Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

spookwoman

Just her wrote: »

Would you know what countries have their GPS provide the abortion pills?

US and Australia for sure

Fighting Tao

Just her wrote: »

Would you know what countries have their GPS provide the abortion pills?

I think a GP led service is an excellent idea. It means that that the nut jobs like the irbc can't constantly target staff and patients of one particular facility. Also, the market is not there to have a number of facilities operating.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

<Predictable obfuscating...... snipped>

Oh good, I am glad you left that out then. Gives you less to type if you leave our your predictable obfuscating! Keep it up.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Nozz, you can try and twist and squirm your way out of this as much as you like, but it won't wash. If someone posts a study and they do so in a way that would be indicative of them believing that it showed X, then that is the very same as them claiming that the study showed X. Nice try though.

Well that did not last long, here is your predictable obfuscating. Taking the usual form of merely trying to tell me what my own words mean, when I assure you they meant something else. But AGAIN when I say you reacted to the study emotionally "as if" it was trying to speak, then that is 100% exactly what I meant. I know it would serve you to have me mean something different, but twist and squirm as much as you like, it won't wash.

But whatever way you want to dig up my phrasing it, the point is he same. Every. Single. Time. Your emotional reaction to the study scales not just with it looking like speech, but like it is actually trying to speak. Not that the fetus IS actually trying to speak. But that your reaction to is is of a level that would scale with thinking it is actually tying to speak.

Now you can continue to pretend to know what I mean with my own words, and find sentences that if you squint at them look like I am saying something else...... but I would suggest if someone tells your their own words mean X, then telling them they actually meant Y is just your own projection.

So I can say this 100 more times if you like until you stop pretending that I am saying something I am not, but I believe you parse that study as if you believe the fetus is literally trying to speak. Not that you ACTUALLY believe it is trying to speak, but that you are parsing your response to it through that dynamic. That is all I said, all I have ever said, and all I will continue to say. And the reason I say it is because of the totally unjustified leaps of (non) reason you made from the study including "You don't think that the Spanish study which found that 16 week old fetuses moved in response to music implies some level of awareness?" (it implies no such thing at all, even a little) and "That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated." (It is not, that is EXACTLY what the study showed. A biological entity responding with muscular movements to a stimulus. You presented a study that fit my description as if it suggests more than my description, which was funny then as it is funny now).

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In actual fact you seem to have had something of an obsession of referencing my posting of that study and then going on to mock and poke fun at me over it. For reasons only known to yourself. Usually I ignore it. Well, not today.

Well I guess it was your need to ignore things that left you thinking it was for reasons "only known to me". You do ignore and skip over quite a lot, some of which you admit most of which you do not, but I fear you do it deliberately so you can, like here today, feign ignorance about things I have been very open and articulate about.

I have been very clear why I bring up that subject, and your tongue reference particularly. I have explained exactly why numerous times. I can do so again:

There is no moral and ethical argument indicting the practice of termination of a fetus at 10 weeks. The majority of people who have an issue with it, yourself being an ongoing and consistent example, base it on nothing but emotion. And that emotion is something that is fuelled by, or they try to fuel it by, or both, appeals to the appearance and movements in the fetus. You in particular link to videos, gifs and more in this attempt. Often multiple times in one post.

So yes I often reference people who have made that move, and your example in particular is a very useful one to employ as it shows very clearly a strong emotional reaction to a study that said nothing of any actual relevance to the morality of fetal termination. And you once again remain reticent, despite a direct question, about what you think the relevance is/was. No surprise there.

See, nothing mysterious. Very easily explained. And most people who have not simply ignored my posts knew this already. So it most certainly is not and was not "only known to me".

Fighting Tao

fxotoole wrote: »

Absolute car crash TV

It's almost as if Sky News deliberately found the weakest debater they could for the No side because they were biased towards the Yes side

Decided to give it another go. Started playing at a random point and if you are to believe the Trump fan, 97% of healthy foetuses (not the word she used) are aborted in the UK. Easily shot down as a joke stat. All of her "stats" were garnered from one person speaking on RTE.

Itssoeasy

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

That was PAINFUL to watch.

I just looked at the website Kay burley mentioned at the very start. It's difficult to describe it really. She has bought in hook, line, and sinker to Trump and his brand of rubbish.

Itssoeasy

Also I had a look a her twitter account and she seems like she is suggesting the person who can run Ireland like president trump is her. Does she not realise that the Irish president doesn't have anywhere near the power the U.S president has ?

Odhinn

Gintonious wrote: »

The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind.

Incredible.

...the only "pro lifer" they could find was a looper in her communion dress??

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh good, I am glad you left that out then. Gives you less to type if you leave our your predictable obfuscating! Keep it up.



Well that did not last long, here is your predictable obfuscating. Taking the usual form of merely trying to tell me what my own words mean, when I assure you they meant something else. But AGAIN when I say you reacted to the study emotionally "as if" it was trying to speak, then that is 100% exactly what I meant. I know it would serve you to have me mean something different, but twist and squirm as much as you like, it won't wash.

But whatever way you want to dig up my phrasing it, the point is he same. Every. Single. Time. Your emotional reaction to the study scales not just with it looking like speech, but like it is actually trying to speak. Not that the fetus IS actually trying to speak. But that your reaction to is is of a level that would scale with thinking it is actually tying to speak.

Now you can continue to pretend to know what I mean with my own words, and find sentences that if you squint at them look like I am saying something else...... but I would suggest if someone tells your their own words mean X, then telling them they actually meant Y is just your own projection.



Well I guess it was your need to ignore things that left you thinking it was for reasons "only known to me". You do ignore and skip over quite a lot, some of which you admit most of which you do not, but I fear you do it deliberately so you can, like here today, feign ignorance about things I have been very open and articulate about.

I have been very clear why I bring up that subject, and your tongue reference particularly. I have explained exactly why numerous times. I can do so again:

There is no moral and ethical argument indicting the practice of termination of a fetus at 10 weeks. The majority of people who have an issue with it, yourself being an ongoing and consistent example, base it on nothing but emotion. And that emotion is something that is fuelled by, or they try to fuel it by, or both, appeals to the appearance and movements in the fetus. You in particular link to videos, gifs and more in this attempt. Often multiple times in one post.

So yes I often reference people who have made that move, and your example in particular is a very useful one to employ as it shows very clearly a strong emotional reaction to a study that said nothing of any actual relevance to the morality of fetal termination. And you once again remain reticent, despite a direct question, about what you think the relevance is/was. No surprise there.

See, nothing mysterious. Very easily explained. And most people who have not simply ignored my posts knew this already. So it most certainly is not and was not "only known to me".

Why do you say 'there is no moral or ethical argument.....' as if it is a fact, instead of 'in my opinion....'

Do you consider yourself a superior authority over everyone? Why would that be?

Fighting Tao

This is probably my favourite video on the internet now. It was a very unfair contest. Someone with facts against a loon that doesn't seem to know anything factual at all.

I love the guy at the end in the white van parking, getting out, realising he is on TV, gets back in and then reverses so he is off camera.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

Why do you say 'there is no moral or ethical argument.....' as if it is a fact, instead of 'in my opinion....'

Do you consider yourself a superior authority over everyone? Why would that be?

People often talk in absolutes. Context usually tells you that do not mean it absolutely. I have been on threads about abortion on boards for 10 years now. To date no moral or ethical argument has been presented that in any way indicts the termination of a 10 week old fetus. Which is when the majority of terminations tend to happen.

Nothing whatsoever to do with me feeling superior. It is just an evaluation of all the threads and 10s of 1000s of posts I have read on the subject. If such an argument does exist, it certainly is not forthcoming.

So I am as happy to speak in absolutes on that, as I am on the topic of goblins. While I can not know 100% there are no goblins, I can still formulate the sentence meaningfully "There are no goblins" and most people will generally know what I mean without having to make me go all Russels Teapot on it.

Are we to reduce this, in other words, to equivocation over sentence structure? Or shall we simply agree at this time you for one simply have no such argument to present. There may be goblins, but none are here today, and you have not got one to show us.

nozzferrahhtoo

On a slightly separate note I see some knock on effects around the place from the result of the vote. There is also a form letter in circulation under the hashtag "NOWFORNI" to try and compel Theresa May "to allow free, safe and legal access to abortion in Northern Ireland.".

Wrongway1985

Fighting Tao wrote: »

This is probably my favourite video on the internet now. It was a very unfair contest. Someone with facts against a loon that doesn't seem to know anything factual at all.

It's actually quite sad and unbelievable; a guy who has been knowledgeable on the content for years versus a headbanger who seems to have only been made aware of the matter from a sole TV debate.

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

People often talk in absolutes. Context usually tells you that do not mean it absolutely. I have been on threads about abortion on boards for 10 years now. To date no moral or ethical argument has been presented that in any way indicts the termination of a 10 week old fetus. Which is when the majority of terminations tend to happen.

Nothing whatsoever to do with me feeling superior. It is just an evaluation of all the threads and 10s of 1000s of posts I have read on the subject. If such an argument does exist, it certainly is not forthcoming.

So I am as happy to speak in absolutes on that, as I am on the topic of goblins. While I can not know 100% there are no goblins, I can still formulate the sentence meaningfully "There are no goblins" and most people will generally know what I mean without having to make me go all Russels Teapot on it.

Are we to reduce this, in other words, to equivocation over sentence structure? Or shall we simply agree at this time you for one simply have no such argument to present. There may be goblins, but none are here today, and you have not got one to show us.

No we won't agree Nozzferrahhtoo, but as you would say, I think you already know that.

Fighting Tao

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It's actually quite sad and unbelievable; a guy who has been knowledgeable on the content for years versus a headbanger who seems to have only been made aware of the matter from a sole TV debate.

Sad, unbelievable and funny. She appears to be an adult and therefore it can be assumed that she had the capacity to say she didn't want to take part.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

No we won't agree Nozzferrahhtoo, but as you would say, I think you already know that.

I would say you not having presented such an argument, and not presenting one here, is a tacit agreement that the argument in question simply does not exist to be presented. But.... I think you already know that

retro:electro

Fighting Tao wrote: »

This is probably my favourite video on the internet now. It was a very unfair contest. Someone with facts against a loon that doesn't seem to know anything factual at all.

I love the guy at the end in the white van parking, getting out, realising he is on TV, gets back in and then reverses so he is off camera.

“97% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion”
I’m actually weak who is this gowl

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would say you not having presented such an argument, and not presenting one here, is a tacit agreement that the argument in question simply does not exist to be presented. But.... I think you already know that

No not at all, we've been around in circles with it already, as you definitely know. If anyone else has any interest they can read the old posts. They won't be hard to find.

Wrongway1985

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Sad, unbelievable and funny. She appears to be an adult and therefore it can be assumed that she had the capacity to say she didn't want to take part.

Behind some Irish who are pro trump website :pac:

fxotoole

retro:electro wrote: »

“97% of pregnancies in the UK end in abortion”
I’m actually weak who is this gowl

She's an actress, singer, burlesque performer and Marilyn Monroe impersonator. She was in Cardboard Gangsters apparently

www.sarahlouisemulligan.com

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

<bickering bickering rabble rabble bickering>

So again, nozz, I'll repeat my offer: find just ONE time on Boards where I referenced that study in a such way that would be indicate of my believing that the fetuses in it did not just look as if they were trying to speak but had "ACTUALLY" been trying to speak.

If you can do that, I'll pay €100 to the SSF or a charity of your choice.

SSF Will be fine.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101042651&postcount=678

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101025657&postcount=630

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100994815&postcount=545

Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest? Asking someone did they "invent" something they have said is tantamount to asking them if they have lied. A simple request for the source would suffice: [source relating to study showing fetus responding to auditory stimuli by mouthing/"trying to speak"]

The researchers stated that the 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak. That is much different than a "blob of biological matter" moving it's muscles and/or nerves after they have been stimulated. This was very soft low level music which they reacted to. Not a pin prick.

Studies have all but confirmed that fetuses as young as 16-weeks respond to auditory stimuli:

You occasionally just straight post and endorse the study, where it is "as if they are trying to speak" with your main thrust being they are mouthing in response to auditory stimuli. Not that much of a stretch to conclude that you agree they are responding the the auditory stimuli with mouth movements, as the researchers say, "as if to speak" or to communicate back to the auditory stimuli.

100 Euros to SSF if you don't mind. You can PM me the receipt; you both should really get a room though, just realizing after quote-hopping back in that old thread (thanks, google) that the (sexual?) tension between ye is riveting and has been going on for *years* :pac: At the very least we can say you both need to go get a beer together and hash it out. #diditforthecharity

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Take a shifting selfie and I'll throw in €100!

Timberrrrrrrr

Gintonious wrote: »

The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind.

Incredible.

I had heard of this but never seen it until now, what rock did they find her under?

Fighting Tao

fxotoole wrote: »

She's an actress, singer, burlesque performer and Marilyn Monroe impersonator. She was in Cardboard Gangsters apparently

www.sarahlouisemulligan.com

I was thinking of saying "is there anything she can't do" but then I remembered the Sky news debate :pac:

Outlaw Pete

Nozz, only the following parts of your post were on point and so I'll reply to them:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But AGAIN when I say you reacted to the study emotionally "as if" it was trying to speak, then that is 100% exactly what I meant.

Your emotional reaction to the study scales not just with it looking like speech, but like it is actually trying to speak.

I believe you parse that study as if you believe the fetus is literally trying to speak. Not that you ACTUALLY believe it is trying to speak, but that you are parsing your response to it through that dynamic.

That is all I said, all I have ever said, and all I will continue to say.

The above is just nonsense. That is quite clearly not all you said. Three examples...


1) In this post you say that I read the study as saying that the fetus was trying to speak:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But alas the user appears to have read that as the fetus WAS trying to speak, rather than making movements similar to those of trying to speak.

2) In the following post you say that I took the researchers comments to mean the fetus was "actually trying to speak".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The user who posted it took this to mean the fetus looked like it was ACTUALLY trying to speak.

3) And lastly you said in the following post that I interrupted what was said in the study as "pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All rationality went out of the user at that point and he interpreted it looking LIKE "trying to speak" as pretty much being the fetus ACTUALLY trying to speak. Which was both sad AND comical at the time.

So quit running away from this, nozz. Either quote a post from me that would be indicative of my having "interrupted" the researchers as saying that the fetuses were "actually trying to speak" (as opposed to looking 'as if' they were) or apologize.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

SSF Will be fine.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101042651&postcount=678

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101025657&postcount=630

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100994815&postcount=545

You occasionally just straight post and endorse the study, where it is "as if they are trying to speak" with your main thrust being they are mouthing in response to auditory stimuli. Not that much of a stretch to conclude that you agree they are responding the the auditory stimuli with mouth movements, as the researchers say, "as if to speak" or to communicate back to the auditory stimuli.

100 Euros to SSF if you don't mind. You can PM me the receipt; you both should really get a room though, just realizing after quote-hopping back in that old thread (thanks, google) that the (sexual?) tension between ye is riveting and has been going on for *years* :pac: At the very least we can say you both need to go get a beer together and hash it out. #diditforthecharity

Think you might be on Pete's ignore list

Overheal

DubInMeath wrote: »

Think you might be on Pete's ignore list

Evidently! Only eyes for one poster...

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So quit running away from this, nozz. Either quote a post from me that would be indicative of my having "interrupted" the researchers as saying that the fetuses were "actually trying to speak" (as opposed to looking 'as if' they were) or apologize.

I am running away from nothing except your attempts to pretend what I said has a meaning different to the one I am telling you it has. A fetus has no language, so ACTUALLY believing it is trying to speak, or suggesting you believe it was actually trying to speak, would be ridiculous. I do not think you believe that, and I never once suggested you do despite your pretence.

What I AM saying is that your reaction to it is AS IF you believe it. Put more clearly, your reaction to it scales with someone who did/does actually believe it. And that is the focus of my points.

But the only one running away is you because I asked then, and I asked twice again here today, what you actually think the relevance of the study is. You have refused again and again to answer. However you have suggested the study suggests A) That early stage fetuses are "aware" and that 2) This vocal movement somehow elevates the fetus above a biological entity that shows responses to stimuli.

The study, quite simply, does neither. And the only "running away" that is occurring here is you running away from that fact.

Overheal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am running away from nothing except your attempts to pretend what I said has a meaning different to the one I am telling you it has. A fetus has no language, so ACTUALLY believing it is trying to speak, or suggesting you believe it was actually trying to speak, would be ridiculous. I do not think you believe that, and I never once suggested you do despite your pretence.

What I AM saying is that your reaction to it is AS IF you believe it. Put more clearly, your reaction to it scales with someone who did/does actually believe it. And that is the focus of my points.

But the only one running away is you because I asked then, and I asked twice again here today, what you actually think the relevance of the study is. You have refused again and again to answer. However you have suggested the study suggests A) That early stage fetuses are "aware" and that 2) This vocal movement somehow elevates the fetus above a biological entity that shows responses to stimuli.

The study, quite simply, does neither. And the only "running away" that is occurring here is you running away from that fact.

Christ, Dub, I'm on both ignore lists.

Overheal

Gintonious wrote: »

The highlight of the whole campaign. This was when Sky couldn't get anyone from the NO side, so this is what they had to settle on. She is absolutely out of her mind.

Incredible.

I'm going to do a transcript of this. Stand. By. World.

nozzferrahhtoo

Can you sit through it long enough to do that? Or can you do that thing I have failed spectacularly to do, and managed to extract subtitles directly? I have seen two websites that explain how to do it, and it never works for me.