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

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

1…5960626465…75

Comments

  • #1832
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    Is a trade union not a group of private individuals pushing an idea? And.. given that this is a trade union stunt, is it not an example of how unions do their publicity? Or do you have an image of a company notice boards with "Tired of Mansplaning...." posters up?
    Is Catholicism/Priests supposed to be on the fully baked left wing vegan cookies side, or the half baked right wing fruitcakes side?

    Companies have to talk and deal with trade unions so they have influence in the that the local rotary club do not

    Just trying to see if "mansplaining" whatever it actually is, is something that has been known across time, was it an issue for Jesus? did Jesus Mansplain? was there Mansplaining in the Old Testament. We need to know goddamit!

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1833
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,801 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    silverharp wrote: »
    How does it rate in catholicism, is it a sin? , if you tell your Priest, I Mansplained 5 times this month, how does it rate?

    That depends. Did you take pleasure in it?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #1834
    Qs
    Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    Absolam wrote: »
    Is Catholicism/Priests supposed to be on the fully baked left wing vegan cookies side, or the half baked right wing fruitcakes side?

    They certainly like to tell women what to do.


  • #1835
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    Companies have to talk and deal with trade unions so they have influence in the that the local rotary club do not
    And how does that have anything to do with then not being a government or a related agency?
    silverharp wrote: »
    Just trying to see if "mansplaining" whatever it actually is, is something that has been known across time, was it an issue for Jesus? did Jesus Mansplain? was there Mansplaining in the Old Testament. We need to know goddamit!
    Why? And how could you tell if it was something that has been known across time from how it 'rates' in Catholicism?


  • #1836
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    And how does that have anything to do with then not being a government or a related agency?

    do you have to nitpick? will gov. related agency or unions do? contrasted with say 3 feminists in a basement setting up a "hotline". the latter would be of less concern


    Absolam wrote: »
    Why? And how could you tell if it was something that has been known across time from how it 'rates' in Catholicism?

    Im just making fun of a catholic who seems to be defending feminists makeyuppy terms. On the assumption that human nature has been reasonably consistent over the last 2000 years and if mansplaning is a thing, Im just curious was it an issue in biblical times :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #1837
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Qs wrote: »
    They certainly like to tell women what to do.
    That goes for either side, surely?


  • #1838
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    do you have to nitpick? will gov. related agency or unions do? contrasted with say 3 feminists in a basement setting up a "hotline". the latter would be of less concern
    It seems to be the trend at the moment on the thread. Maybe it's a reaction to the whole 'post-truth' thing; people start pointing out the details that make things untruthful rather than letting them slide and nonsense prevail. But to your (newly adjusted) point; you're placing unions on the same side of the left/right gulf as gov. related agencies? The entire traditional left is being shoved to the right to make room for your feminists who are sufficiently decryable?
    silverharp wrote: »
    Im just making fun of a catholic who seems to be defending feminists makeyuppy terms. On the assumption that human nature has been reasonably consistent over the last 2000 years and if mansplaning is a thing, Im just curious was it an issue in biblical times :pac:
    Ah... I see where you're going wrong there so. You made a couple of assumptions and used them to attack a poster, instead of reading what was written and attacking a post. Easy mistake to make; if you just follow rule one and give some thought to rule two you'll be grand.


  • #1839
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Bunch of SJW show up to a talk, in an effort to shut it down.



    Did anyone while watching that video think when those idiots were shouting 'Safety, Safety....' get a flash back to the scene in Game of Thrones where Cersi was made to do the walk of shame?

    Great parallels I think. Religious fundamentalist zealots who are blinded by their unwavering adhere to the scripture and its 'God'. Similar bedfellows in the above video.


  • #1840
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Students Union vote to ban 3 newspapers from University Campus, even though they are not available anyway.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/students-union-ban-daily-mail-sun-express-newspapers-campus-city-a7425046.html

    Students only want an echo chamber it seems, in fact they are voting for it.


  • #1841
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    They didn't actually ban them, did they? As in.. they can't actually ban them, can they?

    Their resolution says "This Union Resolves:
    1. That there is no place for the Sun, Daily Mail or Express (In their current form) on City, University of London campuses or properties    "

    And of course, the Daily Mail themselves say "A university spokesperson also said the motion was still at an early stage, not binding and that the university had not been approached prior to it being passed."

    Though I admit, "Students would rather not have certain newspapers about" doesn't have that clickbait quality......


  • Advertisement
  • #1842
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 27,999 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Is there no end to the tedium. (Or te deum ...)















    no, that doesn't mean anything, though it is marginally cool. I am just getting on the bandwagon.


  • #1843
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The student's current opposition to a free press stems from the "enemies of the people" headlines which appeared in certain newspapers recently (relating to Brexit, and some judges saying saying the parliament needed to give permission for it first)

    I find it ironic that they include the motion "Opposing Fascism and Social Divisiveness in the UK Media’. What they really want is to silence anyone who disagrees with their groupthink, even when that groupthink has been tested by the democratic process in a referendum and found wanting.
    To persist in trying to silence their opposition, despite the opposition having a proven democratic mandate, would seem to be the very essence of fascism.


  • #1844
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    They're not actually doing anything to silence them though are they?

    If you actually give a moments thought to what they said in their motion, they're criticising and objecting to the way these papers present subjects. They have no power to ban the papers, and nowhere to ban them from, since they're not even being sold.

    But as students do, they're criticising the establishments in advance of soon being part of them. Nothing new, nothing odd, the same thing has gone on for as long as there have been universities, just on this occasion the Daily Mail is trying to get some advertising out of the fact that some people don't like it.


  • #1845
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    looksee wrote: »
    Is there no end to the tedium. (Or te deum ...)

    no, that doesn't mean anything, though it is marginally cool. I am just getting on the bandwagon.
    I reckon if you'd held onto it a bit longer you would have found a much more apposite opportunity for it in Christianity before too long... after all Christmas is coming!


  • #1846
    Qs
    Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    recedite wrote: »
    The student's current opposition to a free press stems from the "enemies of the people" headlines which appeared in certain newspapers recently (relating to Brexit, and some judges saying saying the parliament needed to give permission for it first)

    I find it ironic that they include the motion "Opposing Fascism and Social Divisiveness in the UK Media’. What they really want is to silence anyone who disagrees with their groupthink, even when that groupthink has been tested by the democratic process in a referendum and found wanting.
    To persist in trying to silence their opposition, despite the opposition having a proven democratic mandate, would seem to be the very essence of fascism.

    Wait a minute here. Opposing Brexit and opposing newspapers that ignore British law and parliamentary process to single out and incite hatred against the judges who merely upheld said law are not the same thing.


  • #1847
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Qs wrote: »
    incite hatred
    .....is perhaps overstating it, they are a free press after all.
    I would be reluctant to say who is right and who is wrong in the legal/constitutional matter itself, but I think both sides are agreed that the decision of the Supreme Court will decide it.

    In this country it is quite clear that a referendum of the people guides and trumps any decision made in the Dail, but in the UK there are other factors, namely a historical standoff between parliamentarians and royalists.

    Which seems to have morphed into a modern day standoff between parliamentarians and the govt. who are using the historical "royal prerogative" to execute the expressed wishes of the electorate.

    When the SC issues a final decision, I would expect little or no criticism of the judges involved, and everybody to accept it.


  • #1848
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    .....is perhaps overstating it, they are a free press after all.
    The role of a free press is to keep the population informed by providing accurate, honest and responsible journalism.

    Publications like the Telegraph, the Mail and the Express do not fall into this category as they are inaccurate, dishonest and irresponsible. And venomous up to, and frequently well past, the point of inciting hatred.


  • #1849
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Whereas publications such as The Guardian, whose editorial line you happen to agree with, are fine?


  • #1850
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    robindch wrote: »
    The role of a free press is to keep the population informed by providing accurate, honest and responsible journalism.

    Publications like the Telegraph, the Mail and the Express do not fall into this category as they are inaccurate, dishonest and irresponsible. And venomous up to, and frequently well past, the point of inciting hatred.

    ....in your opinion. :)


  • #1851
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    In this country it is quite clear that a referendum of the people guides and trumps any decision made in the Dail, but in the UK there are other factors, namely a historical standoff between parliamentarians and royalists. Which seems to have morphed into a modern day standoff between parliamentarians and the govt. who are using the historical "royal prerogative" to execute the expressed wishes of the electorate.
    I think the difference is rather more specific; Ireland is a parliamentary republic where the nation is sovereign, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy where parliament is sovereign (notwithstanding that they actually have a sovereign).

    The long version of that is the supreme legal authority in the UK is parliament which can create or end any law, whereas the supreme legal authority in Ireland is the nation which can create or end Constitutional provisions, from which all other law derives authority.


  • Advertisement
  • #1852
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy where parliament is sovereign ..
    Yes, in the sense that it is the parliaments function to write laws. But it is the government's function to make executive decisions, such as signing or cancelling international treaties.
    But in this case the international treaty also has a bearing on domestic law, so it gets complicated.
    At the end of the day though, it is "unwise" for anybody, whether that is the parliament, or the press, or the courts, or the monarch to go against the express wishes of the people.

    On the other hand, Brexit was a close enough vote.
    It just goes on and on....
    Leave it to the SC ;)


  • #1853
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, in the sense that it is the parliaments function to write laws.
    No, in the sense that Parliament can create or end any law; the decision rests with the Parliament. Parliamentary counsel (lawyers employed by Parliament) usually write the laws, but the writing of them isn't all that significant; deciding whether or not to have them is what is important.
    recedite wrote: »
    But it is the government's function to make executive decisions, such as signing or cancelling international treaties.
    But in this case the international treaty also has a bearing on domestic law, so it gets complicated.At the end of the day though, it is "unwise" for anybody, whether that is the parliament, or the press, or the courts, or the monarch to go against the express wishes of the people.
    Maybe... but what is wise isn't a feature of who makes the decision. Parliament makes the decision of whether something is law or not, regardless of whether or not it's wise to go against the express wishes of the people.
    recedite wrote: »
    On the other hand, Brexit was a close enough vote.It just goes on and on.... Leave it to the SC ;)
    The SC can't make the decision though. They can rule on who can make the decision, and given everything we've seen so far it's difficult to see how they could arrive at the conclusion that it's not Parliament.

    What would be deliciously ironic would be if the UK Govt lost in the Supreme Court and chose to go to the European Courts in order to obtain a ruling under European Law....


  • #1854
    Qs
    Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    recedite wrote: »
    .....is perhaps overstating it, they are a free press after all.

    A free press in a free country where students are free to boycott them.
    recedite wrote: »
    When the SC issues a final decision, I would expect little or no criticism of the judges involved, and everybody to accept it.

    So you think if the SC upholds the decision there will be little or no criticism. I can't see that myself.


  • #1855
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    another fine contribution to Science :D
    Editor Affiliations
    1. Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University


    https://t.co/neei118bPJ

    CvUNDxsW8AA5XWp.jpg

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1856
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 27,999 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    That does indeed seem like total nonsense, but sadly, having read it several times, I especially cannot work out what the last two sentences are saying. Maybe it is a shortcoming in my ability to figure things out, but the phrase 'envision sex as a product of natural selection' completely defeats me. Can anyone offer a translation?


  • #1857
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Sweden continuing to deliver in the bolloxology field there.
    I suppose, in the world of peacocks, you would be talking more specifically about an unfair keratin intake? Considering the extra feathers, like :rolleyes:

    Meanwhile over in Canada, another yoga class is disrupted. Because yoga is for Indians, not colonial oppressors practicing subliminal western supremacy.


  • #1858
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    looksee wrote: »
    Maybe it is a shortcoming in my ability to figure things out, but the phrase 'envision sex as a product of natural selection' completely defeats me. Can anyone offer a translation?
    Sorry, no idea.


  • #1859
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    looksee wrote: »
    That does indeed seem like total nonsense, but sadly, having read it several times, I especially cannot work out what the last two sentences are saying. Maybe it is a shortcoming in my ability to figure things out, but the phrase 'envision sex as a product of natural selection' completely defeats me. Can anyone offer a translation?

    maybe english isnt their first language but no idea what it means. oddly enough when the Peer Review people tweeted this one they got some criticism as to why they were making fun of the idea. they then had to put out a blog post defending their logic that the paper was garbage :D

    interesting enough read

    https://realpeerreviewblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/on-sex-differences-in-height-and-food-discrimination-why-the-hypothesis-is-ridiculous/

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1860
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,981 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    looksee wrote: »
    That does indeed seem like total nonsense, but sadly, having read it several times, I especially cannot work out what the last two sentences are saying. Maybe it is a shortcoming in my ability to figure things out, but the phrase 'envision sex as a product of natural selection' completely defeats me. Can anyone offer a translation?
    I agree with silverharp that English is probably not the author's first language. I'd also point out that even academic papers written by English speakers are frequently written in just appallingly obscure and defective English; this is true across all disciplines. Finally, I'd point out that all we have here is the abstract, and abstracts are frequently written in fairly dense terms that can only be unpacked by reading the paper, for which I have neither the budget, the leisure nor the patience.

    But, having said all that, I think what the author may be talking about is a challenge to the "evolutionary biology" view of sexual selection; the view that we choose our partners for reasons which make sense in evolutionary biological terms. Men choose women who appear fertile and have good childbearing hips, women choose men who look like good providers and have good walletbearing hips, etc. I suspect what the paper argues is that this isn't as true as some think; that our partner selection is driven by cultural factors influenced by our cultural beliefs, assumptions and prejudices about gender ("unnatural selection") and that this is part of the reason why men tend to be taller than women.


  • Advertisement
  • #1861
    emmet02
    Registered Users Posts: 24,815 ✭✭✭✭emmet02


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzlYyhh3X0w


    Should people also refrain from telling smokers that they shouldn't smoke? Or telling people that it would be better for their health for them not to?

    Not certain that this is the right place for this, but there were a few buzzwords that pranged the senses.


Advertisement