Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Rsaeire

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think not. Try again.

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

oscarBravo

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

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.

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?

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.

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.