The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

applehunter

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

Yer Da sells Avon

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

As opposed to the No side, which contains actual Nazis like Youth Defence.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

Yawn

dudara

applehunter wrote: »

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

Don’t forget normal people, lots of normal people.

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

With regard to your claim of misrepresentation of the human development of a foetus, it is worthwhile to consider that the images of cereal on cereal boxes are very often not actual size. Often the image is larger than the cereal in the box, to display more clearly the details of each Corn Flake or Rice Krispie, or Coco Pop, or Frostie, or All Bran, or Special K.

In the case below, the reviewer of a brand of cereal noticed that the image on the box, depicted the cereal as being smaller than actual size.

Neither a smaller or larger image on the box, justifies describing the cereal in the box, as not being cereal.

The image on the box being smaller or larger in the photo on the boxes, doesn't mean that the cereal contained in the boxes, isn't cereal.

Whatever it is you are trying quite hard to get at, doesn't change the issue that a foetus, at any stage of existence, no matter if it is at its earliest stage, middle or later stage, is undergoing human growth and development.

http://www.someblogsite.com/archives/2298

Here is some of what is stated, on this issue of the cereal being depicted, in the photos on the cereal boxes, in the review of the particular brand of cereal:

"I tried a new cereal the other day: Post Toasties. I forget where I picked it up, but I haven’t tried to find it again".

"This isn’t a review of the cereal itself (think “inflated grape nuts”), but rather of something I noticed on the box".

"In the US, all food products are required to list the nutrition information. I believe that a corollary to that law is that all cereal boxes are required to show a bowl of the cereal with milk (fruit garnish optional)".

"Let’s zoom in on the standard disclaimer":

"No big deal, right? Every box of cereal says “enlarged to show texture”.
Wrong! Well, every box may say that, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right.
I started eating the cereal and discovered that the cereal’s claims were incorrect. The photo on the box was not enlarged to show texture. In fact, the picture showed the cereal smaller than it actually was".

That's all well and good but you still haven't given a definitive answer, comparing it to a box of cereal? Excellent.

You can't give a definitive answer and instead just drone on because you know if you agree with RobertKK you'd be wrong, yet if you disagreed with him you'd destroy what little credibility he had left after posting that absolute farce of a picture.

robarmstrong

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

I'd be more worried about the campaign that contains liars, uneducated buffoons and bible thumpers.

Cabaal

dudara wrote: »

Don’t forget normal people, lots of normal people.

Lots of religious zealots too though,

Yeah_Right

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

You forgot right wing economic conservatives and rugbyheads.
I'm standing right here ffs!

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

Pretty much every facet of Irish society is represented in the yes campaign. You referred to inconsistencies and then attempted to insult the demographics involved, that's not an inconsistency...

Meanwhile the no campaign has engaged in a campaign that is reliant on causing offence including targeted advertising at children on YouTube and games such as Peppa Pig.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

With regard to your claim of misrepresentation of the human development of a foetus, it is worthwhile to consider that the images of cereal on cereal boxes are very often not actual size. Often the image is larger than the cereal in the box, to display more clearly the details of each Corn Flake or Rice Krispie, or Coco Pop, or Frostie, or All Bran, or Special K.

Look. Robert attempted to appeal to emotion by posting an image of a foetus doll which makes a 12 week foetus look like a miniature full-term baby, which was quickly shown to be complete and utter nonsense. It might work on naive 12 year olds, but that kindness of rubbish won’t wash here.

To go with your cereal analogy: Robert posted a picture of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes but a little investigation shows the box actually contains Bran Flakes.

Annasopra

This is pathetic. Both camps have people. Could we get back to discussing the real issues instead of being dragged into name calling.

gmisk

Has there been any recent polls?
I thought the Irish Times would have one or two by now?

uptherebels

horseburger wrote: »

I already said to you that it doesn't really impact on the issue of abortion, if both images are fake.

If you are arguing that the model is an inaccurate representation of the size of the foetus, which it might be, it doesn't impact on the debate, because no matter if both images are an inaccurate representation, abortion still involves the ending of life, regardless of the stage of its human life cycle deveopment.

If you are saying that it is ok to end the life of a foetus at an earlier stage of pregnancy, but not at a later stage, why would that be?

The life of the foetus will still be ended, so I don't really see why - if abortion is advocated - it is more acceptable to end its life on the basis that it is at an earlier stage of development than later.

What exactly are you hoping I will say?

You only need to ask why use innacurate photos/models instead of accurate ones?

I'll give you one guess
Hint: influence the debate

NuMarvel

gmisk wrote: »

Has there been any recent polls?
I thought the Irish Times would have one or two by now?

There's a poll in today's IT on the political parties, and this article touches on the level of support the referendum has within party supporters.

I'd say there'll be a more indepth poll on the referendum itself either tomorrow or Saturday.

ohnonotgmail

Cabaal wrote: »

Lots of religious zealots too though,

On the repeal side?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

What's your view of the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik regarding grounds for abortion in relation to the exchanges between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr?

I don't know any of those people, so I am not familiar with their views. I have heard that Ivana Bacik is a crazy lesbian feminazi bitch, so I would probably like her.

Why do you think anyone here should care what they said to each other? We are perfectly capable of discussing our own views without reference to Youtube videos of other people we don't know discussing theirs.

Zubeneschamali

applehunter wrote: »

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

The prolife side in ireland is mostly conservative catholics, but their funding comes from evangelical Americans who think all conservative catholics are going to Hell. Doesn't seem to bother anyone.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't know any of those people, so I am not familiar with their views. I have heard that Ivana Bacik is a crazy lesbian feminazi bitch, so I would probably like her.

Why do you think anyone here should care what they said to each other? We are perfectly capable of discussing our own views without reference to Youtube videos of other people we don't know discussing theirs.

I'm pretty sure she is married with kids. or was the last i checked anyway.

gmisk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't know any of those people, so I am not familiar with their views. I have heard that Ivana Bacik is a crazy lesbian feminazi bitch, so I would probably like her.

Why do you think anyone here should care what they said to each other? We are perfectly capable of discussing our own views without reference to Youtube videos of other people we don't know discussing theirs.

I have to say I heard Ivana Bacik speak live in a debate in relation to the marriage referendum here and I found her intelligent, measured and really articulate.
I am pretty sure she is straight not that that matters.

amdublin

applehunter wrote: »

There is a lot of inconsistencies on the YES side of the debate.

Considering the makeup of Together for Yes, I couldn't imagine the heat building in the internal combustion engine of their campaign.

How can a campaign containing; militant atheists, Trotsky's, bourgeois, Blue Shirts, Greens, Feminazis & Labour not spontaneously combust?

Shrug

They seem pretty consistent to me, night after night county by county, out on the canvass trail.

I'm following a load of together for yes groups on instagram and Facebook. And of course following the overall group.

Seems completely consistent and cohesive to me, and working together with one focus in sight compassion for women/repeal the 8th.

Together for Yes!
Repeal the 8th!

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

Shrug

They seem pretty consistent to me, night after night county by county, out on the canvass trail.

I'm following a load of together for yes groups on instagram and Facebook. And of course following the overall group.

Seems completely consistent and cohesive to me, and working together with one focus in sight compassion for women/repeal the 8th.

Together for Yes!
Repeal the 8th!

I have to agree I follow a lot of them on twitter + facebook, all seem consistent on their message.
Its also really heartening to see all the small events popping up around the country in support, table quizzes, bake sales and everything else.

amdublin

gmisk wrote: »

I have to say I heard Ivana Bacik speak live in a debate in relation to the marriage referendum here and I found her intelligent, measured and really articulate.
I am pretty sure she is straight not that that matters.

I saw Maria steen and Ivana back on Miriam o'callaghan a few months ago.
Ivana was quietly calm and factual. Maria was shrill and heated and focussed on "the babies Ivana, the babies". Ivana kept reminding her of of the woman and that the babies were not born or even babies at that point

That's what I recall anyway.

Let's trust real live living human women and stop equating them with foetuses. I'm voting Yes for Repeal.

robarmstrong

Off topic but could any of you PM me links to these groups? I've only found two and they aren't very active.

amdublin

gmisk wrote: »

I have to agree I follow a lot of them on twitter + facebook, all seem consistent on their message.
Its also really heartening to see all the small events popping up around the country in support, table quizzes, bake sales and everything else.

I agree. It's very much a grass roots organisation of ordinary people

And love all those little events. Even though €560k was raised via the Crowd funding the little quizzes and things are still going on.

I bought something from etsy yesterday that someone made and she is donating the proceeds (€22) to Together for Yes.

amdublin

robarmstrong wrote: »

Off topic but could any of you PM me links to these groups? I've only found two and they aren't very active.

Stick Together for Yes in the search on Facebook and insta and you should find them all

Yeah_Right

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't know any of those people, so I am not familiar with their views. I have heard that Ivana Bacik is a crazy lesbian feminazi bitch, so I would probably like her.

Don't know her but if that's the case, I'd probably hate her and she'd probably hate me. We would agree on at least one thing though.

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

Stick Together for Yes in the search on Facebook and insta and you should find them all

True also stick in the area you are based in as well if you want a specific local one.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

Get over yourself.

I've made numerous points about the debate around the referendum for which I have not received a response.

Are you going to post replies to other posters about that?

What's your view of the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik regarding grounds for abortion in relation to the exchanges between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr?

I am not interested in the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik, I am interested in whether you will follow through in the ballot box in line with the statements you have made on this thread.

You have said you favour abortion in limited circumstances which are currently prohibited by the 8th.

You haven't confirmed that means you are voting to repeal the 8th.

robarmstrong

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not interested in the discussion between Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik, I am interested in whether you will follow through in the ballot box in line with the statements you have made on this thread.

You have said you favour abortion in limited circumstances which are currently prohibited by the 8th.

You haven't confirmed that means you are voting to repeal the 8th.

He's on the fence.

He just conveniently only has an issue with the pro-choice campaign.

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

I agree. It's very much a grass roots organisation of ordinary people

And love all those little events. Even though €560k was raised via the Crowd funding the little quizzes and things are still going on.

I bought something from etsy yesterday that someone made and she is donating the proceeds (€22) to Together for Yes.

Just as a follow on from this. Got the below in an email just now.

An unbelievable 14,823 of you raised your voices and showed your support by donating amounts of all sizes, with an average donation of €39.


It is also just a smidge under 580k now!