How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

your point?

you are behaving in a way that you condemned, ie a hypocrite.

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

you are behaving in a way that you condemned, ie a hypocrite.

What behaviour did I condemn?

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

What behaviour did I condemn?

I amn't helping you with your reading comprehension again. I have customers.

Bannasidhe

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's all you needed to say.

Gee - who died and put you in charge?

I say as much or as little as I wish to say Mr Raaawwwwrrrrrr!!!! and you don't get to decide what is relevant.

Just like you don't get to decide how visible any member of the LGBT community is during the upcoming campaign.

walshyn93

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gee - who died and put you in charge?

I say as much or as little as I wish to say Mr Raaawwwwrrrrrr!!!! and you don't get to decide what is relevant.

Just like you don't get to decide how visible any member of the LGBT community is during the upcoming campaign.

That's all you needed to say to reconcile your views with mine.

No one is silencing you.

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

I amn't helping you with your reading comprehension again. I have customers.

Pathetic. Accuses someone of being a hypocrite. Can't defend their accusation.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Pathetic.

At least I can read.

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

At least I can read.

Obviously not if you think what I said was hypocritical.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Obviously not if you think what I said was hypocritical.

If you couldn't follow your **** up yesterday, it is unlikely you can today.

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

If you couldn't follow your **** up yesterday, it is unlikely you can today.

Your childish defence mechanisms are so transparent.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Your childish defence mechanisms are so transparent.

Rrrrraaaaawwwwrrrrr

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

Rrrrraaaaawwwwrrrrr

I don't think you're clever enough for that to be self-referential humour.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

I've already said how terrible I think it is that we're in a situation where people might have to downplay their personality/identity to win votes.

Odd that you seem to be very much enjoying lecturing people on how you think they should downplay their identity to win votes.

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Odd that you seem to be very much enjoying lecturing people on how you think they should downplay their identity to win votes.

And the second sentence of that post says...

You disingenuous twat.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

You disingenuous twat.

Have you been drinking?

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Have you been drinking?

I don't drink.

The increasingly personal nature of the responses to my arguments leads me to think that there are no sound arguments against my position that aren't based on emotion. I'd hate for that to be the case since I made up the whole thing as I went along and it was all a bit too easy.

Lyaiera

I think there's some people in here who would have agreed the ending of the Jim Crow Laws in America ended racism, and the election of Obama meant America is now post-racial.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

I made up the whole thing as I went along

Yes, it showed.

walshyn93

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think there's some people in here who would have agreed the ending of the Jim Crow Laws in America ended racism, and the election of Obama meant America is now post-racial.

That was an unbelievable piece of insight from the oracle herself.


Does anyone in here know a Mary?

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, it showed.

Still not a single counter point. Just personal comments.

Lyaiera

walshyn93 wrote: »

That was an unbelievable piece of insight from the oracle herself.


Does anyone in here know a Mary?

"If only these gay people weren't so offensive!"

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

Still not a single counter point. Just personal comments.

Says the person who just called me a disingenuous twat.

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Says the person who just called me a disingenuous twat.

You can't expect to get out of your obligation to back up your point by accusing your opponent of hypocrisy.

K4t

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly, he has proven himself quite capable of speaking for himself put thank you for explaining it to me like I am hard of thinking. I understand perfectly well what he is saying and I profoundly disagree

Haha sorry if I came across as condescending towards you personally. I was directing my post more at society and those potential swing voters and won't voters who are hard of thinking. And I don't care if that appears condescending. This is god damned Catholic Conservative Ireland, not a Trinity college Dublin social studies class vote. And Walshy93 is acknowledging that too.

Equal does not mean 'just like everyone else'.

It does under the law though. And that is what this referendum is about; changing the law. Then you can express anything you like to your heart's content, knowing you are equal under the law.

As a heterosexual man, I am voting mostly for one person in May, and that person is ME. Because I never want there to be a day where I may be unequal under the law, and others might not understand it as so many fail to understand this referendum. So my primary motive for voting YES is myself; my vested interest is in equal rights, my own! And of course I am also voting YES for the people of Ireland and their equal rights, the entire population, gays, straights, YES voters and NO voters.

bodice ripper

walshyn93 wrote: »

You can't expect to get out of your obligation to back up your point by accusing your opponent of hypocrisy.

Z didn't do that, I did.

Zubeneschamali

walshyn93 wrote: »

You can't expect to get out of your obligation to back up your point by accusing your opponent of hypocrisy.

Wanna bet?

walshyn93

bodice ripper wrote: »

Z didn't do that, I did.

Neither can you.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

I don't drink.

The increasingly personal nature of the responses to my arguments leads me to think that there are no sound arguments against my position that aren't based on emotion. I'd hate for that to be the case since I made up the whole thing as I went along and it was all a bit too easy.

I stepped away from this thread because your attitude in your posts was extremely irritating.
However, the argument against your position is that there is zero reason for people to completely hide who they are and take the amount of bullcrap that will be thrown at them. Not enough people will be shocked into changing their vote at the sight of a gay couple that will make a difference. And nobody should have to put up with certain comments under any circumstances.
Yes, the yes side should be encouraging people to vote for them but not at the expense of mental health. There's a balance. I'm genuinely concerned about the no side's approach. What if there's some young teenager who is unsure whether to come out or not? All they're going to see is the slander and the names and the lies and see that there's nothing being done about it. Considering you said you know how people think, have you any idea what that would do to a person's mental health?
Repressing liberalism for the sake of liberalism, is not liberalism.

walshyn93

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wanna bet?

I will paypal you 50 euro if you can give me a convincing argument against my position.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

You can't expect to get out of your obligation to back up your point by accusing your opponent of hypocrisy.

You are being hypocritical. You're ordering people how to approach winning votes whilst doing an awful job of getting people to see your point.