Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[SpackleFrog]

she's been naked for the whole of those three years

Cambridge academic stages nude protest over Brexit in front of 30 economists

haha, didn't even realise she'd been doing this for ages!

 

[SpackleFrog]

she's been naked for the whole of those three years

Cambridge academic stages nude protest over Brexit in front of 30 economists

Apparently has been getting naked to make political points for some time before Brexit as well!

 

[kebabking]

If only the naked rambler had published a few papers, he wouldn't have spent so long in Barlinnie.

methinks that as soon as it transpired that the Naked Rambler was a scrawny, ginger, uncooked chip his chances of political victory evaporated!

 

[teuchter]

Those of us who were not swayed by the argument over the last nearly 3 years are not going to be swayed by those arguments simply because she is naked.

So what? You've made your mind up and aren't going to change it. You're therefore irrelevant to all this.

 

[Pickman's model]

methinks

please never say that again

 

[SpackleFrog]

So what? You've made your mind up and aren't going to change it. You're therefore irrelevant to all this.

By that logic, aren't you also irrelevant?

By that logic, isn't basically everyone irrelevant?

E2A: A further step in the Remaniac logic is apparently that everyone that cannot be won to a Remaniac position is an irrelevance.

 

[SpackleFrog]

methinks that as soon as it transpired that the Naked Rambler was a scrawny, ginger, uncooked chip his chances of political victory evaporated!

methinks you should say that again!

 

[Pickman's model]

So what? You've made your mind up and aren't going to change it. You're therefore irrelevant to all this.

you've a range of ludicrous but strongly held opinions - on dogging and toilet doors, for example - but i'd never say you were irrelevant to discussions on those matters. unwelcome, yes, irritating - certainly. but irrelevant? by no means. same here with SpackleFrog - you may not like his views but they're hardly irrelevant.

 

[Pickman's model]

methinks

it's the sort of thing which makes me want to nail your hands to your face

 

[SpackleFrog]

you've a range of ludicrous but strongly held opinions - on dogging and toilet doors, for example - but i'd never say you were irrelevant to discussions on those matters. unwelcome, yes, irritating - certainly. but irrelevant? by no means. same here with SpackleFrog - you may not like his views but they're hardly irrelevant.

Although sometimes irreverant

 

[SpackleFrog]

it's the sort of thing which makes me want to nail your hands to your face

So many things make you want to do that Pickers

 

[Pickman's model]

So many things make you want to do that Pickers

no, you're thinking of the many things which make me want to nail people's hands to desks - it takes something special to make me want to nail hands to faces.

 

[teuchter]

she hasn't got my attention. its just more white noise from someone who'se basic premise is that i'm thick and racist, and who quietly believes that i shouldn't really have a vote on scuh things, and that i should know my station and stick to voting on X Factor or Britains Favourite Dogs and leave the important stuff to people like her.

perhaps she doesn't, but i've no intention of finding out because she hasn't got my attention.

Again, you're not interested in changing your mind, and use your own prejudices to decide what the motivations and premises of others are. So her nakedness or otherwise is beside the point, unless you are telling me that you decide whether or not to listen to people based on whether they have the right clothes on.

 

[teuchter]

By that logic, aren't you also irrelevant?

I'm open to having my opinion changed. You think you haven't changed my opinion to match yours because I'm a moron. Maybe I am, or maybe your arguments aren't good enough.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I'm open to having my opinion changed. You think you haven't changed my opinion to match yours because I'm a moron. Maybe I am, or maybe your arguments aren't good enough.

I love how you've flipped this from me saying maybe the Remaniac arguments aren't good enough to you saying my arguments aren't good enough. Well played. Maybe you're not a total moron.

What are my arguments? Tell me what I think about the situation.

 

[Wilf]

Again, you're not interested in changing your mind, and use your own prejudices to decide what the motivations and premises of others are. So her nakedness or otherwise is beside the point, unless you are telling me that you decide whether or not to listen to people based on whether they have the right clothes on.

With all your provocations, straw men and false extrapolations, you certainly display the tools of your trade. Tool.

 

[Wilf]

unless you are telling me that you decide whether or not to listen to people based on whether they have the right clothes on.

Yeah, that was definitely the point being made.

 

[teuchter]

I love how you've flipped this from me saying maybe the Remaniac arguments aren't good enough to you saying my arguments aren't good enough. Well played. Maybe you're not a total moron.

What are my arguments? Tell me what I think about the situation.

I've not described you as daft or as a moron, so I don't think it's encumbent on me to go and justify such a statement by ensuring I make an accurate representation of your actual position, backed up with evidence.

 

[teuchter]

Yeah, that was definitely the point being made.

It's certainly what the commentary on Victoria Bateman has focused on. Or should I change "right" to "enough"?

 

[chilango]

It's certainly what the commentary on Victoria Bateman has focused on. Or should I change "right" to "enough"?

Where?

 

[kebabking]

It's certainly what the commentary on Victoria Bateman has focused on. Or should I change "right" to "enough"?

actually, its completely the opposite - her stunt just makes her arguments look foolish (on the basis that if her arguments were any good she either wouldn't need to get her bits out to draw attention to them, or that she knows they're a bit sub-optimal, and is using her bits as a way of distracting the public from looking too closely at them - look at the shiney-shiney).

its just desperate, desperate stuff, and nothing is less attractive than desperation.

is there any real comentary on her arguments - does there need to be? the last 4 years has seen the media absolutely chock full of intelligent, well spoken, articulate people warning us of the potential problems and dangers of brexit. are her arguments any different, any more persuasive than those that have gone before - or is it infact just a massive ego at work, telling her that if only she would reach down to the public before they settle in to Jeremy Kyle and a bit of internet bingo during the ads, grab their attention with a bit flesh and then explain to them in small, simple words, spoken slowly for the mouth-breathers and people in velour lesiurewear who live in places like Hull or Kidderminster (wheresoever they might be), then they will finally understand how wrong they were, and look upon her with wonder and thankfulness for their delivery from ignorance and presumption?

 

[SpackleFrog]

I've not described you as daft or as a moron, so I don't think it's encumbent on me to go and justify such a statement by ensuring I make an accurate representation of your actual position, backed up with evidence.

You've just said that:

maybe your arguments aren't good enough.

So I think it is incumbent on you to have some idea.

I'm not asking for detailed evidence either. Just a sentence on where you think I stand in this debate.

 

[gosub]

it's the sort of thing which makes me want to nail your hands to your face

Verily

 

[Wilf]

It's certainly what the commentary on Victoria Bateman has focused on. Or should I change "right" to "enough"?

As chilango has just asked you, could you point out where this has been focused on:

unless you are telling me that you decide whether or not to listen to people based on whether they have the right clothes on.

Thanks.

 

[gosub]

So two years of arguing about what was written on the side of a bus the debate has moved to what was written on a tit.

Brexit wasn't even mentioned in cabinet today.

 

[teuchter]

As chilango has just asked you, could you point out where this has been focused on:
Thanks.

It started here:

Not sure if we've reached peak Remaniac-ery now, but here's a Cambridge economist appearing nude on Good Morning Britain and challenging jrm to a (naked) debate.
Naked anti-Brexit campaigner challenges Rees-Mogg on live TV
She makes some arguable points justifying it on feminist grounds, but the real Partridgesque/The Day Today point comes because she's pixelated. That leaves Richard Madely reading out the slogans she has written on each breast. Words fail me (but not him, obviously)

 

[AnandLeo]

Bit late for that isn't it?

No, not quite. If UK has the will EU will bend over backward for a Brexit deal more in line with EU trade policies than the currently agreed deal not approved by the UK parliament.

 

[Wilf]

It started here:

I don't see any reference to whether she is wearing the right clothes there.

 

[teuchter]

You've just said that:



So I think it is incumbent on you to have some idea.

I'm not asking for detailed evidence either. Just a sentence on where you think I stand in this debate.

Which debate specifically? Let's take the question of the idea that a 'Lexit' was, or is, feasible. I think you think that it was or is. I don't. I can't recall any arguments you've made that have really persuaded me to change my mind. My general impression of the arguments has been 'a bit hand-wavy'. As I said, it might be that I'm a moron, or it might be that your arguments weren't very good. Or both.

 

[teuchter]

I don't see any reference to whether she is wearing the right clothes there.

Happy to change my statement to enough clothes, as I already said. Rather than engaging in a pedantic debate about whether views on the right clothing someone should wear could be reasonably assumed to encompass the extent of that clothing and what is or isn't covered by it.