Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it illegal to tear down posters

124678

Comments

  • #92
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    gandalf wrote: »
    Well they have to spend that "donated" American evangelical money somehow ;)
    George Soros you mean?


  • #93
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    wexie wrote: »
    I don't get the logic of voting against what you initially thought was right just because you don't agree with the tactics/behaviour of other people who also think it's right but just express it in a different way or came to the conclusion in a different way.

    It's not a sign of a well thought out opinion is it?

    I’m not sure if I can answer that given the mod decision on what should be discussed. My decision is in fact well thought out, however. To me anyway.


  • #94
    snoopy84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭snoopy84


    Beechwoodspark wrote:
    I was going to vote yes but after seeing and hearing some of their more extreme supporters I want nothing to do with them.

    Please don't take your opportunity to change our country's constitution for granted.


  • #95
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    George Soros you mean?

    I would say from a visual inspection alone the no side have a lot more cash available to them and they are not very forthcoming on where that came from? Where do you think the cash they are splashing on from a straw poll here largely unwanted and potentially misleading posters came from?

    Didn't Amnesty have to hand back that cash as well, damn them and their transparency.


  • #96
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Ban All Posters


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Nermal wrote: »
    We should encourage it as much as possible. They'll tear down one another's posters and the rest of us will benefit from less visual pollution.

    Well I think they should be banned in general actually. It’s more or less a human pissing on lampposts, literally for territory. I can’t imagine that minds are ever changed. Maybe in general elections you increase some name recognition. But in referenda?

    However until they are, no vigilantism.


  • #98
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Ban All Posters

    But why? What did I do?

    :(


  • #99
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    To force their views on everyone else.

    The airwaves and most of the print media are dominated by the Yes to Repealing the 8th side of the argument.


  • #100
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    That was always the big danger for the yes campaign particularly when the militant feminists got involved and their only argument is to attack the no side and alienate many who are not on the coalface of the issue who may decide it not an issue they want to vote upon.

    I don’t believe that anyone who says things like ‘I was going to vote for X but the campaign has influenced me to vote for Y’.

    The blatant lies from the No side has been 10 times worse than anyone from the Repeal side saying... IDK, I don’t recall anything particularly bad from the no campaign other than a couple of outliers saying men shouldn’t have a say in the election.


  • #101
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Well I think they should be banned in general actually. It’s more or less a human pissing on lampposts, literally for territory. I can’t imagine that minds are ever changed. Maybe in general elections you increase some name recognition. But in referenda?

    However until they are, no vigilantism.

    I'm still traumatised by Ivana Baciks posters for the European parliament elections back in 2004!


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    I’m not sure if I can answer that given the mod decision on what should be discussed. My decision is in fact well thought out, however. To me anyway.

    To be honest Franz, I'm not even doubting that so much as you tend to (seemingly) have a good grip on things.

    Just don't get how other people's behaviour could changes anyone's initial opinion on the subject when the subject itself hasn't changed.

    Having said that, I'd agree with you that the yes-side aren't doing themselves (or their cause) many favours.

    Let's leave it at that though, you're very right.


  • #103
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    gandalf wrote: »
    I would say from a visual inspection alone the no side have a lot more cash available to them and they are not very forthcoming on where that came from? Where do you think the cash they are splashing on from a straw poll here largely unwanted and potentially misleading posters came from?

    Didn't Amnesty have to hand back that cash as well, damn them and their transparency.

    Amnesty did not hand back the cash. Colm O'Gorman is going to fight the SIPO decision through the courts,


  • #104
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    Personally I think posters should be banned.

    They're unsightly and very environmentally unfriendly.

    Most people are not going to be influenced on what way to vote by a poster and those that are influenced are not the type of people that I think should be voting on any issue TBH.


  • #105
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    Amnesty did not hand back the cash. Colm O'Gorman is going to fight the SIPO decision through the courts,

    Fair enough but at least we know that they got that funding because they were transparent. Compare that with the behaviour of the no side hiding behind multiple entities and cloaking their funding with the zeal and experience of a drug cartel or Mafia.


  • #106
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    Don't litter the streets with useless sings. Who's paying for that? The ratio of yes to no vote signs is like 20 to 1. I've actually only seen vote yes sign once but vote no is on every street and there is one on every lamp post just so it doesn't get missed. You don't get to brainwash people.

    Math fail!!


  • #107
    Coffee Fulled Runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭Coffee Fulled Runner


    I'd prefer if all election and referendum posters were banned. Its a dated form of media at this stage. Saying that, I don't agree with taking down posters of opposition or simply because you don't agree with what is on the poster. That's just wrong and counter productive in my opinion.


  • #108
    snoopy84
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭snoopy84


    Beechwoodspark wrote:
    Actually your attitude is enforcing my decision to not vote yes.

    Why would you take so many women's rights away from them just because you don't like this one persons attitude. Will people please start taking the importance of this referendum seriously and remember it's only a few weeks that you'll have to listen to the campaigns and then it will be all over.


  • #109
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    "I don't like the message so I'm going to destroy someone elses property and litter the streets"

    Our snowflake generation folks.


  • #110
    Mrhuth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭Mrhuth


    Tigger wrote: »
    Math fail!!

    Math fail with no calculations? IQ fail


  • #111
    garbo speaks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 300 ✭✭garbo speaks


    Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »
    I'd prefer if all election and referendum posters were banned. Its a dated form of media at this stage

    Don't think you are going to get your wish- looking on another thread there seems to be lots of simpletons who are contributing money to that online crowdfunding campaign for thousands of 'Yes' posters.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Jimbob1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭Jimbob1977


    If we take down the posters, we should take out the Citizens Assembly next.

    MOD: Off Topic discussion removed. There is a big shiny thread here to discuss what you posted, just not here.


  • #113
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Jimbob1977 wrote:
    We're going down a dangerous road where a group of 100 people ('randomly selected') are given that influence.


    Any thoughts on the topic of the thread? Or are you lost?


  • #114
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Mrhuth wrote: »
    Good, I'll be taking them all down in my street.

    I agree with your sentiment but I don't think you have a good grasp of the democratic process. Allowing one side of a debate only is not democracy, no matter how benevolent you think your actions.

    This is the very basis of the idea that power corrupts - you don't get to decide what is acceptable and what is not, that way lies tyranny!

    I'll be voting yes, and I agree with you that the no side can be a bit pontificating and annoying not to mention downright dishonest - but since when was politics, religion or society in general ever any different.
    They have their views / beliefs and they are fully entitled to them and even fully entitled to encourage others to also live by them.

    What they aren't entitled to is their own facts - facts are facts, they don't have any ideology. I have to say although I've seen many times more no posters than yes, I haven't personally seen anything I'd find particularly objectionable, like those youth defence cretins last time around.


  • #115
    Mrhuth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭Mrhuth


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I agree with your sentiment but I don't think you have a good grasp of the democratic process. Allowing one side of a debate only is not democracy, no matter how benevolent you think your actions.

    This is the very basis of the idea that power corrupts - you don't get to decide what is acceptable and what is not, that way lies tyranny!

    I'll be voting yes, and I agree with you that the no side can be a bit pontificating and annoying not to mention downright dishonest - but since when was politics, religion or society in general ever any different.
    They have their views / beliefs and they are fully entitled to them and even fully entitled to encourage others to also live by them.

    What they aren't entitled to is their own facts - facts are facts, they don't have any ideology. I have to say although I've seen many times more no posters than yes, I haven't personally seen anything I'd find particularly objectionable, like those youth defence cretins last time around.


    I would like to take all the posters down from both sides.


  • #116
    Jimbob1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭Jimbob1977


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Any thoughts on the topic of the thread? Or are you lost?

    Keep the posters. For both sides.


  • #117
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    like those youth defence cretins last time around.

    Now there's a word that just doesn't get used enough, cretins.


  • #118
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Jimbob1977 wrote:
    Keep the posters. For both sides.


    Once they are factual and legal I have no problem, except the deliberately offensive ones. They don't get to stay.


  • #119
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    wexie wrote: »

    Having said that, I'd agree with you that the yes-side aren't doing themselves (or their cause) many favours.

    Let's leave it at that though, you're very right.

    How aren’t they doing themselves any favours? What have they done that’s worse than the No campaign: using fake doctors, using a fake nurse, misrepresenting themselves as midwives while canvassing, handing out signs with fascist logos to unknowing teenagers at repeal rallies, using anti-repeal plants with revolting slogans at repeal rallies so they can photograph them and misrepresent the repeal side, lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks, lying about the terms of the referendum, putting graphic poster outside schools and in places where children are likely to see them, not reporting where funding comes from, inflating numbers at anti-repeal rallies, and illegally not putting supplier information on posters.


  • #120
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    I don't think I've heard any actual argument for a yes vote other that "the no side are wrong".

    Sounds like the perfect (in fact only) reason to vote yes to me?:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    kylith wrote: »
    How aren’t they doing themselves any favours? What have they done that’s worse than the No campaign: using fake doctors, using a fake nurse, misrepresenting themselves as midwives while canvassing, handing out signs with fascist logos to unknowing teenagers at repeal rallies, using anti-repeal plants with revolting slogans at repeal rallies so they can photograph them and misrepresent the repeal side, lying about what is involved in an abortion at 12 weeks, lying about the terms of the referendum, putting graphic poster outside schools and in places where children are likely to see them, not reporting where funding comes from, inflating numbers at anti-repeal rallies, and illegally not putting supplier information on posters.

    okay okay okay!!!

    I don't think either side are doing themselves any favours, in my most humble opinion. But maybe I could have been clearer

    Rial.gif


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement