Iona vs Panti

robindch · 03-02-2014 05:13PM

Hmmm, yes, Gay Byrne - works for me. But Morgan Freeman? Not sure he'd do the Dub thing right, but hey, it's Morgan Freeman and he's god

Anyhow, if there's any more misbehaviour, warnings will be delivered in the style of the Iona Institute.

Obliq · 03-02-2014 05:14PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

The point I'm making is clear enough. Borrowing Pherekydes glibness, its not that the rest of us are A-OK. Many of us are far from A-OK. That's why it's puzzling to see a largely symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, that won't have much of an impact on anyone. That's different to saying that we can't get a good headwind of MOPEry going.

The point is why this issue gets up the political agenda. Because, always, attention being given to one thing necessarily means attention not being given to another. Any issue in isolation can seem laudible. But one of the laudible things in Panti's statement at the Abbey was his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

Ah, how I have missed your 'splaining GCU. Last time we saw you get this 'splainy was when you were telling us wimminz how to think/what to feel about Ireland's lack of abortion services. As far as I remember, we didn't think clearly enough due to being emotional over it, and we felt far too angry about it to be taken seriously. Thanks be to f*ck it's the gheys turn now!! Phew. *Sits back to watch the show*

Cabaal · 03-02-2014 05:15PM

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, if there's any more misbehaviour, warnings will be delivered in the style of the Iona Institute.

B..B..B.....But I don't have 85k to pay you off :mad:
:pac:

Penn · 03-02-2014 05:16PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

The point I'm making is clear enough. Borrowing Pherekydes glibness, its not that the rest of us are A-OK. Many of us are far from A-OK. That's why it's puzzling to see a largely symbolic amendment being made to the Constitution, that won't have much of an impact on anyone. That's different to saying that we can't get a good headwind of MOPEry going.

The point is why this issue gets up the political agenda. Because, always, attention being given to one thing necessarily means attention not being given to another. Any issue in isolation can seem laudible. But one of the laudible things in Panti's statement at the Abbey was his placement of his personal experience in context of a generally comfortable life. That's the sense of context that I think people need to reflect on.

I see the point you're making, but Human Rights and Equality can never be seen as "small on the scale of things". It's an extremely important part of a civilised society and it's incredibly easy to say it won't have much of an impact on anyone, when the truth is we can see it that way because we're not the ones who aren't being treated equally.

Is it something which should triumph things which other people deem as being more important? That's a matter of perspective. But if it's something which is easily solvable and can only benefit people and enhance equality, it's something which should be actively pursued.

sid waddell · 03-02-2014 05:18PM

swampgas wrote: »

I'm not quite clear what your point is, to be honest.

Are you arguing that this issue affects so few people or has such little impact that public debate on it is a distraction and should be replaced with a debate on something weightier?

The object of the poster's argument is to obfuscate and spin things in an attempt to legitimise an argument for denying equal rights for a minority.

This obfuscation and spin is used try to dress up this anti-equality, pro-discrimination argument as "reasonable".

Irrelevant and bogus arguments are used, bogus comparisons invoked.

Other proponents of this discriminatory argument such as Waters and the Iona Institute laughably try to paint themselves as "victims".

The likes of Enoch Powell and the Unionists in the North used the same type of tactics for years.

Obliq · 03-02-2014 05:18PM

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, if there's any more misbehaviour, warnings will be delivered in the style of the Iona Institute.

Um.....have I avoided the wrath of Robin? Don't think it was out of line to post that, but could be wrong?

Nodin · 03-02-2014 06:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.............Again, you're really just repeating what I said, only you're adding "and he's a cnut". ......

emmm, no, I'm pointing out the lack of any ideas on his part, as well as commenting on his intellectual deficit.

Santa Cruz · 03-02-2014 06:08PM

sid waddell wrote: »

The object of the poster's argument is to obfuscate and spin things in an attempt to legitimise an argument for denying equal rights for a minority.

This obfuscation and spin is used try to dress up this anti-equality, pro-discrimination argument as "reasonable".

Irrelevant and bogus arguments are used, bogus comparisons invoked.

Other proponents of this discriminatory argument such as Waters and the Iona Institute laughably try to paint themselves as "victims".

The likes of Enoch Powell and the Unionists in the North used the same type of tactics for years.

Don't get me started on those obfuscators Ted!

Brian Shanahan · 03-02-2014 06:54PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Campbell_Dunn

Click on external links. You will get to an obituary written by Dunn's friend and colleague. Read it through and you will find out Dunn's affiliations. then read Tatchell's glowing obit. Then come back to me and tell me who is the lowest of the low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

You're still making the unfounded accusations, while trying to claim you don't make the unfounded accusations.

You do realise that I was infracted for impolite language not for inaccuracy?

Brian Shanahan · 03-02-2014 07:00PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There are only two scenarios where certain types of people claim to care deeply about children;

1. Children who are being brought up by same sex parents.

2. Fetuses who are at risk of not becoming children because a woman dosn't want to be pregnant.

Actually I might give them one more;

3. Children who are at risk of not being properly indoctrinated if anyone mentions religious indoctrination being removed from state schools.

And if you ever watch the same people when its revealed that children have been abused by a religious leader, they never show concern for the children but for the religious leader.

[-0-] · 03-02-2014 08:06PM

Graham Norton should have Panti on his show to talk about the whole thing.

hoodwinked · 03-02-2014 08:11PM

[-0-] wrote: »

Graham Norton should have Panti on his show to talk about the whole thing.

well he is fighting Panti's corner on twitter, and with 653k followers surely it is a good thing?

Brian Shanahan · 03-02-2014 08:34PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Lawyers that have graduated are not the only problem they have, they also need somebody who got atleast a C in Junior Cert geography

taken from a news story they reported on a few years back

Well at least they did get a Georgia. Most US students would probably have pointed to Mogadishu when asked to find either.

DublinWriter · 03-02-2014 08:35PM

Enough of this JW w*nkage.

I'm looking at setting up a facebook group of people who will pledge to boycott the Irish Times as long as JW writes for it.

It's about time that certain people in this country learn that censure can work both ways.

PM me if interested and I'll set it up.

swampgas · 03-02-2014 08:45PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Enough of this JW w*nkage.

I'm looking at setting up a facebook group of people who will pledge to boycott the Irish Times as long as JW writes for it.

It's about time that certain people in this country learn that censure can work both ways.

PM me if interested and I'll set it up.

I had already decided (earlier today in fact) to stop buying the Irish Times for as long as Breda O'Brien and John Waters are writing for it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 03-02-2014 08:48PM

swampgas wrote: »

Are you arguing that this issue affects so few people or has such little impact that public debate on it is a distraction and should be replaced with a debate on something weightier?

Yes, that about it. It's roughly the same point as John Waters makes when he speculates as to the motives of politicians in supporting it.

The only adjustment is its not just about how many or few the issue is affecting, as whether the issue strikes some general political cord. For the sake of argument, you could say the H Block hunger strikes only involved a handful of men. But they had tremendous political significance at the time. What I'm suggesting is this issue just hasn't got that level of political significance here.

Obliq wrote: »

Ah, how I have missed your 'splaining GCU.

Let me guess, you're doing Nell McCafferty circa 1983?

Penncil Dick wrote: »

I see the point you're making, but Human Rights and Equality can never be seen as "small on the scale of things".

Not in rhetoric, no. We're never meant to say that this doesn't amount to a hill of beans. That's the comedy running through the Python PFJ scene. We're not meant to ask the point of fighting for Stan's right to have babies. We're not meant to connect the issue of adoption to the tiny number of domestic adoptions that actually occur.

Bear in mind, I'm not especially interested in the merits of the issue of principle. I find the sight of this issue on the political agenda as the point of interest, and its what it says about the political agenda that's of more interest to me.

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 09:04PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Let me guess, you're doing Nell McCafferty circa 1983?

Who is Nell McCafferty? What happened in 1983 that makes her relevant to the discussion at hand? And why would "doing Neill McCafferty circa 1983" be a bad thing? (I'm assuming it's a bad thing from the dismissive tone - unless I'm reading you wrong and you're saying something different?)

The Black Oil · 03-02-2014 09:53PM

Thought Panti's speech was reasoned and eloquent.

Pherekydes · 03-02-2014 10:23PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the glibness was from Pherekydes.

You're the one dismissing people's concerns as an irrelevance and I'm the one who's glib?

Carry on...

Skrynesaver · 03-02-2014 10:27PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Enough of this JW w*nkage.

I'm looking at setting up a facebook group of people who will pledge to boycott the Irish Times as long as JW writes for it.

It's about time that certain people in this country learn that censure can work both ways.

PM me if interested and I'll set it up.

Out of curiousty, given your username, is this on grounds of decency or abuse of language?

Count me in either way(Oh my).

Nodin · 03-02-2014 10:33PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Who is Nell McCafferty? What happened in 1983 that makes her relevant to the discussion at hand? And why would "doing Neill McCafferty circa 1983" be a bad thing? (I'm assuming it's a bad thing from the dismissive tone - unless I'm reading you wrong and you're saying something different?)

...don't mind him. The bould Nell is a feminist and journalist who is still with us. Decent woman, used say hello to me on the street.

AerynSun · 03-02-2014 10:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

The bould Nell is a feminist and journalist

Ah okay, I see now why anyone would rightfully quake at the thought of Boardsies channelling her vibe and getting in the way of the mansplaining that might otherwise run rampant across the threads. Got to put a quick stop to that sort of thing.

Obliq · 03-02-2014 10:54PM

Gosh, and here was me thinking I was just getting in the way of GCU'splaining. Perhaps I should have spelled out the non-gender specific, GCU specific nature of my post.......

Delirium · 03-02-2014 10:58PM

MEP Paul Murphy, standing up in the European Parliament and naming names. At the 20min mark.

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 11:05PM

Cabaal wrote: »

These women (the same as men against gay marriage) are so affected by the minority in society view that they are against the rights they themselves should have, its as simple as that.

And you know these gay men who are against gay marriage better than they know themselves how exactly?

Turtwig · 03-02-2014 11:12PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you know these gay men who are against gay marriage better than they know themselves how exactly?

How did you even come to this conclusion. S/he never said they knew better than anybody. They just said that this person should still have equal rights, even if they themselves, don't necessarily wish for them. It's a common human phenomenon some people don't always want what's in their best interests. The obvious example is abusive relationships.

Phill Ewinn · 03-02-2014 11:20PM

Jernal wrote: »

How did you even come to this conclusion. S/he never said they knew better than anybody. They just said that this person should still have equal rights, even if they themselves, don't necessarily wish for them. It's a common human phenomenon some people don't always want what's in their best interests. The obvious example is abusive relationships.

Or in plain English. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Lou.m · 03-02-2014 11:22PM

Panti in the Huffington Post and Iownya Institute called out for what they are under parliamentary privilege. :-)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...=1391456569218

MEP Paul Murphy names known people as homophobes under parliamentary privilege.

Brown Bomber · 03-02-2014 11:25PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Brown Bomber, can you answer a few questions for me please,

Do you think these people in the photos below are racist?
Do you think its racist to be against mixed race marriages and mixed race education?

EDIT: Don't know how to scale down images, had to cut them. .

If we apply the same wishy-washy definition to racism as we are apparently supposed to accept where anything and everything can be attributed to racism/homophobia then yes these people appear to be racist.

If we apply actual definitions where the definitions have actual meaning, as I would prefer then no, "racist" is not the word that best describes this group.

You have put an interesting comparison in my head though to gay adoption -busing.

In the US, in the 70s the authorities with the very best of intentions and for the right reasons to decided that in the interests of equality that some white kids should not be allowed to go to the school in their own majority white neighbourhoods and instead should be forced-bussed into schools in hispanic neighbourhoods and and black neighbourhoods and so on. The same thing would happen in the black and hispanic neighbourhoods with them being bussed to schools outside their neighbourhoods.

While all this was great in theory, it didn't take into account the reality of the situation or consider the children who were on the front line of this experiment. it was a complete failure, with the children of all races being the victims as mini race wars erupted and violence ensued.

Stark · 03-02-2014 11:30PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If we apply the same wishy-washy definition to racism as we are apparently supposed to accept where anything and everything can be attributed to racism/homophobia then yes these people appear to be racist.

If we apply actual definitions where the definitions have actual meaning, as I would prefer then no, "racist" is not the word that best describes this group.

Well then you're absolutely and objectively wrong.

Iona vs Panti

Comments