Tonight With Vincent Browne Thread v 4.0 (08/07/14 to date)

coolhull

grey_so_what wrote: »

Ah, now.........are you a perfect specimen of mankind?........:P

Sorry, you're right...

I would put up a photo of myself, but my camera doesn't have a wide-angle lens:o

Lapin

Whats TENI ?

grey_so_what

coolhull wrote: »

Sorry, you're right...

I would put up a photo of myself, but my camera doesn't have a wide-angle lens:o

:pac:

I'm intrigued............as is the Internet World.......:D

Roger_007

coolhull wrote: »

Sorry, you're right...

I would put up a photo of myself, but my camera doesn't have a wide-angle lens:o

Ditto.

grey_so_what

Roger_007 wrote: »

Ditto.

Yis are a shower of wozzers.........:p:pac:

coolhull

grey_so_what wrote: »

:pac:

I'm intrigued............as is the Internet World.......:D

Sorry g-s-w, but I'm afraid I can only ever remain part of your fantasy :cool:

hotmail.com

Lapin wrote: »

The day we go down the road of changing laws to keep a 'handful of people' happy will be a dangerous one for this country.

A birth cert is a record of fact. Facts that cannot be altered retrospectively.

By all means issue another legal document to declare that a person has had a sex change operation and give it a similar status as a birth cert.

But it is simply wrong on many counts for the state to sanction a denial of facts as they were recorded in the past.

Nobody's rights are being infringed in any way having the sex of their birth held on the certifcate of their birth.

But the panelist made that exact point, stating that the law will simply mean that a new birth cert will issued reflecting their new gender.

Anyway how will this affect non-transgendered people? Not one bit. I frankly don't understand the opposition, unless you have a bigoted view of transgender people.

grey_so_what

coolhull wrote: »

Sorry g-s-w, but I'm afraid I can only ever remain part of your fantasy :cool:

You're right coolhull.......I'm always disappointed in my choices......:p.....:(

grey_so_what

About 35 seconds left as usual I suppose........

grey_so_what

People took up smoking because of the ban......did you ever hear such manure???

Roger_007

grey_so_what wrote: »

People took up smoking because of the ban......did you ever hear such manure???

If cigarettes are as dangerous as we are being told, they should be made illegal to import, sell or consume; just like any other dangerous substance. The reason this doesn't happen is because they are a big source of revenue for the state.

mikeyjames9

grey_so_what wrote: »

People took up smoking because of the ban......did you ever hear such manure???

lol

fair play to yer man from LGBT SPIKE

he tore that PR dude apart on the tobacco issue

Lapin

hotmail.com wrote: »

Anyway how will this affect non-transgendered people?

I'm wondering how it affects gay people. Many of transgendered folk are straight and remain so after they go from being called Mr rather than Mrs.

Yet anytime there is a discussion on the issue the gay lot are in there straight away getting their oar in.

Why don't they butt out of other peoples business?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not one bit. I frankly don't understand the opposition, unless you have a bigoted view of transgender people.

What gave you the impression that I have a bigoted view of transgendered folk?

I don't really give them any more though than I do for anyone else. I used to live two doors down from a woman who used to be a bloke. Do you think that's all we ever spoke about whenever we met. Did we fuk. It seldom came up and when it did, it was always in context of something else.

I just don't like distorting facts simply because people don't like them anymore.

grey_so_what

Roger_007 wrote: »

If cigarettes are as dangerous as we are being told, they should be made illegal to import, sell or consume; just like any other dangerous substance. The reason this doesn't happen is because they are a big source of revenue for the state.

No more than drink Roger.......

It's pathetic really....

grey_so_what

Lapin wrote: »

I just don't like distorting facts simply because people don't like them anymore.

That's about the nub of it all Lapin.

hotmail.com

Lapin wrote: »

I'm wondering how it affects gay people. Many of transgendered folk are straight and remain so after they go from being called Mr rather than Mrs.

Yet anytime there is a discussion on the issue the gay lot are in there straight away getting their oar in.

Why don't they butt out of other peoples business?



What gave you the impression that I have a bigoted view of transgendered folk?

I don't really give them any more though than I do for anyone else. I used to live two doors down from a woman who used to be a bloke. Do you think that's all we ever spoke about whenever we met. Did we fuk. It seldom came up and when it did, it was always in context of something else.

I just don't like distorting facts simply because people don't like them anymore.

Exactly, you should take notice of your own advice.

Your tone and every word you wrote suggested you have a bigoted view of trans people and generally the tone of most of your posts give that impression to be honest about a lot of things.

Facts - the world isn't black and white and all according to Lapin. Some people have different opinions on what "facts" are.

FYI - merely stating that you knew a transgender person doesn't unmake you a bigot..."some of my best friends are transgendered" stuff.

Lapin

hotmail.com wrote: »

But the panelist made that exact point, stating that the law will simply mean that a new birth cert will issued reflecting their new gender.

That's fine. But there are some who want to see the official record of their original birth cert altered retrospectively to indicate their chosen sex rather than the one they were born with.

That is revisionism plain and simple and shouldn't be tolerated or permitted.

Its like this - Anyone born on the island of Ireland (say co Kerry), prior to 1920 was issued with a birth cert of the United Kingdom.

They were of course, fully entitled to Free State passports in later years and Republic of Ireland passports after 1949.

Their status as Irish citizens could and should never be questioned.

But nothing - nothing - can ever alter the fact that they were born in the United Kingdom even if they never set foot outside Kerry in their life.

grey_so_what

Lapin wrote: »

That's fine. But there are some who want to see the official record of their original birth cert altered retrospectively to indicate their chosen sex rather than the one they were born with.

That is revisionism plain and simple and shouldn't be tolerated or permitted.

Its like this - Anyone born on the island of Ireland (say co Kerry), prior to 1920 was issued with a birth cert of the United Kingdom.

They were of course, fully entitled to Free State passports in later years and Republic of Ireland passports after 1949.

Their status as Irish citizens could and should never be questioned.

But nothing - nothing - can ever alter the fact that they were born in the United Kingdom even if they never set foot outside Kerry in their life.

That is true Lapin.

It may not suit the populist but there you are.
I suppose the legal issues makes people uncomfortable...facts are facts.

hotmail.com

grey_so_what wrote: »

That is true Lapin.

It may not suit the populist but there you are.
I suppose the legal issues makes people uncomfortable...facts are facts.

The idea of men becoming women and women becoming men is what makes some people uncomfortable.

Why does it? I have no idea. Maybe you can tell us why.

hotmail.com

Lapin wrote: »

That's fine. But there are some who want to see the official record of their original birth cert altered retrospectively to indicate their chosen sex rather than the one they were born with.

That is revisionism plain and simple and shouldn't be tolerated or permitted.

Its like this - Anyone born on the island of Ireland (say co Kerry), prior to 1920 was issued with a birth cert of the United Kingdom.

They were of course, fully entitled to Free State passports in later years and Republic of Ireland passports after 1949.

Their status as Irish citizens could and should never be questioned.

But nothing - nothing - can ever alter the fact that they were born in the United Kingdom even if they never set foot outside Kerry in their life.

This is not revisionism or not anything to do with the location of your birth.

It has to do with a number of people (a handful in relative terms) that want to have a birth cert that reflects their gender identity. That's all.

Your "facts" argument is just ludicrous.

Lapin

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is not revisionism or not anything to do with the location of your birth.

It has to do with a number of people (a handful in relative terms) that want to have a birth cert that reflects their gender identity. That's all.

Your "facts" argument is just ludicrous.

A birth cert by its very definition reflects the gender identity of a person when they are born. That simply cannot be altered. Inserting or deleting the letters FE before the word MALE on a document can never change the fact that transgender chose to change their sex.


There is nothing 'ludicrous' about this. Its plain and simple. The very fact that people change their gender acknowledges that they were born with a different one in the past. And the past can't be changed.

But of course anyone who points to such facts is automatically labled as homophobic bigot.

Hitchens

that man is saying it like it is

Busted Flat.

The clowns are critical of reporting on sucide, then what are they doing?.

Lapin

Hitchens wrote: »

that man is saying it like it is

Fionn Davenport.

First time I've seen him on the telly.

They must have let him out of the Newstalk studio for an hour.

He lives there under a desk with a flask of tea, always on standby to fill in for other presenters when they don't show up. Moncrieff and Hook are the worst culprits, but sometimes none of the presenters turn up at all and Fionn spends the whole day on the radio filling in for everyone.

When not filling in, he spends his time on Google under the desk researching things to talk about for his interesting stuff slot on Pat Kenny's show.

A great man altogether.

Hitchens

pat rabbitte has lost a bit of weight :pac:

mikeyjames9

Hitchens wrote: »

pat rabbitte has lost a bit of weight :pac:

he's no longer to be referred to as fat rabbitte

Lapin

Hitchens wrote: »

pat rabbitte has lost a bit of weight :pac:

I was just thinking the same about Uncle Albert beside him !

Roger_007

I have just tuned in a few minutes ago. Is this the shopping channel or what?

mikeyjames9

Roger_007 wrote: »

I have just tuned in a few minutes ago. Is this the shopping channel or what?

chopping channel

coolhull

Hello!! Nobody else watching tonight?

Busted Flat.

coolhull wrote: »

Hello!! Nobody else watching tonight?

I foolishly switched over late, what do we have the old bag mlod cackling.
gone to fúck as a program.

coolhull

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I foolishly switched over late, what do we have the old bag mlod cackling.
gone to fúck as a program.

Absolutely, Busted. Only half watching myself and M-L O'D is doing my head in

hotmail.com

RTE One showing the outdated sexist nonsense at the moment, while TV3 are debating the recent barbaric treatment of a young woman in this country.

mikeyjames9

hotmail.com wrote: »

RTE One showing the outdated sexist nonsense at the moment, while TV3 are debating the recent barbaric treatment of a young woman in this country.

Nothing wrong with a good looking woman

Roger_007

hotmail.com wrote: »

RTE One showing the outdated sexist nonsense at the moment, while TV3 are debating the recent barbaric treatment of a young woman in this country.

The 'nod-and-wink' mentality towards legislation on this issue has come home to roost. We are incapable as a nation of facing up to real problems without genuflecting to the right-wing religious bigots.

coolhull

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a good looking woman

Agreed, but I'm not not allowed to watch VB tonight..... Bloody Roses :mad:

hotmail.com

Roger_007 wrote: »

The 'nod-and-wink' mentality towards legislation on this issue has come home to roost. We are incapable as a nation of facing up to real problems without genuflecting to the right-wing religious bigots.

Absolutely.

hotmail.com

Cora and her lot presumably wanted to force the woman to see out her pregnancy until full term - no regard for her well fare or state of mind.

RobertKK

Very biased panel.

4 women who support abortion versus 1.

Roger_007

RobertKK wrote: »

Very biased panel.

4 women who support abortion versus 1.

Maths was obviously not one of your best subjects......the TOTAL number on the panel is 4.

RobertKK

Great performance by Cora, she had to take control of the panel given the rest have their heads in the sand as there are two lives involved.

mikeyjames9

Roger_007 wrote: »

Maths was obviously not one of your best subjects......the TOTAL number on the panel is 4.

That pro choice woman is coming across brutally bad

Arguing for the woman's rights and overlooking the baby totally

RobertKK

Roger_007 wrote: »

Maths was obviously not one of your best subjects......the TOTAL number on the panel is 4.

Alison supports abortion and it ended up with Cora having to ask certain questions.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Alison supports abortion and it ended up with Cora having to ask certain questions.

And unable to answer questions.

hotmail.com

Cora throws out the down syndrome emotive argument.

RobertKK

In the UK some babies do be born alive from abortion and left to die, this is what Ivana wants it seems.

hotmail.com

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

That pro choice woman is coming across brutally bad

Arguing for the woman's rights and overlooking the baby totally

The woman in this case was treated brutally by the state.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

In the UK some babies do be born alive from abortion and left to die, this is what Ivana wants it seems.

That's not what Ivana wants.

Irish women go to Britain every year for abortions. Something which people here just continue to ignore.

Roger_007

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

That pro choice woman is coming across brutally bad

Arguing for the woman's rights and overlooking the baby totally

Sometimes, unfortunately, a choice has to be made. The so-called pro-life people just pretend that this never happens. It does happen and we have seen it happen.

hotmail.com

Roger_007 wrote: »

Sometimes, unfortunately, a choice has to be made. The so-called pro-life people just pretend that this never happens. It does happen and we have seen it happen.

The anti-choice side just can't answer the question when it comes to tough situations like in this case.

They have been proven time and time again to be wrong in relation to every law enacted on abortion since the 1983 amendment.