Equality of marriage and love

Turtwig

SpaceTime wrote: »

He wouldn't have a right to be forgotten. Taking a court case is a matter of public record.

On another topic :

I find this whole thing of attempting to delete public records or make them harder to find is really just censorship of a sort. Also who decides this? Google?!

The name search for him wouldn't be effective. Suppose Spacetime used his "right to be forgotten" that means when someone google's you results with the strings containing your name aren't reported for the scenarios you wish. In order to find the court case you'd have to dig it up the old fashioned way. Year, date, month, other named persons connected to the case, the type of case or sentencing etc. The process makes it rather difficult for people to google you directly and see things you don't want them to see. Say, news report on a guilty verdict.

Google does it on your request. They're legally obliged to do so. They fought against it and lost.

Brian Shanahan

iguana wrote: »

I have to say I feel quite sorry for him too. He is clearly delusional and what he despeartely needs is for someone with his best interests at heart to give him a sharp talking to, inject a dose of reality into his delusions and to convince him that he needs some serious psychological help. Instead he is being used by a man who is feeding his delusions in order to further his own agenda. Eldridge is destroying any future potential Lyons had to come to terms with his life and the role he played in getting to where he is. I suspect he is destroying any real chance Lyons' has to maintain or win back the love and respect of his children. He is turning him into a laughing stock and an embarrasment to his family while making him think that he is a hero.

So he's basically a fotl stuck on a slightly different form of legalistic woo then.

Turtwig

Fotl?

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Fotl?

Freeman on the land. Google Bobby of the family Sluggs, it's absolutely hilarious.


But basically the whole thing is based around idiot premises like "the law is only a contract, you cannot be subject to it without prior agreement", "the government uses your birth cert to make money off insurance" and "your name, e.g. John Smith, only refers to your birth cert (called the strawman by fotls) and any correspondence addressed in your name is actually for your birth cert. So if you change your name by putting in a colon between forename and surname, or using 'of the family' or some other formulation, you cannot be indicted on foot of such a document."

SpaceTime

Turtwig wrote: »

The name search for him wouldn't be effective. Suppose Spacetime used his "right to be forgotten" that means when someone google's you results with the strings containing your name aren't reported for the scenarios you wish. In order to find the court case you'd have to dig it up the old fashioned way. Year, date, month, other named persons connected to the case, the type of case or sentencing etc. The process makes it rather difficult for people to google you directly and see things you don't want them to see. Say, news report on a guilty verdict.

Google does it on your request. They're legally obliged to do so. They fought against it and lost.

I know where it comes from but it's just that the search engine is being expected to make decisions on who has and hasn't a right to be forgotten.

Short of ordering the burning of newspaper archives, I think the law in this area is utterly ridiculous.

You can't just erase history!

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] the whole thing is based around idiot premises like "the law is only a contract, you cannot be subject to it without prior agreement" [...]

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

It's an idea beloved of libertarians as well: "Social contract? I never signed one."

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

You can't just erase history!

It's all rather a bit Winston Smith-esque.

I can see it serving the individual interest quite well. I can't see it serving the public interest as there is no requirement to prove that the material is in any way incorrect.

Thankfully other search engines (and other geographical versions of the most popular search engine) are available.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

The argument you specifically quoted is most often used by fotls when they're stopped by the peelers driving down a botherín in the arse end of nowhere at 90mph (a turbo charged snail would still go faster, mind) without tax, insurance, nct or licence in an old banger held together by the rust.

They say because they don't agree to motoring legislation they are not bound by it, and therefore they can't be arrested for making the road a massively more dangerous place for the rest of us plebs.

Smiley92a

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing for one moment to suggest that the FOTL movement aren't fundamentally bonkers, the claim that "all law is contractual" is an interesting idea, and no more unarguable than anything else in law.

If you're interested in some critical reading on state power and violence by someone who isn't mad, David Graeber's written some interesting stuff. He argues that state power is ultimately based on physical coercion. Of course, this might well be a necessary evil of living in a society, but interesting stuff nonetheless. His essay on bureaucracy in particular does the Foucaultian thing of casting apparently-benign institutions in a sinister light.

MrPudding

SpaceTime wrote: »

I know where it comes from but it's just that the search engine is being expected to make decisions on who has and hasn't a right to be forgotten.

Short of ordering the burning of newspaper archives, I think the law in this area is utterly ridiculous.

You can't just erase history!

I think the issue is that google is so effective at finding stuff simply being removed from google searches is extremely effective at hiding one's past. History has not changed, information has not been erased, it is just slightly harder to get at it. I don't know if I would go so far as to say the law in this area is ridiculous, but I would say it is not without issue. I understand the principle behind it, and I think it is a good one, but it is yet another difficulty of 'analogue' laws and principles trying to be shoe-horned into the digital world.

Personally I think it is a fascinating area of discussion. I know you know where it comes from but in case you are interested, or for anyone not as familiar with the subject, here are a few interesting articles.

MrP

iguana

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So he's basically a fotl stuck on a slightly different form of legalistic woo then.

No, more like a drug addict who has found a good "friend" in their drug dealer. So instead of listening to the people who love him telling him they have a problem he listens to the guy who encourages his awful behaviour for his own benefit. That stops him from ever accessing the help he needs to live well and the dealer knows this but doesn't actually give a **** because he only cares about his own agenda.

That's how I see the relationship between Lyons and Eldridge from the information we have available. Lyons has most probably played a huge role in fúcking up his family but instead of having to face that, he has Eldridge feeding him full of self-righteous bs and encouraging him in worse and worse behaviour. This takes away whatever chance Lyons has of becoming someone who can salvage happiness and satisfaction from his life by encouraging him in these ludicrous actions but Eldridge's agenda is his priority not Lyons' wellbeing.

oscarBravo

Smiley92a wrote: »

If you're interested in some critical reading on state power and violence by someone who isn't mad, David Graeber's written some interesting stuff. He argues that state power is ultimately based on physical coercion. Of course, this might well be a necessary evil of living in a society...

That would be my take on it. Jill Leovy's Ghettoside is a fascinating read; it makes the point that a state monopoly on violence is the only thing that has been consistently proven throughout history to reduce overall violence in society to acceptable levels.

If someone has a problem with state power being based on a monopoly on violence, they need to be asked what the alternative is. For some, the answer is, in effect, a market in violence. Yay.

robindch

Australian Bishop says children of gay couples next ‘Stolen Generation’

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/bishop-says-australian-children-of-gay-couples-next-stolen-generation/

Pink News wrote:

A Catholic Bishop in South Australia has compared children of gay couples to children forcibly removed from Aboriginal families. In the ongoing debate around same-sex marriage in Australia, Bishop Greg O’Kelly said that it was likely children of same-sex couples would consider themselves the next “Stolen Generation”.

The Stolen Generation refers to Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by the Australian government, from 1909 up until the 1970s. The children were taken into state care for often spurious reasons, under the guise of their own protection. It is considered to be a dark and shameful event in Australian history.

Bishop O’Kelly said: “Can’t you imagine a situation that when there’s a falling-out between a child and a parent, as can happen, that’ll be one of the lines they use? – ‘You deliberately intervened so that I would not have a father present in my upbringing, or not have a mother present in my upbringing. And that was a deliberate intervention by you, it wasn’t an accident, it wasn’t illness or anything like that.’.”

Rodney Crome of Marriage Equality Australia told abc: “Many same-sex couples and their children will be deeply offended by the Catholic bishop’s drawing a link between their loving families and the Stolen Generation, such a traumatic episode in Australian history. There is no legal link between marriage and children. But I understand that in many people’s mind there is a cultural link. Marriage can be good for children, because it provides them with a greater sense of security and stability in their lives. If that is the case, then why would we deny the children being raised by same-sex couples the opportunity to have married parents?”

An Australian Catholic bishop has come under fire for sending parents anti-same-sex marriage booklets.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Australian Bishop says children of gay couples next ‘Stolen Generation’

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/bishop-says-australian-children-of-gay-couples-next-stolen-generation/

Denigrating both gays and native aboriginies.

I wonder if the bishop is starving himself with all the feet he's lodged into his big ugly gob.

Nodin

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Denigrating both gays and native aboriginies.

I wonder if the bishop is starving himself with all the feet he's lodged into his big ugly gob.

It's where the gays will get the energy for the child stealin, after the partyin, non-stop-sex, infiltratin and society destroyin activities that I want to know. Is it some gay Red Bull that keeps them going?

volchitsa

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Denigrating both gays and native aboriginies.

I wonder if the bishop is starving himself with all the feet he's lodged into his big ugly gob.

And - of course :mad: - he's called O' Kelly. Could he not have been from Italian or Polish immigrants? Why are the maddest ones so often Irish?

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Denigrating both gays and native aboriginies.

As well as apparently-ignorant of the history of his own religious club.

SpaceTime

The Catholic Church's really lost the right to moralise about adoption :

Ireland : where do you even start ... So many horror stories and so much pain caused to so many people - magdalene laundries, forced & hidden adoptions, children trafficked to America, institutional abuse ...

Spain : facilitated 300,000+ kidnappings where children where literally removed from parents who were told they'd died shortly after birth and placed with "suitable" families.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15335899

JaseBelleVie

One of the most unbelievable things about this whole referendum and the fallout of it has been the complete turn my own father has done on the church.

I was always a punk-ass atheist from about the age of 12. More to do with not wanting to endure going to mass and being generally a rebellious little sh*te than any moral questions. Initially anyway. My repugnance with anything religious was copper-fastened with the emerging revelations of child sexual abuse in the church, murders and deaths committed in the Muslim world, the Israel-Palestine conflict and basically all the evil and death committed in the name of any religion.

However, my own parents remained pretty devout and never upset the boat, despite it all. I even got my ass handed to me by the father about 4/5 years ago when I maintained that the evil done by the church here far outweighed any good that was done, that the good people in the church were cowards for not speaking out when they had a chance and so on. My father reacted with screeching at me and an argument ensued.

Today, was talking with him and he was losing his sh*t over it and said how the evils outdid the good, how the church was full of cowards who never spoke out, etc. I reacted with "Hold on! You laid into me a few years back for saying the same things!"

"I did no such thing!" he screeches at me.

I decide better of it and leave it.

But for a man such as him, who still used to bless himself passing a church and was a regular Holy Joe to turn his back on the church so completely and utterly is staggering for me. I can't quite believe it just yet, but this seems to be fairly firm. The names he called various religious orders and members thereof today was frightening and I shudder to think what will happen when the local church goes around collecting "dues" or anything. I'll probably have to bail him out of the local cop shop.

But this to me is striking for how some of the members are getting turned against the church now; while my mother is still a bit apologist, the father has gone full on with it now. This is so staggering to me. Many an argument was had just a few short years ago with me and my godless ways, versus him and his bible-bashing ways. I cannot fully comprehend it yet.

But it just goes to show, there are people, even older people (not that the father is that old just yet) who are turning their backs on the church now. It's not just the younger people (my generation and younger) who are doing it. It's across the whole cross-section of society.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Great, Kilkenny in the news....and not for a good reason...sigh

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/legal-bids-to-challenge-same-sex-marriage-result-due-1.2237552

Gerry Walshe is appealing the decision:

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-marriage-referendum-2152014-Jun2015/?utm_source=email

Would love to know where he's getting the cash from.

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Gerry Walshe is appealing the decision:

http://www.thejournal.ie/court-marriage-referendum-2152014-Jun2015/?utm_source=email

Would love to know where he's getting the cash from.

"What's the reason for your appeal?"
"You didn't agree with me!"

SpaceTime

JaseBelleVie wrote: »

One of the most unbelievable things about this whole referendum and the fallout of it has been the complete turn my own father has done on the church.

I was always a punk-ass atheist from about the age of 12. More to do with not wanting to endure going to mass and being generally a rebellious little sh*te than any moral questions. Initially anyway. My repugnance with anything religious was copper-fastened with the emerging revelations of child sexual abuse in the church, murders and deaths committed in the Muslim world, the Israel-Palestine conflict and basically all the evil and death committed in the name of any religion.

However, my own parents remained pretty devout and never upset the boat, despite it all. I even got my ass handed to me by the father about 4/5 years ago when I maintained that the evil done by the church here far outweighed any good that was done, that the good people in the church were cowards for not speaking out when they had a chance and so on. My father reacted with screeching at me and an argument ensued.

Today, was talking with him and he was losing his sh*t over it and said how the evils outdid the good, how the church was full of cowards who never spoke out, etc. I reacted with "Hold on! You laid into me a few years back for saying the same things!"

"I did no such thing!" he screeches at me.

I decide better of it and leave it.

But for a man such as him, who still used to bless himself passing a church and was a regular Holy Joe to turn his back on the church so completely and utterly is staggering for me. I can't quite believe it just yet, but this seems to be fairly firm. The names he called various religious orders and members thereof today was frightening and I shudder to think what will happen when the local church goes around collecting "dues" or anything. I'll probably have to bail him out of the local cop shop.

But this to me is striking for how some of the members are getting turned against the church now; while my mother is still a bit apologist, the father has gone full on with it now. This is so staggering to me. Many an argument was had just a few short years ago with me and my godless ways, versus him and his bible-bashing ways. I cannot fully comprehend it yet.

But it just goes to show, there are people, even older people (not that the father is that old just yet) who are turning their backs on the church now. It's not just the younger people (my generation and younger) who are doing it. It's across the whole cross-section of society.

I've several elderly atheist relatives and I think you've also got for remember that it's often those generations who faced the most extreme oppression by the church and the establishment.

The church crossed the line in a massive way and I think that's what you're seeing now. It's not a dramatic protest or an angry uprising it's actually the worst thing possible for a large organisation like the church -- people are just moving on. The spell's broken.

This isn't unique at all though we're just having it a little later than a lot of countries in Europe. They were all quite socially oppressive and religious not all that long ago. I mean even the Nordic bin tries have a history of being quite puritanical until the 1970s

Spain has walked exactly the same path too and are probably a few years ahead of us on it.

lazygal

For a lot of people of a certain generation there also was no social life outside of the church. Especially in rural areas, where things like the missions, the stations and various other events throughout the year were completely intertwined with the community, so you went along with them or you were alone. I certainly saw this when more elderly relatives were alive, mass on a Saturday or Sunday was a centre to the week and a reason to get out of the house as much as a religious observance. My parents are both from rural areas (but moved when they were finished school) and for their generation still living in their areas there's still the fact that the Catholic church has an influence on community events keeping many people in the fold, even though in many cases people openly say they don't believe any of the teachings and don't like the institution itself.

Nodin

Bad Horse wrote: »

"What's the reason for your appeal?"
"You didn't agree with me!"

"What's the reason for your appeal?"
"You were feckin wrong"
"Don't address the court in that Fashion"
"Sorry-You were feckin wrong, yer honour

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

"What's the reason for your appeal?"
"You were feckin wrong"
"Don't address the court in that Fashion"
"Sorry-You were feckin wrong, yer honour

"An here, who did the wiring job? Rotten work. Whole lot's going to have to go."

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

"An here, who did the wiring job? Rotten work. Whole lot's going to have to go."

Shoddy workmanship, that's what it is! Shoddy, shoddy, SHODDY!

Going Strong

I don't know about you lot but I, for one, was totally taken by surprise with this one.

No change in priests’ role in civil aspect of marriage - primate

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/no-change-in-priests-role-in-civil-aspect-of-marriage-primate-1.2244959

I'm sure they made this decision for moral reasons of course and not for the continued and much relied on revenue stream from church weddings.

Frank Bullitt

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/this-couple-is-vowing-to-get-divorced-if-marriage?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.byXXk6Ve2

Meanwhile in Australia, some idiot has said he and his wife of 10 years, will divorce if Gay marriage is put though.

Divorce...remind me again of the stance the church had on this a few years ago?

SpaceTime

Gintonious wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/this-couple-is-vowing-to-get-divorced-if-marriage?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.byXXk6Ve2

Meanwhile in Australia, some idiot has said he and his wife of 10 years, will divorce if Gay marriage is put though.

Divorce...remind me again of the stance the church had on this a few years ago?

Rock solid marriage there! Someone's marriage causes them to get divorced?!?