Board index » The Soup

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1174
Location: In the Sandpit.
snaps wrote:
@london_irish
Quote:
your argument is that the Irish Catholic Church didn't actually murder people


No where did PTG say that. :roll:

It's inferred. Are you suggesting they did murder people?
But perhaps not as many as the red menace?

Some shut down this thread for the love of god.


Last edited by london_irish on Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 752
Yes, of course they did. Many people throughout their history. My problem is that you mis-read/mis-represented his argument and this confuses the thread even more.

He said (benign institution in comparison to)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1174
Location: In the Sandpit.
snaps wrote:
Yes, of course they did. Many people throughout their history. My problem is that you mis-read/mis-represented his argument and this confuses the thread even more.

He said (benign institution in comparison to)

So what. Comparisons are stupid here. And this particular comparison is particularly stupid. That's my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 752
In your opinion, the Comparisons is stupid here...
But you see it was a general point of opinion not a scientific proof. (Which it sounds like you are looking for.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1174
Location: In the Sandpit.
snaps wrote:
In your opinion, the Comparisons is stupid here...
But you see it was a general point of opinion not a scientific proof. (Which it sounds like you are looking for.)

I have to refer to my earlier answers. Прощай!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2556
Thinking about it further, Shame was a big deal in this referendum campaign. I had said:

GameBlame wrote:
Like King Lear on the Heath you rant and rave, but you're not all mad. Growing up in the era you did you'd need to be fully mad not to see that Shame and Shaming was a big deal in Ireland. That's gone now. And that's another contributory to Yes. This isn't an Ireland only phenomenon, shame is disappearing everywhere. And that's good and bad. Of course what Croqette et al don't grasp is that sexual shaming was almost always a female on female tactic and men who engage it are not really masculine at all. It suits the narrative to blame the patriarchy rather than fellow sisters


But that's only half the story. Shaming is alive and well in Ireland, only its changed. And thar change was reflected in the campaign. The Far Left love using shame as a tactic, and it's beloved by the soft Left too. Coles2 says things like "xyz should hang their head in shame because..." all the time. Shaming is a mostly female tactic and so many of the SJWs are female so it's a default tactic to them

In the Ireland of the early 80s etc shaming re abortion and pregnancy was about sinning against the community's values. That the sort of women who got pregnant were fallen women of low morals. Their low morals from the community's perspective being self centredness, inability to delay gratification and licentiousness and wickedness in killing another life. Feeling shame about such things is now clearly completely gone.

The Shaming used by Yes campaign has transformed into: Ireland as a society should feel ashamed at
- exporting its crises pregnancies (this triggered the fear of being seen as backward compared to other countries which triggers many Irish people)
- killing Savita
- scaring women who buy abortion pills online. Leaving them bleeding and alone
- placing any limits on individual autonomy (triggering relativism, you don't have the right to tell anyone what they're doing is wrong)
- 'Current Year Thinking' - we should be ashamed this is happening in 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:43 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Posts: 1486
Guys, because it is mostly guys.

Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case.

It's not about shame or martyrdom or whatever. I've seen it repeatedly across this thread and it highlights a fundamental basic ignorance of what's going on.

Her story for Irish women is about pure unadulterated personal fear.
It's not some nebulous abstract thing.

Most women hope to have children.
That inevitably means giving birth.
For Irish women thats going to be in an Irish hospital.
Everyone has heard horror stories from close friends and relatives.
Savita didn't want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who's inaction killed her.

Her experience of being patronized, dismissed and injured by that attitude is something a very high proportion of the Irish female population has experienced when dealing with the maternity services. Most of the time the doctor's get lucky and nobody dies. In Savita's case they didn't.

It's not shame it's fear, there but for the grace of God go I.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 10407
jess wrote:
Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case... Savita didn't want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who's inaction killed her.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along. But the doctor could have taken action within the existing law without needing abortion on demand. That is the lie of the Yes campaign.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5194
ps200306 wrote:
jess wrote:
Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case... Savita didn't want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who's inaction killed her.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along. But the doctor could have taken action within the existing law without needing abortion on demand. That is the lie of the Yes campaign.

The issue in that case is the difference between could have and would have.

Without the complications of the 8th, medicine becomes easier to practice and is therefore more idiot proof.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 14, 2013
Posts: 1871
Eschatologist wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jess wrote:
Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case... Savita didn't want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who's inaction killed her.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along. But the doctor could have taken action within the existing law without needing abortion on demand. That is the lie of the Yes campaign.

The issue in that case is the difference between could have and would have.

Without the complications of the 8th, medicine becomes easier to practice and is therefore more idiot proof.

Idiot proof? Id look into recent reports on virtually all materity hospitals incl ballinasloe portlaoise etc. There very little evidence to suggest the 8th will improve maternity care. There is plenty of evidence increased resources, better equipment and training will improve outcomes. But hey, look over there.

_________________
An increase in the number of paupers does not broaden the market. M. Kalecki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5194
werpen wrote:
Eschatologist wrote:
ps200306 wrote:
jess wrote:
Can you stop with the fundamentally misunderstanding the Savita case... Savita didn't want an abortion. She wanted a baby. She had a miscarriage and ended up pleading for her life to a patronising asshole of a doctor who's inaction killed her.

Pretty much what I've been saying all along. But the doctor could have taken action within the existing law without needing abortion on demand. That is the lie of the Yes campaign.

The issue in that case is the difference between could have and would have.

Without the complications of the 8th, medicine becomes easier to practice and is therefore more idiot proof.

Idiot proof? Id look into recent reports on virtually all materity hospitals incl ballinasloe portlaoise etc. There very little evidence to suggest the 8th will improve maternity care. There is plenty of evidence increased resources, better equipment and training will improve outcomes. But hey, look over there.

I'm not making the case for improving medicine by easing regulations, I'm just pointing out that less complicated stuff is easier to get right.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 10407
Eschatologist wrote:
I'm not making the case for improving medicine by easing regulations, I'm just pointing out that less complicated stuff is easier to get right.

It's not less complicated if a patient like Savita has to ask for the correct treatment. The only case you seem to be making is that we can employ more idiots as doctors.

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The 8th Amendment thread -- who said what
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jun 14, 2012
Posts: 1018
Three separate court applications to challenge the result of the referendum lodged:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/96841 ... igh-court/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:47 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6114
Location: On the Road
london_irish wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Of course what nobody seems to have ever sought to point out is that the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themslwves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century ie the Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any leftist regime in history that I can think of. Yet this is what these people espouse and what they want for Ireland.


This could be because such a comparison is utter bullshit.

You could also say that the Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any righist (is that even a word?) regime in history that I can think of (Pinochet and the Argie Junta come to mind).

When your argument is that the Irish Catholic Church didn't actually murder people....I...I'm kinda speechless myself. This isn't a big or clever argument, I hate to break it to you.

That said I wouldn't mind being imprisoned in the gulags in those horrible socialist Scandinavian countries.

Mantissa, I feel sorry for your thread.

In closing, Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!


Ive been offgrid for two weeks more or less so only responding to this nonsense now.

First off, People before Profit/Solidarity/The Socialist Party etc are self proclaimed Trotskyist outfits. This means that they believe Stalin sold out to some degree in promoting Communism within one country. Trotskyist outfits believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Bolshevism and aspire to some sort of pan-global borderless communist utopia. That means they support the usurpation of the State as understood in its current form. Their tactics are generally described as 'entryist' which means that they will engage with the democratic process simply with a view to destroying it from the inside out as well as taking part in single issue campaigns with the same intention. This is where Coppinger, Brid Smyth, Paul Murphy etc got their start and built their profiles initially prior to getting elected to the Dail (water charges/Bin Charges etc). Repeal has provided them with a further (national) increase in profile despite many of the mainstream Repealers not really knowing what these people stand for ie the enthusiastic promotion of an ideology which caused the deaths of 100 million peple duing the 20th century. This is fact.

Sinn Fein are a self-described 'democratic socialist' party with the emphasis being on socialist. Until recently enough they maintained a private standing army with which they the waged a 30 year war against the Northern and Southern states. Their declared aim is a 32 county socialist Republic. Their leader Ms McDOnald assumed the role of de facto leader of the Repeal movement on a number of national TV and radio debates during the course of the campaign when Varadkar and Harris were in hiding. A significant percentage of Sinn Fein's membership have engaged in or been convicted of crimes such as kidnapping, extrotion, murder etc. One of their current TDs has been convicted of gun running. These again, are facts.

Together, both of the above cohorts constituted a significant sub section of the Repeal movement. Again, this is fact.

Now, please note, the next part is opinion. You'll note that opinion differs from fact.

A minority of members of the Irish Catholic Church are guilty of having committed historical crimes against some of the weakest members of irish society. Its hierarchy were also guilty of seeking to cover them up. For this (IMO) it has rightly lost any moral authority it once had. Howeever, in my opinion its crimes pale in comparison to those of the chosen ideology of the far left referred to above. Likewise, while I appreciate that desperate times often call for desperate measures (and Im not a pacifist), many of the acts carried out by Sinn Feins military wing again, are of a far more serious sort than those of the above mentioned members of the Irish Catholic Church. In my opinion this removes any moral authority statements by the likes of Coppinger, Smyth, McDonald and the rest have made vis a vis the Irish Catholic Church. People in glasshouses etc.

And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the crimes of the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been on a par with kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case....but youre obviously free to attempt to do so.

Furthermore, in terms of why all this deveoped, you'll note that the OP on the other thread stated the following....

Quote:

It's just data; make of it what you will.

Personally I think two things:
1) The shady liberal agenda to stifle the right's speech isn't working. Which is a good thing, because the No side was its own worst enemy in this campaign.

2) While the thread in question seemed to contain a wide range of posters, in reality it was only 10 people in a room shouting at each other (9 of them apparently men).


Later in the thread I stated the following

Quote:
However, it does highlight an issue around the supposed lesson to be taken from the result, and which was also, I would assume, the intention behind the creation of this thread for example ie to suggest that the claims of media bias and disproportionate representation in favour of the Yes side are incorrect and based on what has been claimed to be an inflated sense of victimhood on the part of those who don't toe the liberal regimes ideological line.

While obviously it's difficult to seek to apply nuance to the result of a debate that appears to have been deliberately framed in a manner that would encourage polarization of both interaction and outcome, we do know that opinion polls, to include the last Irish Times MRBI poll, showed that a majority of voters, to include a majority of Yes voters felt that the legislative proposals went well beyond their own personal preference i.e. they favoured Liberalisation but they did not favour abortion on demand.

This view was not represented anywhere, either within the political sphere or the media. Instead two extremities were pitted against each other, neither of which represented the majority view on the matter. For example I've read a number of comments by moderate Yes voters over the past few days saying that thy were sickened by the display in Dublin Castle on the evening of the result.



Youll note that the response to this (to include your own) was hysterical and a suggestion was made that it was indicative of the existence of a racialised/racist Alt-Right conspiracy theory and calls to shut the thread down ensued.

This seems pretty incredible to me and would appear to fly in the face of every aspect of what has passed for what I understand to be the norms that govern western civilisational discourse ie when you posit a theory or hypothesis you are expected to be capable of defending it. By way of example, within academia there exists the system of peer review whereby robust criticism and defence of positions or papers are expected. Likewise, our legal system is adversarial in nature whereby even somebody caught red handed with a murder weapon is afforded a defence appointed by the State, if the accused cannot afford one of his own. The current trend towards shutting down debate or opinion that makes someone uncomfortable ie non-politically correct or non-deferential to the constructed narrative of the day, is not just silly, its actually dangerous in its application. To apply such an outlook to either the educational or legal systems referred to above would be to effectively render themn obsolete. Perhaps this is the intention? Indeed, to seek to disallow discussion on a supposedly collectivist discussion forum is just bizarre.

Of course, many might say that such an approach simply seeks to encourage good outcomes ie those that tally with the narrative of the day. And what could be wrong with that? Well, history teaches us where the creation of such a narrative, if superficial, actually leads. The greatest example of same may very well have been the British Empire at its height which claimed itself to have been engaged in a 'civilising' project of subjects, all equal under the British sovereign. To this end, using India as an example, the outward appearence of the trappings of liberal democracy were created by the British in India in the form of democracy, the parliamentary system, freedom of press, freedom of speech etc etc. All these were instituted by the British not to (as they themselves suggested) civilise the 'natives' or afford them the benefits of said liberal values, but rather to legitimise their own (British) rule....while they of course continued to loot the place over a period of 400 years. I cant help but be struck by the similarities with what passes for the current establishment's outward presentation of a superficial tolerance and diversity that in fact accepts zero diversity of thought, opinion or expression that do not sit neatly within the boundaries of its own chosen narrative.

Cue the hysterical misrepresentation......

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:24 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1174
Location: In the Sandpit.
Quote:
I cant help but be struck by the similarities with what passes for the outward presentation of the current liberal establishment's presentation of superfical tolerance and diversity that in fact accepts zero diversity of thought, opinion or expression that do not sit neatly within the boundaries of its own chosen narrative.
And yet, PtG, here we are....listening to you.

I love this article from WWN:
Quote:
MEMBERS of the No campaign have yet again remarked upon the clandestine media operation in effect against their group while making their 1,145th media appearance of the day in the hours before the broadcasting moratorium took effect at 2pm today.

Across online, print, TV and radio platforms, a steady stream of representatives from the No side spoke at length, uninterrupted, on some of the most watched and listened to programmes in Ireland, to complain for the 56th day in a row that they are being silenced.
:D

Quote:
And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case.

I don't have to, as one example.. Or this.
Since you have decided to bring in the Maoists and Soviets, I figured I'd better go international too. There's more where that came from, too.

But the real reason I think your comments are hilariously hysterical is that.....they are hysterical, basically. You say "....the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themselves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century..."

Then you point at PbP and SF, and use that to cast aspersions on the entire Repeal movement.
The Repeal campaign was a broad movement, of all political persuasions. You seem to forget that senior members of FG were also in support. I can't see our doctors as secret commies..
Yes. PbP/SF/etc were "both of the above cohorts constituted a significant sub section of the Repeal movement". And that is all it is. A sub-section. Don't get carried away.

You exhibit one dimensional, reds-under-the-bed, thinking. Take a deep breath before replying.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

    Board index » The Soup

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com