Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Nodin · 23-05-2014 03:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There are many sources for oestrogen pollution. ...............

Floozies, good-time girls, sluts, ladies of the night, hussies, scarlet women, feminists, lesbians, and women of ill-repute?

jimgoose · 23-05-2014 03:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

If de liberals had der way, he would have never been born, because young mary would have been on de pill.

Worse than that. John the Baptist would've been dousing t'folk with homosexual doses of oestrogen from the Jordan.

endacl · 23-05-2014 03:09PM

I wish people wouldn't use the phrase 'the family' to mean 'families like MY family.

Who the fcuk wouldn't be in favour of the family, in its wider and more inclusive context?

Candidates who twist language this way need to be called out, and have their thinking challenged. I'm quite happy for the woman to have a platform, if for no other reason than it gives us as a society an opportunity to take a long hard look at somebody who won't take a long hard look at themselves. These tulips were endemic to ireland in the past. It's important for people to realise that they haven't gone away.

On a side note, why is a woman who believes that a woman's place is in the home, raising 'the family', applying for a job? In another country? The cognitive dissonance inherent in this fact alone is astounding. Why didn't she send her husband off out to stand for the seat? Surely that would be more in keeping with her strongly held convictions?

Zen65 · 23-05-2014 03:13PM

The tragedy is that some of what the woman said is true, albeit that most of it is not, and what was true was misrepresented by her as evidence to support her personal beliefs. Beliefs she acquired from a church that discourages 'modern' thinking and modern values.

Contamination of drinking water with oestrogen is a world-wide phenomenon. The loss of male fertility is a world-wide phenomenon, and drinking water has been cited as one of the many possible causes. However it is not currently responsible for a fall in population, though there may be individual cases where men or animals become infertile.

It is extremely unlikely however that the use of birth control pill is a significant factor, and other posters have referred to more important factors such as the use of hormones in agriculture and chemicals in the pharma industry. Ms Heaney seems to believe that the use of birth control pills is against the Catholic teaching and therefore she makes a link, thereby throwing the scientific approach out the window in favour of dogma. Seeking to abandon the use of the pill because of a problem with drinking water disregards all of the health advances which have been brought about for women as a result of having some control over their reproductive system.

Did the gay agenda in the '70's have destruction of the family at its heart? I have not seen any evidence of this, and indeed it would be illogical to suggest that this was the case. Perhaps she found a leaflet which suggested that the definition of family needed to be overhauled? That seems a very valid proposition, and regardless of where you stand on the issue of gay rights there is no doubt that having a single definition of the term family is discriminatory.

There is indeed some evidence that the cervical cancer vaccine has potential side-effects. Nothing new there, every medicine does. The issue is whether on balance more lives are saved by administering it than are damaged by taking it. That's how it is for every medicine from chemotherapy to acne medication. Again Ms Heaney may have issues with it because the vaccine's primary function is to protect sexually active girls under the age of 21. Mostly unmarried I suspect, and therefore the use of the vaccine could be considered (by right-wing Catholics) to promote sexual activity outside of sex. It's very similar to "scientific" reports quoted by some Muslim clerics that driving a car makes women infertile.

Corkfeen · 23-05-2014 03:16PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Turning good, God-fearing people into flaming homeos, of course! Are you blind, man??

Going by Robert's posts on gay issues I would not be surprised. I eagerly await news of the homeopathic damage that is occurring.

oceanclub · 23-05-2014 03:16PM

Here's a dance remix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9QiphXwzM

P.

endacl · 23-05-2014 03:18PM

oceanclub wrote: »

Here's a dance remix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9QiphXwzM

P.

Dancin' leads to fornicatin'!!

I know what you're up to! Stop. Immediately.

:mad:

cletus van damme · 23-05-2014 03:20PM

miss-p wrote: »

@RobertKK is that really relevant to this?
You have a news article from 2002 that suggests that oestrogen from pills is possibly affecting fish. I have a scientific peer reviewed paper that details that the % of oestrogen from pills is much less than multiple other sources.

your PC liberal bible carries this from 2012 saying the pill is involved.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

ben.schlomo · 23-05-2014 03:24PM

Yeah shes batsh1t crazy, makes for great tv, Simon Harris's exasperation at everything she said was brilliant, a mild version of what id be doing if she was near me spouting her sh1te.

Zulu · 23-05-2014 03:29PM

Nodin wrote: »

If de liberals had der way, he would have never been born, because young mary would have been on de pill.

No room at the inn?? There'd have been no room in her womb; sure she'd be full of Josephs bastard seed. That or...

<den, den, den>

...she'd've aborted the baby jesus.

Jesus.

stmol32 · 23-05-2014 03:30PM

miss-p wrote: »

Depends where you get your information from http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/august-2011

Phew - so she is mad, all is right in my world again.
I should know not to get me science from a newspaper.
Ben Goldacre would be disappointed in me.

Corkfeen · 23-05-2014 03:33PM

cletus van damme wrote: »

your PC liberal bible carries this from 2012 saying the pill is involved.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

Impact in story is upon fish. It's all related to water in England rather than Irish. Some people are a bit desperate for Theresa to be right.......

Muise... · 23-05-2014 03:33PM

Just back from the polling station. I had a job refraining from writing 'LOL' beside Theresa's face.

cletus van damme · 23-05-2014 04:03PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Impact in story is upon fish. It's all related to water in England rather than Irish. Some people are a bit desperate for Theresa to be right.......

Although being a rational guy I'd say if it was damaging teh fish it's likely not to be 100% for human consumption.
The pill in england cant be too different to the pill in ireland - so you'd imagine it would be folly to ignore what is happening in the UK.
so I don't take that point

I won't call it desperation but it would be nice to stick to the liberal mob on the net.
I wouldn't vote for her mind

comongethappy · 23-05-2014 04:09PM

cletus van damme wrote: »

Although being a rational guy I'd say if it was damaging teh fish it's likely not to be 100% for human consumption.
The pill in england cant be too different to the pill in ireland - so you'd imagine it would be folly to ignore what is happening in the UK.
so I don't take that point

I won't call it desperation but it would be nice to stick to the liberal mob on the net.
I wouldn't vote for her mind

What contraceptive meets your endorsement?

Corkfeen · 23-05-2014 04:09PM

cletus van damme wrote: »

Although being a rational guy I'd say if it was damaging teh fish it's likely not to be 100% for human consumption.
The pill in england cant be too different to the pill in ireland - so you'd imagine it would be folly to ignore what is happening in the UK.
so I don't take that point

I won't call it desperation but it would be nice to stick to the liberal mob on the net.
I wouldn't vote for her mind

A dog can be killed by some chocolate so nope it's a leap in terms of conclusions. Water treatment varies across countries so not necessarily. Peer reviewed research from earlier in the topic doesn't seem to matter to you as it discounts the validity of the claims you are making,rational guy? The pill bares no responsibility and it's a myth. I also don't use the liberal bible as my primary source on how I make conclusions.

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/august-2011

cletus van damme · 23-05-2014 04:18PM

comongethappy wrote: »

What contraceptive meets your endorsement?

once I get laid...and all that.
I'm not religious so contraception is fine for me.

Corkfeen wrote: »

A dog can be killed by some chocolate so nope it's a leap in terms of conclusions. Water treatment varies across countries so not necessarily. Peer reviewed research from earlier in the topic doesn't seem to matter to you as it discounts the validity of the claims you are making,rational guy? The pill bares no responsibility and it's a myth. I also don't use the liberal bible as my primary source on how I make conclusions.

http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/august-2011

Ah come on !! I thought you all worshiped the Irish times and guardian

Corkfeen · 23-05-2014 04:24PM

cletus van damme wrote: »

once I get laid...and all that.
I'm not religious so contraception is fine for me.

Ah come on !! I thought you all worshiped the Irish times and guardian

Stereotypes are great, when it comes to questions of science,my preferred source is peer reviewed science.

Muise... · 23-05-2014 04:37PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Stereotypes are great when it comes to questions of science,my preferred source is peer reviewed science.

Stereotypes are great for politics too - just because you're in favour of women's rights and gay rights doesn't mean you're a handwringing liberal of woo. The opposite of black isn't white; it's all the different colours.

poundapunnet · 23-05-2014 04:38PM

Muise... wrote: »

Stereotypes are great for politics too - just because you're in favour of women's rights and gay rights doesn't mean you're a handwringing liberal of woo. The opposite of black isn't white; it's all the different colours.

THAT'S RACIST :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Muise... · 23-05-2014 04:40PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

THAT'S RACIST :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

:pac:

EyeSight · 23-05-2014 04:48PM

I feel like i traveled back to 1955.

That said, some of the other politicians still annoyed me with their stupid soundbites

Nodin · 23-05-2014 05:05PM

EyeSight wrote: »

I feel like i traveled back to 1955.

That said, some of the other politicians still annoyed me with their stupid soundbites

Oddly, my inner gurrier wanted to have words with the FG candidate. Even more than usual. His smugness was inflammatory. In fact if he was a post I would have reported him for stirring it.....

RobertKK · 23-05-2014 05:13PM

I voted for her, given the amount of prejudice there is in this topic towards her.

Voted for the man from Ballyhea too btw

I voted for four people in total.

suicide_circus · 23-05-2014 05:13PM

jimgoose wrote: »

Worse than that. John the Baptist would've been dousing t'folk with homosexual doses of oestrogen from the Jordan.

According to my research, this is the actual source of homosexualists.

Knasher · 23-05-2014 05:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted for her, given the amount of prejudice there is in this topic towards her.

It isn't prejudice, we are judging her after the things she said, and because of the things she said. If anything it's post-judice.

Nodin · 23-05-2014 05:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted for her, given the amount of prejudice there is in this topic towards her.

.........

Good man. Don't let them liberals bully you into voting on policies, relationship to reality or anything else.

shruikan2553 · 23-05-2014 05:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted for her, given the amount of prejudice there is in this topic towards her.

Voted for the man from Ballyhea too btw

I voted for four people in total.

I don't think you understand the word prejudice. Can you explain the problem with not agreeing with someone who says something that is factually wrong?

RobertKK · 23-05-2014 05:26PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the word prejudice. Can you explain the problem with not agreeing with someone who says something that is factually wrong?

Some implied she was mentally unwell as being loopy, a nutjob. Because she does not hold the views of the person saying this - that is a prejudice.

One can disagree with someone without needing to call that person names, which also implied they had a problem with other people who could be mentally unwell, as it was used as a putdown.

poundapunnet · 23-05-2014 05:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I voted for her, given the amount of prejudice there is in this topic towards her.

Voted for the man from Ballyhea too btw

I voted for four people in total.

Puh-lease. She was given a national forum to air her views, she aired them, people disagree with them. Go and look up the word prejudice. Just because everyone's against you doesn't necessarily mean you're being persecuted, sometimes it means [dramatic pause] that you're wrong.

And if the ONLY card people have to play is the 'I'm being persecuted and prejudiced against, waaaaaaaaaa' then it's probably that they're wrong.

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments