Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

1…2425272930…69

Comments

  • #782
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    We should ban the internet. Its not natural.

    Pedophiles and priests use it too!


  • #783
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Pedophiles and priests use it too!

    And men

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #784
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    We should ban the internet. Its not natural.

    You know what else isn't natural? Religion.

    We must ban religion.


  • #785
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Camron Stale Witch wrote: »
    Is there anything to be said for banning children, maybe?

    Build a special isolation facility in the Midlands where men and children can alternate years of imprisonment and freedom to keep them away from each other. This can be statistically proven to reduce abuse cases (I know RobertKK loves his stats-based arguments).


  • #786
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I dont know is the answer to your question.
    yes its a question that none of us KNOW the answer to,its your opinion I request?as it was my opinion I gave you in relation to the question you asked. quid pro quo


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    yes its a question that none of us KNOW the answer to,its your opinion I request?as it was my opinion I gave you in relation to the question you asked. quid pro quo

    That is my opinion! My opinion is I don't know.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #788
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I think we should ban all men, just in case they abuse children. We can't risk it.

    All men must report to their nearest cliff and proceed to jump off it.

    Valar morghulis


  • #789
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    They are scurrilous and nasty.

    Only if I can't back up my claim which I can do.


  • #790
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Only if I can't back up my claim which I can do.

    They are still scurrilous and nasty claims.
    Even Fran.17 agrees they are homophobic ffs and his previous posting history is hardly pro gay rights

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #791
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    That is my opinion! My opinion is I don't know.

    was there a long queue for the moderator job:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Only if I can't back up my claim which I can do.

    Please do.


  • #793
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    You know what else isn't natural? Religion.

    We must ban religion.

    A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.


  • #794
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Can a Mod put a poll in the OP asking will you be voting Yes or No for SSM?

    It would be interesting to get a poll of the people of boards.


  • #795
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RobertKK wrote: »
    A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.

    you have already got enough woo to provide evidence for without going off on another tangent.

    So links regarding two heterosexual men marrying, adopting and subsequently molesting their adoptive children when you're ready.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #796
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.

    Good for you.


  • #797
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    RobertKK wrote: »
    A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.

    Geez, if a scientist said it then it must be true...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    Any chance of some actual evidence for this and all your other spurious claims? Sometime before the referendum would be preferable.


  • #798
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Geez, if a scientist said it then it must be true...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    Any chance of some actual evidence for this and all your other spurious claims? Sometime before the actual referendum would be preferable.

    Go to the Pat Kenny podcast and look up where they talked about religion from a scientific viewpoint.

    Your post is very dismissing of me but listen to that podcast and tell me how spurious what I said is.


  • #799
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Geez, if a scientist said it then it must be true...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

    Any chance of some actual evidence for this and all your other spurious claims? Sometime before the actual referendum would be preferable.

    I'm fine with Robert believing exactly what that scientist has said. Science has also shown us that atheists are more intelligent than theists. I'm sure he is perfectly fine with that conclusion also.

    I'm perfectly fine living a few months shorter in return for being more intelligent.


  • #800
    denhaagenite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭denhaagenite


    Links234 wrote: »
    It's staggering that you think that someone who repeatedly claims that marriage equality will lead to paedophiles marrying so they can adopt and abuse children isn't homophobic. How far does someone have to go before you'd consider them homophobic, I wonder?

    That's not what he's said, he said that he believes that it is a risk. He also said 2 male paedophiles, not 2 gay paedophiles so my opinion is that he has an issue with men, not gay men in particular. I don't share his belief, I believe that a man or woman should have a right to adopt with same sex partners, or as single people if they so wish. Having said that, the most high profile gay man in Ireland made some sketchy remarks about the love between a man and a boy that made my skin crawl- people who have little contact with the gay community may have been misled into conclusions they might not otherwise have made had he kept his mouth shut. Can't remember the exact statement that was made but it was a highly publicised issue so I'm confident in repeating the above details here.
    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    In fairness, I think if you were the victim of gross inequality you'd probably be doing the same. Black people did it during the civil rights movement, women did it during the suffrage movement and gay people did it during the Stonewall riots. Sometimes you have to shove your opinion down others peoples throats if you want to achieve any meaningful change to the status quo, as blunt and unpalatable as that sounds.

    This isn't just about having an opinion on something like what colour to paint your kitchen, this is about trying to achieve equality before the law with your fellow humans.

    Hang on, those people were being persecuted, physically beaten and murdered for their race, gender and sexuality, they weren't having political slanging matches with their adversaries. The referendum, as I've said before, is an unfortunately bureaucratic formality which will lead to marriage equality one way or another, that takes time. People were, are and always will be racist, sexist and homophobic and there are now laws against hate crimes that did not exist in the time of those brave people. This is not the same thing.
    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Only if they actively support the removal of all civil marriage. Supporting the existence of differing marriage rules for people of differing sexual orientations is homophobic, regardless of the reasoning.

    Not going to trawl through the whole thread, but he did say he was against civil marriage. He's not getting the option to vote on that and I don't mean to speak on his behalf but since he's against it, if there was a referendum on all civil marriage then it's safe to assume he would vote "No" to that aswell. I should be highly insulted, he doesn't recognise my marriage but honestly? I care not one jot what he thinks about the sanctity of my marriage- it's my own business.


  • #801
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Go to the Pat Kenny podcast and look up where they talked about religion from a scientific viewpoint.


    So Robert - what gives you the self righteousness to vote to prevent others acting in accordance with their conscience?


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Go to the Pat Kenny podcast and look up where they talked about religion from a scientific viewpoint.

    But that's just someone talking about it. A peer-reviewed research paper and/or accompanying dataset would be helpful.

    You've already shown your love for stats-based reasoning on a number of occasions, surely you've delved into the figures yourself? Or do you just accept all claims at face value without any scrutiny?


  • #803
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I'm fine with Robert believing exactly what that scientist has said. Science has also shown us that atheists are more intelligent than theists. I'm sure he is perfectly fine with that conclusion also.

    I'm perfectly fine living a few months shorter in return for being more intelligent.

    Life is about living and being healthy is an advantage.
    Letting atheists think they are more intelligent is the best way to fool them.


  • #804
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    any sign of that evidence yet?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #805
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Life is about living and being healthy is an advantage.
    Letting atheists think they are more intelligent is the best way to fool them.

    Showing your true colours now Robert.

    Glorious.


  • #806
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    But that's just someone talking about it. A peer-reviewed research paper and/or accompanying dataset would be helpful.

    You've already shown your love for stats-based reasoning on a number of occasions, surely you've delved into the figures yourself? Or do you just accept all claims at face value without any scrutiny?

    I only heard about the genes today, didn't have time to research myself. The scientist in question is in the top 1% for area of expertise.


  • #807
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    SW wrote: »
    any sign of that evidence yet?

    About what?

    The existence of a god? Nope. Zilch.


  • #808
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I only heard about the genes today, didn't have time to research myself. The scientist in question is in the top 1% for area of expertise.

    Name him and his area of expertise ;)


  • #809
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Plus the fact the adoption board doesnt just hand over kids with no background checks ffs.

    And on top of that there are less than 50 non-family adoptions per year in the first place.

    If, and by gods this is a very big if, two men wanted to con their way to adopt a child so they could abuse him/her, this is what they're up against:

    1) An abuser first has to find another male abuser to carry on the con in the first place.
    2) The two of them have to agree to pretend to be in a relationship
    3) They have to apply to an adoption service for assessment
    4) They have to convince the people vetting and assessing them that they are not only suitable people to raise a child but that they are in a stable, serious relationship.
    5) They also have to convince the people reviewing the vetting and assessment process they are not only suitable people to raise a child but that they are in a stable, serious relationship.
    6) Assuming they pass the vetting and assessments processes and are granted a Declaration of Eligibility and Suitability, they have to repeat the process every few years, because declarations are only valid for 2 years.
    7) They have to wait, probably for years, for a child to come along that the adoption service thinks would be best placed with them, AND for the child's mother, if still alive, to agree to the adoption.
    8) They are subject to a number of post adoption checks and assessments.

    The odds of successfully adopting a child are already stacked against those who are genuinely suitable in doing so. The odds that a couple would be able to con their way into the child welfare system and procure a child for the purposes of abuse, all within a short space of time, are so infinitesimal, they can qualify as zero.

    It is well documented that most abusers target children they have easy access to. Abuse is about power and control, and the abusers who get away with it for years are the ones who stick to situations they can control. There is absolutely nothing easy about the scenario Robert is envisaging. Abusers would have absolutely no control and would be subjecting themselves to an intensive amount of scrutiny and assessment for an ever decreasing chance they may adopt a child.


  • #810
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    RobertKK wrote: »
    A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    I only heard about the genes today, didn't have time to research myself. The scientist in question is in the top 1% for area of expertise.

    Will take that as a no on the actual evidence, then. Losing count of the amount of times this has happened over the months...


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I only heard about the genes today, didn't have time to research myself. The scientist in question is in the top 1% for area of expertise.

    If you'd be as good....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91102827&postcount=801


Advertisement