Iona vs Panti

diddlybit

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i'm starting to really hate the term "Liberal" and especially "liberal agenda"

You left out the liberal fascists!

Sarky

I've been meaning to ask: How exactly is liberal fascism supposed to work?

Ash.J.Williams

Sarky wrote: »

I've been meaning to ask: How exactly is liberal fascism supposed to work?

when you say "i f**ing want equal rights for all nooooowwwwwww"

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

I've been meaning to ask: How exactly is liberal fascism supposed to work?

Like militant atheism.

Nodin

Sarky wrote: »

I've been meaning to ask: How exactly is liberal fascism supposed to work?

'You will now all be gay or be taken out and shot'

Sarky

Oh. So mostly pub-time then.

lazygal

Nodin wrote: »

'You will now all be gay or be taken out and shot'

No, I think you'll find that's the homosexual agenda.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

How exactly is liberal fascism supposed to work?

Far as I can make out from Popette and Alive, it seems that "liberal fascism" is what happens when you try to roll back religious privilege, stop tolerating religious prejudice, that kind of thing.

oceanclub

Anyone annoyed that an RTE discussion on the state's involvement in education should give undue preference (2/4 people) to a Catholic minority group should complain to complaints@rte.ie.

P.

diddlybit

i'm still waiting for my first complaint to be answered.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

No, I think you'll find that's the homosexual agenda.

Noooo - The Homosexual Agenda is (male version) 'You will all be taken out and restyled or shot' and/or (female version) 'You will put up shelves and they will be sturdy and straight or you will be shot with a nail gun I got in Lidl/Aldi for tree fiddy.'

Links234

Sarky wrote: »

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

He's my girlfriend's home grown nutcase, herself being from Wexy, and he even mentioned her in one of his rants before about "persons known to be homosexual" leading a hate campaign against him :pac:

diddlybit

Links234 wrote: »

He's my girlfriend's home grown nutcase, herself being from Wexy, and he even mentioned her in one of his rants before about "persons known to be homosexual" leading a hate campaign against him :pac:

So they're good friends, right?

*Seriously though, what an assh*le to even vaguely refer to her?

Sarky

But he's totes not a homophobe, right?

diddlybit

I bet some of his best friends are gay

robindch

diddlybit wrote: »

I bet some of his best friends are gay

At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder about him:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

Next time he started homofabulating, somebody should watch his trousers.

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

Its the same "will somebody think of the children" crazy argument put forward when it came to divorce in Ireland.

People claimed it would bring the downfall of society, it didn't.

Rather selfish to not think of the children.

Study: Children Of Divorced Parents Are More Likely To Be Unhappy And Feel Unfulfilled

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/study-children-of-divorced-parents-are-more-likely-to-be-unhappy-and-feel-unfulfilled/


Children Of Divorced Parents Are More Likely To End Their Own Marriages

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/26714.php


United States: Studies Show Children of Divorce Struggle with Relationships as Adults

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/253612/divorce/Studies+Show+Children+of+Divorce+Struggle+with+Relationships+as+Adults


Children of divorced parents more likely to start smoking, study finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314110251.htm


Kids Of Divorce And Suicide: New Study Shows Link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/divorce-and-suicidal-idea_n_812456.html


etc

Broken home children are 'five times more likely to suffer mental troubles'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079510/Children-broken-homes-times-likely-suffer-mental-troubles-says-Government-study.html#ixzz2rtxluWvP

Brown Bomber

Penncil Dick wrote: »

With respect, the wording of your posts has an undertone of distain for the person in question. That may not have been your intention and I wouldn't begin to suggest it was, but that's how it came across to a lot of people, myself included, as indicated by this post and the number of thanks it received (implying that people agreed with it)

This guy Rory is a drag queen so what is the problem with referring to this fact?

Replace "drag queen" with "Big Brother contestant" in everything I said and tell me if you still have a problem. Why/Why not?

If describing a public person by the reason they are public at all supposedly has undertones of homophobia I am glad this thing with Waters has happened to make people think twice about making false allegations again in public.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Rather selfish to not think of the children.

:rolleyes:
Even more selfish to not think of women,

I know a women who met a man in the 1950's, it was great at first but then the day after they got married she said something to him in the car that he didn't like and her new husband punched her in the face,

She endured years of abuse at the hands of the man she married, she received no support from priests and none from society at the time either...because of the catholic instilled view of marriage.

Eventually she was able to leave him as times thankfully changed,

Marriage back then made for better or worse and it didn't matter if worse was having seven shades of ****e beaten out of you,

Its like the abortion debate when it comes to people like you bb, lets think of the children but to hell with the women (or man, lets not forget men can be abused in a relationship as well).

Its no good keeping a relationship together for the sake of the children if both partys in the relationship hate each other, you honestly think that hatred won't affect the children? Seriously whats wrong with you?

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This guy Rory is a drag queen so what is the problem with referring to this fact?

Replace "drag queen" with "Big Brother contestant" in everything I said and tell me if you still have a problem. Why/Why not?

If describing a public person by the reason they are public at all supposedly has undertones of homophobia I am glad this thing with Waters has happened to make people think twice about making false allegations again in public.

Great so from now on you'll also be saying "The Iona people" and "the chap that works for the Irish times"?

We'll all know who your on about and if you can't be arsed to use Rory's name I assume you can't be arsed to use anyone elses?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Rather selfish to not think of the children.

As someone who had their parents go through a divorce, I say thank you to all those that supported their right to end their toxic relationship.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Though thanks for sharing his name, Rory it is from now on.

I said this only 5 hours ago.

diddlybit

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This guy Rory is a drag queen so what is the problem with referring to this fact?

Replace "drag queen" with "Big Brother contestant" in everything I said and tell me if you still have a problem. Why/Why not?

If describing a public person by the reason they are public at all supposedly has undertones of homophobia I am glad this thing with Waters has happened to make people think twice about making false allegations again in public.

I think this issue was answered way, way back in this post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88741267&postcount=117

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Replace "drag queen" with "Big Brother contestant" in everything I said and tell me if you still have a problem. Why/Why not?

False equivalence.

You had already been told what his name was in this post which you responded to. Not only that, but your quote "nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program" makes it sound like you're being dismissive of this man's opinions based on the fact that he is a drag queen, as opposed to being a gay man who is a popular and well-liked figure in the gay community on a TV show where in the section of the interview in question, he was talking about issues relating to gay people. Dismissing his extremely valuable and knowledgeable opinion based on the fact that he is a drag queen is why people took issue with how your posts were worded.

Do you always refer to people by their occupation or hobby? In both a post you quoted and responded to, and the title of this thread, you had two names by which to refer to this person; Rory or Panti. You chose "drag queen". You weren't "referring to him by this fact", you were reducing him down to it as if being a drag queen is his only identity. If you can't see how that displays a dismissive and condescending attitude, you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This guy Rory is a drag queen so what is the problem with referring to this fact?

Replace "drag queen" with "Big Brother contestant" in everything I said and tell me if you still have a problem. Why/Why not?

If describing a public person by the reason they are public at all supposedly has undertones of homophobia I am glad this thing with Waters has happened to make people think twice about making false allegations again in public.

http://collegetribune.ie/index.php/2012/08/gay-marriage-is-a-product-of-this-bunker-mentality/

If those aren't the words of a homophobic person, I have entered some bizarre opposite world. Describing a conspiracy of gay people that don't wish to destroy the fabric of society are the words of a person with an irrational (homophobic) fear of gay people.

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Even more selfish to not think of women,

I know a women who met a man in the 1950's, it was great at first but then the day after they got married she said something to him in the car that he didn't like and her new husband punched her in the face,

She endured years of abuse at the hands of the man she married, she received no support from priests and none from society at the time either...because of the catholic instilled view of marriage.

Eventually she was able to leave him as times thankfully changed,

Marriage back then made for better or worse and it didn't matter if worse was having seven shades of ****e beaten out of you,

Its like the abortion debate when it comes to people like you bb, lets think of the children but to hell with the women (or man, lets not forget men can be abused in a relationship as well).

Its no good keeping a relationship together for the sake of the children if both partys in the relationship hate each other, you honestly think that hatred won't affect the children? Seriously whats wrong with you?

Ah, more personal abuse I see.

You've made a few giant leaps. I said it is selfish to not think of your children due the damage and you've leaped into a ridiculous strawman without even acknowledging that children can be innocent victims of consequence with divorce.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This guy Rory is a drag queen so what is the problem with referring to this fact?

You know exactly what you're doing and -- as earlier today -- you're fooling nobody with your faux "Who, me?" act.

If you refer to Rory again as a drag queen, or anything other than his full name, you will be banned. Likewise for any more posts that are inflammatory or hostile in the opinion of any of the mods. Like your immediately previous post, for example.

This, lest you try a "Who, me?" with respect to this warning, comes at the end of a long, long series of public and private warnings about your use of objectionable and hostile language.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah, more personal abuse I see.

If you think its personal abuse then report it and stop your nonsense claiming it in posts...it looks seriously silly, your only looking for attention now.

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

If you think its personal abuse then report it and stop your nonsense claiming it in posts...it looks seriously silly, your only looking for attention now.

I for one can't wait for his next dispute resolution thread. I love them.

MrP

Cabaal

At this stage I suppose Iona have to ask themselves, have they do more harm to their image then good due to their actions.

My take, they've done more harm.

Had they done nothing the interview would have not been mentioned again a week later and that would have been it,

Now due to their actions its gotten widespread coverage in the media, td's have picked it up and Iona are seen as the big bad bully taking money from the tax payer (rte).

Most sane minded people view their views as not the social norm and they are certainly not in keeping with the majority of 20-40 year olds (the future old people in Ireland).

Ultimately they've lost what is no doubt the first of many skirmishes that will take place around gay people and gay marriage rights in the coming year,

Corkfeen

Suspect they've done more harm,don't think that even they expect to such a massive negative response. A week ago it was only known about online but now it's being discussed in the Seanad and Dail. Even my parents are aware of it by now and the guff about alternative views not being tolerated doesn't work when they themselves are arranging the censoring.

PopePalpatine

Sarky wrote: »

That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

It smacks of Nick Griffin complaining that he can't use the N-word.

Jim Walsh even LOOKS like the perfect example of a fundie gombeen!

Penn

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.

face1990

Penncil Dick wrote: »

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.

Delirium

Penncil Dick wrote: »

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.

Since RTE will want to avoid any hassle from Iona, I hear they're having Jim Davidson and this guy :pac:

Phill Ewinn

Cabaal wrote: »

If you think its personal abuse then report it and stop your nonsense claiming it in posts...it looks seriously silly, your only looking for attention now.

"Looking for attention" oh the ironing!

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

At this stage I suppose Iona have to ask themselves, have they do more harm to their image then good due to their actions.

My take, they've done more harm.

Had they done nothing the interview would have not been mentioned again a week later and that would have been it,

Now due to their actions its gotten widespread coverage in the media, td's have picked it up and Iona are seen as the big bad bully taking money from the tax payer (rte).

Most sane minded people view their views as not the social norm and they are certainly not in keeping with the majority of 20-40 year olds (the future old people in Ireland).

Ultimately they've lost what is no doubt the first of many skirmishes that will take place around gay people and gay marriage rights in the coming year,

I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

You've no idea why they decided to pay out, particularily in light of the fact that Waters comments seem to fit the bill. RTE did not make a mistake, save in paying out.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

There was no defamation case, Rorys comments have not been tested in a court of law. It hasn't been proven that Iona or Waters were victims of defamation. there's been plenty of analysis to say that Rory expressed an honest opinion that is supported by the writings/press releases of those that sent solicitors letters.

RTE just took the cheap option IMHO. It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.

Brown Bomber

Penncil Dick wrote: »

False equivalence.

You had already been told what his name was in this post which you responded to. Not only that, but your quote "nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program" makes it sound like you're being dismissive of this man's opinions based on the fact that he is a drag queen, as opposed to being a gay man who is a popular and well-liked figure in the gay community on a TV show where in the section of the interview in question, he was talking about issues relating to gay people. Dismissing his extremely valuable and knowledgeable opinion based on the fact that he is a drag queen is why people took issue with how your posts were worded.

Do you always refer to people by their occupation or hobby? In both a post you quoted and responded to, and the title of this thread, you had two names by which to refer to this person; Rory or Panti. You chose "drag queen". You weren't "referring to him by this fact", you were reducing him down to it as if being a drag queen is his only identity. If you can't see how that displays a dismissive and condescending attitude, you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

As I've been censored in this thread I am unable to speak as openly and honestly as I would like. Needless to say there was no false equivalence. When you were in school did you not use "the author" interchangeably with the author's actual name when you were doing a book report? Of course you did, everybody did. Now what if you were doing a test on the book and you blanked and couldn't remember the author's name? You would use "the author" all of the time. Is this offensive to the author in question? Of course it's not!!!

This is more or less what has happened to me here. Bare in mind I haven't lived in Ireland for years. I don't know anything about this Rory, least of all his actual name. I hope this help clear things up for you because you are seeing malice when it simply isn't there. If I wanted to degrade a public homosexual there are terms that we all know that I could have used if I was that way inclined, which I am not. I didn't, I used their job title - as in "the painter-decorator", "the Priest", "the plumber" and so on.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

Nope,not at all. RTE in all likelihood viewed the court case as an unnecessary expense and uncertain in terms of PR so just compensated without going to court. I can comfortably say Iona and John Waters are homophobic, why not read up on them rather than making conclusion with no insight into subject?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

There was no defamation case, Rorys comments have not been tested in a court of law. It hasn't been proven that Iona or Waters were victims of defamation. there's been plenty of analysis to say that Rory expressed an honest opinion that is supported by the writings/press releases of those that sent solicitors letters.

RTE just took the cheap option IMHO. It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.

How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

You've no idea why they decided to pay out, particularily in light of the fact that Waters comments seem to fit the bill. RTE did not make a mistake, save in paying out.

... and apologising and cutting out the offending comments....

P_1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?

Morally rather than financially 'cheap' is the crux of the argument I'd imagine.

Brown Bomber

P_1 wrote: »

Morally rather than financially 'cheap' is the crux of the argument I'd imagine.

Not this time. From the same post.

It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?

Because the right thing to do would be to get Iona + Waters up in the dock and have it legally recorded that what was said on air was accurate. But they didn't have the stones (and possibly the funds) to go through multiple defamation cases.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Because the right thing to do would be to get Iona + Waters up in the dock and have it legally recorded that what was said on air was accurate. But they didn't have the stones (and possibly the funds) to go through multiple defamation cases.

I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.

If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.

This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.

Links234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact

If? IF?!

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

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.

Only if their legal team is entirely careless. It would be daft not to have the funds just in case it all went pear-shaped in the courtroom.

If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.

It's also telling that those that sent the letters aren't too pushed about getting their names cleared. No one has said that the claims made were wrong or without evidence. Iona + Waters take the soft victory by taking the money and apology as I'd imagine they have no desire to be recorded in legal records as homophobes.

This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.

I agree that RTE had no reason to hand out the free cash. Hopefully the minister for communications will be required to explain exactly what happened and how much was paid out.

Mark Hamill

Beruthiel wrote: »

I'll be more than a tad pissed off if this is true.
We have no choice but to pay an annual license fee, if my money goes to people like Iona that would be more than I can tolerate.

complaints@rte.ie
complaints@bai.ie (broadcasting authority).

Given RTE's reluctance to even comment on the payments, and the payments being out of the remit of the BAI, might it be better to bring this to the attention of Public Accounts Committee? It's under the PAC's remit to ensure that taxpayers gets their moneys worth from where their taxes go, and as the RTE is a semi-state body funded by the public (soon to be every member of the public, when the broadcast tax comes in), it could be argued that RTE should be obliged to spend it's money (well, our money) in the interest of promoting open debate for all.

Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.