Sacred Cows (people no one dares criticise)

Galwayguy35

Lux23 wrote: »

Brian O'Driscoll. He's a greedy bully but sure he can do no wrong according to a lot of people.

Who did he bully?

Field east

Chloris wrote: »

Ah Futurama have had a good go at them!


She wanted somebody to murder her. She had fantasies about it. How does the fact that she was then murdered make her any less twisted? Arguably it makes it apparent just how sick she was.


Jesus, rugby is just a stupid f'n sport. Realistically, when you consider the pointlessness of it, he's an absolute idiot for risking his health for a game. They all are.

What a comment. A few things come to mind. Such as:-
' Play the ball and not the man'. And no pun is intended here. You might read the OP again
You apparently come from the school of thought that is into the hierarchy of occupations, skills, professions and sports ( I assume). Like the hierarchy of victims that is currency in another area. Your post smells of ' what I do , what or who I am, etc, is better than what you do or who you are. Is the refuse collector not as important as the transplant surgeon , in principal?

5rtytry56

Simon Cowel.

Galwayguy35

Mary Robinson

Taxburden carrier

The Irish mammy

5rtytry56

Patrick Honohan.


Sean Quinn Snr
Sean Quinn Jnr
Peter Daragh Quinn.
Sean Fitzpatrick.
And
The rest of The Maple Ten.

galljga1

Chuck Norris eats sacred cows.

Chloris

Eugene Norman wrote:

You could reduce all sport with such reductionist absurdities. Soccer is kicking a round ball around the place. Gaelic football is picking it up sometimes. Rugby is picking it up with an egg shaped ball. Marathon runners expend energy going nowhere that they couldn't go faster on public transport, cyclists in the tour the France could hop on a TGV and get there quicker, athletics is running around in circles, gymnastics is jumping around in circles.... And on.

I absolutely think this about virtually all sports. You're talking about the same chauvinistic, rubbish civilisations who conquered enslaved entire races for a laugh, then went back to watch the sports in order to vindicate their masculinity.

I'm not saying you can't enjoy sports and be intellectual, but I am saying that if you watch them, you have to be willing to admit that they are essential pointless testosterone rageathons which create pointless divides between countries, counties, states... Often resulting in violence and riots. Read some JG Ballard, he sums up a lot of my views about sports. Bah sports.

Adhamh

Stephen Fry and the people who worship him.

Son Of A Vidic

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

With Islam, I find that any criticism (however valid and reasonable) is a bit of a "sacred cow". You have to be very careful with what you say and how you phrase it, or you may be accused of being islamophobic or something along those lines. Even now as I type, I'm thinking is it okay to say this? I wouldn't be like that with other religions.

Any potential incitement to hate or towards intolerance, always needs to be nipped in the bud. It should also be self-evident why Boards.ie does not and will not tolerate agenda driven attacks. Especially if they are directed at those who subscribe to a different religion, or to those who may have a different sexual orientation. Boards.ie is a private site and can probably do without the potentially litigious mess, some muppet might leave behind with their ignorant & provocative posts. Hence the reason why one should always tread carefully when discussing such sensitive topics.

Irish Guitarist

Stephen Fry. I think he's a bit of a prick myself.

Anytime there's a thread about being offended someone will post this. Meanwhile someone calls him 'boring' on Twitter and he threatens to delete his account in a desperate bid for attention. God forbid one person might not find him fascinating.

orthsquel

Irish and Irish-American film directors e.g. Irish director Jim Sheridan

wretcheddomain

Linda Martin

EDIT: Must have missed the word sacred in the thread title.

LoganRice

Donal Walsh, some rugby players from Ireland, mr no it all

galljga1

Mark Twain: "Sacred Cows make the best hamburger" .

When the Sun Hits

jooksavage wrote: »

Are you posting from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? :-) Maybe people are more reticent about it here in Ireland. This certainly wasn't the case when I lived in Manchester. As I said some publications are making bank off the back of an anti-muslim agenda. By insinuating that Cuban Pete had a bias you actually validated his point. I cant speak for CP but I don't think it's incompatible to be appalled by the overt sexism of some Muslims and and also unsettled by the cynical xenophobic baiting that goes on in tabloid media.

Nope, sorry. If I had accused him of being "a lefty loony" or some other similar nonsense I'd have proven his point, but I didn't. By your logic any sort of disagreement with him would prove his point if phrased a certain way. That wouldn't be good for discussion, would it? Personally, I was hoping we could avoid all of that crap, it's just meaningless BS, lets be honest. "Loony left" or "right ring nut" what does it achieve? "They call us this". It's not exactly intelligent conversation, it it?

Back on topic. To say that criticisms of the Islam faith is something that is always accepted, and that questioning or objecting to this criticism is "taboo" is simply a ridiculous claim. That is what CP implied. I think one would have to have a bias to have this opinion, which is why I mentioned it.

I don't read the tabloids, but I certainly wouldn't consider anything they publish to be addressing any issue, not in a serious way anyway. It's a tabloid. They make a lot of money on sensationalist crap. I think most people find the xenophobic stuff that features in some forms of the media unsettling. As you said it's certainly not incompatible to be concerned with certain issues the religion has and to abhor the xenophobic stuff present in some tabloids. But then again, I don't recall ever saying it was incompatible, so I don't why you mentioned it?

I'm just speaking from my own experience, that publicly it wouldn't be something a lot of people would feel comfortable to talk about in a critical manner. Similarly, many secondary schools have dress codes for everyone, except those of a certain faith. Not that I have a problem with what they wear or anything, but you can see how there is an apprehension and fear for schools to act. They don't want to appear a certain way.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Chloris wrote: »

I absolutely think this about virtually all sports. You're talking about the same chauvinistic, rubbish civilisations who conquered enslaved entire races for a laugh, then went back to watch the sports in order to vindicate their masculinity.

I'm not saying you can't enjoy sports and be intellectual, but I am saying that if you watch them, you have to be willing to admit that they are essential pointless testosterone rageathons which create pointless divides between countries, counties, states... Often resulting in violence and riots. Read some JG Ballard, he sums up a lot of my views about sports. Bah sports.

The bolded part certainly doesn't apply anymore. Sports are just a form of entertainment like any other and playing them is good for your health.

Reading books,Watching films etc is equally as pointless as sport

Rubberchikken

homosexuals, any cancer survivor, anyone with a disability, particular religion(s) etc.

i'm not in the habit of bothering about anyone in the list but sometimes some people/religions are a pri*k and to be able to say that without being attacked for going at the poor disabled/gay/whatever would not be the end of the world but in actual fact is way too much effort so i never bother.*sigh*

Wang King

Rubberchikken wrote: »

homosexuals, any cancer survivor, anyone with a disability, particular religion(s) etc.

i'm not in the habit of bothering about anyone in the list but sometimes some people/religions are a pri*k and to be able to say that without being attacked for going at the poor disabled/gay/whatever would not be the end of the world but in actual fact is way too much effort so i never bother.*sigh*

Homosexuals! Great bunch of.......lads
....I'll get my coat

When the Sun Hits

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Any potential incitement to hate or towards intolerance, always needs to be nipped in the bud. It should also be self-evident why Boards.ie does not and will not tolerate agenda driven attacks. Especially if they are directed at those who subscribe to a different religion, or to those who may have a different sexual orientation. Boards.ie is a private site and can probably do without the potentially litigious mess, some muppet might leave behind with their ignorant & provocative posts. Hence the reason why one should always tread carefully when discussing such sensitive topics.

I didn't really ask for any of that information, nor did I mention agenda driven attacks or incitement to hate, but um, yeah, thanks for that. It is possible to draw attention to issues within a religion without being intolerant or inciting hatred, you know.

I wasn't talking about discriminative or intolerant comments. I can understand if boards.ie is strict on even civilised discussion regarding Islam, threads like that can attract posters who make hateful or prejudice comments. Cleaning it up could be more trouble than it's worth, and closing it up is easier. I realise they could be liable. They do what they gotta do to protect themselves legally.

galljga1

Rubberchikken wrote: »

homosexuals, any cancer survivor, anyone with a disability, particular religion(s) etc.

i'm not in the habit of bothering about anyone in the list but sometimes some people/religions are a pri*k and to be able to say that without being attacked for going at the poor disabled/gay/whatever would not be the end of the world but in actual fact is way too much effort so i never bother.*sigh*

A bit chicken perhaps.

Baron Kurtz

househero wrote: »

Sexton.

He fails us every single time we need him. Stupidly easy kicks. But the media lick the chocolate from his cheeks

Jesus, did you have to put it like that:)

Alexis Sanchez

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Any potential incitement to hate or towards intolerance, always needs to be nipped in the bud. It should also be self-evident why Boards.ie does not and will not tolerate agenda driven attacks. Especially if they are directed at those who subscribe to a different religion, or to those who may have a different sexual orientation. Boards.ie is a private site and can probably do without the potentially litigious mess, some muppet might leave behind with their ignorant & provocative posts. Hence the reason why one should always tread carefully when discussing such sensitive topics.

It never happens with other religions, though - just Islam.

Because the vast majority of Islam's adherents have brown skin, people stupidly view Muslims as a race and object to criticism of their beliefs and behaviour, then they'll turn around and bash Christanity without realizing how hypocritical they're being.

I guarantee you feck-all of them have read any of Islam holy textbooks, they blindly defend something they don't understand because they're self-righteous morons.

As for Boards, it has its own liberal PC agenda, so it will censor everything that a group of people find offensive and protest about. Most Muslims vehemently object to criticism their religion, so the liberal pander to them and try to silence the critics, which impedes on Western free speech that liberalism created.

I find it very hypocritical which is why I refuse to identify with liberalism, despite most of my beliefs being liberal.

Pumpkinseeds

Most babies aren't planned and that's fine, most are either accidents or attempts to save a failing relationship. What bugs me is the patronising attitude that people with children take to people who chose not to have kids. I'm 42 years old, my husband and I have been together for 19 years and never wanted kids, so we were extremely careful not to have any. It bugs the s h i t out of me to have some gob****e parent give me a patronising pitying look when I say we don't have kids, or worse still the 'one day you'll change your mind' comment.

Fcuk right off with that. It's so tempting to ask whether their kids were accidents or attempts to save a failing relationship, but of course that's a no no.

PowerToWait

Rubberchikken wrote: »

homosexuals, anyone with a disability,

Gay people can be wānkers. People with disability can be d ickheads. I don't see where's the problem in saying this should it be the case. It's not some magic shield.

Most gay people I know and every disabled person I know, would cringe at the thoughts of being so patronised that people would be afraid to say what they really felt because disabled / gay.

The problem is, and very few people are going to understand this I'm afraid, both gay and disabled people are very much stereotyped. And when they deviate from this stereotype they are often seen as being 'uppity'.

Often if it doesn't fit in with a person's preconception then that person is discombobulated to the extent that they think 'wānker'.

Not to be confused with a person just being a prick. Of which there are many, many and many. In every cohort.

Matta Harri

PowerToWait wrote: »

No didn't miss that thanks. Wheelchair user gets a pass to make sweeping generalisation about a hugely diverse subsection of society because why?

If I came on saying 'I'm black / gay / traveller / immigrant / whatever, and they're all pricks and I should know cos I'm one of 'em', that would be preposterous. But a chair user can talk that way about people with disabilities?

Wasn't it yourself who made the first post ' some of them can be right cnuts'?

Why is this even surprising? A disability doesn't make a saint out of someone. The same way it doesn't automatically confer 'prick' status on them either as matta harri has implied. Maybe the disability doesn't actually define who they are. Crazy but just maybe.

I didn't say that every person with a disability is a 'prick', I said that a disporportioate amount are selfish and self entitled as they have had excuses made for them all their lives.

A disproportionate amount doesn't equal all but you peddle away there regardless of what was written.

Dughorm

Comedians

Criticise Oliver Callan or Mario Rosenstock for going too far and watch what happens!

Eugene Norman

I wouldn't agree that Islam is a sacred cow. Judaism maybe.

Kermit.de.frog

I have no beef with the president OP however I do think he represents a bit of an image problem for the country (leprechauns and all that) due to his physical appearance. There I said it.

jca

whiskeyman wrote: »

Mary Robinson
Mary McAleese
John Hume
Adi Roche
John O'Shea (from Goal)
Padraig Harrington
Ken Doherty

You forgot gods favourite, Katie Taylor.