Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Penn

MaxWig wrote: »

Just pointing out that Waters did not take a 'sudden' interest in this.

Try to put his face out of your head.

I think the point may are making, is that while this is an issue he's been on about for years, it's his consistent shoehorning of the issue into discussions regarding same-sex marriage. All of the points he make are the exact same whether the people involved are heterosexual or LGBT. His arguments about the rights of single parents to try and block same-sex marriage is irrelevant at best and purposefully deceitful at worst.

MaxWig

Bad Horse wrote: »

I think the point may are making, is that while this is an issue he's been on about for years, it's his consistent shoehorning of the issue into discussions regarding same-sex marriage. All of the points he make are the exact same whether the people involved are heterosexual or LGBT. His arguments about the rights of single parents to try and block same-sex marriage is irrelevant at best and purposefully deceitful at worst.

Couldn't agree more.

Certainly not trying to find wiggle room in this debate for him.

Probably pedantic even pointing it out, but I have a certain amount of sympathy for Waters.

I've always found his columns to be engaging and well-written.

He's lost me in recent years in terms of his attitude re homosexuality, but I at least respect the consistency of his argument re breakdown of the 'traditional' family.

oscarBravo

MaxWig wrote: »

I've always found his columns to be... well-written.

o O

robindch

MaxWig wrote: »

I've always found his columns to be engaging and well-written.

I've never seen his hand-writing so I can't comment on whether they're well-written or not.

In terms of what he says, and how he says it, though, listening to Waters is like listening to a rhythm-free novice pianist, playing the piano with gloves for the sole purpose of annoying the people five houses down.

MaxWig

robindch wrote: »

I've never seen his hand-writing so I can't comment on whether they're well-written or not.

In terms of what he says, and how he says it, though, listening to Waters is like listening to a rhythm-free novice pianist, playing the piano with gloves for the sole purpose of annoying the people five houses down.

I've never heard a novice pianist playing with gloves so I can't comment.

CramCycle

MaxWig wrote: »

I've always found his columns to be engaging and well-written.

He does use alot of different words that are often unnecessary. I for awhile thought he used a Thesaurus but then realised, that often, within the article he defeated or argued against his own point and does not realise it.

I am a firm believer that parents who are committed to their children should have equal rights, those who treat their children as furniture or an annoyance deserve none. This belief extends to all parents, married, single, co habiting, separated, regardless of sexual orientation, sex, personal beliefs etc. So long as they love and do the best they can for their kids they deserve the same protections. Admittedly what is best for a child can lead to some debate but the fundamental tenants of child care should be clear.

I think this is, at one point, what JW wanted, but years of campaigning and being dragged into other groups, he doesn't understand which points are the same and which points are contradictory.

As a spokesperson for the No side, he is woeful, as a writer, he is just as bad. He calls himself a journalist, but clearly has no idea what a journalist is. He is an "opinion-ist", column writer but he is not a journalist and he is not a good writer. Paper is happy to have him as he gets clicks, they are probably over the moon with threads like this, click bait as it were.

robindch

MaxWig wrote: »

I've never heard a novice pianist playing with gloves so I can't comment.

Youtube provides, from 15 seconds on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf3USERy2sg

Smiley92a

MaxWig wrote: »

I've always found his columns to be engaging and well-written.

That's... not what I'd call him.
Tbh, a lot of his articles remind me of something I might have written in first year Sociology if I hadn't bothered doing any research for an essay but still wanted to get away with it, hoping to make it look the part by aping the style of my betters without actually having anything to say. Sociological articles tend to be overwritten anyway, but the people writing them have actual points to make, and after a few years you become used to dissecting them.

I think that's why Waters infuriates me, I pick apart the language to find he's writing in circles, or contradicting himself, or just writing about nothing, and I always feel kind of cheated.

It's true that his articles often wander in the general neighborhood where a better writer could have found a point, but when he does bring them up he does it for the wrong reasons and never focuses on them. Like the time after Aras Attracta where he argued that there was an inherent problem with such institutions but then started tying it to vague ****e about encroaching secularism and and Jesus and... stuff.

Hmm. I'm starting to think it's less his politics and more his incompetence that gets to me :mad:

MaxWig

Smiley92a wrote: »

That's... not what I'd call him.
Tbh, a lot of his articles remind me of something I might have written in first year Sociology if I hadn't bothered doing any research for an essay but still wanted to get away with it, hoping to make it look the part by aping the style of my betters without actually having anything to say. Sociological articles tend to be overwritten anyway, but the people writing them have actual points to make, and after a few years you become used to dissecting them.

I think that's why Waters infuriates me, I pick apart the language to find he's writing in circles, or contradicting himself, or just writing about nothing, and I always feel kind of cheated.

It's true that his articles often wander in the general neighborhood where a better writer could have found a point, but when he does bring them up he does it for the wrong reasons and never focuses on them. Like the time after Aras Attracta where he argued that there was an inherent problem with such institutions but then started tying it to vague ****e about encroaching secularism and and Jesus and... stuff.

Hmm. I'm starting to think it's less his politics and more his incompetence that gets to me :mad:

I probably shouldn't have written 'always found him engaging', but certainly his writing about father's rights were engaging, and courageous (and well written, thought provoking etc etc).

He was accused somewhere in this thread of being a contrarian. That may be the case, but contrarians are very important in a democracy where you typically see a 60% average turn out for elections.

Now I don't agree with Waters, and increasingly I feel he's lost his way. In terms of his religious views, he loses me completely.

Having said that though, where a large group begin to align on any subject, I think someone like Waters (or Myers for that matter) is essential.

Penn

MaxWig wrote: »

I probably shouldn't have written 'always found him engaging', but certainly his writing about father's rights were engaging, and courageous (and well written, thought provoking etc etc).

He was accused somewhere in this thread of being a contrarian. That may be the case, but contrarians are very important in a democracy where you typically see a 60% average turn out for elections.

Now I don't agree with Waters, and increasingly I feel he's lost his way. In terms of his religious views, he loses me completely.

Having said that though, where a large group begin to align on any subject, I think someone like Waters (or Myers for that matter) is essential.

I agree somewhat, but at the same time, opposition for opposition's sake isn't true opposition, and it really seems like a lot of the time, he's arguing just for the sake of it. His crusade against his parking fine had nothing to do with being a voice for the minority in a democracy, and was simply a petty little man using his platform to try and convince people he wasn't in the wrong even though he clearly was.

I agree that he's spoken a lot about fathers' rights in Ireland and that's something to be commended, but the signal-to-noise ratio he puts out is far more leaning towards noise, and it seems to get worse as he goes on.

recedite

MaxWig wrote: »

Having said that though, where a large group begin to align on any subject, I think someone like Waters (or Myers for that matter) is essential.

To what subject do you refer? Liberalism, equality, human rights.....what?

MaxWig

recedite wrote: »

To what subject do you refer? Liberalism, equality, human rights.....what?

Any issue, even within the brackets you refer to.

MaxWig

Bad Horse wrote: »

I agree somewhat, but at the same time, opposition for opposition's sake isn't true opposition, and it really seems like a lot of the time, he's arguing just for the sake of it.

And what about consensus for the sake of consensus?

I think you can level many arguments against Waters, but inconsistency isn't one of them.

There has been a thread throughout his writing re Father's Rights, The Children's Rights Referendum and now the Marriage Equality Referendum, namely the the erosion of the traditional family unit, and it's consequences.

You don't have to agree with any of it. I don't agree with much, but I find it a stretch to say he just adopts a new position each time it suits him.

CramCycle

MaxWig wrote: »

You don't have to agree with any of it. I don't agree with much, but I find it a stretch to say he just adopts a new position each time it suits him.

I don't think he does, I think he tries and adopts a group to support him and shoehorn his vision into that view even when the two are clearly at odds with each other.

Smiley92a

I always preferred Myers when he was writing about history. I was going through LC history at the time, and it was interesting to get a really unsympathetic look at the war of independence. There were other subjects where I suspect he was just cranking the article out before the deadline hit (there are criticisms to be made of international aid, just not the ones he made etc). I do think he once wrote about how toothless our incitement of hatred legislation is, probably before he got pulled up on it.

I do think I've come across one to two well-written articles by Waters. I remember them because they surprised me. They may well have been about father's rights, which are a serious iniquity in our law. Though I think it's worth pointing out that the same laws giving the unmarried mother total control of the child were once intended to absolve the unmarried father of all responsibility back in the days when children born outside marriage were still 'illegitimate'. Attempting to preserve the traditional family, as it existed in Ireland, might not be consistent with a more egalitarian vision of it.

Penn

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't think he does, I think he tries and adopts a group to support him and shoehorn his vision into that view even when the two are clearly at odds with each other.

Exactly. He's consistent in much of what he writes about, it's the fact that he shoehorns it into almost everything he writes about. Regardless of what he's writing about, it all circles back to the "liberal agenda" etc.

BuilderPlumber

Smiley92a wrote: »

I always preferred Myers when he was writing about history. I was going through LC history at the time, and it was interesting to get a really unsympathetic look at the war of independence. There were other subjects where I suspect he was just cranking the article out before the deadline hit (there are criticisms to be made of international aid, just not the ones he made etc). I do think he once wrote about how toothless our incitement of hatred legislation is, probably before he got pulled up on it.

I do think I've come across one to two well-written articles by Waters. I remember them because they surprised me. They may well have been about father's rights, which are a serious iniquity in our law. Though I think it's worth pointing out that the same laws giving the unmarried mother total control of the child were once intended to absolve the unmarried father of all responsibility back in the days when children born outside marriage were still 'illegitimate'. Attempting to preserve the traditional family, as it existed in Ireland, might not be consistent with a more egalitarian vision of it.

Of the two, Kevin Myers is certainly the better journalist. While both write a lot of stuff I disagree with, Myers can when on the right topic write good articles that do make sense. And always with Myers, you know he is a writer and self styled historian.

John Waters on the other hand seems to not know what he is. Rather like Eoghan 'Bow Wow' Harris, he is a part journalist and part everything else. Waters has written Eurovision songs, has given public talks on religion and has promoted the Iona Institute. He has participated on TV shows and has even written non Eurovision songs too. Like Harris, his views have changed often to suit whoever he is currently aligned to.

El_Duderino 09

MaxWig wrote: »

I probably shouldn't have written 'always found him engaging', but certainly his writing about father's rights were engaging, and courageous (and well written, thought provoking etc etc).

He was accused somewhere in this thread of being a contrarian. That may be the case, but contrarians are very important in a democracy where you typically see a 60% average turn out for elections.

Now I don't agree with Waters, and increasingly I feel he's lost his way. In terms of his religious views, he loses me completely.

Having said that though, where a large group begin to align on any subject, I think someone like Waters (or Myers for that matter) is essential.

I called him a contrarian and I accept your point about needing to hear an opposing point of view. If he was sitting down and composing an unbiased argument which is both truthful and offers an alternative to the mainstream opinion, then he would deserve credit. That's not what he's doing though.

In this instance he has fabricated an argument that offers no extra truth or alternative to the mainstream opinion. The first premise in his argument is based on bending the truth and he goes directly from there to his hobby horse issue of father's rights. In this case it's purely a matter of muddying the water which prevents honest discussion.

A few pages back a few posters linked to his newstalk interview from last weekend. When pressed they didn't understand what he said but they were sure he made some great points (whatever they meant).

He's not doing a service to democracy. He's self serving while being an obstacle to honest discussion. He's Bill O' Reily with big words

Brian Shanahan

Smiley92a wrote: »

I always preferred Myers when he was writing about history. I was going through LC history at the time, and it was interesting to get a really unsympathetic look at the war of independence.

Maj. Ask-my-Arse is as bad at history as he is on everything else. Every single fact about Irish history gets bent to agree with his worldview of "The English are good, the English are great! We surrender our will as of this date!"

Now, I'm not saying that everything about the various Independence movements is wine and roses, but Myers' version of history is as cock-eyed and wrong as the "800 years of genocide" brigade.

BuilderPlumber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maj. Ask-my-Arse is as bad at history as he is on everything else. Every single fact about Irish history gets bent to agree with his worldview of "The English are good, the English are great! We surrender our will as of this date!"

Now, I'm not saying that everything about the various Independence movements is wine and roses, but Myers' version of history is as cock-eyed and wrong as the "800 years of genocide" brigade.

A lot of revisionist agendas here for certain. There is a lot to support any argument one wants by selecting pieces of history and ignoring other pieces. Certain journalists see things through an Iona Institute lens, others see everything in relation to atheism; others are pro-British and revisionist.

The 800 years thing I usually associate with whiskey drinking Wolfe Tones fanatics in pubs!! It was not quite like that!! First off, the Irish invited in the British (then Anglo-Normans): one king wanted help to defeat others and that was the start. For many years, the British only had real influence around Dublin.

The real mess started with the religious split from the time of Henry VIII onwards. The battle of the Boyne is often seen as a major point in the formation of modern Irish politics and William III became a hero for the protestants.

But thankfully things have settled down at long last here. Ireland was a pretty violent place as was most of Europe for too long (the Europe of then makes today's Middle East look tame by comparison!!). All the wars in Ireland were part of a much bigger movement that was being fought across Europe between Catholics and Protestants.

And even today, most of the world's wars are STILL religion based!

Smiley92a

I retract everything I've said about John Waters in this thread. See, I've been doing a bit of reading after the Clare Byrne debate, and I've realised I don't actually dislike Waters for being an incompetent writer. I'd forgotten he's written this:

"This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it;"

That's why I don't like him. He thinks that I and everyone like me wants to get married so we can ruin marriage out of spite.

I vow never to forget it again, John. You paranoid, deluded, repugnant man.

El_Duderino 09

Smiley92a wrote: »

"This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it;"

I vow never to forget it again, John. You paranoid, deluded, repugnant man.

Does anyone think he really believes this? Either he does believe it or he's saying it for lolz and clicks.

No better than 'click here for the secret to burn belly fat the scientists don't want you to know'.

pauldla

I have clicked there, but still have the belly fat. Please advise.

CramCycle

pauldla wrote: »

I have clicked there, but still have the belly fat. Please advise.

As a scientist, I can tell you there is no secret behind losing belly fat, but if there was, I certainly wouldn't tell you :pac:

pauldla

CramCycle wrote: »

As a scientist, I can tell you there is no secret behind losing belly fat, but if there was, I certainly wouldn't tell you :pac:

Damn you, scientist! I'd give you the thrashing of a lifetime if I could get off the sofa....

Shrap

Smiley92a wrote: »

I vow never to forget it again, John. You paranoid, deluded, repugnant man.

Nailed it! Well said Sir.

MaxWig

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

And even today, most of the world's wars are STILL religion based!

Or are they...
Gun-based.
Land-based.
People-based.
Victory-based.
Hate-based.
Soldier-based.

Words

BuilderPlumber

MaxWig wrote: »

Or are they...
Gun-based.
Land-based.
People-based.
Victory-based.
Hate-based.
Soldier-based.

Words

Sure, ALL these are in the mix along with religion. Guns and people who become soldiers and use guns fight wars to grab land and claim victory from the enemy. Religion becomes the excuse for this to be done .. rather than having it look like mere imperialism!! Hatred is the end result and the catalyst for more wars.

Hotblack Desiato

Anyone want to have a sweep on what Breda will come up with this week? It's her last chance to save Ireland :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Maybe Egg-thrown-at-girl-gate?