Why Is Ireland So Afraid Of Progress?

Mr Benevolent · 07-01-2011 02:39PM

Ireland = Apathy. Nuff said.

seamus · 07-01-2011 02:39PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban.

The smoking ban doesn't restrict people's personal choices. You are still free to smoke.

Het-Field · 07-01-2011 02:40PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban. They don't want their clothes to smell or their lungs to suffer because they want to meet a few friends for a drink. How is getting rid of this smoking ban democratic and free exactly? You're full of nonsense. Just because someone owns a property doesn't mean they can break state laws on said property. Should rape be legal if it takes place on the private property of the rapist?

Fool like you, belong in the zoo.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:40PM

Confab wrote: »

Ireland = Apathy. Nuff said.

Would you rather be like the French? Out burning cars and destroying business everytime they get a bit upset?

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:41PM

seamus wrote: »

The smoking ban doesn't restrict people's personal choices. You are still free to smoke.

I agree. But you are not free to smoke around people in closed areas who don't like it and rightly so.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:42PM

Het-Field wrote: »

Fool like you, belong in the zoo.

Why? Are you saying property owners should make their own laws on their own property?

thetonynator · 07-01-2011 02:43PM

RockinRolla wrote: »

No, you're wrong.

If it is regulated, prostitutes will be given regular and constant medical examinations to prevent the threat of sexually transmitted diseases. As things stand, they don't!

Now we are beginning to see a pattern....going by this thread, the problem with this country is bare face ignorance. Far too many uneducated opinions are given..

Yeah, you're showing real high levels of intelligence in all your replies so far. Wee done.
:rolleyes:

Humans eh! · 07-01-2011 02:44PM

superelliptic wrote: »

Fair enough, but I think your looking at the problem the wrong way. I get that you see prostitutes as victims (and many of them are to some degree) but you cant help them in their situation by legalising their trade. If you want to help a prostitute, help them get out of prostitution and into care.

I think that Ireland is in a better position to combat drug abuse and prostitution that most countries, mainly because we are geographicaly seperate from mainland europe, and we have a small population. When it comes to drugs, there needs to be more Gardai involved in both detection and enforcement, and most importantly there needs to be a reform of the sentencing handed down by the courts. IMO if a drug importer is caught bringing in a lorry load of hash or coke, he should get life - 25 years. No exceptions. Same goes for anyone caught trafficking people into the country as part of the sex trade - send the hookers home, lock up the trafficker. Thats part of the reason why drugs et al continue to come into the country - because its widely known that we're a soft touch when it comes to punishment.

I agree, Ireland is in a great position to run our country but we just don't have the vision or the will or the political intelligence to do it. My opinions are simply governed by my personal experiences. The desire for sex /drugs etc will not diminish by its banning, helping a prostitute out of the game is liable to get you hurt by their handler and will only vacate a position to be filled.
The profits involved in drugs will mean that nothing will deter the importers, even death sentences in far eastern countries doesn't work.
And yes we are a soft touch while spouting our 'values' we prefer to brush problems under the carpet than have rational debate and take decisive action.
Ps I get that you don't get my views on prostitution at all.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 07-01-2011 02:45PM

JustAddWater wrote: »

I would also suggest you read up a little on peer pressure

Peer pressure is a concept invented by parents who don't what their children to be responsible for their own actions. When I was growing up nobody pressured me to drink or smoke or take drugs- I chose to do them because they seemed like good craic. Peer pressure had nothing to do with it and if anything peer pressure amongst young people in Ireland would be opposed to drug use.

RichieC · 07-01-2011 02:46PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban. They don't want their clothes to smell or their lungs to suffer because they want to meet a few friends for a drink. How is getting rid of this smoking ban democratic and free exactly? You're full of nonsense. Just because someone owns a property doesn't mean they can break state laws on said property. Should rape be legal if it takes place on the private property of the rapist?

learn to debate. btw i support the smoking ban in pubs, but i couldnt let this crap by.

RockinRolla · 07-01-2011 02:48PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban. They don't want their clothes to smell or their lungs to suffer because they want to meet a few friends for a drink. How is getting rid of this smoking ban democratic and free exactly? You're full of nonsense. Just because someone owns a property doesn't mean they can break state laws on said property. Should rape be legal if it takes place on the private property of the rapist?

I want you to get off your seat and go look yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself who you are and what you truly believe in deep in your heart. What you are portraying in here is the behaviour of either a) a troll or b) a bigoted conservative who wants to control peoples lives and impose YOUR values on the rest of us, which, judging from your Fianna Fail username, is quite understandable.

The smoking ban does not stop people smoking. They are free to choose but it is unacceptable that the owner of a particular venue cannot make the rules for the premises they rightfully own because of a law YOUR party passed. Your argument is that you don't like the smoking environment, but nobody forces you into those venues. If an establishment owner ignores people leaving his business for the smoke-free pub or club up the road, then he'll soon be out of business where as those that make their establishment smoke-free will prosper and grow.

Government DOES NOT NEED TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PROCESS!

Fianna Fail, get out of the bedroom, out of our lives, stop intruding in our lives and making rules that should be left to individuals and STAY OUT!

Mr Benevolent · 07-01-2011 02:48PM

RichieC wrote: »

learn to debate. btw i support the smoking ban in pubs, but i couldnt let this crap by.

That's FF supporters for you.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:49PM

RichieC wrote: »

learn to debate. btw i support the smoking ban in pubs, but i couldnt let this crap by.

It may be an extreme example but it is there to show that state law should always trumph the rights of private property

seamus · 07-01-2011 02:50PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

I agree. But you are not free to smoke around people in closed areas who don't like it and rightly so.

Can you not see then how the smoking ban is nothing whatsoever like a ban on weed or prostitution?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2011 02:51PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban. They don't want their clothes to smell or their lungs to suffer because they want to meet a few friends for a drink. How is getting rid of this smoking ban democratic and free exactly? You're full of nonsense. Just because someone owns a property doesn't mean they can break state laws on said property. Should rape be legal if it takes place on the private property of the rapist?

You see here's the difference. Supporting the smoking ban is one thing becaue it effects you. Directly.

Saying that somehting should when you are NOT effected by it, i.e. saying that you think you should have a say in the right in someone else's private activites, is not alright.

I would hope that it goes withotu saying that all parties in siad activity are consenting.

Technically, a democracy is when the majority rule. But the problem is the majortiy are not always correct or fair or even moral. This is why I don't believe in it.

If the majority of this country wanted prostitustion and head shops to be open and legal, would you still complain?

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:51PM

RockinRolla wrote: »

I want you to get off your seat and go look yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself who you are and what you truly believe in deep in your heart. What you are portraying in here is the behaviour of either a) a troll or b) a bigoted conservative who wants to control peoples lives and impose YOUR values on the rest of us, which, judging from your Fianna Fail username, is quite understandable.

The smoking ban does not stop people smoking. They are free to choose but it is unacceptable that the owner of a particular venue cannot make the rules for the premises they rightfully own because of a law YOUR party passed. Your argument is that you don't like the smoking environment, but nobody forces you into those venues. If an establishment owner ignores people leaving his business for the smoke-free pub or club up the road, then he'll soon be out of business where as those that make their establishment smoke-free will prosper and grow.

Government DOES NOT NEED TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN THIS PROCESS!

Fianna Fail, get out of the bedroom, out of our lives, stop intruding in our lives and making rules that should be left to individuals and STAY OUT!

That's rubbish. So if people want to inject themselves with heroin in a pub and the property owner says it's fine then it should be legal? You're mad

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 02:52PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You see here's the difference. Supporting the smoking ban is one thing becaue it effects you. Directly.

Saying that somehting should when you are NOT effected by it, i.e. saying that you think you should have a say in the right in someone else's private activites, is not alright.

I would hope that it goes withotu saying that all parties in siad activity are consenting.

Technically, a democracy is when the majority rule. But the problem is the majortiy are not always correct or fair or even moral. This is why I don't believe in it.

If the majority of this country wanted prostitustion and head shops to be open and legal, would you still complain?

I would complain but I wouldn't say we lived in an undemocratic and unfree country because one law upset me

Biggins · 07-01-2011 02:53PM

Het-Field wrote: »

2.Church and State are not separate. The nexus remains in the constitution, and that is enough. Further, many public bodies still bear the names of religious orders, which a Catholic religious ethos still prevails in many state run institutions such as schools.

As regards that one alone, there was cases last year where parents approached such schools to enrol their kids and were asked for baptismal certs.
When they couldn't produce them, the parents were refused even to try and apply for places for their kids.
No cert - your excluded! Your still asked "what religion are you?" and your enrolment and as such, your right to an education, depends on how you answer that personal question!

Now remember that these are schools that the state is funding, paying teachers wages, and possibly giving special rates as regards water charges and other local levies.
So what the state is actually doing to this day is still propping an antiquated system that separates people/kids in a biased foundation based upon a mystical being that still has yet to be even proven to exist!

Now if that's not crack-pot backward thinking, I don't know what is!
Welcome to Ireland.

freyners · 07-01-2011 02:53PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

OP you talk about democracy but the majority of Irish people support the smoking ban. They don't want their clothes to smell or their lungs to suffer because they want to meet a few friends for a drink. How is getting rid of this smoking ban democratic and free exactly? You're full of nonsense. Just because someone owns a property doesn't mean they can break state laws on said property. Should rape be legal if it takes place on the private property of the rapist?

WOW more top notch reasoning...how about you make a point without the scaremongering

and even though i dont feel that question dignifies a response... no of course not

What im guessing the OP was trying to mean..he used bad examples but still..is that some forms of action should be left to choice of the user... personally i believe that things like the smoking ban were initially a good thing but by universally banning it it disenchants a significant minority of people..there should be still the option of choosing whether the manager wishes to condone smoking in his premises

Lemsiper · 07-01-2011 02:53PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

You've got a funny idea about what progress is. Hookers on every corner and lads stoned out of their minds isn't what Irish people want. People like you won't be happy until there's an aborted foetus injected with heroin lying in every back alley.

Typical liberal rubbish.

I love how you haven't got a clue about any of the topics you post in, but, you still persevere.

thetonynator · 07-01-2011 02:54PM

RockinRolla wrote: »

The smoking ban does not stop people smoking.

But it stops other users of the building having to inhale their smoke too!!! The whole point of the smoking ban was to stop second hand smoking, it works, and most people (almost everyone who doesnt smoke) supports the ban.

The smoking ban is actually a sign of progress in this country, and you're trying to show it as being the opposite.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-01-2011 02:55PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

I would complain but I wouldn't say we lived in an undemocratic and unfree country because one law upset me

Fair enough, but undemocratic and unfree are two completely different things. No democracy is free, and you cannot calim to want freedom while clamping down on the consenting activites of others.

Het-Field · 07-01-2011 03:00PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

Why? Are you saying property owners should make their own laws on their own property?

I am saying you are using ridiculous strawman arguments in an attempt to undermine the libertarian position. Enough of this occurs on the political forum. However, your belief that Libertarians want to see laws begin and end either side of the front door is stupid in the extreme.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 03:03PM

freyners wrote: »

WOW more top notch reasoning...how about you make a point without the scaremongering

and even though i dont feel that question dignifies a response... no of course not

What im guessing the OP was trying to mean..he used bad examples but still..is that some forms of action should be left to choice of the user... personally i believe that things like the smoking ban were initially a good thing but by universally banning it it disenchants a significant minority of people..there should be still the option of choosing whether the manager wishes to condone smoking in his premises

What about the employees there? There might be young waitress with asthma or with other lung problems. She needs the job to raise her child but now her health will suffer. How is that good?

Micheal Matin as Health minister brought in the smoking ban because he has a responsibility to people's health. He was democratically elected and 9/10 people support the ban. That's democracy whether you like it or not.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 03:04PM

Het-Field wrote: »

I am saying you are using ridiculous strawman arguments in an attempt to undermine the libertarian position. Enough of this occurs on the political forum. However, your belief that Libertarians want to see laws begin and end either side of the front door is stupid in the extreme.

Libertarians believe property owners should make the laws and people who don't own property shouldn't be entitled to any say. Am I right?

RockinRolla · 07-01-2011 03:06PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

I would complain but I wouldn't say we lived in an undemocratic and unfree country because one law upset me

Whats your view on marital issues then?

Lets see, if Fianna Fail are not in bed with religious institutions - why can two consenting adults of the same sex not be wed in marriage?! The origins of marriage was not for pro-creation, it's simply a piece of paper, recognised in law of two peoples love for each other. Your party needs to keep their opinions out of it!

The same with women. Your party is in direct opposition to womens rights by not allowing abortion. Banning abortion is not stopping abortion. Your reasoning is comparable to that of a flat-earth society. The interests of a cell does NOT proceed the interests of teenage girl with no financial means to support a child.

Fianna Fail "draconisnism" and small-mindedness knows no bounds and yet they insist to pursue this tyrannical vision which does NOT allow free speech or freedom of expression or even that of the right of the individual to open Government by sh!tting all over the Information Act.

And this is the party you support?
Shame. Shame on you.

Grassroots_FF · 07-01-2011 03:09PM

RockinRolla wrote: »

Whats your view on marital issues then?

Lets see, if Fianna Fail are not in bed with religious institutions - why can two consenting adults of the same sex not be wed in marriage?! The origins of marriage was not for pro-creation, it's simply a piece of paper, recognised in law of two peoples love for each other. Your party needs to keep their opinions out of it!

The same with women. Your party is in direct opposition to womens rights by not allowing abortion. Banning abortion is not stopping abortion. Your reasoning is comparable to that of a flat-earth society. The interests of a cell does NOT proceed the interests of teenage girl with no financial means to support a child.

Fianna Fail "draconisnism" and small-mindedness knows no bounds and yet they insist to pursue this tyrannical vision which does NOT allow free speech or freedom of expression or even that of the right of the individual to open Government by sh!tting all over the Information Act.

And this is the party you support?
Shame. Shame on you.

I won't be lectured by you libertarians. I saw the great libertarian Rand Paul argue that business owners should have the right not to serve black people if that's what they want. You libertarians have no respect for public laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAAfSfap5w&feature=related

Het-Field · 07-01-2011 03:10PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

Libertarians believe property owners should make the laws and people who don't own property shouldn't be entitled to any say. Am I right?

No you are wrong. They say that where aggression occurs against another human being, then the law is entitled to intervene. I have never stated my opposition to the smoking ban, although I understand the position of dissenters. If second hand smoke is dangerous to other people's health, the doctrine of proportionality kicks in as far as libertarians are concerned. Is it a greater aggression to prevent people from smoking in a public place, where ALL parties have paid an entrance fee/work in etc, or to live with the consequences of long term second hand smoke inhalation.

Libertarians dislike laws which interfere with the rights of the individual to do as they please, as long as they dont harm others. That is a fair and just position.

You dont understand libertarianism. Stop trying to pretend you do.

RichieC · 07-01-2011 03:11PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

I won't be lectured by you libertarians. I saw the great libertarian Rand Paul argue that business owners should have the right not to serve black people if that's what they want. You libertarians have no respect for public laws.

Rand Paul is a conservative libertarian. subtle difference, besides, US libertarians are to the right of stalin.

Het-Field · 07-01-2011 03:11PM

Grassroots_FF wrote: »

I won't be lectured by you libertarians. I saw the great libertarian Rand Paul argue that business owners should have the right not to serve black people if that's what they want. You libertarians have no respect for public laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqAAfSfap5w&feature=related

What he is saying is that some parts of the civil rights actare unduly onerous.

I wouldnt for one second expect you to know what the "Rooney Rule" is. I suggest you look it up, and if you agree with it, I would like to know why.

Why Is Ireland So Afraid Of Progress?

Comments