When I say that I won't allow any more illegal posts, I mean it.

Lyaiera · 10-10-2013 12:12AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So this is the day boards jumps the shark...

Don't be silly. There's one of these threads every few months, about two a year I'd say. In a few days everything will go back to it's relative normality. A few people will talk about it for a while. It'll die down completely except for the occasional mention that will get three thanks in AH. Then something else will happen. Probably around Paddy's day.

Carawaystick · 10-10-2013 12:13AM

Thatdoesnt looksafe tome AHHHHHHH wrote: »

Only if mohammed is involved it seems, because dav got an email

Allegedly.

This is unlike religion because dav can provide evidence of the email.
But hasn't and were supposed to take this on faith.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 10-10-2013 12:13AM

So the answer to why child abuse was protected in Ireland for many years, why planes were flown into the twin towers and why Palestinians live in squalid conditions cannot be answered if religion is referenced so?

It was bad men, who did the bad things.

Oh, okay, why did it happen though?

They were bad men, that did bad things okay, now sshh, next thread please!

Seedy Arling · 10-10-2013 12:15AM

Sterilised pile of sh1te.

The Backwards Man · 10-10-2013 12:15AM

bnt wrote: »

You need to learn the difference between insulting religion and insulting people. Since the former is based on delusions and fairy tales, it's fair game, and it's quite possible to call it out as nonsense without insulting people in the process. If someone is so wedded to their religion that an insult to the concept is taken as an insult to their person, that's their problem. Or should be, except that some of those same people are in position to write and pass laws to protect their feelings.

Did you read the thread in question? It was as clearcut a case of incitement to hatred as I have ever seen. I'm not agreeing with or advocating the law, but that thread was a slam-dunk.

brimal · 10-10-2013 12:16AM

I think it's pretty obvious who sent the email

Rayne Wooney · 10-10-2013 12:16AM

So now they'll have to go through every thread in A&A, Christianity and AH to avoid double standards.

Ace Attorney · 10-10-2013 12:16AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Allegedly.

This is unlike religion because dav can provide evidence of the email.
But hasn't and were supposed to take this on faith.

I really dont see a reason why he would lie about getting an email about it tbh, otherwise he wouldnt have pulled the thread. Also producing the email he would have to censor who it was from anyway so i dont see your point in showing the email as proof

turbot · 10-10-2013 12:23AM

So whats the difference between blasphemous content, and clever insightful analysis that forces people to think, like darkmatter2525 on YouTube.com

Is this banned from Boards.ie?

How does YouTube get away with hosting such content and making it available in Ireland.

PopePalpatine · 10-10-2013 12:24AM

A certain religious figure might take loads of flak, but nobody ever accuses the Flying Spaghetti Monster of being a paedo!

Red Nissan · 10-10-2013 12:25AM

Maybe boards should be wound up. Shut down. I must disengage ad blocker to see who is advertising.

Seriously, who wants this crap!

10-10-2013 12:29AM

brimal wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious who sent the email

not to those of us who didnt see the thread

shruikan2553 · 10-10-2013 12:29AM

(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

Soooo that's Christianity, Islam, Scientology out anyway.

SweepTheLeg · 10-10-2013 12:29AM

Boards becoming another site to cower down to these threats from "peaceful" organisations.

Red Nissan · 10-10-2013 12:29AM

tosspot15 wrote: »

Wait, I don't know the exact details of it, but if the prophet Muhammad did marry a 9 year old girl, and had a sexual relationship with her...does that not make him a pedophile by definition?

No, absolutely wrong, she was SIX, as has been pointed out to me many times, she was SIX. So the big Mac had some sort of compassion and did consummate until she was NINE.

So he was an already contritionate pedophile. Already sorry for his impending sins and therefore absolved by Christ's contrition.

cigar_chomper · 10-10-2013 12:29AM

hansfrei wrote: »

Can't insult the liberals. Don't you know they're persecuted through-out the media. They're always right about everything. Most importantly (as Dav said) they've brought this site back from obscurity.

Boards won't bite the hand.

insulted throughout the media , the media in Ireland is ultra liberal

10-10-2013 12:30AM

Sarky wrote: »

And what colour will our new lizard overlords be?

Purple.

Barney is some c*nt, so I hear.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2013 12:32AM

Thatdoesnt looksafe tome AHHHHHHH wrote: »

Are people actually being prosecuted for breaking the blasphemy law in modern ireland? i mean surely its just seen as an ancient law that is no longer revelant

The law only dates back to 2009. It's a threat.

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, by this post, I'm herewith offering up to €1,000 to help defend any prosecution that might arise, or to settle any fine levied, under this preposterous, ludicrous, hostile and primitive law.

But are you prepared to offer €1,000 for every court visit ? Do you know how much a trip to the high court costs ?

Imagine some politician wanted to close boards down for some reason. A couple of nuisance prosecutions and the piggy bank is empty even if boards won most of the trials. It's just a commercial reality of doing business here.

This is just scary , 5 years for defamation ?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/print.html

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €50,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.

Red Nissan · 10-10-2013 12:34AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're just trying to take advantage of it to peddle your own ideological position, aren't you.

Well it's militancy for me from now on. Discussion was the only way to thrash out differences, now we are denied that, so be it.

Richard tea · 10-10-2013 12:35AM

YOLO:cool:

Ravelleman · 10-10-2013 12:35AM

Wouldn't it be mad if some kind of online community with a national reputation - a forum perhaps (!) - organised itself in order to publicly challenge the archaic law that it finds so offensive and unjust.

Not on Boards though. Never. That thread would surely be locked and followed by a sticky with lots of text in bold.

cigar_chomper · 10-10-2013 12:36AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And from where did the attidues that resulted in a 'blasphemy' law come in the first place? The 'liberal left' or the religious, conservative right?

the liberal left is soft on all aspects of islam , demands for a blasphemy law stem from islam , why else are we getting such a law now when Catholicism is on the wean , we had none thirty years ago when catholicsm was central to the country

Femme_Fatale · 10-10-2013 12:36AM

cigar_chomper wrote: »

proof ( as if any was needed ) that this site has become a parody of itself

one big fat circle jerk of political correctness and as everyone knows , islam is a politically correct liberal sacred cow , hence why no such intervention has ever occurred after countless derogatory posts about Catholicism , the pope , Christianity in general

none of those make the PC sacred cow list

the liberal left = anti free speech

It's not "proof" of anything "PC" - it's a law (which is hardly a "PC" one) that Boards doesn't like but has to comply with.
Your post is stupid and irrelevant - any excuse to go on about "PC liberal herp" though.

Killer Wench · 10-10-2013 12:38AM

Wasn't it a fairly common practice for children of royal households to be betrothed or married when they were quite young? Marriages weren't consummated until after the female had her first period.

cigar_chomper · 10-10-2013 12:38AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not "proof" of anything "PC" - it's a law (which is hardly a "PC" one) that Boards doesn't like but has to comply with.
Your post is stupid and irrelevant - any excuse to go on about "PC liberal herp" though.

law hasn't been officially made law yet , boards is obviously keen to see it become a done deal however , its entirely in keeping with the idealogy of this site

Howard Juneau · 10-10-2013 12:38AM

I'm off to try and regain my faith in humanity..
watching Team America World Police.
"Durka Durka voldemort jihad!"

bizmark · 10-10-2013 12:38AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Well it's militancy for me from now on. Discussion was the only way to thrash out differences, now we are denied that, so be it.

This is a genuinely good point if you denies people the peaceful way to discus or challenge something the only other option left open to them is the less than peaceful means they wont just shrug their shoulders and accept what they consider unacceptable

*wider issue mind not boards no ones going to go nuts about this place*

Pushtrak · 10-10-2013 12:39AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Well it's militancy for me from now on. Discussion was the only way to thrash out differences, now we are denied that, so be it.

Please tell me you are joking and not planning a Rambo or some shinola.

Richard tea wrote: »

YOLO

Potential blasphemous content?

Howard Juneau · 10-10-2013 12:40AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Wasn't it a fairly common practice for children of royal households to be betrothed or married when they were quite young? Marriages weren't consummated until after the female had her first period.

That's Game of Thrones, there are no Dragons either.....unless you count Mary Lou McDonald

Femme_Fatale · 10-10-2013 12:40AM

cigar_chomper wrote: »

law hasn't been officially made law yet , boards is obviously keen to see it become a done deal however , its entirely in keeping with the idealogy of this site

In your (highly fertile) imagination.

When I say that I won't allow any more illegal posts, I mean it.

Comments