Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

PopePalpatine · 20-04-2015 12:23pm

Funnily enough Mullen's type couldn't give half a flying f*ck about gross human rights violations like, say, indentured hard labour.

efb · 01-05-2015 11:40am

He has set up an anti marraige equality group with EU Expenses Queen and Anti Vaxxer- Kathy Synnott - First Families First

I'm sure the Higgins, McAleese and Robinson families are thrilled...

Shrap · 01-05-2015 1:51pm

Derp!

Some transcript from his latest speechifying:

Sorry now John, but I thought (perhaps wrongly) that you wanted fathers to be treated equally to mothers in the family courts? No?

Also, where did you pull the 230 gay couples from? And the up to 500,000 single fathers? Am thinking the first is too few and the second is too many.

Vivisectus · 01-05-2015 2:00pm

I love that kind of logic. So if a large amount of people are being unfairly treated in your opinion, then the best thing to do is to vote against stopping the unfair treatment of a smaller amount of people.

Also apparently another argument is that male-male and male-female and female female will be treated the same (gasp!) and this is bad because...

he seems to have forgotten to include an argument again

MaxWig · 01-05-2015 2:02pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

I love that kind of logic. So if a large amount of people are being unfairly treated in your opinion, then the best thing to do is to vote against stopping the unfair treatment of a smaller amount of people.

Also apparently another argument is that male-male and male-female and female female will be treated the same (gasp!) and this is bad because...

he seems to have forgotten to include an argument again

To be fair to Waters, he has written extensively (and intelligently) about the family law courts and the unfortunate treatment of single fathers.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 2:04pm

MaxWig wrote: »

To be fair to Waters, he has written extensively (and intelligently) about the family law courts and the unfortunate treatment of single fathers.

So why does he think it so potentially damaging to society that they'd be treated equally to mothers then? (BTW, it's literally the ONLY thing I agree with him about, but he appears to have shot down his own opinion on the matter...)

Vivisectus · 01-05-2015 2:11pm

MaxWig wrote: »

To be fair to Waters, he has written extensively (and intelligently) about the family law courts and the unfortunate treatment of single fathers.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not that I know anything about his views on family law.

MaxWig · 01-05-2015 2:21pm

Shrap wrote: »

So why does he think it so potentially damaging to society that they'd be treated equally to mothers then? (BTW, it's literally the ONLY thing I agree with him about, but he appears to have shot down his own opinion on the matter...)

Not sure that's what he's saying.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 2:26pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure that's what he's saying.

Well effectively he IS saying that by making out that family courts won't *any longer* be able to treat m/f or f/f or m/m parents differently to each other, the implication being that they do currently. The other implication being that treating parents of any gender equally is a bad thing, which is entirely opposing his own Men's Rights arguments.

MaxWig · 01-05-2015 2:27pm

Shrap wrote: »

Well effectively he IS saying that by making out that family courts won't *any longer* be able to treat m/f or f/f or m/m parents differently to each other, the implication being that they do currently. The other implication being that treating parents of any gender equally is a bad thing, which is entirely opposing his own Men's Rights arguments.

Speaking about single fathers on one hand, and married fathers on the other.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 2:31pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Speaking about single fathers on one hand, and married fathers on the other.

Well he's either for equal treatment of parents (married or unmarried) or he isn't. He can't have it both ways.

MaxWig · 01-05-2015 2:34pm

Shrap wrote: »

Well he's either for equal treatment of parents (married or unmarried) or he isn't. He can't have it both ways.

Right.

Can't (won't) argue with that logic.

But the point is quite simple to distinguish. Just wanted to point that out.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 2:37pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Right.

Can't (won't) argue with that logic.

But the point is quite simple to distinguish. Just wanted to point that out.

Fair enough. My point was really that he's not making the point he thinks he's making. But then, when did he ever?

seamus · 01-05-2015 2:42pm

"There are, perhaps, up to 500,000"

In other words, "I can pick numbers out of the air by suggesting that they theoretically may be possible".

There are 310,000 households in Ireland with an average of 1.38 children in each. Which gives 427,000 children.

In other words what Waters is saying is that, "If we accept that every couple in Ireland has the potential to break up, that means there are potentially up to 500,000 children of single fathers in Ireland".

What an odious little weasel.

Vivisectus · 01-05-2015 2:49pm

seamus wrote: »

"There are, perhaps, up to 500,000"

In other words, "I can pick numbers out of the air by suggesting that they theoretically may be possible".

There are 310,000 households in Ireland with an average of 1.38 children in each. Which gives 427,000 children.

In other words what Waters is saying is that, "If we accept that every couple in Ireland has the potential to break up, that means there are potentially up to 500,000 children of single fathers in Ireland".

What an odious little weasel.

Hey, but that means there are 4 million potential gay people, and 2 million potential gay couples too. There are about 4 million people in Ireland, after all.

robindch · 01-05-2015 3:02pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

he seems to have forgotten to include an argument again

in fairness, he has a lot of past form in that regard.

PopePalpatine · 01-05-2015 3:06pm

Shrap quoting The Watery One wrote: »

Yep, he's definitely a whiny redpiller. I'm sorry I ever found out about those pissbabies who miss the days when being white and male came with legal privileges.

oldrnwisr · 02-05-2015 2:44am

Shrap wrote: »

Also, where did you pull the 230 gay couples from? And the up to 500,000 single fathers? Am thinking the first is too few and the second is too many.

You would be correct.

The last census shows that in total there were 215,315 lone parent families. Out of these, just 29,031 were single fathers. Also given that 124,765 families had just one child, the number of children being raised by single fathers is unlikely to be much more than 30,000.

Also, while the census summary doesn't record the subset of same-sex couples with children, it does show that there were 4042 couples at the time of the last census. That makes it likely that more than 230 would have children.

In any event the question in the first place reads like some shill question from a snake oil salesman.

CSO - Profile 5 - Households and Families.

On a side note regarding Waters, First Families First? Seriously?

I've said it before on another thread but really why do the NO side keep borrowing their arguments from the Simpsons.

I mean we've had the Helen Lovejoy argument from Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment:

"Won't somebody please think of the children?"

then we had the Homer argument from Homer's Phobia:

John: What do you have against gay people Homer?
Homer: You know, it's not, usual. If there was a law, it would be against it.

and then the Marge argument from The Great Wife Hope:

"Call me a killjoy but I think that because this is not to my taste then nobody should be allowed to enjoy it."

and now we have the "Families Come First" idea from Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays.

If the NO side end up gaining any significant traction they're going to owe Matt Groening a big bundle of money.

Smiley92a · 02-05-2015 4:34am

Saw their launch on the six one news this evening. Much talk about the terrible ramifications of the amendment (I think the word 'chaos' was mentioned a few times) but no specifics.

There's never any specifics.

Oh, and I saw that MAFM youtube ad today. Now the Tara Flynn parody makes sense. It's very clever. You could watch the first 30 seconds and think it was one of those neutral public information broadcasts.

Nodin · 02-05-2015 9:55am

Smiley92a wrote: »

Saw their launch on the six one news this evening. Much talk about the terrible ramifications of the amendment (I think the word 'chaos' was mentioned a few times) but no specifics.

...................................

Chaos = Gay cannibal motorbike gangs, gangs of feral children controlled by dark forces, confident people not too worried over sex and their bodies, succubus wimmin in the pubs making men get them pregnant to give the babies to the gays......

Their website maybe a subtle hint at the duality of man.....
http://www.firstfamiliesfirst.com/

Shrap · 02-05-2015 10:18am

Nodin wrote: »

Their website maybe a subtle hint at the duality of man.....
http://www.firstfamiliesfirst.com/

Oh brilliant! That's a spectacular oversight, forgetting to take ownership of both the facebook page and the domain name. Class :cool:

Hotblack Desiato · 02-05-2015 10:24am

Their very name not only sounds totally idiotic, but represents an idea which is idiotic.

Mr_A · 02-05-2015 10:48am

Whoopsie- they didn't think to grab the domain name before launch.

http://firstfamiliesfirst.com/

CramCycle · 02-05-2015 4:33pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Their very name not only sounds totally idiotic, but represents an idea which is idiotic.

Can anyone explain it to me, it sounds like a Bushism.

El_Duderino 09 · 02-05-2015 9:11pm

Its predictable that Waters would need to be opposed to gay marriage. He's catholic but he couldn't simply use Catholicism to oppose gay marriage so I was curious about how he would go about it. I wonder does he think he's original or does he know he has a set of contrarian viewpoints and needs to construct arguments to fit those beliefs. In this case he uses a version of 'but there are children starving in Africa Joe, and were here discussing gay marriage. Its a disgrace, Joe. A disgrace'.

Hotblack Desiato · 03-05-2015 2:39am

CramCycle wrote: »

Can anyone explain it to me, it sounds like a Bushism.

I've little real idea of what those behind it think it means, but to me it says that the family created in one's first marriage/relationship should be favoured. So if you split up and have a second family, those kids are less valued and perhaps should get less financial support too. Reminiscent of Kevin Myers' infamous 'mothers of bastards' article, tbh, and just as distateful.

That's what often actually happens anyway, due to court sanctioned maintenance payments to the 'first family' which impoverish the second family of divorced/separated men and take no account of the needs of the children of the second relationship.

CptMackey · 03-05-2015 12:26pm

He is on newstalk at the moment. Very hard to listen to him. Does he believe what he says? Or is he just a big troll.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-05-2015 12:40pm

CptMackey wrote: »

He is on newstalk at the moment. Very hard to listen to him. Does he believe what he says? Or is he just a big troll.

He's a contrarian. Has he ever written an article saying 'I agree with the majority on this issue'?

I'd say hes clever enough to convince himself he's not simply being a contrarian, but he completely is.

robindch · 03-05-2015 2:41pm

John is unhappy this fine day. And wants the nation to join him.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

El_Duderino 09 · 03-05-2015 3:07pm

robindch wrote: »

John is unhappy this fine day. And wants the nation to join him.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

So a mother and father separate and the mother is given full custody by a judge. Mother marries a second man and now the second man might have more legal claim to the child than the biological father. Waters problem is that now the second partner of the mother might be the same gender as the mother... that's just a complicated version of the 'children need male and female parents' argument.

I give John a C- for this assignment. He obfuscated the issue but he didn't use any big words.

Hey when's Waters coming out anyway?

Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Comments