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 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

Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

123578

Comments

  • #202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Flex wrote: »
    Hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, is anyone actually surprised we're going to be made vote on this again?
    I'm not surprised, but probably for different reasons from yours.


  • #203
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    sink wrote: »
    You need to learn more.


    Council of the European Union     - DIRECTLY ELECTED government ministers from 27 states

    European Parliament - 785 DIRECTLY ELECTED parliamentarians from all states

    European Commission - Elected by the Council and confirmed by the parliament - held accountable to both



    I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

    It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

    If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

    It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

    As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.


  • #204
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    auerillo wrote: »
    I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

    It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

    If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

    It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

    As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.

    ...and your source for "80% of our laws"...?

    inquiringly,
    Scofflaw


  • #205
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.


  • #206
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    auerillo wrote: »
    I love your "you need to learn more"! But then , I am sure we all do, even you.

    It may be that, for you, its ok that, for example, Peter Mandleson etc, are nominated by the british PM. For me, that is not the same thing as being elected, which is generally thought to mean by one person one vote.

    If you really think the power in the EU lies with the only body elected by universal suffrage, the parliament, then again we have to disagree.

    It seems that some guys here, in their desire to promote the EU, are unable to do so while at the same time realising that it is not perfect. That the real power lies with individuals who we, the people, can't remove. Inevitably these arguments seem to become personal ( for example "you need to learn more"), and then the argument changes from an argument about the EU, to an argument based more on a desire to prove someone else wrong, becoming more personality based, with the truth being a casulty.

    As someone pointed out in a different thread, the EU was never set up to be democratic. Perhaps that is its flaw.

    This is not personal and I'm sorry if you feel so but that is probably more a reflection of your attitude towards the EU than anything else.

    Peter Mandelson while not someone I would support was nominated by the Brits in the same way McCreevy was nominated by the Irish. The commission president then gives out the portfolios. Once all commissioner are selected they are passed to the Parliament for approval. If the parliament does not approve the selection process has to start again.

    The president of the commission is nominated by the council who is then approved by the parliament. In reality the parliament pretty much gets to decide who it wants. A centre right coalition insisted on Barroso who was a member of the European Peoples Party of which Fine Gael are members.

    You can read more about the 2004 commission appointment here.
    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1237192,00.html

    I don't have a direct say in who is on the commission in the same way I don't have a direct say in who is a member of Brian Cowens cabinet. I never had the option to cast a vote for Mary Coughlan or Micheál Martin yet they are ministers none the less. Just as I don't get a direct say in who is on the commission but the people I elect do.


  • #207
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.
    So I'll ask the question I keep asking, over and over again, in response to the slogan "no means no": is it your assertion that not a single provision contained in the Lisbon treaty should ever again be put to a vote in Ireland?


  • #208
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    If the public were given the chance to vote and they voted no, then why should they be asked to vote again? No means no.

    1. if they're being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing, then they can say No again - the worst one can say is that their time is being wasted.

    2. if they're not being asked to vote again on exactly the same thing, then they're voting on something they haven't voted on before.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #209
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?

    Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?


  • #210
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?

    Personally it would not surprise me. Our parliament has a very poor track record of introducing progressive rights protection legislation. The EU on the other hand is very good at it.

    Just look at where the majority of workers protection, consumer protection, equality protection and health and safety legislation comes from. It pretty much all comes from the EU. If it were up to our parliament I would think we would not have anywhere near the protection the EU affords us. Admittedly the EU can be a bit over zealous at times but that is better than none at all in my book.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    O'Morris wrote: »
    And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?
    Would it bother you if it turned out to be true? Would it in any way change your mind about the EU if it was found that 80% of our laws really are made outside of our national parliament?

    Interesting question. If you mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty", then definitely not. Otherwise, hmm, not sure.

    Mostly, though, I'd be quite surprised if it were the case, and even as stated, the claim is misleading, since it would make one assume that 80% of our whole legal system is based on EU directives/regulations, which seems extraordinarily unlikely.

    I presume the claim really means that 80% of the current 'legislative output' (laws currently being made) is based on EU directives/regulations - in which case it may be the case in some years.

    Mainly my objection is to people bandying about a figure without any attempt whatsoever to substantiate it - as if it were obvious and beyond challenge, which clearly is not the case.

    After all, what's the point of me deciding whether it would bother me without knowing if it's anywhere even close to the reality? It's like deciding whether I'd rather be attacked by Sasquatches or Yetis.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #212
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So I'll ask the question I keep asking, over and over again, in response to the slogan "no means no": is it your assertion that not a single provision contained in the Lisbon treaty should ever again be put to a vote in Ireland?

    “No means no" is a slogan? It's rather a statement of fact. Would you tell a person that has been raped that their assertion that "no means no" is a slogan?


  • #213
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    “No means no" is a slogan? It's rather a statement of fact. Would you tell a person that has been raped that their assertion that "no means no" is a slogan?

    Do you want to argue semantics or do you just want to avoid tackling the issue at hand? All you're doing is trying to squirm you way out of answering an uncomfortable question.


  • #214
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    sink wrote: »
    Do you want to argue semantics or do you just want to avoid tackling the issue at hand? All you're doing is trying to squirm you way out of answering an uncomfortable question.

    You are preaching to me about semantics? There are many pages here in which you have attacked people about semantics. I re-iterate the word attack rather than discuss or debate in a civilized manner. The yes voters on this thread, not liking the result of the Irish electorate, have attacked anyone that has an opinion different from their own.

    An individual posts in this thread and you literally pounce upon them like a rabid dog feasting on prey. Please do not preach to me about semantics. If people wish to diminish the comments I am making calling them slogans, I will return the favour.


  • #215
    krpc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭krpc


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    “No means no" is a slogan? It's rather a statement of fact. Would you tell a person that has been raped that their assertion that "no means no" is a slogan?

    I think it is a valid question. Isn't this whole thread about semantics anyway?


  • #216
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    You are preaching to me about semantics? There are many pages here in which you have attacked people about semantics. I re-iterate the word attack rather than discuss or debate in a civilized manner. The yes voters on this thread, not liking the result of the Irish electorate, have attacked anyone that has an opinion different from their own.

    An individual posts in this thread and you literally pounce upon them like a rabid dog feasting on prey. Please do not preach to me about semantics. If people wish to diminish the comments I am making calling them slogans, I will return the favour.

    Ok let's forget about semantics for them moment. I'm trying to remain on the current topic. I would like to hear your opinion on OB's original question. Would you accept any part of the Lisbon treaty ever being put to a vote ever again?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    sink wrote: »
    Ok let's forget about semantics for them moment. I'm trying to remain on the current topic. I would like to hear your opinion on OB's original question. Would you accept any part of the Lisbon treaty ever being put to a vote ever again?

    I think you have proved my point about pouncing on individuals. I think I also made my point on The Lisbon Treaty quite clear; no means no.


  • #218
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I think you have proved my point about pouncing on individuals.
    If you have a problem with a post, report it. Leave the moderating to the moderators.
    I think I also made my point on The Lisbon Treaty quite clear; no means no.
    Let's be absolutely clear about this: if any single provision of the Lisbon treaty, no matter how minor, were ever to be put to a vote again, the answer is an automatic no?

    There's not one single provision anywhere in the treaty that you think could possibly ever be of any benefit to us?


  • #219
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I think you have proved my point about pouncing on individuals. I think I also made my point on The Lisbon Treaty quite clear; no means no.

    Should I try to avoid confronting people who's opinions I disagree with because they might get upset? I think they need a little more backbone then that. If they have strength in their convictions they should be able to stand up and face any argument.

    It seems like you are trying to do the exact same thing with this debate as with the debate in Europe over it's future, trying to simply putting an end to it. Fact is many people want different things and all those wants are going to have to be accommodated whether you approve of them or not. The Balkans & Caucuses are still going to want to join, the Baltics are still going to want to increase defence cooperation, Germany and Britain are still going to want to change the voting rules, almost all countries are still going to want to increase cooperation in energy. Putting a halt to further debate solves nothing and Ireland becomes a problem that all others need to solve.


  • #220
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I think you have proved my point about pouncing on individuals. I think I also made my point on The Lisbon Treaty quite clear; no means no.

    Ok, anything else to ad? You've been asked to elaborate your position, that is not pouncing, actually you are the one pouncing on others! Mmmmmmm!

    That is your opinion, many people voted No expecting another referendum to be held in the future. In fact, this was SF, Libertas etc. main argument, a better deal could be negotiated.

    Will that renegotiation be to all No voters liking? No.
    Will it be to SF and Libertas liking? Unlikely.

    There was a poll in the few days after the referendum showing a large section expected another referendum. There's probably a link on this board back then.
    Whether they all want a total renegotiation or a Nice2 scenario wasn't explored.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #221
    krpc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭krpc


    If the government wanted to pass individual provisions should they not have put individual provisions to the people - the people voted against the entire treaty, not just portions of it. Therefore the people have spoken, have they not? I believe they have.

    The whole yes campaign attitude to that no result is that of a sore loser as is quite evident on this thread. I absolutely agree with Rsaeire about the attitude of the posters for the yes campaign on this thread - the aggression is quite aparent, but I would not bother to complain, especially considering a moderator is one of those aggressors, but rather I'll take solace that the no vote prevailed and allow the sore losers to continue with their pedantic arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    krpc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭krpc


    sink wrote: »
    Should I try to avoid confronting people who's opinions I disagree with because they might get upset? I think they need a little more backbone then that. If they have strength in their convictions they should be able to stand up and face any argument.

    It seems like you are trying to do the exact same thing with this debate as with the debate in Europe over it's future, trying to simply putting an end to it. Fact is many people want different things and all those wants are going to have to be accommodated whether you approve of them or not. The Balkans & Caucuses are still going to want to join, the Baltics are still going to want to increase defence cooperation, Germany and Britain are still going to want to change the voting rules, almost all countries are still going to want to increase cooperation in energy. Putting a halt to further debate solves nothing and Ireland becomes a problem that all others need to solve.

    I thought this was a forum for discussion and debate, not confrontation and argument?


  • #223
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    i-bloodhound wrote: »
    If the government wanted to pass individual provisions should they not have put individual provisions to the people - the people voted against the entire treaty, not just portions of it. Therefore the people have spoken, have they not? I believe they have.

    The whole yes campaign attitude to that no result is that of a sore loser as is quite evident on this thread. I absolutely agree with Rsaeire about the attitude of the posters for the yes campaign on this thread - the aggression is quite aparent, but I would not bother to complain, especially considering a moderator is one of those aggressors, but rather I'll take solace that the no vote prevailed and allow the sore losers to continue with their pedantic arguments.

    I'm pretty sure you have never come across real aggression if you feel i'm being overly aggressive. For the most part I use counter arguments and reasoning and I try my best to stay away from personal attacks but sometimes as in the case of ktex2, I can't resist as he was denying simple facts and evidence and voiced groundless accusations which he could not back up.

    This is only distracting us all from the real argument. It seems illogical to think that just because we said no and 'no means no' forever, that our supposed friends who have real concerns that they want addressed are just going to let things lie. If we are unwilling to accommodate the only option they will have is to go around us.


  • #224
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    i-bloodhound wrote: »
    I thought this was a forum for discussion and debate, not confrontation and argument?

    What do you think confronting someone with facts and counter argument is? Stop trying to obfuscate the debate.


  • #225
    krpc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭krpc


    sink wrote: »
    What do you think confronting someone with facts and counter argument is? Stop trying to obfuscate the debate.

    You have already admitted to using a personal attack against a user here on this thread, so I rest my case in terms of what your definition of "confrontation" and "argument" are. Anyway, as you said, let's get back on track, hopefully without the personal attacks and aggression.


  • #226
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    i-bloodhound wrote: »
    You have already admitted to using a personal attack against a user here on this thread, so I rest my case in terms of what your definition of "confrontation" and "argument" are.

    I admit it was a mistake but everyone is human, when people are unreasonable I can become unreasonable.
    i-bloodhound wrote: »
    Anyway, as you said, let's get back on track, hopefully without the personal attacks and aggression.

    Lets. :)


  • #227
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Interesting question. If you mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty", then definitely not.

    I did mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty" and I find it interesting to see that you have such little regard for our sovereignty that you say it definitely wouldn't bother you it is was found that 80% of our laws are made outside of our democratically elected national parliament. If you genuinely hold that view then I think you're in a very small minority of the Irish population.


  • #228
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I did mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty" and I find it interesting to see that you have such little regard for our sovereignty that you say it definitely wouldn't bother you it is was found that 80% of our laws are made outside of our democratically elected national parliament. If you genuinely hold that view then I think you're in a very small minority of the Irish population.

    I would not be overly concerned with sovereignty either as I am a humanistic anti-nationalist and self identified world citizen.

    http://www.worldcitizen.org/

    Nationalism is illogical in an interdependent interconnected multi-polar world.


  • #229
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    100% of our laws are made in our democratically elected national parliament. What percentage of those laws are made in order to comply with the obligations of international treaties to which we've signed up is an open question, which auerillo has chosen not to answer.


  • #230
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And perhaps wholesale review of information sources, too! I've seen the "80%" thing floating about - where does it come from, please? Is there any fact-checking behind it at all?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You may have forgotten, but we have discussed this before here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055335747&highlight=statutory+instrument&page=15

    I suppose what is interesting is the acceptance that laws which bind us, and to which we all have to obey on punishment of prison etc, can be made and enforced by people who are not democratically accountable to me or to any other citizens of the EU. Whether that's 80% or 15% is not that relevant to the fact that it happens;the percentage merely tells us the proportion of overall law.

    it also calls into question why we pay TD's salaries (forget the generous tax breaks and expenses) of over €100 000 pa, when most of their work now is to rubber stamp statutory instruments made in the EU, and over which our TD's have no powers to reject.


  • #231
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    auerillo wrote: »
    You may have forgotten, but we have discussed this before here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055335747&highlight=statutory+instrument&page=15
    You weren't able to back up the figure in that thread either.
    I suppose what is interesting is the acceptance that laws which bind us, and to which we all have to obey on punishment of prison etc, can be made and enforced by people who are not democratically accountable to me or to any other citizens of the EU.
    If you didn't have an extremely annoying habit of ignoring posts that don't suit you, you'd have noticed that the lie has already been given to that particular canard, and in quite some detail.
    Whether that's 80% or 15% is not that relevant to the fact that it happens;the percentage merely tells us the proportion of overall law.
    Is this your way of backing down from an assertion you can't provide any evidence for?
    it also calls into question why we pay TD's salaries (forget the generous tax breaks and expenses) of over €100 000 pa, when most of their work now is to rubber stamp statutory instruments made in the EU, and over which our TD's have no powers to reject.
    It doesn't call anything of the sort into question, unless you can back up your assertion that most of our legislation comes from Europe, which you have tacitly acknowledged that you can't.

    I'm going to draw your attention to this forum's rule on soapboxing, which can be defined as preaching a particular position and refusing to engage in meaningful debate with anyone who disagrees with you. Participate meaningfully, or don't participate.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You weren't able to back up the figure in that thread either. If you didn't have an extremely annoying habit of ignoring posts that don't suit you, you'd have noticed that the lie has already been given to that particular canard, and in quite some detail. Is this your way of backing down from an assertion you can't provide any evidence for? It doesn't call anything of the sort into question, unless you can back up your assertion that most of our legislation comes from Europe, which you have tacitly acknowledged that you can't.

    I'm going to draw your attention to this forum's rule on soapboxing, which can be defined as preaching a particular position and refusing to engage in meaningful debate with anyone who disagrees with you. Participate meaningfully, or don't participate.

    oscarBravo, firstly, is your word of the day "assertion"? Did you see it on toilet paper or something?

    Secondly, your comment about someone having an extremely annoying habit of ignoring posts that don't suit you and soapboxing - if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.


  • #233
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    oscarBravo, firstly, is your word of the day "assertion"? Did you see it on toilet paper or something?
    Yup, it was written on my toilet roll first thing this morning. Damnedest thing.
    Secondly, your comment about someone having an extremely annoying habit of ignoring posts that don't suit you and soapboxing - if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
    Firstly, please read the charter before posting again; specifically the section about commenting on moderation. Secondly, if I've ignored specific questions I've been asked, or pretended not to see any factual refutations of my posts, please point them out and I'll address them.

    Apropos, have you answered the last question I asked you?


  • #234
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yup, it was written on my toilet roll first thing this morning. Damnedest thing. Firstly, please read the charter before posting again; specifically the section about commenting on moderation. Secondly, if I've ignored specific questions I've been asked, or pretended not to see any factual refutations of my posts, please point them out and I'll address them.

    Apropos, have you answered the last question I asked you?

    Yup, I have answered it.

    Let me rephrase my previous point so it is completely removed from the fact that you are a moderator nor admonishes your moderatorship skills.

    It is interesting to see how you have no problem, in numerous threads across this forum, complaining about people not answering your questions or only responding to points that suit them, when in fact you are completely guilty of it yourself.

    With your masterful precision at noticing non replies to your questions from others, I would have assumed you would have been exceptionally careful to ensure you answered questions aimed at you, without the need for me or anyone else to point them out to you.


  • #235
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    Yup, I have answered it.
    I think not. Try again.
    Let me rephrase my previous point so it is completely removed from the fact that you are a moderator nor admonishes your moderatorship skills.

    It is interesting to see how you have no problem, in numerous threads across this forum, complaining about people not answering your questions or only responding to points that suit them, when in fact you are completely guilty of it yourself.
    I'll direct you to my previous post. If I'm so guilty of it, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding examples.


  • #236
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I think not. Try again.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57110224&postcount=217


  • #237
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57110310&postcount=218


  • #238
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57110310&postcount=218

    Yes, I did see that second question you posed, however in the interest of civilty I thought it courteous to await a response from you to my question before once again having to re-iterate my position.


  • #239
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    Yes, I did see that second question you posed, however in the interest of civilty I thought it courteous to await a response from you to my question before once again having to re-iterate my position.
    Are you talking about this question?
    Rsaeire wrote: »
    “No means no" is a slogan? It's rather a statement of fact. Would you tell a person that has been raped that their assertion that "no means no" is a slogan?
    If so, the answer is no: I wouldn't tell a person that has been raped that. Are you seriously trying to draw an analogy between being raped and being asked to vote? Would you tell a person who has been raped that their experience is comparable to the trauma of being asked to vote in a referendum?


  • #240
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you talking about this question?

    If so, the answer is no: I wouldn't tell a person that has been raped that. Are you seriously trying to draw an analogy between being raped and being asked to vote? Would you tell a person who has been raped that their experience is comparable to the trauma of being asked to vote in a referendum?

    I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly.
    I'm glad you feel you've drawn a perfect analogy, although I doubt that many rape victims would agree with it. I presume it's fair to assume that if you've ever been asked whether you would like a cup of tea and said "no", that you'd be outraged at ever, ever again being offered one. After all, no means no - it doesn't mean maybe, it doesn't mean possibly.
    Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point.
    On the contrary, I think you've made mine. You've refused - yet again - to answer my direct question. It's an important question, because it's designed to demonstrate the obvious flaw in your reasoning, which - I suspect - is why you're refusing to answer it.


  • #242
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

    Ok in your world of absolutes. If you are a Anglican and you reject Catholicism does that mean you reject everything Catholicism teaches including the parts which concur with Anglicanism?

    Very few things in this world are absolute. The people who follow absolutes generally hold extreme views.

    The no vote can not be construed as a rejection of every single individual aspect of the Lisbon treaty and the only people who would hold such views probably hold extreme political ideologies.


  • #243
    Rsaeire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Rsaeire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm glad you feel you've drawn a perfect analogy, although I doubt that many rape victims would agree with it. I presume it's fair to assume that if you've ever been asked whether you would like a cup of tea and said "no", that you'd be outraged at ever, ever again being offered one. After all, no means no - it doesn't mean maybe, it doesn't mean possibly. On the contrary, I think you've made mine. You've refused - yet again - to answer my direct question. It's an important question, because it's designed to demonstrate the obvious flaw in your reasoning, which - I suspect - is why you're refusing to answer it.

    I'd respond directly, however for fear of being accused of soap-boxing, I can't. I want to participate within the charter afterall.

    Plus, I don't drink tea... ever.


  • #244
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I'd respond directly, however for fear of being accused of soap-boxing, I can't. I want to participate within the charter afterall.
    Nice cop-out.
    Plus, I don't drink tea... ever.
    You could have substituted a refreshing beverage of your choice, but I guess that would mean accepting that someone you disagree with might have a point. We couldn't have that, could we?


  • #245
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

    But many No voters where told a re negotiation could be done!

    What type of re negotiation is the question that needs to be answered which can only be definitively answered by another referendum!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #246
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Rsaeire wrote: »
    If so, the answer is no: I wouldn't tell a person that has been raped that. Are you seriously trying to draw an analogy between being raped and being asked to vote? Would you tell a person who has been raped that their experience is comparable to the trauma of being asked to vote in a referendum?
    I'm pleased you don't think it's a slogan in that situation. The purpose of the question was to demonstrate that "no" is an absolute. In other words, no means no. It does not mean maybe, it does not mean possibly. Thank you for the reply. I believe I've made my point. Please feel free to enjoy the remainder of the discussion on this thread.

    If "no means no", then following your use (and analogy) above, we find that a refusal to have sex on one occasion is a refusal to have sex on any occasion.

    I think "tautology" might be the word you're looking for rather than "absolute". No means no on the occasion it's used - it's not usually unconditionally binding in perpetuity.

    Also, as Seanies32 correctly points out, something like 75% of voters voted under the impression that the Treaty could be 'renegotiated'.


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If "no means no", then following your use (and analogy) above, we find that a refusal to have sex on one occasion is a refusal to have sex on any occasion.

    Well sex is dependent on any changing variables, such as mood. Also sex with a nice girl is a yes, but with a smoker no no (controversial!). Sex is not a same thing every time thing.

    The Lisbon Treaty is the same every time of the day, does not depend on you mood or the amount of alcohal you have consumed :D


  • #248
    Agent J
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    The issue comes down to how oftern is a referendum on the same issue acceptable?

    All the numbers, surverys and polls are meaningless except for the actuall referendum.

    It was rejected. The reasons arent that relevant unless they lead to a different referednum being asked which is unlikely.


  • #249
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Interesting question. If you mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty", then definitely not.
    I did mean in the sense of "our sacred sovereignty" and I find it interesting to see that you have such little regard for our sovereignty that you say it definitely wouldn't bother you it is was found that 80% of our laws are made outside of our democratically elected national parliament. If you genuinely hold that view then I think you're in a very small minority of the Irish population.

    Quite possibly so. I have no time for "national sovereignty", and less for the glorification of it - a nation-state is an administrative unit.

    I suppose one could say that I'm interested in citizen sovereignty - that the people should be able to govern themselves effectively and wisely, and that they should be as free to act as possible within the obvious strictures. I certainly don't see the nation as a particularly special level for the exercise of the people's power - local issues are best sorted out at a local level, and larger issues at a higher level as appropriate. It's rare that issues simply cease at a line on the map.

    What, apart from mystical concepts, do you offer as a justification for seeing the national level as the most important?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #250
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    turgon wrote: »
    Well sex is dependent on any changing variables, such as mood. Also sex with a nice girl is a yes, but with a smoker no no (controversial!). Sex is not a same thing every time thing.

    The Lisbon Treaty is the same every time of the day, does not depend on you mood or the amount of alcohal you have consumed :D

    Fairly put - but still one can change one's mind about it. One's understanding of the Treaty can change, and how one feels about what one understands of the Treaty can change, the external circumstances can change, your personal circumstances can change, how one thinks the Treaty will pan out in practice can change, and how one feels about that can change (and some of those things probably do change with your mood and the amount of alcohol you have consumed...).

    You're confusing the map with the territory, you see - nobody votes on the Treaty (the words and pages), they vote on what the Treaty means to them.

    non-Aristotelianly,
    Scofflaw


  • #251
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Agent J wrote: »
    All the numbers, surverys and polls are meaningless except for the actuall referendum.

    So asking people why they voted, their concerns that need addressing, getting information to see "hey, what can we do here" is wrong.

    Agent J wrote:
    It was rejected. The reasons arent that relevant unless they lead to a different referednum being asked which is unlikely.

    How do they know what type of different referendum to vote on, unless they know the reasons for a No vote?

    If we had an abortion referendum and the Government commissioned polls on the reasons people vote no, would you be as annoyed? Does No, mean No then?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement