Things youth defence hates..

Actor

Galvasean wrote: »

Breached the legally binding terms & conditions of the photographs they used in their massive advertising campaign. Try to keep up.

Care to quote those terms? How they used the image is open to interpretation AFAIC.

Just because the lefty online news media had a field day by ignoring the facts of the dispute (as you are doing) and conveniently let readers assume that they stole images; doesn't mean it's factually correct.

Helix

Actor wrote: »

Care to quote those terms? How they used the image is open to interpretation AFAIC.

use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour; or (b) except where accompanied by a statement that indicates that the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only and any person depicted in the Content is a model, that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself

there's also the small issue that they used an image from a well known swedish artist without his permission. no terms and conditions involved there, just straight up theft

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

Did what exactly?

There you are. A number of posters asked a question of you which can be summed up as - why is sodomy bad for society?


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79887177&postcount=90
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79886148&postcount=86
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79885302&postcount=84

...if you'd be good enough to enlighten us.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

What would you suggest for the inhabitants of tenemants? Condoms? (or perhaps a sock in the early 20th century?)

Maybe a bit of education. Empowerment of women is essential for the alleviation of poverty. Not only do you have half the population sitting at home, but they end up with a stupendous number of children who they must somehow feed and clothe, so that those children can perpetuate the cycle. The decline of dogma and the wide availability of contraceptives is at least partially responsible for the incredible improvements we've seen in the last few decades.

robindch

Actor wrote: »

Care to quote those terms?

Care to answer the question you've been asked by just about everybody at this point -- how does sodomy -- defined as sex other than a guy's pointy bit parked inside a women's front bottom -- damage society?

Or would you prefer to avoid answering?

Your call.

robindch

robindch wrote:

Care to answer the question you've been asked by just about everybody at this point -- how does sodomy -- defined as sex other than a guy's pointy bit parked inside a women's front bottom -- damage society?

They won't answer because they're a religious loon and would rather proselytise than have a rational discussion.

Actor wrote: »

Both terms are inaccurate. I'm against gays getting their hands on children, and I'm against sodomy.

Well, it's too bad because eventually gay people will have the marriage rights they deserve, and then what are you going to do? Stand outside the GPO and whine about Jesus while everyone ignores you? There is no evidence that being raised by a gay couple has any detrimental effect on a child, while there are swathes of evidence that religious upbringings do.

Your theocratic nonsense won't fly in 21st century Ireland. We won't tolerate it. You can talk about sin all you want; how unfortunate that nobody but a few mentallers gives a **** what a bronze age book has to say.

NotForResale

I would wonder what their view on this might be.


". Doctors say the girl, whose name is being withheld to protect her privacy, needs an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. But there's one problem: the teenager is nine weeks pregnant and treatment would very likely terminate the pregnancy, a violation of Dominican anti-abortion laws."


Or in this case are the Dominican republics Anti-abortion laws actually more strict than those youth defence would ultimately prefer implemented.

NotForResale

NotForResale wrote: »

I would wonder what their view on this might be.


". Doctors say the girl, whose name is being withheld to protect her privacy, needs an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. But there's one problem: the teenager is nine weeks pregnant and treatment would very likely terminate the pregnancy, a violation of Dominican anti-abortion laws."


Or in this case are the Dominican republics Anti-abortion laws actually more strict than those youth defence would ultimately prefer implemented.

Their position would probably be: the life of a barely-developed foetus is more important than the life of a grown woman, never mind the fact that the cancer could metastasise through the placenta, killing both.

wonderfulname

NotForResale wrote: »

I would wonder what their view on this might be.


". Doctors say the girl, whose name is being withheld to protect her privacy, needs an aggressive chemotherapy treatment. But there's one problem: the teenager is nine weeks pregnant and treatment would very likely terminate the pregnancy, a violation of Dominican anti-abortion laws."


Or in this case are the Dominican republics Anti-abortion laws actually more strict than those youth defence would ultimately prefer implemented.

They should disagree with the above, principle of double effect and all that jazz. What exactly is the law that chemo whilst pregnant would be in violation of?

NotForResale

wonderfulname wrote: »

They should disagree with the above, principle of double effect and all that jazz. What exactly is the law that chemo whilst pregnant would be in violation of?

For the Dominican republic it would seem chemo would be considered abortion as it could indirectly cause one.

1968

Slightly off topic but thought this piece might be of interest to some.

Article on Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna whose daughter Niamh was one of YD's founders. Una herself has been active in Irish conservative politics for over 40 years:

http://comeheretome.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

lazygal

Does YD hate boards.ie?

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Does YD hate boards.ie?

I can think of a few boardies who would be poster boys for YD

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can think of a few boardies who would be poster boys for YD

Name and shame!

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Name and shame!

I spy with my little eye posters beginning with 'P'... :P

Sonics2k

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I spy with my little eye posters beginning with 'P'... :P

Pluewolf?

Galvasean

lazygal wrote: »

Does YD hate boards.ie?

Well considering they've posted in this thread (hit n' run style) I'm not sure...

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

Pluewolf?

Ponics2k - believes in growing fruit and veg in a liquid solution and is to the far right of Hitler.

:P

Sarky

Trying to shift the attention away, Pannasidhe?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Trying to shift the attention away, Pannasidhe?

Damn that sesky Parky. I would have gotten away with it but for him. :mad:

Sarky

Heh, I am pretty seksy, thanks.

baalthor

1968 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but thought this piece might be of interest to some.

Article on Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna whose daughter Niamh was one of YD's founders. Una herself has been active in Irish conservative politics for over 40 years:

http://comeheretome.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

Una grew up in Gurranabraher in Cork where her brother Larry White, a leading local activist with Saorise Eire (offshoot of Saor Eire), was shot dead by the Official IRA in 1975.

Amazingly the man convicted of his murder, but who was later acquitted, is the husband of Labour Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch !

In June 2011, Kathleen Lynch caused controversy when she appointed her husband, Bernard, to the role as personal assistant, which is a taxpayer-funded role. The Mail on Sunday then reported that Bernard Lynch had been convicted of the murder of Larry White in Cork in 1975, and that the conviction had been overturned

Bannasidhe

baalthor wrote: »

Amazingly the man convicted of his murder, but who was later acquitted, is the husband of Labour Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch !

Relevance???

baalthor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Relevance???

Well, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that you have two individuals who have huge ideological differences over abortion and many other things and they turn out to have this link between them. It must add an extra level of bitterness to the debate ...

MrPudding

Sonics2k wrote: »

Pluewolf?

As long as it isn't Pudding, Mr.

MrP

Bannasidhe

baalthor wrote: »

Well, I thought it was an interesting coincidence that you have two individuals who have huge ideological differences over abortion and many other things and they turn out to have this link between them. It must add an extra level of bitterness to the debate ...

Gotcha.

fitz0

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Relevance???

Well it's clearly part of Labour's atheist anti-Catholic agenda.

Bannasidhe

fitz0 wrote: »

Well it's clearly part of Labour's atheist anti-Catholic agenda.

It's the only thing that makes me consider voting for them now that they have given up even pretending to be socialist.

Cienciano

The irony in all this is more sodomy means less abortions. Sodomy saves lives

Bannasidhe

Cienciano wrote: »

The irony in all this is more sodomy means less abortions. Sodomy saves lives

Now there's a t-shirt slogan!