Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

dare you to post that on the comments

Well, it's up. I had to create a Twitter account to do it because the sh*tty website won't let me use any of my other accounts to log in, but it's up there. I suppose I have to start using Twitter now...

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Well, it's up. I had to create a Twitter account to do it because the sh*tty website won't let me use any of my other accounts to log in, but it's up there. I suppose I have to start using Twitter now...

I had to put his name in the search bar so I could read your comment - hope no one ever see I searched his name. I feel so soiled.....:(

But that arebrab arebrab who responded is some kind of special...:eek:

Sarky

The Irish Times seems to have dealt with her by just deleting every thread she commented on. That's a bit... extreme.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

The Irish Times seems to have dealt with her by just deleting every thread she commented on. That's a bit... extreme.

ohhhh I dunno...there's a few threads in a certain forum that I wouldn't be surprised if they disappeared after you (or I) posted in them .

Dovakhin

I actually thought this article was a little better than his usual Friday sermons. At least it was possible to follow this one, in the sense that you were able to make a stab at identifying what he was actually talking about.

The previous two Fridays, I just gave up. No idea what he was trying to talk about at all. What a guy...

coffee_cake

cant find your comment

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

cant find your comment

Neither can I.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and any doctrine the infallible Pope announces.

You're just jealous as you lack the spirtual equipment to break free of the liberal construct and see meaning in the real and now.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

You're just jealous as you lack the spirtual equipment to break free of the liberal construct and see meaning in the real and now.

Damn. I've been rumbled. :mad:

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

cant find your comment

Hundreds of comments were deleted last night, and posting new ones became mysteriously impossible.

Galvasean

Accuse liberals of skewing debate.

Delete comments that disagree with you.

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

Accuse liberals of skewing debate.

Delete comments that disagree with you.

It was being heavily (and very badly) trolled by an obnoxious individual named arebrab arebrab at the time Sarky posted so it may be that they just deleted every comment made last night.

Sarky

Well I can't post any more so I'd suspect Galvasean's suggestion is closer to the truth. I certainly didn't post anything that broke the community rules, and neither did a huge chunk of the comments that were wiped out last night.

Handsome Bob

Maybe I'm not quite the intellectual Waters is, but for the most part I can't understand WTF he is going on about in that article.

Gbear

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Maybe I'm not quite the intellectual professional bull**** artist Waters is, but for the most part I can't understand WTF he is going on about in that article.

Well there's your problem.

It pains me that he gets paid for this vomit.

Sierra 117

Waters is so desperate to appear intellectual and yet he clearly displays a complete lack of intellect in everything he writes. It's sad.

Nodin

Waters wrote:

Catholicism seeks to optimise the conditions of the greatest number in the common good, whereas liberalism sees only one context at a time and is blind, in each instance, to the wider ecology. Catholics tend to set out from, yes, absolutist core principles that can be mediated in exceptional circumstances on the basis of compassion, necessity, reason, mercy and forgiveness; liberals come from the opposite direction, latching on to exceptions and peripheral case studies to create a useful confusion.

This is a man talking about a church that denies any possibility of gaining a position of real power in its structures to roughly 50% of the worlds population, based on the fact they don't have a langer. What an ass.

mikhail

I couldn't be bothered reading the whole article (Waters is nothing if not repetitive), but what a digusting quote Nodin dug up in the preceeding post. What kind of straw men are these liberals he's comparing to Catholicism and finding wanting on those grounds?

lazygal

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0907/1224323695587.html


Men are sidelined when women consider abortion

JOHN WATERS

ONE OF the more commonplace arguments that crops up in relation to abortion is that it is a matter on which only women should have a voice.

Even if we are to take this argument on its own reductive “gender” terms, an obvious question arises: may anyone speak on behalf of the male 50 per cent of those human creatures whose existences are snuffed out by abortion?

But there is another unspoken category of overlooked humans here also: the might-have- been fathers of those obliterated children.

It is noticeable that when this issue is referred to at all in these discussions it usually gets disposed of in the conventionally censorious terms our society has contrived to dispose of fathers: “Oh, he won’t be seen for dust”, etc, etc.

Just as self-styled “liberals” use hard cases to bludgeon problematic principles, they also like to advance worst-case caricatures to disallow the claims of inconvenient parties whose involvement might complicate things more than liberals like (a pretty low threshold, generally speaking).

But imagine a 19-year-old boy, perhaps your son, brother or nephew, who gets his 18-year- old girlfriend pregnant. The pregnancy is unplanned, ie in conventional terms “unwanted”.

In the culture we have constructed of recent times, the question of the child’s survival is a matter primarily for the woman. Perhaps her parents will become involved, but nowadays this is unlikely to alter the dynamic significantly.

The man or his family have no right to an opinion. The culturally allocated role of the might-be father is to offer “unconditional support”.

But the woman has not quite made up her mind. She is taking her time with the decision. This, we insist, is her prerogative entirely. The man – the putative father of the child-in-the- balance – has no entitlement to speak for himself or his would-be son or daughter. He waits to hear the fate of his child.

In that period of uncertainty, what is to be his disposition? He may be about to become a father or he may not. Indeed, in his own mind he may already be a father, but this is something he will be well advised to keep to himself.

Irish society increasingly takes the following view: if his child is allowed to live, this man must be available, for the rest of his life, to love and provide for his child – emotionally, materially, psychologically and in manifold other ways.

He will be expected – by the mother, her family and friends, and by society in general – to step up to the plate and become a loving, caring and responsible father. He will also be expected to live his life thenceforth as if these days or hours of indecision and mulling-over never occurred – as if the idea of obliterating his child had never been considered.

From the moment his child is delivered from the threat of the abortionist’s knife, he must locate in himself the qualities of love, devotion, duty and protectiveness that society feels entitled to demand from a father while implacably refusing him the legal basis from which to protect his child.

If, on the other hand, it is decided that his child is to be destroyed, he should be able to go about his life as if nothing has happened, as if he never had a child, the prospect of a child, even the thought of a child.

I wonder: in the event that his child is not permitted to live, at what precise moment is the father expected to extinguish in himself the love, duty, affection and devotion that would have been required to parent a living child?

Or, conversely, if the child is given the green light, does the father’s responsibility to ignite in himself the various qualities that are expected of a good-enough father begin from the moment of the announcement of the baby’s reprieve? Or is such a suddenly incorporated father entitled to a period of time to initiate the process of ignition in himself? If so, how long might he have to do this? Of what do we imagine a man is made?

Does modern Irish society imagine that its young males come equipped with some hidden mechanism for use when their children are annihilated – when, having been briefly invigorated with the possibility of fatherhood, they find that the emotions normally called upon in this context are not needed?

Or, on the other hand, do we believe that a man who has started in himself the process of grieving his child should be able to arrest this procedure and behave as though his child had merely had a miraculous recovery from a serious illness?

What kind of men might such a society expect to produce? Automatons with switches secreted in various regions of their bodies for turning on and off their human passions and emotions? Or – if flesh-and-blood males with real human desires, affections and capacities – what might we expect to happen to the hearts of men under such a regime?

Would a society such as ours is becoming be entitled to be surprised if it ended up producing male humans who were incapable of loving, or grieving, or telling the difference between?


What about Sinead, John? How long did you stick around for?

magicbastarder

society really needs to get over this belief that life has to be fair. sure, the father is entitled to an opinion, but since he's not carrying the ****ing thing, the ultimate decision is not his.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Men are sidelined when women consider abortion

Jesus, reading Witters is like watching white-noise on the telly.

All the same, as far as I can understand what he's saying, I'm shocked to see that he appears to have a similar POV on the topic to mine.

Genghiz Cohen

Too early.

Again.

Dades

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Too early.

Again.

Yep. Not going there yet. If ever.

fitz0

I actually agree with the basic point - expressed better by the sub-editor's title than Witter's lots-of-words-on-a-page-don't-make-a-good-column column - that men have a peculiar place in these abortion debates.

However, all sense is lost when JW uses phrases like 'saved from the abortionist's knife', 'the baby’s reprieve', 'Automatons with switches secreted in various regions of their bodies' and ending with the utterly ludicrous rhetorical question

Would a society such as ours is becoming be entitled to be surprised if it ended up producing male humans who were incapable of loving, or grieving, or telling the difference between?

Genghiz Cohen

fitz0 wrote: »

ending with the utterly ludicrous rhetorical question

Worse still is that it doesn't actually make sense!

As above, the main point is an important one.

PopePalpatine

So, a rapist should have a say in whether his victim has an abortion? Despicable.

pauldla

I feel sorry for the young couple in Johns little parable. It would be a hell of a situation to find yourself in. I hope they can work it out. Do you think he'll tell us what happened to them? He runs off to work on a building site in London, and she, dead inside from the guilt of annihilating her baby, becomes a 'liberal'?

What Mr Waters fails to realise of course, is that the Parable of John and Mary is none of his sodding business, and John and Mary should be left to sort out their own lives, themselves, to the best of their ability and circumstances.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Jesus, reading Witters is like watching white-noise on the telly.

THEY'RE HEEERE... :eek:








and after analogue switch-off, white noise on the telly will be a thing of the past

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Accuse liberals of skewing debate.

Delete comments that disagree with you.

MrP

Undergod

It's a not entirely unreasonable point, in my opinion.