Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, any evidence for this?

Secondly, if that can be the case, isnt it also possible that maybe your personal bias is making you deny harassment that is taking place?

no i believe that would not be possible.

King Mob wrote: »

Why not?

because i don't think simply protesting will achieve anything in itself. simply handing out information would probably do a lot more i think.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He hasn't responded to anything i've asked either. He must have a lot of us on ignore.

i have only 1 poster on ignore and that is the one i stated as such.

end of the road wrote: »

no i believe that would not be possible.

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

Also I asked if you had any evidence to back up you claim. I assume that since you ignored the point, the answer is "no".

end of the road wrote: »

because i don't think simply protesting will achieve anything in itself. simply handing out information would probably do a lot more i think.

So you hand out information?
Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

....... wrote: »

We should all take a leaf out of your book.

He has me on ignore because it's his way of weasling out of moderator action.

Please feel free to quote my posts to him and encourage him to answer them. He probably won't though as it is a direct contradiction of things he has previously said.

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

ah you dont have me on ignore, you are just ignoring me. an important semantic difference.

.......

robarmstrong wrote: »

He has me on ignore because it's his way of weasling out of moderator action.

Please feel free to quote my posts to him and encourage him to answer them. He probably won't though as it is a direct contradiction of things he has previously said.

I have long ago stopped trying to convince the most famous and most protected poster on boards.ie to post in good faith.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

Also I asked if you had any evidence to back up you claim. I assume that since you ignored the point, the answer is "no".

So you hand out information?
Why would they protest if it doesn't achieve anything?

no i personally don't hand out information. that should be obvious given i said i don't attend the protests. so i wouldn't be attending the areas in the first place. perhapse those protesting feel it may achieve something hence they do it.

You still haven't answered King Mob's request for you to provide evidence to back up your claim, could you please do so?

Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.

end of the road wrote: »

no i personally don't hand out information.

So why do you not hand out information if you think it's helpful to your cause?

And why would the protesters think that they are achieving something when you know they aren't?
Maybe they have another motive?

Also again, you seem to have missed parts of my post, which is strange as you quoted it in full.

Ok, why do you think it's impossible?
Why is it possible for them, but not for you?

And again, since you have no response to the other point, we can take it as agreement that you have zero evidence to support your claim that people harassed at abortion clinics are exaggerating.
They are being harassed.

Plumbthedepths

end of the road wrote:

no i personally don't hand out information. that should be obvious given i said i don't attend the protests. so i wouldn't be attending the areas in the first place. perhapse those protesting feel it may achieve something hence they do it.

robarmstrong wrote:

Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.

Any chance ETOR you could do as suggested above and follow the charter?

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you not hand out information if you think it's helpful to your cause?

because i don't, and i don't have time even if i decided i wished to do so.

King Mob wrote: »

And why would the protesters think that they are achieving something when you know they aren't?
Maybe they have another motive?

i don't know for definite that they aren't achieving something. i simply don't believe myself they would ultimately achieve something. only those taking part in the protest will know for definite how their protest is going and whether it is working. perhapse they feel the protest will achieve something.

King Mob wrote: »

Also again, you seem to have missed parts of my post, which is strange as you quoted it in full.

And again, since you have no response to the other point, we can take it as agreement that you have zero evidence to support your claim that people harassed at abortion clinics are exaggerating.
They are being harassed.

i haven't missed any of it. however i have no further answer to give as i believe i have given the best answer i can give on the matter. i don't believe simply giving out information is harassment. if someone is screaming in someone's face then sure, and the law can and will deal with that.

You were asked for evidence, you either give evidence or you do not give evidence, if the latter applies to you, you confirm that you have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

end of the road wrote: »

because i don't, and i don't have time even if i decided i wished to do so.

Ah, you don't have time.
Right...

end of the road wrote: »

i don't know for definite that they aren't achieving something. i simply don't believe myself they would ultimately achieve something.

So why do you think that?

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't missed any of it. however i have no further answer to give as i believe i have given the best answer i can give on the matter.

Ok, that's not a genuine answer.
If that is the case, just say so. Don't ignore the point or the question.

But either way, you have not answered it at all or in the slightest, never might to the best of your ability.

You have not said why you think it's impossible that your bias (and lack of any first hand knowledge of the matter) doesn't influence your judgment on whether or not something is harassment.
You claim that people who say they are harassed at these protests are exaggerating because of their bias. (without evidence or attempting to explain how, mind.)

So if it is possible that they are overplaying what is harassment, you are just as capable of downplaying it.
You have not done anything to address this.
I think it's because you can't.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe simply giving out information is harassment. if someone is screaming in someone's face then sure, and the law can and will deal with that.

But there's two problems with that.
First, as you've admitted by ignoring points, you can't show that the reports of harassment are being exaggerated, so harassment is taking place.
Secondly, you are applying a false dichotomy.
"Giving out leaflets" and "screaming in peoples faces" aren't the only two options.
There's ways to harass people that skirt around the legally actionable definition of the word.
There's way to harass people that are not adequately prevented by the law.
There's some things people do that are by their nature intimidating or harassing, such as holding up graphic and gore placards.
There's things that aren't harassment in the strictest, but designed to shame and make people nervous about obtaining their medical care.
There's things that I'm sure you'd laugh off as nothing, but to some (especially those without your privileges) can be very distressing.

These things happen. Denying they happen shows either profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Where have I not accepted the democratic decision? Of course I accept it.

Yet here you are, supporting those who attempt to intimidate women and doctors exercising their democratically-endorsed right to carry out legal abortions in Ireland.

Laws can be and are, overturned if the people will it. And they will.

Need I remind you - 66% of voters voted for repeal less than a year ago, and demographic trends (exit polls showed over-65s were the only age group to vote No, and narrowly at that) mean that support for legal abortion in Ireland is only going to increase over time.
Delusional to think that is going to be overturned.

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, you don't have time.
Right...

yes that's correct.

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you think that?

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, that's not a genuine answer.
If that is the case, just say so. Don't ignore the point or the question.

But either way, you have not answered it at all or in the slightest, never might to the best of your ability.

You have not said why you think it's impossible that your bias (and lack of any first hand knowledge of the matter) doesn't influence your judgment on whether or not something is harassment.

because on issues like this i examine them objectively rather then using bias. i believe using personal bias is not a good way to examine any issue.

King Mob wrote: »

You claim that people who say they are harassed at these protests are exaggerating because of their bias. (without evidence or attempting to explain how, mind.)

that is not what i stated. what i did say, was that i personally don't believe that harassment is happening as much as it is said to be . that i do recognise that those claiming harassment likely do genuinely believe they were harassed but what they believe to be something, may not, and in some cases won't, constitute what they are claiming. so it is my sentence about claiming that something constitutes harassment that may not, is why i believe what i stated.

King Mob wrote: »

So if it is possible that they are overplaying what is harassment, you are just as capable of downplaying it.
You have not done anything to address this.
I think it's because you can't.

i wouldn't downplay harassment and i have said that where there is harassment going on, the law can and will deal with it.

King Mob wrote: »

But there's two problems with that.
First, as you've admitted by ignoring points, you can't show that the reports of harassment are being exaggerated, so harassment is taking place.
Secondly, you are applying a false dichotomy.
"Giving out leaflets" and "screaming in peoples faces" aren't the only two options.
There's ways to harass people that skirt around the legally actionable definition of the word.
There's way to harass people that are not adequately prevented by the law.
There's some things people do that are by their nature intimidating or harassing, such as holding up graphic and gore placards.
There's things that aren't harassment in the strictest, but designed to shame and make people nervous about obtaining their medical care.
There's things that I'm sure you'd laugh off as nothing, but to some (especially those without your privileges) can be very distressing.

These things happen. Denying they happen shows either profound ignorance or profound dishonesty.

i never denied they happen. i said that i don't personally believe they happen as much.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

What did they "really" vote for?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

....... wrote: »

What did they "really" vote for?

And here was me thinking that we voted to allow the government to legislate on abortion. Is that not what we voted for?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

And here was me thinking that we voted to allow the government to legislate on abortion. Is that not what we voted for?

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

end of the road wrote: »

yes that's correct.

That's fine. Not like anyone's dying or anything...

end of the road wrote: »

because i think we are not far enough into AOD for enough people to see what they really voted for.

This isn't really an answer to my question. I asked you to explain why you think that the protesters persist in protesting when it's obviously not effective?
Is it possible that they have another objective?

end of the road wrote: »

because on issues like this i examine them objectively rather then using bias. i believe using personal bias is not a good way to examine any issue.

But people who are harassed are also doing this. You are accusing them of being biased and exaggerating.
You just claiming you are always unbiased is not an argument to show you are not. You posting history shows you are not unbiased and use your personal bias a lot. You are using your personal bias in this very point.

end of the road wrote: »

that is not what i stated. what i did say, was that i personally don't believe that harassment is happening as much as it is said to be . that i do recognise that those claiming harassment likely do genuinely believe they were harassed but what they believe to be something, may not, and in some cases won't, constitute what they are claiming. so it is my sentence about claiming that something constitutes harassment that may not, is why i believe what i stated.

i wouldn't downplay harassment and i have said that where there is harassment going on, the law can and will deal with it.

That sounds exactly like you are downplaying it.
But please detail what exactly you mean.
Please point to an example of a report you examined and show how the person is incorrect when they call it harassment.
A link to the source of the example would be great.

end of the road wrote: »

i never denied they happen. i said that i don't personally believe they happen as much.

Ok, but you've admitted that you have zero evidence for this. What are you using to reach this conclusion?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

There was never any suggestion of a vote on the legislation. So to suggest that anybody voted on that basis is a lie. Unless of course you can provide a source for your contention, in which case i will withdraw that remark.

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

You have claimed this before and I asked you to substantiate it many times. You failed to do so. You ignored the points.
Yet you are bringing this claim back up.

So this point is simply rejected as unsupported assertion.

.......

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

The mandate was always for the government to legislate after repeal.

There was never any suggestion that they would give us a separate vote.

People knew exactly what they were voting for.

Unless you can back your claim that people did not know what they were voting for?

Plumbthedepths

....... wrote:

Unless you can back your claim that people did not know what they were voting for?

He won't and can't. One of the most hypocritical posters on the whole of the Boards site.
Wanted protesters against the Gareth Brook's concerts to be baton charged, but happy to support others to intimidate women in crisis. Hypocrisy at its finest and most vile.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

what seperate vote? We don't vote on legislation. That is what we elect a government for.
The government released the heads of the bill before the referendum. People knew exactly what they voted for.

We voted to repeal the 8th.

We did not vote for abortion on demand no matter how many times you spout it out, we were asked did we want to repeal or retain the 8th.

Repealing the 8th allowed for the opportunity to legislate grounds for termination of abortion, how many times do you have to be told this, seriously?

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

If you feel you were duped then lobby your TD to get the laws changed. Focus your attention on that and leave doctors surgeries out of it. No one needs the stress of dealing with a protest when they are getting medical treatment. It's insensitive and needless and I doubt it is ever actually effective either.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

End maintains that the anti abortion campaign never lied about anything. Himself included. When shown evidence of these lies, he suddenly finds those facts irrelevant to the discussion and does not respond.

Been over this many times - do not accuse your fellow-posters of lying as the forum charter makes quite clear. You have been asked to stop this before.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.

That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.

end of the road wrote: »

i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .

King Mob wrote: »

Have you evidence for this?

Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

Take it away, folks.

robindch wrote: »

That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.

How is this a request to spam forum moderators? The procedure dictates that a report has to be made of a poster failing to substantiate a claim of theirs, it isn't "bait", it's actively encouraging users to instead of continue the derailing the thread to utilize the report feature. What is it you want from us exactly? If we don't use it, you chastise us for not using it, if we do use it, you label it as "mob action"?

And as for backseat moderation? That's laughable, I'm trying to get poster's to follow a charter that has been laid out so the thread may continue to be constructive, what would you like me to do, sit back and just have a one-sided discussion with someone who is flat out unwilling to engage or discuss any counter arguments?

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

Been over this many times - do not accuse your fellow-posters of lying as the forum charter makes quite clear. You have been asked to stop this before.That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

Take it away, folks.

I honestly thought the ridiculous hoop jumping exercise of reporting a poster was laughable but this new caveat is beyond ridiculous and you should honestly hang your head in shame for the protection you are blindly giving what is possibly the worst poster on this whole site.

Seriously, Is EOTR a dummy account for Dav or Girdon or one of the other higher ups who are/have been on this site because i have seen better posters site banned for much less than what EOTR gets away with!