E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Isn't 'Brextremists' a similar use of language?
Not quite. There are your basic derogatory terms for the other camp, "Brextremists" and "remoaners", then there is the actually deceptive, like calling a no-deal a clean break, because it clearly wouldn't be clean or a complete separation from the situation (which is what the phrase means).
No, because it is obviously meant as a derogatory term. "Clean break" sounds neutral, but is subtly complimentary.
*Deep sigh.*"Clean break" is dishonest; "brextremist" isn't.
Do you and Outrider disagree with people just for the fun of pissing them off? It begins to look like it, with you here, and him on "are humans unique".
The book of Revelation is notorious for being interpreted by those with overactive imaginations to supposedly predict modern day events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone has found a verse in that crazy tome, which they reckon relates to Brexit.
https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/brexit-and-bible-prophecy/
But using the derogatory terms is seeking to portray the other side in a similarly dishonest way.
An obvious insult is not the same as a lie.
It is if it a deliberate attempt to smear people.
Smearing somebody is about making false accusations to damage their reputation. Calling somebody obviously insulting names is not the same thing at all. The terms "Brextremist" and "remoaner" are not attempts to deceive - it's name calling based on what you think about them (namely that Brexiters are extremists and remainers are moaning).
NS,Do you not think there's difference between the ad hom of attacking the person (ie, "Brextremist", "remoaner" etc) and attacking an idea (ie, the euphemism "clean break")?
I think they are both examples of spin.
And referring to people as extremists is surely an attack on their ideas as well?
NS,I agree.Not so sure about that. Calling someone an "extremist" goes to the character of that person (the content of his extremism being a different matter); criticising an idea for being a euphemism on the other hand seems to me to be an attack on the idea itself (ie, the content) rather than the person. They're different classes of spin don't you think?
Try this on YouTube: 'Rod Liddle live: the great brexit betrayal-the Brendan O'Neill show'. Regards to all, ippy.
Liddle is as untroubled by facts as by logic. He repeatedly cites the figure of £9bn as the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU – it is £7.9bn. The House of Commons library report of 24 June on the net contribution says the £9bn does not take account of EU funds given to non governmental agencies in the UK (universities and so on). He thinks Ireland was “forced” by the EU to hold another referendum on the Nice treaty in 2001 – it wasn’t. He thinks the DUP speaks for “the Northern Irish”, even though it gets a third of the vote and does not represent the strongly anti-Brexit majority. He claims Britain could have negotiated a trade deal with the EU before it discussed a withdrawal agreement, even though the EU can’t do a trade deal with Britain until it has actually left. His understanding of the border question – blockchain can solve “almost all” the problems – is childish. He even seems oblivious to the basic history of the UK: “Our boundaries have not shifted much over the years.” (So Ireland neither joined the UK in 1801 nor left it in 1922?)
