Inter Marital Rape was just fine in 1981

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:29PM

Motorist wrote: »

Ten years ago was 2001. Aren't we talking about 1981?

And the point was not about teenage pregnancy. Nice try for trying to compartmentalise it though. While the modern age is an improvement, it's no Utopia.

Nice dodge.

I suppose we would be better off with institutionalised abuse of women and kids, put them in their place eh.

Motorist · 03-01-2012 02:30PM

Leftist wrote: »

Nice dodge.

I suppose we would be better off with institutionalised abuse of women and kids, put them in their place eh.

Why would you advocate that ? That's pretty sick.

Are you going to pull out some more nonsense statistics from 5 years ago while you build your strawman arguments?

smash · 03-01-2012 02:31PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

There is potential for a decent discussion here based on Smash's comment (which he has still failed to expand upon and offer decent examples of )

I was away from my PC there. In my opinion when you leave a city in Ireland it's like going back in time, and in a bad way. I've heard people being interviewed on TV saying they're going to vote a certain way because the priest said it was the right thing to do.

And even apart from that, if you really want proof of repression just look at most schools in the country. In a free country, why are our children being though catholic religious beliefs as a compulsory subject from the age of 4 upwards? And don't say "send them to a multi dom" because there just isn't enough to cater. We are still very repressed as a country.

gcgirl · 03-01-2012 02:33PM

Motorist wrote: »

Leftist wrote: »

35% reduction in teenage pregnancies in Ireland in the last ten years.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=19411

nice try though.

Ten years ago was 2001. Aren't we talking about 1981?

And the point was not about teenage pregnancy. Nice try for trying to compartmentalise and misrepresent it though. While the modern age is an improvement, it's no Utopia.

The average age of an lone parent is 37

Bottle_of_Smoke · 03-01-2012 02:33PM

I don't think these things were actually much to do with religion. If you take say divorce, it passed only by a few thousand votes, but if there was a referendem now to criminalise divorce it would likely be defeated by a landslide.

The electorate hasn't got that much less religious since then. I think it more likely there was simply irrational fears about divorce. The best example being the "hello divorce, goodbye daddy" thing. Other stuff that people will see marriage as unimportant. Similar to irrational fears about gay marriage still held.

Again I think if a referendum was put on gay marriage now it would be close, but were it to pass, people would quickly realise society hadn't fallen apart and any attempts to recriminalise it would not be entertained in the slightest.

Condoms, well I think its probably to do with HIV that they got legalised when they did. Before that stis weren't seen as a big deal. Religion probably had a hand here, though its possible people irrationally feared casual sex would take over and without kids keeping people together there would be no need for relationships/marriage and stability.

Yes it seems mad now, completely mad, but looking at it from the unknown (again have to remember they didn't have the access to worldwide communtication we do) it was probably daunting for a lot of people.

number10a · 03-01-2012 02:35PM

smash wrote: »

I was away from my PC there. In my opinion when you leave a city in Ireland it's like going back in time, and in a bad way. I've heard people being interviewed on TV saying they're going to vote a certain way because the priest said it was the right thing to do.

There are people like that everywhere. Spain, one of Europe's most liberal countries by a longshot, is full of them, even in the heart of Madrid, Barcelona or Bilbao.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:38PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I find it hilarious that you, who were made to go to a service you have no spiritual investment in don't see that in that circumstance you are the one being repressed.

Also, i am wondering how you know so much about the levels of attendance for other services you were not at?

There is potential for a decent discussion here based on Smash's comment (which he has still failed to expand upon and offer decent examples of ) if people actually want to have a decent look at the issue instead of just trying to make themselves feel better about bowing down to someone and pay lip service to the Church. Which, no offence, you did.

I just stood in a building. I am from a catholic family and I respect their traditions for events such as anniversay masses. I do not respect the church or anything they say.

smash · 03-01-2012 02:39PM

number10a wrote: »

There are people like that everywhere. Spain, one of Europe's most liberal countries by a longshot, is full of them, even in the heart of Madrid, Barcelona or Bilbao.

I never said there wasn't. But they have bigger populations so those people fade away into their own little worlds.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:40PM

Motorist wrote: »

Why would you advocate that ? That's pretty sick.

Are you going to pull out some more nonsense statistics from 5 years ago while you build your strawman arguments?

You were the one saying the breakdown in society had led to 16/17 year old single parents with no income.

Your point was disproven. Move on.

Logical Fallacy · 03-01-2012 02:40PM

smash wrote: »

I was away from my PC there. In my opinion when you leave a city in Ireland it's like going back in time, and in a bad way. I've heard people being interviewed on TV saying they're going to vote a certain way because the priest said it was the right thing to do.

So how do we apply this purely to people outside cities...as i assume you are arguing that this reasoning or logic would not be taken up by anyone in a metropolitan area?

And even apart from that, if you really want proof of repression just look at most schools in the country. In a free country, why are our children being though catholic religious beliefs as a compulsory subject from the age of 4 upwards? And don't say "send them to a multi dom" because there just isn't enough to cater. We are still very repressed as a country.

Once again, how does this apply to area's outside cities more than cities?

The issue i am looking to debate is your point about area's outside cities in Ireland being more repressed than cities.

I would agree with you that there is still plenty of repression in Ireland rooted in both the Catholic Church's influence and the governments ineptitude so i am not seeking to debate that point.

Rather i have simply asked for someone to change my mind with logic and considered argument...neither of which appears to happening.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:41PM

smash wrote: »

I never said there wasn't. But they have bigger populations so those people fade away into their own little worlds.

to be fair spain is riddled with Catholicism and was fascist until the 1970s.
It also has a terrible problem with racism. Nowhere near the most liberal country in europe.

Jelly2 · 03-01-2012 02:41PM

Dudess wrote: »

It is? How? Ok I know it's not Norway, but repressed? Seems just something people say tbh. Yeah it's got its spots here and there, but overall, "repressed" is a bit strong IMO.

So many of the comments on this thread are going down the same jaded route.:) Perhaps we should compare dates for decriminalisation of conjugal rape in other comparable countries before slinging too many stones at ourselves? When did Germany outlaw conjugal rape for instance? Or Britain?.....After Ireland.

Jelly2 · 03-01-2012 02:44PM

Leftist wrote: »

Frightening.

I went to Christmas day mass (for the sake of someone else) in Dublin this year. Boom: half empty. Great to see. This is a small church in a big village.

You go out of dublin and every service is packed out. It's sick. They think it's a positive though.

For goodness sake, if you went to mass for the 'sake of someone else', you're hardly in a position to comment on other people's actions, whether they are honest or hypocritical in them.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:47PM

Jelly2 wrote: »

For goodness sake, if you went to mass for the 'sake of someone else', you're hardly in a position to comment on other people's actions, whether they are honest or hypocritical in them.

Don't be silly.

Are Atheists not allowed to go to church weddings/funerals then?

Oh no he accepts the pope because he stood in a church for a few minutes.

smash · 03-01-2012 02:48PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The issue i am looking to debate is your point about area's outside cities in Ireland being more repressed than cities.

Like I said in another post, they live in cities too but in larger populations they fade away. I'm also of the opinion that outside of cities people live in little bubbles. In a lot of rural towns the parish priest is still king.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:50PM

smash wrote: »

Like I said in another post, they live in cities too but in larger populations they fade away. I'm also of the opinion that outside of cities people live in little bubbles.

This guys is a sense making machine.

It's no coincidence that conservative religious politics thrives in those little rural outposts.

Jelly2 · 03-01-2012 02:50PM

Leftist wrote: »

Don't be silly.

Are Atheists not allowed to go to church weddings/funerals then?

Oh no he accepts the pope because he stood in a church for a few minutes.

It's not silly. It is hypocritical to participate in something that you don't believe in. And attendance is participation, it is not passive. And I speak as someone who doesn't believe, and is happy to be hypocritical by going to baptisms.

Logical Fallacy · 03-01-2012 02:50PM

Leftist wrote: »

Don't be silly.

Are Atheists not allowed to go to church weddings/funerals then?

Oh no he accepts the pope because he stood in a church for a few minutes.

Well, ideally unless you actually believe you shouldn't have to go.

What you said was that you went for someone else, implying it was important to someone with sway over you that you do something you wouldn't normally do.

That's pretty much repression right there.

It should be noted this is purely from what you said, it's far easier to simply say "The reason i went to mass over Christmas is family tradition and enjoying the feeling of togetherness"...rather than jumping on the defensive because you failed to adequately express yourself earlier in the thread.

AngryBollix · 03-01-2012 02:51PM

smash wrote: »

The sooner the people with these kinds of beliefs die off, the better! You'd assume it's heading that way but when you step outside a city in Ireland you see just how backwards the place still is.

Do you want everyone who holds a differing opinion to you to die off?

Motorist · 03-01-2012 02:53PM

Leftist wrote: »

You were the one saying the breakdown in society had led to 16/17 year old single parents with no income..

No I said the the modern age is a huge improvement on the past, but certainly no Utopia.

I think your reaction was a bit telling though. I must have cut a bit close to the bone with the comment about State entitlements, scroungers, etc.

Off to the gym, have a good day sir.

Logical Fallacy · 03-01-2012 02:55PM

smash wrote: »

Like I said in another post, they live in cities too but in larger populations they fade away. I'm also of the opinion that outside of cities people live in little bubbles. In a lot of rural towns the parish priest is still king.

Once again Smash, do you have any evidence for this...that's all i am actually asking for, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up what they are saying...and i am even willing to accept obviously anecdotal evidence.

Still nothing being posted to make me change my mind that there has been a huge shift in non urban regions in Ireland over recent years.

15 years ago i would have agreed with you that many, many small communities in Ireland consider the Priest the be all and end all...but the simple fact is that i have noticed this dying year on year in my own trips to visit friends and family all around the country.

Hell, even my own formally very devout and religious parents have become far more laid back about things...to the point of actually being proud of me for planning to get married in a Registry Office as i do not believe in God and they are delighted to see me living by my convictions.

Once again, all you and Leftist are doing is just saying "things are this way and that way", but you don't even seem to be able to draw on personal experience to explain why you feel that way.

smash · 03-01-2012 02:57PM

Leftist wrote: »

This guys is a sense making machine.

It's no coincidence that conservative religious politics thrives in those little rural outposts.

If you have a town with a population of 500 and 50% go to church every Sunday then you'd notice them and they'd be heard. If you have a city with a population of 3m and 20% of them go to church then they wont be noticed as much or listened to as much.

It's a disconnect from the real world. Half of them are still afraid of technology ffs.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 02:57PM

Jelly2 wrote: »

It's not silly. It is hypocritical to participate in something that you don't believe in. And attendance is participation, it is not passive. And I speak as someone who doesn't believe, and is happy to be hypocritical by going to baptisms.

I'm not participating

Attendance is not participation. That's as superstitious as the religion itself. Oh you're here so you're one of us. No.

I'm turning up in a building once or twice a year for the respect of a relative. Funeral annivesary masses and christmas.

I might aswel be in a mosque or at a bus terminal.

Dudess · 03-01-2012 03:00PM

smash wrote: »

Like I said in another post, they live in cities too but in larger populations they fade away. I'm also of the opinion that outside of cities people live in little bubbles. In a lot of rural towns the parish priest is still king.

Nobody's denying that, but it's a far cry from "Anywhere outside of an urban area is repressed". That in itself is extremely narrowminded - ironically.

Leftist · 03-01-2012 03:01PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Well, ideally unless you actually believe you shouldn't have to go.

What you said was that you went for someone else, implying it was important to someone with sway over you that you do something you wouldn't normally do.

That's pretty much repression right there.

It should be noted this is purely from what you said, it's far easier to simply say "The reason i went to mass over Christmas is family tradition and enjoying the feeling of togetherness"...rather than jumping on the defensive because you failed to adequately express yourself earlier in the thread.

Ideally because I don't believe in religion I shouldn't have to go?

I'm not a stubborn child. If my grandfather's anniversary mass is on and my grandmother would like if I went, as a sign of respect and compassion I would go. I wouldn't call that repression and if I did I'd need to get over myself pretty fast.

Really awful post actually now that I read it again.

smash · 03-01-2012 03:02PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Once again Smash, do you have any evidence for this...that's all i am actually asking for, is for someone to provide some evidence to back up what they are saying...and i am even willing to accept obviously anecdotal evidence.

Apart from the fact that nobody I know well bar my grandparents go to church. Yet I know some people from small rural towns on my wife's side and even when they go on holidays they find a church and get up to go to mass on Sunday.

That enough?

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Still nothing being posted to make me change my mind that there has been a huge shift in non urban regions in Ireland over recent years.

I don't really get what you mean now. You're saying that there has not been huge shift in non urban regions? So am I.

Dudess wrote: »

Nobody's denying that, but it's a far cry from "Anywhere outside of an urban area is repressed". That in itself is extremely narrowminded - ironically.

It's not narrow minded, it's an observation. And I'm talking in general, obviously not everywhere outside of a city is repressed.

Logical Fallacy · 03-01-2012 03:07PM

Leftist wrote: »

Ideally because I don't believe in religion I shouldn't have to go?

I'm not a stubborn child. If my grandfather's anniversary mass is on and my grandmother would like if I went, as a sign of respect and compassion I would go. I wouldn't call that repression and if I did I'd need to get over myself pretty fast.

Really awful post actually now that I read it again.

I agree, and as i already said, which you have ignored, if you simply stated that at the start then things would have been a lot clearer. As it is, you just gave the impression you were going to mass to please someone else...with absolutely no follow up information.

smash wrote: »

Apart from the fact that nobody I know well bar my grandparents go to church. Yet I know some people from small rural towns on my wife's side and even when they go on holidays they find a church and get up to go to mass on Sunday.

That enough?

Well yes, it is at least something...and it only took several times asking you for you to post it.

However, for the point to be valid we need to be able to ascertain that the simple act of belief is to be repressed...which i would disagree with.

I don't really get what you mean now. You're saying that there has not been huge shift in non urban regions? So am I...

Nope, i am saying that there has.

smash wrote: »

It's not narrow minded, it's an observation. And I'm talking in general, obviously not everywhere outside of a city is repressed.

Actually your earlier comment implied that is exactly what you meant but seeing as you have now rescinded that point then i reckon we are close to being on the same page.

smash · 03-01-2012 03:08PM

AngryBollix wrote: »

Do you want everyone who holds a differing opinion to you to die off?

I said "these kinds of beliefs"... you know, the really fúcked up ones from the middle ages! :rolleyes:

Leftist · 03-01-2012 03:10PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I agree, and as i already said, which you have ignored, if you simply stated that at the start then things would have been a lot clearer. As it is, you just gave the impression you were going to mass to please someone else...with absolutely no follow up information.

Why should I give you further information? it's not a trial.

Dudess · 03-01-2012 03:10PM

Attending mass isn't necessarily a sign of being repressed anyway. Some people might actually believe in god, some people might just do it because of the togetherness it offers a community.
I'm an atheist and not a fan of the catholic church, and I don't always have time for "Atheists are more fanatical than religious people" rhetoric, but saying people are repressed simply because they go to church is a bridge too far IMO.

Inter Marital Rape was just fine in 1981

Comments