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

The Hazards of Belief

1…298299301303304…334

Comments

  • #9002
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    "liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.
    You could not write it.


    https://twitter.com/Emmyjewel/status/1026969443971166211


  • #9003
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    "liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.
    You could not write it.

    And yet, strangely enough, you just did.


  • #9004
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And yet, strangely enough, you just did.


    make it up so :)


  • #9005
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And yet, strangely enough, you just did.
    That's it, shoot the messenger.


  • #9006
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    make it up so :)

    You pretty much did that too. Unless you can find some examples of "liberals" and "feminists" in a vox pop explaining that women shouldn't be allowed to leave home and work.


  • Advertisement
  • #9007
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,563 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    "liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.=

    Based on a tweet? I could find one depicting a Trump supporter as a Nazi and then claim that all Trump supporters are Nazis by that rock solid logic.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #9008
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Based on a tweet? I could find one depicting a Trump supporter as a Nazi and then claim that all Trump supporters are Nazis by that rock solid logic.
    That tweeds doesn't even go so far as to find one "liberal" or "feminist" who endorses the views expressed by the interviewees.


  • #9009
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The basis of it is;

    Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

    It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.


  • #9010
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,563 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    seamus wrote: »
    The basis of it is;

    Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

    It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.

    It's insane. For everything wrong with Ireland, I'm so glad that these alternative fact peddling snake oil salesmen have never caught on.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #9011
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    seamus wrote: »
    The basis of it is;

    Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

    It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.


    You know full well they never complain about this yet they are all over a western male with even a fraction of the views, look at Louise O Neill/ Una Mullaly kicking up a fuss any time a western guy says anything even remotely sexist.


    Yet they look the other way when an Irish girl is gang raped in Prague by the "wrong" type of perps ... this is just one example tho, it's rife with this hypocrisy.


  • Advertisement
  • #9012
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It's insane. For everything wrong with Ireland, I'm so glad that these alternative fact peddling snake oil salesmen have never caught on.

    Get help


  • #9013
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    You know full well they never complain about this yet they are all over a western male with even a fraction of the views, look at Louise O Neill/ Una Mullaly kicking up a fuss any time a western guy says anything even remotely sexist.


    Yet they look the other way when an Irish girl is gang raped in Prague by the "wrong" type of perps ... this is just one example tho, it's rife with this hypocrisy.
    Some people are generally more fussed about problems with their own community or society. They feel more responsible for them, and more affectred by them.

    Other people focus on problems in other communities or societies. They are afraid.


  • #9014
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Your problem here is that you assume that silence about something means that someone is looking the other way and tacitly approving of it.

    If someone never writes an opinion piece about Myanmar, does that mean they're "looking the other way"? If none of their content at all addresses the Nazi Holocaust, does that mean they're really holocaust deniers?

    No, of course not.

    People who are paid to write their opinions, like LON and Úna Mullally, can only write what they know about. You're not going to see detailed pieces from them about the finer points of the Anglo-Saxon trade economies of the 1600s, nor special reports on the status of women in Jordanian society.

    Because they don't know anything about these issues. Ask them directly what they think about the commentary on this video, and you'll no doubt get a blanket condemnation. Ask them how they feel about Islam and women's rights, and again you'll get a blanket condemnation, up to the limit of what they know about it.

    Ask them about women's rights in Ireland and the UK, and western culture in general, and you'll get a large essay, priced per word. Because that's what they know about. Or rather what others want to hear them talk about.

    What you're really engaging in is whataboutery. You're trying to prove that someone's opinion on one matter is rendered hypocritical by their lack of commentary on another unrelated one.

    Off you go, tweet either of the two ladies above this video and ask them what they think. Do you think they're going to respond with, "Ah the Jordanians, a grand bunch of lads"?


  • #9015
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    Seamus it's a fair point, but I would say quite optimistic - I hope you're right though.
    Getting off point here but LON has been known to tweet how great Tupac Shakur was - who was convicted of sexual assault - but never mind that listen to his lyrics- but again, im derailing here.

    LON and UM have long muted me anyway :)


  • #9016
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Some people are generally more fussed about problems with their own community or society. They feel more responsible for them, and more affectred by them.

    Other people focus on problems in other communities or societies. They are afraid.
    That is sometimes said of multi-culturalism, but the problem with that theory is that sometimes different communities do not maintain a strict segregation.
    For example the Rotherham abuse scandal in which Pakistani muslim rape gangs specifically targeted very young white girls.


    Therefore the point is very valid; if you are going to import a backward culture from abroad, be prepared to face consequences at home.


  • #9017
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,455 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    That's it, shoot the messenger.


    It might put an end to the stupid messages, in fairness.


  • #9018
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    TomSweeney wrote: »
    Get help
    A+A is a discussion forum, not a forum for slinging uncivil assertions about the place. Please read the forum charter before posting again.

    Thanking youze.


  • #9019
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,153 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Wasn't sure whether to put this here, or in Funnies :)

    Texas Back-to-School Prayer Rally Draws Literally 0 Participants

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #9020
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,153 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://twitter.com/DrBSingleton/status/1031976273214693376

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #9021
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    In 1956, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses showed up in Clonlara, Co Clare with some literature in tow and a few hours to spare.

    It did not end happily:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-good-catholics-of-1956-37268607.html


  • Advertisement
  • #9022
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robindch wrote: »
    In 1956, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses showed up in Clonlara, Co Clare with some literature in tow and a few hours to spare.

    It did not end happily:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-good-catholics-of-1956-37268607.html

    Can any of our resident historians confirm this happened? It's plausible but the source is the indo.


  • #9023
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,153 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yet we keep being told that nobody has ever been prosecuted successfully under our blasphemy law and the last unsuccessful attempt was in 1855 or something. Hmmm.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-religion-blasphemy/ireland-to-vote-on-removal-of-blasphemy-law-last-used-in-1855-idUSKCN0HR1J420141002
    “In practice, there have been no prosecutions under the 2009 Act and the last public prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland appears to have been brought in 1855,” Aodhan O Riordain, junior minister with responsibility for Equality, told parliament on Thursday in announcing the referendum.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #9024
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Can any of our resident historians confirm this happened? It's plausible but the source is the indo.
    While not claiming to be a historian, I found this Irish Times article which seems to confirm.
    Also mentions some other JWs causing a commotion in Wexford by getting assaulted.
    The end result is similar. What starts out as a fairly "cut and dry" assault charge is twisted around, so that the victim of the original crime becomes the perpetrator of a different one, and is then encouraged to leave town ASAP under the threat of imprisonment.
    It was a very delicate matter, said the Chief State Solicitor, "in which it will be difficult, as I see it, for the police to discriminate in favour of Father Doyle and, to a lesser extent, [in favour\] of Father Sinnott, on evidence on which they would normally institute proceedings".
    A hand-written note in the Attorney General's file, dated May 10th, 1960, says: "Prosecute Father Doyle, Father Sinnott and Jas. Delaney for assault". Beside it is another note of the same date: "I spoke to the Taoiseach and he agreed to the course being adopted."
    The final entry in the file, however, is a short letter to the Chief State Solicitor from the New Ross-based State solicitor, Mr James Coghlan, stamped July 29th. "My opinion is that it would be better to leave the matter rest, in the hope that these people will leave the town peacefully on the direction of their Principals. But should there by any further trouble by them in the town, then I think proceedings should be brought for the purpose of having them bound to be of good behaviour."


  • #9025
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    While not claiming to be a historian, I found this Irish Times article which seems to confirm . . .
    It doesn't confirm the claim in the Indo article that the judge found the JWs to be "guilty of blasphemy". I'm guessing that bit is hyperbole.


  • #9026
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It doesn't confirm the claim in the Indo article that the judge found the JWs to be "guilty of blasphemy". I'm guessing that bit is hyperbole.
    Nobody was convicted of blasphemy, but in both cases the victims of the assaults were told to get out of town on the understanding that they would be charged with some offence if they returned. My understanding (from reading both accounts) is that the offence in question would have been some kind of "blasphemy" charge, and I think that was also everyone's understanding at the time.


  • #9027
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    Nobody was convicted of blasphemy, but in both cases the victims of the assaults were told to get out of town on the understanding that they would be charged with some offence if they returned. My understanding (from reading both accounts) is that the offence in question would have been some kind of "blasphemy" charge, and I think that was also everyone's understanding at the time.
    And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.


  • #9028
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.
    That is one way of putting it. Equally you could say the attackers were not punished at all, but the victims were permanently banished from the towns in question. This banishment was based on the victims disturbing the peace with their blasphemy.
    ...as a preventative measure he bound both over to the peace on sureties of £200 each, a massive sum in 1956. If they were involved in any more incidents they'd spend three months in jail.
    ...hope that these people will leave the town peacefully on the direction of their Principals. But should there by any further trouble by them in the town, then I think proceedings should be brought for the purpose of having them bound to be of good behaviour.
    From an ethical perspective, its the same as a woman going to the Gardai after being raped, and then finding herself accused of disturbing the peace by wearing a short skirt in public, and then having to pay cash to the court to avoid jail time, while promising never to return to the town. But of course that would not actually happen, because there is nothing in the Constitution about skirt length.


  • #9029
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.

    I'm with Rec on this one, in that they were clearly severely punished for blasphemy by both the mob and the courts even if that's not what they were charged with. Assuming of course they weren't running around the streets naked, drunk and stoned as is apparently the case with some of today's JWs :pac:


  • #9030
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I accept the point you both make, and of course I'm not defending what was done to the JWs in question. But it seems to me that what victimised them was social attitudes, rather than the presence of a blasphemy offence on the statute book with which they were not charged (and which, despite the judge's views, never was charged). The underlying problem here was not the existence of the (even then, obsolete) blasphemy offence; it was the social and community attitudes. Do we imagine that if the blasphemy offence had not existed, the JWs would have gone unmolested? If we do, we are not being entirely realistic.

    Changing the social attitudes is the key to getting rid of the blasphemy offence, not the other way around.


  • Advertisement
  • #9031
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But it seems to me that what victimised them was social attitudes, rather than the presence of a blasphemy offence on the statute book with which they were not charged (and which, despite the judge's views, never was charged).
    They still would have been attacked, but the judge would have been obliged to prosecute the attackers.
    In the aftermath, the result would have been no further attacks, and greater subsequent freedom for people professing a minority religion (and atheists)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement