Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Sarky

Too many cake-hating bullies forcing people to vote in favour of equality, no doubt.

PopePalpatine

*shakes head* Come on Sarky, you should know by now that the cake is a lie.

Corkfeen

Sarky wrote: »

Too many cake-hating bullies forcing people to vote in favour of equality, no doubt.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

*shakes head* Come on Sarky, you should know by now that the cake is a lie.

You are both clearly oblivious to the dangers of Cake....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwylBRucU7w

Dades

Surely it's okay to have your cake - as long as you don't eat it?

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Surely it's okay to have your cake - as long as you don't eat it?

I thought it was ok to like somebody else's cake as long as you don't eat it.

Penn

I don't like cake so no-one else should be allowed to have any! And people eating cake takes away from my freedom to tell people they shouldn't eat cake!

Plus.... CHILDREN!

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I thought it was ok to like somebody else's cake as long as you don't eat it.

I believe the religious position is that it's ok for one person to love another so long as one person has a doughnut, and the other has two profiteroles and a chocolate eclair.

For it is an abomination unto the lord to attempt to fit one doughnut into another, or engage in an eclair fencing match.

Corkfeen

Ohhh, this dystopian earth that ye are all creating where I get labelled a bigot just because I point out the dangers of cake. The next step is locking those who disagree with you in a prison.You bastards are all stuck in a bunker of moral relativism when god objectively said cake is bad in the book of Deuteronomy. These bunkered souls are incapable of recognising the constraints of the materialistic world. Those who are labelled as prejudiced are inherently spiritual beings that are not held back by the fallacious rationalism of modernity.

I think I got possessed by a symbiotic version of John Waters combined with David Quinn...... Couldn't have just become black spiderman?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I believe the religious position is that it's ok for one person to love another so long as one person has a doughnut, and the other has two profiteroles and a chocolate eclair.

For it is an abomination unto the lord to attempt to fit one doughnut into another, or engage in an eclair fencing match.

Are you sure?

Is that not the co-mingling of yeast based dough with choux paste which is an abomination?

What about Rum Babas?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is that not the co-mingling of yeast based dough with choux paste which is an abomination?

Yes, and I suspect that's the origin of the tradition of the unleavened dough-based products.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and I suspect that's the origin of the tradition of the unleavened dough-based products.

Ah, I think I understand now (not that my understanding matters as I am inflicted with a vagina) - we women are God's pita breads which require filling to fulfill their purpose but only a fool would stuff a pita with another pita.

PopePalpatine

What about jam doughnuts?

Dades

Depends where you jam them.

Sarky

I had a custard doughnut on my way in to work today. I put it in my mouth. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!

Bobby42

I've studied sociology and gender for the past three years. I'm by no means an expert but the iona institute position on gender just reads like absolute nonsense.

Its well established that gender is socially constructed. How "feminine" or how "masculine" you grow up to be is the result of the society you grow up in and not the genes you are born with.

There's no "macho" gene that boys are born and this explains mens behaviour.

There isn't a single psychological trait that can be directly linked back to strictly biological causes.

The iona argument is that there are vast differences between men and women, which is due to how vastly biologically different they are.

However, this simply isn't true. Men and women have a lot more in common with each other that they don't. To argue that men and women are completely different from each other as a result of biology and therefor have very different roles is absolute nonsense.

Trying to put men into one box and women into another box is very artificial and doesn't reflect the complexity of modern society.

So the line that same sex marriage will redefine gender, motherhood, and fatherhood is rubbish. Children don't exclusively learn about gender from their parents, they pick up what it means to be a boy or a girl from the society they grow up in.

The attempt to use biology as and explanation for different gender roles is reminisant of arguments that try to justify patriarchy and gender inequality.

Quinn earns for a simpler time of the male breadwinner model were men and women had their separate roles the two never met.

Back on planet earth however, people no longer just accept things because its just the way it is. People just wont accept having to conform to strict and rigid definitions of femininity and masculinity. Society changes.

Quinn is completely out of touch and can't understand any of this and fears change. No, we cant have change, lets try to keep things the same.

It doesnt work and it doesn't fit. iona are very far behind the rest of society with the outdated catholic view of conservativism, keeping things the same for the sake of keeping things the same. Change is weird and scary to the iona institute, best ban it.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

I had a custard doughnut on my way in to work today. I put it in my mouth. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!

Some of my best friends* like custard doughnuts, but they draw the line at chocolate.



*best friends may be fictional.

Cossax

Damn you all, now I want to stuff my face with doughnuts and jam and custard before dinner. :mad:

Sarky

My custard doughnut had chocolate on top! I'm such a pervert :pac:

Bannasidhe

Cossax wrote: »

Damn you all, now I want to stuff my face with doughnuts and jam and custard before dinner. :mad:

Personally I prefer an apple Danish.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

My custard doughnut had chocolate on top! I'm such a pervert :pac:

Did you not even consider the effect on the children?

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

I had a custard doughnut on my way in to work today. I put it in my mouth. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!

A custard cream?

Kinky!

Stark

You can't stick an eclair in a doughnut during the jammy part of the doughnut cycle. God forbids getting sticky jammy mess all over your eclair. NEVER get chocolate on your eclair.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Did you not even consider the effect on the children?

They can buy their own chocolate topped custard filled doughnuts the spongers...I mean, Sarky was thinking of the children and removing the temptation of unhealthy food from their impressionable little lives.
What a guy!

legspin

robindch wrote: »

A custard cream?

Kinky!

I think the ones with chocolate are called Boston Creams

Mardy Bum

Bobby42 wrote: »

Its well established that gender is socially constructed. How "feminine" or how "masculine" you grow up to be is the result of the society you grow up in and not the genes you are born with.

There's no "macho" gene that boys are born and this explains mens behaviour.

There isn't a single psychological trait that can be directly linked back to strictly biological causes.

Whilst I agree with you that the Iona Institute is made up of a bunch of lulas with misogynistic attitudes more suitable to the dark ages, I disagree that gender is entirely socially constructed. I used to be of the same opinion sometime ago but there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that confirms major psychological differences between the sexes. There is a whole field dedicated to it; Evolutionary Psychology.

Bobby42

Oh dear...

SebBerkovich

Bobby42 wrote: »

Oh dear...

I ****ing love David Norris

Penn

Some of the questions that Norris asked were ones I've been asking myself lately...

Who are the Iona Institute? Why are they always involved in these debates? Why were they involved in the Constitutional Convention? How did they get in that position?

Sarky

Was that Mullen trying to interrupt things? On phone right now, video resolution isn't great.

Bobby42

Sarky wrote: »

Was that Mullen trying to interrupt things? On phone right now, video resolution isn't great.

It was indeed. Some mumbled interjection. Pathetic.

Basically how dare anyone question the iona institute.