Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…3940424445…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1232
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ....just strikes me as a bit odd that in this day and age we have to have the 'gays are ordinary people too' argument again.


    And I also don't see why adoption has to get dragged into it, seeing as that's going to happen one way or the other.


  • Options
    #1233
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....just strikes me as a bit odd that in this day and age we have to have the 'gays are ordinary people too' argument again.

    Why there are clearly people out there who don't think this. Sure they're wrong but just politely rip their argument to pieces and it'll do more to influence "on the fence" readers than a mod banning the poster. A lot more, the mod banning makes it look like a viewpoint is being suppressed which fits perfectly for any conspiracy minded people.


  • Options
    #1234
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    nesf wrote: »
    Why there are clearly people out there who don't think this. Sure they're wrong but just politely rip their argument to pieces and it'll do more to influence "on the fence" readers than a mod banning the poster. A lot more, the mod banning makes it look like a viewpoint is being suppressed which fits perfectly for any conspiracy minded people.


    ...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.


  • Options
    #1235
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.


    There's a danger in threads like gay marriage that if we banned arguments like the above, we'd have maybe 7/8 posters pro gay marriage backing each other up and thanking each others posts, basically talking to themselves! That doesn't look good either.

    Sometimes it is best to let the community of posters tear an opinion apart.

    Soap boxing we can do something about, posting opinions with little or no back up, seagull type posters, that's stuff we can act on.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1236
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.

    The problem is when the person is challenged to provide any evidence of that and they evade and dodge this whilst repeating the claim. This is where you want the mod to get involved. But if that person shuts up after being shown what they thought was evidence actually was just made up bull****, then this is a good thing no? Or (on a different topic) they show you that, actually there is a limited problem with something that you initially rejected out of hand because you assumed it was the standard "anti-liberal hating group X" stuff.

    Debate and opposing viewpoints are good. What we don't want is just two sides screaming abuse at each other and refusing to even consider the existence of any middle ground.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1237
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    nesf wrote: »
    Debate and opposing viewpoints are good. What we don't want is just two sides screaming abuse at each other and refusing to even consider the existence of any middle ground.
    That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.


  • Options
    #1238
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Manach wrote: »
    That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.

    Some people look at political and social topics in a very black and white way. A moral absolutist will never see any leeway or middle ground.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1239
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    K-9 wrote: »
    Some people look at political and social topics in a very black and white way. A moral absolutist will never see any leeway or middle ground.
    "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because God says it's wrong" is a black and white argument that I would disagree with, but accept someone's right to express.

    "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's a sneaky plot by pederasts" is pretty much just defamatory (perhaps not strictly in the legal sense, but certainly in the broader sense of the word).


  • Options
    #1240
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because God says it's wrong" is a black and white argument that I would disagree with, but accept someone's right to express.

    "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's a sneaky plot by pederasts" is pretty much just defamatory (perhaps not strictly in the legal sense, but certainly in the broader sense of the word).

    The first belief is because they read it in the bible, or the local curate or whatever said it.

    I'd class the second as similar to xenophobic. It's a fear of homosexuals, akin to a fear of foreigners.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1241
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Manach wrote: »
    That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.

    It doesn't presume this. To consider the existence of something is not to assume it, presume it or propose it only to take a look to see if it does or not. Whilst we do have topics where argumentum ad temperantiam does apply we have many many cases of false dilemmas and excluded middles in social issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1242
    bobcoffee
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭bobcoffee


    so gay bashing, is best left to the community as it is easily solved with simple logic.
    if someone lolz.. it gets the mods attention.
    very interesting indeed :P


  • Options
    #1243
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise. Yet countless posts are wasted arguing this again and again, often multible times in the same thread. I would suggest that this be put in the charter much like the Dublin regulation.


  • Options
    #1244
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Nodin wrote: »
    It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise. Yet countless posts are wasted arguing this again and again, often multible times in the same thread. I would suggest that this be put in the charter much like the Dublin regulation.

    shouldn't that be Irish citizen that satisfies the habitual residency requirements?


  • Options
    #1245
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    shouldn't that be Irish citizen that satisfies the habitual residency requirements?

    ?


  • Options
    #1246
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Because
    EU rules prevent discrimination on nationality grounds in relation to social security, so it is not possible to exempt a particular category of Irish citizens (such as returning Irish emigrants) from the habitual residence condition (either in general or for Carer’s Allowance) without extending the same treatment to all EU nationals

    If you are Irish citizen you have to demonstrate you satisfy the habitual residency requirements. Therefore its factually incorrect to say that
    Nodin wrote: »
    It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise.

    What is correct is that one cannot arrive to the ROI and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen that is satisfies the habitual residency requirements which is a rather different thing.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_assistance_payments/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.html


  • Options
    #1247
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Because



    If you are Irish citizen you have to demonstrate you satisfy the habitual residency requirements. Therefore its factually incorrect to say that



    What is correct is that one cannot arrive to the ROI and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen that is satisfies the habitual residency requirements which is a rather different thing.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_assistance_payments/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.html

    I've no idea what you're on about. The fact is that somebody from Poland or wherever cannot arrive here and sign on.


  • Options
    #1248
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've no idea what you're on about. The fact is that somebody from Poland or wherever cannot arrive here and sign on.

    Yes but you request was for
    Nodin wrote: »
    It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise.

    The EU laws mean that its not citizenship thats the requirement its residency/association with the country.
    And if an edited rule is added, something like this

    "Accessing benefits requires evidence of PRSI contributions and/or habitual residency, one can not simply arrive and claim benefits"

    Are the exceptions to this rule going to be noted which are AFAIK supplementary welfare allowance,some family benefits and possibly some HSE based payments


  • Options
    #1249
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Yes but you request was for



    The EU laws mean that its not citizenship thats the requirement its residency/association with the country.
    And if an edited rule is added, something like this

    "Accessing benefits requires evidence of PRSI contributions and/or habitual residency, one can not simply arrive and claim benefits"

    Are the exceptions to this rule going to be noted which are AFAIK supplementary welfare allowance,some family benefits and possibly some HSE based payments


    Supplementary welfare allowance has a habitual residence test.
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/supplementary_welfare_allow.html

    There is no basis for the notion that people can arrive and claim.


  • Options
    #1250
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Not really the place for this discussion...

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1251
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not really the place for this discussion...

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    Its not a discussion I'm remotely interested in having.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90019733&postcount=1243


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1252
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not really the place for this discussion...

    moderately,
    Scofflaw

    Ok i get that, my point is that if a rule is going to be put in place similar to the Dublin convention one it should be worded correctly and the initial request by Nodin is incorrect as it focuses on the issue of citizenship.


  • Options
    #1253
    Tramps Like Us
    Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Tramps Like Us


    Why was my post about the longstanding allegations about Jim Mansfield (tons of drugs were found on his jet) deleted - he is deceased - yet countless allegations about Gerry Adams for example remain while they are equally "unsubstantiated"?


  • Options
    #1254
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Your post wasn't substantiated, neither were a couple of others IIRC. I don't think it is fair to post something like that without back up. I suppose we could cut out debates about Gerry, would make for a boring politics board though!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1255
    Tramps Like Us
    Registered Users Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Tramps Like Us


    K-9 wrote: »
    Your post wasn't substantiated, neither were a couple of others IIRC. I don't think it is fair to post something like that without back up. I suppose we could cut out debates about Gerry, would make for a boring politics board though!

    I'm not for a second saying that we shouldnt be able to discuss things to do with Adams I'm just highlighting the double standard.

    I understand concerns about boards being sued, Adams isnt litigious whatsoever(luckily for some), Mansfield was when he was alive but you cannot defame the dead.

    The allegations about Mansfield have been around for donkeys years and he discussed them with the media before he died:

    ‘No drugs in my business’ – billionaire
    Self-made billionaire Jim Mansfield hits out at the gossip about his son's friendship with Katy French and denies he made his fortune through the illegal drugs trade

    If there is ever a proper tribunal investigation around the whole Boylan case I believe much more will come out about Mansfield and his connection to drugs trade besides drugs being found on his plane.

    Mansfield obviously enjoyed a cosy relationship with politicians akin to that which Larry Goodman enjoyed. He was certainly fortuitous with his property speculation and land he owned getting rezoned.

    Anyway, I'll ask why is there a clear double standard at play here?


  • Options
    #1256
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Tramps Like Us wrote: »
    I'm not for a second saying that we shouldnt be able to discuss things to do with Adams I'm just highlighting the double standard.

    The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles. The claims posted about Jim Mansfield have no basis other than supposition, secondary connections, and casual assumptions that political nepotism somehow implicate him further. Maybe he was up to his neck in it, but no-one has fingered him directly for ianything - unlike Adams.


  • Options
    #1257
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence.

    Photographic and legal evidence? Now where can I see this?

    This forum has always had double standards when it comes to Sinn Fein and other parties, I thought that was going to change but obviously not?


  • Options
    #1258
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    Photographic and legal evidence? Now where can I see this?

    Sean O'Callaghan gave evidence in the high court about Adams attending an IRA council meeting in '83. Legal evidence was presented at Adam's IRA membership trial in '78

    and the photographic evidence is well known:
    3016559_f520.jpg

    But honestly - you and I know that everyone understands Adams' denials are a nonsense.


  • Options
    #1259
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Sean O'Callaghan gave evidence in the high court about Adams attending an IRA council meeting in '83. Legal evidence was presented at Adam's IRA membership trial in '78

    and the photographic evidence is well known:

    But honestly - you and I know that everyone understands Adams' denials are a nonsense.

    So if someone says something is true in a court room then it's true and can never be libelous ? You or anyone else that I know has proven he was a member of the IRA.

    It's a fact that a politician has denied something and people here are free to post that he is lying yet when the same happened and happens for other politicians posts are deleted and people banned.

    It is blatant double standards and I thought no longer existed here?


  • Options
    #1260
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    So if someone says something is true in a court room then it's true and can never be libelous ? You or anyone else that I know has proven he was a member of the IRA.
    Did I say otherwise? What I said was:
    The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles.

    Has Adams been found to have been libelled regarding his membership of the IRA? No - so nothing claimed about the man so far has actually been shown to be libellous.
    Villain wrote: »
    It's a fact that a politician has denied something and people here are free to post that he is lying yet when the same happened and happens for other politicians posts are deleted and people banned.

    It is blatant double standards and I thought no longer existed here?
    It's not a double standard, based on the information available.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1261
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Also while the IRA membership claims can at least be slightly substantiated this forum does tolerate allegations about involvement in the McConville case which AFAIK only rests on one persons testimony. This forum has always had double standards relating to SF upto the point back a few years ago that a certain mod (who no longer mods this forum) had to be reigned in on the main site feedback.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement