And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

Nope - 'one side' isn't putting offensive leaflets into your letter box. Some religious bigots are.
Enlightened?

There are two options in this debate. Yes or no.

Now, can you answer my question? What extremes have the yes side come out with?

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

I urge the people on the yes side to discuss this maturely and to hold those with opposing views to the views that they have actually expressed

Agreed but discussions on Boards has it's own mentality too

However if the people behind the leaflet aren't brave enough to put their names to it and stand by their opinion, I'm not sure what right that have to a civil discussion.

Akrasia

Peist2007 wrote: »

There are two options in this debate. Yes or no.

Now, can you answer my question? What extremes have the yes side come out with?

Thats not really fair, you can't lump everyone into one group or another. There is nothing the RCC can do to stop fringe groups from saying extremist and offensive things, so they should not be held responsible for those people, just like we should not be held responsible for the nutters that wll inevitably make stupid and offensive remarks from the yes side of the fence.

Trying to discount someone's position by attacking his character is an ad hominem attack and is a logical fallacy no matter which side is engaged in it.

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not really fair, you can't lump everyone into one group or another. There is nothing the RCC can do to stop fringe groups from saying extremist and offensive things, so they should not be held responsible for those people, just like we should not be held responsible for the nutters that wll inevitably make stupid and offensive remarks from the yes side of the fense.

That's not reality though. We've already seen people lumped in to be Yes or No.

I'm lumped in with the person who screams homophobe at everyone and people on the No side are lumped in with people equating gay dads with paedophelia.

Life isn't fair. If it was then we wouldn't be having this referendum.

Akrasia

Daith wrote: »

Agreed but discussions on Boards has it's own mentality too

However if the people behind the leaflet aren't brave enough to put their names to it and stand by their opinion, I'm not sure what right that have to a civil discussion.

I haven't seen anyone actually defend the leaflet on here, so we can assume that everyone agrees that the leaflet was crass, offensive and wrong.

When someone comes on to defend it, by all means, unleash the dogs of afterhours onto him or her

(I haven't read the entire thread though, so maybe I'm wrong on that)

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone actually defend the leaflet on here, so we can assume that everyone agrees that the leaflet was crass, offensive and wrong.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's not a million miles away from what people have posted before in topics about equal marriage.

Akrasia

Daith wrote: »

That's not reality though. We've already seen people lumped in to be Yes or No.

I'm lumped in with the person who screams homophobe at everyone and people on the No side are lumped in with people equating gay dads with paedophelia.

Life isn't fair. If it was then we wouldn't be having this referendum.

Just because other people dishonestly or incorrectly lump everyone together doesn't mean we should accept it. A political campaign is about explaining your position in the hope of pursuading the other side and those in the middle to agree with you.

In any honest engagement, i think it is always important to make sure that you're representing the views of the other side accurately as best you can, and then you can defeat them on their terms (or possibly even be convinced that they were right and you were wrong all along)

Akrasia

Daith wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. It's not a million miles away from what people have posted before in topics about equal marriage.

Yeah, I know, I've seen a lot of offensive posts on Boards.ie, and If someone tries to defend such a position, then by all means, let loose on them and explain to them exactly how wrong they are, but there is no point beating someone else over the head by challenging them with a position that they themselves don't even agree with (or at least have not stated)

Peist2007

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats not really fair, you can't lump everyone into one group or another. There is nothing the RCC can do to stop fringe groups from saying extremist and offensive things, so they should not be held responsible for those people, just like we should not be held responsible for the nutters that wll inevitably make stupid and offensive remarks from the yes side of the fence.

Trying to discount someone's position by attacking his character is an ad hominem attack and is a logical fallacy no matter which side is engaged in it.

I said that those in favour of no are putting extremely offensive material through people's letterboxes this week. That is a fact. I am not attacking anyone at all by saying that and i do not know how you could come to that to be honest. But way to go on getting "logical fallacy" and "ad hominem" into the one sentence. A sure sign on boards that someone thinks they are a clever cookie

Lormal says that he/she is sick of both sides showing extremes in this argument. I only see one side doing so. I am asking LorMal to show me where yes people are being extreme.

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

Just because other people dishonestly or incorrectly lump everyone together doesn't mean we should accept it. A political campaign is about explaining your position in the hope of pursuading the other side and those in the middle to agree with you.

I admire your ideals but a political campaign is about winning. The No side have nothing to lose by fighting dirty.

Peist2007

Akrasia wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone actually defend the leaflet on here, so we can assume that everyone agrees that the leaflet was crass, offensive and wrong.

When someone comes on to defend it, by all means, unleash the dogs of afterhours onto him or her

(I haven't read the entire thread though, so maybe I'm wrong on that)

You have seen very indirect defences of it though and some not so subtle attempts at deflection. Not even a fool could try to defend "Sounds of Sodomy".

Akrasia

Peist2007 wrote: »

I said that those in favour of no are putting extremely offensive material through people's letterboxes this week. That is a fact. I am not attacking anyone at all by saying that and i do not know how you could come to that to be honest. But way to go on getting "logical fallacy" and "ad hominem" into the one sentence. A sure sign on boards that someone thinks they are a clever cookie

Lormal says that he/she is sick of both sides showing extremes in this argument. I only see one side doing so. I am asking LorMal to show me where yes people are being extreme.

Ok, fair enough

It's early in the campaign, so far I haven't seen much yes campaigning other than on social media, but i would be very surprised if we get to polling day without some group from the yes side posting something offensive or extremist (however this can be defined). When this happens, your argument which is currently
'the No side have extremist views, the Yes side don't'
will devolve into the conclusion that
'both sides have extremist views' and this will turn into squabbling over which sides extremists are the most extreme...

I'd much prefer to seperate the extremists of both sides from the core of the debate and focus on the reasons why the majority of potential no voters would oppose the referrendum.

Akrasia

Daith wrote: »

I admire your ideals but a political campaign is about winning. The No side have nothing to lose by fighting dirty.

I think the Yes side will only lose if it gets dragged into a muckraking campaign

The Yes side has all of the reasoned and considered arguments on it's side, the no side can only win by making the yes side look bad, and the best way to do this is to provoke a dirty and divisive campaign where in the end, the people are so fed up with the fighting that the turnout is low and a low turnout benefits the no side.

If the No side try to pick a fight and don't get the desired reaction, that could very easily backfire on them and further reduce their support base

Akrasia

Peist2007 wrote: »

You have seen very indirect defences of it though and some not so subtle attempts at deflection. Not even a fool could try to defend "Sounds of Sodomy".

Every time I hear those words, Simon and Garfunkle pop into my head...

Karaoke events around the country could be ruined forever by this leaflet

Baggy Trousers

Akrasia wrote: »

Every time I hear those words, Simon and Garfunkle pop into my head...

Karaoke events around the country could be ruined forever by this leaflet

Believe it or not, I have been listening to Simon and Garfunkel live in Central Park all day today. I was a huge fan many years ago.

Hello darkness, my old friend. I've come to talk with you again...

Peist2007

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, fair enough

It's early in the campaign, so far I haven't seen much yes campaigning other than on social media, but i would be very surprised if we get to polling day without some group from the yes side posting something offensive or extremist (however this can be defined). When this happens, your argument which is currently
'the No side have extremist views, the Yes side don't'
will devolve into the conclusion that
'both sides have extremist views' and this will turn into squabbling over which sides extremists are the most extreme...

I'd much prefer to seperate the extremists of both sides from the core of the debate and focus on the reasons why the majority of potential no voters would oppose the referrendum.

Who can say what will be happening at the time we go to vote, i can only comment on today and what is happening. In that regard, the no side are already putting offensive tripe in letterboxes. So to come in and start talking about extremist views on the yes side is a bit rich and smacks of early desperation from those who dont think gay people should be treated the same but are too spineless to come out and say it.

I am not saying that this is LorMal however who can now clear things up by pointing me to the yes extremism that he/she complained of earlier.

mrsbyrne

Akrasia wrote: »

It's obvious that the leaflet wasn't from the RCC. It was probably from one of the gazillion evangelical churches that have sprung up around ireland recently.

I urge the people on the yes side to discuss this maturely and to hold those with opposing views to the views that they have actually expressed, and not to lump in all the historical sins of the RCC onto every individual member of the catholic church.

Currently the Pope's attitude towards SSM is that he is in favour of civil unions but not marriage (yet) This is very different from the last pope's attitude that homosexuality was inherently sinful and abhorent.

We should give anti SSM Catholics the benefit of the doubt that they support the current Pope's position unless they choose to clarify themselves that they are more supportive of the attitudes of the previous Pope.

Note, the current pope views 'the homosexual act' as immoral, but not any more immoral than any other thing the RCC opposes, such as the use of contraceptives, or divorce, or not attending mass etc.. 'who am I to judge?'

But while you are speaking in a reasonable rational considerate thoughtful manner about this subject, and you have implored what "yes" proponents on this thread there are to be calm and civil to opponnets on the subject is SSM, im afraid your being ignored. Mostly because 2 or 3 are only using the leaflet as yet another opportunity to scoff and mock the beliefs of others, and in such a repetitive "broken record" manner too.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But while you are speaking in a reasonable rational considerate thoughtful manner about this subject, and you have implored what "yes" proponents on this thread there are to be calm and civil to opponnets on the subject is SSM, im afraid your being ignored. Mostly because 2 or 3 are only using the leaflet as yet another opportunity to scoff and mock the beliefs of others, and in such a repetitive "broken record" manner too.

And once again you only look at what the Yes voters do and not the other way around.

In a thread. About a leaflet. Which says you should vote No in the referendum because children shouldn't hear two men having sex.

smash

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Mostly because 2 or 3 are only using the leaflet as yet another opportunity to scoff and mock the beliefs of others, and in such a repetitive "broken record" manner too.

Much like how a high percentage of the 'No' campaign use their outdated and outrageous blinkered beliefs to try and deny equality to gay people in such a repetitive "broken record" manner...

Peist2007

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But while you are speaking in a reasonable rational considerate thoughtful manner about this subject, and you have implored what "yes" proponents on this thread there are to be calm and civil to opponnets on the subject is SSM, im afraid your being ignored. Mostly because 2 or 3 are only using the leaflet as yet another opportunity to scoff and mock the beliefs of others, and in such a repetitive "broken record" manner too.

So, just so i have this right - the issue here is not the hate-filled bile being put through people's doors but in fact the bedside manner of those who call it out for what it is? Are you listening to yourself?

mrsbyrne

Peist2007 wrote: »

You have seen very indirect defences of it though and some not so subtle attempts at deflection. Not even a fool could try to defend "Sounds of Sodomy".

I've read the entire thread and apart from posts from a poster wh has bbeen banned for the hundredth time, I have not seen one post even indirectly or subtly defend the leaflet.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I've read the entire thread and apart from posts from a poster wh has bbeen banned for the hundredth time, I have not seen one post even indirectly or subtly defend the leaflet.

Yet it probably is some persons deeply held and sincere belief. So by your reason no one should be making fun of it?

mrsbyrne

Peist2007 wrote: »

So, just so i have this right - the issue here is not the hate-filled bile being put through people's doors but in fact the bedside manner of those who call it out for what it is? Are you listening to yourself?

No you havnt got it right. You've got it all wrong. I have no idea why.

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Yet it probably is some persons deeply held and sincere belief. So by your reason no one should be making fun of it?

I have

Daith

Daith wrote: »

Yet it probably is some persons deeply held and sincere belief. So by your reason no one should be making fun of it?

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I have

Why? You give out for the Yes side for mocking other peoples beliefs but mocking the leaflet (provided it's their religious belief) is the same thing

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Yet it probably is some persons deeply held and sincere belief. So by your reason no one should be making fun of it?

Sorry, what is someone's deeply held belief? Where are yii going wwith this? Where are the posts that display either indirect or subtle ssupport for the lleaflet? There are none.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Sorry, what is someone's deeply held belief? Where are yii going wwith this? Where are the posts that display either indirect or subtle ssupport for the lleaflet? There are none.

To break it down

The leaflet probably represents someones belief (unless it's a piss take).

You give out to the Yes side for mocking beliefs.

Therefore you should be giving out to anyone for mocking the leaflet and you shouldn't be doing it yourself.

eviltwin

If that leaflet had been produced without the religious references then I don't think anyone would be defending the views of its creators. But once you add a religious reference all of a sudden it has to be treated with respect. Why should a point of view be respected? I can respect someone who is anti SSM if they make their point in a mature and respectful way. Tugging at people heartstrings by using children as a kind of emotional blackmail is a low dig and I don't respect that.

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Why? You give out for the Yes side for mocking other peoples beliefs but mocking the leaflet (provided it's their religious belief) is the same thing

You've lost me now.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You've lost me now.

Yeah I know.