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

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

1…8182848687…324

Comments

  • #2492
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
    not much compassion there Elm
    Crawl back into your hole.
    wexie wrote: »
    That's a very odd thing to say and I have to say I'm intrigued.

    What commercial connections (obviously don't expand if you're not comfortable or if it would involve identifying anybody)

    Just curious as to what commercial interests would be served with keeping the 8th?

    Not commercial as in "Company X supports Retain".
    Commercial as in "My associate/contact in company X has a love both sticker on his windscreen".

    It's not a social contact as in someone I would go for drinks with, it's a business contact IE someone who supplies me with stock. I pay him, or ask for credit terms, he supplies my items and I leave. We don't discuss the referendum but only the percentage discounts etc.


  • #2493
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
    not much compassion there Elm

    The sight of two straight people slobbering all over each other on the LUAS turns my stomach.

    Does that make me heterophobic - or just "ffs get a room"????


  • #2494
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    I think he means the people he knows that will vote no are through business connections, not personal connections.

    Ah that makes a lot more sense :o

    Was trying to figure out what commercial motives anyone could possibly have to vote no


  • #2495
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    wexie wrote: »
    Ah that makes a lot more sense :o

    Was trying to figure out what commercial motives anyone could possibly have to vote no

    Shares in Ryanair, maybe?


  • #2496
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Trying to control how other people live their lives is always relevant.

    Funnily enough. None of the scaremongering front hay referendum came true either. The sky hasn't fallen. I was at the wedding of a man and woman a few weeks ago and it was the same as the ones I was at 5 years ago.

    You mean that is still allowed ?

    But Senator Mullen said marriage would be destroyed.

    You mean he was WRONG ????

    /sarcasm


  • Advertisement
  • #2497
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Crawl back into your hole.



    Not commercial as in "Company X supports Retain".
    Commercial as in "My associate/contact in company X has a love both sticker on his windscreen".

    It's not a social contact as in someone I would go for drinks with, it's a business contact IE someone who supplies me with stock. I pay him, he supplies my items and I leave. We don't discuss the referendum but only the percentage discounts etc.

    You said it Elm not me, and you have refused and diverted questions as to why it
    makes you uncomfortable the idea of two men together, yet here you are trying to take the high ground on this subject. Laughable


  • #2498
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    wexie wrote: »
    Ah that makes a lot more sense :o

    Was trying to figure out what commercial motives anyone could possibly have to vote no
    Yes, there wouldnt be any

    To be honest on the topic of commercial interest, I'm disappointed to not see the "companies for yes" support that the SSM referendum got.


  • #2499
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
    not much compassion there Elm

    So you've stopped mocking someones way of dealing with a miscarriage, and you've moved on to twisting someone elses words (for the second time) in order to make a passive aggressive point.

    Do you have anything actually constructive to add or are you only here to drop in and twist the knife every few days?


  • #2500
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    You said it Elm not me, and you have refused and diverted questions as to why it
    makes you uncomfortable the idea of two men together, yet here you are trying to take the high ground on this subject. Laughable

    People are allowed to have their own feelings on matters.
    Many people voting Yes in this referendum do not personally agree with abortion but will vote to repeal to allow others the choice.
    This does not make them prejudiced or hypocrites no matter how many times you try to insist otherwise.
    They are simply mature enough to know the world doesn't revolve around the spot they stand on, and are happy to allow others make their own choices, despite how they personally feel on the topic.
    The marriage referendum was no different.
    It isn't hard to understand.


  • #2501
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    You said it Elm not me, and you have refused and diverted questions as to why it
    makes you uncomfortable the idea of two men together, yet here you are trying to take the high ground on this subject. Laughable
    HA

    Did I say "disgusting". NO?
    I have openly admitted it makes me uncomfortable, without prompting.

    Not only that, but it's a part of me I don't particularly like, and I'm working on changing it. We progress as a society. Except you lot of course.
    And I attribute the mental block fully and wholeheartedly towards the bigoted upbringing my generation received in religious schools. And religious boarding schools for second level. It was only really when I went to college that I realised the horror of the bigoted sheltered lifestyle the religious enforce on their subjects

    PS: Despite my inherent issues with homosexual PDA particularly amongst men, I was able to see that my issues were not important compared to their basic human rights, to love and be loved, and I voted YES.

    Pity your lot can't do the same.

    #lovewins
    #compassion
    #trustourwomen
    #togetherforyes
    #repealthe8th
    #tá


  • Advertisement
  • #2502
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,855 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    doylefe wrote: »
    All those who abandoned ship during the hard times are flying back for the day to vote, and it seems most of them are voting yes.

    Disgusting.

    The above is actually a lie!


  • #2503
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,109 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So you've stopped mocking someones way of dealing with a miscarriage, and you've moved on to twisting someone elses words (for the second time) in order to make a passive aggressive point.

    Do you have anything actually constructive to add or are you only here to drop in and twist the knife every few days?
    This is the same poster, don't forget, that had a hissy fit because I quoted their post in one AH thread that was relevant to this one.


  • #2504
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ELM327 wrote: »
    HA

    Did I say "disgusting". NO?
    I have openly admitted it makes me uncomfortable, without prompting.

    Not only that, but it's a part of me I don't particularly like, and I'm working on changing it. We progress as a society. Except you lot of course.
    And I attribute the mental block fully and wholeheartedly towards the bigoted upbringing my generation received in religious schools. And religious boarding schools for second level. It was only really when I went to college that I realised the horror of the bigoted sheltered lifestyle the religious enforce on their subjects

    PS: Despite my inherent issues with homosexual PDA particularly amongst men, I was able to see that my issues were not important compared to their basic human rights, to love and be loved, and I voted YES.

    Pity your lot can't do the same.

    #lovewins
    #compassion
    #trustourwomen
    #togetherforyes
    #repealthe8th
    #tá

    Plus as I mentioned the other day my dad switches off any gay scenes on TV - he's 80, it's just not something he likes.

    However at 77 he was the most vocal proponent of a yes vote, arguing the case with canvassers that it was none of his business. Never been prouder of the old man!


  • #2505
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    This makes you homophobic
    AnneFrank wrote: »
    makes you uncomfortable the idea of two men together, yet here you are trying to take the high ground on this subject. Laughable

    Actually what is laughable is that aside from demonstrably not knowing what the word Homophobic means, as it certainly does not refer to what you applied it to, you also do not appear to know what it even MEANS to take a moral high ground on a subject.

    Having a PERSONAL distaste for something, but realizing that means YOU have a problem and no one else..... and so supporting peoples right to do that something..... IS what it means to take the moral high ground on that topic.

    Because doing so means one has put their personal distaste aside, and consider the morality and ethics of the subject in terms of argument, evidence, data and reason. Not personal disgust and bias.

    That you are conflating the two, either willfully or through ignorance of the meaning of the terms, in order to push an empty and erroneous ad hominem against a user you can not rebut is what is laughable.

    The user over came their personal distaste in order to do the right and moral thing. You have not gotten over yourself as they have. So it is you lacking the high ground in this discussion. Because so far, personal distaste of abortion appears to be your sole and ONLY basis for your position on this thread so far.


  • #2506
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    yet the thought of two men together disgusts you,
    not much compassion there Elm
    Elm has showed tonnes of compassion actually - unlike them I've nothing against homosexuality whatsoever so voting yes for me in 2015 was easy. Elm however chose to vote yes because they didn't want their own prejudices negatively impacting on the lives of other people just because those people have a different sexual preference to him/her. That's basically the dictionary definition of compassion:

    compassion
    kəmˈpaʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

    You on the other hand get your kicks out of mocking people dealing with serious issues like miscarriages as has been par for the course with much of your posting history. What you have shown however is a perfect representation of many of the antonyms of the word compassion: cruelty, meanness, ill will, animosity, hatred and harshness.

    Whether you're blissfully unaware of this and it's just in your nature to be like that, or if you're knowingly doing it in a bid to use a serious issue like the 8th amendment as a vehicle to get yourself attention I and I doubt many here frankly care much about, but the fact is through your posts you are acting like an absolute twat of epic proportions, while Elm is showing compassion on the matter.


  • #2507
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Elm has showed tonnes of compassion actually - unlike them I've nothing against homosexuality whatsoever so voting yes for me in 2015 was easy. Elm however chose to vote yes because they didn't want their own prejudices negatively impacting on the lives of other people just because those people have a different sexual preference to him/her. That's basically the dictionary definition of compassion:

    compassion
    kəmˈpaʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

    You on the other hand get your kicks out of mocking people dealing with serious issues like miscarriages as has been par for the course with much of your posting history. What you have shown however is a perfect representation of many of the antonyms of the word compassion: cruelty, meanness, ill will, animosity, hatred and harshness.

    Whether you're blissfully unaware of this and it's just in your nature to be like that, or if you're knowingly doing it in a bid to use a serious issue like the 8th amendment as a vehicle to get yourself attention I and I doubt many here frankly care much about, but the fact is through your posts you are acting like an absolute twat of epic proportions, while Elm is showing compassion on the matter.

    +136


  • #2508
    Nettle Soup
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Nettle Soup


    This vote will show how brainwashed people still are by the Roman church. It will be interesting. I remember the animosity towards those brave people that walked out of the masses in 83 when the priest told the congregation how to vote.


  • #2509
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    Save the 8th


  • #2510
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save the 8th

    .... and Best scores from the rebound!


  • #2511
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    why bring this up, totally different vote

    It is a totally different vote. The reasons for changing the Constitution in each case are different. The section of the population directly affected are distinct, and of completely different sizes.

    So why is it that all the loudest No groups (and No posters here) are the same in both referendums?

    It's because in both cases, the No vote is not based on what may be right or wrong in the Constitution or society based on logic, reason or evidence. It is simple small c conservatism. All change is bad. Everything used to be better. Even the 8th itself was supposed to be the same - it was supposed to take the 1983 laws and lock them in place forever against future change, so a Yes vote back then was yes to No Change.

    The people saying that we cannot trust politicians have the same mindset today - if we give it to politicians, they might change things and all change is bad.

    It also makes a mockery of the "I'd like to vote Yes but..." refrain - these people are never voting Yes to positive change. Ever. The reasons they give for being against this particular proposal are just excuses - they will find other reasons to vote No to any proposed change.

    And it means that the people saying that Yes has "gone too far", "over reached" and will fail through being "too ambitious" do not understand that Yes will lose any vote until it wins - when that day comes, may as well win big.


  • Advertisement
  • #2512
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save the 8th

    Why?

    As I've said a million times, give me a good reason, and I'll vote to save it.

    35 years have given me multiple reasons to repeal.


  • #2513
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2514
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    AnneFrank wrote: »
    Save the 8th

    Why?

    As I've said a million times, give me a good reason, and I'll vote to save it.

    35 years have given me multiple reasons to repeal.
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It


  • #2515
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    I don't wish to get all existential but you don't know he wouldn't be here.

    "If I could have had you aborted, I would" - that sounds like a really mean thing to say to someone.


  • #2516
    optogirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,040 ✭✭✭optogirl


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    If abortion was legal there's a chance none of us would be here. So what?


  • #2517
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Why?
    It's their way of saying it's the latter of the two I pointed out - they see this as an opportunity to get attention for themselves and nothing more. Hence switching from "I would vote for repeal if not for the legislation" yesterday and now "save the 8th" today.

    They don't believe a word they're typing and are frankly best left ignored at this point.


  • #2518
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    I don't wish to get all existential but you don't know he wouldn't be here.

    "If I could have had you aborted, I would" - that sounds like a really mean thing to say to someone.
    Or an honest conversation ,


  • #2519
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    I really hate this argument. He would also not been here if she had taken the morning after pill. Or if she had ovulated at a different time that month. Or if she had a miscarriage.
    We can't go down the rabbit hole of "what if's"... His life wasn't saved because of the 8th amendment, because 4k abortions happen yearly despite them being illegal presently.
    She didn't abort him because she didn't want to. If she had really wanted to, she would have found a way.
    If circumstances were even slightly different, a lot of us might never have been conceived or born. Still not a good enough reason to take choice away from women.


  • #2520
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    My husband is adopted. His biological mother wants nothing to do with him, his biological father has done nothing but emotionally manipulate both my husband and his fully biological sister (who was adopted 10 months before him) since they've met. My husband is pro-choice and voting Yes on the 25th of May.


  • Advertisement
  • #2521
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,949 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    optogirl wrote: »
    yourdeadwright wrote: »
    I spoke to a young man the weekend who is adopted ,
    He meet his biology mother 3 years ago and she told him if abortion was legal here he would not be here, I have to say to hear it from him left an effect on me,
    I'm not voting so I'm nit one side or the other , But there is certainly cases for both ,
    It

    If abortion was legal there's a chance none of us would be here. So what?
    If murder was legal there's a chance you wouldn't be here either , So what ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement