The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ELM327

pitifulgod wrote: »

Quick search of his timeline indicates he's more akin to Paddy Manning, supported a no vote in the marriage referendum.

Well that's even worse.
Quite literally a turkey voting for christmas.

Poyndexter

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

Moiratat

Poyndexter wrote: »

Just reading through a lot of the posts here and the lack of respect and understanding from some yes voters for people who vote no is appalling really. Many calling anyone who votes no as idiots stupid etc. is quite insulting to be honest. It has come to the situation where people are afraid to express they are voting no in public which does not encourage healthy debate.

As someone who is going to vote no I have thought long and hard about this referendum and i understand where yes voters are coming from and I respect their views in terms of cases of rape, ffa and danger of life to the mother. However the unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks goes way too far for my liking and that is why I am voting no.

I can assure you I am not anti-women, an idiot, a jesus freak or whatever insult some yes campaigners would like to call me but someone with a conscience to protect the most vulnerable in our society who are the unborn that at 12 weeks have a heartbeat and so many humane features.

That’s just my thoughts on the matter and i will exercise my democratic right on may 25th by voting no. If the result is yes i will accept the result however if the result is no I fear the backlash.

"I was not in good health, my mind was a toxic place of hatred and depression from my family and boyfriend abusing me. My mother an alcoholic to put it lightly left for weeks on end, leaving me with my baby brother and 3 younger sisters and no food or money. My older sister was never home and if she was she would only abuse us further (my older sister having sexually abused me and them). I "had" my boyfriend at the time, he abused me physically and mentally and it got to a stage where he would rape me and call me a slut or a whore afterwards. I became pregnant. My told my boyfriend and he tried to kill my baby by beating me, by forcing me to drink alcohol and many other ways, his family were stern Catholics. To me I wanted my baby, I wanted to be able to keep him or her and love them ,I still do love them but I had to look after my siblings which I couldn't do if my mother kicked me out which she would have. And I would have liked to have given my baby the best life possible and couldn't if I was kicked out and even at that point my baby could've been seriously hurt. My boyfriend threatened me that if I did not go to England he would kill me. So I did and I miss my baby terribly but I had to do what I did. Am I a murderer because of it or a killer? Every time I go out and see one of the no posters I want to end my life. I feel so much shame and disgust at myself. I had to leave my home to say goodbye to my baby, because of the eighth."
My situation, I would never call someone stupid because there opinion differed to mine but at the same time, the no side throw around the words murder and killing as if women are monsters, am I a monster because of what I have done? I still feel love for my child and every time I go outside I am bombarded by posters insinuating I am a murderer. What is your opinion on my situation? On the situation of women in abusive relationships that get pregnant?

amdublin

Ok I've looked on Twitter

????


It reads to me like the No side playing their old victim card/ woe is me trick

I won't be giving it more time. I'd suggest y'all don't either. But! If you want to that's fine by my too. You have that choice!

That's what is so great about having choice.

January

Poyndexter, voting no does not stop abortion. Adoption is not an option for some women, take my case, I'm already a mother to 4 children, could you imagine me having to explain to my children, that I was pregnant but wasn't keeping the baby because we couldn't afford, financially or emotionally, to bring another child into this family and we had to give their sister or brother away to another family so they could raise it?

gandalf

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

amdublin

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

I've read back. There's one or two posts I don't agree with - calling you a fool for example. But that's it all other have been respectful and are just discussing back.and forward with you. So I think there is some dramatising going on with you up above.

But! If there posts you feel are particularly "vitriolic" you should report so the mods can review. Boards.ie is good like that

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Another attempt to spin the truth there
Sure would you not go the whole hog and say "1 in 5" of my posts are lies and show photos of my recent kidney surgery to my children? That's your MO anyway John.


Nothing worth while of a response here, not interested in reading irrelevant online links to what someone else thinks.

What is my name, is it John as you claim?

I backed up a post which showed you got the wrong poll and all you can do is stick your head in the sand because it is too hard to say you got something wrong.

Poyndexter

gandalf wrote: »

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

ELM327

gandalf wrote: »

What hatred? You stated your position and got called up on it and now you've gone full snowflake because people questioned you. You seem to have made your mind up already before engaging here why bother trying to attempt in a discussion if that's the case?

This is the problem, when people realise their stance on an emotive issue is based on nothing except catholic guilt/traditional upbringing/fear of the unknown. They get defensive and look for someone to blame.

The yes side must be to blame because he's ran out of logical arguments for a no vote. I've had this with people on my friends list on facebook too, and in reality. Some of whom are now yes voters (and I know of at least two of those who donated to the #togetherforyes crowdfunding page).

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, did Peter Boylan debate Wendy's husband that he needed to retweet a tweet that was mostly about her husband?
Being against the marriage referendum didn't mean a person was homophobic.

She shares the positions of Pure in Heart, she was involved with them. It is relevant Robert, their version of sex education is not educating. If you're opposed to sexual education and campaigning against reproductive rights, there's a major issue that needs to be highlighted.

Yep, it's not a sign of homophobia even though many people who opposed it were in fact homophobic. Pure in Heart actually avoid talking about homosexuality. However they do recommend the Chastity project on their website. Here's some samples from them on homosexuality.

Please don’t celebrate sin. Celebrate love, namely, by showing it, really, for what it really is.
https://chastityproject.com/2015/07/love-unfiltered/

We shouldn’t feel shame for experiencing attractions or inclinations we didn’t specifically choose. Though we’re invited to be honest with ourselves, this doesn’t mean that we ought to be prideful about our attractions.
https://chastityproject.com/2017/06/is-it-okay-to-be-gay/

Basic summary is they favour you repressing your sexuality in the event of you being gay. Pure in heart teach chastity. The follow on logic is it's for life if you're gay.

Sofiztikated

Poyndexter wrote: »

No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

That is literally the Save sides MO, which you have literally just proved.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

What is my name, is it John as you claim?

I backed up a post which showed you got the wrong poll and all you can do is stick your head in the sand because it is too hard to say you got something wrong.

Not relevant to the questions asked, John.
Go back and answer the questions without reams of online BS links.
You've been warned about link spamming before.

Poyndexter wrote: »

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

Snowflake = pro women's rights?
I don't follow.
As a self confessed right wing extremist (I'm a breitbart reader ) I'm no snowflake either, but I'm voting yes for women's rights and for healthcare.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

She shares the positions of Pure in Heart, she was involved with them. It is relevant Robert, their version of sex education is not educating. If you're opposed to sexual education and campaigning against reproductive rights, there's a major issue that needs to be highlighted.

Yep, it's not a sign of homophobia even though many people who opposed it were in fact homophobic. Pure in Heart actually avoid talking about homosexuality. However they do recommend the Chastity project on their website. Here's some samples from them on homosexuality.


Basic summary is they favour you repressing your sexuality in the event of you being gay. Pure in heart teach chastity. The follow on logic is it's for life if you're gay.

It is not relevant to what Peter Boylan debated on Friday Night. Why did he take part in a debate with Wendy if he was so much superior and she was not worthy to debate him going by his retweet?

swampgas

Poyndexter wrote: »

Ok guys to be honest I came on here to post and give my opinion on the matter but the level of vitriol, hate and lack of respect is something else. It’s an online forum supposed to be for some serious and light hearted discussion. I’ve given my views and some have respectfully engaged in informed debate with me while others would want to have a look at themselves. Not naming names but you know yourself.

As I said myself in my first post I wanted to give my reasons for voting no so people can understand where the no side are coming from but it’s as if if walked into the middle of a liberal feminist conference. No wonder there’s little to no debate here and it all just ends in bitter insults, lies and hysterics if anyone dares go against the consensus.

Fair enough, but in turn you might also get some idea of just how serious an issue this is to many people. There isn't a whole lot of scope for light hearted discussion. I'm guessing you're male, young and have never had to deal with a problematic pregnancy. Your digs at feminism don't show much respect for how this affects women either.

So maybe show a bit of cop on and don't be making a laugh of an issue where peoples lives, health and futures are literally at stake.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Not relevant to the questions asked, John.
Go back and answer the questions without reams of online BS links.
You've been warned about link spamming before.

I have not been warned about link spamming.

My name is not John.

Poyndexter

Poyndexter wrote: »

Snowflake hahaha ah here pot kettle black. Trust me I ain’t no snowflake. If I was I’d be voting yes

Sorry you've just shown either a complete misunderstanding of the term snowflake or the whole reason we are actually getting to have a vote on this issue.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not relevant to what Peter Boylan debated on Friday Night. Why did he take part in a debate with Wendy if he was so much superior and she was not worthy to debate him going by his retweet?

You don't see any relationship between unwanted pregnancies and chastity only sex education? The latter actually results in more unwanted pregnancies. She is directly associated with and was a member herself of a group that try to limit knowledge in terms of sexual education. You took issue with the gay statement hence addressing.(It's true btw) So tell me again, why isn't it relevant?

The pro life side are entitled to put whoever they want. That doesn't give them automatic credibility while Boylan is entirely credible and should very much so participate in debate regardless of what morons they choose to put up against him.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not been warned about link spamming.

My name is not John.

I do apologise (and this is the only one you'll get from me)

This was the post I was referring to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106779234&postcount=6989
I mixed you up with another poster with a very similar posting style and stance.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

You don't see any relationship between unwanted pregnancies and chastity only sex education? The latter actually results in more unwanted pregnancies. She is directly associated with and was a member herself of a group that try to limit knowledge in terms of sexual education. You took issue with the gay statement hence addressing.(It's true btw) So tell me again, why isn't it relevant?

The pro life side are entitled to put whoever they want. That doesn't give them automatic credibility while Boylan is entirely credible and should very much so participate in debate regardless of what morons they choose to put up against him.

One can only get an unwanted pregnancy via chastity if one doesn't practice it or is raped.
In Uganda it was found the ABC program for sex education was the most effective means when it came to sex and the spread od HIV/AIDS:
A for Abstinence
B for Be faithful
C for condoms if one can't do A or B.
This is a sex education program that all should be taught, it is backed up by evidence and would likely reduce the rate of abortion, just as it reduced HIV/Aids levels in African countries where it was promoted.
From a medical journal: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625
Abstinence, being faithful, and condom use are complementary, synergistic, and inseparable components in the country’s HIV/AIDS national prevention and control programmes, and we need to roll out these prevention messages with extra urgency now, in the era of AR
I believe it would reduce crisis pregnancies and subsequently abortion. For some abstinence is ignored as part of a wider sexual education program.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

I do apologise (and this is the only one you'll get from me)

This was the post I was referring to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106779234&postcount=6989
I mixed you up with another poster with a very similar posting style and stance.

Thank you for the apology.

Does it include calling me John even though you know it is not my name?

January

I can't even.

It wasnt me123

Poyndexter wrote: »

I am a citizen of this country with one vote. Are you saying I’m not entitled to vote or express an opinion. Sure why don’t we legalise everything so. Ridiculous argument.

I'm not the one being ridiculous, you are. You are trying to push your opinion on everyone. Repealing the 8th gives everyone the choice - please vote that is your democratic right I'm just not sure why you think your choice is more important than someone you may never meet.

And just for your information, I didn't say legalise everything, I'm talking about legislation for society - for everyone. That is what TDs do. Where do you think the laws come from?

erica74

amdublin wrote: »

It will impact my emotional well-being if repeal doesn't pass. Like I will be devastated on the day. There will be tears.

And it will take me some while to get over it.

If No wins at last they are kind of prepared for that. It will be a massive shock for us Yes side.

But I am out canvassing every week. I am hearing resounding Yes on the doorsteps.

Every yes counts on the day. Please tell your family and friends how important it is for you that they get out on the day and vote for you.

I completely agree. Genuinely, I will be upset if Yes doesn't win. This means a lot to me.

Repeal the 8th.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

One can only get an unwanted pregnancy via chastity if one doesn't practice it or is raped.
In Uganda it was found the ABC program for sex education was the most effective means when it came to sex and the spread od HIV/AIDS:
A for Abstinence
B for Be faithful
C for condoms if one can't do A or B.
This is a sex education program that all should be taught, it is backed up by evidence and would likely reduce the rate of abortion, just as it reduced HIV/Aids levels in African countries where it was promoted.
From a medical journal: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625
Abstinence, being faithful, and condom use are complementary, synergistic, and inseparable components in the country’s HIV/AIDS national prevention and control programmes, and we need to roll out these prevention messages with extra urgency now, in the era of AR
I believe it would reduce crisis pregnancies and subsequently abortion. For some abstinence is ignored as part of a wider sexual education program.

Abstinence is unrealistic.
Being faithful, you can't regulate someone's sex life.
Condoms have an approximate 92-95% real world effectiveness rating.

What options do you propose for the 5-8%, or the raped?

RobertKK wrote: »

Thank you for the apology.

Does it include calling me John even though you know it is not my name?

One cannot know what your name is if it is not volunteered.
You and I are surely both aware of the point I was making calling you John.

And this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, alas again I have fallen into your side's tactic of shock and/or diversion.

ELM327

erica74 wrote: »

I completely agree. Genuinely, I will be upset if Yes doesn't win. This means a lot to me.

Repeal the 8th.

Same here.
This is the only political cause I've ever donated to.

#repealthe8th
#togetherforyes
#trustourwomen

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote: »

One can only get an unwanted pregnancy via chastity if one doesn't practice it or is raped.
In Uganda it was found the ABC program for sex education was the most effective means when it came to sex and the spread od HIV/AIDS:
A for Abstinence
B for Be faithful
C for condoms if one can't do A or B.
This is a sex education program that all should be taught, it is backed up by evidence and would likely reduce the rate of abortion, just as it reduced HIV/Aids levels in African countries where it was promoted.
From a medical journal: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625
Abstinence, being faithful, and condom use are complementary, synergistic, and inseparable components in the country’s HIV/AIDS national prevention and control programmes, and we need to roll out these prevention messages with extra urgency now, in the era of AR
I believe it would reduce crisis pregnancies and subsequently abortion. For some abstinence is ignored as part of a wider sexual education program.

So your back to don't have sex, you dirty slut?

How does saying "well, you shouldn't have rode him!" Actually help anyone that is in a crisis pregnancy?

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Abstinence is unrealistic.
Being faithful, you can't regulate someone's sex life.
Condoms have an approximate 92-95% real world effectiveness rating.

What options do you propose for the 5-8%, or the raped?


One cannot know what your name is if it is not volunteered.
You and I are surely both aware of the point I was making calling you John.

And this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, alas again I have fallen into your side's tactic of shock and/or diversion.

People can regulate their own sex lives within an ABC program in a general population and it has being shown to be effective.
The ABC program is for general population use, one can't regulate their own sex practices if a person is being raped.

My name is Robert, why can't you accept that?
I have been a poster here long before you arrived on the scene.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

One can only get an unwanted pregnancy via chastity if one doesn't practice it or is raped.
In Uganda it was found the ABC program for sex education was the most effective means when it came to sex and the spread od HIV/AIDS:
A for Abstinence
B for Be faithful
C for condoms if one can't do A or B.
This is a sex education program that all should be taught, it is backed up by evidence and would likely reduce the rate of abortion, just as it reduced HIV/Aids levels in African countries where it was promoted.
From a medical journal: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/625
Abstinence, being faithful, and condom use are complementary, synergistic, and inseparable components in the country’s HIV/AIDS national prevention and control programmes, and we need to roll out these prevention messages with extra urgency now, in the era of AR
I believe it would reduce crisis pregnancies and subsequently abortion. For some abstinence is ignored as part of a wider sexual education program.

They actively oppose condoms... So it's entirely relevant to the discussion that she's a member of such a group... Also, they only teach abstinence which is pretty ill advised and does increase unwanted pregnancies...

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

So your back to don't have sex, you dirty slut?

How does saying "well, you shouldn't have rode him!" Actually help anyone that is in a crisis pregnancy?

Where does it say that?
Where?

Is using condoms not having sex?

Some people just look for an argument when there is no need for making an irrelevant argument.