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
Alive! magazine and a no junk mail sign.
Options
Comments
-
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Lots of people are pro-organ donation, should they have to watch transplant operations? The anti-abortion lobby has some of the most warped logic out there...
Are you trying to equate the two things? I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.Change your sign to read "No Unsolicited Mail - that means if it dosent have my address printed on it then don't leave it"
Yep, this is the way to go.0 -
-
Prof.Badass wrote: »Actually, one thing i noticed about alive is that it can be really right wing. Obviously we all knew they''d be authoritarian, but there seems to be an anti-socialist, pro-capitalist message, which surprised me.
A lot more like something you'd expect from an american christian fundamentalist publication rather than an irish catholic one.
I always though Irish catholocism was more left-leaning and love-your-neighboury. I definitely haven't heard of the pope preaching any right-wing messages.
They also seem to hate gender equality for some reason.
The RC church in Ireland is really right wing.
There are some individual members of the RC church who would be quite anti-capitalist like the Catholic ploughshares and a few individual members of the clergy.
Sure only yesterday the pope bestowed Margaret Downes, only the 4th Irish women, with a papal honour.
Do you think she was someone involved in the anti-war movement, community groups, anti poverty campaigns?
Of course not! it was a women who director of The Bank of Ireland; was director of private health insurers BUPA,and she was the director of a multi-billion tobacco company.
The church loves their affluence, and have gone so far away from Jesus teachings,they should be treated as a joke, cos in all fairness to Jesus he was an alright bloke.0 -
Are you trying to equate the two things? I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.
I'm trying to work out the logic of being pro-something automatically meaning you shouldn't mind witnessing in person whatever you aprove of. Neither would bother me but some people find anything involving blood and guts stomach churning, nobody mentioned abhorrant or appalled - way to inject some choice emotive language tho - bravo. Some people don't want to have to explain to their kids what abortion is and why because some right-wing nutter is punting their brand of crazy through letterboxes - I'm not sure what's so amusing nor confusing, tbh...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
eightyfish wrote: »In this, Jakkass, you have a very good point!
The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.
0 -
Are you trying to equate the two things? I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.
Yep, this is the way to go.
Speaking as a health professional,most of the pictures that pro-life groups use are not those of aborted foetuses. Most of these pictures are clearly showing full-term foetuses. Abortions are rarely allowed to happen at such a late stage.
Some pictures being used quite clearly must have been stillborn babies, and its quite sick that people use their image to suit their own agenda.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.
I have to say, I don't think legislating is the best answer all the time. I personally think we need less legislation rather than more. Particularly in respect to making speech more free in Ireland. The Public Order Act is hugely repressive on this.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.
I think you have Ireland mixed up with somewhere else :pac:0 -
-
-
Never said you shouldn't mind witnessing it, but it is a bit rich to complain about it too. It's very easy to be pro- something when you are never exposed to it tbh.
It's very easy to be pro something when you are, as well...still not seeing a correlation.
Look, I don't want to get into an abortion debate with you, suffice to say that anyone pro-anything should be comfortable witnessing whatever they agree with is a really lousy argument, really lousy...I'm all for cremation, in fact I want to be cremated - do I want to see the process in technicoloured leaflets thru my door? Would I think it pretty gross? Probably. 0 -
My reason is obvious. I think draconian laws don't work, especially when they can potentially undermine peoples rights.
True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac: 0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Look, I don't want to get into an abortion debate with you, suffice to say that anyone pro-anything should be comfortable witnessing whatever they agree with is a really lousy argument, really lousy...
So I suppose you would have no issue whatsoever say with a person who has had no dealings whatsoever with someone of another race being racist then for example?Ickle Magoo wrote: »True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:
First they came for the.......0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:
I never said do as they please, there are reasonable limits to human behaviour. For example, if you wish to swing your arms about that is fine by me, but if your arm hits into my nose, then I will likely have a problem The same is true of rights, you are allowed to exercise your legal rights as much as you wish, but the second when you exercise your legal rights in order to hinder those of another, then it is a problem. For example, hitting someone would violate bodily integrity and cause physical pain to another.
It isn't a right not to be offended. I believe it is progressive to allow people to say what they want, and it is progressive to allow for people in society to step in and condemn what people say if it is worthy of condemnation. We have to start taking more responsibility for ourselves.
Prohibiting free speech gives legitimacy to an argument whereby there is no legitimacy. People often think that because they are told to shut up it is because what they said had some value that needs to be suppressed by society. It often emboldens people.
I don't consider a progressive society to be one with lots of red tape around speech. I think such red tape doesn't solve the core problem, but only solves the external manifestation of that problem.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:
I kind of believe they should. Free speech above all else. As long as it's not inciting hatred, which I don't think the articles in this newspaper are. The vast, vast, vast majority of the public will look at these people and think "You're and idiot."
My objection is not against their right to say these things, but their right to post it into family homes.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
So I suppose you would have no issue whatsoever say with a person who has had no dealings whatsoever with someone of another race being racist then for example?
What on earth does racism have to do with my point on being pro-something? How's that strawman looking for ye? :pac:I never said do as they please, there are reasonable limits to human behaviour......
The trouble is Jackass, some people are so blinded as to what is actually reasonable - and reasonable to others - they have somehow managed to convince themselves that their hate-filled prejudices are; justified, they have the best interests of others in mind and (in the case of the leaflets) heaven sent. :eek:
So extreme is some peoples behaviour that legislation is required to limit what they can do and say in order to protect the rights of other people.eightyfish wrote:I kind of believe they should. Free speech above all else. As long as it's not inciting hatred, which I don't think the articles in this newspaper are. The vast, vast, vast majority of the public will look at these people and think "You're and idiot."
My objection is not against their right to say these things, but their right to post it into family homes.
Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either but yeah, definitely not thru peoples letterboxes.0 -
-
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »The trouble is Jackass, some people are so blinded as to what is actually reasonable - and reasonable to others - they have somehow managed to convince themselves that their hate-filled prejudices are; justified, they have the best interests of others in mind and (in the case of the leaflets) heaven sent. :eek:
So extreme is some peoples behaviour that legislation is required to limit what they can do and say in order to protect the rights of other people.
Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either but yeah, definitely not thru peoples letterboxes.
I disagree that there is any legislation needed to stop what is written in Alive. As far as I am concerned they are entitled to their opinions, and the rest of us are entitled to either have a jolly good chuckle, respond to it or agree with it.
I don't believe being anti-gay marriage is hatred, or promoting pro-life views albeit in an obscene enough manner is illegal or ever should be illegal.
I believe that it is appropriate for people to speak out against people, and challenge them on their views. The public arena is surprisingly good at outlining flaws in peoples arguments and views. On boards.ie alone you can find racists, sexists and homophobes. I don't believe extra legislation is needed. I've already suggested what negative effects that such legislation can have, it can actually affirm peoples views and make them more strident.
Free speech in Ireland is curbed to an excessive extent currently. I think we can deal with speech issues without excessive legislation akin to that brought in under the last UK government. Now in the UK, the LibCon government are reassessing civil liberties including freedom of speech.
I think our freedoms are too important to be undermined excessively.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c
Advertisement