Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

I didn’t gloss over it, I don’t have to reply to stuff I don’t agree with if I feel the person is looking for a reaction.

Isn’t that the whole point of the repeal shield?

RobertKK

amcalester wrote: »

Isn’t that the whole point of the repeal shield?

No, I can read what I don’t want to reply to, They don’t read.
That is a massive difference.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

That is ok, I know some have removed themselves from it, but others have not.

Robert you appear to under estimate how abusive some people can be on Twitter. Some people have fully private accounts which is basically a full shield. Anyone who wants to use Repealshield has the absolute right to do so. You have the right to speak. Everyone else has the right to ignore you.

The right to freedom of speech does not confer the right to impose your views on other people.

Most whinging about repealshield came from the no side who don’t appear to understand this. No one has to listen to you. And they certainly do not have to read or view the shock and awe photos that no campaigners tried to ram down people’s twitter feeds.

You have a voice. But you do not have a god given right to walk into people’s homes and shout abusively at them.

The more you complain about repealshield, the more I understand that you really don’t care about other people, that you are selfish and impose yourself on other people’s lives. It is all about you and nothing else.

RobertKK

Calina wrote: »

Robert you appear to under estimate how abusive some people can be on Twitter. Some people have fully private accounts which is basically a full shield. Anyone who wants to use Repealshield has the absolute right to do so. You have the right to speak. Everyone else has the right to ignore you.

The right to freedom of speech does not confer the right to impose your views on other people.

Most whinging about repealshield came from the no side who don’t appear to understand this. No one has to listen to you. And they certainly do not have to read or view the shock and awe photos that no campaigners tried to ram down people’s twitter feeds.

You have a voice. But you do not have a god given right to walk into people’s homes and shout abusively at them.

The more you complain about repealshield, the more I understand that you really don’t care about other people, that you are selfish and impose yourself on other people’s lives. It is all about you and nothing else.

I agree with that - excluding the last paragraph, and it works both ways.
As you might have seen some who post in this thread wanted to impose their views on me in another thread by bringing their grievances from here to elsewhere.

robarmstrong

Nobody is imposing any views on you, you're just widely known in this subject of discussion because of how you carried on during the build-up to the referendum. This is not something new or fresh in any way shape of form.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

I agree with that - excluding the last paragraph, and it works both ways.
As you might have seen some who post in this thread wanted to impose their views on me in another thread by bringing their grievances from here to elsewhere.

If you agree with me in general then I trust you will never again mention repealshield in any debate on the question of abortion. It is fundamentally irrelevant to the subject.

But your posts to date which have mentioned it do not support your comment above.

amcalester

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I can read what I don’t want to reply to, They don’t read.
That is a massive difference.

Effect is the same though.

People have a right to express their opinions but, and this seems to be where you get annoyed, there’s no right to have those opinions heard.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nobody is imposing any views on you, you're just widely known in this subject of discussion because of how you carried on during the build-up to the referendum. This is not something new or fresh in any way shape of form.

Really?

Is intimidation not a form of imposing views on someone? When someone takes something from one thread to post in another to try and belittle a person, try and make them look bad in front of others, it is done with an intent.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Really?

Is intimidation not a form of imposing views on someone? When someone takes something from one thread to post in another to try and belittle a person, try and make them look bad in front of others, it is done with an intent.

So would the protesters who crowded the maternity hospitals in Dublin with graphic images not be displaying this "intimidation" due to them imposing their views on innocent parties?

I'm not imposing any views upon you, like I said, your reputation on this subject and your past behavior are well known.

You're more than welcome to continue to pretend to be a victim here though.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

Really?

Is intimidation not a form of imposing views on someone? When someone takes something from one thread to post in another to try and belittle a person, try and make them look bad in front of others, it is done with an intent.

If it is a view you support and defend in this thread, why would it be an issue in another thread?

I don’t personally agree with it as a practice because people don’t read across every thread on the site but are you acknowledging that the way you post in this and maybe previous versions of a thread might make you look bad elsewhere on the site?

If so, a period of self reflection is called for.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

So would the protesters who crowded the maternity hospitals in Dublin with graphic images not be displaying this "intimidation" due to them imposing their views on innocent parties?

I'm not imposing any views upon you, like I said, your reputation on this subject and your past behavior are well known.

You're more than welcome to continue to pretend to be a victim here though.

They were very wrong.

But some people like to generalise all by a minority, around three quarters of a million people voted against repeal.
How many are out doing stuff you posted about?

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

They were very wrong.

But some people like to generalise all by a minority, around three quarters of a million people voted against repeal.
How many are out doing stuff you posted about?

Actually to pull you on something, it's a bit rich from you to be talking about being belittled when you labelled the Miss P situation a publicity stunt. How is that not belittling towards that?

Around 3 quarters of a million voted against repeal, around 1 and a half million voted for repeal, how many are out getting free abortions up til birth willy nilly, like the views of pro-lifers in here stated?

RobertKK

Calina wrote: »

If it is a view you support and defend in this thread, why would it be an issue in another thread?

I don’t personally agree with it as a practice because people don’t read across every thread on the site but are you acknowledging that the way you post in this and maybe previous versions of a thread might make you look bad elsewhere on the site?

If so, a period of self reflection is called for.

Because the murder of a woman in Bangladesh had nothing to do with this, and I was told I was using her as I don't care about women.
It is like I am made out to be that I didn't care about my deceased mother, my sister, female friends etc.
That I am somehow inhuman and hate women because I am not an advocate for abortion. I know lots of women who voted against repeal, they too don't hate women, they believe there are two lives involved, but believing there are two lives involves for some it means one hates women.
This is where self reflection is needed, but I doubt you will agree.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Actually to pull you on something, it's a bit rich from you to be talking about being belittled when you labelled the Miss P situation a publicity stunt. How is that not belittling towards that?

Around 3 quarters of a million voted against repeal, around 1 and a half million voted for repeal, how many are out getting free abortions up til birth willy nilly, like the views of pro-lifers in here stated?

What is belittling is you are bringing up stuff that mods said should not be discussed in a previous thread, but you know that.
You are trying to cause needless trouble.

robarmstrong

Remind me again why they said it should not be discussed in a previous thread Robert, remind us all?

I'm not trying to cause needless trouble at all, you're masquerading yourself as a victim, someone who wants to genuinely contribute but anyone who searches through your posts will see that on this particular topic you have done nothing but lie, speculate, offend and spout some absolute vitriol which resulted in correctly applied moderator action.

So don't sit there and white-knight and pretend you're up for genuine discussion or debate or engage honestly with users when you very clearly are not.

Not any I can think of, as one wouldn't expect these cases to be common.

On a separate note...
We had the state keep a dead woman alive because she was 16 weeks pregnant which was ridiculous and which looked like a stunt to blame the 8th amendment, and it took the courts to say that the 8th amendment never applied in that case, it was repeal people who tried to use it as a reason to make a point in my opinion, and failed as the woman was dead.

Time to go off and do some self-reflection.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I can read what I don’t want to reply to, They don’t read.
That is a massive difference.

Some people simply don't want to read it, they're seeing the same arguments reiterated. If somebody wants to block users that they have no desire to interact with, they're entitled to.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I agree with that - excluding the last paragraph, and it works both ways.
As you might have seen some who post in this thread wanted to impose their views on me in another thread by bringing their grievances from here to elsewhere.

persecution complex now is it?

dudara

I do not want to see any further baiting or bickering from either side on this thread for the next 72 hours. This warning also extends across all of Boards. If I see any continuation of this argument anywhere else, any further Reported Posts, or even any sideways references, I will impose sanctions.

This warning is primarily for Robert KK and robarmstrong, but I advise others to pay heed also. Give it a break.

dudara

robarmstrong

batgoat wrote: »

Some people simply don't want to read it, they're seeing the same arguments reiterated. If somebody wants to block users that they have no desire to interact with, they're entitled to.

A lot of people were using the "repeal shield" because they did not want to view the grossly inappropriate and misleading graphic images of deceased fetuses being passed off as "aborted", when further inspection or investigations would show that these pictures were in fact spontaneous miscarriages.

It's something that should be taken into consideration before attacking the "repeal shield".