nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Dwarf.Shortage

When David Norris first mentioned gay marriage in the Seanad he was sneered at and ignored as if the idea was as preposterous as swimming to the sun. Twenty years later the Seanad was the leading light among the political institutions on the yes side.

What, if any, issue or group do you believe is treated in a manner today which twenty years hence when Ireland looks back will be seen as reprehensible and discriminatory?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

S.O

Im in the early 30s age demographic group + I am non religious, I don't practice nor adhere to any religion .

Same sex marriage) I am against I believe a kid has a right to both a mother and a father when possible.

Abortion ) I would be against liberal abortion laws that exist in the uk where an abortion can be requested on demand, I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, in the scenario presently in Paraguay where a 10 year old girl was raped and pregnant afterwards, if she doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy it should be her decision I would find it immoral to force a 10 year old child to go through a with a pregnancy, another point to factor in is to force a 10 year old girl to go full term with a pregnancy at such a young age could be a risk to the life of the child herself.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-10/paraguayan-man-arrested-over-rape-of-stepdaughter/6458352

Right to assisted suicide ) I would agree with and support if someone has a terminal illness and wants to avail of assisted suicide it should be their own personal choice.

S.O

I think in years to come future generation's will wonder why we allowed separate segraited school's on grounds of religion; I refer to catholic school's or Protestant school's or Muslim school's; we don't segraite or separate kids in school's on ground's of race or skin colour; so why should kids be separate in school's on religious grounds ? In the future there will likely be separate classes in school where religion is taught with an opt out clause for parent's to avail of.

frostyjacks

K4t wrote: »

Why?

Common courtesy, treat others how you'd like them to treat you.

Penny Tration

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We really need an "unthank" button..

We have one

[Deleted User]

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I clearly explained my reasoning for removing the word. It was a perfectly rational and logical one. If you don't like it - tough ****!

Defensive much? I expressed no like or dislike of it. I was merely curious that your decision to edit the post involved nothing more than you deleting one word. And given the word deleted means pretty much the same as the words not deleted - I felt it interesting to enquire as to what you think they mean. A question that is as yet unanswered after three asks. But I have zero interest in being dragged into childish pedantic behaviour with you. But nice try all the same!

Benoit Poire

Hopefully in years to come it will be understood by the masses that you can love multiple people romantically at the same time.

MathDebater

I see myself as a decent keeper! Buried!

MrWalsh

SummerSummit wrote: »

Wordpress is a blog. The research I pointed to was in one of the top peer reviewed scientific journal.

As was the paper referenced in the blog I quoted. Which made the same point I was making - you were misrepresenting the conclusion of the study. It did not say what you seemed to think it said.

valoren

For me it's Alcohol/Drinking.

We will look back and cringe at such things as major sports events sponsored by drink companies, it's mass pervasive advertising, understanding it's addicitive properties and come to terms with the social damage it causes etc.

It will go the way of Smoking. Contained and frowned upon.

MrWalsh

valoren wrote: »

For me it's Alcohol/Drinking.

We will look back and cringe at such things as major sports events sponsored by drink companies, it's mass pervasive advertising, understanding it's addicitive properties and come to terms with the social damage it causes etc.

It will go the way of Smoking. Contained and frowned upon.

Smoking is a good one, it should be banned altogether. There is literally no good from it. Its not safe even in moderation.

Thats reminded me - sunbeds will be viewed the way we view ladies putting arsenic on their face in the past.

galljga1

valoren wrote: »

For me it's Alcohol/Drinking.

We will look back and cringe at such things as major sports events sponsored by drink companies, it's mass pervasive advertising, understanding it's addicitive properties and come to terms with the social damage it causes etc.

It will go the way of Smoking. Contained and frowned upon.

In Ireland? Seriously? Not going to happen.

ThinkProgress

galljga1 wrote: »

In Ireland? Seriously? Not going to happen.

I could see it happening. Especially if weed were to be legalised.

jobbridge4life

MrWalsh wrote: »

Smoking is a good one, it should be banned altogether. There is literally no good from it. Its not safe even in moderation.

Thats reminded me - sunbeds will be viewed the way we view ladies putting arsenic on their face in the past.

That is a bit police state for my liking. If people want to smoke in their own privacy that is their business.

Eugene Norman

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I could see it happening. Especially if weed were to be legalised.

It may be decriminalised but I don't think we are going to have cafes where you can toke up. You would have to go outside give the smoking ban. It's also odd to see so many anti -Tobacco but pro weed posts.

Alcohol has been campaigned against before. Churches railed the troops. It was banned in the U.S. It always comes back.

MrWalsh

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is a bit police state for my liking. If people want to smoke in their own privacy that is their business.

Yes, I also agree with you.

I suppose I mean it should be banned absolutely everywhere except the privacy of your own home. It should not be considered acceptable to smoke in public at all.

jobbridge4life

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes, I also agree with you.

I suppose I mean it should be banned absolutely everywhere except the privacy of your own home. It should not be considered acceptable to smoke in public at all.

Again... bit controlling. Our present situation seems like an acceptable compromise to me.

MrWalsh

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Again... bit controlling. Our present situation seems like an acceptable compromise to me.

I suppose I just hate having to pass through clouds of smoke around entrances to places, I hate being downwind of a smoker at a bus stop, I hate the smell of it on me.

Im an ex smoker btw - so perhaps my sensitivity to it is still high.

ThinkProgress

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It may be decriminalised but I don't think we are going to have cafes where you can toke up. You would have to go outside give the smoking ban. It's also odd to see so many anti -Tobacco but pro weed posts.

Alcohol has been campaigned against before. Churches railed the troops. It was banned in the U.S. It always comes back.

Weed is a lot different to tobacco. And you don't necessarily have to smoke it either...

It might be more a cultural shift, rather than heavy legislation. Either way it will be a slow process I think.

Eugene Norman

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Weed is a lot different to tobacco. And you don't necessarily have to smoke it either...

It might be more a cultural shift, rather than heavy legislation. Either way it will be a slow process I think.

Ok. Maybe specially licensed cafes will serve hash brownies some day. The idea that we are going to toke up inside with one drug and not the other is insane. The dangers of passive smoking remain.

Alcohol will continue to dominate.

Iwasfrozen

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is a bit police state for my liking. If people want to smoke in their own privacy that is their business.

As long as they don't have children I would agree.

ThinkProgress

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ok. Maybe specially licensed cafes will serve hash brownies some day. The idea that we are going to toke up inside with one drug and not the other is insane. The dangers of passive smoking remain.

Alcohol will continue to dominate.

I think we are already starting to move away from the idea that alcohol is an essential element for socialising.

alexandoy

Interesting thread...monster turned out to be just trees *chuckle*

S.O

Anti divorce rally prior to ( Divorce referendum 1/ 1986 )

Given ( Divorce referendum 2/ 1995 ) passed by referendum, I would look back at those who opposed divorce being legalised & brought into law and ask what was all the big fuss about ? I don't get how some people could of taken a view that it was better to stay legally married to someone if a marriage broke down rather then give people the option/choice to have a divorce and move on with life.

Dwarf.Shortage

alexandoy wrote: »

Interesting thread...monster turned out to be just trees *chuckle*

I don't get and I want to

fiachr_a

White bread will get banned eventually. Responsible for more deaths than tobacco.

ScumLord

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ok. Maybe specially licensed cafes will serve hash brownies some day. The idea that we are going to toke up inside with one drug and not the other is insane. The dangers of passive smoking remain.

I don't see us ever allowing smoking cafes, it just wouldn't work with our laws. I could see vapour bars, or even just allowing restaurants to have cannabis appetizers.

stefanovich

eviltwin wrote: »

This sounds very like the treatments suggested for homosexuality back in the day.....

What are you on about? I am saying that before a doctor indulges someone's desire to have irreversible surgery there should be an assessment of their mental stability. If they are unstable they are unable to make a lucid decision.

silverfeather wrote: »

Does that not make you empathize more with them? You would hate to have the opposite sex organs to the gender you are. It's a mental block in your mind.
It is very distressing to have gender dysphoria. It is due to medical reasons.

Yes, I feel sorry for them that they find themselves in the position they are in and feel uncomfortable in their own bodies. Their body is also part of who they are though. Is there something measurable that can ascertain whether someone is the wrong physical gender or is it based purely on how they feel?

silverfeather wrote: »

It has been shown and proven by the medical community that female transwomen have female characteristics in their brains. That was simply my wording.

Also consider their mental anguish.

So, is there a test? Could it be due to all the female hormones they consume?

silverfeather wrote: »

I have issues with prostitution myself. I think it's cold. You can't dehumanize the vulnerable though. They are people. I have a dim view of that world. But you have to ask questions.

But you have to remember a lot of transpeople perhaps do it to get the money to pay for surgery. And perhaps because there is so much prejudice in the employment world. If we could remedy this it would be so much better for them as people and society.

I have no issue with prostitution per se, as long as it is not under duress. High murder figures were quoted and I highlighted the fact that a lot of transsexuals seem to be in that industry. That is known to be a dangerous profession.

silverfeather wrote: »

It's not right to fetishize transpeople or demean them. They are men and women. If we welcomed them into society it would be acknowledging their fundamental rights and be better for society.

No one is being demeaned. They have a problem which needs to be addressed. The answer must vary from person to person. I would imagine that in some cases the "answer" turns out to not address the problem.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Sorry but this is complete rubbish. What statistics can you produce to back this claim of a lot of post operative suicide among transgender patients? And that it is because of regret? You're just projecting.

The regret part was just me supposing. The high suicide rate was something I got from Gavin McInnes, probably here:

I'd have to research it to be honest.

MrWalsh wrote: »

There is counselling, there is a long period of living as the new gender to see how successful that is before any surgery.
.

Okay, that's reasonable at least. What about children getting surgery? What's your opinion on that? In my opinion it is completely wrong.

wakka12 wrote: »

Ok I looked it up and and a white trans woman in america has a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered in their lifetime , while a black trans woman has a 1 in 8 chance of being murdered in their lifetime.
Average lifespan of a trans woman is just 30 years, due to crazily disproportionately high suicide, homicide, homelessness, poverty and incarceration rates.

A black cis man has a 1-in-21 chance of being murdered in his lifetime; white men have a 1-in-131 chance; white women a 1-in-369 chance and black women a 1-in-104 chance.

These are interesting statistics. Please don't research murder rates and prison populations and break them down by race though.

stefanovich

wakka12 wrote: »

Its ridiculous, people have this notion in their head that if they date a bisexual person then odds are they'll cheat on you with somebody of their same gender.

I think a lot of women would be extremely threatened if they found out their boyfriend was bi sexual.

Eugene Norman

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think we are already starting to move away from the idea that alcohol is an essential element for socialising.

Not really.

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/

wakka12

valoren wrote: »

For me it's Alcohol/Drinking.

We will look back and cringe at such things as major sports events sponsored by drink companies, it's mass pervasive advertising, understanding it's addicitive properties and come to terms with the social damage it causes etc.

It will go the way of Smoking. Contained and frowned upon.

I think drinking will always be common, its not damaging in small enough quantities. A lot of people enjoy it in moderation without any negative health affects and helps people in social settings so I don't see why it would ever go the way of smoking. But I agree about the sporting events and such being sponsored by drink companies being frowned upon.