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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Stand With Eamon Dunphy

1…34689…74

Comments

  • #152
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    A lot of repealers are extremely intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with them. Maybe that's just the twitter bubble crowd, though

    not really, have a look at the repeal thread in after hours, if you're a no voter you get attacked and then banned


  • #153
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    not really, have a look at the repeal thread in after hours, if you're a no voter you get attacked and then banned

    It's pointless trying to engage with them. Anytime I make an effort I just get a tidal wave of ad hominem abuse mixed with preachy sanctimony and sentimentality. Better talking to people face to face.


  • #154
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 31,825 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    I keep seeing this and it honestly, genuinely puzzles me. I hand-on-heart haven't seen anything from the Yes side even approaching the kind of tactics employed elsewhere. Genuine request here: can someone please point me in the direction of some examples of disrespectful/unacceptable campaign behaviour from any of the Yes organisations?
    There is a thread here
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057861599&page=27
    Id recommend reading from Page 1, its been a taken a tad of course via the discussions on it.


  • #155
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 31,825 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Apologies duplicate post


  • #156
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,327 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Admittedly I hadn't (I never claimed I did), but I have since.

    No surprise it was soft touch to be honest. Very difficult to give her praise for being so even handed and patient under such circumstances. You might as well give Real Madrid with Ronaldo & co praise for beating their under-8's team in training. There's nothing to be learned from somebody who isn't challenged.

    To use an example of how Dunphy laid up these points for her, he:

    - Spoke about the citizens assembly and why that was used to spur on the referendum. The point was about representation, which Mullaly said the CA did (it didn't), and how the Dail isn't representative (it is). Dunphy then went on to agree with her because of "the scarcity of women", a hollow point needlessly served up by Eamo.

    - He then made some sort of leading question about patriarchy.

    - He also then repeatedly answered her question for her in the sense that it wasn't really a question at all.

    Mullaly's colours show up very clearly when anybody gives her even the most minor of pushbacks. She pulls out of debates if she doesn't like the opponent. She has sought (and succeeded in) getting comments disabled on her articles, one must not criticise Una. Her articles are a collection of misandry.

    She has also used her own personal health struggles as a means to emotionally sway people or bat away opponents about why she, as a lesbian, should be permitted to get married. That's not to say she shouldn't be allowed, but let's leave the personal stuff out of it.

    I never claimed this to be a Waters v Mullaly point either by the way. You'll notice I haven't mentioned Waters once, think what you like about him you'll find no pushback here, however I can't stand over a viewpoint that puts Una as some sort of reasonable commentator on anything.

    Completely disagree with almost everything you have to say there.

    She defended her points of view robustly like an adult, without it turning into a slagging match - what else do you think she should have been challenged on?

    Yes, Dunphy wasn't being antagonistic towards her, but to thrash Una Mulally wasn't the purpose of the interview; he was trying to get her to flesh out her reasons for voting Yes and doing it in a relatively respectful and grown up manner.

    And as regards to her own personal circumstances being used as fodder in the debate - Well, for a start, she never mentioned her own sexual orientation in the interview whatsoever and she only brought up her own previous health problems as a means to illustrate that the legislation, whatever may happen with it, is not actually going to personally affect her in any case - so in a sense her support for repeal goes beyond the personal and should have been thought of as a question for society as a whole. Compare that to Waters and his highly personalised anecdotes about his grandchildren...

    To say you never wanted to make it a Waters V Mulally argument is a little bit disengenuous. Your initial post yesterday was a multiquote that referenced one poster's opinion on the Water's interview and their further opinion on the Mulally interview. You seemed to be infering that drawing that comparison between the two speakers was laughable - in the sense that, somehow, of the two Mulally couldn't be taken seriously. So, if you weren't interested in Waters why did you make mention of what someone else had to say about him in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    minikin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    murpho999 wrote: »
    I got the impression that he was an undecided voter but leaning towards no.

    Nothing two faced about it.

    Might be a tactic for interviewing too to get more out of them.


    These exact quotes might clarify that impression of Dunphy:

    Waters interview - 13m 44sec
    "I am a no voter"

    Mullally interview - 2m 20sec
    "I will be upfront... I'm a sorta... an undecided"

    and

    Mullally interview - 31m 06sec
    "...so, I'm not a NO voter"

    It would take turning the reality distortion device all the way up to eleven to say he didn't play ducks and drakes with Waters in order to get an interview.

    Dunphy (and I like him hugely as a broadcaster / personality) had no problem trying to undermine Waters' fundamental belief system about when life begins.

    Had he done similar to Mullally (gone down the same sensationalist line of asking "aren't you supporting child murder") it would have been just as objectionable as it's attacking someones fundamental principles for a cheap 'headline'.


  • #158
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,327 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    minikin wrote: »

    Dunphy (and I like him hugely as a broadcaster / personality) had no problem trying to undermine Waters' fundamental belief system about when life begins.

    Had he done similar to Mullally (gone down the same sensationalist line of asking "aren't you supporting child murder") it would have been just as objectionable as it's attacking someones fundamental principles for a cheap 'headline'.

    So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?


  • #159
    minikin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    Arghus wrote: »
    So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?

    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.


  • #160
    Mancomb Seepgood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭Mancomb Seepgood


    minikin wrote: »
    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.

    Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.


  • #161
    minikin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »
    Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.

    Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,327 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    minikin wrote: »
    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.

    Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent.

    I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless.

    You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life.

    I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question.

    We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.


  • #163
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.


  • #164
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users Posts: 17,297 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    Arghus wrote: »
    Nothing hilarious about it all. You should listen to it.

    The interview with Una Mullaly was a good and intelligent debate and she made her points in an articulate and passionate manner. Her reputation precedes her in many ways, but based on what she had to say in the interview, I thought she came across extremely well.

    Dunphy asked her the questions and she was able to engage with them and defend her points of views, without resorting to childishly stomping off abruptly. There's no comparison between the level of debate in her interview and the corresponding one with John Waters: Mullaly's is clearly and objectively far superior and to claim otherwise is totally and utterly farcical.

    In fairness just about anyone would seem reasonable and sane compared to John Waters.

    Personally I have zero time for Una Mullaly so won't be listening to her interview.


  • #165
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Arghus wrote: »
    Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent.

    I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless.

    You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life.

    I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question.

    We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.

    100% this. Coherence was rapidly draining out of the interview in less than 10 minutes. If Dunphy let Waters off it was going to turn into an abstract, dull, onanisitic monologue. The childish way he up sticks and leaves was pathetic and goes to show Waters is incapable of communicating on any terms but his own.


  • #166
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,146 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    minikin wrote: »
    Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.

    A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.


  • #167
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,528 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst.

    Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.


  • #168
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,327 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    briany wrote: »
    Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst.

    Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.

    In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.


  • #169
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    groovyg wrote: »
    Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.

    What was he thinking more like


  • #170
    applehunter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,020 ✭✭✭applehunter


    Arghus wrote: »
    In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.

    Dunphy couldn't have asked for better publicity.

    Great addition to the podcast scene.


  • #171
    dastardly00
    Registered Users Posts: 13,303 ✭✭✭✭dastardly00


    Hurrache wrote: »
    A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.


    He must have been listening to Nicola Talent talk about the Kinahan-Hutch feud :P :D


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,465 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'


  • #173
    Conservative
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Conservative


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'

    "Sheriff Williams". Great stuff from Dunphy LOL


  • #174
    Still Ill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭Still Ill


    I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway


  • #175
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Still Ill wrote: »
    I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway

    Ya, but I think the show has actually picked-up a bit more traction recently in that I see it being mentioned/retweeted on Twitter more frequently - if that's any indication of popularity...
    In any case, I'm happy to see him get a sponsor as I really enjoy the podcast, so long may it continue! :D


  • #176
    Cartman78
    Registered Users Posts: 9,590 ✭✭✭Cartman78


    John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)


  • #177
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Cartman78 wrote: »
    John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)
    :D:D Alas, that explains it!


  • #178
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • #179
    McGrath5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,322 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    Fantastic interview today with Richard Dunne, plenty of funny moments.


  • #180
    Morrison J
    Registered Users Posts: 3,847 ✭✭✭Morrison J


    Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Mantis Toboggan
    Registered Users Posts: 17,652 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    Morrison J wrote: »
    Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?

    John waters ;)

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



Advertisement