Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

1…2122242627…42

Comments

  • #692
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Billy86 wrote: »
    True enough, I mean if someone is against silencing of anyone and completely unfettered free speech, then they cannot have an issue with people expressing their outrage, disappointment or any other negative feeling towards a business for hosting events those people disapprove of.

    But if those disapproving people respected free speech they wouldn't be complaining though, correct?

    The issue here is that people are using their free speech, to attempt to deny another group a platform or venue to exercise their own free speech. This is wrong. I'm not sure that anyone is saying the people who've lobbied the hotels shouldn't have the freedom to do so. It's a question of whether they're morally right to do so.

    Personally I think it's wrong to threaten a business like a hotel, for allowing a group to hold a meeting there. I think it's wrong to express your disappointment with them, if the aim of that expression is that the hotel will deny the use of their facilities to a legal and legitimate group.


  • #693
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    No that,s people trying to shut democratic debate on an upcoming referendum by trying to silence the other side of the argument, nothing more & nothing less.

    You wish to deny them the free speech to outline their concerns....


  • #694
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    No that,s people trying to shut democratic debate on an upcoming referendum by trying to silence the other side of the argument, nothing more & nothing less.
    So what you're saying is if people's opinion is that they do not like their local venues hosting such events... they should just shut up and keep those opinions to themselves?

    Sounds like an attempt to just shut them down and silence them to be honest, nothing more and nothing less.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    No that,s people trying to shut democratic debate on an upcoming referendum by trying to silence the other side of the argument, nothing more & nothing less.
    So what you're saying is if people's opinion is that they do not like their local venues hosting such events... they should just shut up and keep those opinions to themselves?

    Sounds like an attempt to just shut them down and silence them to be honest, nothing more and nothing less.
    If you don,t like a meeting being hosted just simply don,t go to it or feel free to peacefully protest outside the venue. If you respect democratic debate where all sides of the debate can be heard out, you won,t have a problem with the opposing side presenting their arguments & making their case in a public forum .


  • #695
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    barneystinson wrote: »
    But if those disapproving people respected free speech they wouldn't be complaining though, correct?

    The issue here is that people are using their free speech, to attempt to deny another group a platform or venue to exercise their own free speech. This is wrong. I'm not sure that anyone is saying the people who've lobbied the hotels shouldn't have the freedom to do so. It's a question of whether they're morally right to do so.

    Personally I think it's wrong to threaten a business like a hotel, for allowing a group to hold a meeting there. I think it's wrong to express your disappointment with them, if the aim of that expression is that the hotel will deny the use of their facilities to a legal and legitimate group.
    These disapproving people might not believe in full, unfettered free speech - a lot of people don't. That's fine, and that's their prerogative. And there's nothing wrong in that instance with them letting that venue know that they will be taking their business elsewhere, or just that they don't approve of such an action. Actually threatening the venue is different of course, but we've not seen any instances of threatening them as best I can see.

    However, if someone wants to say that everyone deserves free speech, then they can't claim to have any issue with these people voicing their concerns of disapproval without by default being a hypocrite on the matter. Let the pro-life group and those against their talking in such venues each use their same free speech to discuss it with the venue, as appears to have happened, and let the hotel reach it's own conclusion, as appears to have happened.


  • #696
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Billy86 wrote: »
    So what you're saying is if people's opinion is that they do not like their local venues hosting such events... they should just shut up and keep those opinions to themselves?

    Sounds like an attempt to just shut them down and silence them to be honest, nothing more and nothing less.

    Why do they not like the venue hosting the event?

    Have they a problem with free speech where the opinions differ from their own?

    What's the purpose of them voicing their opinion - is it to deny a platform for people they disagree with to be heard?

    A person's motivation in doing something is always critical in determining whether they are right or wrong. If you try to push me under a bus, but all you do is push me out of the way of a car that you hadn't spotted was about to knock me down, would you be a hero or a criminal?


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    If you don,t like a meeting being hosted just simply don,t go to it or feel free to peacefully protest outside the venue. If you respect democratic debate where all sides of the debate can be heard out, you won,t have a problem with the opposing side presenting their arguments & making their case in a public forum .
    They have peacefully protested, and it has caused the venue to decide it is not worthwhile proceeding with it. No violence has occurred. If the pro-life crowd like they can always use their own free speech to try and convince the venue otherwise, but suggesting that the pro-lifers deserve full free speech while those who disapprove of their rhetoric do not is open and shut hypocrisy.


  • #698
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Why do they not like the venue hosting the event?

    Have they a problem with free speech where the opinions differ from their own?

    What's the purpose of them voicing their opinion - is it to deny a platform for people they disagree with to be heard?

    A person's motivation in doing something is always critical in determining whether they are right or wrong. If you try to push me under a bus, but all you do is push me out of the way of a car that you hadn't spotted was about to knock me down, would you be a hero or a criminal?
    There could be a million reasons why they do not like the venue hosting the event, though the purpose of them voicing their opinion is much easier to identify and ironically the exact same as that of the the pro-life movement: to voice their disapproval of something that they feel should not take place.


  • #699
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Billy86 wrote: »
    However, if someone wants to say that everyone deserves free speech, then they can't claim to have any issue with these people voicing their concerns of disapproval without by default being a hypocrite on the matter.

    That makes no sense.

    If I believe in free speech, this means I believe EVERYONE (not just me) SHOULD respect everyone else's right to free speech.

    Saying that using your free speech to attempt to deny a platform to someone else to exercise theirs, is wrong, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's simply me telling you you're abusing your right.

    Freedom of speech is also the freedom to speak lies. Am I a hypocrite if I say you shouldn't tell lies?


  • #700
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Billy86 wrote: »
    However, if someone wants to say that everyone deserves free speech, then they can't claim to have any issue with these people voicing their concerns of disapproval without by default being a hypocrite on the matter.

    That makes no sense.

    If I believe in free speech, this means I believe EVERYONE (not just me) SHOULD respect everyone else's right to free speech.

    Saying that using your free speech to attempt to deny a platform to someone else to exercise theirs, is wrong, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's simply me telling you you're abusing your right.

    Freedom of speech is also the freedom to speak lies. Am I a hypocrite if I say you shouldn't tell lies?
    And if that's the case the yo u agree it is everyone's right to use their free speech, including those using it to voice their dissatisfaction at venues holding functions. If you're against their right to do that, then you're not in favour of complete free speech for all. It's a logical flaw in the theory of complete, unadulterated free speech.


  • #701
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    A second meeting by ( Unbroken ) has got canceled following threats.

    https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/913087627842211840

    That,s three pro life public meetings canceled over the last week, we are gonna have a upcoming referendum on the topic of the 8th amendment, between taking posters trying to silence rape victims & pressuring venue to cancel public meetings, it seems to me that some people are afraid of open democratic fair & balanced debate, where both sides can be equally heard out .


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    If you don,t like a meeting being hosted just simply don,t go to it or feel free to peacefully protest outside the venue. If you respect democratic debate where all sides of the debate can be heard out, you won,t have a problem with the opposing side presenting their arguments & making their case in a public forum .
    They have peacefully protested, and it has caused the venue to decide it is not worthwhile proceeding with it. No violence has occurred. If the pro-life crowd like they can always use their own free speech to try and convince the venue otherwise, but suggesting that the pro-lifers deserve full free speech while those who disapprove of their rhetoric do not is open and shut hypocrisy.
    A referendum is gonna be held sometime next summer, during a referendum both sides are allowed to speak & present their case & people take sides as to which group they agree with etc, if people really believe in free speech then they should have no problem with the opposing side making their case to the general public in a referendum campaign .


  • #703
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    A second meeting by ( Unbroken ) has got canceled following threats.

    https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/913087627842211840

    That,s three pro life public meetings canceled over the last week, we are gonna have a upcoming referendum on the topic of the 8th amendment, between taking posters trying to silence rape victims & pressuring venue to cancel public meetings, it seems to me that some people are afraid of open democratic debate, where both sides can be equally heard out .

    If this is true, the Pro-Choice side have learnt nothing from Trumps election.

    All they will achieve is pissing off those who are sitting on the fence on this issue.


  • #704
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Billy86 wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    If you don,t like a meeting being hosted just simply don,t go to it or feel free to peacefully protest outside the venue. If you respect democratic debate where all sides of the debate can be heard out, you won,t have a problem with the opposing side presenting their arguments & making their case in a public forum .
    They have peacefully protested, and it has caused the venue to decide it is not worthwhile proceeding with it. No violence has occurred. If the pro-life crowd like they can always use their own free speech to try and convince the venue otherwise, but suggesting that the pro-lifers deserve full free speech while those who disapprove of their rhetoric do not is open and shut hypocrisy.
    A referendum is gonna be held sometime next summer, during a referendum both sides are allowed to speak & present their case & people take sides as to which group they agree with etc, if people really believe in free speech then they should have no problem with the opposing side making their case to the general public in a referendum campaign .
    As I have said a few times, who I'd to say that those not approving of the function believe in free speech with zero restrictions? However if someone is claiming to be in favour of free speech for all, it is not possible for you to have any issue with those against the function using their free speech to voice their dissatisfaction. If the pro lifers have any issue with that, they can use their own free speech to try and get the function put back in place or taken in by another venue.


  • #705
    barneystinson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,686 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Billy86 wrote: »
    As I have said a few times, who I'd to say that those not approving of the function believe in free speech with zero restrictions? However if someone is claiming to be in favour of free speech for all, it is not possible for you to have any issue with those against the function using their free speech to voice their dissatisfaction. If the pro lifers have any issue with that, they can use their own free speech to try and get the function put back in place or taken in by another venue.

    I already addressed this for you a few posts up the way unless you're conveniently ignoring it...?


  • #706
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,127 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Well do you think it's wrong to remove posters?

    what a stupid question. of course its wrong.


  • #707
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    A second meeting by ( Unbroken ) has got canceled following threats.

    https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/913087627842211840

    That,s three pro life public meetings canceled over the last week, we are gonna have a upcoming referendum on the topic of the 8th amendment, between taking posters trying to silence rape victims & pressuring venue to cancel public meetings, it seems to me that some people are afraid of open democratic fair & balanced debate, where both sides can be equally heard out .

    How do we know they were threatened?


  • #708
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Some people in Cork have also resorted to taking posters seeking to silence rape victims too, we are still months away from the referendum & already we are seeing the carry on as we saw during the Mar referendum debate in 2015.

    429088.png


  • #709
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Grayson wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    A second meeting by ( Unbroken ) has got canceled following threats.

    https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/913087627842211840

    That,s three pro life public meetings canceled over the last week, we are gonna have a upcoming referendum on the topic of the 8th amendment, between taking posters trying to silence rape victims & pressuring venue to cancel public meetings, it seems to me that some people are afraid of open democratic fair & balanced debate, where both sides can be equally heard out .

    How do we know they were threatened?
    Im quoting what John said in his tweet .


  • #710
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    barneystinson wrote: »
    I already addressed this for you a few posts up the way unless you're conveniently ignoring it...?

    I'm not ignoring it, I'm point out that it is a logical flaw by those claiming to be entirely for unfettered free speech for everyone. On one hand, they like to give out about people attempting to "shut down" the free speech of those they don't agree with, while at the same time saying attempting to "shut down" the free speech of those they don't agree with.

    If those voicing their dissatisfaction to the venues believe in total free speech for all or not is completely irrelevant, if those voicing their dissatisfaction are trying to do so to get the event cancelled is irrelevant, all that is relevant is that those people are exercising their free speech. If people disagree with them voicing their dissatisfaction and want them to shut up, be silent and let the event carry on with no voice against it, they're entitled to hold that belief. But holding that belief means they don't believe in complete, free speech for all.

    If threats etc were made against the hotel then it should absolutely be dealt with and the Gardai notified by the organisers and those who run the venue. If not, all that we are seeing is an extension of the "absolute free speech for all" argument being put forward.

    Which brings me back to my point that 'unadulterated, complete free speech for all' very often is a logical fallacy.


  • #711
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Im quoting what John said in his tweet .

    Ah right. Because i googled it and found nothing about it. Still haven't seen any proof that the Ashling hotel was threatened.

    It could just be that these organisations lie. they lie a lot. they tell pregnant vulnerable women lies. So maybe the hotels just don't want a bunch of liars there.

    And then of course because these groups have martyr syndrome and the fact that they're liars, they lie about why they weren't allowed in the hotel.

    btw, on the spencer hotel facebook page there are 6 posts relating to this. One of them is pro life. On the Gibson hotel there's a grand total of one post.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Im quoting what John said in his tweet .

    No, the first line of your post quite explicitly said they were receiving threats. Not allegedly receiving threats, not that the organisers claimed they were receiving threats, you out and out said "A second meeting by ( Unbroken ) has got canceled following threats."


  • #713
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Well do you think it's wrong to remove posters?

    what a stupid question. of course its wrong.

    Gees if you are a reflection of the pro choice membership ye really are an angry, intolerant, obnoxious mob.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #714
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Gees if you are a reflection of the pro choice membership ye really are an angry, intolerant, obnoxious mob.

    Well to be fair, if your post gail was replying to is a reflection of the pro life membership ye really are a staggeringly and deliberately dishonest, vile bunch that are painfully transparent despite your best efforts.


  • #715
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,146 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    btw, when the topic of rape victims and abortion comes up is it worth mentioning the time a pro choice group placed a billboard about abortion outside the rape crises centre?

    http://www.thejournal.ie/admobile-company-drops-youth-defence-after-rape-crisis-incident-969637-Jun2013/

    Just wondering, when that advertising company refused to do any more advertising for Youth Defense, were they silencing Youth defense? Or were they just disgusted by them and didn't want to do business with them anymore? Or was it because there were "threats" made?


  • #716
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,586 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    I've never heard the "pro life" try to claim they are helping rape victims. This is a hilarious new angle.


  • #717
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    This is proof that some people want pro life groups no platformed/silenced.

    429093.png

    Its not views being given a platform, its women who have being raped in the past telling their stories & these communists object to it.


  • #718
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #719
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,586 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Imagine if George Hook claimed abortion would hurt rape victims.

    Its in the raped persons best interest to FORCE them to give birth after being FORCED into intercourse.


  • #720
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Billy86 wrote: »
    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Gees if you are a reflection of the pro choice membership ye really are an angry, intolerant, obnoxious mob.

    Well to be fair, if your post gail was replying to is a reflection of the pro life membership ye really are a staggeringly and deliberately dishonest, vile bunch that are painfully transparent despite your best efforts.

    I just can't make sense of this post. Maybe you are projecting your own emotions.

    Repeal the eight seems full of hate.

    Fear of debate.

    Mob mentality.

    There are some very considered, mature and compassionate posters here from the pro choice perspective but many also who do a disservice to the arguments for repeal and to debate in general.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • #721
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Grayson wrote: »
    btw, when the topic of rape victims and abortion comes up is it worth mentioning the time a pro choice group placed a billboard about abortion outside the rape crises centre?

    http://www.thejournal.ie/admobile-company-drops-youth-defence-after-rape-crisis-incident-969637-Jun2013/

    Just wondering, when that advertising company refused to do any more advertising for Youth Defense, were they silencing Youth defense? Or were they just disgusted by them and didn't want to do business with them anymore? Or was it because there were "threats" made?
    They shouldn,t of parked the billboard outside the rape crisis centre, it was foolish & counter productive .


Advertisement