Iona vs Panti

J_E · 31-01-2014 11:55PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is an incredibly weak argument? Evidently Daly lacked the courage of her convictions and considered her own argument "weak" seeing as she apparently made an active decision to water down the definition which her whole argument was based on.

Was she afraid to base her argument on the real definition? If not, why did she change it? Could she not argue that Waters demonstrated "an irrational and extreme aversion to homsexuality and homsexuals"?

You're looking for a discussion where there is none. This is just dragging down what could be real discussion. Moving on.

Daith and SW, you're losing yourself in an issue that isn't even relevant. You can't see the forest when you're looking at the trees.

Daith · 31-01-2014 11:59PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Daith and SW, you're losing yourself in an issue that isn't even relevant. You can't see the forest when you're looking at the trees.

I don't know. At least I was able to link BB to an article about how Iona edited a report to suit their own agenda and had the audacity to submit to the Constitutional Convention.

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 12:00AM

Daith wrote: »

Ok, have a read of this with Iona where they as part of their submission to the Constitutional Convention uses a report to argue against same sex marriage and removes the part where the report says

Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents. -

http://www.skepticink.com/humanisticas/2013/03/29/iona-institute-blatantly-misrepresents-child-trends-research-in-submission-to-constitutional-convention/

Oh and the person who coined homophobia said it means this

[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family"

Thanks for that. Yes, it is similar to Daly's new self-appointed covert role as editor of the Cambridge English Dictionary, and is almost certainly worse, though this doesn't get Daly off the hook by any means.

I think people may be getting the wrong idea of me. I have a general loathing or what for right-wing reactionaries; especially the Judeo-Christian Right with a special mention for their Deobandi and Wahabbi brothers.

I have no intention of defending Waters or Iona for anything they are guilty of, I have no interest in joining a witch-hunt. I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here. As well as this I am absolutely for equal rights for all, including gays. I haven't said a single bad thing about gays here.

Daith · 01-02-2014 12:02AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for that. Yes, it is similar to Daly's new self-appointed covert role as editor of the Cambridge English Dictionary, and is almost certainly worse, though this doesn't get Daly off the hook by any means.

Hold on. You said this about Daly

"These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth."

Do you say the same now about Iona? Cos I personally don't think paraphrasing a definition from a dictionary (and that definition appears in other dictionaries) is as bad as using a report to argue against same sex marriage when the report actually says it can't be.

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 12:07AM

Daith wrote: »

Hold on. You said this about Daly

"These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth."

Do you say the same now about Iona? Cos I personally don't think paraphrasing a definition from a dictionary (and that definition appears in other dictionaries) is bad as using a report to argue against same sex marriage when the report actually says it can't be.

Didn't say it but definitely thought it. I have an extremely low view of Iona now cue to this like I do of all right-wing lobby groups/think-tanks that I was already aware of.

So again, thank you for confirming my assumption.

Corkfeen · 01-02-2014 12:15AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you telling me for? I didn't release the statement and choose the definition, she did.

I'm just finding it fascinating that you had the desire to cross check her dictionary reference but have yet to have done some background reading on the actual topic and conclude that a person or group cannot be viewed as homophobic without going through the court system. However have no issue labelling Clare Daly a propagandist based on a dictionary definition that she paraphrased(which any person on Countdown or in as Spelling B would happily admit is accurate).

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for anyone - never mind a public official - to quote a definition, pass it off as the comprehensive definition and remove relevant parts of the definition?

These are the tricks of the propagandist not anyone concerned with the truth.

Daith · 01-02-2014 12:21AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here.

I do take exception to this. I've shown you quotes from Breda o'Brien where she says that gay equality must take second place. A link to an article where Iona to be honest misled the convention with their submission. I didn't even mention about Iona complaining that people were being "bullied" to vote to support ssm at the convention. Not a single person said they were bullied. Hardly "out of the window"

Yet you seem more angry with Daly paraphrasing a dictionary and you don't even know what version of dictionary she was using.

I do actually hope you put as much zeal into looking at Iona as you did with Daly.

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 12:37AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm just finding it fascinating that you had the desire to cross check her dictionary reference but have yet to have done some background reading on the actual topic and conclude that a person or group cannot be viewed as homophobic without going through the court system. However have no issue labelling Clare Daly a propagandist based on a dictionary definition that she paraphrased(which any person on Countdown or in as Spelling B would happily admit is accurate).

Actually, you'll find that that definition was actually quoted in this very thread prior to Clare Daly's statement being posted. So I seen straight through her deception.

This is starting to get ridicolous. On the one hand we have kw accusing the Oxford Dictionary of being verbose and redundant which is utterly ridiculous and then your equally ridiculous notions of a so-called "paraphrase" which has defied all rules of paraphrasing by being present within quotation marks and was clearly presented as the actual definition.

So what is fascinating is your eagerness to defend deception. I could sit here and point out the Emperor has no clothes all night but the other lads have a point, it is not the issue and I want to respect that this is an issue that is very close to the hearts of many people here, people who have been discriminated against in their lives who have spoken openly and passionately about their struggle and I want to respect this by speaking no more about Clare Daly's deception, someone who I actually respected before I realised her tactics, and distracting from the topic.

J_E · 01-02-2014 12:41AM

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

It's not like, y'know, publishing incorrect results of a study despite the researchers specifically stressing otherwise.

Or providing a figure of expressions of interest in an Educate Together at 200 and then having Educate Together text in with the correct figure of 1300...

Especially when you don't know what version of the dictionary she was using and are assuming it was the on-line version.

Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

Daith · 01-02-2014 12:43AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

Especially when you don't know what version of the dictionary she was using and are assuming it was the on-line version.

Delirium · 01-02-2014 12:49AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

exactly

Nodin · 01-02-2014 01:25AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no intention of defending Waters or Iona for anything they are guilty of, I have no interest in joining a witch-hunt. I only have an interest in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty which seems to have gone out the window here. As well as this I am absolutely for equal rights for all, including gays. I haven't said a single bad thing about gays here.

So you repeating allegations about Peter Tatchell despite it being explained to you numerous times was Justice In Action, was it?

david75 · 01-02-2014 01:26AM

When the naysayers in this issue start splitting hairs to this degree, you know it's game over and they're grasping at straws.

Best to ignore it from this point. It's game over for these homophobic (in every sense, subtle to extreme) views and they know it. Sun has set on the church and its myopic dwindled following. This is thee paradigm and they are out of time and running scared and picking any small fight they can in order to feel relevant and still in control.

They are neither. And will not be ever again.

ravendude · 01-02-2014 01:38AM

I think the term homophobia is best understood when it is paralleled with the term racism in the context of apartheid (eg SA, Alabama some decades back)

I'm sure there were plenty of folks in Alabama that were courteous, affable even to blacks, generous and fair possibly as employers, - but would still have held the view that blacks should be segregated at the back of the bus etc., - perhaps because it would "undermine their society" It is not necessarily a matter of exposing hatred or "extreme aversion" etc. But it is discriminatory and plainly racist nonetheless.

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 02:26AM

Nodin wrote: »

So you repeating allegations about Peter Tatchell despite it being explained to you numerous times was Justice In Action, was it?

I didn't make any allegations against Peter Tatchell at all, merely quoted him directly and produced documented facts of his past.

This is a gushing obituary written for a depraved individual. I suggest you google the name of the dead man to find out why.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 02:30AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Still not seeing how any deception was made...

It's not like, y'know, publishing incorrect results of a study despite the researchers specifically stressing otherwise.

Or providing a figure of expressions of interest in an Educate Together at 200 and then having Educate Together text in with the correct figure of 1300...

Doesn't matter if she was using a dictionary from Mars. It's clear what she meant, and there is a fallacy in trying to pinpoint a word by word perfect definition of homophobia, why are people so insistent on citing this? Call a spade a spade...As mentioned, Rory's explanation describes it far better than any dictionary, and it's nearly common sense that homophobia indicates a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals. You can affix any number of words like 'extreme', 'sharp' 'disdain' etc, but the core meaning is clear.

You are missing the point. It was Clare Daly who decided to define homophobia and to define it using the Oxford English Dictionary, it does add a certain gravitas afterall...Or at least that is what she was misleading people into thinking...

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 03:01AM

ravendude wrote: »

I think the term homophobia is best understood when it is paralleled with the term racism in the context of apartheid (eg SA, Alabama some decades back)

I'm sure there were plenty of folks in Alabama that were courteous, affable even to blacks, generous and fair possibly as employers, - but would still have held the view that blacks should be segregated at the back of the bus etc., - perhaps because it would "undermine their society" It is not necessarily a matter of exposing hatred or "extreme aversion" etc. But it is discriminatory and plainly racist nonetheless.

I agree with you, but I'd like to know of you if in a vacuum and else being equal if someone considers their ideal (not the only) "family" environment to raise child of being a husband and a wife in loving and respectful relationship., with a male role model and a female role model if these people are homophobic?

It is my view that you can view a homosexual relationship as equal in every regard to a traditional one but still acknowledge that they are different with "different" being neither positive nor negative and not be homophobic. This doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are inherently different just that the dynamic of the relationship can be different.

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-02-2014 03:24AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet there is an argument to be made that marriage it is an outmoded relic of patriarchy and no longer needed in an age where over 30% of children born are outside marriage and where women have rights like working, owning property etc etc.

For whatever reason, I find I'm trying to remember who it was that said an argument can be made for and against any contention, including the contention that an argument can be made for and against any contention.

teddansonswig · 01-02-2014 03:44AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

what a ridiculous generalisation,
some people really dont like change...... ireland is changing , families are changing, better or worse who knows but ridiculous generalisations like this are keeping us in the dark ages.

01-02-2014 03:57AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is my view that you can view a homosexual relationship as equal in every regard to a traditional one but still acknowledge that they are different with "different" being neither positive nor negative and not be homophobic. This doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are inherently different just that the dynamic of the relationship can be different.

Gay partners are only as different from straight partners as straight partners are from other straight partners.

Assuming that there is specific differences that make gay partners lesser is bigotry and it's exactly what the Iona Institute does. They aren't saying that gay couples are equal and they are saying that treating them as equal is somehow dangerous.
This makes them homophobic.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

So even if this nonsense was somehow relevant and was true and somehow actually translated to any sizable portion of gay people and it somehow showed that they were more likely to do so and it somehow made them less able parents or less than ideal citizens. (And none of those things apply to your anecdote.)
So what?
There's no ban on straight people being married or having children if they use drugs past when you personally deem it unacceptable.
So should gays just be banned because of this or should the government start screening straight people before allowing them to marry or have kids?

Nodin · 01-02-2014 07:40AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't make any allegations against Peter Tatchell at all, merely quoted him directly and produced documented facts of his past.

No, that's not what you did at all. You know it, I know it, and everyone who had the misfortune to read it knows it.

Nodin · 01-02-2014 07:41AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree with (...........)ir middle ages.

'I've nothing against those people......................................................................
...........................................................but.......

Penn · 01-02-2014 10:05AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

Absolute and complete nonsense of the highest order. I have a strange feeling you've made this same "example" before somewhere, though I won't bother searching for it. Instead, I'll make the same point I seem to remember making then:

If you're hanging out with people who do drugs, you're going to meet more people who do drugs. It is not, in any way shape or form indicative of anything except the "recreational drug scene"

pauldla · 01-02-2014 10:15AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Absolute and complete nonsense of the highest order. I have a strange feeling you've made this same "example" before somewhere, though I won't bother searching for it. Instead, I'll make the same point I seem to remember making then:

If you're hanging out with people who do drugs, you're going to meet more people who do drugs. It is not, in any way shape or form indicative of anything except the "recreational drug scene"

Funnily enough, his comments gave me deja vu, as well....We have been this way before... (wooo)

Corkfeen · 01-02-2014 11:50AM

Erm, I know tonnes of gay people. Guess what BB, vast majority don't do recreational drugs which doesn't work with your odd generalisation . I think you've outdone yourself, taking even less seriously as a result. How exactly does Clare Daly's paraphrasing make her a propagandist anyway? Are all people who paraphrase now propagandists as a result?

J_E · 01-02-2014 12:23PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree with you, but I'd like to know of you if in a vacuum and else being equal if someone considers their ideal (not the only) "family" environment to raise child of being a husband and a wife in loving and respectful relationship., with a male role model and a female role model if these people are homophobic?

They can consider it their ideal like I consider oranges to be more ideal than apples, doesn't mean I can go on campaign to ban apples and be taken seriously

It is my view that you can view a homosexual relationship as equal in every regard to a traditional one but still acknowledge that they are different with "different" being neither positive nor negative and not be homophobic. This doesn't mean that the individuals themselves are inherently different just that the dynamic of the relationship can be different.

nrrrrrr I see your point but wrong way of thinking about it.
You're right here about couples being equal...except for of course the legal rights gay couples still lack and public issues (holding hands etc)

I'll try to explain by way of a personal example. In my youth, which was not so long ago, I was big into the recreational drug scene. I met tons of gay people, through this, went to gay clubs and so on and 99% of them I would have nothing but kind words for. Where the dynamics is different, and there are obviously exceptions to this rule, is that while me and my male mates were out there would be , girlfriends at home nagging you or trying to get you to see sense. With gay couples they would tend to be out doing drugs together as they would share similar interests, share the same circle of friends etc. Also, whereas most straight people grow out of doing Class A recreational drugs, with gays it seemed to carry on and was socially acceptable amongst their peers into well into their middle ages.

Oh yeah, you're completely right. Except...you're not. Most, if not all of my gay friends and I don't touch any of those drugs at all, at most, we'll smoke a joint the odd time, some like to use poppers but it's not a must-do, more an occasional enhancement. Also will remind you again that we are not all into anal sex, because I'm pretty sure that's where you would have taken that story next, that the difference is guys like to have sex more, which isn't true as there are plenty of women who enjoy sex and have plenty of it with their partner. so you're just shaping a stereotype. I find your whole quote there insulting to be honest, I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or not but you're pushing that stereotype that gay men are all tweakers when it's entirely falsified. You're also pulling and pulling at straws with the Clare Daly argument like there's no tomorrow, it's getting very tiresome.

robindch · 01-02-2014 12:32PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] filthy lie [...] personal abuse [...] false accusation [...]

BB has been red-carded for continuing to post in a hostile fashion despite repeated moderator requests to cut it out.

Sarky · 01-02-2014 12:36PM

I look forward to the DRP thread.

In other news Marriage Equality Ireland has raised nearly €10,000 purely on the foot of David Quinn's little ad looking for money to 'defend' marriage.

Brown Bomber · 01-02-2014 12:43PM

teddansonswig wrote: »

what a ridiculous generalisation,
some people really dont like change...... ireland is changing , families are changing, better or worse who knows but ridiculous generalisations like this are keeping us in the dark ages.

I should have and meant to say "more socially acceptable". It is an honest observation, which I can only assume has been observed by gays themselves within the "gay scene".

Links234 · 01-02-2014 12:56PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

which I can only assume has been observed by gays themselves within the "gay scene".

The "gay scene" only represents a subset of the wider LGBT community

This could come as a surprise to you, but LGBT people have diverse interests and are spread across all walks of life. I've been to Pantibar once, and couldn't stand the place. "The gheys" aren't a hivemind you know?

Iona vs Panti

Comments