Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 06:04PM

ELM327 wrote: »

At the end of the day, the hotel is a business and is free to host whomever they like.

The hotel is actually a limited liability company, it doesn't have views or even a brain and cannot like or not like anything or anyone.

What would be helpful would be if big business (or any business for that matter) kept out of politics and issues which are more appropriately decided by a well informed voters who have been allowed to hear all the arguments (as opposed to the correct information which has been approved by the thought police).

The Legend Of Kira · 24-09-2017 06:04PM

ELM327 wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I don,t agree with nor support banning information, if some people want to protest fine, protest peacefully outside the venue by all means, but this attitude some people have I don,t like such and such group " they offend me " - " lets silence them by pressuring venues to cancel their meetings etc " I 100% disagree with as its anti democratic censorship.

Even if they are spreading dangerous and factually incorrect propaganda?
I'm not on either side of the fence but the misinformation annoys me.

At the end of the day, the hotel is a business and is free to host whomever they like.

At public meetings there is a Q and A session at the end, where people speak from the floor or ask questions- people from the other side of the argument could attend their meeting to see & hear what,s being said, if some of the information is incorrect or false someone can speak from the floor & debunk the claims made by the speaker & say " your information is false ,here,s why " etc .

ELM327 · 24-09-2017 06:08PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The hotel is actually a limited liability company, it doesn't have views or even a brain and cannot like or not like anything or anyone.

What would be helpful would be if big business (or any business for that matter) kept out of politics and issues which are more appropriately decided by a well informed voters who have been allowed to hear all the arguments (as opposed to the correct information which has been approved by the thought police).

Nonsense
A limited liability company can indeed express opinions, purchase items, give recommendations etc.
You're missing the point, they wouldnt have cancelled the meeting if it was profitable for them not to do so

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 06:09PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Nonsense
A limited liability company can indeed express opinions, purchase items, give recommendations etc.
You're missing the point, they wouldnt have cancelled the meeting if it was profitable for them not to do so

Very principled.

January · 24-09-2017 06:10PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What's your opinion on abortion right up to a few days before birth. Judging by your comments you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Abortion right up to a few days before birth just does not happen. 92 percent of abortions are performed before 14 weeks of pregnancy. 2% of abortions happen after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the statistics in Australia is that 2% is 96 abortions and of those 96 abortions, 56 of them were for actual or probable fetal abnormality, the rest were for threat to the mother's life.

In cases where the fetus is viable and there is a threat to the mother's life, then every attempt will be made to birth a live baby, termination of pregnancy, not termination of fetus.

Nobody gets to 6 months into their pregnancy and just decides to terminate the pregnancy, if they're making that decision then they're making it for a very very heartbreaking reason, not on a whim.

January · 24-09-2017 06:11PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

At public meetings there is a Q and A session at the end, where people speak from the floor or ask questions- people from the other side of the argument could attend their meeting to see & hear what,s being said, if some of the information is incorrect or false someone can speak from the floor & debunk the claims made by the speaker & say " your information is false ,here,s why " etc .

Except it's not a public meeting if you have to pay a 20 euro admission fee.

volchitsa · 24-09-2017 06:12PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't know as I don't have a medical degree but let's say that you and I agree that they don't cause cancer, your view is that you and I should then suppress this statement and not let anyone hear it lest they are stupid enough to believe it, because you and I are the wise ones and all the others are stupid and we cannot permit them to form their own opinion because they are stupid and might question our infallible wisdom.

After we've done this you and I will then proceed to deal with all the other contentious issues and decide which information is correct and can be released to the stupid masses so that they will use their democratic vote correctly.

Are you starting to see the problem here....

No I'm really not. You're confusing opinion with evidence. The question is not whether any two people on here agree about whether or not abortion causes breast cancer, but whether or not there is any scientific evidence for that claim.

If there is, then the size of that risk should be measured as much as possible, women considering abortion should be warned of this risk, and people wanting to deny the existence of that risk should be asked to provide evidence for their claims before responsible media outlets were expected to give them a hearing.

However it so happens that the evidence is that there is no particular associated risk, so those who are playing fast and loose with the truth are those claiming there is one. A hotel refusing to give a platform to what are essentially untruths is not all that shocking really.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 06:22PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they say that abortions cause breast cancer. Is that not incorrect?

Not according to the American Cancer Society

scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html

bnt · 24-09-2017 06:23PM

From the article linked to by the OP:

Patrick McCrystal, Executive Director of the group, said they were due to host a conference on the "effects of abortion on women's physical and mental health".

He claimed that two "world-renowned keynote" - Dr Angela Lanfranchi and Professor Priscilla Coleman - were due to speak.

Has anyone had a look at the credentials of those two speakers? Here goes:

The Guardian on Angela Lanfranchi:

Lanfranchi is an anti-abortion advocate who continues to push the discredited idea of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Hundreds of the world’s leading doctors, scientists and researchers who reviewed all the studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer have found abortions and miscarriages do not increase a woman’s breast cancer risk.

Priscilla Coleman claims that abortion and mental illness are correlated. The claims are not generally accepted for some fairly basic reasons, such the confusion of correlation with causation.

In short, both speakers are the kinds of "scientists" who started wit dogmatic anti-abortion positions, tried to justify that position scientifically, failed to do so, but won't accept the results ...

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 06:34PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The hotel is actually a limited liability company, it doesn't have views or even a brain and cannot like or not like anything or anyone.

What would be helpful would be if big business (or any business for that matter) kept out of politics and issues which are more appropriately decided by a well informed voters who have been allowed to hear all the arguments (as opposed to the correct information which has been approved by the thought police).

It would also be helpful if large international religious PR organisations kept out of internal Irish politics.

And your phrasing is interesting. You want people to hear all the arguments, but don't want them to have the correct information.

Great. My argument against abortion is that all abortion doctors get sexual gratification from murdering babies. this has been proven in multiple studies conducted by the university of MyAss

This argument deserves to be heard even though it is incorrect and completely made up.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 06:39PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No I'm really not. You're confusing opinion with evidence.

Your argument might stack up if the world was black and white.

Given that I spent around 14 years taking very expensive statins which had loads of side effects in order to prevent heart disease and given that my GP has recently told me that the medical profession has changed it's mind and I now don't have to take them at all even though my cholesterol is higher than ever, I think it would be best if individuals are allowed to listen to all the arguments and decide how they will vote.

Ditto
eggs
salt
etc
etc

Sugar is currently the silent killer but in 10 or 15 years time they will probably be telling us to make sure to get some but under no circumstances more than a bag a day.

Are their any issues where you think the great unwashed should be allowed to make their own minds up?

Even if we went with your 1984 type suggestion for this issue, who is going to decide whether the next issue is sufficiently black and white and therefore whether society should be allowed to hear all of the argument, for and against?

I know you guys like to invoke Godwins (made up to suit your purpose) Law but I think Hitler was fairly sure in his own mind that all Jews should be exterminated so was it ok for him to order their extermination?

Your heading down a dangerous road.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 06:43PM

Akrasia wrote: »

It would also be helpful if large international religious PR organisations kept out of internal Irish politics.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Akrasia wrote: »

And your phrasing is interesting. You want people to hear all the arguments, but don't want them to have the correct information.

I want them to decide for themselves what the correct information is, not for you and the Thought Police to do it for them.

Akrasia wrote: »

Great. My argument against abortion is that all abortion doctors get sexual gratification from murdering babies. this has been proven in multiple studies conducted by the university of MyAss

This argument deserves to be heard even though it is incorrect and completely made up.

Absolutely it does. Who is going to believe it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2017 06:46PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't know as I don't have a medical degree but let's say that you and I agree that they don't cause cancer, your view is that you and I should then suppress this statement and not let anyone hear it lest they are stupid enough to believe it, because you and I are the wise ones and all the others are stupid and we cannot permit them to form their own opinion because they are stupid and might question our infallible wisdom.

After we've done this you and I will then proceed to deal with all the other contentious issues and decide which information is correct and can be released to the stupid masses so that they will use their democratic vote correctly.

Are you starting to see the problem here....

it is a question of science not of belief. that makes the rest of your post moot.

volchitsa · 24-09-2017 06:47PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Your argument might stack up if the world was black and white.

Given that I spent around 14 years taking very expensive statins which had loads of side effects in order to prevent heart disease and given that my GP has recently told me that the medical profession has changed it's mind and I now don't have to take them at all even though my cholesterol is higher than ever, I think it would be best if individuals are allowed to listen to all the arguments and decide how they will vote.

Ditto
eggs
salt
etc
etc

Sugar is currently the silent killer but in 10 or 15 years time they will probably be telling us to make sure to get some but under no circumstances more than a bag a day.

Are their any issues where you think the great unwashed should be allowed to make their own minds up?

Even if we went with your 1984 type suggestion for this issue, who is going to decide whether the next issue is sufficiently black and white and therefore whether society should be allowed to hear all of the argument, for and against?

I know you guys like to invoke Godwins (made up to suit your purpose) Law but I think Hitler was fairly sure in his own mind that all Jews should be exterminated so was it ok for him to order their extermination?

Your heading down a dangerous road.

So let them give the evidence, then, but that's not what they're doing. Pro life clinics are deliberately lying to women, and that is a very different thing from doctors saying that on balance the evidence says one thing, only to find out a few years later that new evidence now means the balance of risks is not what had been thought.

No idea where your rant about Godwin comes in. Nobody ever scientifically studied the effect of Jews in Germany, that's possibly the strangest comparison I've ever heard. My whole point has been based on the confusion you are still making between evidence and beliefs.

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2017 06:48PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Not according to the American Cancer Society

i think you read my post backwards

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 06:55PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'd prefer if no international money was trying to manipulate Irish politics on any side.

We have enough to be dealing with ourselves without having the debate hijacked by whoever has the deepest pockets.

I want them to decide for themselves what the correct information is, not for you and the Thought Police to do it for them.

Absolutely it does. Who is going to believe it?

What exactly are you afraid of?

Correct information is not a matter of opinion. And we know the damage that lies and propaganda can do in a political campaign.

You've just said that you're perfectly ok with political campaigns making up their own facts and figures and deliberately lying to the public in order to trick them into voting a certain way.

If you vote to repeal the 8th, that will save 350 million euros a week that we can put into the health service. I think I'll put that on the side of a bus and drive it around the country.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 07:05PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you read my post backwards

The double negative got me

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 07:39PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is a question of science not of belief. that makes the rest of your post moot.

volchitsa wrote: »

So let them give the evidence, then, but that's not what they're doing. Pro life clinics are deliberately lying to women, and that is a very different thing from doctors saying that on balance the evidence says one thing, only to find out a few years later that new evidence now means the balance of risks is not what had been thought.

No idea where your rant about Godwin comes in. Nobody ever scientifically studied the effect of Jews in Germany, that's possibly the strangest comparison I've ever heard. My whole point has been based on the confusion you are still making between evidence and beliefs.

You're both (deliberately in my view) failing to address the central point of my post.

Even if you can categorically state that abortion doesn't increase the risk of cancer (which neither of you can cos your just two guys with too much time on your hands and a computer hooked up to the internet), it doesn't follow on that a version of democracy where some supposedly infallible group of people (who don't exist) tell voters what to think is ok.

Who is going to decide what information gets released to voters in subsequent referenda? Some keyboard warrior on boards? The government? Some new branch of the Gardai? (that was a joke - we all know that they can't be trusted to do the most straightforward of things).

Secondly, what does your version of democracy achieve apart from allowing the Pro Choice side to steal a referendum. I have no issue with everyone being allowed to say their piece as I am totally confident that I can easily argue down all the lies told by the Pro Choice side (like I am doing now).

You (and almost all Pro Aborts) on the the other hand, desperately need the facility to shut certain people up or groups up, as you know that you can't refute their arguments.

I'll ask the question again;

What are you afraid of when it comes to allowing all (even people with what you deem stupid arguments) to speak?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 07:40PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

How is it random?

Who says incorrect views? Did you decide this or was it decided by some committee representative of the tax paying population?

Breast cancer is not caused by abortion, that is factually incorrect so I don't have to go to a committee to confirm it is incorrect... It's one event that ended up cancelled because they espouse views such as this. It's a bit like the time when sellotape based sex ed classes were happening, that group got disinvited from loads of schools. For good reason.

For the record, I'd trust cancer.org over some random idiots. Cancer.org on it.

Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).
Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html

I'd prefer for informed discourse over special interest groups who are actively trying to scare women. Why can't they simply rely on the facts?

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2017 07:44PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You're both (deliberately in my view) failing to address the central point of my post.

Even if you can categorically state that abortion doesn't increase the risk of cancer (which neither of you can cos your just two guys with too much time on your hands and a computer hooked up to the internet), it doesn't follow on that a version of democracy where some supposedly infallible group of people (who don't exist) tell voters what to think is ok.

Who is going to decide what gets released to voters in subsequent referenda? Some keyboard warrior on boards? The government? Some new branch of the Gardai? (that was a joke - we all know that they can't be trusted to do the most straightforward of things).

Secondly, what does your version of democracy achieve apart from allowing the Pro Choice side to steal a referendum. I have no issue with everyone being allowed to say their piece as I am totally confident that I can easily argue down all the lies told by the Pro Choice side (like I am doing now).

You (and almost all Pro Aborts) on the the other hand, desperately need the facility to shut certain people up or groups up, as you know that you can't refute their arguments.

I'll ask the question again;

What are you afraid of when it comes to allowing all (even people with what you deem stupid arguments) to speak?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

so you stand over their "abortions cause breast cancer" claim and are happy for a supposed doctor to lie to the public?

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 07:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you stand over their "abortions cause breast cancer" claim and are happy for a supposed doctor to lie to the public?

Seems to be the sort of people who'd throw Wakefield out as a credible source on vaccines....

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 09:32PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Correct information is not a matter of opinion.

Yes, because this is such a straightforward simple issue....

Akrasia wrote: »

And we know the damage that lies and propaganda can do in a political campaign.

And who gets to decide what is correct, the people or you?

Akrasia wrote: »

If you vote to repeal the 8th, that will save 350 million euros a week that we can put into the health service. I think I'll put that on the side of a bus and drive it around the country.

So why didn't the Remain campaigners refute that statement? Don't try to paint a failing of the Remain campaign to actually campaign as being an affront to democracy.

And by the way, the majority vote was for Britain to leave the EU - are you now saying that you don't recognise that as a legitimate decision of the people of Britain?

You know, even if you think it's stupid, its the will of the people.

Oh dear, we do have a problem with democracy don't we!

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 09:35PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you stand over their "abortions cause breast cancer" claim and are happy for a supposed doctor to lie to the public?

Where did I say that?

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 09:37PM

I'm waiting for my answer;

What are you afraid of when it comes to allowing all (even people with what you deem stupid arguments) to speak?

Do you think that everyone around you is stupid and you are infallible and that you should therefore be charged with deciding what information voters should be given?

Army_of_One · 24-09-2017 09:37PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

And who gets to decide what is correct, the people or you.

The scientists that carry out studies and have them peer reviewed.

Go away with your dangerous , deluded sh1te.

volchitsa · 24-09-2017 09:48PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I'm waiting for my answer;

What are you afraid of when it comes to allowing all (even people with what you deem stupid arguments) to speak?

Do you think that everyone around you is stupid and you are infallible and that you should therefore be charged with deciding what information voters should be given?

Stupid arguments are not the same as lies. It's kind of hard to have a discussion with someone who doesn't get that.

hatrickpatrick · 24-09-2017 09:50PM

Army_of_One wrote: »

The scientists that carry out studies and have them peer reviewed.

Go away with your dangerous , deluded sh1te.

I'm going to just quote a post I made earlier in the thread regarding censorship along scientific grounds:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There are two well documented reasons I can think of off the top of my head for this being a terrible idea.

One is SSRI discontinuation syndrome. SSRI antidepressants mess with brain chemistry to such an extent that for many users, extremely unpleasant and sometimes long term withdrawal symptoms result when quitting after an extended period of use. For years and years, the pharma lobby dismissed these reports as BS and the work of hypochondriac cranks - and as a result the discussion was essentially muted from the mainstream and confined to online echo chambers. There is now widespread acknowledgement of the dangers of these medications, and there have been several huge lawsuits against the companies which marketed them aggressively and dismissed / downplayed the potential devastating health risks,

A similar case involves finasteride, an androgen inhibitor used to treat male hair loss. Because of its long lasting disruption of certain testosterone related hormones, it has resulted in severe and irreversible sexual dysfunction (not just impotence but atrophy / shrinkage of reproductive organs in some cases). Just like with SSRIs, for years these anecdotal reports were dismissed as "fake news" and the work of conspiracy theorists and anti-pharma political ideologies - similarly, recognition of the dangers is slowly dawning and several lawsuits are pending from men whose sex lives were essentially ended by these drugs.

Bottom line is that "correct" medical information may be discovered to be bullsh!t tomorrow, and often is. By defining "correct" medical information and then censoring / restricting discussion deemed to be "false", we risk further marginalising those who experience legitimate side effects which are aggressively denied by the industry, until the number of people whose lives have been f*cked up by them becomes too massive to ignore. In short, this is a perfect example of why even well meaning censorship is just never, ever worth it.

volchitsa · 24-09-2017 09:54PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm going to just quote a post I made earlier in the thread regarding censorship along scientific grounds:

You say they're well documented, but you don't give any links. I'm not aware of any studies, equivalent to those which have been carried out into possible links between abortion and breast cancer, and which found that there were no significant side effects for SSRIs or Finasteride, and which were then comprehensively disproven. Could you point me to some please?

Army_of_One · 24-09-2017 10:06PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm going to just quote a post I made earlier in the thread

I didn't read it the first time , I'm not gonna read it now.

Links please.

Thanks in advance .

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 10:10PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I'm waiting for my answer;

What are you afraid of when it comes to allowing all (even people with what you deem stupid arguments) to speak?

Do you think that everyone around you is stupid and you are infallible and that you should therefore be charged with deciding what information voters should be given?

It's the most incredibly stupid thing to give any credence to groups that make pseudo scientific claims such as abortion causes cancer. Bollocksology is of little help to society and in this instance is manipulative and nasty. People outlined to the hotel why they didn't want the group there. The hotel made a decision which they're entitled to do. That is the hotel's right.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments