You're right that I address the wider audience rather than you directly. I apologize if that seems rude. There are a few reasons for this:
* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say.
* Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies:
* You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?)
* You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?)
* You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)
So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).
I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)
So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?
* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say. * Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies: * You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?) * You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?) * You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)
So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).
I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)
So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Political_system
> However, EU law largely does not apply to Greenland except in the area of trade.