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

Tragic yet worrying scenes in waterford last night

1151617181921»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Tordelback


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Did you report the post above where it was being claimed someone was linking Indians with pedophilia? Oh no, you report the post that explains that that was an out of context allegation from a hypothetical situation.
    How even handed of you.

    If you can't distinguish between questioning the specifics of a hypothetical parallel and implying that another poster is a paedophile, you might need to review your thinking.


  • Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Lofty123


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Did you report the post above where it was being claimed someone was linking Indians with pedophilia? Oh no, you report the post that explains that that was an out of context allegation from a hypothetical situation.
    How even handed of you.

    I reported your post because it implied that another poster who did not agree with you was a paedophile. How dare you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Why are you talking about him like you know him personally? Why are you even pretending you give a flying **** about him or his family? This comment is extremely callous.
    You are impersonating the caricature of a dead youth, a caricature that you have built up in your own head based on a facebook account, a single night in his life and your own prejudices. It's shameful.
    Maybe Msbyrne has realised someone reading this thread knew the deceased, and he/she is being respectful and sensitive ? I see nothing callous in that post.

    I see no harm in the impersonation of his fictional aunt either, smiling about accents and idioms doesn't always mean disrespect, otherwise I as a French person in Ireland would spend a lot of time being offended. It was pretty bang on imo :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Lofty123 wrote: »
    I reported your post because it implied that another poster who did not agree with you was a paedophile. How dare you.
    Did I? Can you quote me exactly where?
    If I say a hypothetical situation "resonates" with somebody, that has to be accusing them of being one specific part of the hypothetical? Perhaps he's Indian? Perhaps he was a victim of pedophilia? Perhaps he has a special interest in minorities who are falsely accused of crimes?
    I can see how pretending the word "resonates" means whatever you want it to mean could help your agenda though, so well done on the inventive redefinition.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Maybe Msbyrne has realised someone reading this thread knew the deceased, and he/she is being respectful and sensitive ? I see nothing callous in that post.

    I see no harm in the impersonation of his fictional aunt either, smiling about accents and idioms doesn't always mean disrespect, otherwise I as a French person in Ireland would spend a lot of time being offended. It was pretty bang on imo :)
    And like I said earlier, if someone else came on here pretending to be a relative of a dead Garda, there'd be no harm in that I suppose? That would be "respectful and sensitive"?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Lofty123


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    He didn't. It was a hypothetical. You do know the difference between a hypothetical and reality? Oh... Maybe the hypothetical, imaginary scenario had some resonance with you for some reason?


    Its perfectly clear to me what you mean by this.
    All the linguistic squirming you employ cannot hide the fact that you are a disgrace.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Tordelback wrote: »
    If you can't distinguish between questioning the specifics of a hypothetical parallel and implying that another poster is a paedophile, you might need to review your thinking.
    Ah yes, it's funny how those who lie about other posters the most are coincidentally the same people who appear to be least able to use the quote function.
    Now, this isn't complicated, but I agree it would suit some peoples' agenda here to pretend it is so they can make false allegations.
    Brown Bomber put forward a hypothetical scenario of what would constitute defamation:
    If you start putting up posters in your local area with a photograph and the name of the local indian man warning parents to watch out for him because he is a paedophile and your "opinion" is based the way you've seen him looking at children you are delusional if you think your "opinion" is any defense.
    So Little CuChulainn thought he'd be clever and pretend that example of what would be defamation was in fact an act of defamation:
    I'm not exactly sure why you are linking Indian men to paedophilia but your analogy is not correct.
    Brown Bomber was in no way linking Indian men with paedophilia (which would be defamation), he was using that as an example of defamation.
    Sorry lads, I know you're all trying your damnedest to land a killer blow here, but lying about what other posters have said to try and make a case to the mods is a bit pathetic.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Lofty123 wrote: »
    [/B]

    Its perfectly clear to me what you mean by this.
    All the linguistic squirming you employ cannot hide the fact that you are a disgrace.
    Linguistic squirming? Do you even know what "resonates" means?
    Why did YOU decide "resonates" could only refer to one particular part of the hypothetical situation presented, when it could have referred to any number of aspects of it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Lofty123


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Linguistic squirming? Do you even know what "resonates" means?
    Why did YOU decide "resonates" could only refer to one particular part of the hypothetical situation presented, when it could have referred to any number of aspects of it?

    Yes, I do know what resonance means. Your backpedaling on your offensive post is pathetic.
    Perhaps if you didn't continually feel the need to demonstrate your perceived intellectual superiority to the world with such convoluted posts, they might be a little less open to misinterpretation. ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Lofty123 wrote: »
    Yes, I do know what resonance means. Your backpedaling on your offensive post is pathetic.
    Perhaps if you didn't continually feel the need to demonstrate your perceived intellectual superiority to the world with such convoluted posts, they might be a little less open to misinterpretation. ;)
    Oh, that sounds awfully like you are admitting you misinterpreted my post as it was a little too complicated for you?
    Did you mean to say that?


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    It's a subjective test to examine whether a belief was honestly held. I'm satisfied that I could defend my opinion should the deceased resurrect and attempt to sue me. .
    1) You haven't defamed only the dead youth, you have also defamed the other youths involved; including a child.
    2) How can you possibly be "satisfied" that you can defend anything when any defense has to be based ón fact and all you have is malice and speculation intertwined.
    I'm not exactly sure why you are linking Indian men to paedophilia but your analogy is not correct. It's a completely different scenario. Please read the Defamation Act before you keep trying to school me.
    Clearly you didn't understand what I am saying. Even in the hypothetical it is implicit and abundantly clear that the Indian man is NOT a paedophile. He is an innocent man who has right to his own good name against false and damaging allegations whether they are someone's "opinion" or not.


    I'll make this even simpler for you. Person X is a white supremacist and racist. He is of the "opinion" that black men can't help themselves around white women. There is only one black man in the town and after a rape and murder of a young girl Person X calls up the local station to tell them on-air it was the black man, Joe Bloggs of XYZ street.


    His honestly held "opinion" is of no defense. I hope this makes it clear.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    I'll make this even simpler for you. Person X is a white supremacist and racist. He is of the "opinion" that black men can't help themselves around white women. There is only one black man in the town and after a rape and murder of a young girl Person X calls up the local station to tell them on-air it was the black man, Joe Bloggs of XYZ street.


    His honestly held "opinion" is of no defense. I hope this makes it clear.
    Careful now, Little CuChulainn might get confused between hypothetical and reality and start calling you a racist again for "linking black men and rape"...


  • Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Lofty123


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Oh, that sounds awfully like you are admitting you misinterpreted my post as it was a little too complicated for you?
    Did you mean to say that?

    Yes, please use words of one syllable in future :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    1) You haven't defamed only the dead youth, you have also defamed the other youths involved; including a child.
    2) How can you possibly be "satisfied" that you can defend anything when any defense has to be based ón fact and all you have is malice and speculation intertwined.

    It's only defamation of it is not true. I am satisfied I know the facts based on what's been reported.

    Clearly you didn't understand what I am saying. Even in the hypothetical it is implicit and abundantly clear that the Indian man is NOT a paedophile. He is an innocent man who has right to his own good name against false and damaging allegations whether they are someone's "opinion" or not.

    I still don't see why you brought race into it at all.
    I'll make this even simpler for you. Person X is a white supremacist and racist. He is of the "opinion" that black men can't help themselves around white women. There is only one black man in the town and after a rape and murder of a young girl Person X calls up the local station to tell them on-air it was the black man, Joe Bloggs of XYZ street.


    His honestly held "opinion" is of no defense. I hope this makes it clear.

    But his opinion, and the on in your hypothetical indian man scenario, is based only on his prejudice alone. I have based mine on what has been reported by a number of reputable media outlets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,977 ✭✭✭TheDoctor


    Christ this thread is still going


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,522 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    ...and on that note:

    Thread closed.

    -Shield.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement