robindch wrote: » 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.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » 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.
end of the road wrote: » i never mentioned them being biassed. it was you who first mentioned bias if i remember rightly. certainly i would know if i was being biassed or not, and as i have said i'm not as i don't believe it is a good way to examine an issue.
end of the road wrote: » i am not downplaying it nor have i downplayed it. i haven't examined any specific reports.
end of the road wrote: » mainly common sense, as for example, something like handing out lieflets with information, that is something that can and does happen across many other situations. for that to be classed as harassment,
robindch wrote: » @eotr made a claim which is adjudicable via statistics, as did @king. So far, neither side has produced any stats to justify either claim. As soon as both sides have produced stats, forum mods will be able to adjudicate which claim is more likely to be accurate. If neither side produces stats, then both sides are avoiding the issue and the adjudication will lapse.
robindch wrote: » as did @king.
King Mob wrote: » I haven't made any claims about numbers or levels of harassment.
robindch wrote: » You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is. As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated. If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it. Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.
robarmstrong wrote: » If you make a claim and you are asked to provide evidence to support it, you should provide evidence to support it, it's genuinely that simple.
robarmstrong wrote: » Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point.https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/harassment-outside-abortion-clinics-buffer-zonehttps://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/51977https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thats-deplorable--pro-choice-campaigners-hit-out-at-anti-abortion-protest-outside-gp-clinic-895575.htmlhttps://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.htmlhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councils-consider-ban-on-protests-at-abortion-clinics-in-uk-36791948.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/mps-call-for-exclusion-zones-around-abortion-clinics-protests-harassmenthttps://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/6/19/no-more-harassment-at-the-doors-of-abortion-clinics-for-nsw-womenhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-violence/death-threats-intimidation-double-at-u-s-abortion-clinics-group-says-idUSKBN1I82K1https://www.her.ie/news/urgent-call-safety-zone-legislation-stop-harassment-women-seeking-abortions-450796 All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters. Now, can you ask eotr to back up his claim, please?
King Mob wrote: » I stated that harassment happens. That fact isn't in dispute.
robarmstrong wrote: » Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point. All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.
Eric Cartman wrote: » With the exception of the indo and reuters, you have presented a tonne of links from organisations which are incredibly left leaning and heavily entranced in supporting abortion legalisation. sure if this is valid then the renua website and alive magazine are valid counterpoints.
King Mob wrote: » Ok, so why then are they mischaracterising what they experienced as harassment?
King Mob wrote: » Ok. Here's your issue. You are saying you haven't looked at any reports or an incidents, but then you are stating that people are calling "handing out leafets" is harassment. Those two things don't match up. How can you know that there's a significant number of over stated reports when you haven't looked at any?
robindch wrote: » Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens. You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.
3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.
When a claimant makes some unambiguous claim of fact, then any other poster can ask the claimant to support that truth-claim with evidence. The claimant should then provide that evidence within some reasonable period of time.
Once the claimant has provided evidence in support of the original claim, any poster can then request the moderator to review the evidence and adjudicate on whether it's sufficient. If the moderator judges that the claimant has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim, then the moderator will make an inthread note to the effect that the claim has been substantiated and the claimant is then free to make that claim in the future without being called out upon it. If the moderator judges that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to defend the claim, or if the claimant has simply avoided or ignored the request to support, then the moderators will make an inthread note that the claim has not been substantiated. In such a case, the claimant is not allowed to repeat the claim, unless it's accompanied by the supporting evidence which was missing the first time around (in which case, if the post is reported, the the moderator might adjudicate the claim as still unsubstantiated).
If the referendum is passed, this would allow the existing Article 40.3.3 – which contains the Eighth Amendment (right to life of the unborn), 13th Amendment (right to information about seeking a termination), and 14th Amendment (right to travel for a termination) – to be replaced with the line: Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.
end of the road wrote: » i think it's because they genuinely believe that they were harassed. but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place. we do need to have some guidelines so that we can show when harassment actually has taken place. but i'm not in agreement that simply handing out information and peacefully protesting on the public pavement/street can be part of that. i never stated it was a significant number. i never gave any numbers. but if you read any of the abortion threads across the site. there will be at least a couple who seem to believe that handing out lieflets or just basic protesting constitutes harassment. that is why i believe that there may be higher numbers then may be the case, because taking the belief outside this site, there will be people who share the same view that protesting and handing out lieflets outside a clinnic constitutes harassment, even though the clinnic likely may be on a public street.
end of the road wrote: » but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place.
King Mob wrote: » Robin, please read my posts. You have several times attributed to me a position that I did not state and do not hold. I did not state what level of harassment exists because I do not know. I did not claim to know. I made no claim about it beyond that it exists. End's claim is not about the level, but that a number of the reports of harassment that do exist are in fact false for one reason or another.
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: » Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed?
King Mob wrote: » But here we run into the same problem again. You are applying a false dichotomy between "innocently handing out leaflets" and "screaming in people's faces". Do you accept that there is a spectrum between those two options?
King Mob wrote: » Do you accept for hypothetical example that there are ways to harass someone in careful ways that can be disguised or cover by seemingly innocent things like "just handing out leaflets"?
King Mob wrote: » Do you accept that there are possible actions that are not "harassment" in the legal sense, but are still distressing, intimidating and shaming?
robarmstrong wrote: » robindch wrote: » You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything. If it's a baseless claim, how is it not possible to adjudicate anything?
robindch wrote: » You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.
eviltwin wrote: » This thread has just become absolutely ridiculous.
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.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » 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: » i'm not sure at this stage. i think nearly all of what could be reasonably considered harassment is already covered by law. peacefully protesting and handing out information will not be something i could ever consider to be harassment.
robindch wrote: » The adjudication post above referred to the following two posts by you and eotr:Please note the quantitative words in bold and my own summary of the general claim (which nobody has disagreed with): "that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim" - something ensapsulated reasonably well in the phrase "level of harassment". If the claim is something else, then it would be good to agree on what it is so that it can be adjudicated.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
