Ireland - Still A Backward Country?

philologos · 19-07-2009 10:30PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

...as do lesser ones.

Luckily that's a mere ad-hominem. It's a common trait for people in these type of discussions to attack the individual putting forward the idea when the idea doesn't suit their own.

TheInquisitor · 19-07-2009 10:31PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The "rest of us" doesn't exclusively mean me. It means society. Yes, I could see potential negative effects of all of these things for certain people in society which would cause me not to see them as beneficial changes:

1. Prostitution - in countries where prostitution has been legalised it has had no net effect on net trafficking, and it still funds criminal activity. It does not serve any positive purpose for society rather it becomes a means by which people can commit adultery against their spouses, and it becomes a means by which women often come to it as a last resort out of financial coercion. I don't see how that is positive for anyone especially if most of the money is going back out into criminal activity. As for where I am getting the example from here, I'm thinking of the Dutch model of prostitution. Other countries have been far more successful which have made it illegal.

2. Drug legalisation - Legalising drugs, even cannabis doesn't just have an effect on the health and well being of the individual involved, it has also provoked angry killings in the UK, when we legalise drugs we don't consider what other net effects it could have on our communities safety wise. Again, just because one legalises the drugs trade it does not mean that the gangs get out of selling it. They merely find a nice cushy legal way to make money for their gangs rather getting out of the game.

Allows spouses to cheat? If spouses want to cheat their going to cheat. Its hardly as if prostitution doesn't exist when its not legalised. If it saves 1 woman from trafficing it will be worth it. Get it out into the open where it can be watched and regulated, taxed and made safer.

Drugs have not been legalised in the UK. In fact in portugal all drugs have been legalised. Thats right ALL drugs. Drug use has actually decreased since it was legalized. Now the govenment can use the taxes from drugs to pay for any health problems associated with drug use instead of the dealers making all the profits!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Dudess · 19-07-2009 10:32PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel that a conservative viewpoint in politics is more beneficial than a liberal one. It encourages taking change seriously with thought rather than jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds "progressive".

People don't always opt for the liberal (or whatever it's called) option in order to make themselves feel like they're being progressive.
There are idiots who feel compelled to be right-on about absolutely everything, no exceptions, and force this on others... not all who are left-leaning deserve to be compared with them though.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 10:32PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is where I disagree. I don't think these three do not have the potential to affect other people negatively. One would have to convince me that this is true before I would change my opinion concerning it. I think restrictions are needed to prevent against harm.

For the most part yes. Something should only be legalised if it doesn't have a negative net effect on society at large. If it does I don't think it is worth pursuing.

I agree with you, but it is a big if. I don't consider my points to be merely vague.

That's fair enough - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the society vs the individual.

Jakkass wrote: »

Probably, but I feel that a conservative viewpoint in politics is more beneficial than a liberal one. It encourages taking change seriously with thought rather than jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds "progressive".

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options. There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 10:35PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily that's a mere ad-hominem. It's a common trait for people in these type of discussions to attack the individual putting forward the idea when the idea doesn't suit their own.

It was not meant to be an ad hominen from me - if I'd intended that I would have quoted "fools seldom differ".

I don't mean it to put anyone down - merely pointing out that agreeing with someone doesn't make yours a great mind. It just means you agree with someone.

philologos · 19-07-2009 10:37PM

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Allows spouses to cheat? If spouses want to cheat their going to cheat. Its hardly as if prostitution doesn't exist when its not legalised. If it saves 1 woman from trafficing it will be worth it. Get it out into the open where it can be watched and regulated, taxed and made safer.

Nonsense. Criminality is still behind prostitution when it becomes legal. Swedens program is much much more effective. Generally the sensible idea to do with practices which are damaging to society is to minimise them. The Government has greater control over prostitution when it is criminalised. The statistics prove this to be true. In Sweden the level of human trafficking is 15 times less than that of Finland due to the fact that the police have a very hard policy on prostitution. It has declined rapidly since 1999 when their model came into force. The Dutch model conversely has had to be rethought. There were over 400 windows in Amsterdam until recently, now there are 80 due to the city authorities wanting to reduce the trade. The Dutch also have huge problems with trafficking and criminals making profits from the trade.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Drugs have not been legalised in the UK. In fact in portugal all drugs have been legalised. Thats right ALL drugs. Drug use has actually decreased since it was legalized. Now the govenment can use the taxes from drugs to pay for any health problems associated with drug use instead of the dealers making all the profits!

Yes, but the effects can be seen. My example was to show how dangerous cannabis can be to society. We don't need another alcohol to deal with, we should be attempting to deal with that somehow.

As for the tax nonsense. That's ridiculous considering how many in our mental health wards have come to that position through using cannabis. The so called "soft drug". I bet you that we would still be paying more out of our taxes rather than less because of drugs. It's hardly as if alcohol has been benefiting us in term of hospitals.

Dudess · 19-07-2009 10:39PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options.

... for no reason other than a dislike of the new/different.

There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

Absolutely. I get called a liberal (sometimes as an insult - jeez it hurts

) yet I've never set out to be one. My views are dictated by nothing other than what I deem fair, just and sensible - be they to the left or the right.
I find it amusing how some people are so determined to put themselves in a particular ideological category that they must tick specific boxes (consistent with that ideology) in the interests of consistency, despite some of these "boxes" contradicting each other.

Ibrahimovic91 · 19-07-2009 10:40PM

i think a large proportion of irish society is quite conservative and in a way backward, you'll notice in Dublin is less like this. in a way rural ireland holds other parts of ireland back.

but i get the impression if dictatorships were seen as the 'european' way of doing things, then people would think dictatorships are progressive.

Aard · 19-07-2009 10:40PM

Just to note: I value your opinion, and I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me in some areas. I'm not steadfast in my beliefs, so what you say may have an impact on my future thoughts.

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Prostitution - in countries where prostitution has been legalised it has had no net effect on net trafficking, and it still funds criminal activity.

How does it fund criminal activity?

Jakkass wrote: »

It does not serve any positive purpose for society

There are many things that serve equally non-positive purposes for society, that are still legal.

Jakkass wrote: »

rather it becomes a means by which people can commit adultery against their spouses,

People will commit adultery if they want to - whether prostitution is legal or not. I'll take this moment to say that in Ireland prostitution in and of itself is not illegal.

Jakkass wrote: »

and it becomes a means by which women often come to it as a last resort out of financial coercion.

And why shouldn't they, if that's what they choose?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how that is positive for anyone especially if most of the money is going back out into criminal activity.

Again, how is the money going back to criminals?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for where I am getting the example from here, I'm thinking of the Dutch model of prostitution. Other countries have been far more successful which have made it illegal.

My main thing about prostitution is that it's going to happen whether it's legal or not. If it's illegal, there's no protection for prostitutes. If it is legal and regulated, then their lives would be much safer.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Drug legalisation - Legalising drugs, even cannabis doesn't just have an effect on the health and well being of the individual involved, it has also provoked angry killings in the UK,

Afaik, the UK hasn't legalised any drugs like Cannabis, Ecstacy, Cocaine etc. so these killings can't be drug-legalisation related.

Jakkass wrote: »

when we legalise drugs we don't consider what other net effects it could have on our communities safety wise.

A fair point. But can you give examples of a country that has legalised drugs where net safety has decreased?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, just because one legalises the drugs trade it does not mean that the gangs get out of selling it. They merely find a nice cushy legal way to make money for their gangs rather getting out of the game.

This may well be true. But at least the stuff they're selling isn't full of petrol and rat-poison.

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Gay marriage - On the outset if gay marriage involved just a commitment between two of the same gender and it did not involve other people it would be fine.

OK. I'm guessing that the other people it involves are potential adopted/fostered/surrogated children.

Jakkass wrote: »

However it is not that simple at all. People who do not share the beliefs of those being married can be prosecuted for choosing not to have a part in other peoples marriage ceremonies. For example people have been brought to court and sued in the USA for refusing to photograph a gay marriage due to the photographers religious beliefs.

I agree with you here - it is mad that they were sued (successfully?) on such grounds.

Jakkass wrote: »

It also impacts the right of the child to have a mother and a father,

That is an opinion, rather than a right.

Jakkass wrote: »

and it could negatively impact the childs development not to have a male and a female role model in their lives growing up.

The case in Ireland is that not only can single people adopt and foster (including gay people), but there are thousands of single parents out there too. Should they also be stopped from having children?

Jakkass wrote: »

Finally, it could have negative impacts on the education system for people who support traditional marriage rather than gay marriage. People may want to teach their child what they had learned traditionally instead of teaching them about gay marriage.

I agree in part with this. Children should be taught about "mommy and daddy", but I also think that children should be aware that there are other types of families out there too. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to stop it from happening.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are numerous issues that need to be resolved before I could support it ever.

Such as?

philologos · 19-07-2009 10:41PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options. There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

I promote reasonable change. A very important caveat. I think there are changes that need to be made in terms of infastructure, health care, child care and other things. I think that is truly progressive.

However claiming something is progressive and calling others who don't agree with you as bigots, ignorant, backward, and so on is merely just a form of liberal fascism. Agree with me or I will slander you until you do. That's what annoys me the most about liberal argumentation. When the argument fails, and when people say they have concerns about things, it is out with the personal attacks.

Dudess · 19-07-2009 10:45PM

Oh there are some terrible bullies on the overly right-on left - no doubt about it. The irony of them screaming "fascist" at people who won't subscribe to their points of view never fails to amuse me.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 10:46PM

Dudess wrote: »

... for no reason other than a dislike of the new/different.

Exactly yeah, I actually meant to finish my sentence with that. something shiny distracted me

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 10:49PM

Jakkass wrote: »

However claiming something is progressive and calling others who don't agree with you as bigots, ignorant, backward, and so on is merely just a form of liberal fascism. Agree with me or I will slander you until you do. That's what annoys me the most about liberal argumentation. When the argument fails, and when people say they have concerns about things, it is out with the personal attacks.

Certainly there are people who do this, and it's wrong, but I think it's a little myopic that you complain about this solely as a facet of "liberal argumentation".

There have already been accusations of people pushing a "liberal agenda" in this very thread.

You really are going to have to accept, at some point, that not everyone who has what you consider a "liberal" view on certain issues subscribes to some sort of liberal hive mind.

thelordofcheese · 19-07-2009 11:06PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as "hilarious" per sé, nor would I consider the word "dirty". I do consider liberalism as something which is potentially dangerous in any society when taken far too far. That's mainly what I am opposed to.

By liberalism, I'm talking about the non-sensical view which has emerged most recently which is influenced by post-modernism that insists that there are no absolutes, and that there is no real need for functional restrictions where it could have an adverse effect on society. It rather than seeking to have rational and necessary restrictions seeks to demolish as many of them as humanly possible to allow people to make their own view on things, even when they could affect the rest of us as well. To pursue their own ideology they complain that those who seek to have reasonable boundaries are coercing, forcing, and in numerous cases that they are bigots for merely being concerned about certain laws.

By conservatism, I'm talking about the view that change is welcome, but change has to take place with a debate where both sides bring forward their views and where the Government as legislators take into serious account the possible affect of this law, consults the population, and only when the pros and cons after being weighed up suggest that this law is more beneficial than not. Only then it should be legalised. If a majority of the population are not satisfied that morally contentious viewpoints should be legalised then it should be postponed until a point when they are. Change can only happen when the society is willing. Most conservatives would agree that the people should have an input into what norms and what laws are beneficial or are not beneficial. Both sides should have their say, and people shouldn't be guilt tripped by being called "bigots" or be slandered when they think that legitimate boundaries to our society are necessary.

yeah, if you paint both sides in such a childish manner then it's easy to make your side seem like a paradigm of rational thought while making the other look like slavering, hedonists who are only one mass orgy and abortion away from runining us all.

philologos · 19-07-2009 11:08PM

Aard wrote: »

Just to note: I value your opinion, and I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me in some areas. I'm not steadfast in my beliefs, so what you say may have an impact on my future thoughts.

I don't think I'm any more knowledgeable than anyone else. I'm just an average joe with an opinion and a place to discuss it

Aard wrote: »

J How does it fund criminal activity?

Well, it's quite simple. In Amsterdam many criminals have been behind the running of brothels. Making something legal doesn't mean that criminals get out of the prostitution business.

See this article which is less than a year old discussing the problems in Amsterdam:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/whore-miles-plan-for-dutch-prostitutes-who-behave-952479.html

The people who think that everything is just fine after legalisation are sorely mistaken.

There are many things that serve equally non-positive purposes for society, that are still legal.

Aard wrote: »

People will commit adultery if they want to - whether prostitution is legal or not. I'll take this moment to say that in Ireland prostitution in and of itself is not illegal.

I know. Many political figures such as David Cameron of the British Conservatives argue for supporting British families, and I'd like to think that somewhere my politicians would have the same heart concerning the natural biological family in the 21st century. The family is also enshrined in our constitution. I think factors like it potentially leading to marital difficulties are up for consideration if it ultimately has a knock on effect.

Aard wrote: »

And why shouldn't they, if that's what they choose?

By financial coercion. I mean they are forced to go into this field instead of finding another job. Prostitution is generally seen as a last resort. One can question whether or not it is a true choice if it is made as a last resort. One could also argue that if one is coerced to do this as a last resort that it is rape. Rape is when one is coerced to have sex.

Aard wrote: »

Again, how is the money going back to criminals?

See above.

Aard wrote: »

My main thing about prostitution is that it's going to happen whether it's legal or not. If it's illegal, there's no protection for prostitutes. If it is legal and regulated, then their lives would be much safer.

In Sweden they carried out a program of strong opposition to prostitution. They have seriously limited the practice, and they have dropped their rate of human trafficking substantially in comparison to that of the Netherlands. I think minimising it so as few people as possible are affected by it is better than opening it up as wide as possible so as many people as possible are affected by it. We can seriously curb prostitution, it is realistic and possible if there is enough effort to do so by the police.

Aard wrote: »

Afaik, the UK hasn't legalised any drugs like Cannabis, Ecstacy, Cocaine etc. so these killings can't be drug-legalisation related.

They are cannabis related. If that can happen in a country where it is illegal, I really do not want to know what will happen where it isn't legalised. The drug will still do the same things to people whether legal or illegal.

Aard wrote: »

A fair point. But can you give examples of a country that has legalised drugs where net safety has decreased?

I'd have to do a bit of research, but I'm pretty sure it is possible.

Aard wrote: »

This may well be true. But at least the stuff they're selling isn't full of petrol and rat-poison.

I couldn't care how pure the stuff is. Both have negative effects and we should be trying our best to curb the practice.

Aard wrote: »

OK. I'm guessing that the other people it involves are potential adopted/fostered/surrogated children.

Mostly.

Aard wrote: »

I agree with you here - it is mad that they were sued (successfully?) on such grounds.

Yes, they were sued successfully. There is no room for difference of opinion. You are a bigot if you do not support gay marriage apparently.

Aard wrote: »

That is an opinion, rather than a right.

Is it? I believe it is a right. Many do not, hence why people disagree over it.

Aard wrote: »

The case in Ireland is that not only can single people adopt and foster (including gay people), but there are thousands of single parents out there too. Should they also be stopped from having children?

It's an interesting point. There has been a lot of research to suggest that the lack of a father is problematic in a marriage. I personally would support measures like in Arkansas where adoption is limited to those who are married. However when it comes to biology there isn't very much one can do about it.

Aard wrote: »

I agree in part with this. Children should be taught about "mommy and daddy", but I also think that children should be aware that there are other types of families out there too. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to stop it from happening.

I think there is a potential problem of bias entering education on this issue.

Aard wrote: »

Such as?

The three major ones I already mentioned in my post:

1. That children in gay marriages will have the right to a mother and a father or seek to be adopted if requested.
2. That people who oppose this will not be discriminated against.
3. That there will not be bias in the education system in favour of this ideology if legalised.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 11:17PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, they were sued successfully. There is no room for difference of opinion. You are a bigot if you do not support gay marriage apparently.

This was one isolated case. ONE. There are idiotic judicial decisions all the time, this one just happens to involve gay marriage.

And again you're extrapolating a lone example to assume it defines the stance of all people who support gay marriage.

thelordofcheese · 19-07-2009 11:22PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

This was one isolated case. ONE. There are idiotic judicial decisions all the time, this one just happens to involve gay marriage.

And again you're extrapolating a lone example to assume it defines the stance of all people who support gay marriage.

Also this leaves aside the fact that the photographer in question should have known that you can turn down work for any reason, but if you actually tell people why then you leave yourself open to lawsuits like this. Ignorance of the law of the land is his fault, and no one elses.

frankly, i have little sympathy for him.

philologos · 19-07-2009 11:22PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

This was one isolated case. ONE. There are idiotic judicial decisions all the time, this one just happens to involve gay marriage.

And again you're extrapolating a lone example to assume it defines the stance of all people who support gay marriage.

Yes, but you are missing the point. That one case should have never happened. It's not the only case either. Another involved a Catholic adoption agency shutting down because the State government had forced it to compromise it's religious ethos.

If this will cause "idiotic judicial decisions", I don't think that's good enough. We need to have assurances that things like this won't happen before it is signed into law.

Min · 19-07-2009 11:24PM

In Amsterdam the mayor last year said he was closing down a lot of the red light district and the coffee shops, he said there was a lot of human trafficking going on along with extortion and money laundering.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 11:26PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Also this leaves aside the fact that the photographer in question should have known that you can turn down work for any reason, but if you actually tell people why then you leave yourself open to lawsuits like this. Ignorance of the law of the land is his fault, and no one elses.

frankly, i have little sympathy for him.

Well this is true. While I wouldn't necessarily be a fan of legislation leading to this - the law in New Mexico obviously doesn't allow for discrimination in who you provide your services to on racial / sexual grounds. One wonders the reaction if he'd refused to photograph an interracial couple - as he only supported traditional marriages.

The only other case I saw was a Church sued because they refused to allow a gay couple rent their pavillion to celebrate their wedding. It then turned out that the reason was the Church had bought the pavillion from the state, with the agreement they would allow it to be used by members of the public.

thelordofcheese · 19-07-2009 11:27PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

Well this is true. While I wouldn't necessarily be a fan of legislation leading to this - the law in New Mexico obviously doesn't allow for discrimination in who you provide your services to on racial / sexual grounds. One wonders the reaction if he'd refused to photograph an interracial couple - as he only supported traditional marriages.

The only other case I saw was a Church sued because they refused to allow a gay couple rent their pavillion to celebrate their wedding. It then turned out that the reason was the Church had bought the pavillion from the state, with the agreement they would allow it to be used by members of the public.

i'd love a link to the stories Jakkas and Min are talking about, because i'm sure there more to them than they make out.

Min · 19-07-2009 11:29PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

i'd love a link to the stories Jakkas and Min are talking about, because i'm sure there more to them than they make out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7769199.stm
50% reduction in the red light district in Amsterdam in response to crime.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 11:30PM

Min wrote: »

In Amsterdam the mayor last year said he was closing down a lot of the red light district and the coffee shops, he said there was a lot of human trafficking going on along with extortion and money laundering.

Yes - they were cracking down on the use of trafficked women. Which is exactly how it should be working.

About the coffee shops, would like to see a link with more detail?

Edit: Just saw the link. Exactly as expected, they're cutting down on the criminal element.

philologos · 19-07-2009 11:31PM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Also this leaves aside the fact that the photographer in question should have known that you can turn down work for any reason, but if you actually tell people why then you leave yourself open to lawsuits like this. Ignorance of the law of the land is his fault, and no one elses.

Utter nonsense. It depends state by state in fairness. In New Hampshire it is possible for professionals to refuse to work at gay marriage ceremonies due to religious disagreements. However, in other states where it has been legalised the same rights haven't been offered to people who disagree.

Heck even in the UK they allow this in relation to civil partnership ceremonies!

The idea that you can be legally chastised for disagreeing with gay marriage is utterly ridiculous. Big Brother liberal police state. No thank you.

DublinWriter · 19-07-2009 11:32PM

DB10 wrote: »

Gay marriage is a bit too far for me. One step forward and two steps backward.

Why? What do the activities of two consenting adults carried out behind closed doors bother you so much?

I know lots of hetro couples who married for all the wrong reasons - why not afford the gay community the same opportunities to screw up in life?

Aard · 19-07-2009 11:33PM

Jakkass, you mentioned Sweden's stance on prostitution. I've read a little on Wikipedia, and frankly - liberal as I am! - I like it. Norway and Iceland are the same. Basically, it says that selling sex isn't illegal, but buying it is - thus protecting the prostitute.

In a similar vein, I'd be happy with legislation that allows the consumption and purchase of narcotics, but criminalises the selling of them. This is actually in place in the Netherlands, and is there so that if somebody has complications after taking a drug, they can go to hospital without worry that they will be prosecuted.

thelordofcheese · 19-07-2009 11:33PM

Min wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7769199.stm
50% reduction in the red light district in Amsterdam in response to crime.

Now, what would make this actually relivent would be some figures to back up the assertion that crime would be lower by reducing (not removing, btw) the number of windows and coffee shops.

It's been nearly a year, there should be something by now.

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 11:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but you are missing the point. That one case should have never happened. It's not the only case either. Another involved a Catholic adoption agency shutting down because the State government had forced it to compromise it's religious ethos.

If this will cause "idiotic judicial decisions", I don't think that's good enough. We need to have assurances that things like this won't happen before it is signed into law.

So - a bad judicial decision means we should deny all gay people the right to get married, in case it "might" lead to more cases?

I'd see it as a case for judicial reform more than anything.

Also - it's more than likely a requirement to be a state licensed photographer that you don't discriminate on racial or sexual grounds, no?

MikeC101 · 19-07-2009 11:37PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The idea that you can be legally chastised for disagreeing with gay marriage is utterly ridiculous. Big Brother liberal police state. No thank you.

It's not being chastised for disagreeing with gay marriage - it's being chastised for failing to adhere to the standards you agreed to uphold when you applied to become a state licensed photographer, no? Eg. no discrimination on racial or sexual grounds?

For what it's worth I don't think it was a good decision.

Min · 19-07-2009 11:38PM

It is not even marriage if gays tie the knot, the traditional view of marriage is a religious ceremony where a couple gets married and then the minor part is the state bit - the civil bit.

It would be a civil union really, it is what it should be called by right when a man and woman uses the registry office rather than a religious service.

Ireland - Still A Backward Country?

Comments