I love that politically incorrect preacher

Swiper the fox

Swanner wrote: »

Harassment Jesus.

If you leave your house life will happen to you. You may find other people annoying. Get over it..

These threads always turn out the same..

We have source getting a kick out of telling them he's an atheist and watching their "brains explode" with his incredible prowess in reason and logic.. He probably did that to countless people all day :rolleyes:

Then we have RhubarbCrumble telling their story expecting everyone to applaud how they "got one over" on those nasty Mormons and then getting the hump when their story gets picked apart for the fact that it's really just about some bully who can't mind his own business, picking on a couple of harmless young lads..

Yes Mormons are trying to convert you.. that's their MO.. there's a reason they send out those extremely polite, well dressed and inoffensive young lads.. Live and let live.. being an asshole to them just because their mormons doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you an asshole..

The definition of harassment here is hilarious, I’d love to know what those nasty Mormons said, have the limerick boards crew closed ranks now against the most inoffensive group imaginable?
Harassment is gas

Cookiemunster

Swiper the fox wrote: »

The definition of harassment here is hilarious, I’d love to know what those nasty Mormons said, have the limerick boards crew closed ranks now against the most inoffensive group imaginable?
Harassment is gas

The poster described a situation that definitely qualifies as being harassed. Whether it was a morman or a chugger or anyone else, if someone follows you down the street when you've told them you're not interested, that's harassment.

And while mormans may be inoffensive, most people don't want to be stopped in the street by anyone, especially when those people are spouting what they consider to be religious nonsense.

source

Swanner wrote: »

Harassment Jesus.

If you leave your house life will happen to you. You may find other people annoying. Get over it..

These threads always turn out the same..

We have source getting a kick out of telling them he's an atheist and watching their "brains explode" with his incredible prowess in reason and logic.. He probably did that to countless people all day :rolleyes:

Then we have RhubarbCrumble telling their story expecting everyone to applaud how they "got one over" on those nasty Mormons and then getting the hump when their story gets picked apart for the fact that it's really just about some bully who can't mind his own business, picking on a couple of harmless young lads..

Yes Mormons are trying to convert you.. that's their MO.. there's a reason they send out those extremely polite, well dressed and inoffensive young lads.. Live and let live.. being an asshole to them just because their mormons doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you an asshole..

Actually I keep my religious, or non religious preferences very much to myself and get on with my life. I only bring out my beliefs sand well reasoned arguments when others try to inflict their religion on me.

In my book, once someone tries to 'convert' me, and bring unwarranted and unwelcome religion into my daily life, then they are fair game to be the subject of some reasonable picking apart of their religion.

The picture you paint of me based on my two small paragraphs, couldn't be further from who I am as a person, and I'll thank you not to try to muddy my name, or blatantly call me an asshole like that to support your point in future.

Edit:

As for harassment, this is the Irish legal definition of harassment.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
[\Quote]

So yes, continuing to follow a visibly upset woman after being told to repeatedly stop does indeed form harassment.

The Bishop Basher

Swiper the fox wrote: »

The definition of harassment here is hilarious

For sure..

I don't understand this desire for people to declare that they've been "harassed" or "assaulted" in some way..

It seriously undermines and belittles the experience of those who suffer genuine harassment and / or assault..

You know, people who lives are permanently changed as a result.

What the OP experienced here was a minor inconvenience, if that.

source wrote: »

In my book, once someone tries to 'convert' me, and bring unwarranted and unwelcome religion into my daily life, then they are fair game to be the subject of some reasonable picking apart of their religion.

I usually find a no thanks i'm not interested does the trick but sure each to to their own.. Whatever tickles your ego..

source wrote: »

The picture you paint of me based on my two small paragraphs, couldn't be further from who I am as a person, and I'll thank you not to try to muddy my name like that to support your point in future.

I don't know you so I can only base my response on what you've posted. That's how it works..

You said..

source wrote: »

I stop for a chat and tell them that I'm atheist and watch their brains explode as I rationally destroy their arguments. Sets me up nicely for the day, but then again I can be a bit of a prick at times.

I just reiterated it back.. Your words.. not mine..

source

Swanner wrote: »

For sure..

I don't understand this desire for people to declare that they've been "harassed" or "assaulted" in some way..

It seriously undermines and belittles the experience of those who suffer genuine harassment and / or assault..

You know, people who lives are permanently changed as a result.

What the OP experienced here was a minor inconvenience, if that.



I usually find a no thanks i'm not interested does the trick but sure each to to their own.. Whatever tickles your ego..



I don't know you so I can only base my response on what you've posted. That's how it works..

You said..



I just reiterated it back.. Your words.. not mine..

Have you ever said no thanks to them, usually it's met with 'why not', and a further attempt to engage. This tactic is usually what draws me in for a chat.

Also, the fact that I take some enjoyment out of talking to them and putting across my arguments does not mean I'm some Atheistic Crusader scouring the city for religious zealots to beat down with logic and sense as you have intimated.

If you want to read that into what I said then so be it. But you should never presume to know who a poster is, what their experience is and where their arguments are coming from. You should also try to avoid calling people you've never met assholes.

Personally I've nothing against religious people, you do you and I'll do me, but try to push your religion on me and all bets are off.

I also note that you conveniently cut the first line of my post in your quoting of me, where I said I honestly don't mind the Mormons, if they approach me I'll stop for a chat.

riverrocked

It is all the religious people and the chuggars that have stopped my elderly mother from shopping in the city alone. It might not be intimidating for a young man to be approached and/or followed but there are many people in our community who find that extremely uncomfortable and distressing.
My mother is not alone in this, many of her friends avoid the city centre as they don't want to have to keep avoiding people's attention when popping out for a new jumper.

FutureGuy

The Mormons are fine, never had any hassle and can't understand how they could even cause hassle other than smiling and talking to people?

I had a chat with two of them for about an hour one day as I wanted to learn about their beliefs and how the differ from other religions. We chatted about Atheism too and it was all very polite - honestly, I wasn't going to change their minds and vice versa, but it was nice to learn.

The guys that talk about Jesus are not a pleasant bunch. One of them caught my attention by pointing at me and saying "you, sir, you look like an intelligent man" before attempting to debunk evolution. Long story short, I schooled him in front of a number of kids who applauded me afterwards.

As for the new young guy who hangs on Cruises Street, I just ignore him to be honest, but if was was to start on homosexuality etc, then I'd challenge him up on it.

Swiper the fox

I am waiting to hear what the harassment involved before commenting further, it smacks of the permanently outraged to me but perhaps these Mormons were saying some awful things that put the fear of God into rhubarb. Strange to call what was described in the original post harassment though,

The Bishop Basher

source wrote: »

If you want to read that into what I said then so be it. But you should never presume to know who a poster is, what their experience is and where their arguments are coming from.

I've presumed nothing. I've replied to what you posted..

source wrote: »

I stop for a chat and tell them that I'm atheist and watch their brains explode as I rationally destroy their arguments. Sets me up nicely for the day, but then again I can be a bit of a prick at times

You're clearly stating that you get a kick out of putting them down by destroying their arguments. Go you.. It's worth remembering that you're only destroying the arguments in your own head. They still believe what they believe long after you've jogged on.

But as you say, putting them down sets you up nicely for the day and it's unlikely to have bothered the Mormons so everyone's a winner..

source wrote: »

You should also try to avoid calling people you've never met assholes.

Why ? I think Donald Trump's an arsehole. I think Harvey Weinstein's an arsehole and I think people who take pleasure in putting other people down are arseholes.

If you think i've called you an arsehole you are free to use the report button but there would be a certain irony in that no ?

riverrocked

Swiper the fox wrote: »

I am waiting to hear what the harassment involved before commenting further, it smacks of the permanently outraged to me but perhaps these Mormons were saying some awful things that put the fear of God into rhubarb. Strange to call what was described in the original post harassment though,

Or you could let it go and not comment at all.
People have different interactions with people just because you have found Mormons to be fine doesn't mean everyone else does.
Rhubarb owes you any kind of explanation.
Your posts demanding an explanation are coming across as harassment to find out why someone felt harassed. :rolleyes:

Swiper the fox

riverrocked wrote: »

Or you could let it go and not comment at all.
People have different interactions with people just because you have found Mormons to be fine doesn't mean everyone else does.
Rhubarb owes you any kind of explanation.
Your posts demanding an explanation are coming across as harassment to find out why someone felt harassed. :rolleyes:

Strange comment that, am I not entitled to an opinion? A lot of people have drawn massive conclusions that the original post never outlined

riverrocked

Swiper the fox wrote: »

Strange comment that, am I not entitled to an opinion? A lot of people have drawn massive conclusions that the original post never outlined

No one said you weren't entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to an explanation (this is not a court). Those are two different entitlements.
Plus, just because you have an opinion does not mean that others are not entitled to say that they believe your opinion is coming across as bullying and that perhaps you should let it go. That is their opinion which they are also entitled to.
We could do this all day, but I have a job to get back to. So good day to you Sir, enjoy your opinion.

Swiper the fox

riverrocked wrote: »

No one said you weren't entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to an explanation (this is not a court). Those are two different entitlements.
Plus, just because you have an opinion does not mean that others are not entitled to say that they believe your opinion is coming across as bullying and that perhaps you should let it go. That is their opinion which they are also entitled to.
We could do this all day, but I have a job to get back to. So good day to you Sir, enjoy your opinion.

If people are going to cry harassment then I’d like to know why, the original post never outlined anything approaching my definition, the poster said she felt a bit upset, never outlined that she was in tears or anything, the Mormon attempted to continue a conversation and was subjected to what seemed to me to be an act of bullying, that part is clearly outlined.
Strange that you want everybody to have the same opinion as you on an Internet forum and that you consider looking for important information as harassment, you’re a topper at the sarcastic and demeaning emojis though

Swiper the fox

riverrocked wrote: »

No one said you weren't entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to an explanation (this is not a court). Those are two different entitlements.
Plus, just because you have an opinion does not mean that others are not entitled to say that they believe your opinion is coming across as bullying and that perhaps you should let it go. That is their opinion which they are also entitled to.
We could do this all day, but I have a job to get back to. So good day to you Sir, enjoy your opinion.

Bullying is a bit harsh, why are you calling me a bully???

Cookiemunster

Swiper the fox wrote: »

If people are going to cry harassment then I’d like to know why, the original post never outlined anything approaching my definition, the poster said she felt a bit upset, never outlined that she was in tears or anything, the Mormon attempted to continue a conversation and was subjected to what seemed to me to be an act of bullying, that part is clearly outlined.
Strange that you want everybody to have the same opinion as you on an Internet forum and that you consider looking for important information as harassment, you’re a topper at the sarcastic and demeaning emojis though

Rhubarb literally said that she was followed after stating her lack of interest.

RhubarbCrumble wrote: »

I told them they were wasting their time and kept walking where upon one of them started following me and spouting nonsense.

Attempting to continue a conversation and following a person who has already told them they've no interest is harassment. It's quite simple and I'm struggling to figure out what part of that you don't understand.

Swiper the fox

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Rhubarb literally said that she was followed after stating her lack of interest.


Attempting to continue a conversation and following a person who has already told them they've no interest is harassment. It's quite simple and I'm struggling to figure out what part of that you don't understand.

Is it by the dictionary definition? You’ve lived a very sheltered life if you consider what happened there harassment,
Now I’m a little taken aback at being called a bully here and would like an explanation, I’m offering an opposing view to a situation that hasn’t been explained properly I feel, the post which started this exchange outlines a very minor inconvenience which was ended by an aggressive ( maybe needless) act from a man pushing a buggy

panda100

Jeez this thread is now almost as painful as trying to get away from the mormons on Cruises Street.

Who are the guys generally dressed nicely in shirts and trousers and with a nice backpack? They look very smart but I always thought they were Jehovahs and just ignored them.

I see them coming whilst I'm out walking and groan to myself. They always say hello even though I don't make eye contact (I often look in the opposite direction) and they get upset when I ignore them. Seem to think I'm obliged to stop and listen to their proselytising garbage. Just feck off and leave me alone!!

brighterdays

Swiper the fox wrote: »

Is it by the dictionary definition? You’ve lived a very sheltered life if you consider what happened there harassment,
Now I’m a little taken aback at being called a bully here and would like an explanation, I’m offering an opposing view to a situation that hasn’t been explained properly I feel, the post which started this exchange outlines a very minor inconvenience which was ended by an aggressive ( maybe needless) act from a man pushing a buggy

Well it is. It was literally the definition:

the act of continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

I think you think harassment is something VERY serious with guards involved and tears and a Corrie style setup, but not always. There are levels. Like anything! Now don't get me wrong, it is a bit 'American' (not very PC saying that, oh well) to say harassment for a religious dope talking ****e. Personally I would liken harassment to something a bit graver... Maybe that's just the Limerick City upbringing in me, haha. Unfortunately. So I get what your trying to say, but at the same time, if anyone followed me down a street (male, female, whatever you want to identify) after I told them I'm not interested in anything, that's a form of harassment. Like I said no, leave me alone. It's a normal reaction. Saying it's not is just semantics and personal perception.

Whether it's a junkie asking for a euro, a religious worker trying to get me to sign their cross, a scumbag asking for a fag, or a charity worked trying to get commission. No means no. But of course there are levels. There's no need to file a restraining order over it. It's not THAT serious. And nobody is saying that it is. They're just saying it was a form of harassment. Whatever word you want to label it, the OP felt uncomfortable from unwanted advances and that's the issue here - not the world.

Thankfully she's OK and the lovely gent stepped in to help her out, which renews my faith. Now isn't THAT irony?

Swiper the fox

brighterdays wrote: »

Well it is. It was literally the definition:

the act of continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

I think you think harassment is something VERY serious with guards involved and tears and a Corrie style setup, but not always. There are levels. Like anything! Now don't get me wrong, it is a bit 'American' (not very PC saying that, oh well) to say harassment for a religious dope talking ****e. Personally I would liken harassment to something a bit graver... Maybe that's just the Limerick City upbringing in me, haha. Unfortunately. So I get what your trying to say, but at the same time, if anyone followed me down a street (male, female, whatever you want to identify) after I told them I'm not interested in anything, that's a form of harassment. Like I said no, leave me alone. It's a normal reaction. Saying it's not is just semantics and personal perception.

Whether it's a junkie asking for a euro, a religious worker trying to get me to sign their cross, a scumbag asking for a fag, or a charity worked trying to get commission. No means no. But of course there are levels. There's no need to file a restraining order over it. It's not THAT serious. And nobody is saying that it is. They're just saying it was a form of harassment. Whatever word you want to label it, the OP felt uncomfortable from unwanted advances and that's the issue here - not the world.

Thankfully she's OK and the lovely gent stepped in to help her out, which renews my faith. Now isn't THAT irony?

Lookit, in typical boards fashion the wagons have been circled and I'm cast as the bad guy for asking a few questions about the original post. I live in the real world and would not consider a couple of Mormons walking after you and talking as harassment, it appears lots here do, my interpretation of the post was that the old lad was way out of line and borderline bullying.
But all that depends really on what the 'spouting nonsense' consisted of. Those kids are not really there by choice which is a huge pity really, they don't deserve our contempt.

panda100

Deleted User wrote: »

Who are the guys generally dressed nicely in shirts and trousers and with a nice backpack? They look very smart but I always thought they were Jehovahs and just ignored them.

I think that's the mormons. They're the ones that stand at top of Cruises St and walk around town in the evening time approaching people. They usually work in packs of either two girls or two boys.
Then further down Cruises St you have the un-pc preachers who genrally shout about hell, satan etc. Sometimes if your lucky on a Saturday you might catch the orthodox polish church chanting with a whole bunch of statues. If you're even luckier you might catch the Atheist Ireland or the Solidarity pro-choice stand right in the middle of them.
The jehovahs's stand at the top of Bedford Row or the bottom of Thomas St and they always stand beside a little book stand selling their 'watchtower' magazines and books.

I think that covers them all.

Insect Overlord

panda100 wrote: »

I think that's the mormons. They're the ones that stand at top of Cruises St and walk around town in the evening time approaching people. They usually work in packs of either two girls or two boys.
Then further down Cruises St you have the un-pc preachers who genrally shout about hell, satan etc. Sometimes if your lucky on a Saturday you might catch the orthodox polish church chanting with a whole bunch of statues. If you're even luckier you might catch the Atheist Ireland or the Solidarity pro-choice stand right in the middle of them.
The jehovahs's stand at the top of Bedford Row or the bottom of Thomas St and they always stand beside a little book stand selling their 'watchtower' magazines and books.

I think that covers them all.

I spotted a few Tibetan Buddhists in town last week! You'd occasionally spot the odd Hari Krishna as well, but I'm told they're nowhere near as popular as they used to be.

panda100

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I spotted a few Tibetan Buddhists in town last week! You'd occasionally spot the odd Hari Krishna as well, but I'm told they're nowhere near as popular as they used to be.

Oh yes the Tibetan monks! They were hanging around peoples park a lot a few weeks back. I don't think they are trying to convert anyone though. Same with the hot Opus Dei priests in the old Jesuit Church. I see them around town a lot but I don't think they are trying to convert anyone.