Constitutional Convention insults secular citizens with 2% vote on Church & State

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Page 1 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90
Environment: 8
Family: 2
SCS: 0

My, what a detailed look you gave - going through the titles and taking a guess at the content. You'll find the submission from one Vincent Salafia refers to the separation of Church and State. That's just page one......

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Miltant =



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant

Militant Atheist =

"Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a (anti-religious) cause: a militant political activist Atheist.

Sad.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

My, what a detailed look you gave - going through the titles and taking a guess at the content. You'll find the submission from one Vincent Salafia refers to the separation of Church and State. That's just page one......

And just 1 submission

What have you done? It's Michael making the claims without providing any evidence, not me. At least I made an honest effort.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And just 1 submission

What have you done? It's Michael making the claims without providing any evidence, not me. At least I made an honest effort.

Skimming through the titles is not making an honest effort.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Skimming through the titles is not making an honest effort.

Yes it is. As the majority of the submissions are clearly labelled. Anything that wasn't I ignored.

So what have) you done to ascertain if Michael claims are truthful? Do you deny that he hasn't provided any evidence?

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Michael,

You are making claims. Not providing any evidence.

This is from the first 5 pages o thef submissions section to get a snapshot.

You don't have to get a snapshot based on five pages.

I've given you the figures for all of the submissions.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You don't have to get a snapshot based on five pages.

I've given you the figures for all of the submissions.

And if I give you the figures for the number of miracles attributed to Padre Pio you will accept these miracles?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it is. As the majority of the submissions are clearly labelled. Anything that wasn't I ignored.

....so its an inaccurate picture, enabling you to carry on sniping.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....so its an inaccurate picture, enabling you to carry on sniping.

Prove it then.

You go through the first 5 pages yourself. Lets see how different your "accurate" picture is different to mine. Very little I'd wager.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And if I give you the figures for the number of miracles attributed to Padre Pio you will accept these miracles?

Come on, you're just being silly now.

Miracles attributed to Padre Pio represent an extraordinary claim, as they defy the known laws of nature. Counting the number of submissions under different categories that are published on a website does not result in an extraordinary claim.

You've done it yourself for random five pages. If you do it for the whole set of things being counted you will get a more accurate figure.

With the obvious proviso of human error in counting, the outcome of counting all of the submissions is going to be more accurate than any random five-page sample would be.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Prove it then.

You go through the first 5 pages yourself. Lets see how different your "accurate" picture is different to mine. Very little I'd wager.

Well I took a sample off page one and its obviously different. I'm not going to wade through it all when you've already admitted the flaw in your own methodology....

...........the majority of the submissions are clearly labelled. Anything that
wasn't I ignored.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Come on, you're just being silly now.

Miracles attributed to Padre Pio represent an extraordinary claim, as they defy the known laws of nature. Counting the number of submissions under different categories that are published on a website does not result in an extraordinary claim.

You've done it yourself for random five pages. If you do it for the whole set of things being counted you will get a more accurate figure.

With the obvious proviso of human error in counting, the outcome of counting all of the submissions is going to be more accurate than any random five-page sample would be.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence = Claims require evidence. You haven't provided any evidence at all.


The only reason I broke down the first 5 pages of the submissions is because you have refused to support your claims.


Don't get me wrong, I consider you a man of integrity and honesty. Nevertheless you are still a lobbyist with a clearly defined and narrow agenda.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Well I took a sample off page one and its obviously different. I'm not going to wade through it all when you've already admitted the flaw in your own methodology....

You found one - That's one - difference so far. Take a bow... My intention was to get a rough idea of the submissions. If you want to challenge this there is a very simple way to show me the error of my ways - count them up yourself.


You won't because you know as well as I do that it will be more or less correct.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence = Claims require evidence. You haven't provided any evidence at all.


The only reason I broke down the first 5 pages of the submissions is because you have refused to support your claims.


Don't get me wrong, I consider you a man of integrity and honesty. Nevertheless you are still a lobbyist with a clearly defined and narrow agenda.

Just to add: I find it incredible that you of all people would be suggesting that I put faith before reason

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You found one - That's one - difference so far. Take a bow... My intention was to get a rough idea of the submissions. If you want to challenge this there is a very simple way to show me the error of my ways - count them up yourself.


You won't because you know as well as I do that it will be more or less correct.

Hahahahaha! That's basically exactly what you've done to Michael! He's gone "here are the totals from all the submissions Brown Bomber" and you go "nah look, I skimmed through the first 5 pages and found none, therefore you're wrong"

This is so hypocritical it's hilarious!

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence = Claims require evidence. You haven't provided any evidence at all.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

The evidence is publicly available on the Convention website.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You found one - That's one - difference so far. Take a bow... My intention was to get a rough idea of the submissions. If you want to challenge this there is a very simple way to show me the error of my ways - count them up yourself.


You won't because you know as well as I do that it will be more or less correct.

I won't because I couldn't be arsed and - most importantly - you admitted the reason any numbers you provide will be incorrect.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Seriously, what are you talking about?

The evidence is publicly available on the Convention website.

And are you going to show me an aerial photograph of loch ness next as evidence that the monster is in there somewhere?

i,m not sure how you cant understand what i am saying but i will try to keep is simple as possible.

You have made two claims so far. Specifically that the church and state issue a. Received the most submissions and b. was most brought up in the public meetings.

Thus far you have provided ZERO evidence for your claims.

you have also persisted in repeatedly ignoring pertinent imo questions 1. Do you know what a submission is? 2. Shouldnt the quality of these submissions come before quantity? 3. Have you considered that your submissions were weaker than those selected?

Delirium

Maybe I'm a bit dim, but why exactly is the list of individual submissions being disregarded as evidence of Michaels claims?

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit dim, but why exactly is the list of individual submissions being disregarded as evidence of Michaels claims?

That same list in fact actually shows that the highest numbers number of submissions were in support of bussing every ginger in the land across the border and annulling their citizenship.

You want evidence? The list is there, the truth is out there and quite frankly i am highly insulted that anyone could put basic living conditions of our most vulnerable members of society before my pet projects.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That same list in fact actually shows that the highest numbers number of submissions were in support of bussing every ginger in the land across the border and annulling their citizenship.

You want evidence? The list is there, the truth is out there and quite frankly i am highly insulted that anyone could put basic living conditions of our most vulnerable members of society before my pet projects.

that's not an answer as to why you're ignoring the submissions records on the website.

Gordon

Nodin wrote: »

My, what a detailed look you gave - going through the titles and taking a guess at the content. You'll find the submission from one Vincent Salafia refers to the separation of Church and State. That's just page one......

Oh dear, was that a deliberate attempt to claim different numbers?

Seeing as you either made a complete hash of that, BB, or you deliberately gave wrong information, I quickly checked the second 5 pages as your results are obviously tainted and not to be trusted considering you got the numbers wrong on the first page. I got the number of church/state submissions to be:

18 (+-1) Which is out of 75, giving a near 25% weight.

So if you want the official figures questioned, I'd advise you to count every single submission yourself. Obviously taking the first 5 pages (the last entries) as your proof of disinformation is completely idiotic for many reasons, especially when you can't count them correctly.

Gordon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Page 3 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90

ESC Rights: 13
Family: 2
SCS: 1

Oh, and every page (bar the last) has 15 entries, so you got page 3 wrong also, claiming 16 entries. Deary me, pretty basic stuff here, what other simple things do you get badly wrong I wonder....?

Corkfeen

Gordon wrote: »

Oh, and every page (bar the last) has 15 entries, so you got page 3 wrong also, claiming 16 entries. Deary me, pretty basic stuff here, what other simple things do you get badly wrong I wonder....?

This beautiful moment has been provided courtesy of Gordon aka the prison admin extraordinaire!

Brown Bomber

Submission 1. Mary Walsh "Constitutional Convention" = ESC (1)

Dear Delegates, I would like the Constitutional Convention to discuss economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights during its final session. Human rights like the right to access healthcare when I need it, to have a home that is adequate for me and for my family, to have an income so that I can live a life of dignity, are important to me. These rights are also rights that Ireland has promised to protect. I call on the members of the Constitutional Convention to consider these issues and to recommend putting these rights in Bunreacht na hÉireann. Yours sincerely, Mary Walsh

Submission 2. John Sheridan. Environment & Fracking. = Environment (1)

Needs no explanation.

Submission 3. Sarah Devilly. "Please Review The Family in The Convention". = Family (1)

Needs no explanation

Submission 4. Macroom Town Council. "Local Government" = Political /Institutional Reform (1)

Needs no explanation

Submission 5. Melanie Day. "Review The Family Constitution" = Family (2)

Needs no explanation

.

Submission 6. Imelda Ryan-Jones "Environmental Protection" = Environment (2)

]Needs no explanation

Submission 7. Joann Mcgarry. "Environment" = Environment (3)

Needs no explanation

Submission 8. Paul Slattery. "Protect our environment in the Constitution" = Environment (4)

Needs no explanation

Submission 9. Stephen Nena. "Protect our environment in the Constitution" = Environment (5)

Needs no explanation

Submission 10 Ciara Ryan. "Our environment" = Environment (6)

No explanation required

Submission 11. David Keane. Environment and Fracking" = Environment (7)

Needs no explanation

Submission 12. B Boylan. "Environmental Protection" = Environmental (8)

Needs no explanation.

Submission 13. Susan Carton. "Environment Protection" = Environment (9)

Submission 14 Vincent Salafia. Submission To the Constitutional Convention". = Impossible to fit into a single category.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This submission is relevant to all six topics under consideration by the Constitutional Convention:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Protection of the Environment[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Bill of Rights[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Economic and Social Rights[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Political and Institutional Reform[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Church and state[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Public morality[/FONT]

Submission 15. Donal O' Brochain. "We need a strong right to freedom of information in our constitution" = FOI (1)
Needs no explantion.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

So that gives us from page 1:

Environment 9
Family 2
ESC 1
Political reform 1
FOI 1
Separation of Chruch & State: 0

+++++++++++++++++++++

This is what I got the first time from the quick count. I didn't include the categories with 1 submission or less.

Page 1 https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx?cid=90
Environment: 8
Family: 2
SCS: 0

As you can see I was way off :rolleyes:. Now is there any more hoops should jump through?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

..................

Submission 14 Vincent Salafia. Submission To the Constitutional Convention". = Impossible to fit into a single category.
...........

How terribly, terribly, terribly convenient for you. Yet he clearly refers to the issue at hand.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

that's not an answer as to why you're ignoring the submissions records on the website.

How am I ignoring them? If you were on a jury and the prosecution presented 10,000 hours of cctv which they claimed contained the suspect committing the crime and the proof is the existence of the tapes themselves and won't be more specific would you then consider the suspect guilty on the basis of these claims?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How am I ignoring them? If you were on a jury and the prosecution presented 10,000 hours of cctv which they claimed contained the suspect committing the crime and the proof is the existence of the tapes themselves and won't be more specific would you then consider the suspect guilty on the basis of these claims?

Michael presents summary figures of submissions. You dispute them. The website is then pointed out to you to examine. You state that it isn't evidence of the figures Michael presented.

Micheal has presented a summarised count of submissions by type. You haven't presented anything from the website to contradict what he has posted.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

How terribly, terribly, terribly convenient for you. Yet he clearly refers to the issue at hand.

There is nothing that is "convenient" for me here. I have no dog in the fight. I am not the lobbyist who was literally pleading here in two separate press releases to write submissions only for it to end in total failure and then to release a third press release on boards to shift the blame of this failure through conspiracy theories.

I only want what is best for the people of this country. I have no agenda.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

.........

I only want what is best for the people of this country. I have no agenda.

Other than sniping, thread derailment, intellectual dishonesty etc and so on, probably not, no.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Michael presents summary figures of submissions. You dispute them. The website is then pointed out to you to examine. You state that it isn't evidence of the figures Michael presented.

Micheal has presented a summarised count of submissions by type. You haven't presented anything from the website to contradict what he has posted.

I am not trying to "contradict" his figures. I am trying to get him to support his claims to ascertain the veracity of them. If what he has said is true then tell me specifically what pages I will find these submissions on.

In any case. The whole point of these submissions wasn't to be as a petition to see who could get the most signatures. The primary importance is the quality of the submissions.

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

Oh dear, was that a deliberate attempt to claim different numbers?

Seeing as you either made a complete hash of that, BB, or you deliberately gave wrong information, I quickly checked the second 5 pages as your results are obviously tainted and not to be trusted considering you got the numbers wrong on the first page. I got the number of church/state submissions to be:

18 (+-1) Which is out of 75, giving a near 25% weight.

So if you want the official figures questioned, I'd advise you to count every single submission yourself. Obviously taking the first 5 pages (the last entries) as your proof of disinformation is completely idiotic for many reasons, especially when you can't count them correctly.

What official figures???

I would freely accept any "official figures. Where can I find them?

Gordon

Pretty sure it was mentioned that the quality was quite different to the rest of the submissions.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And the Convention secretariat told us on Saturday that it was noticeable that the Church and State submissions were individually written and expressing nuanced opinions, rather than being merely petition-style submissions to which people had simply added their names.

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

Pretty sure it was mentioned that the quality was quite different to the rest of the submissions.

Hearsay. Of what value is that?

Can you support with evidence the secretariat ever having actually said that?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is nothing that is "convenient" for me here. ...........

You declared there was no mention of church state separation on page one.

It was shown where you were wrong. You described the flaw in your original methodology.

You went back and again disregarded the content of a submission.

That's terribly, terribly, terribly convenient.

Gordon

so have you counted all the submissions yet, BB?

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

so have you counted all the submissions yet, BB?

No need to if you have official figures. Can you link to them?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

You declared there was no mention of church state separation on page one.

It was shown where you were wrong. You described the flaw in your original methodology.

You went back and again disregarded the content of a submission.

That's terribly, terribly, terribly convenient.

Your comments are lies and a complete misrepresentation.

When I said

"This is from the first 5 pages o thef submissions section to get a snapshot. Best effort based on the titles only."

It should have been clear to you that it was only a cursory glance and not supposed to be perfect.

The submission you are lying about gives no indication of it's content and therefore was ignored for convenience sake.

SUBMISSION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Vincent Salafia

I've just shown you that Vincent Salafia's submission doesn't fit into a single category, in fact he says exactly this himself. So how would you suggest I categorise it into a single category when he doesn't do so himself?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not trying to "contradict" his figures. I am trying to get him to support his claims to ascertain the veracity of them. If what he has said is true then tell me specifically what pages I will find these submissions on.

In any case. The whole point of these submissions wasn't to be as a petition to see who could get the most signatures. The primary importance is the quality of the submissions.

to ascertain the veracity of Michaels figures you have to audit all submissions and cross check the totals with Michaels figures.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your comments(.........) do so himself?

Dear me. "not supposed to be perfect" yet its enough to derail a serious thread by making claims on it?

As he mentions the separation of church and state theres no reason not to count it towards same.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

to ascertain the veracity of Michaels figures you have to audit all submissions and cross check the totals with Michaels figures.

If you are confused let's go back to the start. Michael has claimed that Separation of Church and State was a) The mos submitted and b) The most raised in the public meetings.

Are his claims factual? Why do you think so?

++++++++++

My answer is I don't know. We haven't been provided with any specific evidence to ascertain the truth.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Dear me. "not supposed to be perfect" yet its enough to derail a serious thread by making claims on it?

As he mentions the separation of church and state theres no reason not to count it towards same.

Take 2. The submitters words, not mine. Impossible to place in a SINGLE category.

This submission is relevant to all six topics under consideration by the Constitutional Convention:

1. Protection of the Environment
2. Bill of Rights
3. Economic and Social Rights
4. Political and Institutional Reform
5. Church and state
6. Public morality

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you are confused let's go back to the start. Michael has claimed that Separation of Church and State was a) The mos submitted and b) The most raised in the public meetings.

Are his claims factual? Why do you think so?

Don't know as I haven't counted all the submissions. I'd be leaning more to yes than no based on the cursory look at the submissions I did.

++++++++++

My answer is I don't know. We haven't been provided with any specific evidence to ascertain the truth.

How can it be any more specific than an itemised list of every submission made? If you doubt Michael do the audit on the submissions on the convention website.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Don't know as I haven't counted all the submissions. I'd be leaning more to yes than no based on the cursory look at the submissions I did.

So I don't and you don't know. Currently between us both Michael's claim is dubious.

Does anyone know?

koth wrote: »

How can it be any more specific than an itemised list of every submission made? If you doubt Michael do the audit on the submissions on the convention website.

By linking the names provided to the submissions and providing the pages where this evidence can be checked.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take 2. The submitters words, not mine. Impossible to place in a SINGLE category.

Then place it in all applicable. Fairly simple, unless you're being intellectually dishonest......

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Then place it in all applicable. Fairly simple, unless you're being intellectually dishonest......

OK fine. Consider it done, though it changes nothing. Changing all and changing none has the same effect i.e. none.

Same question to you:

. Michael has claimed that Separation of Church and State was a) The mos submitted and b) The most raised in the public meetings.

Are his claims factual? Why do you think so?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So I don't and you don't know. Currently between us both Michael's claim is dubious.

Does anyone know?


By linking the names provided to the submissions and providing the pages where this evidence can be checked.

but all submissions need to be counted, how else would you determine Michaels figures are wrong? All the info is on the website.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK fine. Consider it done, though it changes nothing.........:

It changes nothing to "One", to be precise.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

but all submissions need to be counted, how else would you determine Michaels figures are wrong? All the info is on the website.

It s not up to me to prove Michael's assertion wrong it is up to him to prove his assertion factual.

What would be your response to a theist who asked you to prove that there is no God?

The burden of proof lies with michael, not me.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

It changes nothing to "One", to be precise.

Uhhuh, it also adds a plus 1 to everything else and since the object of the exercise was to get and idea of the number of submissions relative to each other it makes no difference.

now could you answer the previous question please?