nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

molloyjh

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Which is a clear double standard and should be looked upon in the same way as if a white person said it .
Context means nothing in this case,

In terms of things like blacking up for fancy dress I think this sort of thing should be normalised. Men dress up as women for various reasons, be that entertainment (Mrs Brown) or charity (Womens Mini-Marathon) and it doesn't turn any heads. Because why would it. We need to get to that place with race as well, and for as long as people make a big deal out of stuff like that we'll struggle to. Making yourself look black is not by definition racist just like commenting on a blue wall is not by definition pro-life. If someone means to cause offence people should get outraged. If they don't set out to cause offence then there is a responsibility on the part of the viewer/reader/listener to see that as much as there's a responsibility on the communicator to get that across. And there are too many of the former not willing to play their part these days.

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

In terms of things like blacking up for fancy dress I think this sort of thing should be normalised. Men dress up as women for various reasons, be that entertainment (Mrs Brown) or charity (Womens Mini-Marathon) and it doesn't turn any heads. Because why would it. We need to get to that place with race as well, and for as long as people make a big deal out of stuff like that we'll struggle to. Making yourself look black is not by definition racist just like commenting on a blue wall is not by definition pro-life. If someone means to cause offence people should get outraged. If they don't set out to cause offence then there is a responsibility on the part of the viewer/reader/listener to see that as much as there's a responsibility on the communicator to get that across. And there are too many of the former not willing to play their part these days.

You're missing another option from your list there molloy...

wp_rathead

molloyjh wrote: »

In terms of things like blacking up for fancy dress I think this sort of thing should be normalised. Men dress up as women for various reasons, be that entertainment (Mrs Brown) or charity (Womens Mini-Marathon) and it doesn't turn any heads. Because why would it. We need to get to that place with race as well, and for as long as people make a big deal out of stuff like that we'll struggle to. Making yourself look black is not by definition racist just like commenting on a blue wall is not by definition pro-life. If someone means to cause offence people should get outraged. If they don't set out to cause offence then there is a responsibility on the part of the viewer/reader/listener to see that as much as there's a responsibility on the communicator to get that across. And there are too many of the former not willing to play their part these days.

In this case Healy took a swipe at people photograping themselves in front off the painted over mural- doing so he inadvertently took a swipe at those supporting "Repeal the 8th"
I don't see the issue with people calling him out on it

It was like PaddyPower pulling the piss out of Owen Farrell for his celebration before being told it was for a charity- they deleted the tweet and apologised

it seems to be the "it's PC gone maaaad" gang after Cian apologized that are the most fired up

pickarooney

There's no point in a debate on abortion. People just arbitrarily pick a point on a nine month line and argue that this is an absolute truth.

Everything about the patriarchy, subjugation, the catholic church, rape, suicide and anything portending to be rationale is just stuff and nonsense.

[Deleted User]

pickarooney wrote: »

There's no point in a debate on abortion. People just arbitrarily pick a point on a nine month line and argue that this is an absolute truth.

Everything about the patriarchy, subjugation, the catholic church, rape, suicide and anything portending to be rationale is just stuff and nonsense.

Weird to think an abortion can occur in a lot of states up till the birth date.

[Deleted User]

pickarooney wrote: »

There's no point in a debate on abortion. People just arbitrarily pick a point on a nine month line and argue that this is an absolute truth.

Everything about the patriarchy, subjugation, the catholic church, rape, suicide and anything portending to be rationale is just stuff and nonsense.

I believe there is a nuance afforded to the debate by suggesting not that there are any arbitrary lengths which should be used, but the simple observation that a Constitution is the wrong place for nuanced legislation that should and will change with time as medical science gives us more answers.

Are we to come back to a referendum each time a breakthrough occurs?

The Constitution is no place for this type of legislation, it offers us no chance to adjust our laws accordingly as we update our understanding.

You can abstract away the emotive side by explaining just this. That a Constitution is an overriding set of principles that our legislation inherits from, and enshrinement of rights within it needs to be terribly, terribly well thought out.

The debate between Binchy and Robinson which discusses the potential for an issue which did in fact manifest some years later as the X case was prescient in how well it was described.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

Here we have an example of a lawyer who understood the ramifications (Robinson) setting out quite clearly what these ramifications were.

To enshrine such rights in the constitution gives rise to these type of scenarios. Having legislation being in control affords our legislature the chance to enact emergency legislation to assist in the edge cases.

We can either place such legislation in the constitution where it is absolute, and therefore we must bear the costs (as envisioned by Robinson), or we can legislate appropriately, through the Dáil which can be far more flexible.

molloyjh

wp_rathead wrote: »

In this case Healy took a swipe at people photograping themselves in front off the painted over mural- doing so he inadvertently took a swipe at those supporting "Repeal the 8th"

At the very most he could have been viewed as taking a swipe at some of the people taking their pictures in front of the wall. And that's at the very most. That in no way says anything about his opinion on the 8th or the repeal movement. And that even assumes he knew what the blue wall was, which as it happens he didn't.

People made the assumption that he was taking a swipe at those supporting the repeal. That much is true. But it requires an assumption or a set of assumptions on the part of those reading the tweet to get to that point. That's the first and most obvious sign that there was potentially a serious overreaction to the tweet.

It's like saying you're not hipster unless you eat pulled pork. That's not to say that everyone who eats pulled pork is a hipster or that there is anything at all wrong with pulled pork. The comment there is on the hipster, not the pulled pork or every single person who eats pulled pork.

wp_rathead

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Weird to think an abortion can occur in a lot of states up till the birth date.

Isn't there some stat that only like 1% of abortions in America is after 20 weeks- so while 9 States have no restrictions it's a bit of red herring

wp_rathead

molloyjh wrote: »

At the very most he could have been viewed as taking a swipe at some of the people taking their pictures in front of the wall. And that's at the very most. That in no way says anything about his opinion on the 8th or the repeal movement. And that even assumes he knew what the blue wall was, which as it happens he didn't.

People made the assumption that he was taking a swipe at those supporting the repeal. That much is true. But it requires an assumption or a set of assumptions on the part of those reading the tweet to get to that point. That's the first and most obvious sign that there was potentially a serious overreaction to the tweet.

It's like saying you're not hipster unless you eat pulled pork. That's not to say that everyone who eats pulled pork is a hipster or that there is anything at all wrong with pulled pork. The comment there is on the hipster, not the pulled pork or every single person who eats pulled pork.

I'm aware he didn't realise what he said, hence my "inadvertently took a swipe"
He thought people were just taking photos off themselves in front of a blue wall, which with no context must have seemed bizarre
I seriously see no issue with people pointing out why they were doing it when he said they only did it to be alternative

irishbucsfan

wp_rathead wrote: »

I'm aware he didn't realise what he said, hence my "inadvertently took a swipe"
He thought people were just taking photos off themselves in front of a blue wall, which with no context must have seemed bizarre
I seriously see no issue with people pointing out why they were doing it when he said they only did it to be alternative

Noone is saying there's an issue with people pointing out why they were doing it?

Yeah_Right

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Do people have that perception of rugby players? I would usually associate rugby players with private schools and expensive educations. Dumb and brain dead are not things I'd assume. Whatever about the rest of it.

Maybe it's a more common perception in NZ towards rugby players.

I have met people in Ireland that think that way about sports people in general though.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe there is a nuance afforded to the debate by suggesting not that there are any arbitrary lengths which should be used, but the simple observation that a Constitution is the wrong place for nuanced legislation that should and will change with time as medical science gives us more answers.

Are we to come back to a referendum each time a breakthrough occurs?

The Constitution is no place for this type of legislation, it offers us no chance to adjust our laws accordingly as we update our understanding.

You can abstract away the emotive side by explaining just this. That a Constitution is an overriding set of principles that our legislation inherits from, and enshrinement of rights within it needs to be terribly, terribly well thought out.

The debate between Binchy and Robinson which discusses the potential for an issue which did in fact manifest some years later as the X case was prescient in how well it was described.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

Here we have an example of a lawyer who understood the ramifications (Robinson) setting out quite clearly what these ramifications were.

To enshrine such rights in the constitution gives rise to these type of scenarios. Having legislation being in control affords our legislature the chance to enact emergency legislation to assist in the edge cases.

We can either place such legislation in the constitution where it is absolute, and therefore we must bear the costs (as envisioned by Robinson), or we can legislate appropriately, through the Dáil which can be far more flexible.

I would agree with you except to say that there is absolutely a place for abortion in the constitution if the people of Ireland want to ban it entirely, removing the control of this from representive government. I don't think that's the current feeling in the country, it's not my personal opinion, but I might be wrong.

I think there's another very important aspect to this debate which covers whether we want to make it constitutional for the public money to be spent on abortion as well. That might mean forcing a large number of people to pay to provide a service that they don't just disagree with, but they find morally and spiritually unacceptable, it's a very important question and I think it's a seperate question to the legality of the practice. Those are the two areas I think we need to provide a constitutional framework for. If we decide that firstly we do want to legalise abortion and secondly we do want public money to be spent on it, then we can look to the government to provide the rest of the legislative framework.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I would agree with you except to say that there is absolutely a place for abortion in the constitution if the people of Ireland want to ban it entirely, removing the control of this from representive government. I don't think that's the current feeling in the country, it's not my personal opinion, but I might be wrong.

I said as much

Deleted User wrote:

To enshrine such rights in the constitution gives rise to these type of scenarios. Having legislation being in control affords our legislature the chance to enact emergency legislation to assist in the edge cases.

We can either place such legislation in the constitution where it is absolute, and therefore we must bear the costs (as envisioned by Robinson), or we can legislate appropriately, through the Dáil which can be far more flexible.

wp_rathead

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Noone is saying there's an issue with people pointing out why they were doing it?

What are peoples issue then?

molloyjh

wp_rathead wrote: »

I'm aware he didn't realise what he said, hence my "inadvertently took a swipe"
He thought people were just taking photos off themselves in front of a blue wall, which with no context must have seemed bizarre
I seriously see no issue with people pointing out why they were doing it when he said they only did it to be alternative

Neither do I. I do however see an issue with people saying it was anti-repeal or that he was taking a swipe at repeal supporters, inadvertently or not. Look at my pulled pork example:

"You have to eat pulled pork to be hipster these days."

That says nothing about how good, bad or indifferent pulled pork is. It says nothing about how good, bad or indifferent people who eat pulled pork are or why they eat it. It simply says that to be a hipster you need to eat pulled pork. No more.

The meaning plenty of people took from Healys tweet is akin to saying that he thinks that everyone who eats pulled pork is only doing it to be hipster. The tweet doesn't say that. Or that pulled pork is somehow bad. The tweet doesn't say that either. That is what I have an issue with, i.e. people assuming a statement says something that it does not actually say, with a view to getting offended by it.

EDIT: And in this example is I've assumed Healy knew exactly what he was talking about, which as it turned out he didn't. So the "swipe" he supposedly took "inadvertently" was all in other peoples heads completely. It had absolutely no basis in reality. Guess why....because he never actually said what people claimed he was saying.

pickarooney

Even when Emmett and IBF agree they find a way to argue.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

molloyjh wrote: »

Who cares? The original meaning of the word gay was happy. If I told someone who was having a laugh at an inappropriate time that they were far too gay do you think they would take that to mean that he was too happy or would that signify something else? The meaning of things change over time and what's important is what they mean now and what the context is now, not what it was when it didn't happen.

My post about context was in reply to a post saying context matters. It suggested only the context of the actual incident, Liam Williams in this case, matters. I was giving some context to the history of "black face" and, in my opinion, it absolutely does matter.

swiwi_ wrote: »

Jeepers, you sound like you float in the wind, relying on popular opinion, trends etc to form your opinions TMO.

Morals should come within, inate sense of right and wrong, the stuff your parents taught you as a kid etc.

I'm telling you people (again...) social media :mad:

No. Absolutely not. I haven't once said I find any of these things offensive myself. That's my point. I don't have to find something offensive for it to actually be offensive. I am not the centre of the universe, my personal opinion of a word or act is pretty much irrelevant.

I am perfectly happy with my morals. I think it's my moral responsibility to understand why people of different races, religions, sexuality etc. etc. might take offense at something I don't. I'm not going to then pretend I'm offended by it or launch a moral crusade on twitter to shame someone who accidentally offended some people, but if the opportunity presents itself I will try to explain to someone why what they have said or done could offend and then it's on themselves to continue doing it or not.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Maybe it's a more common perception in NZ towards rugby players.

I have met people in Ireland that think that way about sports people in general though.

I do think it about soccer players and weirdly enough there's some of that perception with US sports even though the majority of them have college educations because of their sports.

irishbucsfan

wp_rathead wrote: »

What are peoples issue then?

People insulting him, throwing their toys out of the pram, and even attacking him for having views on the political issue

wp_rathead

molloyjh wrote: »

Neither do I. I do however see an issue with people saying it was anti-repeal or that he was taking a swipe at repeal supporters, inadvertently or not. Look at my pulled pork example:

"You have to eat pulled pork to be hipster these days."

That says nothing about how good, bad or indifferent pulled pork is. It says nothing about how good, bad or indifferent people who eat pulled pork are or why they eat it. It simply says that to be a hipster you need to eat pulled pork. No more.

The meaning plenty of people took from Healys tweet is akin to saying that he thinks that everyone who eats pulled pork is only doing it to be hipster. The tweet doesn't say that. Or that pulled pork is somehow bad. The tweet doesn't say that either. That is what I have an issue with, i.e. people assuming a statement says something that it does not actually say, with a view to getting offended by it.

EDIT: And in this example is I've assumed Healy knew exactly what he was talking about, which as it turned out he didn't. So the "swipe" he supposedly took "inadvertently" was all in other peoples heads completely. It had absolutely no basis in reality. Guess why....because he never actually said what people claimed he was saying.

"You have to eat pulled pork to be a hipster these days"
"You have to take photos in front of a blue wall to be alternative these days"
I get what you're saying to a degree..
..but if people are only eating pulled pork to highlight an issue and someone then comes along without knowledge as to why people are eating pulled pork and says "ya have to do that to be hipster" then people will tell them why they eating pulled pork.

Now I agree with the Bill Burr refence earlier where it's almost becoming "They Said X so they automatically mean Y because that's what X means according to Z"- but equally if someone says something ignorant (especially around something as emotive as abortion) then people are going to call them out over it.

It's almost become rageception at this point.
Person says something- people become outraged - people become outraged at the outrage- ad infinitum

sydthebeat

and in other news.....

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/07/27/scientists-confirm-link-between-tiny-penis-joining-isis/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article

love it !!!!

Zzippy

Jesus I'm glad I spent the day fishing and not reading this sh1te. Can't we all just, ya know, get along?

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Jesus I'm glad I spent the day fishing and not reading this sh1te. Can't we all just, ya know, get along?

Are you saying that all people who talk about politics are not capable of getting along?

[Deleted User]

Zzippy wrote: »

Jesus I'm glad I spent the day fishing and not reading this sh1te. Can't we all just, ya know, get along?

Thats terribly offensive to those of us who took time to post.

Shame on you Zzippy.

CatFromHue

Won't someone please think of the innocent fish!!

Zzippy

CatFromHue wrote: »

Won't someone please think of the innocent fish!!

Don't worry, the innocent fish were unmolested by me today!

Spent more time leaving flies in trees and bushes... :rolleyes:

OldRio

CatFromHue wrote: »

Won't someone please think of the innocent fish!!

Or the unborn children.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats terribly offensive to those of us who took time to post.

Shame on you Zzippy.

So you're saying it's not also offensive to people who took the time to read?!

wp_rathead

Only just started watching "Luther"- I'm 3 episodes in and, while I'm enjoying it, does it get better?
Like it is fun but I don't get the hype so far

pickarooney

No, it actually gets worse. If anyone other than Idris Elba was in it nobody would hype it up. He and Ruth Wilson are fantastic but the storylines are very far fetched but at he same time fairly clichéd.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

wp_rathead wrote: »

Only just started watching "Luther"- I'm 3 episodes in and, while I'm enjoying it, does it get better?
Like it is fun but I don't get the hype so far

I watched the first series and while I thought it was pretty decent at the time, I never got around to starting the second series. BBC have done better things.