Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

12357…21

Comments

  • #122
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Sorry but I am not an idiot.
    The idiots are the people who believe we should all support the same views on things.

    Look at Simon Harris in the video, nearly having a heart attack because what practicing Christian would vote for their version of the Christian Democrats, only deluded ones would.

    The idiots are the people who continue to support their own views on scientific matters after they have been demonstrated to be false.


  • #123
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Muise... wrote: »
    The idiots are the people who continue to support their own views on scientific matters after they have been demonstrated to be false.

    Are you going to claim scientists are sheep and there aren't scientists who hold opposing views?


  • #124
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    People who are labelled homophobes aren't labelled homophobes because they oppose gay marriage. They're labelled homophobes because their objection to homosexual and transsexual issues is grounded in emotion and the best argument they can muster is cries of censorship and being shouted down.

    They're homophobes not because of their position but because of how they arrived at it.


  • #125
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Are you going to claim scientists are sheep and there aren't scientists who hold opposing views?

    :confused: No...

    Scientists have to prove their theories (which are not the same as views) to a standard acceptable to their peers. They don't hold their views and stick to them blindly like politicians, ideologues and the religious do; they work with evidence and when it doesn't match their theories, they accept that they were barking up the wrong tree and move on from there.


  • #126
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Sorry but I am not an idiot.
    The idiots are the people who believe we should all support the same views on things.

    Look at Simon Harris in the video, nearly having a heart attack because what practicing Christian would vote for their version of the Christian Democrats, only deluded ones would.

    So you'd classify it as a rational and intelligent decision to vote for a candidate who has no actual basis for her claims? She is a representative of everyone,not just Catholics. This is what was pointed throughout. So lobbing a bigot with a penchant for gay,vaccines and oestrogen conspiracies is a bloody awful choice for Europe.

    My housemates hold literally no strong political views unlike myself. But equally found her to be a nut. It's not a liberal view to consider her to be a nut, I know both conservative and liberal individuals that held the view. That's why she's not an in any way credible candidate to vote for.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The whole Panti controversy, a person who was given free reign to smear people as being homophobic because some people didn't support same sex marriage.
    RTE had let it go on the night, but knew they were in the wrong and paid up only when challenged.
    Then some appear in the media and label Catholics as homophobic if they follow their faith, even if they don't hate or have a fear of homosexuals...given the word phobia is used.

    homophobia: an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

    Theres no smearing, someone said there shouldnt be same sex marriage. Forcing his opinion down the throats of others as you said you were against earlier. He has an aversion of homosexuals. Therefor he fits the definition.
    The Catholic church has a homophobic view, just because its a religion doesnt make it ok.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Not the first time RTE ended up in legal trouble, their anti-Catholic stance led to the Fr Reynolds lies being aired as if the truth.

    The same channel that shows mass, lots of coverage on when the pope takes a dump and plays some bells everyday for the fun of it.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    This kind of dead brained liberal approach in the media towards religion where people give opinion based on ignorance is rife.
    They hold the opinion it is ok to be Catholic once you don't follow your religion.

    Follow your religion, the rest of us dont have to. Doesnt help when we're told gay people having sex is bad and destroying "the family" but then they go have sex before marriage, use contraception and get a divorce.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    This is why you get interviewers and fake Catholic politicians having a problem with people like Theresa Heaney who doesn't support same sex marriage.
    We live in a supposed democracy yet all parties are sheep on the issue as they don't want to get branded as homophobic.
    Enda Kenny was against it, Barack Obama was against it but for political reasons they changed their tune, it is so much easier being the sheep in a flock of sheep as you won't get hassled unlike if you are the one who has the courage to say something different.

    Have a problem with it? Dont do it. I dont like one direction so I dont go to their concerts or buy their CDs. Its a simple solution that makes everyone happy. Its odd how some people are ok with with it but they must all just be trying to be sheep, but who are they being sheep with? Surely that means the majority already support it for people to sheep to it.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    When all the parties choose to be sheep, we don't have a real democracy. People shouldn't be afraid to be different, it was the same in the abortion debate.
    All party leaders were sheep, some threw members out of the political party for holding a different view, conservative members were not wanted in Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Fein, and Micheal Martin tried the same in Fianna Fail but there a majority were not having it and he had to back down.

    If conservative voters are not going to be represented by political parties, it will end up with people like Theresa Heaney having a larger voice due to the lack of democracy among the political parties who want to be sheep all bleating from the same sheepish stance.

    Again, if they are being sheep then it must mean the majority are already for it. If there are so many people being sheep why arent these brave people getting lots of support? Nobody knows who you vote for.


  • #128
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Muise... wrote: »
    :confused: No...

    Scientists have to prove their theories (which are not the same as views) to a standard acceptable to their peers. They don't hold their views and stick to them blindly like politicians, ideologues and the religious do; they work with evidence and when it doesn't match their theories, they accept that they were barking up the wrong tree and move on from there.

    Some scientists get stuff published that is very questionable

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
    The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.

    Not a for or against climate change argument, but it took a hacking of the emails to expose this.

    How many other scientists cover up flaws to suit what they believe?
    You or I don't know.
    It is wrong to accept that all scientists act in a strictly scientific method way.

    I don't think it would be acceptable to blame the pill in the current environment for oestrogen pollution. I am sure there are some who studied this who didn't want children and got the benefits of the pill.
    The thing is you don't know I don't know, but peer reviewed material by scientists does have lies in it.
    The IPCC report said that the Himalayas would lose their glaciers by 2035, when in fact it should have been over 300 years later, this made it into a peer reviewed document.

    Scientists are human, some let their own views get in the way of what is the case. Like the moving weather stations of China.


  • #129
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Knasher wrote: »
    Honestly it is people like her who get me out to vote. It's often hard to feel motivated by the rest of the candidates, but I really do feel I have a duty to make sure she doesn't have any power.

    +1

    I wasn't going to vote at all because I didn't feel informed enough about the candidates. However it was entirely, 100% due this woman standing that I felt motivated to go to the polling booth and tick Labour/Labour as though it were a general election. Any vote that is not given to her or anyone else like her counts!


  • #130
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    As for sheeple:

    sheeple.png


  • #131
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Some scientists get stuff published that is very questionable

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud



    Not a for or against climate change argument, but it took a hacking of the emails to expose this.

    How many other scientists cover up flaws to suit what they believe?
    You or I don't know.
    It is wrong to accept that all scientists act in a strictly scientific method way.

    I don't think it would be acceptable to blame the pill in the current environment for oestrogen pollution. I am sure there are some who studied this who didn't want children and got the benefits of the pill.
    The thing is you don't know I don't know, but peer reviewed material by scientists does have lies in it.
    The IPCC report said that the Himalayas would lose their glaciers by 2035, when in fact it should have been over 300 years later, this made it into a peer reviewed document.

    Scientists are human, some let their own views get in the way of what is the case. Like the moving weather stations of China.

    We've been through this. But you still don't (or won't) understand how science works, with checks in place to correct mistakes and frauds, so there's no point in arguing it with you.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    So you'd classify it as a rational and intelligent decision to vote for a candidate who has no actual basis for her claims? She is a representative of everyone,not just Catholics. This is what was pointed throughout. So lobbing a bigot with a penchant for gay,vaccines and oestrogen conspiracies is a bloody awful choice for Europe.

    My housemates hold literally no strong political views unlike myself. But equally found her to be a nut. It's not a liberal view to consider her to be a nut, I know both conservative and liberal individuals that held the view. That's why she's not an in any way credible candidate to vote for.

    You say conspiracies but I wonder how much research you did on her views?

    Should we all have to accept gay marriage because you want it?

    Should we ignore what happened in Japan with the vaccine in question?

    Should we ignore that there is actual oestrogen pollution and some of it is man made?

    She is credible as anyone else on the ballot, some who say they are Catholic and vote for abortion as a treatment for suicide.
    Others on the ballot who belong to a party that supports/supported the IRA.
    FF who are still not very credible.
    Labour whose leader in the past supported regimes such as those in North Korea.
    Theresa Heaney and the the man from Ballyhea are the two who seemed to tell it as they believed it to be, better to have people who are honest with their views than those who lie about what they supported or pretend their past or that of their party is not relevant.


  • #133
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Muise... wrote: »
    We've been through this. But you still don't (or won't) understand how science works, with checks in place to correct mistakes and frauds, so there's no point in arguing it with you.

    Yes, we must blindly follow what we are told.

    The fraud by Dr Jones was only found out through an illegal email hacking, there was no checks to discover the moving weather stations in China.
    It was accepted as fact.

    Scientists should follow the scientific method more and less of their own views.
    We are not told the position of scientists who contribute to peer reviewed material.


  • #134
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    So would an honest mass murderer be infinitely preferable to a dishonest pacifist?


  • #135
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Are you going to claim scientists are sheep and there aren't scientists who hold opposing views?

    I'm sure that scientists hold all manner of views. If they take a position on a scientific matter that goes against the available scientific evidence, they should expect to be called out on it.

    Theresa Heaney claims the following:
    • That use of the contraceptive pill has polluted waterways with oestrogen. She bases this on a report that has been embargoed for release for the next few years - somehow she has the inside scoop though. Don't ask me how.
    • That the cervical cancer vaccine is a fraud, and a danger to health.
    • That gay people (she mentioned the Gay Liberation Front, which hasn't been around for decades, afaik) are plotting the demise of the family.

    She is entitled to hold all the above opinions, but she absolutely must be taken to task on them. Aside from her attraction to pseudo-science, her views on gay people are based on outright prejudice and bigotry.


  • #136
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes, we must blindly follow what we are told.

    The fraud by Dr Jones was only found out through an illegal email hacking, there was no checks to discover the moving weather stations in China.
    It was accepted as fact.

    Scientists should follow the scientific method more and less of their own views.
    We are not told the position of scientists who contribute to peer reviewed material.

    Blind following is the opposite of science.

    Scientists do follow the scientific method - sounds like you'd rather they followed your opinions though, or at least backed them up, but tough luck, they don't. Which is why you don't trust them, I suppose.

    The position of the scientists who contribute to peer review is in the fcuking peer review - what do you mean we're not told?


  • #137
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You say conspiracies but I wonder how much research you did on her views?

    Somewhere in the region between expert in the area and you.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Should we all have to accept gay marriage because you want it?

    Should we deny it to those who want it?
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Should we ignore what happened in Japan with the vaccine in question?

    The one that was done for "fears" and no evidence?
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61831-0/fulltext
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Should we ignore that there is actual oestrogen pollution and some of it is man made?

    From the contraceptive pill? I dont see any evidence for that. EPA thinks its ok though.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90501192&postcount=136
    RobertKK wrote: »
    She is credible as anyone else on the ballot, some who say they are Catholic and vote for abortion as a treatment for suicide.
    Others on the ballot who belong to a party that supports/supported the IRA.
    FF who are still not very credible.
    Labour whose leader in the past supported regimes such as those in North Korea.

    At least they arent making up science.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Theresa Heaney and the the man from Ballyhea are the two who seemed to tell it as they believed it to be, better to have people who are honest with their views than those who lie about what they supported or pretend their past or that of their party is not relevant.

    Im assuming that you have evidence of all these liars and that these 2 people are the only people telling the truth?


  • #138
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You say conspiracies but I wonder how much research you did on her views?

    Should we all have to accept gay marriage because you want it?

    Should we ignore what happened in Japan with the vaccine in question?

    Should we ignore that there is actual oestrogen pollution and some of it is man made?

    She is credible as anyone else on the ballot, some who say they are Catholic and vote for abortion as a treatment for suicide.
    Others on the ballot who belong to a party that supports/supported the IRA.
    FF who are still not very credible.
    Labour whose leader in the past supported regimes such as those in North Korea.
    Theresa Heaney and the the man from Ballyhea are the two who seemed to tell it as they believed it to be, better to have people who are honest with their views than those who lie about what they supported or pretend their past or that of their party is not relevant.
    She was as credible as the Nazi youth styled candidate that was about it. Sinn Fein are unfortunately going to get much support,not that I want it but they are immensely more credible than a conspiracy theorist.

    Telling it as you believe it,does not make you right. Yes I have read up on the views and found they are not founded in reality. You have ignored refutation and would prefer to blame it on a liberal agenda.

    In relation to gay marriage,it will in all likelihood pass thankfully. So yes,you will have to accept it. Feel free to move. I view an opposition to equality because of one's prejudices to be truly dickish.


  • #139
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    The Himalayas incident is a great example of peer review. Two reviewers caught the error. Flagged it. But it wasn't amended.

    Thousands of things were flagged not everything got fixed. Most intriguing of all though was the fact it was new scientist and other scientists that found the errors. Not actual deniers.


  • #140
    Chorcai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭Chorcai


    She says the family is under attack from women also... I take it this is actually a man Terry Healy?


  • #141
    Tail Docker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,954 ✭✭✭Tail Docker


    Muise... wrote: »
    We've been through this. But you still don't (or won't) understand how science works, with checks in place to correct mistakes and frauds, so there's no point in arguing it with you.

    LOL.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    / backs out of thread slowly


  • #143
    motivation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43 ✭motivation


    she is waste


  • #144
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Why is it sad? Because her views differ from yours? Just because her views don't conform, doesn't mean she should not have a voice or an entitlement to express them.

    No. Because she is a complete nutjob. A person like her having power would actually be dangerous.

    Thankfully the people of Ireland have some common sense. She will be lucky to get her deposit back.


  • #145
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    The one that was done for "fears" and no evidence?
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61831-0/fulltext



    From the contraceptive pill? I dont see any evidence for that. EPA thinks its ok though.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90501192&postcount=136

    Quoting this just so it gets a better chance of drilling through Robert's skull.

    Quite frankly, she hasn't a hope of getting elected, which is a great sign for Irish society.


  • #146
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You say conspiracies but I wonder how much research you did on her views?

    Should we all have to accept gay marriage because you want it?
    .

    No, you should accept gay marriage because its not for you to tell others how to live their lives. When people force you to marry a "gay", then you can complain.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Should we ignore what happened in Japan with the vaccine in question?.

    You seem to be ignoring the lancet article I posted earlier.


  • #147
    UserNo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36 ✭UserNo1


    she needs to be reeducated poor woman.She properly thinks the earth is flat and never heard of Darwin.What worrying is that she is live on national TV spreading her ignorant views.


  • #148
    DazMarz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,493 ✭✭✭DazMarz


    I took great pleasure today when I was filling in my ballot paper. Before I had filled in my #1, I went straight to Theresa Heaney and put a nice big "15" next to her name...


  • #149
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, you should accept gay marriage because its not for you to tell others how to live their lives. When people force you to marry a "gay", then you can complain.



    You seem to be ignoring the lancet article I posted earlier.

    You mean the Lancet that published a hoax about the MMR vaccine, that peer reviewed journal?

    It is a very much compromised medical journal. They said when the truth came out about the peer reviewed lies - years after the event and populations exposed to disease that can kill due to falling vaccination rates for MMR.
    Wakefield "was dishonest", said Horton. "He deceived the journal." The Lancet had done what it could to establish that the research was valid, by having it peer-reviewed. But there is a limit, he said, to what peer-review can ascertain.

    "Peer review is the best system we have got for checking accuracy and acceptability of work, but unless we went into the lab or examined every case record, we can't ever finally rule out some element of misconduct. The entire system depends upon trust. Most of the time we think it works well, but there will be a few instances – and when they happen they are huge instances – where the whole thing falls apart."

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper

    It took the Lancet 12 years to accept their precious journal had published lies.

    6 years in and amid controversy the Lancet went to the Royal Free Hospital to investigate and they told the Lancet "We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny,"

    When finally found out the Lancet had this to say about their peer reviewed lies: "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false,"

    The Lancet is compromised in terms of peer reviewed papers regarding vaccines, some wouldn't trust a vaccine after the Lancet rubbishewd it, others might choose to have a problem with the Lancet when it now publishes peer reviewed papers on vaccines, certain positive ones might only be acceptable after the previous lies.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
    Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed


  • #150
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You mean the Lancet that (...........................)-review-science

    Ahhh. So one genuine error means that a well is forever tainted?

    Applying that logic to the RCC, and bearing in mind that what went on was no error, nor a singular (or even rare) occurrence....................


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    You mean the Lancet that published a hoax about the MMR vaccine, that peer reviewed journal?

    It is a very much compromised medical journal. They said when the truth came out about the peer reviewed lies - years after the event and populations exposed to disease that can kill due to falling vaccination rates for MMR.



    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper

    It took the Lancet 12 years to accept their precious journal had published lies.

    6 years in and amid controversy the Lancet went to the Royal Free Hospital to investigate and they told the Lancet "We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny,"

    When finally found out the Lancet had this to say about their peer reviewed lies: "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false,"

    The Lancet is compromised in terms of peer reviewed papers regarding vaccines, some wouldn't trust a vaccine after the Lancet rubbishewd it, others might choose to have a problem with the Lancet when it now publishes peer reviewed papers on vaccines, certain positive ones might only be acceptable after the previous lies.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

    Isn't it handy that peer review is totally flawed in your eyes from a few instances of error which have since been corrected, yet some general news items that can be twisted with your special grasp of logic to back up the ravings of a loon running for election on an misogynist and homophobic ticket, are good enough for you?


Advertisement
Advertisement