Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Billy86

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I said.

If one is funded and ran from the US, and the other from Ireland... yeah that kind of does impact how 'Americanised' each of them are.

The Legend Of Kira

B0jangles wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

From what I Interpret you appear to be arguing that people have a right not to be offended, I strongly disagree with such a view- we all hear something we mightn,t like or mightn,t agree with + mightn,t want to hear that can cause offence, but that,s life not everyone is gonna agree with you nor share your worldview, Im not saying someone should go out to cause offence to people on purpose, what I will defend is a persons right to say something even if it causes offence or even if its something that some people don,t want to hear, I ll defend his/her right to say it.

A quote from your post.

"" I ask, because you are always present to defend near-absolute freedom of speech as a position of ideological purity which (to me, anyway) comes over as the attitude of one who has never personally faced any consequences as a result of unrestricted free speech.  ""

Regarding the whole abortion debate, some might say that the people out campaigning for unrestricted access to abortion/abortion on demand won,t face any consequences as they re the ones who are alive,, they re not the ones who will be aborted, some might say its very easy for some people to be all for abortion on demand when you re not facing the consequence or situation of being aborted.



That said unlike some certain people Im not trying to silence others I don,t like or don,t agree with- Im not trying to pressure venues to cancel pro choice meetings nor am I tearing down pro choice posters .

Your opening line is already a complete misrepresentation of my post, so the rest of your response is not worth replying to.

I very clearly was not talking about causing offence, I was talking about causing danger; when a speaker uses their platform to claim that, as in my example, 'gay people spread disease', it increases the risk that gay people in the community will be ostracized, or even attacked.

When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, they are creating an entirely false fear in their audience - one which could cause damage to them. If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, the risk is that the audience will believe them, will not use any contraception and either become unexpectedly pregnant or contract any number of sexually transmitted diseases.

That is not causing 'offence', that is causing serious, life-changing and possibly life-threatening consequences to your listeners.

Freedom to Speak is not some immutable universal truth; it's a right which must be balanced with other rights, including that of the rights of others to live as safely and freely as possible.

I ll reply to some quotes from your post.#

""  If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, ""

I would say I disagree with such a claim, if a speaker makes such a claim in a public venue , that claim can be debunked, Id rather much see the speaker being debunked on his/her claim then see the speaker silenced.

"" When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer "" 

As I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( Human Life International ) are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ? I ask you this what,s a far more effective way to discredit a person making false claims have the person debunked or the person silenced ?

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I ll reply to some quotes from your post.#

"" If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, ""

I would say I disagree with such a claim, if a speaker makes such a claim in a public venue , that claim can be debunked, Id rather much see the speaker being debunked on his/her claim then see the speaker silenced.

"" When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ""

As I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by ( Human Life International ) are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ? I ask you this what,s a far more effective way to discredit a person making false claims have the person debunked or the person silenced ?

debunking claims and discrediting people doesnt always work. The anti-vax crowd are proof of that.

SafeSurfer

Akrasia wrote: »

The unbroken group is almost as bad as the Human Life International group.

They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-salvador-suicide-teens/rape-abortion-ban-drives-pregnant-teens-to-suicide-in-el-salvador-idUSKCN0IW1YI20141112

Look, if you are a rape victim, nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. People might suggest it, out of concern for your state of mind, but unless you surround yourself with utterly dispicable people, if you are a victim of a rape who decides to have the baby, most people will be supportive of that.

On the other hand, if you are raped and you do not want to have that baby, these crowd of self righteous arseholes are labelling you as a selfish murderer who values her own 'choice' over the life of a 'baby'.

Rape is a hugely traumatic event that can take years to emotionally recover from. Adding to that violation a forced pregnancy that will drag out the ordeal for another year at least is cruel and horrific.

The woman Rebecca Kiessling has made a career out of the circumstances of her own conception. She never suffered a rape, her mother did, she is not a victim of a rape. If her mother had aborted her, she would never have existed to know she was aborted. There are an infinite number of circumstances where she would not have been born. If her mother hadn't been ovulating when she was raped, This woman also would not exist.

You are surrounded every day by the 'ghosts' of an infinite number of potential humans that were never born. If Rebecca's mother had aborted her, she might have had a different baby with a partner of her choosing. By rebecca being born, she denied a potential other baby from being born. Just like by me being born, the baby that could have been born a month later never existed...

It is a totally ridiculous argument to parade out 'abortion survivors' as arguments against abortion. Every one of us only exists due to a confluence of unlikely events that all had to happen exactly in sequence going back 3 billion years. It's pure emotional blackmail. Her entire argument is designed to make people feel guilty.

It is enough for us to worry about actual people rather than giving 'rights' to potential persons

You assert that women who become pregnant and have a baby as a consequence of rape are more likely to commit suicide than women who become pregnant as a consequence of rape and have an abortion.

To reach this conclusion you must have compared studies of the outcomes of both groups.

Can you provide a link to these studies?

Because the link you provide in your post says nothing of the kind.

I listened to the two women on the Pat Kenny show this morning and while they were not my cup of tea they clearly said that there were only 2 studies into suicide rates of rape victims who terminated their pregnancy vs those who gave birth and they both showed that there was a lower suicide rate among those who gave birth.

I have been unable to find any research on the matter but you obviously have by being able to say they are spreading lies.

So who is telling the truth? You or the women from Unbroken?

The Legend Of Kira

Akrasia wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Its three pro life meetings after being canceled now, two more this week by ( Unbroken ) a group of rape victims + people conceived in rape telling their stories.

 The first meeting that was canceled on the other group ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] on about breast cancer & abortion, as I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( [font=Georgia, serif]Human Life International )[/font] are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ?

The unbroken group is almost as bad as the Human Life International group.

They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-salvador-suicide-teens/rape-abortion-ban-drives-pregnant-teens-to-suicide-in-el-salvador-idUSKCN0IW1YI20141112

Look, if you are a rape victim, nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. People might suggest it, out of concern for your state of mind, but unless you surround yourself with utterly dispicable people, if you are a victim of a rape who decides to have the baby, most people will be supportive of that.

On the other hand, if you are raped and you do not want to have that baby, these crowd of self righteous arseholes are labelling you as a selfish murderer who values her own 'choice' over the life of a 'baby'.

Rape is a hugely traumatic event that can take years to emotionally recover from. Adding to that violation a forced pregnancy that will drag out the ordeal for another year at least is cruel and horrific.

The woman Rebecca Kiessling has made a career out of the circumstances of her own conception. She never suffered a rape, her mother did, she is not a victim of a rape. If her mother had aborted her, she would never have existed to know she was aborted. There are an infinite number of circumstances where she would not have been born. If her mother hadn't been ovulating when she was raped, This woman also would not exist.

You are surrounded every day by the 'ghosts' of an infinite number of potential humans that were never born. If Rebecca's mother had aborted her, she might have had a different baby with a partner of her choosing. By rebecca being born, she denied a potential other baby from being born. Just like by me being born, the baby that could have been born a month later never existed...

It is a totally ridiculous argument to parade out 'abortion survivors' as arguments against abortion. Every one of us only exists due to a confluence of unlikely events that all had to happen exactly in sequence going back 3 billion years. It's pure emotional blackmail. Her entire argument is designed to make people feel guilty.

It is enough for us to worry about actual people rather than giving 'rights' to potential persons

"" They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion. "" 

Over the years they prob met some women who are regretful after having an abortion, like many I only know & heard of this group ( Unbroken ) this week .

pilly

I'd love to know how American women have anything to do with the debate here? Fact of the matter is they had a CHOICE, that's all people are looking for here.

It's like they assume that all rape victims are going to be dragged screaming and kicking into abortion clinics if the 8th amendment is removed. Like WTAF?

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion. ""

Over the years they prob met some women who are regretful after having an abortion, like many I only know & heard of this group ( Unbroken ) this week .

and why should this translate in other women not being given that option?

SafeSurfer

pilly wrote: »

I'd love to know how American women have anything to do with the debate here? Fact of the matter is they had a CHOICE, that's all people are looking for here.

It's like they assume that all rape victims are going to be dragged screaming and kicking into abortion clinics if the 8th amendment is removed. Like WTAF?

I suppose if a Hungarian born billionaire convicted of insider trading can add his tuppence worth or actually quarter of a millions worth to the debate then 2 American women have every much right as he does.

pilly

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I suppose if a Hungarian born billionaire convicted of insider trading can add his tuppence worth or actually quarter of a millions worth to the debate then 2 American women have every much right as he does.

No idea what you're talking about so he obviously hasn't gotten as much publicity as these 2.

B0jangles

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I ll reply to some quotes from your post.#

"" If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, ""

I would say I disagree with such a claim, if a speaker makes such a claim in a public venue , that claim can be debunked, Id rather much see the speaker being debunked on his/her claim then see the speaker silenced.

"" When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ""

As I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by ( Human Life International ) are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ? I ask you this what,s a far more effective way to discredit a person making false claims have the person debunked or the person silenced ?

To make an extreme analogy, if someone in your community went around claiming you were a child molester, would you prefer them to be stopped as soon as possible from telling harmful lies about you or would you rather let them have their say, then have a quiet debate at which you later debunk their claims about you?

Lies which are told convincingly are frequently more memorable than boring truths.

SafeSurfer

B0jangles wrote: »

To make an extreme analogy, if someone in your community went around claiming you were a child molester, would you prefer them to be stopped as soon as possible from telling harmful lies about you or would you rather let them have their say, then have a quiet debate at which you later debunk their claims about you?

Lies which are told convincingly are frequently more memorable than boring truths.

I would think a recourse to the law, a defamation case, compensation and vindication in the local press reporting on the case would be preferable to "silencing" the person but each to their own.

Silencing people has worked successfully for many regimes in the past.

SafeSurfer

pilly wrote: »

No idea what you're talking about so he obviously hasn't gotten as much publicity as these 2.

Take a look at the Open Society and their convicted criminal patron. Much more powerful than a rape victim and the daughter of a rape victim.

Question George Soros's motives for a moment.

The Legend Of Kira

B0jangles wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I ll reply to some quotes from your post.#

""  If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, ""

I would say I disagree with such a claim, if a speaker makes such a claim in a public venue , that claim can be debunked, Id rather much see the speaker being debunked on his/her claim then see the speaker silenced.

"" When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ""

As I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( Human Life International ) are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ? I ask you this what,s a far more effective way to discredit a person making false claims have the person debunked or the person silenced ?

To make an extreme analogy, if someone in your community went around claiming you were a child molester, would you prefer them to be stopped as soon as possible from telling harmful lies about you or would you rather let them have their say, then have a quiet debate at which you later debunk their claims about you?

Lies which are told convincingly are frequently more memorable than boring truths.

That would be libel/defamation , different thing altogether vs someone claiming contraception doesn,t work .

Will I Am Not

Billy86 wrote: »

If one is funded and ran from the US, and the other from Ireland... yeah that kind of does impact how 'Americanised' each of them are.

Well no because I wasn't talking about any instance in particular rather the way people approach debate in general.

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

I wasn't even referring to that. Everything boils down to left/right alt-right/antifa levels these days.
It seems people are taking notes on how things go across the Atlantic which is not good.

The Legend Of Kira

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" They spread lies by saying women who have an abortion after a rape are more likely to commit suicide than if they had the baby which is the exact opposite of the truth, they also exist purely to pour shame onto rape victims who choose to have an abortion. ""

Over the years they prob met some women who are regretful after having an abortion, like many I only know & heard of this group ( Unbroken ) this week .

and why should this translate in other women not being given that option?

In the referendum campaign all this will be debated, there will likely be some speaking who had abortions after rape, in the same way this group ( Unbroken ) are speaking at meetings now who didn,t have abortions after rape, I think both sides should be allowed speak if they book venues without interference from any mob .

The Legend Of Kira

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I ll reply to some quotes from your post.#

""  If a speaker claims that contraception does not work, ""

I would say I disagree with such a claim, if a speaker makes such a claim in a public venue , that claim can be debunked, Id rather much see the speaker being debunked on his/her claim then see the speaker silenced.

"" When a speaker falsely claims that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ""

As I haven,t studied med- I have no idea if their claim is accurate or not, Id need to do my own research on that claim , but here,s an idea if they are telling lies regarding breast cancer like some people are saying would it not of been a good idea for someone on the opposing side to of gone to their meeting record what they say about breast cancer , & if its not accurate etc report them to the referendum commission ? the referendum commission will be sending out brochures in the coming months regarding the facts of the referendum , if the claims by  ( Human Life International ) are untrue then won,t the referendum commission include something debunking false claims in their information brochure they l be sending out to households prior to the referendum ? I ask you this what,s a far more effective way to discredit a person making false claims have the person debunked or the person silenced ?

debunking claims and discrediting people doesnt always work.  The anti-vax crowd are proof of that.

The anti vax I disagree with them too,, the way I look I look at is it if they want to believe vaccines are dangerous they re entitled to that view, as long as they re not forcing other people not to take vaccines & acting upon their beliefs they re entitled to their view , if they act upon their view then it becomes more then a view it becomes an action, most rational people would see through their arguments as theirs plenty of stuff to debunk their arguments online etc.

B0jangles

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

That would be libel/defamation , different thing altogether vs someone claiming contraception doesn,t work .

Both are lies, one is illegal the other isn't. So it's not freedom of speech as a principal that you support, it's speech which has been vetted by the government and deemed acceptable to the public.

If the law changed and it became illegal to claim contraception doesn't work, would you support the law or would you support freedom of speech?

The Legend Of Kira

B0jangles wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

That would be libel/defamation , different thing altogether vs someone claiming contraception doesn,t work .

Both are lies, one is illegal the other isn't. So it's not freedom of speech as a principal that you support, it's speech which has been vetted by the government and deemed acceptable to the public.

If the law changed and it became illegal to claim contraception doesn't work, would you support the law or would you support freedom of speech?

Id oppose such a change in the law as Id view as unnecessary,, such a claim about contraception by a speaker can be debunked with studies evidence & proof.

Grayson

B0jangles wrote: »

Both are lies, one is illegal the other isn't. So it's not freedom of speech as a principal that you support, it's speech which has been vetted by the government and deemed acceptable to the public.

If the law changed and it became illegal to claim contraception doesn't work, would you support the law or would you support freedom of speech?

As it is it's illegal to give out loads of information about abortion. I don't see any of these free speech advocates complaining about that.

Billy86

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Well no because I wasn't talking about any instance in particular rather the way people approach debate in general.

That's a pretty weak argument, trying to blanket claim that on all issues both sides are equally Americanised which simply isn't true. This is one example, as pro life groups in Ireland are easily more Americanised than pro choice groups.

B0jangles

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Id oppose such a change in the law as Id view as unnecessary,, such a claim about contraception by a speaker can be debunked with studies evidence & proof.

Just as any claims about your being any kind of criminal can be debunked with evidence and facts, but dirt has an awful tendency to stick - see the autism/vaccines issue mentioned above.
I doubt we'll be seing you campaigning to have the laws on slander and libel repealed in the interests of true freedom of speech.

January

George soros funds the prochoice movement in ireland yet the majority of prochoice protesters have home made signs... Yeah... We're rolling in the dough from America

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The anti vax I disagree with them too,, the way I look I look at is it if they want to believe vaccines are dangerous they re entitled to that view, as long as they re not forcing other people not to take vaccines & acting upon their beliefs they re entitled to their view , if they act upon their view then it becomes more then a view it becomes an action, most rational people would see through their arguments as theirs plenty of stuff to debunk their arguments online etc.

they are spreading lies and disinformation. you give far too much credit to people. vaccination rates are falling because people believe what they say.

Billy86

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Id oppose such a change in the law as Id view as unnecessary,, such a claim about contraception by a speaker can be debunked with studies evidence & proof.

Do you think libel/defamation laws are equally unnecessary? I mean if I get tonnes of money put into an promoting a public event with billboards around the country etc accusing you personally of being a paedophile, you should be able to debunk the claims quite easily after all.

Akrasia

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You assert that women who become pregnant and have a baby as a consequence of rape are more likely to commit suicide than women who become pregnant as a consequence of rape and have an abortion.

I phrased it poorly, what I meant was that women who are denied abortions are much more likely to commit suicide as a result of being forced to carry the baby, than women who have access to safe and legal abortion

I listened to the two women on the Pat Kenny show this morning and while they were not my cup of tea they clearly said that there were only 2 studies into suicide rates of rape victims who terminated their pregnancy vs those who gave birth and they both showed that there was a lower suicide rate among those who gave birth.

What about all the women who commit suicide while still pregnant

The Legend Of Kira

Billy86 wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Id oppose such a change in the law as Id view as unnecessary,, such a claim about contraception by a speaker can be debunked with studies evidence & proof.

Do you think libel/defamation laws are equally unnecessary? I mean if I get tonnes of money put into an promoting a public event with billboards around the country etc accusing you personally of being a paedophile, you should be able to debunk the claims quite easily after all.

Making false claims about a person vs someone making false claims about contraception or other such stuff are not the same thing, for example if ( John Doe ) says ( person x ) is a sex offender & ( person x ) isn,t a sex offender- person x is an innocent person then ( Person x ) should be able sue ( John Doe ) & get their name cleared etc, now if ( John doe ) says such & such a method of contraception doesn,t work Johns claim can be debunked with facts + studies, John isn,t making false claims about a person as a method of contraception isn,t a person .

pitifulgod

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The anti vax I disagree with them too,, the way I look I look at is it if they want to believe vaccines are dangerous they re entitled to that view, as long as they re not forcing other people not to take vaccines & acting upon their beliefs they re entitled to their view , if they act upon their view then it becomes more then a view it becomes an action, most rational people would see through their arguments as theirs plenty of stuff to debunk their arguments online etc.

And giving them a venue to speak is dangerous and I'd complain to any venue that allowed them to speak. Vaccination rates do drop as a result of such groups and people do die as a direct result.

The Legend Of Kira

Grayson wrote: »

B0jangles wrote: »

Both are lies, one is illegal the other isn't. So it's not freedom of speech as a principal that you support, it's speech which has been vetted by the government and deemed acceptable to the public.

If the law changed and it became illegal to claim contraception doesn't work, would you support the law or would you support freedom of speech?

As it is it's illegal to give out loads of information about abortion. I don't see any of these free speech advocates complaining about that.

Since when is it Illegal, last year + earlier year the group ( Rosa ) went around a bus tour of the country with abortion pills, if its lllegal as you claim then why weren,t they arrested ?

January

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Since when is it Illegal, last year + earlier year the group ( Rosa ) went around a bus tour of the country with abortion pills, if its lllegal as you claim then why weren,t they arrested ?

They didn't actually have pills on the bus

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The anti vax I disagree with them too,, the way I look I look at is it if they want to believe vaccines are dangerous they re entitled to that view, as long as they re not forcing other people not to take vaccines & acting upon their beliefs they re entitled to their view , if they act upon their view then it becomes more then a view it becomes an action, most rational people would see through their arguments as theirs plenty of stuff to debunk their arguments online etc.

And giving them a venue to speak is dangerous and I'd complain to any venue that allowed them to speak. Vaccination rates do drop as a result of such groups and people do die as a direct result.

And if get their meetings canceled you help to push them underground which is far more dangerous in my view, if they have a public meeting you can see exactly what they are saying & people can turn up & speak from the floor & say to them " your claims are false numerous studies as such & such debunk your claim " etc, if you push them underground & if they hold secret meetings with people they meet online you don,t know what exactly they d be telling such people once they re pushed underground vs if you let them speak out in the open you can see exactly they re telling people.