When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

Auntie Semite · 02-03-2019 2:18pm

Symbolic and liturgical meanings of gothic architecture.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-liturgical-meanings-of-gothic-architecture.html#/transcriptHeader

Quote 'In Christianity, there is a strong theme of spirituality and materiality being opposing forces. The world in which we live is the material world. It is full of temptation and sin, which threaten one's salvation and entrance into Heaven, which is the spiritual world. The entrance is part of the west face, so called because it traditionally faces west. It's here that people enter the church through the narthex, or where the symbolic foot touches the ground. The west face is a point of transition from the outside, material world into the divine world of the church.

There are traditionally three doors in the narthex, reflecting the belief in the Holy Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is composed of three natures: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There's also three major elements to the west face: the two towers plus the section in the middle. These also symbolizes the Trinity.

The innovations and modernisation in Gothic Architecture reflected the religious beliefs of the builders. There is no question of this.

The Nal · 02-03-2019 2:21pm

What a load of nonsense. Thank fcuk religion is dying out. Wonderful to be alive to see it happening.

dav3 · 02-03-2019 2:24pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

Fairly gone off topic here lads..........

Well, Gemma O’Doherty is still batshyt crazy and so are the people who try to defend her. There’s no doubt about it now.

batgoat · 02-03-2019 2:29pm

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Symbolic and liturgical meanings of gothic architecture.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-liturgical-meanings-of-gothic-architecture.html#/transcriptHeader

Quote 'In Christianity, there is a strong theme of spirituality and materiality being opposing forces. The world in which we live is the material world. It is full of temptation and sin, which threaten one's salvation and entrance into Heaven, which is the spiritual world. The entrance is part of the west face, so called because it traditionally faces west. It's here that people enter the church through the narthex, or where the symbolic foot touches the ground. The west face is a point of transition from the outside, material world into the divine world of the church.

There are traditionally three doors in the narthex, reflecting the belief in the Holy Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is composed of three natures: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There's also three major elements to the west face: the two towers plus the section in the middle. These also symbolizes the Trinity.

The innovations and modernisation in Gothic Architecture reflected the religious beliefs of the builders. There is no question of this.

And? Everything reflects the period. I'm not sure why you think you've made a groundbreaking discovery...

Auntie Semite · 02-03-2019 2:38pm

Buddhist architecture developed directly as a result of the Buddhist religion
See below
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub355/item1325.html

Auntie Semite · 02-03-2019 3:00pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

Fairly gone off topic here lads..........

You're right, I'll stop posting links.

TaurenDruid · 02-03-2019 7:28pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You're making too much sense in the thread.

That's why your name is being targeted. It's an attempt at deflection.

RacistNameBUTIT'SOKCOSIT'SAJOKE,JESUS then proceeds to post about early Christian architecture, Muslim mathematicians and Buddhist architecture, but the person calling out the racist username in the thread about Gemma "If that's racist, bring it on!" is the one deflecting... gotcha...

02-03-2019 11:32pm

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Islamic geometry innovated due to religious laws.

So a few pretty patterns on a wall. That is your wonderful contribution from religion to the world? Well blow me over - the entire course of human history changed! Wow! Not.

But a Perfect link supporting my position not yours so thanks for that!

Lets break it down for you.

1) Firstly as the article states it was "Islamic craftsmen turned geometry into an art form". That is what I have been saying all along. Religion did not do it - people who happened to be religious did! Your old correlation error. Again. You do love it so.

2) Second the article says due to their religion "pictures of people were not allowed". This is not a good thing. They were curtailing the artists. Whatever they produced under constraints - who knows what they would have or could have achieved without constraints! You might as well be promoting poverty because people under the constraints of poverty produce better music or something. We have great works of art like the sistine chapel but we simply have no idea what free artists might have produced without the constraints of religious sensibilities, demands and purse strings.

3) I already pre-empted this nonsense from you - probably in one of the posts you dodged and ignored - when I warned against going too granular on looking at these "benefits" you imagine in religion. Because when you zoom in too closely on your perceived positive you miss the mass of negative around it caused by that religion. Such as the pointless and harmful curtailing of artistic freedom to pander to religion nonsense.

4) Third the article makes the same error you do by claiming Islam gave us " algebra, the trigonometry, the optics, the astronomy and the many other scientific advances and inventions of the Islamic Golden Age". So to support the error I keep correcting you have merely cited someone else making the same error. How does that help anyone? That people during that age did it does not mean Islam had anything to do with it - just like me doing charity work under a religious organization in Ireland does not mean Christianity has all that much to do with it.

5) You have absolutely no evidence the innovations would not have occurred anyway. Every attempt you make to correlate X and Y so far makes this failing. To move from correlation to causation you have to show it was unlikely or impossible such things would not have occurred anyway. Not only is this hard to do it is also very unlikely given how much humans find geometric patters appealing. Your own article supports that position too where it says "Geometry is really a universal language, everyone can – and does – relate to it instinctively". Artists would likely hit upon that kind of art anyway. Especially given as the article also stated quite clearly for you "Islamic design is based on Greek geometry" so that stuff was already there!

6) The benefits here were not done due to religion or because of religion but _despite it_. Pointless rules were placed on artists and locations and people managed to find ways - drawing on already existing things in other cultures like the greeks - to over come it. This is not a credit to religion. It is a big two fingers to it!

Auntie Semite wrote: »

So the innovation was a direct result of that particular religious dogma IE the religion.

Nope the innovation existed in Greek sources already. The artists were merely forced to turn to it due to nonsense religious constraints that were put on them and who knows what they might have produced if they had been given actual free artistic license to produce. You have no idea what they would have or could have produced otherwise. You only know what they _did_ produce under pointless constraints. What their innovations could have been with full freedom we shall now never know.

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Again the innovation was a direct result of Islamic laws IE the religion.

Nope he just devoted / dedicated a chapter. That hardly is a causal link to religion. My friend wrote a book once and he devoted / dedicated the entire thing to his wife. His wife had _nothing_ to do with the book other than that though. He dedicated it to her as a mark of respect and love. Not because she had anything whatsoever to do with the book or any credit for it.

Auntie Semite wrote: »

The examples above prove that the development of Mathematics in these instances was precisely as a result of the Islamic religion.

No your examples who things that existed already being applied under religious constraints. A massively different reality than the one you are simply inventing. Do try harder.

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 11:14am

She's ****eing on about Vaccines again

The Nal · 03-03-2019 11:28am

PhoneMain wrote: »

She's ****eing on about Vaccines again

Shes so afraid of life. It must be miserable being her.

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 11:40am

The Nal wrote: »

Shes so afraid of life. It must be miserable being her.

Everything is a conspiracy to her. If you're against her then it's because you have an agenda or you're being paid to be like that. She has a very toxic view of life and social media is only reinforcing that on her now when she's only associating herself with consenting viewpoints e.g. GranTorino or Jim Corr. Or that Canadian wan

Auntie Semite · 03-03-2019 12:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So a few pretty patterns on a wall. That is your wonderful contribution from religion to the world? Well blow me over - the entire course of human history changed! Wow! Not.

But a Perfect link supporting my position not yours so thanks for that!

Lets break it down for you.

1) Firstly as the article states it was "Islamic craftsmen turned geometry into an art form". That is what I have been saying all along. Religion did not do it - people who happened to be religious did! Your old correlation error. Again. You do love it so.

2) Second the article says due to their religion "pictures of people were not allowed". This is not a good thing. They were curtailing the artists. Whatever they produced under constraints - who knows what they would have or could have achieved without constraints! You might as well be promoting poverty because people under the constraints of poverty produce better music or something. We have great works of art like the sistine chapel but we simply have no idea what free artists might have produced without the constraints of religious sensibilities, demands and purse strings.

3) I already pre-empted this nonsense from you - probably in one of the posts you dodged and ignored - when I warned against going too granular on looking at these "benefits" you imagine in religion. Because when you zoom in too closely on your perceived positive you miss the mass of negative around it caused by that religion. Such as the pointless and harmful curtailing of artistic freedom to pander to religion nonsense.

4) Third the article makes the same error you do by claiming Islam gave us " algebra, the trigonometry, the optics, the astronomy and the many other scientific advances and inventions of the Islamic Golden Age". So to support the error I keep correcting you have merely cited someone else making the same error. How does that help anyone? That people during that age did it does not mean Islam had anything to do with it - just like me doing charity work under a religious organization in Ireland does not mean Christianity has all that much to do with it.

5) You have absolutely no evidence the innovations would not have occurred anyway. Every attempt you make to correlate X and Y so far makes this failing. To move from correlation to causation you have to show it was unlikely or impossible such things would not have occurred anyway. Not only is this hard to do it is also very unlikely given how much humans find geometric patters appealing. Your own article supports that position too where it says "Geometry is really a universal language, everyone can – and does – relate to it instinctively". Artists would likely hit upon that kind of art anyway. Especially given as the article also stated quite clearly for you "Islamic design is based on Greek geometry" so that stuff was already there!

6) The benefits here were not done due to religion or because of religion but _despite it_. Pointless rules were placed on artists and locations and people managed to find ways - drawing on already existing things in other cultures like the greeks - to over come it. This is not a credit to religion. It is a big two fingers to it!

Nope the innovation existed in Greek sources already. The artists were merely forced to turn to it due to nonsense religious constraints that were put on them and who knows what they might have produced if they had been given actual free artistic license to produce. You have no idea what they would have or could have produced otherwise. You only know what they _did_ produce under pointless constraints. What their innovations could have been with full freedom we shall now never know.

Nope he just devoted / dedicated a chapter. That hardly is a causal link to religion. My friend wrote a book once and he devoted / dedicated the entire thing to his wife. His wife had _nothing_ to do with the book other than that though. He dedicated it to her as a mark of respect and love. Not because she had anything whatsoever to do with the book or any credit for it.

No your examples who things that existed already being applied under religious constraints. A massively different reality than the one you are simply inventing. Do try harder.

I've proven my point, there's no need to continue this discussion.

I any case you don't even seem to understand the original point I was making and ascribe all sorts of nonsense to what I was saying.
One example I would use that you claim I said Islam gave us algebra I said nothing of the sort I said innovations occurred within algebra which is an enormous difference.
The very fact that you are such a profoundly dishonest debater means I have no further interest in engaging with you on this issue.

You are also a habitual goal post shifter.

Quite typical really.

Good luck.

Odhinn · 03-03-2019 1:04pm

Meanwhile, on the O'Doherty ranch, shes posting katie hopkins in an idf t-shirt while talking about IS training in the wicklow mountains

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011070254271

aloneforever99 · 03-03-2019 1:10pm

Odhinn wrote: »

Meanwhile, on the O'Doherty ranch, shes posting katie hopkins in an idf t-shirt while talking about IS training in the wicklow mountains

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011070254271

Of 18,000 followers, that post has only 50 likes and is being torn apart in the comments. She also has 25k twitter followers, but only gets a handful of retweets. And she has 8 supporters on patreon.

jeremyj1968 · 03-03-2019 1:11pm

Just remember that when you are calling Gemma "nuts" for questioning vaccines, you are also criticising many parents who say that their children were severely harmed by vaccines. Including Jonathan Irwin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP-eIyibQM

I find it interesting that when the radio station found out that Irwin was friend with Pat Hickey they would phone him up to speak about that, but would not find it important to have him speak this more serious topic. There is a government brain washing advertisement campaign - "The HPV vaccine is completely safe, the HPV vaccine is completely safe". There is a completely unwillingness to admit that no vaccine is 100% safe, and it is possible that some people may have an averse reaction. I just hope that they are right, and Jonathan Irwin and the other parents are wrong - because if they are not there will be more payouts again in a few years time.

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 1:29pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Just remember that when you are calling Gemma "nuts" for questioning vaccines, you are also criticising many parents who say that their children were severely harmed by vaccines. Including Jonathan Irwin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP-eIyibQM

I find it interesting that when the radio station found out that Irwin was friend with Pat Hickey they would phone him up to speak about that, but would not find it important to have him speak this more serious topic. There is a government brain washing advertisement campaign - "The HPV vaccine is completely safe, the HPV vaccine is completely safe". There is a completely unwillingness to admit that no vaccine is 100% safe, and it is possible that some people may have an averse reaction. I just hope that they are right, and Jonathan Irwin and the other parents are wrong - because if they are not there will be more payouts again in a few years time.

Yes no vaccine is 100% safe. Just like no medication is 100% safe. Paracetamol can cause liver damage, Ibuprofen can damage your kidneys and stomach. Aspirin causes increased bleeding. There's no doctor in the world will argue against that.

I asked a consultant paediatrician the last day how we deal with patients who are anti vacc. He told me he viewed the 3 greatest medical breakthroughs were Antibiotics, Insulin and Vaccinations. He said there's absolutely no evidence to show that these vaccines are causing these side effects. He said that with the swine flu vaccine, the adverse effects of the vaccine were noted in the following year. He also very tellingly said that the effects that groups like Regret espouse are different in every country e.g. it's chronic fatigue syndrome in Ireland, it's something else in another country.

But he's only a consultant paediatrician, what would he know.

batgoat · 03-03-2019 1:31pm

Quality, linking to a video from a conspiracy documentary by Andrew Wakefield. Happy to criticise such an exploitative individual.

jeremyj1968 · 03-03-2019 1:36pm

batgoat wrote: »

Quality, linking to a video from a conspiracy documentary by Andrew Wakefield. Happy to criticise such an exploitative individual.

Do you think Jonathan Irwin is lying?

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 1:50pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Do you think Jonathan Irwin is lying?

I don't think any of these people are lying (apart from Wakefield who's a creap of the highest order). I just think they're wrong. They're forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if they're wrong. What they shouldn't do is push that opinion as fact.

batgoat · 03-03-2019 2:09pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Do you think Jonathan Irwin is lying?

I think they're actively being exploited in much the same way as Regret do.

mahamageehad · 03-03-2019 2:42pm

Gemma's an egocentric fruitcake. I don't like to make fun of her because I genuinely think she needs help. At the start I thought it was all for outrage clicks like Hopkins etc. but I think she really believes what she's saying even though many of her positions are contradictory.

The worst thing about the type of crazy she is is that the more people argue with her, the more she's convinced she's onto something and the more entrenched she gets. Ignoring is really the best solution but I can see why people find that difficult to do. The knee jerk reaction is to correct false information but as studies have shown, debating a bull**** stance actually gives it more credibility. Look at the Wakefield MMR stuff - he blatantly made it all up and still people believe it and think retractions and other evidence are a "cover up".

The central thinking is a bloody saviour complex, a GOD complex if you will. (Heh heh :pac:) Don't trust the word of anyone - science, the media, the government - but trust every word I say without question for only I am blessed with the omnipotence to see things how they really are.

jeremyj1968 · 03-03-2019 2:44pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

I just think they're wrong. They're forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if they're wrong. What they shouldn't do is push that opinion as fact.

Okay, so given that they are not lying, would it not be a good idea to speak to those parents and investigate their cases, instead of the state shouting "There is no problem here, the vaccine is completely safe" and calling them emotional terrorists. Or would it be better to just ignore those parents and assume that the vaccine is safe?

I'm just glad that I'm not a parent and having to make that decision. Irwin said that his missus felt tremendous amount of guilt after their daughter suffered issues after them agreeing to have the vaccine.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-03-2019 2:49pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Just remember that when you are calling Gemma "nuts" for questioning vaccines, you are also criticising many parents who say that their children were severely harmed by vaccines. Including Jonathan Irwin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP-eIyibQM

I find it interesting that when the radio station found out that Irwin was friend with Pat Hickey they would phone him up to speak about that, but would not find it important to have him speak this more serious topic. There is a government brain washing advertisement campaign - "The HPV vaccine is completely safe, the HPV vaccine is completely safe". There is a completely unwillingness to admit that no vaccine is 100% safe, and it is possible that some people may have an averse reaction. I just hope that they are right, and Jonathan Irwin and the other parents are wrong - because if they are not there will be more payouts again in a few years time.

A tiny minority have an adverse reaction to milk, peanuts, cats, dogs, penicillin to name just a few things. Should we ban them all?

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 2:51pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Okay, so given that they are not lying, would it not be a good idea to speak to those parents and investigate their cases, instead of the state shouting "There is no problem here, the vaccine is completely safe" and calling them emotional terrorists. Or would it be better to just ignore those parents and assume that the vaccine is safe?

I'm just glad that I'm not a parent and having to make that decision. Irwin said that his missus felt tremendous amount of guilt after their daughter suffered issues after them agreeing to have the vaccine.

Noone is dismissing them completely. They've been listened to, the vaccine has been tested and the VAST VAST body of evidence show's that there's no link between these vaccines and the symptoms these girls are experiencing. I genuinely do believe that these girls are suffering from something and they should get the full weight of medical resources behind them like any patient. However, their symptoms are not due to the HPV vaccine, the same way that the MMR vaccine does not cause Autism. These are facts. Not opinions, facts.

Auntie Semite · 03-03-2019 5:16pm

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Of 18,000 followers, that post has only 50 likes and is being torn apart in the comments. She also has 25k twitter followers, but only gets a handful of retweets. And she has 8 supporters on patreon.

I don't think the amount of likes someone receives on twitter really means anything.
The New York Times has 43 million followers but averages around 3 - 400 likes per tweet and even fewer retweets.
I'm not defending her position on Vaccines though, I don't really know anything about it from either perspective.

Ipso · 03-03-2019 10:31pm

PhoneMain wrote: »

Yes no vaccine is 100% safe. Just like no medication is 100% safe. Paracetamol can cause liver damage, Ibuprofen can damage your kidneys and stomach. Aspirin causes increased bleeding. There's no doctor in the world will argue against that.

I asked a consultant paediatrician the last day how we deal with patients who are anti vacc. He told me he viewed the 3 greatest medical breakthroughs were Antibiotics, Insulin and Vaccinations. He said there's absolutely no evidence to show that these vaccines are causing these side effects. He said that with the swine flu vaccine, the adverse effects of the vaccine were noted in the following year. He also very tellingly said that the effects that groups like Regret espouse are different in every country e.g. it's chronic fatigue syndrome in Ireland, it's something else in another country.

But he's only a consultant paediatrician, what would he know.

And a car seat belt could really hurt you, but will also save your life.

PhoneMain · 03-03-2019 10:52pm

Ipso wrote: »

And a car seat belt could really hurt you, but will also save your life.

You're just a stooge for Big Carma

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-03-2019 12:39am

PhoneMain wrote: »

You're just a stooge for Big Carma

Its spelled karma duuuuuuude

04-03-2019 9:14am

Auntie Semite wrote: »

I've proven my point, there's no need to continue this discussion.

Run forest, run.

Eh no you did not - you made a sad little point about pretty squares on a wall that I rebutted in not one but 6 clear ways. If you want to ignore all that and pretend to run away - when we both know you are about to come back and reply again - then so be it. But interesting to note that the moment you said "no need to continue this discussion" you immediately continued. So you are not even being honest with yourself here - let alone us.

Auntie Semite wrote: »

I any case you don't even seem to understand the original point I was making and ascribe all sorts of nonsense to what I was saying.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. Do not mistake the two. I understand perfectly what you are saying and your attempts to show that religion has been beneficial in the evolution of our soecity. The problem is your narrative fails on a number of points including:

1) You are making massive correlation-causation errors by pointing out things people did while religious that in no way has been shown to have been done _because_ they were religious. Hence my comparison to chicken plucking - that just because a religious person is doing something that does not mean their religion had anything to do with it.

2) You are taking things people do _despite_ their religious nonsense and acting like they did it _because_ of their religion. Your most recent example being pretty squares on walls. Firstly religious did not bring that as they just borrowed it from the greeks. Second they did it because they were under the nonsense constraints of their religion. While we might celebrate the pretty squares - though my 4 year old left alone with pencils and papers does similar - we can also look at things like the Sistine Chapel and show what artists _do_ actually achieve when not so constrained. And I will take that kind of art over squares on a wall any day.

3) You are failing to distinguish points where religion actually did inspire something or bring something - and when they simply were the ones holding the purse strings when someone else did it. And religion has become quite adept at taking credit by proxy.

4) As I predicted - I think in one of the numerous points you ignored entirely - you insist on going to granular on the big picture of the effect of religion as a whole. Zooming in on something that is a benefit - or more often that only you personally think of as a benefit - so closely that the detriment and cost around that alleged benefit is left out of the picture. And this is an _awful_ method of evaluation. Really awful. It would be like me eradicating a terrible disease by simply murdering anyone and everyone who has it. And then when looking back on this awful event people focus _only_ on the fact the disease was eradicated and start claiming I did good or great things.

These are not your only failings here but the main 4 that are consistent and oft employed.

Auntie Semite wrote: »

One example I would use that you claim I said Islam gave us algebra I said nothing of the sort

Auntie Semite wrote: »

The very fact that you are such a profoundly dishonest debater

Auntie Semite wrote: »

You are also a habitual goal post shifter.

What lies you are using now! I never said any of that - so the dishonesty, goal shifting and more is coming from you. You are blatantly and demonstrably lying here and then claiming I was doing so.

To set the record straight on your blatant revisionism of our conversation I _never_ said your claim was Islam gave us algebra. What I actually did say was that the article you linked to made that claim and their error in doing so was the same error you have been making on this thread. All of which is 100% accurate 100% true and I stand by it 100%.

That you want to change what I said into something else in an attempt to make a liar out of me - speaks volumes about which one of us is the dishonest debater here. Clue to help you along: It aint me sunshine and you need to get hip to that.

Quite typical really.

Good luck. I look forward to the reply that you are pretending will not be coming.

one world order · 05-03-2019 12:08am

In the 70's autism was 1 in 80. Now it is 15% and they are hoping to get it to 1 in 3 by 2050. Tens of thousands of parents have seen a dramatic change in their child's behaviour after getting a government vaccine. However as we are completely oblivious to the uniform brainwashing from the mainstream media, this explosion in autism will continue. Lets all trust the MSM rather than real parents.

When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

Comments