Ireland - Still A Backward Country?

galwayrush

mcwhirter wrote: »

Ireland is leading with banning, but anything else?

Politicians expenses and rewarding incompetence with massive pensions and golden handshakes., we're way ahead there, only marginally behind a few banana republics.

MikeC101

goldenbrown wrote: »

plenty real people of Ireland will leave in disgust in the next 20 years....some of us will stay and fight it out by civil means, because in tough economic times we get hitlers, mussolinis, franco's

Is anyone else getting just a *little bit* tired of all the dire warnings of impending fascism due to bad economic times?

It's not as if we see the economy has contracted a point over 7% and pull on our jackboots and armbands. There have been other economic depressions since the 30s....

Min

I think the liberal agenda is backward, it is lets be sheep and legalise this that and the other since such a country has legal - abortion/euthanasia/gay marriage/insert whatever....
Lets be progressive and be sheep, lets be Dolly the sheep, a nation who cannot think for itself but have liberals who feel we are backward since we do not bleat like some other countries, lets be liberal and make ourselves clones of other countries.

No thanks.

Min

MikeC101 wrote: »

Is anyone else getting just a *little bit* tired of all the dire warnings of impending fascism due to bad economic times?

It's not as if we see the economy has contracted a point over 7% and pull on our jackboots and armbands. There have been other economic depressions since the 30s....

We won't have the money to pay for a dictatorship.

thelordofcheese

Min wrote: »

I think the liberal agenda is backward, it is lets be sheep and legalise this that and the other since such a country has legal - abortion/euthanasia/gay marriage/insert whatever....
Lets be progressive and be sheep, lets be Dolly the sheep, a nation who cannot think for itself but have liberals who feel we are backward since we do not bleat like some other countries, lets be liberal and make ourselves clones of other countries.

No thanks.

Hey, guess what, the word 'liberal'
A] Isn't a dirty word, no matter how much you think so
B] does not mean what you think it means

Also, i'd like to point out that most of these topics that you feel are part of a "liberal" agenda, such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage are by and large, illegal in most of the world. To follow your (very awful) reasoning, we'd be sheep if we didn't legalise them, because we'd also be making ourselves clones of other countries.

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

To follow your (very awful) reasoning, we'd be sheep if we didn't legalise them, because we'd also be making ourselves clones of other countries.

So....we should legalise them, then we wouldn't be sheep! Right?

Wait...maybe that's exactly what they want us to do..

*cue ominous music*

MikeC101

Min wrote: »

We won't have the money to pay for a dictatorship.

Well the sales guy I was talking to said that sure, there's an initial outlay for the uniforms, propoganda and the like, but the dictatorships he had on offer would begin to pay for themselves within the year.

thelordofcheese

MikeC101 wrote: »

So....we should legalise them, then we wouldn't be sheep! Right?

-_-

The fact that i called mins reasoning "very awful" might suggest i'd favour us making up our own mind, and pleading that we should decided based on what other countries do or don't do is backward ass retarded.

No? Wasn't obvious enough?


Damn.

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

-_-

The fact that i called mins reasoning "very awful" might suggest i'd favour us making up our own mind, and pleading that we should decided based on what other countries do or don't do is backward ass retarded.

No? Wasn't obvious enough?


Damn.

Hence I included the "To follow your (very awful) reasoning," part when I quoted it, and also stuck in the "Wait...maybe that's exactly what they want us to do.. "

Wasn't obvious enough?


Damn.

thelordofcheese

MikeC101 wrote: »

Hence I included the "To follow your (very awful) reasoning," part when I quoted it (which you cut out when quoting me)

Quotes don't tree 'bout these parts, and i wasn't going to copy-paste your drivel.

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Quotes don't tree 'bout these parts, and i wasn't going to copy-paste your drivel.

Heh, I just realised that and tried to do a fast edit. Not fast enough.

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

i wasn't going to copy-paste your drivel.

Love the condescending air, thanks.

Edit: I felt the sheer lunacy of suggesting decisions be made in regards to whether we'd be acting like sheep in making them lent itself to an equally insane, and I thought obvious, response, which was made firmly in cheek. This being the internet I should have been aware than tone or meaning doesn't always come across very well.

Min

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Hey, guess what, the word 'liberal'
A] Isn't a dirty word, no matter how much you think so
B] does not mean what you think it means

Also, i'd like to point out that most of these topics that you feel are part of a "liberal" agenda, such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage are by and large, illegal in most of the world. To follow your (very awful) reasoning, we'd be sheep if we didn't legalise them, because we'd also be making ourselves clones of other countries.

I never said liberal is a dirty word, just feel it is wrong for liberals to believe everything is backward if we aren't all as backward as they are.

Jesus Juice

AlexderFranke wrote: »

I am a German Ireland and Irish language fan. Therefore I have read several articles about Ireland and have been there two times, yet. These are my ten pence:
I think allowing (hard) pornography, same gender marriages, abortion, rude blasphemy and banning schools run by the church are a sign of decadency rather than progres. Abortion is simply murdering developing tiny chhildren. Open adoption or providing the possibility to rear the child is, in my opinion, the only way to solve the problem. Same sex marriages are against natural order. Especially hard pornography supports an inhuman picture of sexuality and therefore sexual crimes. It is also against human dignity to be allowed to say or show things insulting evily religious feelings. One can discuss where there is a border as is the case of pornography. I would say only erotic magazins are alright. The Chriastian faith is Europe's fundament of worths which had caused much positive in society. As long as parents want denominational schools to pass on Christian worths to their children they ought to exist. Otherwise we go towards a similar doctrine as in former communist states. I hope that Ireland never will become as decadent as many other European countries, for example the Netherlands or Germany. But I do never want such such a situation as in Iran or Saudi Arabia, either, where gays and lesbians are executed and spreading "unislamic" contents is punished by hurting severely the body.
Indeed I have read about unsufficient health care in Ireland. There has to occur improvement. There is another point which is very backward in Ireland: Public transports. There are many cities which can't be reached after 19 p.m. Even at Iarnród Éireann there are lines where the last InterCity goes at 9 p.m. In other countries main cities have links into the night or even round the clock. Today you should be able to travel from Castlebar to Galway at 10 or 11 p.m., for example.In rural areas public transports can operate by call.
And the last point is the hard discussed issue, yes, the Irish language. I do not understand that the Irish people have not succeeded in spreading good knowledge of Irish within long years of teaching it at school since the 20s and after several campaigns. Other countries show that it is possible to teach and spread a regional language effectively, for example Wales or Catalonia. In Wales and Catalonia language shift has been stopped.
But a real backward country by now is Germany. Until today there is nearly no awareness and revvival of local heritage except in some Southern areas. Furthermore there is hardly more discrimination against disabled than in other European countries. The situation on the working market and acceptance in the society towards people outside of the mainstream is one of the worst in Europe. Especially conservative people and conservative Christians are more and more stigmatized in the German society.
With regards, Alex

Annnnd THATS where I stopped taking this post seriously.

thelordofcheese

Min wrote: »

I never said liberal is a dirty word,

You just post as if liberals are a homogenous group who all have the same "backwards" thoughs, which incidentally shows liberal really doesn't mean what you think it means.

I get the feeling you say the word liberal in the same tone of voice one might say "scumbag".

thelordofcheese

MikeC101 wrote: »

Love the condescending air, thanks.

Edit: I felt the sheer lunacy of suggesting decisions be made in regards to whether we'd be acting like sheep in making them lent itself to an equally insane, and I thought obvious, response, which was made firmly in cheek. This being the internet I should have been aware than tone or meaning doesn't always come across very well.

indeed, sorry about that, tone is indeed a bitch over the internets.

Paddy Samurai

JupiterKid wrote: »

We all know that Ireland, once one of the most socially backward countries in the world, has approached the social mores of its Western European neighbours over the past 30 or so years with the decriminalisation of contraception, divorce and gay sex (decades after most other developed countries).

However, there are still things where Ireland has quite a long, long way to go before it can even dream to call itself modern.

Let's see...

• Abortion still illegal
• Pornography still illegal
• Same sex civil unions or any official regognition of same sex relationships illegal
• Blasphemy law introduced
• Debtors still sent to prison
• Most schools still controlled by religious orders
• Grossly underfunded mental health care
• No State provided childcare facilities

Get the picture? Ireland is still a pretty backward country in my opinion.:( Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that our farting about during the bubble years made us anything special. To many of our European cousins were are still a small minded and backward little island.:mad:

The reality is we are no more backward than alot of the other countries in the world, and pretty far ahead of a most of them.Probably most of these items on the list could be applied to 90% of the countries in the world.

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

indeed, sorry about that, tone is indeed a bitch over the internets.

No worries

The thread has been swinging about from intense seriousness to something close to lunacy with rapidity.

Anyway, us liberalz should be sticking together, and working towards that new world order, not arguing amongst ourselves - after all, we do all think the same

MikeC101

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You just post as if liberals are a homogenous group who all have the same "backwards" thoughs, which incidentally shows liberal really doesn't mean what you think it means.

I get the feeling you say the word liberal in the same tone of voice one might say "scumbag".

I think it's fair to say that it's gotten to a point where I generally have no idea what someone means when they say liberal, unless their post provides the context (in Mins case it seems to be a universally baaaad thing) or I can have a quick look through their previous posts to get an idea. It's almost become worthless to use in conversations.

thelordofcheese

MikeC101 wrote: »

No worries

The thread has been swinging about from intense seriousness to something close to lunacy with rapidity.

Anyway, us liberalz should be sticking together, and working towards that new world order, not arguing amongst ourselves - after all, we do all think the same

ALL GLORY TO THE HIVE MIND!

MikeC101 wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that it's gotten to a point where I generally have no idea what someone means when they say liberal, unless their post provides the context (in Mins case it seems to be a universally baaaad thing) or I can have a quick look through their previous posts to get an idea. It's almost become worthless to use in conversations.

It's been one of the great sucesses of the american republican party whereby they managed to make the word liberal a dirty one for so many people, it's almost orwellian.

asdasd

Annnnd THATS where I stopped taking this post seriously.

Fan of the hard-core porn, are ya?

His point that hard-core porn dehumanises the act, or objectifies the act is not just a conservative one, plenty of feminists would make that claim too.

Hard core, mind.

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Hey, guess what, the word 'liberal'
A] Isn't a dirty word, no matter how much you think so
B] does not mean what you think it means

Also, i'd like to point out that most of these topics that you feel are part of a "liberal" agenda, such as abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage are by and large, illegal in most of the world. To follow your (very awful) reasoning, we'd be sheep if we didn't legalise them, because we'd also be making ourselves clones of other countries.

It's not a dirty word, it's just a woeful ideology.

Aard

What exactly makes it woeful?

galwayrush

Aard wrote: »

What exactly makes it woeful?

Regarding the country,
The way it was run for the past few years, otherwise it could be one of the best places in the world to live in.

Dudess

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not a dirty word, it's just a woeful ideology.

Yet people treat it as if it's a dirty word - even using the term to insult someone. It's hilarious.
And what exactly is woeful? It's hardly an ideology, it's a bunch of ideologies. Surely you agree with some of them? You won't be "betraying" your conservative brethren if you do. I'm a "liberal" I suppose (I prefer to call myself a moderate - I don't set out to be leftwing, it's just most of my views are leftist by default) but I don't agree with every single liberal ideology and I would support the odd conservative-leaning one.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Yet people treat it as if it's a dirty word - even using the term to insult someone. It's hilarious.

I wouldn't see it as "hilarious" per sé, nor would I consider the word "dirty". I do consider liberalism as something which is potentially dangerous in any society when taken far too far. That's mainly what I am opposed to.

Dudess wrote: »

And what exactly is woeful? It's hardly an ideology, it's a bunch of ideologies. Surely you agree with some of them? You won't be "betraying" your conservative brethren if you do. I'm a "liberal" I suppose (I prefer to call myself a moderate - I don't set out to be leftwing, it's just most of my views are leftist by default) but I don't agree with every single liberal ideology and I would support the odd conservative-leaning one.

By liberalism, I'm talking about the non-sensical view which has emerged most recently which is influenced by post-modernism that insists that there are no absolutes, and that there is no real need for functional restrictions where it could have an adverse effect on society. It rather than seeking to have rational and necessary restrictions seeks to demolish as many of them as humanly possible to allow people to make their own view on things, even when they could affect the rest of us as well. To pursue their own ideology they complain that those who seek to have reasonable boundaries are coercing, forcing, and in numerous cases that they are bigots for merely being concerned about certain laws.

By conservatism, I'm talking about the view that change is welcome, but change has to take place with a debate where both sides bring forward their views and where the Government as legislators take into serious account the possible affect of this law, consults the population, and only when the pros and cons after being weighed up suggest that this law is more beneficial than not. Only then it should be legalised. If a majority of the population are not satisfied that morally contentious viewpoints should be legalised then it should be postponed until a point when they are. Change can only happen when the society is willing. Most conservatives would agree that the people should have an input into what norms and what laws are beneficial or are not beneficial. Both sides should have their say, and people shouldn't be guilt tripped by being called "bigots" or be slandered when they think that legitimate boundaries to our society are necessary.

Aard

Jakkass wrote: »

It rather than seeking to have rational and necessary restrictions seeks to demolish as many of them as humanly possible to allow people to make their own view on things, even when they could affect the rest of us as well.

Could you give some examples of restrictions that were demolished that affected "the rest of us"?

philologos

Aard wrote: »

Could you give some examples of restrictions that were demolished that affected "the rest of us"?

I'm not referring to anything that has occurred in Ireland really yet. Ireland has a constitution which has helped to defend socially conservative principles to a greater extent than in other countries.

Aard

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not referring to anything that has occurred in Ireland really yet. Ireland has a constitution which has helped to defend socially conservative principles to a greater extent than in other countries.

OK, so can you give some examples of restrictions that were demolished that affected "the rest of us" from other countries then?

philologos

Aard wrote: »

OK, so can you give some examples of restrictions that were demolished that affected "the rest of us" from other countries then?

The three major ones which could have negative net effects on society unless adequate thought is given to the potential side effects are currently:

Prostitution, drug legalisation, and gay marriage.

People refer to my views on the latter to be bigoted because I am not sure that gay marriage will not have a negative net effect on child rearing, and because I am not sure that it will not cause discrimination against people of traditional Christian beliefs. I personally just want to be convinced that there will be measures in place to stop the first two from happening. I'm perfectly happy with civil partnership because it provides me with the assurances that I need.

Aard

Jakkass wrote: »

Prostitution, drug legalisation, and gay marriage.

Can you explain how these would affect you? I fail to see how they affect anybody but the people personally involved.

MikeC101

Jakkass wrote: »

gay marriage....I am not sure that it will not cause discrimination against people of traditional Christian beliefs.

Can you explain exactly how gay marriage will cause discrimination against people of traditional Christian beliefs? Actual discrimination mind, being offended by it doesn't count.

Min

I was watching the Oscars this year, all those actors and actresses who hated democracy were very vocal. It was like how dare the people of California vote to ban gay marriage, it was - the will of the people shouldn't be heard, Hollywood not famous for being the centre of conservatism.

Miss USA hit by the scandal of Perez Hilton saying Miss california lost and ended up 2nd place for saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman only, he insulted her for not conforming.
This is very backward by Hollywood and Perez Hilton, it is the hatred of freedom of people to decide democratically and the hatred of the freedom of speech, it is we must all conform to what they see as being the new right compared to what has been the norm for centuries.

philologos

Aard wrote: »

Can you explain how these would affect you? I fail to see how they affect anybody but the people personally involved.

The "rest of us" doesn't exclusively mean me. It means society. Yes, I could see potential negative effects of all of these things for certain people in society which would cause me not to see them as beneficial changes:

1. Prostitution - in countries where prostitution has been legalised it has had no net effect on net trafficking, and it still funds criminal activity. It does not serve any positive purpose for society rather it becomes a means by which people can commit adultery against their spouses, and it becomes a means by which women often come to it as a last resort out of financial coercion. I don't see how that is positive for anyone especially if most of the money is going back out into criminal activity. As for where I am getting the example from here, I'm thinking of the Dutch model of prostitution. Other countries have been far more successful which have made it illegal.

2. Drug legalisation - Legalising drugs, even cannabis doesn't just have an effect on the health and well being of the individual involved, it has also provoked angry killings in the UK, when we legalise drugs we don't consider what other net effects it could have on our communities safety wise. Again, just because one legalises the drugs trade it does not mean that the gangs get out of selling it. They merely find a nice cushy legal way to make money for their gangs rather getting out of the game.

3. Gay marriage - On the outset if gay marriage involved just a commitment between two of the same gender and it did not involve other people it would be fine. However it is not that simple at all. People who do not share the beliefs of those being married can be prosecuted for choosing not to have a part in other peoples marriage ceremonies. For example people have been brought to court and sued in the USA for refusing to photograph a gay marriage due to the photographers religious beliefs. It also impacts the right of the child to have a mother and a father, and it could negatively impact the childs development not to have a male and a female role model in their lives growing up. Finally, it could have negative impacts on the education system for people who support traditional marriage rather than gay marriage. People may want to teach their child what they had learned traditionally instead of teaching them about gay marriage. There are numerous issues that need to be resolved before I could support it ever.

However no doubt I will be called a bigot, a homophobe, and that I am "forcing" my view on others (which is pure nonsense, I'm just having my say like they are, and I am no more forcing my views on society than the liberal is) amongst other things for merely disagreeing with some of the liberals on this forum.

MikeC101

I fail to understand the concept of someone else having rights somehow detracting from your rights. In essence, as long as they're not hurting other people, I think people should be free to do as they want.

In general there's usually a handwaving of bad effects on "society" as a reason for restricting others rights - society being defined as the some notion of the "average hardworking people", for values of average that agree solely with your own belief.

It seems rights of society > rights of the individual.

Again, if nobody is being hurt by what you're doing, you should be free to do it. Vague notions of damage to the moral fabric of society are not, for me, enough justification for restricting peoples rights.

Dudess

But the very same can apply when a conservative agenda is pushed. Extremities on either side are as bad as each other.

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You just post as if liberals are a homogenous group who all have the same "backwards" thoughs, which incidentally shows liberal really doesn't mean what you think it means.

I get the feeling you say the word liberal in the same tone of voice one might say "scumbag".

Come off it, you feel the exact same way about conservatives :pac:. Infact the OP does too for referring to socially conservative policies as being "backwards"!

mikemac

JupiterKid wrote: »

• Abortion still illegal
• Pornography still illegal
• Same sex civil unions or any official regognition of same sex relationships illegal
• Blasphemy law introduced
• Debtors still sent to prison
  

Get the picture? Ireland is still a pretty backward country in my opinion.:(

Yes, in your opinion.
Because of some of use don't share your liberal views doesn't make us backward.

Or is it progress for the sake of progress that you're looking for OP?

philologos

MikeC101 wrote: »

I fail to understand the concept of someone else having rights somehow detracting from your rights. In essence, as long as they're not hurting other people, I think people should be free to do as they want.

This is where I disagree. I don't think these three do not have the potential to affect other people negatively. One would have to convince me that this is true before I would change my opinion concerning it. I think restrictions are needed to prevent against harm.

MikeC101 wrote: »

It seems rights of society > rights of the individual.

For the most part yes. Something should only be legalised if it doesn't have a negative net effect on society at large. If it does I don't think it is worth pursuing. We live together, we should be pursuing the common good than pursuing ideas merely based on the individual.

MikeC101 wrote: »

Again, if nobody is being hurt by what you're doing, you should be free to do it. Vague notions of damage to the moral fabric of society are not, for me, enough justification for restricting peoples rights.

I agree with you, but it is a big if. I don't consider my points to be merely vague.

Dudess wrote: »

But the very same can apply when a conservative agenda is pushed. Extremities on either side are as bad as each other.

Probably, but I feel that a conservative viewpoint in politics is more beneficial than a liberal one. It encourages taking change seriously with thought rather than jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds "progressive".

MikeC101

mikemac wrote: »

Gotta say, Jakass you've thanked quite a number of posts and I've done likewise

Great minds think alike

...as do lesser ones.

philologos

MikeC101 wrote: »

...as do lesser ones.

Luckily that's a mere ad-hominem. It's a common trait for people in these type of discussions to attack the individual putting forward the idea when the idea doesn't suit their own.

TheInquisitor

Jakkass wrote: »

The "rest of us" doesn't exclusively mean me. It means society. Yes, I could see potential negative effects of all of these things for certain people in society which would cause me not to see them as beneficial changes:

1. Prostitution - in countries where prostitution has been legalised it has had no net effect on net trafficking, and it still funds criminal activity. It does not serve any positive purpose for society rather it becomes a means by which people can commit adultery against their spouses, and it becomes a means by which women often come to it as a last resort out of financial coercion. I don't see how that is positive for anyone especially if most of the money is going back out into criminal activity. As for where I am getting the example from here, I'm thinking of the Dutch model of prostitution. Other countries have been far more successful which have made it illegal.

2. Drug legalisation - Legalising drugs, even cannabis doesn't just have an effect on the health and well being of the individual involved, it has also provoked angry killings in the UK, when we legalise drugs we don't consider what other net effects it could have on our communities safety wise. Again, just because one legalises the drugs trade it does not mean that the gangs get out of selling it. They merely find a nice cushy legal way to make money for their gangs rather getting out of the game.

Allows spouses to cheat? If spouses want to cheat their going to cheat. Its hardly as if prostitution doesn't exist when its not legalised. If it saves 1 woman from trafficing it will be worth it. Get it out into the open where it can be watched and regulated, taxed and made safer.

Drugs have not been legalised in the UK. In fact in portugal all drugs have been legalised. Thats right ALL drugs. Drug use has actually decreased since it was legalized. Now the govenment can use the taxes from drugs to pay for any health problems associated with drug use instead of the dealers making all the profits!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Dudess

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel that a conservative viewpoint in politics is more beneficial than a liberal one. It encourages taking change seriously with thought rather than jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds "progressive".

People don't always opt for the liberal (or whatever it's called) option in order to make themselves feel like they're being progressive.
There are idiots who feel compelled to be right-on about absolutely everything, no exceptions, and force this on others... not all who are left-leaning deserve to be compared with them though.

MikeC101

Jakkass wrote: »

This is where I disagree. I don't think these three do not have the potential to affect other people negatively. One would have to convince me that this is true before I would change my opinion concerning it. I think restrictions are needed to prevent against harm.

For the most part yes. Something should only be legalised if it doesn't have a negative net effect on society at large. If it does I don't think it is worth pursuing.

I agree with you, but it is a big if. I don't consider my points to be merely vague.

That's fair enough - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the society vs the individual.

Jakkass wrote: »

Probably, but I feel that a conservative viewpoint in politics is more beneficial than a liberal one. It encourages taking change seriously with thought rather than jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds "progressive".

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options. There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

MikeC101

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily that's a mere ad-hominem. It's a common trait for people in these type of discussions to attack the individual putting forward the idea when the idea doesn't suit their own.

It was not meant to be an ad hominen from me - if I'd intended that I would have quoted "fools seldom differ".

I don't mean it to put anyone down - merely pointing out that agreeing with someone doesn't make yours a great mind. It just means you agree with someone.

philologos

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Allows spouses to cheat? If spouses want to cheat their going to cheat. Its hardly as if prostitution doesn't exist when its not legalised. If it saves 1 woman from trafficing it will be worth it. Get it out into the open where it can be watched and regulated, taxed and made safer.

Nonsense. Criminality is still behind prostitution when it becomes legal. Swedens program is much much more effective. Generally the sensible idea to do with practices which are damaging to society is to minimise them. The Government has greater control over prostitution when it is criminalised. The statistics prove this to be true. In Sweden the level of human trafficking is 15 times less than that of Finland due to the fact that the police have a very hard policy on prostitution. It has declined rapidly since 1999 when their model came into force. The Dutch model conversely has had to be rethought. There were over 400 windows in Amsterdam until recently, now there are 80 due to the city authorities wanting to reduce the trade. The Dutch also have huge problems with trafficking and criminals making profits from the trade.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Drugs have not been legalised in the UK. In fact in portugal all drugs have been legalised. Thats right ALL drugs. Drug use has actually decreased since it was legalized. Now the govenment can use the taxes from drugs to pay for any health problems associated with drug use instead of the dealers making all the profits!

Yes, but the effects can be seen. My example was to show how dangerous cannabis can be to society. We don't need another alcohol to deal with, we should be attempting to deal with that somehow.

As for the tax nonsense. That's ridiculous considering how many in our mental health wards have come to that position through using cannabis. The so called "soft drug". I bet you that we would still be paying more out of our taxes rather than less because of drugs. It's hardly as if alcohol has been benefiting us in term of hospitals.

Dudess

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options.

... for no reason other than a dislike of the new/different.

There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

Absolutely. I get called a liberal (sometimes as an insult - jeez it hurts ) yet I've never set out to be one. My views are dictated by nothing other than what I deem fair, just and sensible - be they to the left or the right.
I find it amusing how some people are so determined to put themselves in a particular ideological category that they must tick specific boxes (consistent with that ideology) in the interests of consistency, despite some of these "boxes" contradicting each other.

Ibrahimovic91

i think a large proportion of irish society is quite conservative and in a way backward, you'll notice in Dublin is less like this. in a way rural ireland holds other parts of ireland back.

but i get the impression if dictatorships were seen as the 'european' way of doing things, then people would think dictatorships are progressive.

Aard

Just to note: I value your opinion, and I'm sure you're more knowledgeable than me in some areas. I'm not steadfast in my beliefs, so what you say may have an impact on my future thoughts.

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Prostitution - in countries where prostitution has been legalised it has had no net effect on net trafficking, and it still funds criminal activity.

How does it fund criminal activity?

Jakkass wrote: »

It does not serve any positive purpose for society

There are many things that serve equally non-positive purposes for society, that are still legal.

Jakkass wrote: »

rather it becomes a means by which people can commit adultery against their spouses,

People will commit adultery if they want to - whether prostitution is legal or not. I'll take this moment to say that in Ireland prostitution in and of itself is not illegal.

Jakkass wrote: »

and it becomes a means by which women often come to it as a last resort out of financial coercion.

And why shouldn't they, if that's what they choose?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how that is positive for anyone especially if most of the money is going back out into criminal activity.

Again, how is the money going back to criminals?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for where I am getting the example from here, I'm thinking of the Dutch model of prostitution. Other countries have been far more successful which have made it illegal.

My main thing about prostitution is that it's going to happen whether it's legal or not. If it's illegal, there's no protection for prostitutes. If it is legal and regulated, then their lives would be much safer.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Drug legalisation - Legalising drugs, even cannabis doesn't just have an effect on the health and well being of the individual involved, it has also provoked angry killings in the UK,

Afaik, the UK hasn't legalised any drugs like Cannabis, Ecstacy, Cocaine etc. so these killings can't be drug-legalisation related.

Jakkass wrote: »

when we legalise drugs we don't consider what other net effects it could have on our communities safety wise.

A fair point. But can you give examples of a country that has legalised drugs where net safety has decreased?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, just because one legalises the drugs trade it does not mean that the gangs get out of selling it. They merely find a nice cushy legal way to make money for their gangs rather getting out of the game.

This may well be true. But at least the stuff they're selling isn't full of petrol and rat-poison.

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Gay marriage - On the outset if gay marriage involved just a commitment between two of the same gender and it did not involve other people it would be fine.

OK. I'm guessing that the other people it involves are potential adopted/fostered/surrogated children.

Jakkass wrote: »

However it is not that simple at all. People who do not share the beliefs of those being married can be prosecuted for choosing not to have a part in other peoples marriage ceremonies. For example people have been brought to court and sued in the USA for refusing to photograph a gay marriage due to the photographers religious beliefs.

I agree with you here - it is mad that they were sued (successfully?) on such grounds.

Jakkass wrote: »

It also impacts the right of the child to have a mother and a father,

That is an opinion, rather than a right.

Jakkass wrote: »

and it could negatively impact the childs development not to have a male and a female role model in their lives growing up.

The case in Ireland is that not only can single people adopt and foster (including gay people), but there are thousands of single parents out there too. Should they also be stopped from having children?

Jakkass wrote: »

Finally, it could have negative impacts on the education system for people who support traditional marriage rather than gay marriage. People may want to teach their child what they had learned traditionally instead of teaching them about gay marriage.

I agree in part with this. Children should be taught about "mommy and daddy", but I also think that children should be aware that there are other types of families out there too. Pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to stop it from happening.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are numerous issues that need to be resolved before I could support it ever.

Such as?

philologos

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't think this is exclusive to a conservative mindset - in opposition to the idea of jumping on the bandwagon because it sounds progressive there are equally those who resist change and have no desire to consider new options. There's extremes on both sides, and I think choosing to define yourself as one or the other is nothing more than an excercise in restricting your own freedom of thought.

I promote reasonable change. A very important caveat. I think there are changes that need to be made in terms of infastructure, health care, child care and other things. I think that is truly progressive.

However claiming something is progressive and calling others who don't agree with you as bigots, ignorant, backward, and so on is merely just a form of liberal fascism. Agree with me or I will slander you until you do. That's what annoys me the most about liberal argumentation. When the argument fails, and when people say they have concerns about things, it is out with the personal attacks.