeah, but" or "what if...". Trouble is, it's target audience see it as the only "honest network" (I'm going on my family and their friends in the US) and all other news outlets are those who are lying. When I pointed out that if all news outlets lie, they say not FN. I was generally left slack-jawed.

An example when I was over in Arizona was a "report" on how immigrants where taking over Germany and how the Germans where rebelling against the government. The video and captions they showed were of neo-Nazi groups with signs about master races. How do I know that? I speak German, but the others in the room didn't and said "look at what a mess Europe is in, the people are speaking up". I translated the banners for them and they didn't believe me, saying what Fox was "reporting" was true. 

The aim of Fox News is to push anything that will go against the government in general, more so when it's anything liberal led (they were relatively quiet when Congress was controlled by the Republicans, now Congress is ripe for attack constantly). They have consistently gone against who they don't like, often by presenting flat out lies as facts. Trouble is, the demographic they aim at like loud shouty people because they misunderstand that as confidence and strength. These aren't stupid people I'm talking about, they're very kind and intelligent people. But they buy the horseshit because there's been a careful divide created over their lifetime and in the last couple of years Fox News has gone out of their way to create this divide further for their own gain; the more there's a divide, the more viewers they can get in and convert, the more money they get. They're on par with Alex Jones in terms of agendas and selfishness.

Read my first post, its WWE for low information people with a conservative bias. Identifying that and then making causal links that can't be established with any actual data is just a different kind of low information analysis that doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

It's just left wing liberals wanting to feel informed about the situation rather than getting informed about wtf is actually going on. Two sides of the same very basic coin.