cloudatlas wrote: » False. Nothing has been signed yet. Can't play for Ireland. Delighted.
pjohnson wrote: » Carberry who can't get a game at 10 with Leinster due to Sexton's presence?
facehugger99 wrote: » Carbery 2nd choice with a conveyor belt of talent coming through. Olding was a very ordinary player actually. Neither will be missed internationally.
facehugger99 wrote: » Olding was a very ordinary player actually. Neither will be missed internationally.
Fann Linn wrote: » Pathetic.
Fann Linn wrote: » Amazing how the girls who were slutty, promiscuous or flirtatious weren't raped.
facehugger99 wrote: » Seems a sense of relief around the country all right. I was out last night with the lads and to a man, everyone was delighted with the IRFU and Ulster Rugby's decision. I thought they might drag on the internal review for weeks but in fairness, it was a very swift decision to cut them loose.
facehugger99 wrote: » I was out last night with the lads.
facehugger99 wrote: » You don't think Carberry's the 2nd choice out-half? Do you follow the rugby?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The amount of nights I have sat nodding in agreement with a hectoring morally 'superior' absolutist just to enjoy my pint. :rolleyes:
Squatter wrote: » My understanding is that no one was raped that night. But perhaps you know more than I do.
cloudatlas wrote: » Aw. poor francie can't enjoy his pint in peace everyone. 1,2,3 AWWWWWw.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The debate around sexual assault and rape and consent has to be informed by an understanding of the failings of both sexes. As repeatedly pointed out, there are responsibilities for everyone in these issues. The influence of female role models has not even started to be addressed. Just imagine a parent trying to tell their daughter how to behave when the public airways and media is full to the brim of women who seem happy to be objectified and to be seen as sexual objects. That is just touching the tip of the iceberg of issues concerning all men and women. Drowned out by the anti-male feminist bullying rhetoric.
Squatter wrote: » Perhaps. But common sense suggests that the best time for any such in-depth discussion isn't in the immediate aftermath of a controversial rape trial.
ArthurDayne wrote: » joe40 wrote: » Well I thought it was clear. I said "privacy is important and should be protected" Therefore answer is a clear and unambiguous NO to your imaginary laws. I thought so, but merely thought it was only fair to seek a definitive answer before pointing out to you that by saying 'No' you have shown why the argument of judging and punishing people for all or any of their private statements should always hit a brick wall in a free society. You have said it yourself -- privacy should be protected. Why do you think that is? Why do you think privacy is so important? One of the reasons we have privacy is because society recognises the fundamental importance of having a shield between our private and public lives -- that while we all tow the line in public and contribute to society, we need a safe individual place where we can retreat away from the public eye and be our flawed, imperfect selves without fear of judgement so long as we act within the law. This keeps us sane, and helps to uphold the concept of individual liberty. Saying 'no' also unmasks the lack of logical consistency in your viewpoint. You say that people should be judged for their statements when those statements make it out in the open, yet you do not support having any legal framework or national program which would at least ensure that it is applied fairly and equally -- and not just to people whose statements get released whether through a criminal trial, theft of a phone, or a hacking etc. Your views, if applied equally and fairly (as I would like to think you would surely advocate) would entail that every person on earth must forever adhere to linguistic stringency, moral perfection and political correctness in all their private utterances to family and friends. Your views, applied equally and fairly, would impose upon us an intellectual thought-police, where we are terrified of making jokes or saying anything politically incorrect, even in jest. Your views, again applied equally and fairly, would have us all eternally wear a linguistic straight-jacket in every single thing we say. Would TV shows like The Inbetweeners and comedy acts like Frankie Boyle need to be censored for all of the objectifying humour, stereotyping and dark comedy -- lest they contaminate the minds of our sons and daughters and leave them open to imitating any of the humour in jest and then being subsequently crucified at your altar of moral perfection? Your opinions are perfectly reasonable at face-value level, but face-value is always superficial. The deeper implications for what you are arguing however are quite simply terrifying and should, in my opinion, be resisted in a free society.
joe40 wrote: » Well I thought it was clear. I said "privacy is important and should be protected" Therefore answer is a clear and unambiguous NO to your imaginary laws.
joe40 wrote: » My position is pretty much the way things are. Your privacy is protected currently but if private messages become public, and those messages are damaging you are liable for the consequences. Whether serious or minor Why are you trying to paint some type of dystopian future with thought police etc I am just saying how things currently are, there is no basis for ridiculous extrapolations
pjohnson wrote: » This is the justice you wanted isn't it? Granted no death penalty but exile will do.
facehugger99 wrote: » I'm surprised at that Francie lad - it seems like you're on here morning, noon and night fighting a fight that's already been lost. Maybe if you did take a break from the online echo chamber of this thread and had a pint with some real people, you'd see the overwhelming relief and goodwill at the IRFU's decision to take these lads out of the international and domestic picture. Just a suggestion;)
cloudatlas wrote: » Yeah see I spoke to the blue haired feminazi's and either chinese burns or terrible tickling torture was proposed but there was no decision made.
facehugger99 wrote: » Seems a sense of relief around the country all right.
facehugger99 wrote: » I was out last night with the lads and to a man, everyone was delighted with the IRFU and Ulster Rugby's decision.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » It may come as a surprise to some, but the young women of Ireland are known to enjoy sex as much as the menfolk, and boast of their conquests. My experience is they're not shrinking violets, and sometimes their language would make a sailor blush.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » That you think this is an echo chamber just demonstrates you either wont or cant hear any opposing view to your own. One thing this thread isnt, is an echo chamber
meeeeh wrote: » But that's part of the problem with the attitude of the boys. It didn't matter to them one bit if the girl enjoyed herself or cried and bleed because of sex. They were top shaggers in their own little world only their enjoyment matters. And if nothing else girls should be told to demand more from sex.
cloudatlas wrote: » If you go through past posts and count the likes for each view I think you'll find this thread is very much an echo chamber.
FrancieBrady wrote: » meeeeh wrote: » But that's part of the problem with the attitude of the boys. It didn't matter to them one bit if the girl enjoyed herself or cried and bleed because of sex. They were top shaggers in their own little world only their enjoyment matters. And if nothing else girls should be told to demand more from sex. Don't you think they should be told that they are probably not going to find it hanging around the VIP sections of nightclubs or by ending up drunk and alone in the houses of strangers. Should that advice not have been offered in all the public debate on this case?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
