Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 10:17PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's the most incredibly stupid thing to give any credence to groups that make pseudo scientific claims such as abortion causes cancer.

Don't give it credence so - knock the **** out of it.

pitifulgod wrote: »

The hotel made a decision which they're entitled to do. That is the hotel's right.

The hotel is a limited company.

It doesn't have rights or thoughts or feelings etc.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 10:19PM

Army_of_One wrote: »

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

Go away with your dangerous , deluded sh1te.

I won't go away. Who are you - the King of Boards.ie

Peer reviewed today - the sh1t knocked out of them tomorrow.

If your so trusting of the medical profession what do you have to say about all the fetuses with so called fatal foetal abnormalities who are walking around?

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 10:28PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Don't give it credence so - knock the **** out of it.

The hotel is a limited company.

It doesn't have rights or thoughts or feelings etc.

The hotel has public relations to maintain and does have to consider the reputation of the clients that they're dealing with. If it brings bad pr or loss of business, it wasn't great to have them as clients. I imagine they would be unlikely to rent the venue to a group that claims autism is caused by vaccines.

I think it's wonderful when people espouse awful crap and it eventually backfires on them. This is what has occurred. Karma to be frank.

Richard Bingham · 24-09-2017 10:46PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

I think it's wonderful when people espouse awful crap and it eventually backfires on them. This is what has occurred. Karma to be frank.

What has backfired on who now? More of the deliberate obfuscation by pro aborts.

If your talking about the views being pushed by the group who were going to speak in the Aisling Hotel and if it's such awful crap, what are you afraid of, just refute it.

But it's not just this you need to suppress, you need to suppress the valid arguments against abortion, so you need to peddle the lie that information must be verified as correct (by who I ask again) before it can be given to the great unwashed.

And you are ably assisted by the Irish Times and RTE and Newstalk and the likes.

Woman denied an abortion dies due to medical negligence - splashed all over the media.
Woman who had an abortion dies due to medical negligence relating to her abortion. Nothing.

But's it not bias.

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 11:26PM

It is most definitely not factually correct that abortion causes cancer. You really should be able to comprehend that fact. No respected cancer org will stand by such a claim. So I'm gonna leave it at that.

volchitsa · 24-09-2017 11:46PM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What has backfired on who now? More of the deliberate obfuscation by pro aborts.

If your talking about the views being pushed by the group who were going to speak in the Aisling Hotel and if it's such awful crap, what are you afraid of, just refute it.

But it's not just this you need to suppress, you need to suppress the valid arguments against abortion, so you need to peddle the lie that information must be verified as correct (by who I ask again) before it can be given to the great unwashed.

And you are ably assisted by the Irish Times and RTE and Newstalk and the likes.

Woman denied an abortion dies due to medical negligence - splashed all over the media.
Woman who had an abortion dies due to medical negligence relating to her abortion. Nothing.

But's it not bias.

More false equivalences here : you're missing the whole point of informed consent. Nothing excuses medical negligence, that's not what I'm saying, but all medical interventions have some risk involved, which is why consent is needed.

People die of tonsillectomies, and that needs to be prevented whenever possible. That doesn't mean that tonsillectomies should be made illegal though, nor that the surgeon should probably be jailed for having carried one out.

A child being refused a tonsillectomy and then dying for lack of appropriate treatment of his tonsillitis is almost certainly going to lead to a manslaughter charge.

SafeSurfer · 25-09-2017 12:15AM

If one wants to discuss dishonesty in the pro life vs pro choice debate look at Louise O Neil's article calling on people to march to repeal in the Irish examiner.

"We want to create a future that will finally fulfil the ambitions of the men and women of the 1916 Rising who envisioned an Ireland that ‘guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens’.

Until women have full bodily autonomy then those hopes will continue to go unsatisfied. How can we say we are equal when there is no medical procedure that an Irish man would have to travel for in order to avail of it?"

My first observation is that the leaders of the 1916 rising were overwhelmingly conservative catholics. Especially Pearse. They went so far as to send Count Plunkett to Rome to seek pope Benedict XV's blessing for the rising.

This is Count Plunkett's description of his meeting with the pope

"The Pope was very much moved when I disclosed the fact that the date for the Rising was fixed, and the reasons for that decision. Finally I stated that the Volunteer Executive pledged the Republic to fidelity to the Holy See and the interests of religion. Then the Pope conferred his Apostolic Benediction on the men who were facing death for Ireland's liberty ."

Notice the pledge of the executive of fidelity to the Holy See.

My second observation is Ms. O'Neills assertion that repeal of the eight amendment will finally fulfill the ambitions of the men and women of the 1916 rising.

I'm sorry but the men and women of the 1916 rising, if you do any research into the characters involved instead of some 21st century wishful thinking, would be diametrically opposed to abortion.

To attempt to requisition the spirit of 1916 in a campaign to introduce abortion in Ireland is taking dishonest historical revisionism too far.

thee glitz · 25-09-2017 07:08AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Ms. O'Neills assertion that repeal of the eight amendment will finally fulfill the ambitions of the men and women of the 1916 rising.

I don't know is it worse that she believes this, or that she expects other people to. There's no path of recovery to any kind of credibilty after spouting horseshit like this.

Jelle1880 · 25-09-2017 07:19AM

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?

That dumb opinions or ideas are given as much credence as scientifically proven ones ? How can you not see a problem in that ?

January · 25-09-2017 07:27AM

Fabriel wrote: »

Women have just as much bodily autonomy as men. Men can't just stroll into a hospital and demand that their lungs are removed.

Neither can women. There's one difference in the fact that men cannot get pregnant and women can.

Akrasia · 25-09-2017 08:42AM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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

it's a lot more straightforward when we don't have to wade through a load of deliberate misinformation and we can debate rationally using established facts

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

In Ireland, we have an independent referendum commission that is tasked with setting out the facts for and against a referendum, and if one side is spreading deliberate misinformation and lies, the referendum commission can address this.

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.

They did. But propaganda is a bitch, If one side doesn't care about the truth, they can keep repeating a lie over and over again until enough people think it must be true. You're honestly trying to advocate for deliberate misinformation as a legitimate tactic, and blaming the other side for not campaigning hard enough to defeat the dishonesty of their opponents. You're advocating the worst of all possible kinds of political discourse.

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?

If the decision was based on lies and misinformation, then can you really defend that decision in hindsight?

If you have cancer, and the doctor tells you you only have two options, to have your leg amputated, or to die slowly and painfully. You might decide to have your leg amputated, but what if the doctor was lying, and there was a third option, to have surgery to remove the tumour, but the doctor was a jehovas witness and is opposed to blood transfusions so refused to inform you of that third viable option... Did the patient make the best decision? No, why? because he was lied to.

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

A decision based on lies and misinformation is not 'the will of the people' if they would have decided differently given true and accurate information.

The people of North Korea think they're living in the most advanced and properous nation in the world. They choose to support their leader. Is this because they're informed, or because they're brainwashed?

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

You think democracy is just voting. It's not. Democracy requires transparancy and informed consent. If the informed consent is based on lies, then it's not really informed consent is it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-09-2017 08:44AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would you agree that choice will certainly increase the number of abortions.

It is not clear to me if you actually read the post you just replied to as I laid out several reasons why I think that that is by no means "certain" at all. There are factors that would push it up, there are factors that would push it down. It really is not as simple as you want to make out.

But even if it was certain, I am not sure what point it is you are trying to make here. So what if it was certain?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What is reasoned debate?

That varies from context to context I guess, but in the context of abortion I would consider "reasoned debate" to be one where the people on both sides do not just scream what their position is.......... but explain the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that led them to that position.

My own experience with the anti-choice lobby on abortion is that they do little more than point at pictures of fetuses (usually ones developed MUCH further than the stages at which well over 90% of abortions actually happen), scream out words like "Murder" and "pro death" while misusing words like "baby" and "child". While even more shrill ones go around finding things like mouth movements in scientific studies of the fetus and act like this means something.

None of this is "reasoned debate". It is shrill, emotive, and propaganda and little more.

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Saying a foetus is just a clump of cells at 12-18 weeks is every bit as controversial and offensive to some people as saying abortion causes breast cancer.

Which is why we should not give a damn what "offends" people and simply consider what is substantiated/true and what is simply made up tosh.

The claim that abortion causes breast cancer is made up tosh.

The claim that a foetus is, at early stages of development, is a barely undifferentiated clump of cells is somewhat accurate though not entirely.

So both statements are problematic, but one is clearly worse than the other by far and talking in a way that implies some level of equivalence will do more harm than good in that regard.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Exactly. The pro-choice attempts to dehumanise a baby by labelling it a 'fetus' or a cluster of cells is offensive to me, and also scientifically illiterate.

No one is trying to dehumanize anything, so much as we attempt to prevent people like yourself humanizing it before it's due.

But if you want to discuss the science behind it I am all ears and agog.

Explain to us for example EXACTLY what you mean by the term "baby" and discuss how the science supports the definition you offer, and then discuss what is relevant about the term "baby" to stuff like.... for example..... thinking that "baby" should have "rights".

Or explain to us what you think "cluster of cells" actually means, again with the science behind it, and again how you think it relevant to abortion and rights. Given, for example, that ANY human at ANY stage could be described as a "cluster of cells" really. What else do you think you/we/the fetus is exactly?

I am all ears to see your scientific literacy on the subject, and am well placed to go there with you.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Saying a baby at 12-18 weeks is not a human being is a lie. Will you call them out on that?

Except it is not a lie, it is a matter of definition. It entirely depends on what YOU think "Human being" means. If you think it simply means a living organism with human DNA, then sure the fetus at 12 weeks is a "Human being".

If like many you think the definition goes further than that to include things like personhood and more, then these are attributes that fetus lacks and hence there is no lie in operation.

But it is MUCH easier I guess to shrilly throw out words like "lie" rather than engage with people about what they think there terms mean, and how they apply them or withhold them from context to context.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Personhood is a philosophical question.

Well done, you are getting there. Philosophy can also be highly informed by science.

But morals and rights are also philosophy. The right to life too. Which is what the entire abortion debate is about, is it not?

So if the fetus has no arguments supporting it having personhood or rights or as an agent worthy of moral concern....... then on what grounds do you have issue with abortion exactly?

Billy86 · 25-09-2017 11:40AM

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The hotel is a limited company.

It doesn't have rights or thoughts or feelings etc.

If it's an LLC it has not just the right, but the obligation, to give shareholders the greatest return it possibly can. If it was felt that going ahead with the event would have resulted in less money (via canceled bookings and bad PR) than canceling it, then they did not have any right to do anything but what they did - cancel the event. I fail to see the problem there?

Akrasia · 25-09-2017 01:04PM

The hotel also has an obligation to obey the law, and there are laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the 9 grounds for discrimination, one of these is Religion. If Human Life international presented themselves as a religious group opposing abortion for religious reasons, the hotel would not have been allowed to pull the event as they would have been skirting the discrimination laws. But Human Life International are pretending that they oppose abortion on scientific, medical and 'welfare of the mother' grounds. By pretending that they have mainly non religious objections to abortion, they no longer have the protection of the anti discrimination laws.

If the hotel had cancelled the booking on the basis that the group was a religious body who simply wanted to have a conference discussing their religion, that would have been illegal for the same reason it's illegal for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage.

But, this hotel had legitimate grounds for refusing the event, the fact that the organisation has been demonstrated to be propagating false and misleading information to the public.

If the group Human Life International organisation were honest actors and chose to enter the debate declaring that they are opposed to abortion because it's their honestly held religious belief, or if they only used scientific claims that they can support with evidence, then there would have been much less leeway for the hotel to cancel their booking without opening up possible discrimination charges against them.

When a group chooses to use dishonest, false and misleading tactics, they have absolutely no right to complain when there is public outcry against them and others choose to not do business with them.

SafeSurfer · 25-09-2017 01:17PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The hotel also has an obligation to obey the law, and there are laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the 9 grounds for discrimination.

If the hotel had cancelled the booking on the basis that the group was a religious body who simply wanted to have a conference discussing their religion, that would have been illegal for the same reason it's illegal for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage.

But, this hotel had legitimate grounds for refusing the event, the fact that the organisation has been demonstrated to be propagating false and misleading information to the public.

If the group Human Life International organisation were honest actors and chose to enter the debate using honestly held beliefs and scientific claims that they can support with evidence, then there would have been much less leeway for the hotel to cancel their booking without opening up possible discrimination charges against them.

When a group chooses to use dishonest, false and misleading tactics, they have absolutely no right to complain when there is public outcry against them and others choose to not do business with them.

Of course the hotel had the right to cancel the booking.
That is not what is controversial.
The salient point is WHY the hotel cancelled the booking.

If you expect people to believe the reason the hotel cancelled the booking is because the group who made the booking tells lies and not because of pressure brought to bear on the hotel and their staff then I think you are being disingenuous.

If what you are saying is true, no hotel would have accepted a booking for a property showcase during the boom, or for slimming pills or stop smoking hypnotists or mediums contacting the dead and giving advice to the living.

You doth protest too much.

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2017 01:44PM

January wrote: »

There's one difference in the fact that men cannot get pregnant and women can.

There are many men in Ireland that can get pregnant and if and when they do they'll be subject to the very same laws regarding pregnancy that women currently are.

January · 25-09-2017 04:22PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There are many men in Ireland that can get pregnant and if and when they do they'll be subject to the very same laws regarding pregnancy that women currently are.

My apologies, you are right, trans men can get pregnant and are bound by the same amendment that women are bound under when it comes to pregnancy, birth and abortion. I did suspect that the poster wasn't talking about trans men though when he compared a lung to a fetus.

DickSwiveller · 25-09-2017 04:35PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There are many men in Ireland that can get pregnant and if and when they do they'll be subject to the very same laws regarding pregnancy that women currently are.

What??????????

January · 25-09-2017 04:43PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What??????????

Transgender men (female2male transition) will still have ovaries and a uterus and can get pregnant. There have been cases worldwide.

ohnonotgmail · 25-09-2017 04:55PM

January wrote: »

Transgender men (female2male transition) will still have ovaries and a uterus and can get pregnant. There have been cases worldwide.

i think you have just blown their mind.

One eyed Jack · 25-09-2017 04:58PM

January wrote: »

Transgender men (female2male transition) will still have ovaries and a uterus and can get pregnant. There have been cases worldwide.

They're still women then, not men.

If you're going to argue about determining facts based upon science, it's rather convenient then when you can abandon scientific fact in favour of cultural, political and social beliefs.

Jimbob1977 · 25-09-2017 05:01PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There are many men in Ireland that can get pregnant and if and when they do they'll be subject to the very same laws regarding pregnancy that women currently are.

Biologically and scientifically, they are women. This is indisputable.

'Transgender' is a modern social construct.

DickSwiveller · 25-09-2017 05:03PM

Maybe I should write to boards.ie, urging them to censor 'Ohnonotgmail' and 'January' for being anti-scientific.

ohnonotgmail · 25-09-2017 05:03PM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Biologically and scientifically, they are women. This is indisputable.

'Transgender' is a modern social construct.

so?

ohnonotgmail · 25-09-2017 05:04PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Maybe I should write to boards.ie, urging them to censor 'Ohnonotgmail' and 'January' for being anti-scientific.

feel free my old chum. if you could point to instances of that i'd love to read them.

Jimbob1977 · 25-09-2017 05:07PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so?

The post was about men having babies.

They can't

ohnonotgmail · 25-09-2017 05:08PM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The post was about men having babies.

They can't

well that depends. are you referring to people whose gender is male or people whose sex is male?

Billy86 · 25-09-2017 05:09PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Maybe I should write to boards.ie, urging them to censor 'Ohnonotgmail' and 'January' for being anti-scientific.

You should exercise a protest and refuse to use boards.ie until they act on this, I definitely agree. If enough people follow your lead, boards.ie might even take action on it if it is very much in their financial interest to do so.

Right, time to make your stand DickSwiveller, you will be missed in the mean time but maybe others will follow your lead.

DickSwiveller · 25-09-2017 05:10PM

Billy86 wrote: »

You should exercise a protest and refuse to use boards.ie until they act on this, I definitely agree. If enough people follow your lead, boards.ie might even take action on it if it is very much in their financial interest to do so.

Right, time to make your stand DickSwiveller, you will be missed in the mean time but maybe others will follow your lead.

Thanks for your kind words, Billy. I'll give it some consideration.

AryaStark · 25-09-2017 05:17PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Don't allow debate. Close down those who disagree with you. Round and round we go.

There are some things that do not need to be debated and some people who should not be heard ... This nonsense about abortion causing breast cancer is dangerous and stupid.
I hate the pro lifers and the horrible posters that they insist on putting up .. but for me this new idea of God punishing women is disgusting. It doesn't affect me as I am an atheist and pro choice but I feel for young girls and women who may be looking for advice and support and end up hearing such ridiculous opinions.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments