Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/anti-abortion-ucd-students-union-president-says-she-has-been-subject-of-bullying-campaign-1.3253522

Ms Acough said when the abortion information was brought to her attention by a staff member, she sought legal advice from the union’s lawyer.

Four sabbatical officers in the union have criticised her decision to reprint the annual guide, and say they were not shown the relevant legal advice.

On Thursday, Ms Acough published the legal advice in which she was warned that each person involved in the decision to publish the information or distribute the books was at risk of up to €4,000 in fines each and a personal criminal conviction.

So she did not disclose this legal advice until weeks later, when she'd achieved her fait accompli.

Cabaal

Given FF's decision today, this graphic seems fitting......

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-f%C3%A1il-passes-motion-supporting-unborn-s-right-to-life-1.3256517

Fianna Fáil passes motion supporting unborn’s right to life
Majority of members at ardfheis speak in favour of retaining ‘vision’ of Eighth Amendment

For a party that only begrudgingly supported marriage equality back in 2015 I'm not surprised, none of FF locally to me supported it openly and at least two openly stated they did not support it and said they would be voting no to the marriager ref

FF, the political party that just needs to fcuk off and die, but won't.

Donal55

Purely political and nailing their colours to the grey vote. Will be interesting the response from FG.

PopePalpatine

I guess FF thought that fuck-all millennials will vote for them after mutilating their futures.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So she did not disclose this legal advice until weeks later..

The timing is irrelevant. As President of the SU she made an executive decision based on legal advice provided by the SU legal advisor. When challenged on that decision, she published the advice for all to see.
That's very different from the implication you made earlier that she was a liar and was not disclosing the legal advice. Basically, your posts are defamation.

looksee

Mod:

Hotblack Desiato it is possible to express your opinion without resorting to inflammatory terms such as 'liar'.
recedite - if you are concerned that a post is defamatory please report it rather than making accusations.

She said she would do one thing, she did the exact opposite, what else can I call it? If I was a voter in the UCD SU election I would feel as though I have been deceived.

Watching the Political Forum show on RTE late during the night, was surprised to see a minister tying himself to the mast so firmly. Health minister Simon Harris saying he was in the Vote Yes camp when it came to deletion of the 8th. The title I used may not be the title used for the show but it was on after midnight and had him, Richard Boyd Barrett & 1 other politician answering ?'s from the show interviewer. His reply to the interviewer was a one-liner sentence, no equivocation.

MrPudding

Perhaps we could get some guidance on what to call someone that lies that is not inflammatory, and at the same time perhaps why one can't call someone that lies a liar... It is a little irritating that using a word which is absolutely 100% accurate is considered inflammatory. What is someone that tells lies, other than a liar? I get that a person (or supporters of that person) might be offended by being called a liar, but if the person tells lies, then they are a liar. Why should other people not be allowed to use perfectly legitimate words to describe that person?

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Was he though?

He appeared to say he was yes at least in that video. He said his pro life position should be innate in everyone, and certainly innate in anyone who has ever watched a sonogram.

Whether the quotation you heard was long before, or after, this and he at some point changed his mind on the issue is of course possible. But there are not many ways to interpret or spin what he said in that video.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps we could get some guidance on what to call someone that lies that is not inflammatory, and at the same time perhaps why one can't call someone that lies a liar... It is a little irritating that using a word which is absolutely 100% accurate is considered inflammatory.

The issue is one of intent - whether the person who posted some fact, posted it in the full knowledge that the fact was false. In such a case, the person can legitimately be called a liar, but at the expense of the complainant having to show that the poster did accept that the fact was false but posted the opposite regardless.

As a posting rule, it's best to avoid imputing intent to other posters as it's trivially deniable. One is one firmer ground imputing knowledge to other posters, but that's still easily disputable.

I can't think of an English word to describe somebody who posts something false without being aware or interested in whether or not it's true or false. "Troll" would cover the general idea, but again, that imputes intent to the poster. "Bulshitter" is similar, but seems excessively crude. The term "fake news" and by implication, "faker" perhaps cover the area, but imperfectly - especially since the term has been hijacked by #45 and his team of merry trolls.

On reflection, perhaps there is a genuine lack in the English language here.

Suggestions?

Nick Park

robindch wrote: »

I can't think of an English word to describe somebody who posts something false without being aware or interested in whether or not it's true or false. "Troll" would cover the general idea, but again, that imputes intent to the poster. "Bulshitter" is similar, but seems excessively crude. The term "fake news" and by implication, "faker" perhaps cover the area, but imperfectly - especially since the term has been hijacked by #45 and his team of merry trolls.

On reflection, perhaps there is a genuine lack in the English language here.

Suggestions?

A trumpeter?

recedite wrote: »

The timing is irrelevant. As President of the SU she made an executive decision based on legal advice provided by the SU legal advisor. When challenged on that decision, she published the advice for all to see.
That's very different from the implication you made earlier that she was a liar and was not disclosing the legal advice. Basically, your posts are defamation.

One might propose the notion that her undue slow response to the other members of the S.U to the request for the advice she gave as the basis for her action seem's to have incited the curiosity on the advice.

The advice being allegedly necessary to protect the S.U from outside legal action, it would have been better for the president to comply with immediacy
to a perfectly legal request from the S.U board she is on to see said advice. Timing would have been essential to prevent giving false impressions.

robindch wrote: »

The issue is one of intent - whether the person who posted some fact, posted it in the full knowledge that the fact was false. In such a case, the person can legitimately be called a liar, but at the expense of the complainant having to show that the poster did accept that the fact was false but posted the opposite regardless.

On reflection, perhaps there is a genuine lack in the English language here.

Suggestions?

Untruthful?

Google

untruthful
ʌnˈtruːθfʊl,ʌnˈtruːθf(ə)l/Submit
adjective
saying or consisting of something that is false or incorrect.

recedite wrote: »

The timing is irrelevant.

I disagree. The timing is all-important.

As President of the SU she made an executive decision based on legal advice provided by the SU legal advisor. When challenged on that decision, she published the advice for all to see.

She published it weeks later when it was all moot, the money was spent and she'd successfully censored the information.
The whole point is that she should not have been making any 'executive decisions' as she had promised to defer to the other SU officers on any matter pertaining to abortion. Perhaps some pro-choice voters were foolish enough to trust her, but they won't be making that mistake again in a hurry.

That's very different from the implication you made earlier that she was a liar and was not disclosing the legal advice. Basically, your posts are defamation.

It's harsh yes but not defamatory and I'll ask you to withdraw that.
Say one thing during the election campaign, do the exact opposite as soon as you get into office, I'm not yet so jaded as to think that acceptable or moral.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Say one thing during the election campaign, do the exact opposite as soon as you get into office, I'm not yet so jaded as to think that acceptable or moral.

If she had made the decision to axe the publication based on her personal opposition to the material in it, then that would make her a liar.
If she did it because of the independent legal advice provided, then that is just her acting responsibly and doing the job she was elected to do.

It wasn't her decision to make - according to her pre-election promises.

The answer to "whether or not its a decision for the president of the SU to make" will be contained in the constitution of the SU, not in any pre-election canvassing by the candidates.
Assuming the president does have that function, then the relevant question is "did she make the decision based on her personal convictions or on the independent advice?"

She should not have made a promise she either did not intend to keep or would not be permitted to keep. You know this and it's gone beyond tiresome at this stage.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

The answer to "whether or not its a decision for the president of the SU to make" will be contained in the constitution of the SU, not in any pre-election canvassing by the candidates.
Assuming the president does have that function, then the relevant question is "did she make the decision based on her personal convictions or on the independent advice?"

The point at which she went against the spirit of her pledge was in seeking the legal advice in the first place. My understanding is that the abortion info was part of a section on 'dubiously legal' practices in the handbook like removing clamps. Surely she would have known what the union lawyer was going to say before she consulted him, given how those guys always err on the legal side of caution.

On today's I/Indo comments page there's a piece by Frank Coughlan about Pro-Choice people being upset when the FF AGM voted in the majority to retain the 8th. Reading it, I reckon he makes a good point about some Pro-Choice people thinking within a box that everyone must be of like-mind by now or be a fuddy-duddy.

On two bye-the-bye notes, I didn't actually see any letters, tweets or other comments by Pro-Choice people on which Frank apparently based his comment, plus sometimes parties take positions for party political advantage with the intent of abandoning the "promise" later.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

On today's I/Indo comments page there's a piece by Frank Coughlan about Pro-Choice people being upset when the FF AGM voted in the majority to retain the 8th. Reading it, I reckon he makes a good point about some Pro-Choice people thinking within a box that everyone must be of like-mind by now or be a fuddy-duddy.

On two bye-the-bye notes, I didn't actually see any letters, tweets or other comments by Pro-Choice people on which Frank apparently based his comment, plus sometimes parties take positions for party political advantage with the intent of abandoning the "promise" later.

Well Fianna Fail is fully behind holding the referendum and would almost certainly not be in a position to block any legislation brought in to replace the 8th Amendment, assuming the parliamentary party even wanted to, so I don't see that their Ard Fheis vote on the issue has much relevance. More broadly, the party's policy of granting a free vote to TDs on 'moral' issues, brought in to accommodate the party's more conservative wing, has ironically blunted the impact of any conservative stance the party might want to take on such issues in the future.

Just FYI the Indo has scrapped comments on articles.

Breezing through F/B, I saw a reference to Leo Varadkar under a Pro-Choice Campaign Ireland banner. It covers an article from the Indo two days ago where Leo was reminded of a statement he made back in 2010 to the S/Indo's LIFE magazine and asked if he was still of the same opinion. A part of the LIFE article from 2010 refers to his position on abortion where it comes to rape, incest and disabled children.

I'm not sure if the F/B item was published to get the Indo article and his 2010 statement out of the way soonest [damage limitation] or if the P-C.C.I was subtly asking for Leo to make a further statement on his position on legal abortion availability levels here in the near future.

In fairness his comment was based carefully about the ability of Irish people to travel abroad for services not legal in ireland, but legal at their foreign destinations. The link below was sourced by me from googling the Indo, and not from the F/B article.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9kYrFg_jWAhVE7hoKHVhbAn0QFggwMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Firish-news%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-defends-comments-on-uk-abortion-journeys-36227952.html&usg=AOvVaw1tNu22_ugkR_su1gNu1GK7

robindch

The US Department of Health and Human Services has released a draft version of its strategic plan for years 2018 to 2022. In a change from previous years, the new plan contains multiple references to life beginning at conception and finishing at "natural death". The plan also provides multiple channels of funding for "faith-based organizations" while allowing the same outfits to discriminate as they see fit.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-draft-strategic-plan-fy2018-2022.pdf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The point at which she went against the spirit of her pledge was in seeking the legal advice in the first place.

So you think its better to stick your fingers in your ears, than to challenge your own personal convictions by consulting with an objective expert view?
This argument has gone full circle now

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

So you think its better to stick your fingers in your ears, than to challenge your own personal convictions by consulting with an objective expert view?
This argument has gone full circle now

My understanding is that the legal advice was the same legal advice that they always got (and ignored). They published every year in spite of the legal advice as an act of defiance and protest.

She said she would not do anything to change the union's position on abortion. She did. It has nothing to do with not sticking fingers in ears or challenging personal conviction.

MrP