Curry my yoghurt!

Iwasfrozen

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Oh the "free speech when it suits" thing.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that. You made an unfounded and unsupported assumption. (For clarities sake the assumption being that I would react differently if another politician mocked the sound of another language). Which I ignored (because it was irrelevant) and now you're using that assumption to make an accusation that I'm not consistent (that I only support freedom of speech when it suits). Not before accusing me of trolling of course.

Your arguments are all over the place and you have no logical leg to stand on. Unless you're going to actually address the points I raised please don't waste my time with accusations of trolling and assumptions based on assumptions.

Laura Palmer

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your arguments are all over the place and you have no logical leg to stand on.

What are you basing that on? Me disagreeing with you?

Unless you're going to actual address the points I raised.

But I did.

KERSPLAT!

MOD

Ye know the rules regarding calling out trolls, please don't do it. Report in future.

Iwasfrozen

Laura Palmer wrote: »

What are you basing that on? Me disagreeing with you?

No. I explained it in my post.

"I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that. You made an unfounded and unsupported assumption. (For clarities sake the assumption being that I would react differently if another politician mocked the sound of another language). Which I ignored (because it was irrelevant) and now you're using that assumption to make an accusation that I'm not consistent (that I only support freedom of speech when it suits). Not before accusing me of trolling of course.

Your arguments are all over the place and you have no logical leg to stand on. Unless you're going to actually address the points I raised please don't waste my time with accusations of trolling and assumptions based on assumptions."

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But I did.

You accused me of trolling and claimed that I only value freedom of speech sometimes based on an assumption that I would react differently of another politician mocked the sound of another language, please don't waste my time.

loughside

Laura Palmer wrote: »

it's not unreasonable to disagree with a politician - any politician - publicly sneering and being provocative at a particular language, and by extension, a particular group (Irish speakers).

only imo the politician was sneering at the use of a language which in his opinion was for political purposes only, SF knowing full well it was unintelligible to the majority of the chamber.

btw just to bring things into context, no one was blown to pieces, hurt or severely injured by this incident.
no one will be found in a bog years later,
no one had to endure a vicious rape by terrorists because of this incident,

need i go on?

Laura Palmer

loughside wrote: »

btw just to bring things into context, no one was blown to pieces, hurt or severely injured by this incident.
no one will be found in a bog years later,
no one had to endure a vicious rape by terrorists because of this incident

But nobody is saying it's as bad as those, doesn't mean they can't criticise it.

Laura Palmer

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

the assumption being that I would react differently if another politician mocked the sound of another language). Which I ignored (because it was irrelevant)

Kinda like the way you... constantly... throw in whatabouting when it's not of relevance?
I'm familiar with your posts for many years - my assumptions are not without foundation.

loughside

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I'm familiar with your posts for many years

you do mean many days, right?

Join Date: Oct 2014

edgecutter

You only need to listen to Campbell's response to what he said to realise that he shouldn't be taken seriously at all. His idea of British 'culture' in the north is waving a flag and marching down streets to prove themselves.

Anyone who wants a united Ireland with these lot needs to have a long hard think.

kingchess

Maybe Campbell(good Scottish name) should look across the water at the land of his ancestors and see how things are handled in the Scottish Parliament (Parlamaid na H-Alba) with regards to how they deal with the Gaelic Language??

loughside

kingchess wrote: »

Maybe Campbell(good Scottish name) should look across the water at the land of his ancestors and see how things are handled in the Scottish Parliament (Parlamaid na H-Alba) with regards to how they deal with the Gaelic Language??

Hmmm,.... throw in a bunch of well dressed ex-terrorists into the mix and it might not run so smoothly in Parlamaid na H-Alba land.

loughside

edgecutter wrote: »

Anyone who wants a united Ireland with these lot needs to have a long hard think.

so you`re tarring a million people with the same brush?

very friendly attitude.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's a perfect example of pettiness. Let the Unionists have their damn flag. Why does it matter? SF poked loyalists with a stick and condemned the consequences.

So if someone's going to threaten violence just give them what they want? I'd hate to live in your democracy. I would say I cant believe that someone is on here accusing a democratic compromise of being petty as opposed to the knuckledraggers who tried to burn belfast to the ground, but given your previous posts it doesnt require much of a leap of imagination.

Laura Palmer

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So if someone's going to threaten violence just give them what they want?

Only when loyalist. And probably Israeli.

loughside

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Only when loyalist. And probably Israeli.

oops, lets throw a little bit of racism into the mix - Hey, we`re on a roll - why not !!


dear o dear

Crooked Jack

loughside wrote: »

oops, lets throw a little bit of racism into the mix - Hey, we`re on a roll - why not !!


dear o dear

Racism? The poster documented a well established link between unionism/loyalism and the apartheid state of Israel. Where's the racism?

Nodin

loughside wrote: »

oops, lets throw a little bit of racism into the mix - Hey, we`re on a roll - why not !!


dear o dear

Still can't answer the questions?

loughside

Nodin wrote: »

Still can't answer the questions?

Still can`t figure out the answers!!!??

c`mon noddy i know you can do it..

loughside

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Racism? The poster documented a well established link between unionism/loyalism and the apartheid state of Israel. Where's the racism?

must have missed that - link please??

Nodin

loughside wrote: »

Still can`t figure out the answers!!!??

c`mon noddy i know you can do it..

Why can't you answer? What, exactly, is the problem?

Iwasfrozen

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Kinda like the way you... constantly... throw in whatabouting when it's not of relevance?
I'm familiar with your posts for many years - my assumptions are not without foundation.

Engaging in whataboutary to accuse me of whataboutary.

How many other ways can you cover up the fact you have no respect for freedom of speech when the person speaking is mocking something you personally care about. That's three so far.

Crooked Jack

loughside wrote: »

must have missed that - link please??

Cant believe anyone actually needs a link for this. It's like asking for a link that proves water is wet. Oh well, here ya go. There are countless more that you can look up yourself.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/stormont-meeting-launches-dup-friends-of-israel-group-1-6114099

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So if someone's going to threaten violence just give them what they want? I'd hate to live in your democracy. I would say I cant believe that someone is on here accusing a democratic compromise of being petty as opposed to the knuckledraggers who tried to burn belfast to the ground, but given your previous posts it doesnt require much of a leap of imagination.

No. Those in power should never give in to violence or the threat of violence but neither should they engage in such pettiness.

Laura Palmer

loughside wrote: »

oops, lets throw a little bit of racism into the mix - Hey, we`re on a roll - why not !!


dear o dear

But there's no racism?
I was only referring to that person's selectivity. They don't condemn threats of violence when they're from people they support/agree with.
What "roll" am I on?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Engaging in whataboutary to accuse me of whataboutary.

How many other ways can you cover up the fact you have no respect for freedom of speech when the person speaking is mocking something you personally care about. That's three so far.

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist. Stop twisting my words. I know your tactics, lots of people do. If an organisation said something that you found deplorable, you wouldn't think they had the freedom to do so - hence why I said "Freedom of speech when it suits".

Laura Palmer

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well established link between unionism/loyalism and the apartheid state of Israel

Known as the "Sticking it to the nationalists" link.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No. Those in power should never give in to violence or the threat of violence but neither should they engage in such pettiness.

You still havent explained how it's petty. It's a flag that less than half the people of Belfast identify with. SF could have pushed for it to be taken down altogether but they didnt. They, through their own volition, opted for a compromise. That's the opposite of petty.

Iwasfrozen

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist. Stop twisting my words. I know your tactics, lots of people do. If an organisation said something that you found deplorable, you wouldn't think they had the freedom to do so - hence why I said "Freedom of speech when it suits".

Freedom of speech certainly exists. Especially in the assembly where members are given the added legal protection of Parliamentary privilege.

But the existence or non existence of freedom of speech is not the issue in contention here. I am making the case that you do not respect freedom of speech when the speaker is mocking something you personally identify with.

Laura Palmer

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Freedom of speech certainly exists. Especially in the assembly where members are given the added legal protection of Parliamentary privilege.

No it doesn't exist. Because if it truly did, anyone could say anything.

I am making the case that you do not respect freedom of speech when the speaker is mocking something you personally identify with.

And you're wrong/lying. I clearly said I find it unprofessional and unbecoming for any public representative (and listed various ones) to mock a language like petty schoolchildren.
Just because you're absolutely OBSESSED with ridiculing the Irish language IWF doesn't mean I don't have the right to hold that view, and it makes you incredibly biased. I do not believe for a nanosecond that you'd be ok with public representatives mocking other languages publicly.

feargale

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Maybe he was trying to say it in Ulster Scots, ya know, that real, totally not made up language some knuckle draggers are clinging too as a sign they have culture.

The status of Ulster Scots as a language or a dialect is a moot point. It has EU recognition. It is best classed as a sub-dialect of Scots, and while Scots is now a dialect of English, it was undoubtedly a language in its own right for a few centuries until 1600/1700 or thereabouts. There is a body of poetry in Ulster Scots. I'm sure you don't intend to stoop to Campbell's level, but that is what you do when you denigrate Ulster Scots, and stooping to his level is stooping pretty low.
True, some people have cynically exploited Ulster Scots, just as others have done likewise to Irish,

Karl Stein

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Just because you're absolutely OBSESSED with ridiculing the Irish language

He's gets a buzz out of this type of thing. Pretty sad really.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think it's pretty funny. Anything that pisses off gaelgeoirs is funny in my book.