ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th August 2019, 03:46 AM   #1
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
New survey reveals (young) brits are idiots

UK survey of 5000 people reveals:

“People of every age group, ethnicity and social backgrounds say they would “rather live in a society that focuses on giving people more security” than one that “focuses on giving people more freedom”.
In total, 65% of respondents favoured security, compared to 35% who chose society based on freedom. “

“61% of people believe that “on the whole, jobs and wages have been made worse by technological change”.”

“Younger voters are most authoritarian. Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “

“Older voters are considerably more democratic. Among over-75 year olds, just 3% of over-75s believe democracy is bad. Among 65-74 year olds, fewer than half (48%) support strongman leaders and just one in ten (10%) people support army rule. “


https://www.ukonward.com/thepoliticsofbelonging/
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:55 AM   #2
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,171
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
UK survey of 5000 people reveals:

“People of every age group, ethnicity and social backgrounds say they would “rather live in a society that focuses on giving people more security” than one that “focuses on giving people more freedom”.
In total, 65% of respondents favoured security, compared to 35% who chose society based on freedom. “
We don't have the question but this was probably interpreted as "more security than we have today and keep the freedoms intact" vs "more freedom than we have today and keep the security intact" more often than not. Heck if it was phrased like that I might choose more security. I currently can't think of another freedom I'd like to have, but I'm not perfectly happy with my security situation, although I have no reason to complain there either. If it was an either/or between those two I'd have a choice that brings me nothing vs one that brings me something I don't particularily want or need, but still has a value greater than zero. I'm not willing to sacrifice much in the way of freedom in exchange for security, but if the choice is more of one of those at no cost to the other, I'd currently pick security.

Quote:
“61% of people believe that “on the whole, jobs and wages have been made worse by technological change”.”
Add a "in the past 10/20 years" and this becomes be a rational position to hold. In the past 10/20 years the West lost a large number of skilled jobs for retail and other "McJobs". It's not quite fair to say technology made jobs worse but it is a part of the story - a very large part for the low skilled.

Quote:
“Younger voters are most authoritarian. Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “
I suspect too much computer games really could explain this one. Yes, this one is indeed moronic. But again, they misreported the question - the question seems to be "Is it a good way to run the country by a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Parliament?". This could easily be understood as an embracement of the Presidential system, which is not a bad way to run a country. It has upsides and downsides but importantly, given the difficulties of Brexit a presidential system with elections every other year and a separate election for the executive and legislative branches would probably serve Britain much better than Westminster. Note, it wasn't an or/or question between this and democracy, there were four yes/no questions to answer.

In short it shows about 24% and up to 35% of youngsters are indeed morons. That's quite close to what the IQ curve predicts, probably because many of them think army rule is "cool". Morons.

One thing they didn't quote is that 84% of youngsters and 76% of old people think it's a good idea to have experts, not government, call the shots. That one sounds great until you ask the question "who decides who's an expert?". Most people probably don't realize that issue with technocracy.

https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/...g-Deck-v.4.pdf

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 8th August 2019 at 04:06 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 05:15 AM   #3
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,594
Seems to me the views are considered and arguable.

In dismissing the views as idiotic it leads me to believe that your position is the one which lacks intellectual application.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 05:43 AM   #4
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Seems to me the views are considered and arguable.

In dismissing the views as idiotic it leads me to believe that your position is the one which lacks intellectual application.
“Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “

Whatever you say, youngster.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 07:13 AM   #5
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,594
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
“Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “

Whatever you say, youngster.
The majority don't think army rule is a good idea, Army rule was the least popular of the 4 hypothetical non specific options.

The majority believe in democracy despite the fact we in the UK, and the US for that matter, do not have what many would consider a democracy.
In the US you have a constitutional republic, similarly in the UK a minority of voters can produce a parliamentary majority.
I say in context of the questions not an unreasonable response.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:59 PM   #6
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,646
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
The majority don't think army rule is a good idea, Army rule was the least popular of the 4 hypothetical non specific options.

The majority believe in democracy despite the fact we in the UK, and the US for that matter, do not have what many would consider a democracy.
In the US you have a constitutional republic, similarly in the UK a minority of voters can produce a parliamentary majority.
I say in context of the questions not an unreasonable response.
Well, Brixit shows what happens when you have "direct, pure democracy".
Direct Democracies have a nasty habit of self destructing.
And yeah, someone willing to give up liberty for security (which probably would not be that secure anyway) is if not an idiot,incredibly ignorant.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:33 PM   #7
Ethan Thane Athen
Master Poster
 
Ethan Thane Athen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,031
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
UK survey of 5000 people reveals:

“People of every age group, ethnicity and social backgrounds say they would “rather live in a society that focuses on giving people more security” than one that “focuses on giving people more freedom”.
In total, 65% of respondents favoured security, compared to 35% who chose society based on freedom. “

“61% of people believe that “on the whole, jobs and wages have been made worse by technological change”.”

“Younger voters are most authoritarian. Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “

“Older voters are considerably more democratic. Among over-75 year olds, just 3% of over-75s believe democracy is bad. Among 65-74 year olds, fewer than half (48%) support strongman leaders and just one in ten (10%) people support army rule. “


https://www.ukonward.com/thepoliticsofbelonging/
The 'technology' one may be more a result of the fact we now have one of the largest gaps between rich and poor in our democratic history. People may just be drawing a correlation between that and technological advance. After all, I remember the predictions when I was a kid that such advances would mean much shorter working hours and higher standard of living when actually we're all working longer hours for proportionally lower wages whilst the bosses cream off bigger profits and buy another yacht - that's if automation has left us a job. Damn, I sound like a communist and I'm very far from being that.
Ethan Thane Athen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:33 PM   #8
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,171
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
The 'technology' one may be more a result of the fact we now have one of the largest gaps between rich and poor in our democratic history. People may just be drawing a correlation between that and technological advance. After all, I remember the predictions when I was a kid that such advances would mean much shorter working hours and higher standard of living when actually we're all working longer hours for proportionally lower wages whilst the bosses cream off bigger profits and buy another yacht - that's if automation has left us a job. Damn, I sound like a communist and I'm very far from being that.
It was similar to that during each of the revolutions - industrial, agricultural and everything in between. Those that could reap the benefits of new technology greatly prospered, the ones who didn't stagnated or ended up worse off. Our era is unprecendented in that we're living in the fourth revolution (the information revolution) in just two hundred years. It just so happens the previous revolution (scientific-technical) produced results that were much more suitable to advance egalitarian societies than they were get rich quick schemes and the society got used to that.

According to the largest comprahensive study so far there were ten technological revolutions in the past 4000 years - five in the first 3500 of that era and five since, four of which took place in the last 200 years. It's no wonder society is finding it ever harder to adapt.

The numbers may be disputed, but the message is true: technology is advancing far more rapidly than ever and the fortunes change at a pace unparalleled in history. Vast changes like these benefit some but harm others. People who percieve they got harmed long for the "good old days" (which often weren't) and give answers such as those.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 12:52 AM   #9
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And yeah, someone willing to give up liberty for security (which probably would not be that secure anyway) is if not an idiot,incredibly ignorant.
As someone pointed out above, it's not giving up liberty, it's increasing security as opposed to increasing liberty. And as they say, that could easily be because they feel that there's sufficient freedoms at the moment.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 03:17 AM   #10
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,148
Anyone not willing to trade liberty for security is a nutbag. Laws against murder are trading liberty for security.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 12:02 AM   #11
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 18,476
This liberty for security thing is a false compromise anyway. One is not trading liberty in for security, one is simply restoring the liberty to it's rightful owners, who are a minority of rich and powerful white blokes.

Getting everyone else to agree to that (rather than just the rich powerful white blokes) is usually optional but great distribution if you can swing it.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:47 AM   #12
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,696
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Well, Brixit shows what happens when you have "direct, pure democracy".
When combined with political apathy, ignorance, popular disengagement and an unwillingness to confront media manipulation.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 04:11 AM   #13
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,529
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
When combined with political apathy, ignorance, popular disengagement and an unwillingness to confront media manipulation.
And not letting the young vote.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:36 AM   #14
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And yeah, someone willing to give up liberty for security (which probably would not be that secure anyway) is if not an idiot,incredibly ignorant.
That's a grossly oversimplified battlecry.

I gladly give up my liberty to drive where I want for the security of knowing we're all following the same rules on the road. It means I, and others, are less likely to die.


Do you think I'm foolish to give up this liberty? That we should all drive where we like and hang the consequences?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:44 AM   #15
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
That's a grossly oversimplified battlecry.

I gladly give up my liberty to drive where I want for the security of knowing we're all following the same rules on the road. It means I, and others, are less likely to die.


Do you think I'm foolish to give up this liberty? That we should all drive where we like and hang the consequences?
What’s the Latin for “argument by taking things to the extreme”? Reductio absurdam?

It’s like someone saying “going to the doctor more frequently will help you live longer” and 3point14 countering with “but if you go to the doctor ALL THE TIME then you won’t have time for anything else and will starve, Nyah Nyah!”
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:47 AM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,447
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
It’s like someone saying “going to the doctor more frequently will help you live longer” and 3point14 countering with “but if you go to the doctor ALL THE TIME then you won’t have time for anything else and will starve, Nyah Nyah!”
Except that it's precisely the opposite way round, with dudalb implying that it's idiotic to trade any kind of liberty for any level of security and 3point14 pointing out that a more balanced view can be taken.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:49 AM   #17
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
What’s the Latin for “argument by taking things to the extreme”? Reductio absurdam?
Did you read the post I was responding to? I responded with exactly the same level of subtlety as the mental battlecry that prompted my response.

When something is so absolute (as the post was) then of course the rebuttal is a little ridiculous.


Quote:
It’s like someone saying “going to the doctor more frequently will help you live longer” and 3point14 countering with “but if you go to the doctor ALL THE TIME then you won’t have time for anything else and will starve, Nyah Nyah!”

Yes. Exactly. There's no subtlety, no appreciation for the real world.

Exactly like the false 'liberty or security' dichotomy I was responding to. The world is subtle, bull **** battlecries are useless. It seems you've entirely grasped my point by accident.

My work here is done.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:55 AM   #18
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Except that it's precisely the opposite way round, with dudalb implying that it's idiotic to trade any kind of liberty for any level of security and 3point14 pointing out that a more balanced view can be taken.

Dave
Meh, I thought dudalbs point was an easily understood generality. Perhaps he should caveated with a list of 10,000 obvious exemptions where society does need rules to function and that would have made the post more comprehensible to you?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:01 AM   #19
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Did you read the post I was responding to? I responded with exactly the same level of subtlety as the mental battlecry that prompted my response.

When something is so absolute (as the post was) then of course the rebuttal is a little ridiculous.





Yes. Exactly. There's no subtlety, no appreciation for the real world.

Exactly like the false 'liberty or security' dichotomy I was responding to. The world is subtle, bull **** battlecries are useless. It seems you've entirely grasped my point by accident.

My work here is done.
The context of the discussion was a significant amount of brits preferring strongmen or army rule to democracy. In that context, the liberty or security saying is easily understood.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:17 AM   #20
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,447
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Meh, I thought dudalbs point was an easily understood generality. Perhaps he should caveated with a list of 10,000 obvious exemptions where society does need rules to function and that would have made the post more comprehensible to you?
Perhaps he shouldn't have said it in so one-sided a form. After all, Franklin's original quote is, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Note the qualifiers; Franklin was clearly not saying that liberty outweighs security in all cases, but pointing out the imbalance between rewards and losses in one very specific case. Yet it's very commonly misquoted, by omitting the qualifiers, to try to imply exactly the former. In real life, everyone strikes a balance between acceptable levels of liberty and of security, and it's those who elevate the former to a higher category than the latter who are truly idiotic - and, in effect, committing the very error Franklin was warning against, just in the opposite direction.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:19 AM   #21
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The context of the discussion was a significant amount of brits preferring strongmen or army rule to democracy. In that context, the liberty or security saying is easily understood.

As being grossly oversimplified in absolutely any context whatsoever? Yup.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:20 AM   #22
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Perhaps he shouldn't have said it in so one-sided a form. After all, Franklin's original quote is, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
My thanks. The above makes sense.

The oversimplified, easy to use as a chant, low-rent version is useless in every context.


Quote:
Note the qualifiers; Franklin was clearly not saying that liberty outweighs security in all cases, but pointing out the imbalance between rewards and losses in one very specific case. Yet it's very commonly misquoted, by omitting the qualifiers, to try to imply exactly the former. In real life, everyone strikes a balance between acceptable levels of liberty and of security, and it's those who elevate the former to a higher category than the latter who are truly idiotic - and, in effect, committing the very error Franklin was warning against, just in the opposite direction.

Dave
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:34 AM   #23
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,529
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Well, Brixit shows what happens when you have "direct, pure democracy".
Direct Democracies have a nasty habit of self destructing.
And yeah, someone willing to give up liberty for security (which probably would not be that secure anyway) is if not an idiot,incredibly ignorant.
When we had WWII we all did exactly that. Rationing was just accepted, for example.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:39 AM   #24
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
My thanks. The above makes sense.

The oversimplified, easy to use as a chant, low-rent version is useless in every context.
Ah, in that case my apologies. I’d thought everyone would know enough history to be aware of the full quote it referenced.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:46 AM   #25
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,447
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Ah, in that case my apologies. I’d thought everyone would know enough history to be aware of the full quote it referenced.
I think too many people only know the overgeneralised version, and think it states a profound fundamental truth.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:21 AM   #26
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Ah, in that case my apologies. I’d thought everyone would know enough history to be aware of the full quote it referenced.
It's not something that I'm ever likely to have come across at all. I'm not American, we don't really do American History, why would we?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:29 AM   #27
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
It's not something that I'm ever likely to have come across at all. I'm not American, we don't really do American History, why would we?
I lived in England until I was 30 and know that I’d encountered it during that time. Mind you, I am a history buff but it is also a very common point in political discussion (both in full or the truncated version)
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 01:07 AM   #28
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Ah, in that case my apologies. I’d thought everyone would know enough history to be aware of the full quote it referenced.
The history of the American revolution (though the speech comes from the build up to the french-indian wars) is not something that's generally taught to any great extent in the UK. No great surprise there, really.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:04 AM   #29
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
The history of the American revolution (though the speech comes from the build up to the french-indian wars) is not something that's generally taught to any great extent in the UK. No great surprise there, really.
Yes, if you relied on UK schools as your only source of historical knowledge then you would be poorly informed.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 07:22 PM   #30
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 40,529
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
The history of the American revolution (though the speech comes from the build up to the french-indian wars) is not something that's generally taught to any great extent in the UK. No great surprise there, really.
Any foreign history rates second best in every country. No great surprise there, really.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 02:07 AM   #31
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
And some countries have a hell of a lot of history to cover.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 04:48 AM   #32
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Yes, if you relied on UK schools as your only source of historical knowledge then you would be poorly informed.
Fortunately I don't.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 01:18 AM   #33
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Yes, if you relied on UK schools as your only source of historical knowledge then you would be poorly informed.
Which is pretty much the same as everywhere else.

Some people just don't do history.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2019, 01:07 PM   #34
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,375
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The context of the discussion was a significant amount of brits preferring strongmen or army rule to democracy. In that context, the liberty or security saying is easily understood.
I don't think that's what the data said.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.