L&H Abortion Debate

griffdaddy

the thing there is that those idiots instigated the violence in a non-violent setting, and it cant be 'justified' (:D ) as they were attacking poeple who were arguing in a civilised, regardless of content, capacity.
I'd agree one hundred per cent about most fascists being keyboard warriors, they almost remind me of butters out of south park sometimes, putting on costumes and running around the place thinking they're somekind of evil super heroes, causing, as they like to put it, 'mass disruption!' To be honest it's these kind of sneaky, stupid tactics that píss me off so much and would like to see them take a beating, or at least be compromised physically. i couldn't give a shít what someone's views are on abortion, i have mine and would defend them and speak about why i have them happily, stopping short of promoting them. the whole idea of trying to change someone's mind who's at a complete pole to you is pointless. if these guys are so prolife why dont they go and convert the neutrals, rather than attempting to convert peole who have taken time to research the topic to such a degree that they can speak at/attend a debate on the subject and make up their own mind? If the LandH had a high level of pro-choice commitee members and ran with this debate knowing these guys were coming, they'd have practically handed the debate to the pro choice side. i'm pro choice myself, and wouldn't want to win an argument or referendum ad hominem because of these chaps. actually how to normal prolife people here feel about these guys and their views in general?

The_Minister

griffdaddy wrote:

i dont really think it would be fascism to crush these guys, they're point of view isnt valid, they're methods of demonstration are not valid, they are criminals and thugs and should be treated as such. they're well organised as was said before, and they disperse too quickly to have the guards do anything, i just think the best thing to is to try and beat some sense into them, which is not strictly illegal or unethical or hypocritical if they're the ones who began the violence

It's nice to judge isn't it?

Riamfada

The_Minister wrote:

against an organisation that is deeply unpopular with indymedia's audience.

An oraganisation that is becoming deeply unpopular with most people due to their "you are either with us or against us" attitude.

harrybosch

hey guys, just to let you all know that lawsoc is having an abortion debate on tuesday evening round 7. come along if you interested, should be a great debate with some excellent speakers planned to speak at the debate. pm me if you want anymore details

Het-Field

Who are the guest speakers

griffdaddy

The_Minister wrote:

It's nice to judge isn't it?

i meant their point of view that violence and disruption are good ways of addressing a particular issue, not their views on abortion or otherwise. do you hold that i'm wrong to judge them on their actions, which are a manifestation of their point of views, which we are all in agreement are stupid?

Chakar

Thats a pity the debate was cancelled the L&H could have got Services in to make sure everything was in order.

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Pythia

Chakar wrote:

Thats a pity the debate was cancelled the L&H could have got Services in to make sure everything was in order.

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Well maybe he didn't. I'm not saying this is fact.

Blush_01

Chakar wrote:

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Conor, grow up.

griffdaddy wrote:

i meant their point of view that violence and disruption are good ways of addressing a particular issue, not their views on abortion or otherwise. do you hold that i'm wrong to judge them on their actions, which are a manifestation of their point of views, which we are all in agreement are stupid?

I think the problem here is that you're advocating violence, which was what they were also proposed to be using in order to get their point across. It makes you no better than them. Actually, no, it makes you worse than them, because you claim to know better, and are proposing a solution based on acting in a reprehensible manner regardless.

I think the crux of the issue here is that regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, you should be allowed to voice and attempt to support your views. Regardless of whether they're "right" or "wrong". The cancellation of the debate was indubitably a good idea. The L&H had problems with riots before, and it was definitely a smart move not to take the risk when such a sensitive issue was for debate.

Keep in mind, in a society of debaters, people can advocate a side without actually agreeing with their own points. It's perfectly possible to create a solid arguement to oppose your own personal beliefs, even if you still feel that the opposite of what you're saying is more socially beneficial/"right"/"true".

Umaro

*sob* Now we won't be able to express our pretentious opinions!!

elmyra

Umaro wrote:

*sob* Now we won't be able to express our pretentious opinions!!

Umaro, you mind reader. That was exactly what went through my head when I heard it was cancelled!

griffdaddy

Blush_01 wrote:

I think the problem here is that you're advocating violence, which was what they were also proposed to be using in order to get their point across. It makes you no better than them. Actually, no, it makes you worse than them, because you claim to know better, and are proposing a solution based on acting in a reprehensible manner regardless.

i'm advocating retalitory counter-violence which is entirely a different matter. who says it's so reprehensible? you might say 'oh, you're worse because you think you're right' but either you agree that i am right i.e. their violence is wrong, or you think that i'm wrong i.e. their violence is right. in a nutshell my rightness is universal, being in the interests of the majority i.e. everyone except them, who are the protagonists. They lose the right to be treated non-violently once they themselves initiate the violence. You can take what i'm saying out of context if you like ( i was being facititous about the pro-choice rally ambush) but i'm still of the opinion that the only way to deal with a group of people who refuse to allow free debate and are pretty much beyond the reaches of the law because of the anonymity of their group should be engaged in violence, hopefully leading to detention. haha, you got me sounding like i'm writing some code of war or something now! . i'm sorry but i cant see any other viable way of dealing with these guys. I don't know what you were trying to say in your last paragraph, i've been debating for 6 years and know how to construct a depersonalised arguement, like that time i had to argue pro-paedophilia! although you were probably talking to people in general and not me

Blush_01

griffdaddy wrote:

i'm advocating retalitory counter-violence which is entirely a different matter. who says it's so reprehensible? you might say 'oh, you're worse because you think you're right' but either you agree that i am right i.e. their violence is wrong, or you think that i'm wrong i.e. their violence is right. in a nutshell my rightness is universal, being in the interests of the majority i.e. everyone except them, who are the protagonists. They lose the right to be treated non-violently once they themselves initiate the violence. You can take what i'm saying out of context if you like ( i was being facititous about the pro-choice rally ambush) but i'm still of the opinion that the only way to deal with a group of people who refuse to allow free debate and are pretty much beyond the reaches of the law because of the anonymity of their group should be engaged in violence, hopefully leading to detention. haha, you got me sounding like i'm writing some code of war or something now! . i'm sorry but i cant see any other viable way of dealing with these guys. I don't know what you were trying to say in your last paragraph, i've been debating for 6 years and know how to construct a depersonalised arguement, like that time i had to argue pro-paedophilia! although you were probably talking to people in general and not me

I was, that's why I seperated it from the rest of what I said. Only the first part after your quote pertained to what you'd said.

Re: bold I don't believe that violence solves anything. Believing that you're wrong to advocate launching a so-called counter attack (although what you said sounded more like "attack them before they attack us", to be honest) doesn't mean I condone violence on the part of either group. If you can't prove your point without fists etc. then you don't have much of a point do you? I stand by what I said. You openly acknowledged that violent action on the behalf of your so-called opposition is wrong, yet feel perfectly ok with using violence yourself against them. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? "It's wrong for them to do it, but it's ok if we do what they've done wrong, since they've already done it."? Does two wrongs don't make a right ring any bells?

griffdaddy

Blush_01 wrote:

I was, that's why I seperated it from the rest of what I said. Only the first part after your quote pertained to what you'd said.

Re: bold I don't believe that violence solves anything. Believing that you're wrong to advocate launching a so-called counter attack (although what you said sounded more like "attack them before they attack us", to be honest) doesn't mean I condone violence on the part of either group. If you can't prove your point without fists etc. then you don't have much of a point do you? I stand by what I said. You openly acknowledged that violent action on the behalf of your so-called opposition is wrong, yet feel perfectly ok with using violence yourself against them. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? "It's wrong for them to do it, but it's ok if we do what they've done wrong, since they've already done it."? Does two wrongs don't make a right ring any bells?

to be honest i think this debate is pretty circular and opinion based and probably can't really go anywhere, i believe that violence as a defense against violence is acceptable, you dont. it's not hypocrisy per se, as although i'd be commiting the same act as them. i'd be doing it a)only after they had instigated it, b)in defense of something which is universally right i.e. the freedom of others to express their opinions peacefully. if i criticised them for forcing their opinions on others with violence, and then forced my opinion on others with violence, i would be a hypocrit. what i'd be defending with violence against them is not my opinion, neither would i have anything to gain from it, it's a universal justice. i can see exactly where you're coming from though, and can see why you believe it's wrong, as a lot of people would, it's a matter of opinion. out of curiousity, and hypothetically (as if this whole debate isnt anyway:D ) if i came around your house and punched you in the face for disagreeing with me on this one, would you punch me back?

Blush_01

No. But you'd bloody hope you had good legal support.

Where is the LawSoc debate on?

NiallOh

Blush_01 wrote:

No. But you'd bloody hope you had good legal support.

Where is the LawSoc debate on?

The LawSoc debate is on this Tuesday, at 7:00 in Theatre Q, Arts. Guest speakers:
- William Binchy, Legal Advisor of the Pro Life Campaign
- Georgette Forney, founder of American "Silent No More Awareness Campaign"
- Rev. Vincent Twomey, Professor of Moral Theology
- Representitives from pro-choice organisations such as the IFPA and Body
- A balanced number of student speakers

The motion for the debate is "That This House Would Legalise Abortion on Demand" - like they have in England. I'd encourage everyone to attend as it should be a passionate and informative debate.

Chakar

Blush_01 wrote:

Conor, grow up.

That is deliciously ironic :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

[modbit]Ladies, lads, calm down.

If I even get a sniff of anyone trying to use this board to organise a riot or otherwise satisfy a political agenda, I won't be slow in dealing with it appropriately.[/modbit]

While I'm neutral on the abortion issue (I fail to see how a man could possibly take a stance on something that clearly concerns women), I do have something to say about the advocation of violence.

Firstly, YD are plainly extremists who have no place in UCD (they aren't a society afaik). Therefore, they have absolutely no prerogative to even attend an L&H debate, let alone threaten people in connection with the debate.

Secondly, advocating riots against violence is equally ludicrous. "Counter-violence" is no justification at all. If they use violence, let them suffer the political repercussions. People who think violence solves political problems are thankfully in a minority, so although it's not pleasant for the targets of the violence, they're hardly going to gain a majority vote by beating up students at an academic debate. Are they?

Dave!

hulla a man is in just as good a position as a woman to have a moral opinion on abortion. You don't have to have a womb to be able to discuss the ethical conflicts involved. But that's neither here nor there, just wanted to point it out.

hullaballoo

Yeah, but again, that's your opinion. I was just stating mine. I wasn't saying for a second that just because that's what I believe, that anyone else should. I don't try to enforce my political views on anyone, and I generally keep them to myself where they belong.

I use my vote instead of keyboard kombat.

griffdaddy

hullaballoo wrote:

[modbit]Ladies, lads, calm down.

If I even get a sniff of anyone trying to use this board to organise a riot or otherwise satisfy a political agenda, I won't be slow in dealing with it appropriately.[/modbit]

thanks a lot, you could've told me that before i spent the night stuffing snooker balls in socks to hand out on campus.:D

on a serious note though, i'm not advocating any kind of riot or instigation of violence, simply a physical and violent, if necessary, defense against these guys. they might not get any votes by beating up students, but they're beating up students by beating up students, and the only way they'll learn their lesson is by receiving a strong message that said students are no longer an easy target. alternatively services could nag them to submission for their student card, but i doubt this would be as effective

Dave!

hullaballoo wrote:

Yeah, but again, that's your opinion. I was just stating mine. I wasn't saying for a second that just because that's what I believe, that anyone else should. I don't try to enforce my political views on anyone, and I generally keep them to myself where they belong.

I use my vote instead of keyboard kombat.

Well perhaps you should express your opinion if you feel it is more correct or just than someone else's. That encourages other people to go "oh yeah, never thought of it like that", and so they vote for whoever you're voting for, and you affect change.

Just my opinion!

hullaballoo

I would, but people usually think my opinion's crap.

boneless

It is good to see this level of debate and exchange of views on UCD boards... I support a number of the positions that posters have presented but I will sum up my stance on the issue by saying that I just hate extremists of any shade.

The debate should have gone ahead... the lumpen element who threatened violence won... I will be going to LawSoc's debate.

Blush_01

NiallOh wrote:

The LawSoc debate is on this Tuesday, at 7:00 in Theatre Q, Arts. Guest speakers:
- William Binchy, Legal Advisor of the Pro Life Campaign
- Georgette Forney, founder of American "Silent No More Awareness Campaign"
- Rev. Vincent Twomey, Professor of Moral Theology
- Representitives from pro-choice organisations such as the IFPA and Body
- A balanced number of student speakers

The motion for the debate is "That This House Would Legalise Abortion on Demand" - like they have in England. I'd encourage everyone to attend as it should be a passionate and informative debate.

Pants to you, that's ELS night! I'll try to get in before the pub. Grr.

The_Minister

Blush_01 wrote:

Pants to you, that's ELS night! I'll try to get in before the pub. Grr.

Oh no! Damn. The cost of being on the commitee.

passive

Pants to you, that's ELS night! I'll try to get in before the pub. Grr.

I though the exact same thing... Well.. maybe with "damn" instead of "pants". Hmm... I already switched work so i was free Tuesday.. But... I do love a good riot.

panda100

Blush_01 wrote:

I think the crux of the issue here is that regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, you should be allowed to voice and attempt to support your views. Regardless of whether they're "right" or "wrong". .

Couldnt agree with this more. Everybody has the right to have their say and in UCD both pro life and pro choice freedom of speech is regularly squashed. I supppose its because its a topic that some people feel really passionate about. The people who are losing out are the normal students who dont know wether they are pro-life or pro choice and would like to hear more about the two sides to abortion.
I hope this year both pro lifers and pro choicers put the students need for information on abortion before their own passionate views.

fatal

Myth wrote:

Yes, that'll show that you're much better then they are.

maybe not but cant turn down the chance at giving a good beat down to some that deserve it:D

Vainglory

I'm speaking at the debate tomorrow evening..Come along, pimp pimp etc.