Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.

You're very first past the post in all this aren't you!

Let's add some preferences - adjusting the proposal to the place where each category can get exactly what they want (forget the lack of practicality for a mo)

Strong agree - 12 weeks
Somewhat agree prefer 9 weeks
Neutral prefer 6 weeks
Somewhat disagree prefer 3 weeks
Strongly disagree prefer 0 weeks

Why would a democracy decide on 12 weeks?

Where was it established that somewhat agree are looking for a small window for aor?

In the citizens assembly, there was an equal amount that wanted later than 12 weeks so wondering why that's not a consideration.?

It's also funny that you're saying that black and white is preferable while saying an 'agree is only 'agree' if it's 'strongly agree'.

railer201

smacl wrote: »

Where'd you get the strong agree 12 weeks from? I'd suggest the strong agree position would more likely be 'as soon as possible and as late as necessary'. The democracy selected 12 weeks because 12 weeks was what was discussed at length and as a result 12 weeks was the understanding of probable legislation that the people of the country took with them to the polling booths.

.....which led to the 2 to 1 landslide for YES, just a gentle reminder to those who are now endeavouring to spin the result.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

You listen to both and represent both. Compromise, it's called in the trade.

Yes… this is why I spoke last week about them just pandering to such people by making an 11 week abortion on demand. Others today have mentioned an eight week abortion on demand

Either way all of your kicking and screaming is entirely pedantic at this point. I struggle to understand why you are stomping your feet so loud, acting as if the legislature has gone ahead and passed 12 weeks citing a television poll as it’s evidence of mandate. Your tantrum is entirely unhinged from the fact that thus far this government has gone to great and expensive lengths to try and gauge the will of the people going as far as to create the citizens assembly and perform referenda and have national debates on the issue and preview potential legislation - On what grounds do you think they’re going to just stop cold at a television exit poll and say “OK yeah that’s it right there” and just shove in abortion on demand to 12 weeks without any further pulling or public debate? on what grounds do you think they’re going to just stop cold at a television exit Paul and say “OK yeah that’s it right there“ and just shove in abortion on demand 12 weeks without any further pulling or public debate ! Why would the government be willing to waste everybody’s time passing a piece of legislation with the potential to be so controversial that the next government will just repeal and replace it within two years ? Why do you suppose there will be no further public discussion or debate on the 12 week matter ??

Your entire hissy fit is implicitly centered around this conspiracy theory that they will do nothing else in the democratic process to gauge what degree of legislation the country is now going to be willing to except now that the referendum is on its way to being certified What is your proof for that ??

Achasanai

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not positive enough - otherwise they'd have bought in fully. Preferable if black/white. But would prefer something else if given the option.

You have no idea the nuances in the poll (this is a good reason to not rely on exit polls to decide on legislation: that this needs to be said over and over again is embarrassing for those on the No side). I know people who voted Yes, but were absolutely against the 12 weeks. However, they realised that in cases of abortion for rape and incest (which they supported) this period was necessary.



Regardless, we should vote on the actual election result,and not an opinion poll. This should go without saying, but I am quite frankly amazed at how people on the No side are desperately trying to spin a landslide result.


Out of interest, you spoke about compromise and representing those who voted No. If the result a landslide for No, how would you suggest the Yes side would be looked after following the referendum?

antiskeptic

volchitsa wrote: »

This isn't a trade though.

Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.

Supposedly prolife's objection to abortion is that it is murder. And now you're telling us you'd actually be ok with a little bit of murder? Why wasn't that ever on the cards before you lost? Were you lying all that time when the official prolife line was that no compromise with killing was possible?

It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.

It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?

What form would that compromise position take on voting day?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Where'd you get the strong agree 12 weeks from? I'd suggest the strong agree position would more likely be 'as soon as possible and as late as necessary'.

Strongly agree will include those, just as strongly disagree will include those who would want a total ban on abortion and those who would be okay with difficult cases. The question looks only at aor12. Strongly agree might want more than aor12. But will also include those happy with aor12

The democracy selected 12 weeks because 12 weeks was what was discussed at length and as a result 12 weeks was the understanding of probable legislation that the people of the country took with them to the polling booths.

Democracy choos repeal and legislate. No vote was taken on the contents. A poll was though. And gave the result: 66% not getting what they want

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Where was it established that somewhat agree are looking for a small window for aor?

It wasnt. It was an example of one element of deliberalisation to indicate how each tier could be satisfied. What the actual delib ought to be could be established once you decide that democratic representation isnt found in 33%.

Does the example illistrate the imbalance for you?

By the way, any answers to the questions posed?

In the citizens assembly, there was an equal amount that wanted later than 12 weeks so wondering why that's not a consideration.?

Is that an answer? The c.a. was representative? Shall we look?

It's also funny that you're saying that black and white is preferable while saying an 'agree is only 'agree' if it's 'strongly agree'.

Strongly Agree. will include a range of folk. Some will find aor12 perfect, some want more liberalisation.

'Somewhat agree' means something not fully meeting needs. Its inherent in the English.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasnt. It was an example of one element of deliberalisation to indicate how each tier could be satisfied. What the actual delib ought to be could be established once you decide that democratic representation isnt found in 33%.

Does the example illistrate the imbalance for you?

but 52% does, but you are dismissing anyone that isn't strongly agree for no apparent reason other than to frame things as legislating for a minority.

By the way, any answers to the questions posed?

Is that an answer? The c.a. was representative? Shall we look?

It was pretty close. It raised the different issues attached to abortion that needed consideration for legislation should repeal happen. Which was the ultimate purpose of the CA.

Strongly Agree. will include a range of folk. Some will find aor12 perfect, some want more liberalisation.

'Somewhat agree' means something not fully meeting needs. Its inherent in the English.

Indeed, that could mean that 17% wanted >12 weeks or possibly no limit.


It's certainly more likely they support aor12 than not since they stated 'somewhat agree'.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

Democracy is a trade. No one gets fully what they want - except those at the middle point.

Well of course - they get what was voted for - that is the compromise.
Unless you think a 12 week period is the most extreme form of prochoice view possible. It's not.

But my point was that prolife said no compromise was possible because abortion was murder.
Have you changed your mind on that?

If I thought we were voting in child sex abuse, I don't think I'd find a "compromise" around sex abuse only for red haired children any more acceptable. If it's murder then it's murder and you need to make your case better.

And if you can't do that (and you've had 35 years to do so) then you probably need to rethink your opinions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't on the cards because a compromise position wasn't put to the people. Remember?

What was put to the people was a Yes/No question because that is how a referendum works. It would not be legal to do otherwise.

However the government also went to great lengths to be upfront about the compromise legislation (and it was a compromise, not least when they watered down the CA's proposals) they intended to bring forward in the case of a Yes vote.

That is what people voted Yes to.

Prolife waited until you lost that vote before beginning to suggest a compromise was even possible. They should have done it before, and put forward alternative legislation for instance. You'd have been in a much stronger position, both for the vote and now. You might even have won the referendum with your compromise.

But then you'd have and to admit that your opposition to abortion is based on distaste for it, rather than on a belief that it really is murder.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

but 52% does, but you are dismissing anyone that isn't strongly agree for no apparent reason other than to frame things as legislating for a minority.

I'm not dismissing them. I'm just not sliding them over the line into fully agree. Their status is as it is. And the overall aggregate of not fully agreeing, to whatever extent requires a delib. In order to balance representation for all views

It was pretty close. It raised the different issues attached to abortion that needed consideration for legislation should repeal happen. Which was the ultimate purpose of the CA.

Was it representative? If no, then consequences. All sorts of conaequences

Indeed, that could mean that 17% wanted >12 weeks or possibly no limit.

Nonsense. It was a sliding scale.

It's certainly more likely they support aor12 than not since they stated 'somewhat agree'.

Of course more than not - on our sliding scale. But not foursquare behind. Hence foursquare behind something less liberal. And on down the line - increasingly less represented by aor12 as we go.

Since the balance of weight of view would be somewhere mid way so too the level of liberalisation - between aor12 and no aor12

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not dismissing them. I'm just not sliding them over the line into fully agree. Their status is as it is. And the overall aggregate of not fully agreeing, to whatever extent requires a delib. In order to balance representation for all views

You're presuming that 'somewhat agree' means that aor12 is too late into the pregnancy. You're not considering that they could be aor16 or no legal limit at all.

Was it representative? If no, then consequences. All sorts of conaequences

Yes.

Nonsense. It was a sliding scale.

Addressed above. I would again suggest that you consider that someone could be 'somewhat agree' because they view aor12 restrictive and would prefer a scenario that is more open.

Of course more than not - on our sliding scale. But not foursquare behind. Hence foursquare behind something less liberal. And on down the line - increasingly less represented by aor12 as we go.

Since the balance of weight of view would be somewhere mid way so too the level of liberalisation - between aor12 and no aor12

Again 52% stated they agree with aor12 with a distinction made between 'strongly' and 'somewhat' (where the reasons for somewhat are undisclosed but you've presumed it means they want a limit less than aor12).

smacl

Delirium wrote: »

You're presuming that 'somewhat agree' means that aor12 is too late into the pregnancy. You're not considering that they could be aor16 or no legal limit at all.

Excellent point. A naive reading of the data would suggest the 'somewhat agree' group as less liberal than 'strongly agree' whereas there is nothing to say that in many cases they're actually more liberal.

Delirium

smacl wrote: »

Excellent point. A naive reading of the data would suggest the 'somewhat agree' group as less liberal than 'strongly agree' whereas there is nothing to say that in many cases they're actually more liberal.

67% supported aor in the CA.


With the breakdown as follows:

• 48% have recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful up to 12 weeks gestation age only.
• 44 % have recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful up to 22 weeks’ gestation age only.
• 8% have recommended that the termination of pregnancy with no restriction to gestational age.

So over half of the group wanted abortion available after 12 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

You're presuming that 'somewhat agree' means that aor12 is too late into the pregnancy. You're not considering that they could be aor16 or no legal limit at all.

What part of sliding scale do you not understand? Are we really to suppose that those who strongly disagree, strongly disagree because they actually want a more liberal aor?

You've single handedly managed to render the entire discipline of surveying, opinion polling, exit polling, psychometric testing null and void.

There's a point, Delirium, where the desire to find an escape hatch becomes takes on the appearance of drowning man. You don't care what you pull down with you in your efforts to survive.


Assuming you decide to come up for air sometime, you'll know where I'll be.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Excellent point. A naive reading of the data would suggest the 'somewhat agree' group as less liberal than 'strongly agree' whereas there is nothing to say that in many cases they're actually more liberal.

Another drowning man..

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

67% supported aor in the CA.


With the breakdown as follows:

• 48% have recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful up to 12 weeks gestation age only.
• 44 % have recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful up to 22 weeks’ gestation age only.
• 8% have recommended that the termination of pregnancy with no restriction to gestational age.

So over half of the group wanted abortion available after 12 weeks.

Do you know what the function of a foundation is? The idea is that you ensure they are sound before you go erecting a structure on them. Because if you don't...

So: anything at all to show that the CA is representative of the nation before you go building a structure on the CA?

I haven't looked myself (because my understanding of statistics, though basic, is sufficient to know not to bother). As it happens, I tripped across something from Red C saying that for laughably few parameters that were applied for selection purposes (which, for instance, didn't look at the religion of a person !!) the margin of error was +/-10%.

Start adding in more parameters and you sink beyond trace. I mean, pick another 99 people, get (per accident) a dollop of extra Rome-abiding Catholics into the mix and what happens to your results.

You asked what sort of framework might avoid the charge of evasion. Building a case for supposing the CA representative is one such. Find it isn't and couldn't be ... and you're a-ways down the path towards realising what went on.

(although I suspect you already know what went on, but YES is more important to you?)

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

What part of sliding scale do you not understand? Are we really to suppose that those who strongly disagree, strongly disagree because they actually want a more liberal aor?

You've single handedly managed to render the entire discipline of surveying, opinion polling, exit polling, psychometric testing null and void.

There's a point, Delirium, where the desire to find an escape hatch becomes takes on the appearance of drowning man. You don't care what you pull down with you in your efforts to survive.


Assuming you decide to come up for air sometime, you'll know where I'll be.

Just on this point, I've never suggested anything of the sort so I can only presume you misread my posts.



I have exclusively posted on the group of 'agree' with most of the focus on the 'somewhat agree' subset. If you haven't gleaned that from my responses I would ask what I can I do to help you better understand the content of my posts to avoid further confusion on your part.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know what the function of a foundation is? The idea is that you ensure they are sound before you go erecting a structure on them. Because if you don't...

So: anything at all to show that the CA is representative of the nation before you go building a structure on the CA?

I haven't looked myself (because my understanding of statistics, though basic, is sufficient to know not to bother). As it happens, I tripped across something from Red C saying that for laughably few parameters that were applied for selection purposes (which, for instance, didn't look at the religion of a person !!) the margin of error was +/-10%.

Start adding in more parameters and you sink beyond trace. I mean, pick another 99 people, get (per accident) a dollop of extra Rome-abiding Catholics into the mix and what happens to your results.

You asked what sort of framework might avoid the charge of evasion. Building a case for supposing the CA representative is one such. Find it isn't and couldn't be ... and you're a-ways down the path towards realising what went on.

(although I suspect you already know what went on, but YES is more important to you?)

Well taking the 10% margin of error the CA would be just outside of the extreme of that margin.


64% supported aor whereas 52% supported in the opinion poll we've been discussing.



And then on repeal the CA was 57% for repeal whereas the electorate was 66%. Which again is at the extreme of the 10% margin.


So allowing for the margin of error in either direction, those two results would suggest the CA was representative.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Just on this point, I've never suggested anything of the sort so I can only presume you misread my posts.

Here it is:

Addressed above. I would again suggest that you consider that someone could be 'somewhat agree' because they view aor12 restrictive and would prefer a scenario that is more open.

And by that same measure (i.e. we don't have a sliding scale) you could have someone at "strongly disagree" because aor12 is considered restrictive beyond measure. In other words: some of the "somewhat agree" can be taken as wanting to shift it to 16 weeks, some of the "strongly disagree" wants to shift it to abortion up to term.

Once you junk a sliding scale approach, there is nothing to halt it. And you've taken a worldwide multi-billion industry out in the course of a discussion forum debate. Fame beckons!

Well taking the 10% margin of error the CA would be just outside of the extreme of that margin.

+/- 10%. A swing of 20% in a grouping that is supposed to be representative?

That's for the parameters used in selection.

You never mentioned anything about those parameters: whether they were sufficient to extract a representative body. What was the measure used to set the parameters? Which industry standard did they use: one that deals with obtaining a nationally representative body? Is RTE polling 4000 people, in order to extract a near representative standard, a pointer? You never said what you thought of a persons religion not being a parameter?

The more you dig the worse it gets:

Seven members of the Citizens’ Assembly(not sure which one) have been removed from the process after it emerged they were brought on board due to their personal connections to a (Red C) recruiter rather than randomly selected.

Is this going to be a "sliding scale" moment, when all reason is turned on it's head?

64% supported aor whereas 52% supported in the opinion poll we've been discussing.

First the foundations, then the structure...

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Here it is:

And by that same measure (i.e. we don't have a sliding scale) you could have someone at strongly disagree because aor12 is restrictive beyond measure. In other words: the "somewhat agree" wants to shift it to 16 weeks, the "strongly disagree" wants to shift it to abortion up to term.


Once you junk a sliding scale approach, there is nothing to halt it.

it's not much of a leap to see a 'somewhat agree' as being supportive of aor12. I wouldn't be as confident to presume a strongly disagree as a someone who wants a more liberal aor scenario.

+/-10% m.o.e. is based on the parameters used. Red C were concerned that this wouldn't result in a representative body. A 20% potential swing? Representative? It doesn't take a pollster to figure that one out.

You seem to have omitted responding on the issue of parameters used. What parameters were used? Are they sufficient parameters? Didn't you see the significant of asking a persons religion, for example?

First the foundations, then the structure...

Do you have a link to or information on the parameters? I can't see any information on thread so not in a position to answer your question on parameters atm.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

it's not much of a leap to see a 'somewhat agree' as being supportive of aor12. I wouldn't be as confident to presume a strongly disagree as a someone who wants a more liberal aor scenario.

The not-much-of-a-leap is to dismiss the sliding scale. That's a massive leap.

Once you've done that, what category are you going to place someone in who is livid at the idea that there has been no legislation proposed for abortion up to term?

Do you have a link to or information on the parameters? I can't see any information on thread so not in a position to answer your question on parameters atm.

You have to dig around a bit - it would appear that up frontness about the selection process isn't part of the deal either. Surprise. I'll see if I can dig up the Red C checksheet again and where they talked of +/- 10%.

And when you dig:

Ten rural counties were not represented among the 99 members of the assembly who considered the Eighth Amendment on the issue of abortion, leading to charges that the assembly had an urban bias.

Like, we've only 26 counties!

The 99 members had been appointed to reflect the breakdown in age, gender, social class and regional spread in the country, said Ms Justice Laffoy, who also said she was satisfied that they were a “representative sample”.

It would appear that culchies are considered homogenous. Represent a few culchie counties and you represent them all

Tass News Agency


I read the Red C checksheet and this was the extent of it - bar for exclusions such as being a pollster and a couple of other things. No religion? 10 rural counties not represented? Red C employees / patsies (depending on your view) caught stuffing the selection process.


You're not a leap-of-faith kinda guy, are you? Not even when the distance is down to atomic level.

Remember: you're the guy pulling C.A. data from the hat. You ought to be as concerned as your audience that the hat itself wasn't pulled from a hat. This is the agency that was pointed to again and again (along with the 2:5/1 Yes weighted JOC) as the authority that had establised the framework we were all set to work on.

Let's save our time and not bother setting out a list of quotes from politicians and other influentials where the CA/JOC are pointed to as neutral/representative bodies, whose finding are being deferred to. We know it happened. Heck, The Irish Slimes are recommending we wheel out the CA for divestment of schools purposes. Why on earth wouldn't you, when it works such a treat.

antiskeptic

I googled Red C 8th audit pdf and got a pdf of an internal audit carried out relating to the fact that 7 members were mis-recruited by a lazybones recruiter. It gives insights into things - bearing in mind that an internal audit is about the lowest grade of audit you can have. You can also google red c citizens assembly methodology pdf .. and get the parameters in the first table. No religion...

(Reminds of my time in industry: internal audits were a joke. But we also had an annual external fixed date audit by a consortium to which our customers belonged: no sweat, just 2 weeks of creating a years worth of documentation, cleaning the place, slowing down production so that we could shed untrained temps for the day .. and a host of other tricks. We'd usually do okay, with perhaps a bit of token frowning and knucklewrapping. We had it down to a tee. As soon as the auditor moved from an area, we ramped things back up to speed - knowing he wouldn't be back.

One day our M.D. calls all the senior management in. There was a prospect of us getting a big contract with a multinational customer. But we'd be subjected to unannounced audits - they could literally arrive up at the door, anytime. One rule was that they would be on the production floor, or any other area they wanted to see, within 10 minutes of arrival.

If it wasn't the MD across from us, we'd have all fallen from our seats laughing that the thought: run audit-day conditions 365?!!

Needless to say, we quickly dissolved the stool from under him with the realities of what a real auditing meant. Bye Bye Contract)

The audit confirmed that the methodology, sampling, recruitment procedures and the verification
processes were enforced at all times and were significantly ahead of best practice in the industry.

That's precisely the kind of language that passed between us and auditors. Like Prime Irish Beef, it means nothing other than the burger made of lips and arseholes came from an Irish slaughterhouse

This internal audit has been compiled by senior members of the RED C team. To bring as much independence as possible, a team that have not been intimately involved in the project have conducted the audit.

The MD and Associate Director are the senior members. Not intimately involved? You mean you're going dig into every corner see what muck can be turned up in the company you head up?

Within the proposal RED C did make clear that it was extremely difficult to ensure that a sample of 99 people, however well recruited, could be representative. The small number of attendees limits exactly how representative the sample can be, as the margin for error with a sample of 99 people is as high as + or -10%, even if it is recruited to exactly match the
population.

"Within in proposal". Red C were given a brief by government. They look at it and go "what the?". But hey, business is business and you don't say No to the government (in business or referenda).

Normally you don't seek to cover your back if there's something asked by a potential customer which is a little off: they've asked for a reason and they want you to swallow it up. But when it's seriously off and you're own neck/reputation is on the line then you make sure to cover you back. Which is what Red C did.

Look again at the lousy selection criteria. "No religion" is but one lack that makes this thing a joke in the context of the 8th amendment. And the more criteria you add, the bigger the margin of error becomes

The reason 10 counties are omitted is that with only 99 people, you are limited in the detail you can go into. The gaps can't but be barn-door glaring.

I'd warrant the +/- 10% isn't even the actual error. It could be +/-20% or +/- 30% but again, you've a potential (VIP) customer (even if its a piddling contract) and you don't want to call them out. +/- 10% is enough to safeguard your reputation because such a margin makes for a bin worthy proposal - and everyone will know it. No need to gild the lily with the actual figure

However, within this, there are things we can do in order to at least ensure that the sample is as representative as possible.

Prime Irish Beef.

Within the proposal RED C also recommend the use of incentive to make the process easier. There is no intention at present by the Department to incentivise people to take part in the process, and this will make recruitment more difficult, as it is a relatively significant expectation on people’s
time with no recompense apart from the interest in being part of the assembly.
Normally when conducting market research for our industry and political clients, it would be standard to offer an incentive. Even to take part in 1 x 1.5 hour focus groups we would offer at least €50 to those attending, to cover their time, travel and subsistence. If possible we would recommend that some incentive was introduced to make recruitment easier, and to ensure that we are able to recruit all different types of people – not just those that have a
strong interest in the process. An incentive of €100 or €200 to attend at least 5 weekends would potentially allow us to recruit a somewhat more representative sample of people, rather than just those who are interested in political debate and discourse.

The idea of recompense wasn't taken up. So, you've a skeleton crew number of selection criteria torpedoing the whole thing from the start. Then, for the sake of a few quid you skew the whole thing towards those who are interested in political debate. I mean, interest in political debate would be down the list of selection criteria for a properly representative assembly - much lower than religion, for example.

Yet it's shoved right to the top of the heap!


I made the point in an earlier post that YES slanted citizens were more likely to accept an unpaid position on the Assembly. The Yes activists have been constantly at work for years. The No activists only move when there is a threat to the status quo.

Why do you think the suggestion to spend a pittance and obtain a more representative assembly wasn't taken up. You think no one else would figure out who'd take up a non-paying position?

The following policies and exclusions were decided upon by the Assembly

A financial incentive will not be offered to encourage participation. It is acknowledged that
this may result in a group that have a stronger civic interest than a truly representative
sample.

The Assembly decided no financial incentive? How can the Assembly which hasn't been recruited yet decide not to incentivise themselves? It was the Department which issued the proposal... they were the customer.

Further to this, there is documentation to suggest interviewers were struggling to find these specific demographics willing and able to take part, particularly for the last phase of recruitment. It is understood that in the end, prior to the replacement members being recruited for the January 2018
meeting, that RED C did again suggest changes to the recruitment procedure, including the need to incentivise members. In the end an agreement was reached to increase payment to interviewers for recruitment, in order
to encourage interviewers to engage with the project again. It is the auditor’s opinion that while this often assists when projects prove difficult and was well received by recruiters, the difficulties which they were facing in finding this specific sub-set of the population remained.

Hail the gig economy. Why do you think recruiters were disincentivised? Because they were presumably being paid per recruit. People not taking up your something for nothing offer, then your interest in recruitment will wane.

Which is why one of them decided to ring around from the comfort of his home rather than traipsing around the country. Yet his case (identified because someone realised that he couldn't have gotten around the country as quick as did in a car) was, the audit finds, a anomaly. Nothing else to see here folks.



Read the whole thing and weep.


I'll leave it at that Delirium. If you still think the CA is anything but a charade then there is nothing left to be said that would make you think otherwise.

If however, you do think the CA is a charade, then we can go look at the extent that the CA (and JOC) were utilised:

- as a means to obtain the governments desired framework for national discussion. Where the goalposts were to be set.

- aa legitimizing agent to brainwash the electorate with. It was to be a framework and proposal set stemming from someone other than the government (who didn't lobby for Yes as a government). It was to be from the people themselves, no less.

Overheal

Fair and valid concerns to be sure*, can’t argue with your logic and evidence there; only to say that with only 33 members being selected and 66 being random that probabilities were always inevitable that gaps could happen such as the 10 counties not having members on the panel. But you could also have argued no representation by veterinarians, Child minders, dentists, cabbage farmers or bus drivers for example, but I doubt the point was to try to capture some perfect all encapsulating snapshot of every possible parameter and interest; at the end of the day it is indeed only 99 citizens out of millions loss in resolution is a given when you go from 4 million pixels to 100.

Clearly county of origin was not a criteria it was more an attempt to collect a random of sample of citizens nationally. I think the parameters you would have liked to have seen (religion etc) would have defined the body in a manner that pencilheads “felt” was representative of the population, and may not actually have been.

Whether or not another Assembly would have proposed other legislation is an uncoupled matter though: we can at least suppose that most assemblies of similar construction parameters would have called for some degree of legislation - most of which would have still been challenged in the courts and most certainly rejected on the grounds that the 8th amendment gives equal consideration or value to the zygote and adult woman alike. Ultimately the end result would be the same: a referendum. The exit polling we are splitting hairs about still clearly shows the broad majority of the electorate always knew how they would vote and only 1% took sway to the findings of the CA.

This leaves us in the next stage of this, regardless: legislation. There is still plenty, oodles in fact, of time left for respective campaigns, interest groups, bodies, citizens, and politicians to propose alternative legislative strategies than the handful that were headlined by the CA and in the last few months as the most likely proposals to gravitate toward. It then follows that if you want alternative legislation, the best thing to do would be now to propose such legislation.

You for example have been asked repeatedly on thread (and others on the No side elsewhere on the site) to exemplify solutions that would work to encapsulate the spirit of the issue (eg. Allowing the choice in non trivial cases) that are somewhat feasible at least on their face. In the last several weeks I’ve only heard one solution outside of AOR12 and that involved ‘rape panels’ that would have been convened to prove/judge whether a woman had grounds to seek an abortion. I’m definitely not agreeing with that proposal - I didn’t see many respondents who did either - and have yet to hear other suggestions but I am very keen to. If you have any I’d be much more interested to discuss those than to spend the next several weeks wringing blood out of a stone about the lack of representation of the rural cabbage farmer demographic in last year’s CA. What’s infinitely more important is whether the Oireachtas is able to create robust legislation that won’t flip flop every few years, that most are happy with, that covers the vast majority of needs.

*except the brainwashing conspiracy.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Fair and valid concerns to be sure*, can’t argue with your logic and evidence there; only to say that with only 33 members being selected and 66 being random that probabilities were always inevitable that gaps could happen such as the 10 counties not having members on the panel. But you could also have argued no representation by veterinarians, Child minders, dentists, cabbage farmers or bus drivers for example, but I doubt the point was to try to capture some perfect all encapsulating snapshot of every possible parameter and interest; at the end of the day it is indeed only 99 citizens out of millions loss in resolution is a given when you go from 4 million pixels to 100.

That 33/66 wasn't the Citizens Assembly. It was an earlier iteration from Lilt drinking Inda. The CA was constituted from 99 regular citizens picked by RedC. You might ask why they decided to remove the politically-picked input from the mix for the CA.

More distance from the sense of political-influence factor is one explanation that springs to mind - given the subsequent weight applied to the "independent authority of the CA"


-


The loss of resolution (a good analogy) is staggering. Nobody could tell anything about how representative the CA was based on 100 pixels. Utter shot in the dark, at it's most benign.

No "religion" criteria is a different league to whether vet / architect / doctor (=ABC1).

-

Let's remember: the CA was constituted for 5 tasks. First up the 8th. In comparison, the other issues are small fry. There's not going to be a referendum on anything else - still less a referendum of a generation. If in doubt, consider the media coverage of anything else the CA have pronounced on. Got that bit? Okay

This CA is going to be a universal spanner. 1 size fits all (or 5 issues in this case). Not only is it not representative, it's not even geared to focus on a single issue and seek representivity for that. If you did focus on the one item, you could at least gear your selection criteria to suit it. You know what they say about universal products: they don't do any of their multiple jobs well

1 major task + 4 mickey mouse tasks. You believe the 8th wasn't a target?



Conclusion


You have to conclude representative-impossible. You also have to conclude that representative-impossible was known all along - it didn't take RedC pointing it out to know that.

The next question is why proceed? The answer to that will be based on the question: who benefits? More of which in a minute.

I think the parameters you would have liked to have seen (religion etc) would have defined the body in a manner that pencilheads “felt” was representative of the population, and may not actually have been.

It's not that I'd want religion included. Who knows, they could have picked 99 Catholics per chance, for all I know. The fact is that the margin of error (which is already terminal) is magnified if you don't balance for major influences.

Religion is a major, major influence for the very first, and most monumental - by a long shot, task of the assembly. And it's not included?

What excuse? That we were considering 5 issues so weren't particularly focused on the 8th? Fair enough - your non-representative tool becomes even less representative for any single issue it looks at

Whether or not another Assembly would have proposed other legislation is an uncoupled matter though:

Your jumping the gun.

1. The Citizens Assembly was not representative of the nation. Its a dud and was known to be a dud from the get go

2. Why did this happen? Well the first question to ask is "Who would benefit?"
Well, given later reliance on the legitimacy/authority /"due process" /"best international practice" codology that was attached to it: the government seems an obvious place to look

The same government who wanted a YES result. The same government who instituted the CA and put the 8th at the top of it's list of jobs to do.

3. If we conclude the CA was a deliberate dud and we know their findings were used to set the framework around which all else was hung, might we be suspicious that The Dud wasn't left to come to some chance conclusion?

(I mean, it's conclusions rolled more or less unadulterated into the JOC and from there into the ballot paper and proposed legislation.)

By sheer chance, the CA could have had a chunk of people with a strong pro-life view. There could be a pro-life activist or two in there (so long as they were low key enough in profile not to readily identifiable - say me, who has no public profile). There could have been, per chance, a chunk of rosary bead swinging Romanites. Throw in a pro life legal expert who would see which way the wind was blowing on any attempt by the chair to "lead of the members". What if you got a Henry Fonda of 12 Angry Men fame who also happened to be strongly (and cleverly) pro-life. Sheer chance and you'd have an entirely different outcome.

Do you suppose their findings would roll through the JOC more or less unadulterated? And roll down to the referendum wording and proposed legislation? And their authority repeated ad nauseum? In the face of a government who wanted something entirely different?

Do you suppose it was left to sheer chance?



You say above the concerns are "valid". I need a little bit more by way of honesty or realism from you. If you have any doubt that the CA was a set up then you need to do your own research into it and convince yourself. There's little point in going much further with someone who supposes sheer chance pulled this off.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

*except the brainwashing conspiracy.

The authority of the CA was utilised throughout. But that's not what I mean by brainwashing.

What I mean by brainwashing is that the goalposts were set by the CA with a bit of rounding off of corners by the heavily pro-life JOC (who were super-deferential-to-the-findings-of-the-CA)

The sectioning up: rape/ffa/incest/post 24 week / 12-24 week / abortion on request.

That menu was put before our noses and we were told to choose from it. After that, the entire country: politicians, media, citizens, boards knocks themselves silly batting those balls back and forward.

But what if we'd walked into another restaurant? By sheer chance, another menu was put before our noses. And entirely different menu. Well, we'd have done the exact same thing: belted ourselves silly around the items on that menu, is what we would have done.

If sheer chance had been what it was down to. As it was, setting the goalposts was the brainwashing. The authority of the CA (a.k.a. The Peoples Voice) was utilised as a reminder that the goalposts were the right ones.

-

As it happens, the country wouldn't have produced aor12, if the country had been represented at the CA. For the country was only 33% strongly or more, in favor of it.

Do you know what first past the post is - the method used in the CA ballot? It's the way you use to get the result you want in the easiest way possible. You only have to ensure a 51% result to take all. Wonder who figured to apply it to the CA's modus operendi?

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

That 33/66 wasn't the Citizens Assembly. It was an earlier iteration from Lilt drinking Inda. The CA was constituted from 99 regular citizens picked by RedC. You might ask why they decided to remove the politically-picked input from the mix for the CA.

More distance from the sense of political-influence factor is one explanation that springs to mind - given the subsequent weight applied to the "independent authority of the CA"


-


The loss of resolution (a good analogy) is staggering. Nobody could tell anything about how representative the CA was based on 100 pixels. Utter shot in the dark, at it's most benign.

No "religion" criteria is a different league to whether vet / architect / doctor (=ABC1).

-

Let's remember: the CA was constituted for 5 tasks. First up the 8th. In comparison, the other issues are small fry. There's not going to be a referendum on anything else - still less a referendum of a generation. If in doubt, consider the media coverage of anything else the CA have pronounced on. Got that bit? Okay

This CA is going to be a universal spanner. 1 size fits all (or 5 issues in this case). Not only is it not representative, it's not even geared to focus on a single issue and seek representivity for that. If you did focus on the one item, you could at least gear your selection criteria to suit it. You know what they say about universal products: they don't do any of their multiple jobs well

1 major task + 4 mickey mouse tasks. You believe the 8th wasn't a target?



Conclusion


You have to conclude representative-impossible. You also have to conclude that representative-impossible was known all along - it didn't take RedC pointing it out to know that.

The next question is why proceed? The answer to that will be based on the question: who benefits? More of which in a minute.





It's not that I'd want religion included. Who knows, they could have picked 99 Catholics per chance, for all I know. The fact is that the margin of error (which is already terminal) is magnified if you don't balance for major influences.

Religion is a major, major influence for the very first, and most monumental - by a long shot, task of the assembly. And it's not included?

What excuse? That we were considering 5 issues so weren't particularly focused on the 8th? Fair enough - your non-representative tool becomes even less representative for any single issue it looks at




Your jumping the gun.

1. The Citizens Assembly was not representative of the nation. Its a dud and was known to be a dud from the get go

2. Why did this happen? Well the first question to ask is "Who would benefit?"
Well, given later reliance on the legitimacy/authority /"due process" /"best international practice" codology that was attached to it: the government seems an obvious place to look

The same government who wanted a YES result. The same government who instituted the CA and put the 8th at the top of it's list of jobs to do.

3. If we conclude the CA was a deliberate dud and we know their findings were used to set the framework around which all else was hung, might we be suspicious that The Dud wasn't left to come to some chance conclusion?

(I mean, it's conclusions rolled more or less unadulterated into the JOC and from there into the ballot paper and proposed legislation.)

By sheer chance, the CA could have had a chunk of people with a strong pro-life view. There could be a pro-life activist or two in there (so long as they were low key enough in profile not to readily identifiable - say me, who has no public profile). There could have been, per chance, a chunk of rosary bead swinging Romanites. Throw in a pro life legal expert who would see which way the wind was blowing on any attempt by the chair to "lead of the members". What if you got a Henry Fonda of 12 Angry Men fame who also happened to be strongly (and cleverly) pro-life. Sheer chance and you'd have an entirely different outcome.

Do you suppose their findings would roll through the JOC more or less unadulterated? And roll down to the referendum wording and proposed legislation? And their authority repeated ad nauseum? In the face of a government who wanted something entirely different?

Do you suppose it was left to sheer chance?



You say above the concerns are "valid". I need a little bit more by way of honesty or realism from you. If you have any doubt that the CA was a set up then you need to do your own research into it and convince yourself. There's little point in going much further with someone who supposes sheer chance pulled this off.

Conspiracy theories everywhere.
You can't seem to handle that the average person when presented with facts and figures would decide to remove the 8th.
This is the same "government" that gave a free vote on the issue?
You need to get that chip off your shoulder and spend some of this energy actually helping those actual babies and children whise lives you claim to care so much about.
12 weeks was proposed for a reason that has been explained to you numerous times.

smacl

uptherebels wrote: »

You need to get that chip off your shoulder and spend some of this energy actually helping those actual babies and children whise lives you claim to care so much about.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the hardline religious conservative element within the No campaign were more concerned about forcing their antiquated ethics surrounding sexual behaviour, reproductive health and the traditional family than showing any compassion for women or children. They lost so heavily because this is entirely inconsistent with modern Irish attitudes which are increasingly compassionate and aware of the needs of others.

If you look at the exit poll demographics, the main group that objected to abortion on request at 12 weeks were the over 65s, who would tend to be more conservative. When grouped by political affiliation rather than age, we see the only significant no group are FF voters at 57%. Where this gets interesting is when you look at the age profile of those polled by party. I'd speculate Micheál Martin pushed his party towards towards a Yes vote because his currently conservative voters are ageing fast and his party needs to wake up to the egalitarian and increasingly liberal views of the voting population if it is to survive. Once you remove the 65+ column on the table below the gap between FF to FG widens significantly. I think Martin was astute enough to realise this risk and deal with it.



Hardline religious conservatism is quite literally dying in this country, and even very traditional older Catholics are increasingly questioning the dogmatic value system thrust on them from the pulpit. That politicians are self serving has little bearing on this, they simply follow what they understand their voters want in order to stay in power. They no longer answer to the church because the church isn't swaying voter opinion any more.

antiskeptic

uptherebels wrote: »

Conspiracy theories everywhere.
You can't seem to handle that the average person when presented with facts and figures would decide to remove the 8th.
This is the same "government" that gave a free vote on the issue?
You need to get that chip off your shoulder and spend some of this energy actually helping those actual babies and children whise lives you claim to care so much about.
12 weeks was proposed for a reason that has been explained to you numerous times.

You're what's known in the trade as a "marketeers wet dream". Dazzled by the packaging, you swallow wholesale the idea that what's inside will be the same.

You've not actually said anything btw. No argument for your position. Free vote? Which is best: maintaining the charade of a "people's referendum" or using the whip to force a vote you're going to win anyway? The gov had a win in the bag. The issue is how much they could cram into the bag. They had themselves, Labour, Sinn Fein and Mr. Martin and some independents. Why whip when you can pour..

Overheal

All of this still only boils down to one question:

If not AOR12, then what?

You have refused to provide alternatives, which is dazzling because for two weeks now you’ve sat on the conspiracy that the CA was rigged to only give 4 general options, one of which was AOR12, and that some other body might have suggested something else. But in two weeks, you haven’t offered a single alternative that would support your claim.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

All of this still only boils down to one question:

If not AOR12, then what?

You have refused to provide alternatives, which is dazzling because for two weeks now you’ve sat on the conspiracy that the CA was rigged to only give 4 general options, one of which was AOR12, and that some other body might have suggested something else. But in two weeks, you haven’t offered a single alternative that would support your claim.

Still of the opinion that the CA was representative? Still of the opinion that it was fit for purpose?

If you can't drink milk there's no point in moving onto meat with you.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Still of the opinion that the CA was representative? Still of the opinion that it was fit for purpose?

If you can't drink milk there's no point in moving onto meat with you.

My dude, you’ve been entertained for literally weeks about your kicking and screaming that the CA wasn’t fair. It’s time for the meat, as you call it. At this point I’m surprised anyone is still humoring you going around in circles. Time to put up for the meat of your case: what besides AOR12 do you think should he proposed as an option? Your fig leaf deflection posts are just that: poor cover for acknowledging you can think of none - which ultimately leaves us facing the inevitable conclusion about the futility of going back and forth about the CA, if the proposals would end up by and large the same under any quango, magic conch shell, or [insert alternative political macguffin].

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

My dude, you’ve been entertained for literally weeks about your kicking and screaming that the CA wasn’t fair.

I've made various points which lead to the conclusion the CA was a dud. A deliberate dud. If you accept that it was then we can proceed a bit.

If you burp your milk up however, then there's only one place to go back to - the bottle.

At this point, rather than kicking and screaming yourself, you might begin to state your position wrt to the CA: an unrepresentative body without any evidence of being suitable for the use it was put to. And not only a dud, but a deliberate dud


You do this by dealing with the arguments as they stand - not by pointing elsewhere.

If you don't think the CA was a statistical dud, then make some kind of reasoned argument to the contrary on it's statistical sufficiency. Don't leap to assuming that it didn't matter that it was a dud, that any other dud would have produced the same result.

Stepwise will lead where it leads and will force it's own conclusions. Leaping off to the next place just strikes as a deliberate effort not to drink at the well the argument is leading to. But don't worry about that just now - just drink from the bottle before you.

Overheal

So you continue to dance around your inability to suggest any alternative legislation than AOR12.

Alright.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

So you continue to dance around your inability to suggest any alternative legislation than AOR12.

I'm not biting at your misdirection. You're flailing on the CA and out of hat comes "what's your alternative to aor12?"

Use your imagination and come up with ways of deliberalisation that could be applied to aor12. Then carry out the inevitable misdirecting argument you'd have with me, were I to suggest it, in your own head.

Overheal

You have yet to offer any alternative legislative options. You’re very keen on complaining about the CA and alleging that they were manipulated into proposing the solutions it did, but have no interest in discussing what the alternatives to those options were.

That’s called whining.

Let’s entertain your conspiracy for a moment and assume the entire CA was a sham: what now? What’s your point? The electorate still voted to repeal the 8th by 2:1 by the highest turnout the country has ever seen. It does not invalidate the referendum outcome, good luck proving the CA had a material affect on the outcome especially based on the exit polling. Further to that, It’s not one of the complaints that was filed against the referendum that will be heard on Monday. So, discussing it is entirely and utterly pointless now, even if we do suppose that the CA was a liberal brainwashing apparatus, the period of time to file such an argument passed last week, 7 days after the vote was recorded in Iris Oifigiúil. None of the petitioners have raised substantive issues with the CA as far as I can see.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eighth-amendment-challenges-will-not-delay-legislation-1.3520537

More details of the petition matters here, none of them reference the CA or the previewed legislation: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/three-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

Your ship already sailed to file a petition against the referendum with regards to the CA. There is quite literally no value in entertaining your conspiracy theory as it pertains to abortion laws that are to follow.

What happens next is legislation. There are some options offered, you don’t like them but refuse to say what you’d like instead. You’re more than welcome to keep that position and cry and whine, but the Oireachtas will go forward with proposed legislation in the absence of alternative proposals, which you seem unwilling and unable to discuss. Which is totally fine by me and by most people, by the way, you just deny yourself a say by refusing to partake in such discussions.

antiskeptic

Interesting snippet from Billy Kelliher (pro-choice) speaking in the Dail during the CA's deliberations. He was advocating some or other private members bill modifying the POLDPA, with the prospect of a referendum in the offing.

here

It's interesting in what he has to say about Mary Laffoy (the Chair of the CA) - with the addition of a common enough example of the drumbeat message we heard regarding the authority of the CA

That said, Judge Mary Laffoy is chairing the Citizens' Assembly and will, I hope, be seen to be impartial. The assembly is going about its work. Some are saying it is too slow, while others are saying the assembly is not delving into enough detail. We must give it time to come to its conclusions. The views of 100 of our peers will ultimately be placed before the Dáil and the Seanad and we will decide whether to retain, amend or repeal the eighth amendment. Depending on what the Citizens' Assembly recommends, Parliament will make its decision. Ultimately, we may see the exercise of the greatest example of people power in a referendum.

Peers?! Ha, ha, ha.

Pow-wir to da peepill


The internal RedC audit report was a great bit of Prime Irish Beef-ism. Anyone who has worked in any politicized/regulated/corporate environment knows the platitudes-that-mean-nothing-speak used. Yet the evidence for systemic misrecruitment for the CA was right there, in that same report, for anyone who could add two and two.

Yet:

The Social Liberal Bugle wrote:

Assembly chair Ms Justice Mary Laffoy said she had “full confidence in the recruitment process” despite the suspension of a Red C employee.

Ms. Laffoy is a Judge. Someone whose professional skillset is aimed directly at extracting truth from the <snip>. And as you would expect, they become expert at it. A criminal barrister mother of a pal of mine, in chat, said she more or less knew from the get go whether someone was guilty but the issue was whether or not the game of law could be made find same (prosecution) or be made not find same (defence). Mary, we might suppose, will be top of the perception tree in this regard.

She read that audit. And went, it appears, with the platitude speak. She had "full confidence" that unpaid recruiters (i.e. only paid for an signed up recruit), demotivated by citizen after citizen refusing the opportunity to spend 5 or so weekends, for free, in service to the State, wouldn't seek out the same kind of shortcut-to-recruits that their nabbed colleague sought out.

She was pretty confident of the CA being a representative body too. In a Prime Irish Beef kind of way

The Social Liberal Bugle wrote:

The 99 members had been appointed to reflect the breakdown in age, gender, social class and regional spread in the country, said Ms Justice Laffoy, who also said she was satisfied that they were a “representative sample”.

She didn't say whether it was representative +/-3% or +/-30%. Just representative.

She didn't say whether it was representative in the context of the specific tasks set for it.

Just representative.


Should we suppose all judges are exactly equal? That they don't have slants and biases? Or that they a politically disposed this way rather than that? I think it would be a bit too much to expect of a human being.

So when a chair for the CA is chosen by a government who has:

chosen to lay it in the hands of a Citizens Assembly (a.k.a. The People) knowingly ignored warnings that the CA couldn't be representative picked a number of citizens which necessitates the omission of citizens from 10 counties denied requests by RedC to incentivize citizens joining, so as to avoid further skewing (toward Yes, as it happens) chooses a pro-choice chair for it's JOC and packs the JOC 2:5:1 pro-choice*

... which kind of chair are they most likely to appoint?


The reason why pro-choice Mr. Kelliher's comment is interesting is that he doesn't go out and presume everyone ought to think the chair will be impartial. That it's not an given. Who'd have thunk? Now I know his "hope" isn't a true kind of hope. It's a political-speak nod to the fact that the opposition (whether political or No activist) recognize this chair can be as stacked by the powerbrokers as any other chair)

Those that focus on the packaging rather than on the contents of the packaging, those who, like Mary Laffoy, read the RedC audit and believe all the assurances from the CEO of RedC that bogey recruiting is an isolated event ... will doubtlessly be inclined to suppose Judges a homogenous, neutral bunch, incapable of bias, incapable of leaning towards the politicians who appoint them (Fine Gael in office at the time of her appointment to the Supreme Court / Fine Gael and Labour when appointed to the High Court)

Everyone else can draw their own conclusions.



* To those inclined to leap to a 2:1 in the referendum and then work back to a 2.5:1 in the JOC I would say. You are better off working forward from one to the other than back. <snip> in = <snip> out. I would also say that 2:1 in the referendum isn't 2:1 for aor12. Not by a long, long way. And aor12 will account for 95% of abortions.

Overheal

Still doesn’t change how the country voted, and, it’s too late to include as a petition to the referendum even if we suppose your criticisms of the CA have merit. Only 3 petitions followed the process in law to challenge the referendum and they will be addressed next week. Once those are resolved the referendum will be certified and the alteration papers for the constitution sent to the President for their signature. Then the Dail will legislate. Simple as that.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

You have yet to offer any alternative legislative options.

It's not clear that aor12 ought even belong in the mix. We're looking at how that got into the mix in the first place. If it had no business being there then why knock ourselves out wondering about alternatives?

You might differ, but you don't get there by leaping ahead. You get there by showing how you got there.

At the moment, you're not doing a whole lot to show your work. You're simply bouncing off the problems posed you.

That’s called winning.

fixed that for you

Let’s entertain your conspiracy for a moment and assume the entire CA was a sham:

You'll have to do better than that. Start disassembling the arguments. Because in the measure you can't, you fold your hand. That's the deal. Put a bit of effort into it. Find something that shows the CA was representative, rather than simply assume it. Shouting "conspiracy" is lazy.

I mean it. Get to work on it or fold on what's done thus far and reset your defence further down the line. Or shove off altogether. Whichever you want.

Overheal

It doesn’t matter if the CA only represented a wooden spoon or a cloister of cat ladies off the coast of Kerry. It doesn’t mater where AOR12 came from. Again: the magic conch shell; it could have whispered it to Leo Varadkar while he was canoeing the inside of an active volcano on the planet gazorpazorp, the legislature shouldn’t be concerned with where the idea comes from, the legislature need only evaluate the ideas merits and whether they will make for practical law. Like, we could totally bemoan that a law requiring seatbelts in all new cars came from a car belt manufacturer but that doesn’t mean it’s not without merit. Your argument is equally pointless and doesn’t actually address the more important matter of whether or not AOR12 makes perfect sense - and if it does not, what does.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Still doesn’t change how the country voted, and, it’s too late to include as a petition to the referendum even if we suppose your criticisms of the CA have merit.

Political distortion isn't a grounds for a challenge. They can bend things all they want politically and that's fine, legally. Which is to be expected really. I mean, if politicians couldn't skew things without ending up in court, then politics as we know it would grind to a halt.

Then the Dail will legislate. Simple as that.

This is a discussion on the nature of democracy - as it rolled out in the referendum. The question isn't whether the referendum can be overturned or whether legislation can be rowed back upon.

The question is whether a voter is happy being played like a fiddle - even if they like the tune the government have them dancing to.

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're what's known in the trade as a "marketeers wet dream". Dazzled by the packaging, you swallow wholesale the idea that what's inside will be the same.

You've not actually said anything btw. No argument for your position. Free vote? Which is best: maintaining the charade of a "people's referendum" or using the whip to force a vote you're going to win anyway? The gov had a win in the bag. The issue is how much they could cram into the bag. They had themselves, Labour, Sinn Fein and Mr. Martin and some independents. Why whip when you can pour..

Na marketeers don't like me cause I actually research my position not listen to soundbites or scaremongering. Logic over emotion.
I understood that a yes vote would mean a proposed legislation for abortion up to twelve weeks. As was everybody else as the government was very transparent on this. Kinda it said on the packaging. ;-)
The arguement for a yes vote and abortion up to twelve weeks has been given to you numerous times over this thread and others! Selective memory?
Charade? I was free to inform myself on the issue on hand and vote accordingly as was every other eligible voters and member of the government. That people didn't get fooled by the lies,half truths and scaremongering of the no side is hardly the fault of the government.

Overheal

No this is a discussion about abortion. Politics forum is that way.

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

Still of the opinion that the CA was representative? Still of the opinion that it was fit for purpose?

If you can't drink milk there's no point in moving onto meat with you.

And you deflect and deflect and still don't give an alternative

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is a discussion on the nature of democracy - as it rolled out in the referendum.

Mod:

Some overlap to politics is expected. Please keep in mind though there are probably more appropriate fora on boards to discuss this - and in much greater depth. This thread isn't really intended for it.

antiskeptic

It was shut down on the Politics forum. I was pointed to the Conspiracy forum.

Continue or desist?

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was shut down on the Politics forum. I was pointed to the Conspiracy forum.

Continue or desist?

Not to veer off topic here but you’re welcome to post it in CT. Like I said earlier your concerns are valid and intriguing and discussion by itself would be of some interest, but as it relates to this thread - to abortions, and abortion law to follow - I just think it’s pointless as it does nothing to change what happened or what will happen with these matters. But by all means as it’s own topic I think it’s interesting enough to land it’s own thread. There are some regulars and regular skeptics that would happily have a go at it with you that would make a great convo.

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

Not to veer off topic here but you’re welcome to post it in CT. Like I said earlier your concerns are valid and intriguing and discussion by itself would be of some interest, but as it relates to this thread - to abortions, and abortion law to follow - I just think it’s pointless as it does nothing to change what happened or what will happen with these matters. But by all means as it’s own topic I think it’s interesting enough to land it’s own thread. There are some regulars and regular skeptics that would happily have a go at it with you that would make a great convo.

Thanks. But to me a conspiracy theory is exampled by the Twin Towers. A plane full of fuel heats steel to the consistency of play-doh, a heavy section above impacts on what's below and pancakes the building in a cascade of further impacts. Then a load of people come out of the woodwork with timed explosive idea.

The idea that the CA was skewed isn't new. Breda O'Brien highlighted a letter written by an accountant to the Irish Times a good while ago, pointing out the statistical nonsense: that another 99 people could be expected to arrive (assuming not lead by the nose) at an entirely different conclusion. There's plenty more of that concern, before the fact.

I'm not willing to label government manipulation of the electorate (which I don't think is particularly unusual, btw) as a conspiracy.

Call me a snob..

If it can't be in Politics (where it belongs) and it can't be here (where truth is nominally what it's all about) then I don't see a place at all for it.

Overheal

Then, neither do I. Though there’s plenty of discussion that goes on in CT that, occasionally, turns out to be quite founded (conspiracies do actually happen sometimes, you know). Ultimately though it certainly does strike me as odd not to label alleged plans to manipulate the electorate (and democracy) by people in the government a conspiracy, and/or a theory of said conspiracy.

Conspiracies range in validity from flat earth (comically weak) to operation north woods or watergate (actual and factual). We’ve had a Mary Boyle thread running for five years now with limited incident and seems to be an example of most people happily convinced of what might have happened.

Back on topic: roll on AOR12!

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Antiskeptic banned for one day for repeated breaches of the charter.

Please refrain from swearing on your return.

Thanks for your attention.