Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Permabear · 21-09-2017 06:55PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 21-09-2017 06:57PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The anti-ufo group should probably have tried harder so...

Berserker · 21-09-2017 06:57PM

LirW wrote: »

I find it more decent minded making long-term decisions in one's life and if you aren't able to support a child, mentally, physically or in a materialistic way you should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy.

What about couples who can't have children, who would love the chance to adopt that child? Those people always come into my mind when people talk about abortion with no restrictions.

eviltwin · 21-09-2017 06:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've always wondered, does this kind of stuff not give them more publicity and portray them as "the underdog" sort of thing? I'd have heard nothing about this before now, and certainly from the way the opening post is framed, it appears as though this group are being portrayed as "the underdog".

It wouldn't sway my opinion one way or the other mind you as I'm not particularly interested in the politics and publicity seeking that any of these particular groups engage in (I find myself often questioning their motives as individuals tbh), but I've no doubt such publicity can have either a positive, galvanising effect on some people, and I just wonder is that outweighed by the negative, aversive effect it has on other people.

I'd love to be no-platformed, seems like a badge of honour these days, but I'm just not extreme enough :pac:

I think it just shows the kind of tactics some groups are prepared to use and they absolutely should be called out on it just as I'd expect a pro choice group to be called out if it claimed, for example, that abortion prevented cancer.

There should be no place in the debate for blatent lies on either side.

LirW · 21-09-2017 07:00PM

Berserker wrote: »

What about couples who can't have children, who would love the chance to adopt that child? Those people always come into my mind when people talk about abortion with no restrictions.

I'm coming from a country where you can legally terminate a pregnancy up until the finished 12 weeks and in case of a fetal abnormality up to 25. This is a pretty fair deal imo.

Again, you can't use women as incubator for another couple against her will. A pregnancy is physically incredibly demanding and can have a variety of long-term effects on the body and mental health.
I feel genuinely sorry for couples that deal with fertility issues but it's not on random women to solve this.

frag420 · 21-09-2017 07:04PM

Dumb comparison!!I would imagine if they claimed that not believing in aliens or ghosts increases your risk of cancer they would have been called up on it!!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sofiztikated · 21-09-2017 07:06PM

Berserker wrote: »

What about couples who can't have children, who would love the chance to adopt that child? Those people always come into my mind when people talk about abortion with no restrictions.

I'm a person that, if available at the time, could have been aborted, due to certain medical conditions which usually present with a number of others.

I may or may not be able to have children.

I still wouldn't force someone to continue a pregnancy they didn't want, for the sake of myself and my wife being able to adopt.

frag420 · 21-09-2017 07:08PM

Say what now?

There was no copying? The other side was and is wrong with the vast majority of their unfounded scaremongering!!

Deleted User wrote: »

The other side is wrong so by copying them we become more right?

January · 21-09-2017 07:10PM

Berserker wrote: »

What about couples who can't have children, who would love the chance to adopt that child? Those people always come into my mind when people talk about abortion with no restrictions.

So people should be forced to continue a pregnancy because of the infertility of other people? Leaving aside the fact that married couples cannot currently have their children adopted unless they declare themselves unfit (and then they'll have any children they already have together removed from their care also and possible future children) that's absurd.

freshpopcorn · 21-09-2017 07:40PM

I think next year when the campaign is taking place. I'll probably end up trying to avoid a lot of the campaigning especially online.

Bygumbo · 21-09-2017 07:53PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think next year when the campaign is taking place. I'll probably end up trying to avoid a lot of the campaigning especially online.

Better to go on holiday for a few months, you just KNOW its going to be an absolute **** show.

Reading some of the comments on this thread even.....

American politics, American tactics, American attitudes.....**** everyone who embraces that **** in this country. Seriously.

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 07:54PM

"Shout down", "silencing". These phrases are in danger of being worn out. Opposing something isn't any of these things. There are very few ways to silence anyone these days, there are numerous avenues to voice your views. It's dramatics to view opposition as an attempt at silencing someone. It's very babyish stuff.

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 08:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No comment from the hotel on any of that. This is a group that has little problem with lying. I'd take what they with a pinch.

Bygumbo · 21-09-2017 08:04PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

"Shout down", "silencing". These phrases are in danger of being worn out. Opposing something isn't any of these things. There are very few ways to silence anyone these days, there are numerous avenues to voice your views. It's dramatics to view opposition as an attempt at silencing someone. It's very babyish stuff.

I don't know every detail about this case, but what I'm seeing is a "shut down".

Anyone advocating that this somehow falls under free speech is disingenuous, and that's at best.

You don't like what another group is doing, so you use your "free speech" to contact the hotel and basically threaten them with lost business, or plain criticism, or whatever you want to call it......to the point that it gets cancelled?

And that strikes some people here as "free speech"? What a joke.

I'll have to remember that the next time I'm in a debate, I'll get in front of the opposition speaker and start singing a song out loud so no-one else hears, cos that's "free speech" too. Yeah, right.

The_Valeyard · 21-09-2017 08:07PM

Meh,
Anti-abortion groups just need to adapt the same tactics as the pro groups and fight them at their own game. Block their meetings, venues, etc. Level playing pitch.

hatrickpatrick · 21-09-2017 08:08PM

wes wrote: »

Let look at what the article actually says:

So people on the other side exercising there right to free speech, by contacting the hotel about how there against the event is perfectly valid. Free speech whether the Right likes it or not, is a 2 way street. You can say what you like, but so can the other guy.

If someone doesn't want to do business with a hotel in this case, due to there hosting an ideology they are against, that is there right. The same rights that the pro life group has as well.

Sorry, but your claims of people being silenced or there free speech being violated is simply untrue, and your basically saying people can't disagree with someone, which could also be called an attempt to silence people.

It's perfectly legal and acceptable, it just in my view means that these are horrible, horrible people. Of course they have a right to be horrible people, but that doesn't mean we can't condemn them for it. Anyone who uses any form of persuasion whatsoever to try to pull a platform from a speaker is a horrible person.

Bygumbo · 21-09-2017 08:08PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Meh,
Anti-abortion groups just need to adapt the same tactics as the pro groups and fight them at their own game. Block their meetings, venues, etc. Level playing pitch.

That's the thing, it a downward spiral for everyone once this starts. And it is 100% an imported disaster from America.

SafeSurfer · 21-09-2017 08:09PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

"Shout down", "silencing". These phrases are in danger of being worn out. Opposing something isn't any of these things. There are very few ways to silence anyone these days, there are numerous avenues to voice your views. It's dramatics to view opposition as an attempt at silencing someone. It's very babyish stuff.

Opposing an argument is different from using intimidation to ensure that the argument cannot be heard.

I abhor the views of holocaust denier David Irving but I believe his credibility is diminished more by pointing out the inaccuracies in his arguments than in preventing that debate from taking place.

Army_of_One · 21-09-2017 08:09PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Anti-abortion groups just need to adapt the same tactics as the pro groups and fight them at their own game

Can't see them using logic and peer reviewed studies......

January · 21-09-2017 08:11PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Meh,
Anti-abortion groups just need to adapt the same tactics as the pro groups and fight them at their own game. Block their meetings, venues, etc. Level playing pitch.

They already do that!!

Wibbs · 21-09-2017 08:11PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Not everything deserves to be debated.

That's a worrying position IMO and historically not such a healthy one. Moral positions are extremely fluid. About the only thing one can say about them is that sooner or later they will change. Moral positions, particularly those held up as givens by any group in society should be challenged. All of them.

Put it another way Tig if you lived in 1950's Ireland you would almost certainly have been anti choice and would have held that position just as firmly and there's the attendant little doubt that you would have also considered it "unworthy of debate".

Today you're pro choice(I believe?) and the only reason you are is because the "undebatable" was debated and the moral compass of enough people shifted to accommodate a new moral viewpoint. This is the case with slavery, equal rights, democracy for all, gay rights, damned near any moral positions we hold dear and true today. Moral viewpoints you have inherited second hand from a quite small minority of people who made enough of a case in those debates. Who is to say that the moral pendulum on this and other matters you hold to be so true today won't swing the other way in the future? By avoiding debate one could argue it makes that pendulum swing more likely.

Crea · 21-09-2017 08:12PM

There was a picnic over the summer run by TFMR (termination for medical reasons) for families who had been affected by fatal foetal abnormality.
The pro life group Youth Defence showed up and set up their posters showing foetuses etc.
Anyone who knows anything about ffa knows that these families have been through torture and YD added to this.

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 08:12PM

Bygumbo wrote: »

I don't know every detail about this case, but what I'm seeing is a "shut down".

Anyone advocating that this somehow falls under free speech is disingenuous, and that's at best.

You don't like what another group is doing, so you use your "free speech" to contact the hotel and basically threaten them with lost business, or plain criticism, or whatever you want to call it......to the point that it gets cancelled?

And that strikes some people here as "free speech"? What a joke.

I'll have to remember that the next time I'm in a debate, I'll get in front of the opposition speaker and start singing a song out loud so no-one else hears, cos that's "free speech" too. Yeah, right.

Shut down, shout down, potayto potato.

As January pointed out, pro-choice groups have faced opposition too over events they've wanted to hold in this country too.

There are many avenues to get your views out there.

FactCheck · 21-09-2017 08:15PM

This has already happened on at least one (and I suspect more than one) occasion to pro-Repeal groups:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/repeal-the-8th-amendment-meeting-in-gaa-club-cancelled-after-venue-received-formal-complaints-34996019.html

A public meeting discussing the Repeal the 8th Amendment was cancelled after the venue received “formal complaints”.
The public meeting was due to take place in Parnell's GAA club in Coolock Village on Thursday August 25 but was cancelled fours hours before it was due to start.
Cllr John Lyons who was to chair the meeting said it was a “disgraceful denial of free speech”.

“Why did those who complained not come along to the meeting and express their views? We would have been only too happy to discuss the issues with them at the meeting.
“This is an example, yet again, of conservative forces in Ireland preferring to bury these issues so that a new generation of young people are denied the right to discuss them.

“We shall be holding a meeting outside the venue at the gates of Parnell’s GAA and we urge all those who were to attend to come along. Our voices will be heard.”
A spokesperson for Parnell’s GAA club confirmed the meeting was cancelled due to complaints but were unable to comment further.

Look, it's rubbish when John Lyons says it above and it's rubbish when the Iona Institute or whichever head-the-ball was rallying Dr Nick Rivieria to talk about how abortions give you cancer and kill puppies. It's NOT about freedom of speech.

The reality is that this issue is toxic, businesses don't want to be associated with it. It's too controversial and the people involved care too much. Businesses just don't want that carry-on.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Repeal the 8th meetings happen all the time. If this fake doctor is desperate for an audience there are no end of Church buildings, for example, which would be suitable gathering spots.

The reality is that stuff like this is brilliant when it happens because you get a free article in the paper and maybe even five minutes on Drivetime to whinge about how oppressed your tiny meeting nobody cared about has been.

Everyone needs to put their knickers back on and calm down. Denial of freedom of speech is a serious problem in Ireland - our pro-"good name" libel laws are among the most restrictive in the Western world. If you care about freedom of speech, this is not the hill to die on. It's stupid. Get a grip everyone.

Bygumbo · 21-09-2017 08:16PM

Army_of_One wrote: »

Can't see them using logic and peer reviewed studies......

I might be wrong, but was the hotel manager flooded with peer-reviewed scientific papers, and THATS why it was cancelled? I doubt it.

And flipping eejit can complain out loud though. So just let the floodgates open, one group of ignorant morons, convinced they are absolutely and positively correct in every single way.....go head to head with the exact same type of people.

That's what it will come down to anyway. Which moron is loudest and can sway the unthinking masses into plonking a vote down.

Sounds like a fantastic way to decide the course of a country, but that's the way the world is going. There should be a social media blackout for like a month before voting on anything important.

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 08:17PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Meh,
Anti-abortion groups just need to adapt the same tactics as the pro groups and fight them at their own game. Block their meetings, venues, etc. Level playing pitch.

See one of January's posts upthread. Has happened already.

Bygumbo · 21-09-2017 08:26PM

The government should have entire mandate for running referendums, they should have expert counsel, decide on the essential facts of the matter for everyone and send out booklets to every household. The power of swaying decisions should be kept out of the hands of special interest groups.

I read a report earlier about how 42% of Canadians think that science is a matter of opinion. I mean, can you imagine letting a population make decisions when you hear stuff like that?

Keep letting the general population/special interest groups run campaigns and its going to be a disaster down the road.

BillyBobBS · 21-09-2017 08:28PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

As far as I got.

Why? Had you got to go to the jacks?

Poster makes a decent point in fairness.

meeeeh · 21-09-2017 08:29PM

I think I despise vast majority of the loudest voices on both sides of debate.

SafeSurfer · 21-09-2017 08:29PM

Bygumbo wrote: »

Army_of_One wrote: »

Can't see them using logic and peer reviewed studies......

I might be wrong, but was the hotel manager flooded with peer-reviewed scientific papers, and THATS why it was cancelled? I doubt it.

And flipping eejit can complain out loud though. So just let the floodgates open, one group of ignorant morons, convinced they are absolutely and positively correct in every single way.....go head to head with the exact same type of people.

That's what it will come down to anyway. Which moron is loudest and can sway the unthinking masses into plonking a vote down.

Sounds like a fantastic way to decide the course of a country, but that's the way the world is going. There should be a social media blackout for like a month before voting on anything important.

In that case the repeal campaign win hands down. After all they have Ruth Coppinger!

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments