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 the Fourth

12357…60

Comments

  • #202
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

    The mandate was always for the government to legislate after repeal.

    There was never any suggestion that they would give us a separate vote.

    People knew exactly what they were voting for.

    Unless you can back your claim that people did not know what they were voting for?


  • #203
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    ....... wrote:
    Unless you can back your claim that people did not know what they were voting for?


    He won't and can't. One of the most hypocritical posters on the whole of the Boards site.
    Wanted protesters against the Gareth Brook's concerts to be baton charged, but happy to support others to intimidate women in crisis. Hypocrisy at its finest and most vile.


  • #204
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,738 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

    what seperate vote? We don't vote on legislation. That is what we elect a government for.
    The government released the heads of the bill before the referendum. People knew exactly what they voted for.


  • #205
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    We voted to repeal the 8th.

    We did not vote for abortion on demand no matter how many times you spout it out, we were asked did we want to repeal or retain the 8th.

    Repealing the 8th allowed for the opportunity to legislate grounds for termination of abortion, how many times do you have to be told this, seriously?


  • #206
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.

    If you feel you were duped then lobby your TD to get the laws changed. Focus your attention on that and leave doctors surgeries out of it. No one needs the stress of dealing with a protest when they are getting medical treatment. It's insensitive and needless and I doubt it is ever actually effective either.


  • #207
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    End maintains that the anti abortion campaign never lied about anything. Himself included. When shown evidence of these lies, he suddenly finds those facts irrelevant to the discussion and does not respond.
    Been over this many times - do not accuse your fellow-posters of lying as the forum charter makes quite clear. You have been asked to stop this before.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so. I have a link to their posts ignoring the request to make things easier for robindch's procedure and provide him/her with reports that follow robindch's request.
    That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US .
    King Mob wrote: »
    Have you evidence for this?
    Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

    In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

    Take it away, folks.


  • #208
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.

    How is this a request to spam forum moderators? The procedure dictates that a report has to be made of a poster failing to substantiate a claim of theirs, it isn't "bait", it's actively encouraging users to instead of continue the derailing the thread to utilize the report feature. What is it you want from us exactly? If we don't use it, you chastise us for not using it, if we do use it, you label it as "mob action"?

    And as for backseat moderation? That's laughable, I'm trying to get poster's to follow a charter that has been laid out so the thread may continue to be constructive, what would you like me to do, sit back and just have a one-sided discussion with someone who is flat out unwilling to engage or discuss any counter arguments?


  • #209
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    robindch wrote: »
    Been over this many times - do not accuse your fellow-posters of lying as the forum charter makes quite clear. You have been asked to stop this before.That is a request for forum members to spam forum moderators. Luckily, only one other poster took the bait, so you'll be forgiven this, plus your backseat moderation. Any more requests for what's essentially mob action will be dealt with firmly. FYI, the procedure you refer to requests a maximum of three links while you provided six - three is fine and any more add nothing to the report and delay processing it.Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

    In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

    Take it away, folks.

    I honestly thought the ridiculous hoop jumping exercise of reporting a poster was laughable but this new caveat is beyond ridiculous and you should honestly hang your head in shame for the protection you are blindly giving what is possibly the worst poster on this whole site.

    Seriously, Is EOTR a dummy account for Dav or Girdon or one of the other higher ups who are/have been on this site because i have seen better posters site banned for much less than what EOTR gets away with!


  • #210
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,141 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's fine. Not like anyone's dying or anything...


    This isn't really an answer to my question. I asked you to explain why you think that the protesters persist in protesting when it's obviously not effective?
    Is it possible that they have another objective?

    as a whole, i personally don't believe the majority have another objective. some individuals and groups may do so but i am satisfied that the law can and will deal with them effectively. i believe those protesting abortion protest because they feel it may be effective. i cannot say they are absolutely wrong and it won't be effective, i can only say that i personally don't believe they will. however they have to decide for themselves as to whether they think protests will be effective.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But people who are harassed are also doing this. You are accusing them of being biased and exaggerating.
    You just claiming you are always unbiased is not an argument to show you are not. You posting history shows you are not unbiased and use your personal bias a lot. You are using your personal bias in this very point.

    i never mentioned them being biassed. it was you who first mentioned bias if i remember rightly. certainly i would know if i was being biassed or not, and as i have said i'm not as i don't believe it is a good way to examine an issue.
    King Mob wrote: »
    That sounds exactly like you are downplaying it.
    But please detail what exactly you mean.
    Please point to an example of a report you examined and show how the person is incorrect when they call it harassment.
    A link to the source of the example would be great.

    i am not downplaying it nor have i downplayed it. i haven't examined any specific reports.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, but you've admitted that you have zero evidence for this. What are you using to reach this conclusion?

    mainly common sense, as for example, something like handing out lieflets with information, that is something that can and does happen across many other situations. for that to be classed as harassment, i fear that would mean long term people handing out information on anything could be accused of harassment if someone was to disagree with the information being handed out.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Advertisement
  • #211
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    How is this a request to spam forum moderators?
    The bit of your post which says "Everyone please follow the charter and report EOTR for breaching the aspect of failure to substantiate a claim after request to do so."

    One report is fine. Repeating reports add nothing.


  • #212
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    Regardless of the above, @King has asked @eotr to substantiate a vague claim - namely, that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim.

    In order for this claim to be adjudicated, there needs to be some workable data upon which an adjudication can be made. For this, @King should supply information from a reliable source indicating the types and incidence of harassment reported over some reasonable period of time, to which @eotr can then rebut from equally reliable sources indicating that @King's reports consistently overstate the types and/or incidences of harassment.

    Take it away, folks.
    Sorry, I'm not sure why I'm being asked to do this...

    I haven't made any claims about numbers or levels of harassment. I don't have any such reports from reliable sources to hand and I don't see why I should go out of my way to provide evidence for a claim I did not make.

    End's made the claim here. I was asking him to explain how he reached his conclusion and if he had any evidence to support it.
    Why do I need to provide evidence for this?
    :confused:


  • #213
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I honestly thought the ridiculous hoop jumping exercise of reporting a poster was laughable but this new caveat is beyond ridiculous and you should honestly hang your head in shame for the protection you are blindly giving what is possibly the worst poster on this whole site.
    @eotr made a claim which is adjudicable via statistics, as did @king. So far, neither side has produced any stats to justify either claim. As soon as both sides have produced stats, forum mods will be able to adjudicate which claim is more likely to be accurate. If neither side produces stats, then both sides are avoiding the issue and the adjudication will lapse.


  • #214
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    i never mentioned them being biassed. it was you who first mentioned bias if i remember rightly. certainly i would know if i was being biassed or not, and as i have said i'm not as i don't believe it is a good way to examine an issue.
    Ok, so why then are they mischaracterising what they experienced as harassment?
    end of the road wrote: »
    i am not downplaying it nor have i downplayed it. i haven't examined any specific reports.
    end of the road wrote: »
    mainly common sense, as for example, something like handing out lieflets with information, that is something that can and does happen across many other situations. for that to be classed as harassment,
    Ok. Here's your issue.
    You are saying you haven't looked at any reports or an incidents, but then you are stating that people are calling "handing out leafets" is harassment.
    Those two things don't match up.

    How can you know that there's a significant number of over stated reports when you haven't looked at any?


  • #215
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    @eotr made a claim which is adjudicable via statistics, as did @king. So far, neither side has produced any stats to justify either claim. As soon as both sides have produced stats, forum mods will be able to adjudicate which claim is more likely to be accurate. If neither side produces stats, then both sides are avoiding the issue and the adjudication will lapse.

    Side A made a statement.

    Side B asked them to provide evidence of that statement.

    How is the onus not on Side A to fulfill that request? Surely it should be the responsibility of the poster who made the original claim to substantiate it? Why do both sides have to provide evidence to support their claim?

    If you make a claim and you are asked to provide evidence to support it, you should provide evidence to support it, it's genuinely that simple.


  • #216
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    as did @king.
    Where did I do this?
    :confused:

    Edit: I looked back on my posts in the last few pages. I did not post anything that referenced statistics or numbers. I did not reference such as I do not know them and never claimed to.
    I stated that harassment happens. That fact isn't in dispute.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    I haven't made any claims about numbers or levels of harassment.
    You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

    As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

    If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

    Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.


  • #218
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

    As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

    If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

    Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

    Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/harassment-outside-abortion-clinics-buffer-zone

    https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/51977

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thats-deplorable--pro-choice-campaigners-hit-out-at-anti-abortion-protest-outside-gp-clinic-895575.html

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.html

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councils-consider-ban-on-protests-at-abortion-clinics-in-uk-36791948.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/mps-call-for-exclusion-zones-around-abortion-clinics-protests-harassment

    https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/6/19/no-more-harassment-at-the-doors-of-abortion-clinics-for-nsw-women

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-violence/death-threats-intimidation-double-at-u-s-abortion-clinics-group-says-idUSKBN1I82K1

    https://www.her.ie/news/urgent-call-safety-zone-legislation-stop-harassment-women-seeking-abortions-450796

    All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.

    Now, can you ask eotr to back up his claim, please?


  • #219
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    If you make a claim and you are asked to provide evidence to support it, you should provide evidence to support it, it's genuinely that simple.
    See above - eotr claims that harassment is lower than king believes. While King doesn't believe eotr's claim, king, by accepting the structure of the discussion, is happy that there is some level of harassment and that eotr is claiming that it's lower than that.

    There are two parts to this claim - king's implication that there exists a quantifiable level of harassment, and eotr's subsequent claim that this level is wrong.


  • #220
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

    As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

    If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

    Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.
    In my view, that's not what is being claimed. That is not what we are discussing.
    I haven't stated what level the harassment is because I don't know.
    End has claimed that of the incidents of claimed harassment that do exist, a portion are in fact not harassment as the person claiming to be harassed is overstating what happened (ie. they were not actually harassed and only believe they were).
    That is what I am asking him to substantiate or at least explain.
    The statistics about the levels of harassment do not factor in this particular point.


  • #221
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/harassment-outside-abortion-clinics-buffer-zone

    https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/51977

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/thats-deplorable--pro-choice-campaigners-hit-out-at-anti-abortion-protest-outside-gp-clinic-895575.html

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/health-minister-to-ban-protests-at-abortion-providers-894311.html

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councils-consider-ban-on-protests-at-abortion-clinics-in-uk-36791948.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/mps-call-for-exclusion-zones-around-abortion-clinics-protests-harassment

    https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/6/19/no-more-harassment-at-the-doors-of-abortion-clinics-for-nsw-women

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-violence/death-threats-intimidation-double-at-u-s-abortion-clinics-group-says-idUSKBN1I82K1

    https://www.her.ie/news/urgent-call-safety-zone-legislation-stop-harassment-women-seeking-abortions-450796

    All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.

    Now, can you ask eotr to back up his claim, please?

    With the exception of the indo and reuters, you have presented a tonne of links from organisations which are incredibly left leaning and heavily entranced in supporting abortion legalisation. sure if this is valid then the renua website and alive magazine are valid counterpoints.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    I stated that harassment happens. That fact isn't in dispute.
    Yes, and eotr agrees with you.

    What you are disagreeing about is, in some sense, an aggregate level of harassment - you believe it's high, eotr states that he believes that it's lower than what you believe. Note that eotr doesn't presumably know what level you believe, so I'm at a loss to know how eotr can assess that harassment is lower.

    Until such time as either side substantiates their implied or direct claims, there's isn't anything to be adjudicated.


  • #223
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Here, I will make things incredibly easy at this point. All with the same theme of people utilizing these services feeling harassed by protesters.
    Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

    You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.


  • #224
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,646 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    robindch wrote: »
    You have accepted that @eotr has claimed that harassment is, in some sense, lower than what you believe it is.

    As such, you must believe that you have some basis upon which to judge the levels of harassment, and @eotr's claim that you're overestimating it. All that the adjudicating post above is doing is asking you to provide that basis so that @eotr's claim that it's lower, and the evidence that @eotr provides, can be adjudicated.

    If, as you now say, you have no evidential basis upon which to assess the level of harassment, then there isn't much point in you asking for evidence from another poster who's telling you that you're overestimating it.

    Both sides are essentially shadow-boxing at this point.

    I honestly cannot believe i am witnessing this!


  • #225
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    This thread has just become absolutely ridiculous.


  • #226
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    With the exception of the indo and reuters, you have presented a tonne of links from organisations which are incredibly left leaning and heavily entranced in supporting abortion legalisation. sure if this is valid then the renua website and alive magazine are valid counterpoints.

    Then I eagerly await eotr to post his links to substantiate his claim.

    This is absolutely ridiculous at this stage.


  • #227
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,141 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so why then are they mischaracterising what they experienced as harassment?

    i think it's because they genuinely believe that they were harassed. but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place. we do need to have some guidelines so that we can show when harassment actually has taken place. but i'm not in agreement that simply handing out information and peacefully protesting on the public pavement/street can be part of that.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. Here's your issue.
    You are saying you haven't looked at any reports or an incidents, but then you are stating that people are calling "handing out leafets" is harassment.
    Those two things don't match up.

    How can you know that there's a significant number of over stated reports when you haven't looked at any?

    to be fair i never stated it was a significant number. i never gave any numbers as it's not something i could know, at least not for sure.
    but if you read any of the abortion threads across the site. there will be at least a couple who seem to believe that handing out lieflets or just basic protesting constitutes harassment. taking the belief outside this site, there will be people who share the same view that protesting and handing out lieflets outside a clinnic constitutes harassment, even though the clinnic likely may be on a public street. that is why i believe that there may be lower numbers then may be the case, because things that are not normally believed to be harassment, are being classed as such, when really the same acts are happening in the same situation as they would normally happen. people handing out information or protesting outside a building where something is taking place that they disagree with.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

    You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

    Robin, please read my posts. You have several times attributed to me a position that I did not state and do not hold.

    I did not state what level of harassment exists because I do not know. I did not claim to know. I made no claim about it beyond that it exists.

    End's claim is not about the level, but that a number of the reports of harassment that do exist are in fact false for one reason or another.
    That's what I was discussing.


  • #229
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    Thanks for those nine links which document harassment which both king and eotr agree happens.

    You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.

    If it's a baseless claim, how is it not possible to adjudicate anything?

    Here, let me help you by outlining what is in the charter:
    3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

    So there's a constant repetition of a single viewpoint whilst refusing to entertain discussion on it (the flat out disagreement without any evidence to support as such).
    When a claimant makes some unambiguous claim of fact, then any other poster can ask the claimant to support that truth-claim with evidence. The claimant should then provide that evidence within some reasonable period of time.

    Baseless claim = unambiguous claim of fact that King Mob has asked eotr to provide evidence to support their truth claim (as eotr has marked his opinion down as fact when it comes to how people should/should not feel harassed, which is another baseless claim).
    Once the claimant has provided evidence in support of the original claim, any poster can then request the moderator to review the evidence and adjudicate on whether it's sufficient. If the moderator judges that the claimant has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim, then the moderator will make an inthread note to the effect that the claim has been substantiated and the claimant is then free to make that claim in the future without being called out upon it. If the moderator judges that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to defend the claim, or if the claimant has simply avoided or ignored the request to support, then the moderators will make an inthread note that the claim has not been substantiated. In such a case, the claimant is not allowed to repeat the claim, unless it's accompanied by the supporting evidence which was missing the first time around (in which case, if the post is reported, the the moderator might adjudicate the claim as still unsubstantiated).

    So I can expect you now to post a friendly moderator note dictating that eotr is not allowed to repeat his baseless claim, no?

    From your words directly, you've listed eotr's breach of the forum charter.


  • #230
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Also - just to add on.

    EOTR has stated that we were asked to vote for or against Abortion on Demand in the campaign for the 8th amendment.

    Here is my evidence to prove that we were not in fact requested to vote on "abortion on demand" -

    ?width=581&version=4029344
    If the referendum is passed, this would allow the existing Article 40.3.3 – which contains the Eighth Amendment (right to life of the unborn), 13th Amendment (right to information about seeking a termination), and 14th Amendment (right to travel for a termination) – to be replaced with the line:

    Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

    Can you please ask eotr to substantiate his claim that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand?


  • #231
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    not claiming to know how much harassment exists but 66% of Ireland voted to repeal. There are and were regular posts on every social media outlet about how low the turnouts are for pro-life events are,

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/campaigners-protest-at-drogheda-hospital-over-first-abortion-1.3750072 in this article the protest consists of 5 older / elderly women , one older man and one younger man. Even if they were behaving in the most appauling way, I would fail to see how many would find them intimidating or harassing.

    This is the reality of these 'pro life' protests, <10 people, mostly older women.

    I do believe its annoying and inconvenient but I think claims of ' harassing' are classic left outrage culture where the most offended people on the planet are given a voice and it spirals.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    i think it's because they genuinely believe that they were harassed. but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place. we do need to have some guidelines so that we can show when harassment actually has taken place. but i'm not in agreement that simply handing out information and peacefully protesting on the public pavement/street can be part of that.

    i never stated it was a significant number. i never gave any numbers.
    but if you read any of the abortion threads across the site. there will be at least a couple who seem to believe that handing out lieflets or just basic protesting constitutes harassment. that is why i believe that there may be higher numbers then may be the case, because taking the belief outside this site, there will be people who share the same view that protesting and handing out lieflets outside a clinnic constitutes harassment, even though the clinnic likely may be on a public street.
    But here we run into the same problem again. You are applying a false dichotomy between "innocently handing out leaflets" and "screaming in people's faces".
    Do you accept that there is a spectrum between those two options?

    Do you accept for hypothetical example that there are ways to harass someone in careful ways that can be disguised or cover by seemingly innocent things like "just handing out leaflets"?

    Do you accept that there are possible actions that are not "harassment" in the legal sense, but are still distressing, intimidating and shaming?


  • #233
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    but i don't think simply saying one was harassed is enough to show that harassment actually took place.

    .....

    You do realize what you've posted, right? You haven't made a typo here?


  • #234
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    Robin, please read my posts. You have several times attributed to me a position that I did not state and do not hold. I did not state what level of harassment exists because I do not know. I did not claim to know. I made no claim about it beyond that it exists. End's claim is not about the level, but that a number of the reports of harassment that do exist are in fact false for one reason or another.
    The adjudication post above referred to the following two posts by you and eotr:
    end of the road wrote: »
    i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed?
    Please note the quantitative words in bold and my own summary of the general claim (which nobody has disagreed with): "that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim" - something ensapsulated reasonably well in the phrase "level of harassment".

    If the claim is something else, then it would be good to agree on what it is so that it can be adjudicated.


  • #235
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,141 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    But here we run into the same problem again. You are applying a false dichotomy between "innocently handing out leaflets" and "screaming in people's faces".
    Do you accept that there is a spectrum between those two options?

    of course and i thought i made that clear in my post but perhapse not.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you accept for hypothetical example that there are ways to harass someone in careful ways that can be disguised or cover by seemingly innocent things like "just handing out leaflets"?

    perhapse, but i don't believe simply handing out information would be one of those.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you accept that there are possible actions that are not "harassment" in the legal sense, but are still distressing, intimidating and shaming?

    i'm not sure at this stage. i think nearly all of what could be reasonably considered harassment is already covered by law. peacefully protesting and handing out information will not be something i could ever consider to be harassment.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • #236
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    You've requested adjudication on eotr's claim that king is overstating harassment - but again, without information regarding what level of harassment king might believe exists, and eotr's baseless claim that it's lower than that, it's not possible to adjudicate anything.
    If it's a baseless claim, how is it not possible to adjudicate anything?
    I re-read that line a few minutes after I'd posted it and knew that somebody would misinterpret the word "baseless".

    In the context in which it was used, it meant "without an base from which to compare". Specifically, since I suspect this clarification might not be clear enough, eotr claimed that harassment was lower than king claimed it to be, despite eotr not knowing what king might believe it to be - hence there is no base for eotr's comparison, hence the claim is baseless.

    Perhaps not the best choice of words, I certainly agree, but I trust the clarification clears things up.


  • #237
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    eviltwin wrote: »
    This thread has just become absolutely ridiculous.
    That's what happens when rhetoric hits rules - see Brexit anon.


  • #238
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes that is correct. however, the government decided to drive through their legislation upon a vote to repeal the 8th, rather then giving us a separate vote on it. that is how people more or less voted for AOD.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    There was never any suggestion of a vote on the legislation. So to suggest that anybody voted on that basis is a lie. Unless of course you can provide a source for your contention, in which case i will withdraw that remark.

    Now that there is a mod active at the same time as can you substantiate your claim that there was an expectation of a separate vote on legislation?


  • #239
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110011361&postcount=230

    For your attention, there is a claim that requires eotr to provide proof of, apparently I am on his ignore list so conveniently he does not have to oblige me with proof.


  • #240
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not sure at this stage. i think nearly all of what could be reasonably considered harassment is already covered by law. peacefully protesting and handing out information will not be something i could ever consider to be harassment.
    Ok.
    So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
    Is that a fair summation?

    Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
    Or is everything below harassment acceptable?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    The adjudication post above referred to the following two posts by you and eotr:Please note the quantitative words in bold and my own summary of the general claim (which nobody has disagreed with): "that reports from the US concerning harassment of individuals around medical facilities providing abortion services are not as widespread as some unnamed individuals claim" - something ensapsulated reasonably well in the phrase "level of harassment".

    If the claim is something else, then it would be good to agree on what it is so that it can be adjudicated.
    But robin, I didn't claim anything about the level of harassment in America.
    End referred to the claims made by someone else who was not me.
    How can I provide those evidence for those specific claims when I don't know what they are and End did not detail them?
    He claimed those claims were false first. He knows what those claims are. I don't'. I asked him to detail how he knows those claims to be overstated.

    I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know. :confused:


  • #242
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok.
    So given your previous statements, you believe that harassment starts at "screaming in people's faces" and than anything below that is not harassment.
    Is that a fair summation?

    Is there any point between the screaming in faces and handing out leaflets where something isn't harassment, but also is not acceptable behavior?
    Or is everything below harassment acceptable?

    I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

    I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.


  • #243
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Here is my evidence to prove that we were not in fact requested to vote on "abortion on demand" [...] Can you please ask eotr to substantiate his claim that we were asked to vote for/against abortion on demand?
    You haven't included any link to eotr making such a claim (though I'm sure eotr did), nor have you said what is "abortion on demand", nor do I know whether eotr might agree with your definition.

    The referendum vote was, prima facie, whether or not to remove text from the Constitution, so it certainly wasn't to introduce "abortion on demand", whatever that might be. That said, IRGov did publish draft legislation which it committed to enacting, should the vote be carried. There were no reports I recall indicating whether or not voters trusted IRGov to follow through on this commitment. While I've no doubt some people trusted them to do so, it's impossible to know how many did. Likewise, without an agreed definition for "abortion on demand", it's impossible to know whether the legislation meets that definition - some people will probably say yes, and some will say no - hence a thread to discuss this, and other issues.

    Regardless of that, the following article from TheJournal summarises the position prior to the referendum reasonably well:

    https://www.thejournal.ie/qa-changing-legislation-after-repeal-4006293-May2018/

    Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.


  • #244
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

    I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.
    And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

    I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
    It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
    It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.


  • #245
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I think holding up pictures of foetuses , handing out leaflets, wearing tshirts, praying, chanting and even calling out 'murderer' once not directed at individuals entering or leaving the premises targeted does not constitute harassment (as tasteless as it may be), once it evolves to specific targets (e.g. pointing at a woman leaving and calling her a murderer) thats the threshold of where it becomes harassment.

    I think theres a lot of evidence for the (tasteless) yet not harassment going on. I don't think theres enough evidence to substantiate the claims that harassment (by the above metric) is occurring on any kind of frequent or organised basis.

    The right to peacefully obtain medical care without interference, harassment or intimidation supersedes protesters rights to shout ‘murderer’ at random members of the public.
    You’re right that it’s tasteless but it’s also harassment.
    It is intentional targeting of vulnerable people who are under enough stress as it is. It’s abhorrent and unjustifiable.

    There is a time and place for it and outside hospitals and GP clinics is not that place.

    I’m like a broken record at this stage but with a bit of mutual respect there is no need for either side to impose their beliefs on the other any more.

    Both sides are now free to live their lives as they see fit and are no longer arrested by the morals of one opinion.


  • #246
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robindch wrote: »
    You haven't included any link to eotr making such a claim (though I'm sure eotr did), nor have you said what is "abortion on demand", nor do I know whether eotr might agree with your definition.

    The referendum vote was, prima facie, whether or not to remove text from the Constitution, so it certainly wasn't to introduce "abortion on demand", whatever that might be. That said, IRGov did publish draft legislation which it committed to enacting, should the vote be carried. There were no reports I recall indicating whether or not voters trusted IRGov to follow through on this commitment. While I've no doubt some people trusted them to do so, it's impossible to know how many did. Likewise, without an agreed definition for "abortion on demand", it's impossible to know whether the legislation meets that definition - some people will probably say yes, and some will say no - hence a thread to discuss this, and other issues.

    Regardless of that, the following article from TheJournal summarises the position prior to the referendum reasonably well:

    https://www.thejournal.ie/qa-changing-legislation-after-repeal-4006293-May2018/

    Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.

    My definition does not matter nor does EOTR's definition. We were not asked to vote for abortion on demand. I have reported EOTR's post in relation to this and have provided a link to my own post correcting this.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110010546&postcount=198

    This is factually incorrect, his interpretation of what is written on ballot paper is not fact, it his opinion and should be highlighted as an opinion rather than a fact with solid foundation. If it is soap-boxing as you've mentioned, can this be actioned please.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    robindch wrote: »

    Without any more tiresome word-splitting, the claim that "people voted to enact abortion-on-demand" is either meaningless or false - in both cases, it essentially amounts to soap-boxing.

    Well you might want to talk to EOTR and Splinter 65 about that they've claimed this numerous times.


  • #248
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    King Mob wrote: »
    And just as an aside, what do you believe the goal of the tasteless non-harassment is?

    I and others believe that the goal is to make it more difficult to get an abortion by intimidation and shame.
    It's my opinion that this is the real point of the protests outside clinics
    It's my opinion that this is the real reason why anti-abortionists are opposed to exclusion zones, as they would lose a tactic they use to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

    I believe that they genuinely see it as murder , a position I do not agree with but I believe deep down that they genuinely see it that way.

    I believe their protests are an attempt to have women change their minds at the last minute and 'see the light' , I think they are opposed to exclusion zones for the same reason anyone opposes not being able to advertise / be around anything, convenience and targeted footfall. If they have to go 100 meters away then they need two / three groups to cover every way in or out of a premises and get maximum coverage. As I illustrated above, these protests are incredibly small and they just don't have the people power to effectively make everyone pass them if theres an exclusion zone.

    Most in these groups believe theyre doing 'the lords work' saving 'babies' from murder so will ofcourse fight to have every mind changed that they can.

    I don't think these are very effective, and I doub't theres much evidence to suggest that a 70 year old woman handing out a leaflet saying god bless you, or her husband shouting 'murderers' at a building has ever changed a womans mind , but similarly I don't think theres much evidence to suggest that this kind of action has intimidated women from going to have an abortion.


  • #249
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I give up. It seems eotr is free to do as they please.


  • #250
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know
    robarmstrong reported six posts without clarifying what exactly the issue was with which post - hence the confusion which now reigns.

    I suggest that this attempt to adjudicate is dropped since nobody seems to be able to agree on which exact claim was made and how that might be adjudicated in the light of clarifying evidence.


  • #251
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    But robin, I didn't claim anything about the level of harassment in America.
    End referred to the claims made by someone else who was not me.
    How can I provide those evidence for those specific claims when I don't know what they are and End did not detail them?
    He claimed those claims were false first. He knows what those claims are. I don't'. I asked him to detail how he knows those claims to be overstated.

    I can't substantiate claims made by other people who I do not even know. :confused:

    I provided a link to ETOR showing that the level of harassment is increasing especially since 2097, I haven't seen his rebuttal with evidence to the contrary.

    I also provided a link disputing his claim that the people who are actually attacking clinics and doctors are lone unorganized individuals. I'm still waiting on a rebuttal with evidence.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement