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

Politics Forum

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    If they were from a different time, why glorify them in todays context.

    You see, being two faced has its drawbacks.

    You can't wave the paraphernalia and symbols around while at the same time disassociating yourself from the actions

    That's what you are doing ,and then blaming people for coming to obvious conclusions.
    I want to remember the sacrifices that those men made for our country. I see nothing wrong with that. I admire men like Wolfe Tone.


  • Options
    #93
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I want to remember the sacrifices that those men made for our country. I see nothing wrong with that. I admire men like Wolfe Tone.


    Very well said, and I see nothing at all wrong with that.

    Perfectly entitled to that view.


  • Options
    #94
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Seems there are two types of posters in politics. There's the type of poster who seeks to explore issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect as an aide to forming an opinion or expanding their knowledge. Then there's the type who chase the first type out of the forum in an attempt to prove how clued in they are - the type who've nailed their colours to one mast or another and will never ever question or test any part of their opinion, and will seek to lecture, hector or humiliate any poster who expresses any opinion which doesnt agree with theirs 100%. I think they see it as a kind of sport. Very like the soccer forum actually!


  • Options
    #95
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I honestly do not understand why pointing out the dissidents tactics is such a big deal. They want to kill soldiers and police men, not kill civilians. That much is true, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
    Stating something like "They are now targeting kids" Is simply wrong.
    Saying that they want another Omagh is also wrong.

    I think the problem many have is, targeting soldiers and police officers could easily result in the loss of civilians life. Just thinking of a case a couple of months ago were a bomb was left near a school and near a busy road.

    I think the point others are making is that just because it didn't result in the loss of a civilians life, doesn't mean that there isn't a risk of that happening.

    It is still violence, whether the target is police or army.

    Seeing as you condemn violence now, I would have thought you'd have been able to see the distinction. You seem to be saying violence is ok, but also condoning it, although I accept you aren't doing that personally.

    Posters are morally absolute on this as are you. Yet you are giving a justification for violence as well which makes it seem you aren't as morally absolute as you make out.

    PS. Sorry if this seems personal. I'd be saying this to other posters with a similar view. I understand posters who would have supported violence in the past may feel the need to justify or reason out violence now. It is going to create difficulties though for you.

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



  • Options
    #96
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Excellent post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Southsider1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭Southsider1


    tbh wrote: »
    Seems there are two types of posters in politics. There's the type of poster who seeks to explore issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect as an aide to forming an opinion or expanding their knowledge. Then there's the type who chase the first type out of the forum in an attempt to prove how clued in they are - the type who've nailed their colours to one mast or another and will never ever question or test any part of their opinion, and will seek to lecture, hector or humiliate any poster who expresses any opinion which doesnt agree with theirs 100%. I think they see it as a kind of sport. Very like the soccer forum actually!
    As I've stated before this thread got dragged off, I was not a regular poster in Politics but I do agree with much of your post regarding typical posters in Politcis. I would add, though, that the Moderators enfalme a lot of the aggression by their unbalanced and extremely biased policies/beliefs and also by shutting down and banning posters at a whim. It is, certainly in my opinion, not practised by mods on any other forum on boards.ie. They (Politics Mods) seem to have an agenda not dissimilar to that of our current Governments of holding on to power no matter what. Perhaps a little consideration and thought should be employed by the mods?


  • Options
    #98
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    I would add, though, that the Moderators enfalme a lot of the aggression by their unbalanced and extremely biased policies/beliefs and also by shutting down and banning posters at a whim.
    Yeah, we're accused of that a lot. There's a dispute resolution forum where you can bring specific examples of it, if you like.


  • Options
    #99
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    K-9 wrote: »
    I think the problem many have is, targeting soldiers and police officers could easily result in the loss of civilians life. Just thinking of a case a couple of months ago were a bomb was left near a school and near a busy road.
    Yeah I know and acknowledge that. That is a world apart from saying that the dissidents are targeting the kids.
    I think the point others are making is that just because it didn't result in the loss of a civilians life, doesn't mean that there isn't a risk of that happening.
    Again I agree, however posters were saying that the aim WAS to kill civilians.


    Seeing as you condemn violence now, I would have thought you'd have been able to see the distinction. You seem to be saying violence is ok, but also condoning it, although I accept you aren't doing that personally.
    I am saying violence is OK in certain circumstances. I have made it clear that this is not one of these circumstances.
    Posters are morally absolute on this as are you. Yet you are giving a justification for violence as well which makes it seem you aren't as morally absolute as you make out.
    How have I justified this violence? I dont want soldiers or cops killed. All I have said is that the are not targeting civilians. Which is true. What do you wan? To live in a magical world where the dissidents are not targeting soldiers? Where they are targeting kids? That is simply not true.
    PS. Sorry if this seems personal. I'd be saying this to other posters with a similar view. I understand posters who would have supported violence in the past may feel the need to justify or reason out violence now. It is going to create difficulties though for you.
    It is the same old ****e. I am NOT justifying violence now. All I am doing is saying exactly what they are doing(targeting soldiers and cops). If I believed it was justified to kill cops and soldiers then my posts could be interpreted as justifying violence. However, I gave made it perfectly clear that that is not the case.


  • Options
    #100
    Southsider1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭Southsider1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a dispute resolution forum where you can bring specific examples of it, if you like.
    Yeah. A process that moves grindingly slow in Civil Service type fashion. Thanks but my time is obviously more precious than yours!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #101
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I am saying violence is OK in certain circumstances. I have made it clear that this is not one of these circumstances.


    How have I justified this violence? I dont want soldiers or cops killed. All I have said is that the are not targeting civilians. Which is true. What do you wan? To live in a magical world where the dissidents are not targeting soldiers? Where they are targeting kids? That is simply not true.

    In the first paragraph you countenance violence, though in certain circumstances. In the second you condemn it.

    It is as simple as that. You've put yourself in a grey area. Some posters aren't going to see the distinction because they don't see shades of grey, they see black and white.
    It is the same old ****e. I am NOT justifying violence now. All I am doing is saying exactly what they are doing(targeting soldiers and cops). If I believed it was justified to kill cops and soldiers then my posts could be interpreted as justifying violence. However, I gave made it perfectly clear that that is not the case.

    Yes, you have made it clear but condoned violence in certain circumstances, not these particular ones, but you have nonetheless.

    I can't see why you are making such a big deal of it, other than personal attacks. You aren't going to convince the other posters, simple as, they have a different moral view point.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    Yeah. A process that moves grindingly slow in Civil Service type fashion. Thanks but my time is obviously more precious than yours!:rolleyes:
    What a surprise.


  • Options
    #103
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    K-9 wrote: »
    In the first paragraph you countenance violence, though in certain circumstances. In the second you condemn it.

    It is as simple as that. You've put yourself in a grey area. Some posters aren't going to see the distinction because they don't see shades of grey, they see black and white.



    Yes, you have made it clear but condoned violence in certain circumstances, not these particular ones, but you have nonetheless.

    I can't see why you are making such a big deal of it, other than personal attacks. You aren't going to convince the other posters, simple as, they have a different moral view point.
    I would say most people could envision a scenario where violence is justified. I believe it was justified during the troubles(armed campaign in general). I am saying it is not justified now. Thats pretty clear tbh.

    The circumstances are totally different.


  • Options
    #104
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I would say most people could envision a scenario where violence is justified. I believe it was justified during the troubles(armed campaign in general). I am saying it is not justified now. Thats pretty clear tbh.

    The circumstances are totally different.

    In Your opinion.

    It is just an opinion, same as theirs. They don't see the distinction between the armed campaign and now.

    Such is life.

    They shouldn't drag it over to other threads but when you engage in moral relativism like the above, it leaves you open to people who have more morally absolute values.

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



  • Options
    #105
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    K-9 wrote: »
    In Your opinion.

    It is just an opinion, same as theirs. They don't see the distinction between the armed campaign and now.

    Such is life.

    They shouldn't drag it over to other threads but when you engage in moral relativism like the above, it leaves you open to people who have more morally absolute values.
    I dont think it is a matter for opinion, the situation in the north today is VASTLY different to how it was in say the 70s.


    I dont understand how saying that violence was necessary in the past, but not now, should leave me open to accusations of supporting violence today. Going by that logic I guess all SF members or supporters of that party support the dissidents?


  • Options
    #106
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I dont think it is a matter for opinion, the situation in the north today is VASTLY different to how it was in say the 70s.


    I dont understand how saying that violence was necessary in the past, but not now, should leave me open to accusations of supporting violence today. Going by that logic I guess all SF members or supporters of that party support the dissidents?

    Of course you don't understand it, hence the thread.

    You are empathising with dissidents.

    The same tactics you dismiss now, you would have supported 16 years ago or maybe 14 years ago, if you supported the break in the ceasefire. I do see the distinction, others can't.

    You can't seem to understand their reasons, same as they don't understand yours.

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



  • Options
    #107
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    K-9 wrote: »
    Of course you don't understand it, hence the thread.

    You are empathising with dissidents.
    Oh I understand why they are doing what they are, but I sure as hell dont agree with it. Should the reasons why they do what they do not be discussed?
    The same tactics you dismiss now, you would have supported 16 years ago or maybe 14 years ago, if you supported the break in the ceasefire. I do see the distinction, others can't.
    In fairness thats like saying I think Britain were right to go to war with Germany in 1939. That doesn't mean I would support that now. Things are different now.


  • Options
    #108
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Oh I understand why they are doing what they are, but I sure as hell dont agree with it. Should the reasons why they do what they do not be discussed?

    If you think they are trolling, report them. If they are just as defensive as yourself, well you are going to clash with them. Certain topics I rarely go into on here because they contain black and white posters of both opinions and it gets repetitive to me.
    Mussolini wrote:
    In fairness thats like saying I think Britain were right to go to war with Germany in 1939. That doesn't mean I would support that now. Things are different now.

    But this is more recent history, so resonates more.

    IMO, it isn't like that and you'll never see why I think it isn't. Hence repetitive stuff.

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



  • Options
    #109
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    You ignored my question. Should the reasons and motivations behind the attacks not be discussed? Should the FACTS of the attacks be ignored? Should I say nothing when posters spout inaccuracies such as "The dissidents are now targeting kids"??


  • Options
    #110
    Southsider1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭Southsider1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What a surprise.
    What do you mean by that? And also, why do the moderators all have to retort to genuine points with smart arsed comments? Is civility beyond you?


  • Options
    #111
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    What do you mean by that? And also, why do the moderators all have to retort to genuine points with smart arsed comments? Is civility beyond you?
    He is a godly admin, and we are but men.(rock!)


    That and you were a wee bit antagonistic. I would imagine.

    In my experience if you are respectful then that is generally reciprocated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Because it would depend on what was being said, obviously. I think I've said all this before, but if someone says you're a shill for the dissidents, or dismisses some unrelated point you raise because you're a "terrorist supporter", those are ad hominems, and those can be dealt with.

    The point is Scofflaw - this kind of thing is not dealt with. Perhaps it isn't being reported enough but I don't think it is the kind of thing that should need reporting, it shouldn't be accepted in the first place.
    If, on the other hand, someone takes exception to your clarification of an incident and says that it means you support the actions of dissidents, it's up to you to clarify that misconception, not for me to police it, unless it's very obviously a piece of trolling on their part - and by "very obviously" I mean that it will be obvious to me as well as you.

    I agree with this statement but I don't believe this is what Mussolini is complaining about - it's exclusively the previous point.
    Same if someone says "it couldn't be Al-Qaeda because if they wanted to kill x many people they'd fly a plane into a building" and someone else takes issue with that. If they come back by calling the first poster a "terrorist-lover" then that can be dealt with. If they say that they feel the poster is defending Al Qaeda, that's their opinion, and it's up to the first poster to clarify it. The only real difference in the Al Qaeda case is that it's pretty unlikely that the poster does support Al Qaeda, something that cannot be said about any form of republicanism.

    That isn't a good comparison as Al-Qaeda unashamedly target civilians.
    I think the problem here is actually due to the stereotype that all Irish people on some level support the IRA. Similarly Muslim posters like wes or InFront get accusations of supporting Al-Qaeda groups when they're simply discussing motivations because there is a stereotype that all Muslims on some level support Al-Qaeda.

    It isn't helped by the utterly maddening ''condemnations'' you get from Stormont politicians every time there's a violent event in the north. You get Gerry Kelly or Peter Robinson saying ''well first of all let me say this, let me make this point clear - I categorically condemn these here incidents'' It should go without f*cking saying they condemn them and when they make a point of saying it they are actually suggesting it is potentially ok to support them.

    To be honest this is one of the main reasons I want a Northern Ireland Politics forum. It is making it impossible to have decent discussions because you get endlessly misrepresented.

    Whether you're a unionist or a nationalist it is in everyones interest we actually start talking about the issues rationally. Southern nationalists generally have no f*cking clue about Orange culture and most northern Unionists think southerners are a bunch of Ra heads trying to steal their wee country. That's real life experience I'm referring to not any posters specifically.

    Sure I could go to republican websites and have a load of people come on and agree the brits should go home or go on loyalist sites and talk about republican hypocrisy and everyone will agree - but what's the point in that? There is no balanced place to talk about the north on the internet - IMHO boards is one of the few places that has the potential to cater for that. It is getting better as there's a few loyalist posters who defend their position without supporting violence but I can imagine they are reluctant to post given the tense atmosphere that continues to be maintained on troubles related threads.

    The other thing is every Sinn Fein thread some genius goes on a self righteous one liner about semtex or murder. That kind of crap should be condemned to After Hours. Republican posters are terrible for this too - I had some twat calling me a dissident for pointing out Sinn Fein clearly lost the war recently. Soon after some other idiot accuses me of being a Sinn Fein apologist when I point out something I agree with them on.

    It is like there is a different set of rules for troubles threads where somehow more muppetry is allowed from both sides.


  • Options
    #113
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    What do you mean by that? And also, why do the moderators all have to retort to genuine points with smart arsed comments? Is civility beyond you?
    Accusations of political bias by the Politics moderators are quotidian. Actual evidence to support the accusations rarely seems to be forthcoming.

    Plus ça change...


  • Options
    #114
    Southsider1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 674 ✭✭✭Southsider1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Accusations of political bias by the Politics moderators are quotidian. Actual evidence to support the accusations rarely seems to be forthcoming.

    Plus ça change...
    Ah come on will you. Do you never read the forum of which you are a moderator? You seem to be trolling now from what I can see. Oh, and maybe you'd drop the pretentiousness and say words like "regular" rather than quotidian. It isn't as clever as you think ya know:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #115
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    You ignored my question. Should the reasons and motivations behind the attacks not be discussed? Should the FACTS of the attacks be ignored? Should I say nothing when posters spout inaccuracies such as "The dissidents are now targeting kids"??

    Never said they shouldn't.

    Some people may find your empathy disgusting though and not share your outlook as is their right.

    Leaving any device close to a school like that is a no no, for the vast majority in society. Indeed, some new members of that vast majority may well have defended the same methods 16 years ago, but now they are in a peace process they find acceptable, attack others doing similar things now.

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



  • Options
    #116
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    K-9 wrote: »
    Never said they shouldn't.

    Some people may find your empathy disgusting though and not share your outlook as is their right.

    Leaving any device close to a school like that is a no no, for the vast majority in society. Indeed, some new members of that vast majority may well have defended the same methods 16 years ago, but now they are in a peace process they find acceptable, attack others doing similar things now.

    Saying they aren't targeting kids is not empathizing though. It is bloody well clear they care more about the chance of killing a police officer than the safety of the children in the vicinity. To me that is just as bad as targeting children but it is not actually targeting children. I like to stick to the truth so I don't see how any reasonable person would find pointing that fact out disgusting. To point out that fact is in no way defending them.


  • Options
    #117
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    Ah come on will you. Do you never read the forum of which you are a moderator? You seem to be trolling now from what I can see. Oh, and maybe you'd drop the pretentiousness and say words like "regular" rather than quotidian. It isn't as clever as you think ya know:rolleyes:
    I'll take that as yet another "I'm gonna claim there's bias but I'm not gonna back it up" for my collection, then.


  • Options
    #118
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    It is bloody well clear they care more about the chance of killing a police officer than the safety of the children in the vicinity.

    Exactly.

    There is no justification for it, good chance of killing a PSNI officer or not.

    The point being they are putting children's and in other cases, civilian's lives in danger.

    Somebody who supported the armed campaign previously sees a distinction, others don't.

    And here we are in the circle jerk that is NI republican politics in a fecking Feedback thread. I though public sector threads were bad.

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



  • Options
    #119
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    K-9 wrote: »

    There is no justification for it, good chance of killing a PSNI officer or not.
    :confused: No one has tried to justify it. Unless you believe the goal of killing PSNI men is a justifiable one? I don't.
    The point being they are putting children's and in other cases, civilian's lives in danger.
    Yes.
    Somebody who supported the armed campaign previously sees a distinction, others don't.
    If you cannot see a difference in circumstances between the north 30 years ago and today......
    And here we are in the circle jerk that is NI republican politics in a fecking Feedback thread. I though public sector threads were bad.
    That doesn't warrant a response.


  • Options
    #120
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,206 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Southsider1 wrote: »
    What do you mean by that? And also, why do the moderators all have to retort to genuine points with smart arsed comments? Is civility beyond you?
    Southsider1 wrote: »
    Ah come on will you. Do you never read the forum of which you are a moderator? You seem to be trolling now from what I can see. Oh, and maybe you'd drop the pretentiousness and say words like "regular" rather than quotidian. It isn't as clever as you think ya know:rolleyes:
    Pot_Meet_Kettle.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    :confused: No one has tried to justify it. Unless you believe the goal of killing PSNI men is a justifiable one? I don't.


    Yes.


    If you cannot see a difference in circumstances between the north 30 years ago and today......

    I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to another poster and a specific part of it. A part I would have thought everybody agreed too.
    Mussolini wrote:
    That doesn't warrant a response.

    It's a joke, it isn't meant to get one.

    PS. I already said previously things were different before so no need to play that particular Republican trump card. Find it condescending and arrogant myself.

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



Advertisement