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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

1…195196197198199201»

Comments

  • #10002
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,843 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    end of the road wrote: »
    is it? i'm not necessarily sure that is true this time. gay marriage certainly doesn't cause any problems to anyone. divorce it could be argued may cause some issues where there are children involved, at least if proceedings get very bitter, however that is counter-acted by the fact that staying in a marriage that is not working causes just as much, if not more problems.
    .

    I'm old enough to remember both divorce referendums, the first one just about, and I can tell you opposition was very nearly as vehement as it has been to abortion for most of my life. And that all evaporated the day the second referendum passed, even though it was by a wafer-thin margin. On the surface, it is puzzling that so many people can apparently feel so strongly about something and then just forget all about it once a reversible referendum result has gone against them by a tiny margin. A cynic might suggest their position was just a hypocritical sham all along...


  • #10003
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,154 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Yes you do. You got absolutely pants'ed by me over the whole abortion is murder debacle and you genuinely dodged and ignored each and every single attempt to get you to comment on it.

    i got absolutely nothing on anything by you. there was nothing for me to comment on. i had clarified what was actually said and meant. abortion on demand is what i was refering to and not abortion as a whole. so that point has been clarified and there is nothing more for me to say on it.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Yes No you tend to ignore points you know you can't argue because you've been proven wrong, and have a reputation for this across the entire site. No smoke without fire. I don't think I've ever actually seen you acknowledge something you've been proven to be wrong on.

    i tend to ignore points that i feel may not be relevant to the topic, and which i feel may be an attempt to drag the thread way off topic, or which i feel have a specific agenda which is not constructive to the topic. i do that for the good of the thread and other users as it would be unfair to take a thread down a whole of discussing such points.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #10004
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,843 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    end of the road wrote: »
    well that is very unlikely to happen until the next election whenever that is . his over-all work is what matters and that will decide at the elections what will happen. not abortion or anything in relation to it, including this fundraiser for this particular group.

    Sigh. As the thread's going in it's typical direction, let's try and drag it back to this.

    His position is that he endorses Extreme NO, by hosting this event. His 'work ethic' would matter more, if he weren't elected, which he is (because he's elected to the DCC.) Positions *matter* because we elect politicians on what they claim they intend to do. If an anti-choice item (one that might not make the news, like maybe a zoning thing that would affect construction in the area of a clinic, or not, or cut supplies of water/electric/gas to a clinic, or not) came up, and this clown subtly manipulated the outcome to impact the clinic, that would be him acting on his position and nothing about his work ethic.

    Work ethic does matter, it's actually a shame that the massive civil service in this country has as its primary goal self-preservation (cf: HSE), rather than actually providing service. But for an elected politician, his position matters at least as much, if not more. We vote for them based on their intentions, which is why imo he needs to go, he's not representing the majority of his constituents and someone that does, who presumably wouldn't be hosting events for extreme, outside-financed NO groups, would.

    This isn't hard. He needs to go. No different than if a creationist crank would be elected the head of an education board.


  • #10005
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    I'm old enough to remember both divorce referendums, the first one just about, and I can tell you opposition was very nearly as vehement as it has been to abortion for most of my life. And that all evaporated the day the second referendum passed, even though it was by a wafer-thin margin. On the surface, it is puzzling that so many people can apparently feel so strongly about something and then just forget all about it once a reversible referendum result has gone against them by a tiny margin. A cynic might suggest their position was just a hypocritical sham all along...

    Don't worry, the BYE BYE DADDY crowd will be back this coming October with their sham arguments against divorce.

    Should be interesting to see yet another referendum pass by a landslide against the side that has views shared with the Catholic church when it comes to divorce :D


  • #10006
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    end of the road wrote: »

    i tend to ignore points that i feel may not be relevant to the topic, and which i feel may be an attempt to drag the thread way off topic, or which i feel have a specific agenda which is not constructive to the topic. i do that for the good of the thread and other users as it would be unfair to take a thread down a whole of discussing such points.

    I’d ignore posts that make me look like a fool too, not for any altruistic purposes though, only because I don’t want to look like I fool.

    I’d say you’re no different.


  • #10007
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Don't worry, the BYE BYE DADDY crowd will be back this coming October with their sham arguments against divorce.

    Should be interesting to see yet another referendum pass by a landslide against the side that has views shared with the Catholic church when it comes to divorce :D

    Is that not being held in May? Been away a lot so if I missed the change.

    Funny that the bye bye daddy posters on here are the same faces normally giving out about women yet when asked they've never been married or divorced and aren't religious. The same faces dropped into the repeal threads to tell us we were all sluts or soyboys. They don't tend to go on about abortion to much now apart from the odd sly dig in threads such as the one about Harris having protesters outside his house, or some of the discuss X feminist threads.


  • #10008
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    I'm old enough to remember both divorce referendums, the first one just about, and I can tell you opposition was very nearly as vehement as it has been to abortion for most of my life. And that all evaporated the day the second referendum passed, even though it was by a wafer-thin margin. On the surface, it is puzzling that so many people can apparently feel so strongly about something and then just forget all about it once a reversible referendum result has gone against them by a tiny margin. A cynic might suggest their position was just a hypocritical sham all along...

    For a lot of people at least in the last referendum religion wasn't the reason for opposing divorce, it was the split up of family farms and business. At least in real life, boards and some of the usual faces I've my own ideas.


  • #10009
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,651 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I can’t believe you are brazenly posting after ignoring the numerous requests to address the points made to you. Why can’t you back up your statements?
    You’re unbelievable.

    For some unknown reason this particular poster is allowed to post whatever BS they want without sanction. Best to place on ignore and pray no one quotes it.


  • #10010
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,343 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    i tend to ignore points that i feel may not be relevant to the topic,.
    No, you tend to ignore things like people asking you to back up your statements or to explain a contradiction in your stance.

    Like for example, I pointed out how you didn't in fact explain the discrepancy in your position about the right to protest.
    You claimed that you explained it on the thread, but no such post exists.

    I pointed this out, but again you ignore it.
    Because that's the only tactic left to you.
    And frankly it's making you look ridiculous. Everyone has called you on it.


  • #10011
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    For some unknown reason this particular poster is allowed to post whatever BS they want without sanction.
    A claim which itself has been made many times and debunked, though some posters continue to make it.

    The forum has brought in a procedure to deal with posters who repeatedly make claims which other posters believe lack supporting evidence. That procedure is documented, in meticulous detail, here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108564307&postcount=6

    If you would like to do the footwork involved in using this procedure, then please do so and you'll be helped by the moderator team who does not wish to micromanage the debate (by having to prove or disprove claims) in order to make moderator-level decisions.

    If you do not want to do the footwork involved in using this procedure then you should stop making your previously-debunked claim that posters are able to post whatever they like without sanction - since the responsibility for inaction rests upon your unwillingness to follow the forum procedure specifically brought in to deal with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #10012
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,843 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Don't worry, the BYE BYE DADDY crowd will be back this coming October with their sham arguments against divorce.

    Should be interesting to see yet another referendum pass by a landslide against the side that has views shared with the Catholic church when it comes to divorce :D

    Just going through the motions though. It's such a footling change, it'll be nearly impossible to have any substantive debate about it...


  • #10013
    Fiftyfilthy
    Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Fiftyfilthy


    end of the road wrote: »



    i tend to ignore points that i feel may not be relevant to the topic, and which i feel may be an attempt to drag the thread way off topic, or which i feel have a specific agenda which is not constructive to the topic. i do that for the good of the thread and other users as it would be unfair to take a thread down a whole of discussing such points.


    Haha what a moronic post


  • #10014
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    robindch wrote: »
    A claim which itself has been made many times and debunked, though some posters continue to make it.

    The forum has brought in a procedure to deal with posters who repeatedly make claims which other posters believe lack supporting evidence. That procedure is documented, in meticulous detail, here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108564307&postcount=6

    If you would like to do the footwork involved in using this procedure, then please do so and you'll be helped by the moderator team who does not wish to micromanage the debate (by having to prove or disprove claims) in order to make moderator-level decisions.

    If you do not want to do the footwork involved in using this procedure then you should stop making your previously-debunked claim that posters are able to post whatever they like without sanction - since the responsibility for inaction rests upon your unwillingness to follow the forum procedure specifically brought in to deal with it.

    Why cant the mods just moderate rather than expect the regular posters to follow some odd long winded procedure when its blatantly obvious to everyone that one poster gets away with never substantiating anything and behaves in the same manner site-wide with their soap boxing, assertion of opinion as fact, various tactics such as pretending they have already answered (no such posts exist), contradicting themselves and generally being allowed to do what they like?


  • #10015
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    Why cant the mods just moderate rather than expect the regular posters to follow some odd long winded procedure when its blatantly obvious to everyone that one poster gets away with never substantiating anything and behaves in the same manner site-wide with their soap boxing, assertion of opinion as fact, various tactics such as pretending they have already answered (no such posts exist), contradicting themselves and generally being allowed to do what they like?
    To which I could add the excessive use of emotive language and much else. But, to answer your question, it's because - as I've pointed out many times before - both sides of this discussion are doing much the same thing, though to varying degrees, in different areas.

    In this discussion, no poster from any side is making any serious effort to find common ground with posters from the opposing side and most posters are guilty - to varying levels - of committing the debating sins you've correctly and accurately listed.

    If there were one side which discussed the issue calmly and clearly, while the other side behaved like pigeons - the creationism thread springs to mind - then yes, there would be a reason for the moderating team to step in and restore some balance. But in the general absence of calm and clear discussion on both sides, it's not the moderating team's place to shut down one side of the discussion for the sole reason that they're committing sins which the other side commits too.


  • #10016
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    robindch wrote: »
    ....it's not the moderating team's place to shut down one side of the discussion for the sole reason that they're committing sins which the other side commits too.

    Forgive me, I am not suggesting that ONE SIDE is shut down at all. Quite the opposite.

    I would simply like to see that one individual poster is held to task over their repeated dishonesty in posting.

    I genuinely do not see it from either all sides, or indeed from all of one side. But its been ongoing from one poster for a couple of years at this stage and despite repeated reports, complaints, feedback threads and numerous posters expressing the same frustration - it is allowed to continue.

    Its actually kind of fascinating. I think theyd call it "plot armour" on the tv thread. Whatever is going on - one poster is immune to having the moderation applied to them for the same endlessly repeated transgressions while the rest of us are held to a higher standard.

    I would like to see the posts that you feel are both sides engaging in the same thing?

    I must say, your post is a new wrinkle in the ongoing mystery why one person is so well protected by the site.


  • #10017
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    I would simply like to see that one individual poster is held to task over their repeated dishonesty in posting.
    Can you please substantiate your allegation of repeated dishonesty?

    The procedure outlined above would be best as it was brought in specifically to deal with problem posters, but so far as I can recall, it's been used only twice as nobody seems willing to do the footwork necessary to substantiate allegations like this.

    In the absence of using the standard procedure, anything which is clear and unambiguous would be a good start. Thanks.


  • #10018
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you please substantiate your allegation of repeated dishonesty?

    The procedure outlined above would be best as it was brought in specifically to deal with problem posters, but so far as I can recall, it's been used only twice as nobody seems willing to do the footwork necessary to substantiate allegations like this.

    In the absence of using the standard procedure, anything which is clear and unambiguous would be a good start. Thanks.

    Kind of irrelevant to the current discussion but how come this thread is still going after 10k posts? I thought there was a cut-off, I think I even reported my own post just for mod awareness of the postcount.


  • #10019
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you please substantiate your allegation of repeated dishonesty?

    OK - the posts on this thread alone, where the poster has made many unsubstantiated claims, and in a very recent post where they claimed that they had said something they hadnt.

    Are you really saying that you cant see it?

    Despite numerous posters complaining about it?


  • #10020
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Discussion now happening in the new thread here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057961470


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement