Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

Take it away, folks.

Sorry, I'm not sure why I'm being asked to do this...

I haven't made any claims about numbers or levels of harassment. I don't have any such reports from reliable sources to hand and I don't see why I should go out of my way to provide evidence for a claim I did not make.

End's made the claim here. I was asking him to explain how he reached his conclusion and if he had any evidence to support it.
Why do I need to provide evidence for this?

robindch

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I honestly thought the ridiculous hoop jumping exercise of reporting a poster was laughable but this new caveat is beyond ridiculous and you should honestly hang your head in shame for the protection you are blindly giving what is possibly the worst poster on this whole site.

@eotr made a claim which is adjudicable via statistics, as did @king. So far, neither side has produced any stats to justify either claim. As soon as both sides have produced stats, forum mods will be able to adjudicate which claim is more likely to be accurate. If neither side produces stats, then both sides are avoiding the issue and the adjudication will lapse.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i never mentioned them being biassed. it was you who first mentioned bias if i remember rightly. certainly i would know if i was being biassed or not, and as i have said i'm not as i don't believe it is a good way to examine an issue.

Ok, so why then are they mischaracterising what they experienced as harassment?

end of the road wrote: »

i am not downplaying it nor have i downplayed it. i haven't examined any specific reports.

end of the road wrote: »

mainly common sense, as for example, something like handing out lieflets with information, that is something that can and does happen across many other situations. for that to be classed as harassment,

Ok. Here's your issue.
You are saying you haven't looked at any reports or an incidents, but then you are stating that people are calling "handing out leafets" is harassment.
Those two things don't match up.

How can you know that there's a significant number of over stated reports when you haven't looked at any?

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

@eotr made a claim which is adjudicable via statistics, as did @king. So far, neither side has produced any stats to justify either claim. As soon as both sides have produced stats, forum mods will be able to adjudicate which claim is more likely to be accurate. If neither side produces stats, then both sides are avoiding the issue and the adjudication will lapse.

Side A made a statement.

Side B asked them to provide evidence of that statement.

How is the onus not on Side A to fulfill that request? Surely it should be the responsibility of the poster who made the original claim to substantiate it? Why do both sides have to provide evidence to support their claim?

If you make a claim and you are asked to provide evidence to support it, you should provide evidence to support it, it's genuinely that simple.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

as did @king.

Where did I do this?


Edit: I looked back on my posts in the last few pages. I did not post anything that referenced statistics or numbers. I did not reference such as I do not know them and never claimed to.
I stated that harassment happens. That fact isn't in dispute.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

I haven't made any claims about numbers or levels of harassment.

You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/harassment-outside-abortion-clinics-buffer-zone

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/51977

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thats-deplorable--pro-choice-campaigners-hit-out-at-anti-abortion-protest-outside-gp-clinic-895575.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councils-consider-ban-on-protests-at-abortion-clinics-in-uk-36791948.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/mps-call-for-exclusion-zones-around-abortion-clinics-protests-harassment

https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/6/19/no-more-harassment-at-the-doors-of-abortion-clinics-for-nsw-women

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-violence/death-threats-intimidation-double-at-u-s-abortion-clinics-group-says-idUSKBN1I82K1

https://www.her.ie/news/urgent-call-safety-zone-legislation-stop-harassment-women-seeking-abortions-450796

All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.

Now, can you ask eotr to back up his claim, please?

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

If you make a claim and you are asked to provide evidence to support it, you should provide evidence to support it, it's genuinely that simple.

See above - eotr claims that harassment is lower than king believes. While King doesn't believe eotr's claim, king, by accepting the structure of the discussion, is happy that there is some level of harassment and that eotr is claiming that it's lower than that.

There are two parts to this claim - king's implication that there exists a quantifiable level of harassment, and eotr's subsequent claim that this level is wrong.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

In my view, that's not what is being claimed. That is not what we are discussing.
I haven't stated what level the harassment is because I don't know.
End has claimed that of the incidents of claimed harassment that do exist, a portion are in fact not harassment as the person claiming to be harassed is overstating what happened (ie. they were not actually harassed and only believe they were).
That is what I am asking him to substantiate or at least explain.
The statistics about the levels of harassment do not factor in this particular point.

Eric Cartman

robarmstrong wrote: »

Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/harassment-outside-abortion-clinics-buffer-zone

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/51977

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thats-deplorable--pro-choice-campaigners-hit-out-at-anti-abortion-protest-outside-gp-clinic-895575.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councils-consider-ban-on-protests-at-abortion-clinics-in-uk-36791948.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/mps-call-for-exclusion-zones-around-abortion-clinics-protests-harassment

https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/6/19/no-more-harassment-at-the-doors-of-abortion-clinics-for-nsw-women

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-violence/death-threats-intimidation-double-at-u-s-abortion-clinics-group-says-idUSKBN1I82K1

https://www.her.ie/news/urgent-call-safety-zone-legislation-stop-harassment-women-seeking-abortions-450796

All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.

Now, can you ask eotr to back up his claim, please?

With the exception of the indo and reuters, you have presented a tonne of links from organisations which are incredibly left leaning and heavily entranced in supporting abortion legalisation. sure if this is valid then the renua website and alive magazine are valid counterpoints.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

I stated that harassment happens. That fact isn't in dispute.

Yes, and eotr agrees with you.

What you are disagreeing about is, in some sense, an aggregate level of harassment - you believe it's high, eotr states that he believes that it's lower than what you believe. Note that eotr doesn't presumably know what level you believe, so I'm at a loss to know how eotr can assess that harassment is lower.

Until such time as either side substantiates their implied or direct claims, there's isn't anything to be adjudicated.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point. All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.

Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

I honestly cannot believe i am witnessing this!

eviltwin

This thread has just become absolutely ridiculous.

robarmstrong

Eric Cartman wrote: »

With the exception of the indo and reuters, you have presented a tonne of links from organisations which are incredibly left leaning and heavily entranced in supporting abortion legalisation. sure if this is valid then the renua website and alive magazine are valid counterpoints.

Then I eagerly await eotr to post his links to substantiate his claim.

This is absolutely ridiculous at this stage.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so why then are they mischaracterising what they experienced as harassment?

i think it's because they genuinely believe that they were harassed. but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place. we do need to have some guidelines so that we can show when harassment actually has taken place. but i'm not in agreement that simply handing out information and peacefully protesting on the public pavement/street can be part of that.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Here's your issue.
You are saying you haven't looked at any reports or an incidents, but then you are stating that people are calling "handing out leafets" is harassment.
Those two things don't match up.

How can you know that there's a significant number of over stated reports when you haven't looked at any?

to be fair i never stated it was a significant number. i never gave any numbers as it's not something i could know, at least not for sure.
but if you read any of the abortion threads across the site. there will be at least a couple who seem to believe that handing out lieflets or just basic protesting constitutes harassment. taking the belief outside this site, there will be people who share the same view that protesting and handing out lieflets outside a clinnic constitutes harassment, even though the clinnic likely may be on a public street. that is why i believe that there may be lower numbers then may be the case, because things that are not normally believed to be harassment, are being classed as such, when really the same acts are happening in the same situation as they would normally happen. people handing out information or protesting outside a building where something is taking place that they disagree with.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

Robin, please read my posts. You have several times attributed to me a position that I did not state and do not hold.

I did not state what level of harassment exists because I do not know. I did not claim to know. I made no claim about it beyond that it exists.

End's claim is not about the level, but that a number of the reports of harassment that do exist are in fact false for one reason or another.
That's what I was discussing.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

If it's a baseless claim, how is it not possible to adjudicate anything?

Here, let me help you by outlining what is in the charter:

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

So there's a constant repetition of a single viewpoint whilst refusing to entertain discussion on it (the flat out disagreement without any evidence to support as such).

When a claimant makes some unambiguous claim of fact, then any other poster can ask the claimant to support that truth-claim with evidence. The claimant should then provide that evidence within some reasonable period of time.

Baseless claim = unambiguous claim of fact that King Mob has asked eotr to provide evidence to support their truth claim (as eotr has marked his opinion down as fact when it comes to how people should/should not feel harassed, which is another baseless claim).

Once the claimant has provided evidence in support of the original claim, any poster can then request the moderator to review the evidence and adjudicate on whether it's sufficient. If the moderator judges that the claimant has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim, then the moderator will make an inthread note to the effect that the claim has been substantiated and the claimant is then free to make that claim in the future without being called out upon it. If the moderator judges that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to defend the claim, or if the claimant has simply avoided or ignored the request to support, then the moderators will make an inthread note that the claim has not been substantiated. In such a case, the claimant is not allowed to repeat the claim, unless it's accompanied by the supporting evidence which was missing the first time around (in which case, if the post is reported, the the moderator might adjudicate the claim as still unsubstantiated).

So I can expect you now to post a friendly moderator note dictating that eotr is not allowed to repeat his baseless claim, no?

From your words directly, you've listed eotr's breach of the forum charter.

robarmstrong

Also - just to add on.

EOTR has stated that we were asked to vote for or against Abortion on Demand in the campaign for the 8th amendment.

Here is my evidence to prove that we were not in fact requested to vote on "abortion on demand" -

If the referendum is passed, this would allow the existing Article 40.3.3 – which contains the Eighth Amendment (right to life of the unborn), 13th Amendment (right to information about seeking a termination), and 14th Amendment (right to travel for a termination) – to be replaced with the line:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

Can you please ask eotr to substantiate his claim that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand?

Eric Cartman

not claiming to know how much harassment exists but 66% of Ireland voted to repeal. There are and were regular posts on every social media outlet about how low the turnouts are for pro-life events are,

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/campaigners-protest-at-drogheda-hospital-over-first-abortion-1.3750072 in this article the protest consists of 5 older / elderly women , one older man and one younger man. Even if they were behaving in the most appauling way, I would fail to see how many would find them intimidating or harassing.

This is the reality of these 'pro life' protests, <10 people, mostly older women.

I do believe its annoying and inconvenient but I think claims of ' harassing' are classic left outrage culture where the most offended people on the planet are given a voice and it spirals.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i think it's because they genuinely believe that they were harassed. but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place. we do need to have some guidelines so that we can show when harassment actually has taken place. but i'm not in agreement that simply handing out information and peacefully protesting on the public pavement/street can be part of that.

i never stated it was a significant number. i never gave any numbers.
but if you read any of the abortion threads across the site. there will be at least a couple who seem to believe that handing out lieflets or just basic protesting constitutes harassment. that is why i believe that there may be higher numbers then may be the case, because taking the belief outside this site, there will be people who share the same view that protesting and handing out lieflets outside a clinnic constitutes harassment, even though the clinnic likely may be on a public street.

But here we run into the same problem again. You are applying a false dichotomy between "innocently handing out leaflets" and "screaming in people's faces".
Do you accept that there is a spectrum between those two options?

Do you accept for hypothetical example that there are ways to harass someone in careful ways that can be disguised or cover by seemingly innocent things like "just handing out leaflets"?

Do you accept that there are possible actions that are not "harassment" in the legal sense, but are still distressing, intimidating and shaming?

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place.

.....

You do realize what you've posted, right? You haven't made a typo here?

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Robin, please read my posts. You have several times attributed to me a position that I did not state and do not hold. I did not state what level of harassment exists because I do not know. I did not claim to know. I made no claim about it beyond that it exists. End's claim is not about the level, but that a number of the reports of harassment that do exist are in fact false for one reason or another.

The adjudication post above referred to the following two posts by you and eotr:

end of the road wrote: »

i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed?

Please note the quantitative words in bold and my own summary of the general claim (which nobody has disagreed with): "that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim" - something ensapsulated reasonably well in the phrase "level of harassment".

If the claim is something else, then it would be good to agree on what it is so that it can be adjudicated.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

But here we run into the same problem again. You are applying a false dichotomy between "innocently handing out leaflets" and "screaming in people's faces".
Do you accept that there is a spectrum between those two options?

of course and i thought i made that clear in my post but perhapse not.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you accept for hypothetical example that there are ways to harass someone in careful ways that can be disguised or cover by seemingly innocent things like "just handing out leaflets"?

perhapse, but i don't believe simply handing out information would be one of those.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you accept that there are possible actions that are not "harassment" in the legal sense, but are still distressing, intimidating and shaming?

i'm not sure at this stage. i think nearly all of what could be reasonably considered harassment is already covered by law. peacefully protesting and handing out information will not be something i could ever consider to be harassment.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

If it's a baseless claim, how is it not possible to adjudicate anything?

I re-read that line a few minutes after I'd posted it and knew that somebody would misinterpret the word "baseless".

In the context in which it was used, it meant "without an base from which to compare". Specifically, since I suspect this clarification might not be clear enough, eotr claimed that harassment was lower than king claimed it to be, despite eotr not knowing what king might believe it to be - hence there is no base for eotr's comparison, hence the claim is baseless.

Perhaps not the best choice of words, I certainly agree, but I trust the clarification clears things up.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread has just become absolutely ridiculous.

That's what happens when rhetoric hits rules - see Brexit anon.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There was never any suggestion of a vote on the legislation. So to suggest that anybody voted on that basis is a lie. Unless of course you can provide a source for your contention, in which case i will withdraw that remark.

Now that there is a mod active at the same time as can you substantiate your claim that there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation?

robarmstrong

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110011361&postcount=230

For your attention, there is a claim that requires eotr to provide proof of, apparently I am on his ignore list so conveniently he does not have to oblige me with proof.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not sure at this stage. i think nearly all of what could be reasonably considered harassment is already covered by law. peacefully protesting and handing out information will not be something i could ever consider to be harassment.

Ok.
So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
Is that a fair summation?

Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
Or is everything below harassment acceptable?

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

The adjudication post above referred to the following two posts by you and eotr:Please note the quantitative words in bold and my own summary of the general claim (which nobody has disagreed with): "that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim" - something ensapsulated reasonably well in the phrase "level of harassment".

If the claim is something else, then it would be good to agree on what it is so that it can be adjudicated.

But robin, I didn't claim anything about the level of harassment in America.
End referred to the claims made by someone else who was not me.
How can I provide those evidence for those specific claims when I don't know what they are and End did not detail them?
He claimed those claims were false first. He knows what those claims are. I don't'. I asked him to detail how he knows those claims to be overstated.

I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know.