Winning Socialism!

[flash2015]

What argument, Flash? That New Statesman article can be summed up by saying they didn't like a particular campaign speech. That's not an argument, just an opinion. That the campaign in question proved to be the most successful in recent British political history surely provides some evidence to suggest that this particular opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Why didn't you make that argument instead of using what was essentially an "ad hominem" argument?

[Octavious]

What argument, Flash? That New Statesman article can be summed up by saying they didn't like a particular campaign speech. That's not an argument, just an opinion. That the campaign in question proved to be the most successful in recent British political history surely provides some evidence to suggest that this particular opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Why didn't you make that argument instead of using what was essentially an "ad hominem" argument?

Because the point Jamie was wanting to make was that there are significant numbers of people who don't think Boris is a good communicator. Whether the New Statesman's article is a load of nonsense or not is irrelevant to the point Jamie was making. My response was, therefore, based on the fact that the New Statesman is a niche left wing publication and that their view (assuming that this one article is representative of it) is not particularly relevant to the generally accepted view of the nation.

[Jamiet99uk]

The Guardian and the Independent are also niche Communist pamphlets, clearly.

[Octavious]

A Guardian reader's letters page isn't even an article, and you said the Independent claims the Coronavirus communications make perfect sense in achieving the government's objectives. If that's the best evidence you can find to support your point it's fair to say you've failed abysmally.

[Jamiet99uk]

I was providing evidence of people thinking Boris is a bad communicator.

Why must that take the form of an "article" ?

[Jamiet99uk]

Note: Please reply in the form of an article published in a journal with a circulation of at least 10,000 copies and with a moderate political stance, or I will ignore it.

[Jamiet99uk]

Also the Independent was making the claim that Boris was attempting to mislead the public. It is interesting to see that you agree with this criticism of your hero.

[Octavious]

Also the Independent was making the claim that Boris was attempting to mislead the public. It is interesting to see that you agree with this criticism of your hero.

My hero? Out of curiosity how many times must I tell you I've never voted for Boris, neither in the form of the Conservative Party under his leadership, nor the Brexiteer side of the Brexit debate, before it finally occurs to you that I don't worship the man. You can be remarkably slow on the uptake when the world doesn't work as you imagine it to. But he is clearly an exceptionally good communicator, and a decent enough prime minister.

I was providing evidence of people thinking Boris is a bad communicator.

Why must that take the form of an "article" ?

It doesn't, although that essentially means that your evidence of Boris' poor communication skills is a hard left magazine and the posts of a dozen newspaper readers. That level of evidence is pitiful. The tweet sized messages of oldeborr and Corbinleytrousers carry substantially less weight than even just your own opinion

[Jamiet99uk]

Octavious: Boris is a wonderful communicator. Everyone agrees!

Jamie: Here are some people who disagree.

Octavious: Those people don't count, because they are Guardian readers, and their opinion does not take the form of an article.

Jamie: Here is an article in the Independent that says Boris is a liar who is trying to mislead the public.

Octavious: Yes, but he's good at it! What a fine Prime Minister he is. It's wonderful to be ruled by such a skilled liar. I do not care about the truth.

[Jamiet99uk]

We are now in agreement that Boris Johnson is a liar. I'm happy to leave it there.

[Octavious]

We are now in agreement that Boris Johnson is a liar. I'm happy to leave it there.

Pretty rich considering the series of lies you told in the previous post . But yes, of course Boris is a liar. All humans are liars, and all politicians are human. Politicians tend to tell far fewer lies than your average person, and indeed yourself, but they are still only human.

[flash2015]

What argument, Flash? That New Statesman article can be summed up by saying they didn't like a particular campaign speech. That's not an argument, just an opinion. That the campaign in question proved to be the most successful in recent British political history surely provides some evidence to suggest that this particular opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Why didn't you make that argument instead of using what was essentially an "ad hominem" argument?

Because the point Jamie was wanting to make was that there are significant numbers of people who don't think Boris is a good communicator. Whether the New Statesman's article is a load of nonsense or not is irrelevant to the point Jamie was making. My response was, therefore, based on the fact that the New Statesman is a niche left wing publication and that their view (assuming that this one article is representative of it) is not particularly relevant to the generally accepted view of the nation.

You claimed though without any supporting evidence that Boris is "generally acknowledged as one of the best communicators in modern politics". Jamie provided links to the contrary...which you launched an "ad hominem" attack on.

Why should I accept your claim as more credible though. You haven't provided a shred of proof to back it up. Can you provide links to show this "general acknowledgment" of Johnson's communication skills from both sides of politics?

[Jamiet99uk]

We are now in agreement that Boris Johnson is a liar. I'm happy to leave it there.

Pretty rich considering the series of lies you told in the previous post . But yes, of course Boris is a liar. All humans are liars, and all politicians are human. Politicians tend to tell far fewer lies than your average person, and indeed yourself, but they are still only human.

What "series of lies"?

What I said was in the general direction of the truth.

[Octavious]

Why on earth would I need to? I assumed, perhaps foolishly, that you'd simply accept the commonly recognised fact. It didn't occur to me that you'd be such a deluded fool to make an issue of it, and in what sense is it worth my while to point out your delusions with evidence? I have no doubt whatsoever that you will maintain your view regardless of any evidence I present you.

Actually, let's do it as an experiment. Here comes some evidence that you will ignore and dismiss

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... is-crines/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1UI1LV

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9578924/b ... h-opinion/

https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/978 ... .00017.xml

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ampstories/b ... index.html

https://amp.reddit.com/r/brexit/comment ... ry_highly/

https://www.fourtold.eu/reflections-on- ... or-or-not/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... cy-critics

There you go. An eclectic mix of sources for you, including a Guardian article. Obviously, being the Guardian, it is little more than a rabid page of attacks, yet even they couldn't help but point out his mastery of the media and the message he wants to get across

If Johnson makes a show of himself, at least he’s the star. When he has a car crash, websites thank him for the traffic. With the biggest UK newspaper groups already behind him, the Conservative leader thus ensures he gets both total control of the message from his friends and the total attention of everyone else.

None of this, of course, will make any difference to you

[flash2015]

Why on earth would I need to? I assumed, perhaps foolishly, that you'd simply accept the commonly recognised fact. It didn't occur to me that you'd be such a deluded fool to make an issue of it, and in what sense is it worth my while to point out your delusions with evidence? I have no doubt whatsoever that you will maintain your view regardless of any evidence I present you.

Actually, let's do it as an experiment. Here comes some evidence that you will ignore and dismiss

I am not even agreeing with Jamie...but why should anyone automatically take at face value your supposed "commonly recognised fact"? The onus is ON YOU to prove it especially when Jamie provided his own evidence. Throwing around petty insults when you are called out don't make your actions any better. Do you actually want to actually debate here with meaningful input or just throw labels and insults around?

And no, projecting a strawman argument which actually applies to your actions doesn't make you look any better.

[Octavious]

Flash, the onus is not on me to prove anything. Why on earth should it be? Jamie can either believe me or not, and I'm not particularly fussed about which path he eventually chooses. If this was a debate between political parties seeking election, or even just a university debating competition, you'd be right. But it isn't. It is a simple discussion on the Internet, there is no audience to win over, there is no reward for convincing the other person to believe you. Whether Jamie sees sense or continues with his delusions is entirely down to him.

[flash2015]

Why couldn't even both be true...that Boris's style was great for Brexit but poor for COVID? I am sure there may be a more nuanced answer here.

[Octavious]

Because the two options are that Boris is generally acknowledged as one of the best communicators in modern politics (the Octavian position) and that Boris is a terrible communicator (the Jamiet position). These positions are mutually exclusive unless you take the juvenile view that all politicians are terrible communicators.

Whether Boris' style has had drawbacks when applied to Covid-19 could be true without disproving either position, sure. But Boris' style in regard to Covid-19 was the basis of neither mine nor Jamie's position.

[flash2015]

Flash, the onus is not on me to prove anything. Why on earth should it be? Jamie can either believe me or not, and I'm not particularly fussed about which path he eventually chooses. If this was a debate between political parties seeking election, or even just a university debating competition, you'd be right. But it isn't. It is a simple discussion on the Internet, there is no audience to win over, there is no reward for convincing the other person to believe you. Whether Jamie sees sense or continues with his delusions is entirely down to him.

I don't understand. Then what are you hoping to achieve from this discussion if you aren't wanting to present some sort of proof for your argument? Do you expect that everyone just takes your word for it ("if Octavious says its true, it must be true!")? Or are you just trolling for an emotional response from Jamie (or others) to insults...and you find enjoyment in it? Or is there some other motivation I am missing here?

[Octavious]

You really have no idea?

Wow...

For me the forum has always had two primary purposes. It provides a pleasant distraction whilst waiting between phases or games (yes, I do enjoy the discussion and hearing alternative points of view), and it allows me to practice some of my argumentative techniques to improve my game. In a game of diplomacy no one has ever won an argument by providing links to evidence, so practicing doing so in the forum is utterly pointless from that perspective.

Trolling for an emotional response? Expecting people to take my word for it? You do have some strange notions inside your head. The number of people who have changed their mind about anything argued on a webDip forum can be counted on the finger of one finger. Occasionally you might learn something about the assumptions and thoughts of people with different positions, but that's about as far as it goes. I don't harbour any expectations about winning people over to the correct view. I am satisfied that they perhaps walk away with a better understanding of my view, and me of theirs.