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

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Stonedpilot

I don't really take sides on this whole debate I realized in life opinions well everyone has one and this is a very divisive issue.

What I have a problem with is the feminist/liberal/lefty movement shouting down indeed attacking anyone who disagrees with them, to such an extent hotels are in fear to hold event's where people oppose their views.

The irony of it is they say oh we despise Fascism yet are the biggest proponents of it. These people are so obsessed with their own opinions and self centered that they cannot even listen to an opposing view!. They cannot even let it be heard.

This is insane. I have a feeling these people will stop at nothing to stop others with opposing views. Most of the 'Worker's Rights' posters up by people before profit or anti austerity alliance or solidarity or whatever they will be called in the next few minutes is very heavy handed propaganda for pro abortion activists to get their message across. What happened to the workers rights mentioned on the poster?. Seen them scowl and jeer at a elderly woman whom was at one who didn't agree with them on abortion.
Extremely dangerous people those whom cannot even tolerate others views.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/antiabortion-group-left-fuming-after-hotel-cancels-their-booking-over-intimidation-36155799.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

January

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This makes no sense - the experience in America is different to Ireland specifically because Ireland bans it and America doesn't. If the Repeal campaign gets its way (which again I must stress that I'm in favour of!) then the experience in Ireland will become identical to that of America. So it's very relevant to hear views from those in countries which the campaigners would like Ireland to model itself on.

Read the last line I posted there again, would you?

They don't want anyone to have abortions, under any circumstance.

hatrickpatrick

January wrote: »

Read the last line I posted there again, would you?

They don't want anyone to have abortions, under any circumstance.

I'm fully aware, I just don't see how it's relevant?

January

It's relevant because they're trying to convince others that the only way it should go is to carry the pregnancy to term because that's what they did and look at them, aren't we ok? Yes that's fine, they may be ok, but there are many, many other people out there that are not ok, who were forced to carry their pregnancy to term because of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

Free speech as a principle...does not require anyone to stand by and let them speak.

I believe it requires just that, if it is to have practical effect. I don't believe doing everything in your power within the law to drown the other guy out, make it as difficult as possible to get his message across, is compatible with the principle of free speech.

hatrickpatrick

January wrote: »

It's relevant because they're trying to convince others that the only way it should go is to carry the pregnancy to term because that's what they did and look at them, aren't we ok? Yes that's fine, they may be ok, but there are many, many other people out there that are not ok, who were forced to carry their pregnancy to term because of Ireland's restrictive abortion laws.

I fully realise that, and I don't agree with their message. Again though, how is this relevant? I and others have already stated that we do not agree with what's going to be said at this meeting. Some of us just don't agree with ever stopping people from saying things, regardless of whether we agree with what's being said or not.

hatrickpatrick

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I believe it requires just that, if it is to have practical effect. I don't believe doing everything in your power within the law to drown the other guy out, make it as difficult as possible to get his message across, is compatible with the principle of free speech.

This. In fact, I'd argue that Ireland's BAI rules requiring media platforms to give equal airtime to every viewpoint are far more within the spirit of free speech than allowing them to choose which viewpoints get heard and which do not. Same should apply to all private companies which provide platforms or platform accessories (posters, megaphones, PA systems, t shirts whatever) - discrimination on the basis of lawful content simply should not be allowed, period. Obviously where unlawful content (libel, child porn, etc) is concerned, you cannot require companies by law to tolerate it, but I believe that they should be required to tolerate and facilitate any lawful viewpoint.

B0jangles

Hey Hatrickpatrick have you personally ever been threatened, attacked or deprived of your freedom to act because of an inherent characteristic that you cannot conceal or change?

I ask, because you are always present to defend near-absolute freedom of speech as a position of ideological purity which (to me, anyway) comes over as the attitude of one who has never personally faced any consequences as a result of unrestricted free speech.

It's not an unusual position at all, it's actually very commonly encountered in online discussions and I've noticed that the vast majority of those who hold such a position are never personally threatened or indeed, even personally affected by the issue under discussion.

I tend towards a more practical, less ideological position; that such laws are there to facilitate the safe existence of us all, not expressions of universal truths.

A believer in total freedom of speech as a point of principal, might say that Person A should be able to use a public platform to spread their belief, for example, that 'Gays spread Disease', I would say that such claims endanger the lives of gay people - I believe their right to a safe a peaceful life is more important than maintaining a pure ideological position of Freedom of Speech.

In this case, I think the rights of the women of Ireland not to be lied to about links between abortion and cancer are more important than the rights of this group to spread their message.

freshpopcorn

Just out of interest no to derail the thread do people here think that the referendum will pass?

I am not sure to be honest. It all depends on what we'd be voting on and I think it will be close. I think a good few rural constituencies will vote no and it will take Urban areas to push it over the mark it they come out and vote.

SafeSurfer

January wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You could argue that they are outlining the consequences of their choice so it better informs the opinion of those who can afford to travel, which are thousands of women annually. Maybe you feel women can make better choices with less information? Did you vote against information and travel in the last election?

If not why the hostility to information this time round?

I wasn't old enough to vote last time around... I don't have a hostility to information, I have hostility to anti-choice groups flying in people from America when the experience in America is nothing compared to the experience in Ireland. They don't want people to travel for abortions, they don't want anyone to have an abortion, no matter the circumstance.

Do you have any hostility to Irish pro choice groups accepting money from George Soros' Open Society Foundation?

Sofiztikated

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just out of interest no to derail the thread do people here think that the referendum will pass?

I am not sure to be honest. It all depends on what we'd be voting on and I think it will be close. I think a good few rural constituencies will vote no and it will take Urban areas to push it over the mark it they come out and vote.

No it'll not pass. It'll get stupid, it'll get nasty, it'll get visual, it'll get vulgar. There'll be lies. And there'll be the underlying theme that repealing the 8th will immediately lead to people smashing all infants with a hammer, no matter what we're actually voting on.

All the "It'lls" above apply to both sides.

And you'll hear "I'm definitely voting Yes/No because Prolife/Prochoice people did/said INSERT SOMETHING ****ING STUPID HERE.

WinnyThePoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you have any hostility to Irish pro choice groups accepting money from George Soros' Open Society Foundation?

Kids.. Drugs are bad.

pjohnson

The winner will be whichever side pisses off the public the least. If the anti choice keep spouting pseudo science rubbish and warning of the looming baby apocalypse they'll loose but if the pro choice start ramming their view front and centre with jumpers/hashtags/parades/holier than thou attitude they will loose.

Sofiztikated

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you have any hostility to Irish pro choice groups accepting money from George Soros' Open Society Foundation?

I genuinely don't know much about George Soros, bar he spends a ****ing ton of cash on making **** places not so ****.

Ulysses Gaze

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just out of interest no to derail the thread do people here think that the referendum will pass?

I am not sure to be honest. It all depends on what we'd be voting on and I think it will be close. I think a good few rural constituencies will vote no and it will take Urban areas to push it over the mark it they come out and vote.

It won't pass.

And the Twitter Feminists and Irish Left Wing Journalists will go apoplectic about it.

Sofiztikated

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It won't pass.

And the Twitter Feminists and Irish Left Wing Journalists will go apoplectic about it.

Honestly, most of the bandwagoners will have moved on after about a week.

People that actually care about it, either way, will be stuck in the same battles.

Ulysses Gaze

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Honestly, most of the bandwagoners will have moved on after about a week.

People that actually care about it, either way, will be stuck in the same battles.

I am already preparing for articles with themes like:

Ireland had a chance to enter the 21st Century, but turned its back to stay in the dark ages

and

It's official: Ireland hates its Women.

Sofiztikated

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I am already preparing for articles with themes like:

Ireland had a chance to enter the 21st Century, but turned its back to stay in the dark ages

and

It's official: Ireland hates its Women.

That last one could be either pro choice or pro life.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just out of interest no to derail the thread do people here think that the referendum will pass?

It all depends on what we'd be voting on

That's really all that can be said at this stage.

SafeSurfer

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you have any hostility to Irish pro choice groups accepting money from George Soros' Open Society Foundation?

Kids.. Drugs are bad.

Unless they are baby killing abortion pills.
:-)

WinnyThePoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Unless they are baby killing abortion pills.
:-)

Where do they exist?

SafeSurfer

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Unless they are baby killing abortion pills.
:-)

Where do they exist?

Whatever terminology you wish to use I'm sure abortion pills given to a baby wouldn't have a good outcome.

WinnyThePoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Whatever terminology you wish to use I'm sure abortion pills given to a baby wouldn't have a good outcome.

Where do they exist. Your terms.

pjohnson

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Whatever terminology you wish to use I'm sure abortion pills given to a baby wouldn't have a good outcome.

Lol you make it sound like candy haha.

_Dara_

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

One can’t help noticing that your debating technique seems to be a combination of scattergun, hyperbole & gish gallop (def.)

and at the same time yours is, arguably, the most coherent pro-life contribution on this site (or in Ireland).

Says it all really

This is brilliant. BRILLIANT.

Here we go

Just reading about the second hotel now and the posters being taking down. I'm open to correction

SafeSurfer

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Whatever terminology you wish to use I'm sure abortion pills given to a baby wouldn't have a good outcome.

Where do they exist. Your terms.

I'm sure there are some people who could advise you where to procure them.

I still don't understand your kids drugs are bad response to the question about convicted insider trader George Soros funding constitutional change in Ireland.

Maybe you are embarrassed at the association and wish to deflect?

The_Valeyard

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is brilliant. BRILLIANT.

I give it a 2/10 for effort and use of language.

Claude Wilton

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

For a group of people who are always banging on about choice it's a bit strange that they don't want people with a different view to have any voice in the debate.

And before somebody starts with the opinion that anyone with balls has no right to talk on this it's worth noting that many on the pro life side are women.

Live women, I take it.

Grayson

Here we go wrote: »

Just reading about the second hotel now and the posters being taking down. I'm open to correction

What kind of correction do you expect? You're not reading it?

WinnyThePoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'm sure there are some people who could advise you where to procure them.

I still don't understand your kids drugs are bad response to the question about convicted insider trader George Soros funding constitutional change in Ireland.

Maybe you are embarrassed at the association and wish to deflect?

What are you on about. First Soros and now something about abortion pills. Where do the abortion pills exist?