nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Alive! magazine and a no junk mail sign.

wild_cat

I have a no junk mail sign up on my front door. The only people who seem unable to read it are the people that deliver the Alive Catholic news paper door to door.

I rang them last month requesting that they refrain from putting it through the door in future. The lady refused to tell me who was delivering them to my area but said it wasn't one of their own group of delivery people, as they adhere to no junk mail signs.

Came home today and there was another one stuck in the door.

I do not agree with any of the crap they write and feel I shouldn't have this kind of stuff thwarted at me in my own home.

I'd enjoy it like a copy of Viz if I didn't know they were actually being serious.

Anyway how do I get this to stop?

Find more posts tagged with

more atheism....

Quick Links

Comments

yoyo

Jakkass wrote: »

True, but I have noticed on numerous Dublin Bus routes that there are adverts with Biblical quotes from evangelical Christian groups on the inside of the buses.

I've seen those ads alrite, they the ones in bright highlighter colours? The don't bother me as an atheist but its funny when some religious people become bothered about having atheist signs on the buses :pac: .

Nick

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lots of people are pro-organ donation, should they have to watch transplant operations? The anti-abortion lobby has some of the most warped logic out there...

Are you trying to equate the two things?

I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.

OldGoat wrote: »

Change your sign to read "No Unsolicited Mail - that means if it dosent have my address printed on it then don't leave it"

Yep, this is the way to go.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

What if I wrote in my magazine that interracial marriage was “contrary to God’s plan for sexual love”. What if I said that any registrar, photographer, B&B owner or professional who refuses to provide their services to a mixed-race couple should be protected because this is their religious belief? What if I posted that trash through your letterbox? Would that put a smile on your face?

You've clearly ignored the context of my post:

Sometimes they can be quite humorous in content, whether intentional or not.

The second you get riled up by people like this, they win.

Use your freedom of speech to criticise them if you will, but I don't see an overall issue with it. Bearing in mind that it has also covered sectarian topics in the past.

If you want this to eventually go away, the best policy would to be entirely indifferent to it.

Although, perhaps I am a bit too blasé about the whole thing.

panda100

Prof.Badass wrote: »

Actually, one thing i noticed about alive is that it can be really right wing. Obviously we all knew they''d be authoritarian, but there seems to be an anti-socialist, pro-capitalist message, which surprised me.
A lot more like something you'd expect from an american christian fundamentalist publication rather than an irish catholic one.
I always though Irish catholocism was more left-leaning and love-your-neighboury. I definitely haven't heard of the pope preaching any right-wing messages.

They also seem to hate gender equality for some reason .

The RC church in Ireland is really right wing.
There are some individual members of the RC church who would be quite anti-capitalist like the Catholic ploughshares and a few individual members of the clergy.

Sure only yesterday the pope bestowed Margaret Downes, only the 4th Irish women, with a papal honour.
Do you think she was someone involved in the anti-war movement, community groups, anti poverty campaigns?
Of course not! it was a women who director of The Bank of Ireland; was director of private health insurers BUPA,and she was the director of a multi-billion tobacco company.

The church loves their affluence, and have gone so far away from Jesus teachings,they should be treated as a joke, cos in all fairness to Jesus he was an alright bloke.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Are you trying to equate the two things? I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.

I'm trying to work out the logic of being pro-something automatically meaning you shouldn't mind witnessing in person whatever you aprove of. Neither would bother me but some people find anything involving blood and guts stomach churning, nobody mentioned abhorrant or appalled - way to inject some choice emotive language tho - bravo. Some people don't want to have to explain to their kids what abortion is and why because some right-wing nutter is punting their brand of crazy through letterboxes - I'm not sure what's so amusing nor confusing, tbh...

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

The second you get riled up by people like this, they win.

In this, Jakkass, you have a very good point!

Ickle Magoo

eightyfish wrote: »

In this, Jakkass, you have a very good point!

The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.

panda100

prinz wrote: »

Are you trying to equate the two things? I never said anyone should 'have to' I said I find it amusing when people bang on about being pro-choice and then simultaneously find pictures of the results abhorrent. I a, strongly pro-organ and blood donation. If I was to open a newspaper tomorrow and be confronted with a pciture of a donated kidney etc would I be appalled? Nope.

Yep, this is the way to go.

Speaking as a health professional,most of the pictures that pro-life groups use are not those of aborted foetuses. Most of these pictures are clearly showing full-term foetuses. Abortions are rarely allowed to happen at such a late stage.
Some pictures being used quite clearly must have been stillborn babies, and its quite sick that people use their image to suit their own agenda.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.

I have to say, I don't think legislating is the best answer all the time. I personally think we need less legislation rather than more. Particularly in respect to making speech more free in Ireland. The Public Order Act is hugely repressive on this.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm trying to work out the logic of being pro-something automatically meaning you shouldn't mind witnessing in person whatever you aprove of....

Never said you shouldn't mind witnessing it, but it is a bit rich to complain about it too. It's very easy to be pro- something when you are never exposed to it tbh.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

... nobody mentioned abhorrant or appalled...

Disgusted then. :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

- way to inject some choice emotive language tho - bravo...

'fraid that horse bolted long ago.

eightyfish

panda100 wrote: »

Some pictures being used quite clearly must have been stillborn babies, and its quite sick that people use their image to suit their own agenda.

Bloody hell. I never knew that. Ugh.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I have to say, I don't think legislating is the best answer all the time. I personally think we need less legislation rather than more. Particularly in respect to making speech more free in Ireland. The Public Order Act is hugely repressive on this.

I didn't think you would and why, I suspect, you recommend apathy. If legislators start on the right-wing nutters posting homophobic, anti-abortion propaganda, what's next? Religion out of schools? Registrars legally bound to marry same sex couples? Adoption for gay couples? It's just a big liberal slippery-slope, eh?

I approve, for obvious reasons and I assume, like most things, you don't for exactly the opposite reasons. :cool:

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The other point being when people get riled, sometimes laws change and legislation gets introduced.

I think you have Ireland mixed up with somewhere else :pac:

Killer Pigeon

Ah, so that's where they got the name from ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't think you would and why, I suspect, you recommend apathy. If legislators start on the right-wing nutters posting homophobic, anti-abortion propaganda, what's next? Religion out of schools? Registrars legally bound to marry same sex couples? Adoption for gay couples? It's just a big liberal slippery-slope, eh?

I think people are permitted to express themselves as they will, and likewise you have the right to express yourself as you will in response. This is what a free society looks like. Putting draconian laws left, right and centre doesn't solve the problem, arguably it exacerbates it.

I think we sometimes have to realise, that in a lot of cases we are responsible for our own society. We are responsible for what we say, and we should be ready to account for it when responded to.

I think we need a proper bill of rights like in the US (the First Amendment is praiseworthy) rather than such rights being "implicit" in the Constitution and the Constitution itself held in high regard.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I approve, for obvious reasons and I assume, like most things, you don't for exactly the opposite reasons. :cool:

My reason is obvious. I think draconian laws don't work, especially when they can potentially undermine peoples rights.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Never said you shouldn't mind witnessing it, but it is a bit rich to complain about it too. It's very easy to be pro- something when you are never exposed to it tbh.

It's very easy to be pro something when you are, as well...still not seeing a correlation.

Look, I don't want to get into an abortion debate with you, suffice to say that anyone pro-anything should be comfortable witnessing whatever they agree with is a really lousy argument, really lousy...I'm all for cremation, in fact I want to be cremated - do I want to see the process in technicoloured leaflets thru my door? Would I think it pretty gross? Probably.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

My reason is obvious. I think draconian laws don't work, especially when they can potentially undermine peoples rights.

True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop?

:pac:

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Look, I don't want to get into an abortion debate with you, suffice to say that anyone pro-anything should be comfortable witnessing whatever they agree with is a really lousy argument, really lousy...

So I suppose you would have no issue whatsoever say with a person who has had no dealings whatsoever with someone of another race being racist then for example?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:

First they came for the.......

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:

I never said do as they please, there are reasonable limits to human behaviour. For example, if you wish to swing your arms about that is fine by me, but if your arm hits into my nose, then I will likely have a problem

The same is true of rights, you are allowed to exercise your legal rights as much as you wish, but the second when you exercise your legal rights in order to hinder those of another, then it is a problem. For example, hitting someone would violate bodily integrity and cause physical pain to another.

It isn't a right not to be offended. I believe it is progressive to allow people to say what they want, and it is progressive to allow for people in society to step in and condemn what people say if it is worthy of condemnation. We have to start taking more responsibility for ourselves.

Prohibiting free speech gives legitimacy to an argument whereby there is no legitimacy. People often think that because they are told to shut up it is because what they said had some value that needs to be suppressed by society. It often emboldens people.

I don't consider a progressive society to be one with lots of red tape around speech. I think such red tape doesn't solve the core problem, but only solves the external manifestation of that problem.

eightyfish

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

True, racists, sexists and homophobes should have the right to say and do exactly as they please - what kind of draconian, backward society would want that kind of behaviour to stop? :pac:

I kind of believe they should. Free speech above all else. As long as it's not inciting hatred, which I don't think the articles in this newspaper are. The vast, vast, vast majority of the public will look at these people and think "You're and idiot."

My objection is not against their right to say these things, but their right to post it into family homes.

davrho

At 4,000+ views this thread has probably more readers than Alive.

Killer Pigeon

davrho wrote: »

At 4,000+ views this thread has probably more readers dead than Alive.

Fixed,

ba-dum-tish!

tbh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I imagine the kind of religious folks that are shoving theistic literature through doors would consider their peddling sole saving ligh rather than "junk" and so don't think the sign applies to them...adding religious material to the junk mail sign may get through but I wouldn't bet on it, some folks have selective hearing/eyesight when it comes to their protylysing. :pac:
.

I have a sticker on my letterbox that says "no leaflets, flyers or papers please, an post mail only". It's respected apart from Alive. One night a woman put one in the letterbox and I opened the door and said - very politely - "excuse me, didn't you see the sign?" She look absolutely gobsmacked and said "but...that doesn't apply to *our* paper surely?"

edit: I really can't emphasise enough how stunned she looked. I actually looked behind me to see if there was like a body in my hallway or something.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

So I suppose you would have no issue whatsoever say with a person who has had no dealings whatsoever with someone of another race being racist then for example?

What on earth does racism have to do with my point on being pro-something? How's that strawman looking for ye? :pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said do as they please, there are reasonable limits to human behaviour......

The trouble is Jackass, some people are so blinded as to what is actually reasonable - and reasonable to others - they have somehow managed to convince themselves that their hate-filled prejudices are; justified, they have the best interests of others in mind and (in the case of the leaflets) heaven sent. :eek:

So extreme is some peoples behaviour that legislation is required to limit what they can do and say in order to protect the rights of other people.

eightyfish wrote:

I kind of believe they should. Free speech above all else. As long as it's not inciting hatred, which I don't think the articles in this newspaper are. The vast, vast, vast majority of the public will look at these people and think "You're and idiot."

My objection is not against their right to say these things, but their right to post it into family homes.

Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either but yeah, definitely not thru peoples letterboxes.

Howard the Duck

Stinicker wrote: »

Perhaps you'd rather all be atheists and have no morals at all?

Some people can have morals without the promise of everlasting life in the clouds.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What on earth does racism have to do with my point on being pro-something? How's that strawman looking for ye? :pac:

I see. So once again selective reasoning comes to the fore.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either but yeah, definitely not thru peoples letterboxes.

I shouldn't have to put up with you shouting your crazy here!!! Oh wait we haven't gotten to the stage where we silence people we don't agree with yet? I'll wait.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The trouble is Jackass, some people are so blinded as to what is actually reasonable - and reasonable to others - they have somehow managed to convince themselves that their hate-filled prejudices are; justified, they have the best interests of others in mind and (in the case of the leaflets) heaven sent. :eek:

So extreme is some peoples behaviour that legislation is required to limit what they can do and say in order to protect the rights of other people.

Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either but yeah, definitely not thru peoples letterboxes.

I disagree that there is any legislation needed to stop what is written in Alive. As far as I am concerned they are entitled to their opinions, and the rest of us are entitled to either have a jolly good chuckle, respond to it or agree with it.

I don't believe being anti-gay marriage is hatred, or promoting pro-life views albeit in an obscene enough manner is illegal or ever should be illegal.

I believe that it is appropriate for people to speak out against people, and challenge them on their views. The public arena is surprisingly good at outlining flaws in peoples arguments and views. On boards.ie alone you can find racists, sexists and homophobes. I don't believe extra legislation is needed. I've already suggested what negative effects that such legislation can have, it can actually affirm peoples views and make them more strident.

Free speech in Ireland is curbed to an excessive extent currently. I think we can deal with speech issues without excessive legislation akin to that brought in under the last UK government. Now in the UK, the LibCon government are reassessing civil liberties including freedom of speech.

I think our freedoms are too important to be undermined excessively.

Dyr

Someone keeps pushing abortions through my letterbox, How do i stop this?:mad:

eightyfish

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not sure people should have to put up with abuse from racists/sexists/homophobes shouting their crazy in the streets either

Well that would be inciting hatred.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally and completely against anyone who holds homophobic views. In fact I think they're immoral scum. But free speech is essential and even though we don't agree with them, they should have a right so say and publish what they believe.

And we rightly lambast them for it.

Simi

LMAO at January 2010. "Experts say kids need 'tough love'."