Rodin wrote: » They're right to be afraid. Once reunited, never again will any part of this island(s) be British.
Padre_Pio wrote: » There needs to be reconciliation. The "f*ck you" attitude is the reason we're in this mess. There'd be a lot less Irish folk songs if the English were kind and benevolent occupiers.
Fionn1952 wrote: » No one ever goes on a street protest, during a violent conflict, and doesn’t realise there is a real risk of getting injured or killed. Awfully akin to, 'well what was she thinking going out dressed like that...." It is textbook victim blaming, Downcow. Entirely unconscionable, and I'm sure you'd be the first to start bitching and moaning if anyone suggested that any complaints about British soldiers dying in NI were over-egged, because they should've been aware that there was a real risk of being injured and killed. If you can't see the issue, you're beyond help.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Shocking stuff really and I wouldn't engage with it. Those victims have been through enough without somebody here, once again using them for a cheap political taunt.
downcow wrote: » Why delete some of my quote so as you can take it out of its context. I was very clear that there was no excuse for this terrible atrocity and even affirmed the protesters involved. I was pointing out that BS has been spun to make it somehow worse than the babies murdered in their prams etc. As for the army deaths, you are also wrong. I would feel exactly the same if for instance the terrible slaughter of 18 soldiers at Warrenpoint had been held up above all other killings in ni, had £100ms spent on it and was used by the british community to try and point out to the world that they were somehow more victims here than the Irish. ...and yes of course the soldiers knew that by going out on the streets in their uniforms in a conflict situation heightened their risk of being injured or killed. You are simply confirming my point with your responding posts
Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them.
downcow wrote: » That would be a great strap line for unionists in a border poll ‘We’re right to be afraid’ Be very afraid. It’s an interesting ireland you are trying to build
Fionn1952 wrote: » Jesus, Downcow....you asked me to point out where you were engaging in victim blaming. Of course I only partially quoted you....I was quoting the part that was demonstrating victim blaming. It wouldn't have been very helpful if I'd just quoted your entire post again, would it? Let me make it clear, as I'm not sure you're entirely clear on what victim blaming actually is. Saying that it was wrong but they knew the risks is textbook victim blaming (attributing partial responsibility to the victim), just like the example I gave (she knew the risks going out dressed like that is victim blaming, even if you agree that rape is wrong). Bloody Sunday isn't held up above all other killings, Downcow, but there are a few things which make it particularly worth discussion (and which have warranted the great expense). The first being that Bloody Sunday was carried out by state forces; we should all be able to expect a higher standard from state forces than of terrorist organisations; pointing out that terrorists did something as bad isn't the super defence you seem to think it is. The second being that the British government engaged in a huge scale cover up of what happened; of course it cost more to finally get the truth, your army and government spent decades lying about it!
downcow wrote: » Every atrocity is different Tom. That’s obvious. I am just saying that in my view Bloody Sunday is not worse than la mon or loughinisland. No one ever goes on a street protest, during a violent conflict, and doesn’t realise there is a real risk of getting injured or killed. People do go out for dinner without considering that there is a risk of injury or death. To me it’s very obvious which group were putting themselves most at risk. You could legitimately admire the Bloody Sunday victims as some of them died for a cause, while the la mon and loughinisland victims were just the unlucky victims of sectarian murder gangs.
BonnieSituation wrote: » They're not at each other's throats. It's Loyalists yet again throwing their toys out of the pram because they were duped and DUPed. Also, most have migrated to another thread. Partitionists like yourself really need to back off this notion that any referendum would be conducted like the Brexit shítshow. The line has been peddled incessantly. Time to move to other talking points.
JimmyVik wrote: » The majority of people on this Island are actually concerned about these things, and when they see them they will be pushed more against a united Ireland. And it hasnt even got as bad as it will get if there is serious moves on a united Ireland.
BonnieSituation wrote: » cool Maybe if you say it enough it will become true.
JimmyVik wrote: » I dont think you understand who is the one doing the wishful thinking here
BonnieSituation wrote: » Your record on this topic of just repeating Partitionist tropes really doesn't lend yourself to be taken seriously tbh. You do you though.
JimmyVik wrote: » Ooooh, touchy. I would love a united ireland myself, but i just dont see how its possible. Im a realist.
Furze99 wrote: » Yes realism is that we’d need broad acceptance across both communities and both sides of the border. At the very, very least 4:1 in favour. The sort of figures that backed the Agreement. Since ‘nationalists’ are in a majority on the island, it’s up to us to persuade and make concessions if we want it to happen.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why after all the tragedy and grief to achieve equality would you look to construct yet another veto for Unionism and partitionism? If the threat of not accepting democracy worked for Unionists and partitionists and a majority in favour of unity was rejected, what do you think would happen when you consign nationalists back to live in a UK - a UK where Unionists would have gotten their way undemocratically? It is mind numbingly bizarre to think this 'super majority' nonsense would work in any way.
jh79 wrote: » I think what people mean is that they would vote no in the border poll if it looked likely that the North would only pass it by a slim majority.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Hard to do if the polls are 'concurrent' as the GFA says.
Furze99 wrote: » Exactly, who'd want that pile of grief down here unless there was broad acceptance? This is not a unionist veto - it's a barrier for nationalists to cross. What are we prepared to give up, what are the sacred cows that need to be slaughtered? If we really want a peaceful transition to a UI, we need to turn our heads back a century and think hoe we could have built an all Ireland state encompassing all the people who have a right to be here. The alternative is a violent transition and having lurked on this thread for the past several months, that seems to be more the mindset of several of the protagonists.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where would the 'pile of grief' come from 'down here'? Do you think they will bus these rioters from their own areas to parts of Ireland? I have yet to see protagonists of a UI say that they are not open to compromise and change. In fact I think most UIers are excited about 'change' and improvement of what we have.
downcow wrote: » Any less than 50% of current unionists accepting it and it would be doomed to be a mess for several generations
JimmyVik wrote: » I read some tewwt over the weekend but i cant find it now. Something along the lines of. After a united Ireland, What is the tax rate going to be? Will it increase or reduce for those living either side the border now, once we are united? How much will your medical care cost you? Will it increase or reduce for those living either side the border now, once we are united? How much will the difference be in a packet of Paracetemol when the border is gone. Many more things to consider
Fionn1952 wrote: » Every single one of these things has been discussed in this thread. I'm not saying they're not valid concerns, but they're not the insightful new information you seem to be suggesting. Even the most ardent of Republicans knows these questions have to be addressed. I'd suggest the closer to a border poll we get, the more reliably we would be able to answer those questions, indeed some will only be able to be answered by the sitting government at the time when a pathway to Unification has been planned. Any attempts to do the necessary groundwork to answer this are generally met with complaints from those who favour continued partition though.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
