Iona vs Panti

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 09:55PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When is dishonesty ever not willful? And you think I am confused?
I didn't ask for your sympathy. What I did say is that if you want to know something about me all you need do is ask. Apparently though you don't need to find out information because your imagination is a good substitute.

I have already explained the reasons why busing is a valid comparison on some levels to gay adoption and don't feel the need to again. However, if you want to discuss any specific aspect of what you disagree with by all means feel free, but not with generic proclamations again about how right you are.

Dishonesty, especially with oneself is often subconscious. A fact so obvious I find it hard to believe you'd bother trying to make an issue of it, but again - you don't seem especially honest.

You've explained twice why you'd like your bizarre busing analogy to be valid, but that doesn't make it so.

No one is forcing individuals to adopt children and unless you think there's a qualitative difference between gays and heterosexuals there's no social experiment.

Sure, you can keep claiming you're making some sort of meaningful comparison, but it's obviously just an end run to try and label gay couples as some sort of "other" to be wary of.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:01PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I.e. You can't prove me wrong.

The irony is that I'll help your cause, as I see it as mine as well... And you'll be forced to except help from a non-perfect person.

They are getting quite frantic about that soap box now so do you think you could hop off it and do your hardened cynic routine on terra firma?

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are getting quite frantic about that soap box now so do you think you could hop off it and do your hardened cynic routine on terra firma?

Who's frantic ??

Lol.

Still waiting for that list of politicians that have never behaved hypocritically that you're planning of passing equality legislation for you.

And waiting.

And waiting.

Delirium · 06-02-2014 10:10PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Who's frantic ??

Lol.

Still waiting for that list of politicians that have never behaved hypocritically that you're planning of passing equality legislation for you.

And waiting.

And waiting.

How'd we get from Banna saying she won't hold people (Iona) to a standard she wouldn't herself hold to, onto having to provide lists of politicans that aren't hypocrites??

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:10PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Who's frantic ??

Lol.

Still waiting for that list of politicians that have never behaved hypocritically that you're planning of passing equality legislation for you.

And waiting.

And waiting.

Where did I ever make any reference to any politicians of any kind doing anything for me?

I didn't.

That is your own little tangent and now you are being tiresome because I won't play your little game.

I made a comment about an ethical conundrum I am having about a specific named issue.

I got your answer - you will take the money and ask no questions. That is your right.

I won't. That is my right.

My stance seems to be upsetting you to the point of becoming unhealthy obsession.

Build a bridge and get over it.

Accept your lack of principles and ethics. I have.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:15PM

SW wrote: »

How'd we get from Banna saying she won't hold people (Iona) to a standard she wouldn't herself hold to, onto having to provide lists of politicans that aren't hypocrites??

Read the thread.

She basically claimed that you can achieve political goals without any hypocrisy.

That's pretty obviously false.

Every politician is a hypocrite to some degree. You can't achieve LGBT legal equality without politicians.

Ergo, if you can't work with hypocrites you won't be part of the political fight.

Delirium · 06-02-2014 10:22PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Read the thread.

She basically claimed that you can achieve political goals without any hypocrisy.

That's pretty obviously false.

Not at all. You could lobby the county council/government to implement policies and maintain personal integrity.

Every politician is a hypocrite to some degree. You can't achieve LGBT legal equality without politicians.

Ergo, if you can't work with hypocrites you won't be part of the political fight.

She said that she strives not to be a hypocrite. Where did she say she wouldn't work with politicians that may be hypocritical? You made a leap and now suppose that is somehow what she said.

Annasopra · 06-02-2014 10:22PM

SW wrote: »

If Derp Quinn starts off about receiving abuse, the host should just point out that pretty much any public figure with an online presence will receive abuse. He is not the only person in the world to receive it. I would expect that Rory being a gay drag performer has received an amount Derp hasn't.

It's the nature of the beast. Report to the guards, block the trolls and get on with it.

People are much more interested in seeing him trying to justify sending the legal letters as well as explaining why the label doesn't apply.

If we're going to discuss hate mail Iona receives let's discuss the hate mail Glen and Marriage Equality and pro equality politicians receive

http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/marriage-equality-distracting-our-attention/

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:25PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I ever make any reference to any politicians of any kind doing anything for me?

I didn't.

That is your own little tangent and now you are being tiresome because I won't play your little game.

I made a comment about an ethical conundrum I am having about a specific named issue.

I got your answer - you will take the money and ask no questions. That is your right.

I won't. That is my right.

My stance seems to be upsetting you to the point of becoming unhealthy obsession.

Build a bridge and get over it.

Accept your lack of principles and ethics. I have.

Unhealthy obsession?

You mean responding to you? The same way you've been responding to me? So you're also unhealthily obsessed?

I'll respond to people who respond to me.

Not sure why that's unhealthy.

[rolls eyes]

For the record, the entirety of my part of this discussion, which should be painfully obvious (some people, including people who's posts you've liked get it) is about the goals, which are political.

The entire debate has been framed as part of the marriage referendum. Which is also about politics.

I have said repeatedly that you can act how or believe what you want.

But.

I've also said that politics is about compromise. If you want to win a political argument, you have to work with hypocrites.

If you're unwilling to even compromise a little, and willing to attack people who are interested more in winning equality, than prolonging a debate about criticising others for it taking outside, while they themselves do it, if that's the level of hypocrisy that you can't handle, then you'll absolutely be crushed by the hypocrisy of the politicians that are about to argue for our rights to be legally enshrined.

None of the people that can get you what you want are pure enough for you.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:25PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Read the thread.

She basically claimed that you can achieve political goals without any hypocrisy.

That's pretty obviously false.

Every politician is a hypocrite to some degree. You can't achieve LGBT legal equality without politicians.

Ergo, if you can't work with hypocrites you won't be part of the political fight.

I did?

Where did I do that exactly?

I seem to recall that all all times I made it clear I was speaking only for myself and that in my opinion one does not need to adopt the tactics of ones opponents to defeat them and furthermore by adopting the tactics of ones oppressors one becomes an oppressor oneself.

You want examples who those who defeated their enemies by refusing to adopt their tactics?

Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Terrence Mac Sweeney.
James Connelly.
Mary Robinson.
Gandhi.
Nelson Mandela.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:25PM

SW wrote: »

Not at all. You could lobby the county council/government to implement policies and maintain personal integrity.

She said that she strives not to be a hypocrite. Where did she say she wouldn't work with politicians that may be hypocritical? You made a leap and now suppose that is somehow what she said.

Go read the thread or do I need to quote it out for you?

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:28PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Go read the thread or do I need to quote it out for you?

Please do as I am unsure how my personal ethical dilemma became your political polemic.

robindch · 06-02-2014 10:30PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

How dare you! Thou gorbellied rude-growing bum-bailey!

Thou mammering plume-plucked puttock!

Ah, at last a bit of class in A+A.

AngryHippie · 06-02-2014 10:32PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Unhealthy obsession?

You mean responding to you? The same way you've been responding to me? So you're also unhealthily obsessed?

I'll respond to people who respond to me.

Not sure why that's unhealthy.

[rolls eyes]

For the record, the entirety of my part of this discussion, which should be painfully obvious (some people, including people who's posts you've liked get it) is about the goals, which are political.

The entire debate has been framed as part of the marriage referendum. Which is also about politics.

I have said repeatedly that you can act how or believe what you want.

But.

I've also said that politics is about compromise. If you want to win a political argument, you have to work with hypocrites.

If you're unwilling to even compromise a little, and willing to attack people who are interested more in winning equality, than prolonging a debate about criticising others for it taking outside, while they themselves do it, if that's the level of hypocrisy that you can't handle, then you'll absolutely be crushed by the hypocrisy of the politicians that are about to argue for our rights to be legally enshrined.

None of the people that can get you what you want are pure enough for you.

^^^Wow, so far off topic it belongs on the Politics, or personal issues forum....

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:33PM

robindch wrote: »

Ah, at last a bit of class in A+A.

Aye - til now tis been but dandyprats and swellbellied puttocks.

So relieved people are finally speaking my language.

aloyisious · 06-02-2014 10:42PM

David Quinn, Paddy Manning, Brian Finnegan and Ivana Bacik are on the Prime-time show now talking about suing and homophobia.

Obliq · 06-02-2014 10:45PM

Can you believe Paddy Manning is wheeled out again?? Clearly couldn't find anyone else to match the John Waters style confusion.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did?

Where did I do that exactly?

I seem to recall that all all times I made it clear I was speaking only for myself and that in my opinion one does not need to adopt the tactics of ones opponents to defeat them and furthermore by adopting the tactics of ones oppressors one becomes an oppressor oneself.

You want examples who those who defeated their enemies by refusing to adopt their tactics?

Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Terrence Mac Sweeney.
James Connelly.
Mary Robinson.
Gandhi.
Nelson Mandela.

hahaha... this will be fun:

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. plagerised so much of his books and speechs... great ethics huh? He also repeatedly cheated on his wife. What a hero... better just throw him away completely.

James Connelly lied about his age and joined the British army... what a traitor.

Gandhi: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055031,00.html

And: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/the-gandhi-none-of-us-kne_b_842941.html

Mandela supported Saddam Hussein, openly. He also ran an organisation that was involved in terrorist attacks. So... if you're opposed to violence, you're opposed to Mandela...

If to do the other two, grand I will, though I don't know enough to off the top of my head.. I actually think all of these people are great examples of flawed people that accomplished great things.. because EVERYONE is flawed.

Obliq · 06-02-2014 10:49PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

hahaha... this will be fun:

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. plagerised so much of his books and speechs... great ethics huh? He also repeatedly cheated on his wife. What a hero... better just throw him away completely.

James Connelly lied about his age and joined the British army... what a traitor.

Gandhi: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055031,00.html

And: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irene-monroe/the-gandhi-none-of-us-kne_b_842941.html

Mandela supported Saddam Hussein, openly. He also ran an organisation that was involved in terrorist attacks. So... if you're opposed to violence, you're opposed to Mandela...

If to do the other two, grand I will, though I don't know enough to off the top of my head.. I actually think all of these people are great examples of flawed people that accomplished great things.. because EVERYONE is flawed.

Ah for goodness sake. Watch the divas on the telly box mate .....it's more topical.

AerynSun · 06-02-2014 10:53PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Mandela supported Saddam Hussein, openly. He also ran an organisation that was involved in terrorist attacks. So... if you're opposed to violence, you're opposed to Mandela...

I call bullshoes.

While the ANC favoured violence in their early days (in a desperate response to the EXTREME oppression that black people were suffering), in later years Mandela repudiated violent means of protest and strongly discouraged others from using violence.

So if you're opposed to violence, you'll appreciate Mandela.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please do as I am unsure how my personal ethical dilemma became your political polemic.

You said:

I would rather lose ... than adopt the tactics of my oppressors to 'win' because when we do that - we have already lost.

As for the moral high ground - I personally would prefer to be up there alone than be a hypocrite. That is my choice.

You believe it is ok to be a hypocrite as this serves the greater 'good'.

I believe the greater 'good' becomes utterly soiled when we compromise our principles.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

To say we need to embrace, without discussion, one status quo in order to combat another status quo is a bit...bizarre.. to my way of thinking.

MilanPan!c · 06-02-2014 10:58PM

AerynSun wrote: »

I call bullshoes.

While the ANC favoured violence in their early days (in a desperate response to the EXTREME oppression that black people were suffering), in later years Mandela repudiated violent means of protest and strongly discouraged others from using violence.

So if you're opposed to violence, you'll appreciate Mandela.

You've completely missed my point.

I asked for people that never compromised their beliefs. He did. He grew and changed.

I like him and don't judge him negatively, but then again I think compromise is a sign of intelligence.

AerynSun · 06-02-2014 10:59PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I asked for people that never compromised their beliefs. He did. He grew and changed.

He never compromised his beliefs. At one time he believed in using violence. Later on he did not. Integrity all the way

Tip: don't be saying mean stuffs about my grandpa and think I won't give you beak for it!

mcmoustache · 06-02-2014 10:59PM

Obliq wrote: »

Can you believe Paddy Manning is wheeled out again?? Clearly couldn't find anyone else to match the John Waters style confusion.

That panel debate was all rather predictable. Ugh.

Bannasidhe · 06-02-2014 10:59PM

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You said:

And each time I made it clear I was talking about myself and what I would or would not do.

I made no reference to politicians whatsoever.

Now seriously.

Go away.

P_1 · 06-02-2014 11:01PM

One thing that I've noticed in all these debates (RTE and TV3) is that nobody has brought up the topic of what the likes of Quinn, Waters et al have already published. It's one thing for Quinn to claim that his character is being taken into disrepute but when somebody publishes something in the public arena then surely they're leaving themselves open to it.

robindch · 06-02-2014 11:05PM

folks - second time today - sit down, take a breather, turn on the telly, put yizzer feet up and relax!

Brian Shanahan · 06-02-2014 11:06PM

AerynSun wrote: »

I sincerely hope you're using the Shakespearean Insult Generator to aid you in this noble endeavour?

:pac:

Personally I use the Postmodernism Generator. The look of confusion that no doubt is etched on the faces of the mods gives me a little frisson of schadenfreude. Too delightful for words.

Turtwig · 06-02-2014 11:07PM

Mammy Jernal just made my night.

Watching Prime Time she just burst in a full out rant about how they were making stuff worse for the referendum side. When asked 'who' she replied:

"The two weirdos on the left. God forgive me! I think both of them might be gay."

AerynSun · 06-02-2014 11:09PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Personally I use the Postmodernism Generator. The look of confusion that no doubt is etched on the faces of the mods gives me a little frisson of schadenfreude. Too delightful for words.

Give that pretextual desituationsim some Fellini!

Iona vs Panti

Comments