Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
-
You ask a question, I answer, you don't like the answer and threaten me with forum rules.
Very immature to be honest.
What threat has been made? The forum rules are there to guide discussions so that we don't end up in the repetitiveness that was in the last few posts. Immaturity is responses such as:Take up a hobby?Thats the answer you're going to get.
Life gets messy sometimes. If this is causing you upset maybe you should leave the conversation.
And I believe that last one was the first suggestion that someone leave the conversation and it was made by yourself.
No threat has been made on my part, although one should only find the rules threatening when you intend to break them.
But I continue to extend the olive branch and hope we can move on.0 -
A debate would involve discussing points of view, but a review of posts over the last few pages shows they largely amount to firing questions and sneering at responses. It's not unusual on the thread, I know, but it's a tad disingenuous to claim what posters have been doing stimulates debate, or what 100cent has done stifles it.A debate would involve answering questions, so I'd agree that this has little resemblance.
That certainly does sound McCarthyish alright (including the allegation of side stepping when 100cent has clearly given quite a number of straightforward answers)! Perhaps you should just demand the names of all the pro-lifers he knows, it would seem to be just as effective a means of 'stimulating debate'.The "barrage" of questions have been pretty much the same questions over and over, constantly side-stepped.
0 -
A debate would involve discussing points of view, but a review of posts over the last few pages shows they largely amount to firing questions and sneering at responses. It's not unusual on the thread, I know, but it's a tad disingenuous to claim what posters have been doing stimulates debate, or what 100cent has done stifles it.
Questions have been fired by both sides, but perhaps the uneven numbers should have given cause to relent slightly on my part. But since the majority at the time landed on one side of the debate, it's understandable that most questions would be aimed at the other.That certainly does sound McCarthyish alright (including the allegation of side stepping when 100cent has clearly given quite a number of straightforward answers)! Perhaps you should just demand the names of all the pro-lifers he knows, it would seem to be just as effective a means of 'stimulating debate'.
And I have not claimed that all of 100cent's answers have been side steps. But one point was asked about several times and side stepping occurred with regularity, hence the allegation. An allegation which also was accompanied by an offer for 100cent to simply state their intent to answer the question or not and save the hassle of repeated asking, an offer that was met with "Life gets messy sometimes. If this is causing you upset maybe you should leave the conversation". I'm not sure if McCarthy gave that as an option. 0 -
How many questions do you think 100cent 'fired'? Say as a percentage of those 'fired' at him? And when you say 'majority', that's a bit of understatement for five on one isn't it? Less of a debate than an attempted beat down I would have said....Questions have been fired by both sides, but perhaps the uneven numbers should have given cause to relent slightly on my part. But since the majority at the time landed on one side of the debate, it's understandable that most questions would be aimed at the other.
Of course not, and I never said you did, did I? I'm happy to stick with the accusation you did make; 'constantly'.And I have not claimed that all of 100cent's answers have been side steps.
I think he we more likely to threaten people with sanctions when they opined he wasn't happy with their answers. Hmmm...But one point was asked about several times and side stepping occurred with regularity, hence the allegation. An allegation which also was accompanied by an offer for 100cent to simply state their intent to answer the question or not and save the hassle of repeated asking, an offer that was met with "Life gets messy sometimes. If this is causing you upset maybe you should leave the conversation". I'm not sure if McCarthy gave that as an option.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I'm sure you would... it sounds way better than bullying, ehI would describe it more as untempered questioning, lacking a throttling influence that perhaps another party on the opposing side would have helped with. Unfortunately you came along a little too late. :P
Of course not... I imagine you quote the Charter all the time just to keep the bits you like in mind. There's no way anyone could reasonably think that you were trying to use it to back up your attacks. Is there?I'm flattered by your presumption of my powers, but alas I do not have any official capacity on this forum (or any other) to threaten anyone with sanctions. I also did not realise that quoting the forum charter is a threat.0 -
I'm sure you would... it sounds way better than bullying, eh
Is that an accusation?Of course not... I imagine you quote the Charter all the time just to keep the bits you like in mind. There's no way anyone could reasonably think that you were trying to use it to back up your attacks. Is there?
Attacks? When did I attack? There are report buttons attached to every post and I have had no problem using them in the past, I have no reason to threaten. I quoted the charter after I read:You can find any justification you like to dismiss me.
It takes nothing from my right to openly advocate for life, support our nation's stance against the evils of abortion and my continuing advocacy for life into the future.
I quoted it as a reminder that "soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying". Particularly the annoying part.0 -
It's a statement; "untempered questioning, lacking a throttling influence" sounds better than "bullying"; though it's certainly an accusation that you're preferring a term that attempts to minimise the effect of the last few pages. Would you not agree?Is that an accusation?
I don't think it's unfair to charactise badgering questions rather than discussion as 'attacks'. Perhaps I'm wrong though... maybe you felt there was a equal exchange of views going onAttacks? When did I attack? There are report buttons attached to every post and I have had no problem using them in the past, I have no reason to threaten.
Which is to say, it was directed at 100cent? As you say, there's a report button there for when people break the rules; but you chose to make a point of pointing out the rules. What point were you making that you couldn't without quoting the Charter?I quoted the charter after I read:
I quoted it as a reminder that "soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying". Particularly the annoying part.0 -
It's a statement; "untempered questioning, lacking a throttling influence" sounds better than "bullying"; though it's certainly an accusation that you're preferring a term that attempts to minimise the effect of the last few pages. Would you not agree?
As a statement I agree, it does sound much better, although I don't see the relevance as I do not equate the two. As for your accusation, I can't agree without knowing what term you would deem more apt.I don't think it's unfair to charactise badgering questions rather than discussion as 'attacks'. Perhaps I'm wrong though... maybe you felt there was a equal exchange of views going on
That would rely on your interpretation of the questions being asked as badgering, which I do not agree with. I would say that we were invited to ask questions:Keep the questions coming. I hope the answers aren't too inconvenient for you.
My repeated asking of a question could have been answered with "I respectfully decline to answer that question", which was a response that 100cent was fully capable of providing:I respectfully decline to answer that question.
But instead, I got a side stepping answer. Was it so horribly unjust for me to call them on it?Which is to say, it was directed at 100cent? As you say, there's a report button there for when people break the rules; but you chose to make a point of pointing out the rules. What point were you making that you couldn't without quoting the Charter?
And as I said, quoting the rules is only a threat if one is breaking them. I like to think that quoting them is like putting the bumpers up in a bowling alley.
As for this discussion, I feel we've gone quite far off the topic so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to have your last word. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
A debate would involve discussing points of view, but a review of posts over the last few pages shows they largely amount to firing questions and sneering at responses. It's not unusual on the thread, I know, but it's a tad disingenuous to claim what posters have been doing stimulates debate, or what 100cent has done stifles it.
That certainly does sound McCarthyish alright (including the allegation of side stepping when 100cent has clearly given quite a number of straightforward answers)! Perhaps you should just demand the names of all the pro-lifers he knows, it would seem to be just as effective a means of 'stimulating debate'.
Thank you for the reasoned and mature reflections on last nights discussion. 0 -
-
-
-
Well, as a number of posters are at pains to point out given the opportunity, we do have abortion in Ireland, but it's a legislative environment that might reasonably be termed restrictive. A less restrictive environment could be described as more liberal, hence liberal abortion. To be fair, I think I've only used the phrase once... though the phrases 'liberal abortion regime' and 'liberal abortion laws' have been used a couple of times.
So would liberal abortion constitute anything beyond the current laws, or just when it covers abortion beyond medical needs? What side of liberal abortion would, for example, an abortion on grounds of health land on?It's certainly odd that you've been very tempted to ask that several times... maybe you suffer from an odd form of prescience :P
Simply my mild masochistic nature. 0 -
Advertisement
-
So would liberal abortion constitute anything beyond the current laws, or just when it covers abortion beyond medical needs? What side of liberal abortion would, for example, an abortion on grounds of health land on?
Simply my mild masochistic nature.
Sadly, in the UK, the 'medical need' reason has been abused and has lead to the current rate of over 200,000 babies dying every year.
What was at first viewed as a restrictive piece of legislation resulted in the current liberal regime.
Thankfully our X Case legislation is a lot more restrictive, hence the clamour from the elites to repeal the 8th.0 -
-
Well, anything more liberal would qualify strictly I suppose. But to be a liberal abortion regime I suppose it would need to be in the region at least of abortion on demand (or abortion at will, if one prefers). That said, we've seen how abortion on the grounds of health was parlayed into abortion on demand in the UK, so I suppose abortion on grounds of health could fall on the liberal side, don't you think?So would liberal abortion constitute anything beyond the current laws, or just when it covers abortion beyond medical needs? What side of liberal abortion would, for example, an abortion on grounds of health land on?
Shall we put it down to a Catholic upbringing?Simply my mild masochistic nature.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement