The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

drillyeye wrote: »

"Would you like to not come into work for the rest of your life?" says your boss, "yes or no?"

You: "What do you mean? Do you mean I still have a job? Will I be paid? Do I work from home? What about other employees?"

Boss: "Just answer yes or no! Whats the problem?!"

That doesnt answer my question?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you read the Constitution?
It consists of frameworks not specifics of "why" and "how" - for example it state the maximum number of ministers but doesn't specify what departments they head so theoretically there could be a Minister for Hot Beverages and Salty Snacks.

The Constitution is the Framework and it charges the Government with taking care of the specifics in line with that framework. That's the whole point. Why on Earth do you think having specifics in the question would clarify things? The Constitution is not the place for specifics - that is what legislation is for. We are not voting on legislation. What other Referendumquestion contained specifics???

It's very simple - as it should be - either a) Keep the 8th or b) Repeal the 8th and allow Government to legislate.

IMHO it should be even simpler than that - a basic a) Keep or b)Repeal - as The Constitution already says it's Government's role to legislate according to the results of Referenda so stating it in the question is superfluous repetition put there at the advice of the Attorney General in an attempt to head off any delaying tactics should Repeal win.

As to the first bolded part, the framework exists because the "why" and "how" have already been answered. That's like a fundamental lack of understanding as to how decisions are made.

As to the second bolded part......?!

This referendum is the very definition of forcing people to make an uninformed decision. That's the problem.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That doesnt answer my question?

I think youre taking the piss. The problem is that it is an UNINFORMED decision.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is just pointless whataboutery. The electorate is voting on amending the constitution. There is a draft heads of bill with proposed legislation accompanying the referendum. The oireachtas will vote on that.

Minister Harris has published the draft bill

http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/general-scheme-of-a-bill-to-regulate-termination-of-pregnancy/

And a policy paper


http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/policy-paper-on-regulation-of-termination-of-pregnancy/

How the hell is me asking for "clear list of changes for this referendum" whataboutery?!

Anyway, as I said a few times already, this referendum is a non-runner for me. There is no conversation to be had, because there is no informed decision to be made here.

We are not being asked to make changes, we are being asked to allow any government, at any time, to make whatever changes whenever they want.

And that, to sum up, is b*llocks. Thanks for the exchange on here, it was certainly informative.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. I am not taking the piss at all. There is no need to put things in caps lock. That is the equivalent of online shouting.

It is a perfectly informed decision. Essentially the electorate is bring asked do they want to remove article 40.3.3 and replace it with a sentence that gives the Oireachtas power to legislate.

"vote for something, and we'll decide what that "something" is later."

Yeah, totally informed decision making.

That's me done anyway.

drillyeye wrote: »

In another post I did already.

I don't see how people can be entirely comfortable with uninformed voting.

This is not uninformed voting. I am quite informed on the 8th amendment and its harmful affects on women. I am informed on the consequenes of a yes or no vote. Many voters like me are well informed. I have heard this muddying the waters tactic before. It is an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in voters minds. It is an attempt to trick voters into thinking they dont know and should vote no as a safer option. It wont wash. We do know what we are voting for. It is frankly patronising guff to try and con the electorate.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is not uninformed voting. I am quite informed on the 8th amendment and its harmful affects on women. I am informed on the consequenes of a yes or no vote. Many voters like me are well informed. I have heard this muddying the waters tactic before. It is an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in voters minds. It is an attempt to trick voters into thinking they dont know and should vote no as a safer option. It wont wash. We do know what we are voting for. It is frankly patronising guff to try and con the electorate.

Fanatics.

Theres no way I have a legitimate question or have legitimate concerns of course. No, I'm a bad guy for going against the uninformed grain. I surely hate women or something, there will be no tolerance of dissenting views!

Throughout the last few pages I have argued in good faith, only to be met with, mostly, the same re-worded statements. Whereas your post above proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all you were really looking for was an excuse to dismiss me and an obvious, important question.

That makes you disingenuous. No matter what is said to you, its all by the by, its all about establishing that biased angle in order to dismiss something you don't like.

That is not to say that all people who want to vote yes are like this, but there at definitely some people, like you, that are like talking to brick walls.

All people need to do is re-read the last few pages, whether registered on here or not, and they will see the blatancy of ignorance on display. People like you, who make the mistake of showing true colours are only going to turn more people against voting yes.

Pointless trying to converse on here, its just seems to be, mostly, a pack of fanatics who will back-up ("like") ANYTHING that establishes their sense of right while dismissing anyone and anything that goes to the contrary.

You let your mask slip. Bye.

(bonus points for trying to flip this against me!)

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Will there be debates on the referendum? I am worried that voters will swallow the anti-choice rubbish and scare mongering.

Damn an other side getting to air their views!!

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Will there be debates on the referendum? I am worried that voters will swallow the anti-choice rubbish and scare mongering.

Well the anti.choice are one step ahead on getting their posters up. Powerful posters also.

The pro choice need to wake up.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You can say that again. It's hard to think of anything starker than "BABIES WILL DIE".

I see they're going for the reasoned and nuanced approach then :rolleyes:

drillyeye wrote: »

Fanatics.

Theres no way I have a legitimate question or have legitimate concerns of course. No, I'm a bad guy for going against the uninformed grain. I surely hate women or something, there will be no tolerance of dissenting views!

Throughout the last few pages I have argued in good faith, only to be met with, mostly, the same re-worded statements. Whereas your post above proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all you were really looking for was an excuse to dismiss me and an obvious, important question.

That makes you disingenuous. No matter what is said to you, its all by the by, its all about establishing that biased angle in order to dismiss something you don't like.

That is not to say that all people who want to vote yes are like this, but there at definitely some people, like you, that are like talking to brick walls.

All people need to do is re-read the last few pages, whether registered on here or not, and they will see the blatancy of ignorance on display. People like you, who make the mistake of showing true colours are only going to turn more people against voting yes.

Pointless trying to converse on here, its just seems to be, mostly, a pack of fanatics who will back-up ("like") ANYTHING that establishes their sense of right while dismissing anyone and anything that goes to the contrary.

You let your mask slip. Bye.

(bonus points for trying to flip this against me!)

Nah. You are the flipper. Trying to flip this around to martyr yourself. I have no mask to slip. I am straight up honest on this. You tried to tell everyone here that there is no information and voting yes is an uninformed vote. You simply dont like that I countered your opinion.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Translation:
Ohhh noes... turns out the liberalz understand the concept of a written Constitution and how it works and have the audacity to libsplain it several times in clear and concise terms while also asking me to explain what I mean and clarify my points so I'm going to return to a discussion I said I was "done with" to spit the dummy out, indulge in flinging some insults, and scream I'm being oppressed...(cunning plan is to get thread banned so I can say I'm being censored by the "libtard" and biased mods )

Words are interesting. They can tell you so much more than just literal interpretation.

For instance here, you are attempting to put me into group and portray me as a child in some way.

The irony is that in your attempt to ascribe a group, all you are really doing is telling me about you. For example, you are part of a group ("libsplain" "liberalz" "spit the dummy out" "insult" "scream" "oppression" "a plan" "libtard" "biased".)

You are showing everyone who you are, while attempting to do the same to someone else. Funny, isn't it, psychology?

And the way the inanity of the content is backed up by others who are recognising the subconscious siren calls.....ye are gas craic

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. You are the flipper. Trying to flip this around to martyr yourself. I have no mask to slip. I am straight up honest on this. You tried to tell everyone here that there is no information and voting yes is an uninformed vote. You simply dont like that I countered your opinion.

As soon as I said I was exiting the "debate", you made a comment full of nasty insinuation.

Tat just tells me that you were wasting my time with your stupid questioning, "I don't get what you mean!?"

You were just imitating a reasonable person (a poor imitation). You let the cat of the bag. You're nicked. You're not reasonable, you don't want to talk, you don't understand questions or statements that a fooking 10 year old could interpret......whats the point!?

You're here to gatekeep the conversation. That's it.

Simi wrote: »

I see they're going for the reasoned and nuanced approach then :rolleyes:

They will.take no prisoners. It was never going to be a nice referendum