The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Mr.H

DubInMeath wrote:

I'm sure plenty of ban requests reach the mods from both sides the thread lock you mention actually states this.

Unless the ban requests were from someone else on the pro life side, the mod was exaggerating about both sides.

seamus

baylah17 wrote: »

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

Not a hope in hell. They're not interested in moral victories. Only actual victories.

Those actually campaigning to keep the eighth are not campaigning on the basis of ethics or morals. This is not about being "correct" for them. It's a matter of faith and belief. They believe abortion is wrong, and there is nothing which can sway them from that. As a result, the ends will always justify the means. They're not interested in being right, in having all the facts, in being honest, or moral, or fair.

Their only goal is to win.

The pro-choice side would not be campaigning for choice, if they did not have the data and the facts to back it up. If the data and the facts all said that yes, having access to abortion harms women and gives them less control over their bodies, then there would be no pro-choice campaign.

The pro-life side campaign regardless of a lack of data or facts.

It is an unbalanced debate. Because on one side you have a campaign who are held to a standard that requires absolute honesty, verifiable facts, independent data and transparent funding.

And on the other side you have a campaign who do not feel the need to abide by any standards. Anything they can use to win the argument is absolutely ethical, because all that matters is the win.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

Can't see that happening but if they lose they will claim media bias etc, the same way they did when marriage equality went against them

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

There is at least one as far as I am aware. Only outcome of it is I get a site ban or this thread gets permalocked.

OK your really reaching now, sorry your statement is losing any credibility.

applehunter

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can't see that happening but if they lose they will claim media bias etc, the same way they did when marriage equality went against them

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

Who is the "us" in this analogy?

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

Unless the ban requests were from someone else on the pro life side, the mod was exaggerating about both sides.

You do realise that you can report a post for trolling etc without actually posting in the thread itself.

It sounds like your actually trying to be mod banned from the thread from what your posting.

NuMarvel

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can't see that happening but if they lose they will claim media bias etc, the same way they did when marriage equality went against them

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

I remember reading an article about the 1995 divorce referendum when the No side made very similar claims. Plus ca change, and all that.

Also:
"Irish Times journalist and Iona Institute board member, Breda O’Brien, wrote the breakthrough article of the whole campaign."

Yeahbuhwhatnow??

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

Who is the "us" in this analogy?

Where did I use the word "us" and who wrote the article?

Mr.H

DubInMeath wrote:

OK your really reaching now, sorry your statement is losing any credibility.

I really don't want to discuss this further to be honest.

I replied to a post that claimed there was no bullying in here and gave an example of it happening and said its not crazy to think there might be.

I don't wanna be talking about mods as I also mentioned.

So let's drop this chat. If you wanna discuss further feel free to pm me but no disrespect intended I can't continue to chat about something that could be seen as an attack on mods. Not to mention it's not exactly on topic.

I'm sure you mean no harm buddy but as you mentioned yourself bullying can be seen in many ways. So surely you can't think it doesn't happen at all here (whether you agree that I was or not is immaterial).

applehunter

DubInMeath wrote: »

Where did I use the word "us" and who wrote the article?

You referred to "them"

Zubeneschamali

baylah17 wrote: »

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

No, these people are not for moral victories, this is a last stand. They will go down fighting, but it will get very nasty.

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

I remember reading an article about the 1995 divorce referendum when the No side made very similar claims. Plus ca change, and all that.

Also:
"Irish Times journalist and Iona Institute board member, Breda O’Brien, wrote the breakthrough article of the whole campaign."

Yeahbuhwhatnow??

No one likes to be on the side that loses, but they do bitter quite well.

Zubeneschamali

[QUOTE=DubInMeath;106544367https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/[/QUOTE]

Yuck, I had forgotten how unpleasant the crapola from the anti-SSM crew was. No surprise that this character was straight on to defending the 8th as soon as the polls closed on SSM.

I scanned it looking for what he would go after next, but the only thing I can see is euthanasia. Not sure that will be a similarly big deal...

applehunter

applehunter wrote: »

You referred to "them"

Yes as in PLC Ireland whose director wrote the linked article.


Them as in
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/them

Easily identifiable given the post I replied to with the article.

Rather than us
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us

Which was in no way mentioned in my post

Not sure where your confusion comes from.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

"Irish Times journalist and Iona Institute board member, Breda O’Brien, wrote the breakthrough article of the whole campaign."

Yeahbuhwhatnow??

Comically, this is in the middle of an article complaining that anti-SSM folks were shut out of the media. Apart from their Irish Times columns, that is.

erica74

Who is this prolife Katie muppet on the radio, telling girls and women who have been raped what to do if they find themselves pregnant?

January

erica74 wrote: »

Who is this prolife Katie muppet on the radio, telling girls and women who have been raped what to do if they find themselves pregnant?

Katie Ascough, ex UCD SU president who was impeached.

erica74

January wrote: »

Katie Ascough, ex UCD SU president who was impeached.

Oh that's who it is!! They just played a quick clip with no context.
Full of delightful soundbites, isn't she?!

baylah17

erica74 wrote: »

January wrote: »

Katie Ascough, ex UCD SU president who was impeached.

Oh that's who it is!! They just played a quick clip with no context.
Full of delightful soundbites, isn't she?!

Oh yeah
The darling of the anti choice brigade
Total con woman

Annasopra

erica74 wrote: »

Who is this prolife Katie muppet on the radio, telling girls and women who have been raped what to do if they find themselves pregnant?

Katie Ascough - writes for Alive. Her Father and Uncle on board of Iona Institute, Her Mother writes for alive, broadcasts for spirit radio. Was elected UCD Students Union President. Was impeached by the students because she broke mandate on their pro choice stance and intefered in the publication of information on abortion

erica74

Here's an article from her yesterday - https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/it-is-not-easy-to-be-prolife-and-young-former-ucd-president-katie-ascough-on-the-abortion-referendum-36737953.html - which is obviously why she was on the radio today

It is not easy to be pro-life and young. It is very hard to go against what is perceived to be the ‘cool-thing’ on campus. It’s ridiculous that young people have to break a stigma based around the right to live.

What kind of society are we living in that a right to life is seen as anti-cultural and un-cool?

I love how she completely devalues the prochoice movement on campus, making out as though people are prochoice simply because it's "cool".

Ms Ascough said that if young people were properly informed, she believes the pro-life side would win the referendum.

So the reason antichoice will lose is because young people aren't properly informed...?
She doesn't give her peers much credit.

She added that "everyone is instinctively pro-life".

Nope.

Nobody thinks it is OK to end a life.

I do.

For once, it would be nice to see Ireland be ahead of the times and reject abortion. It’s incredible what an abortion culture can do and it would be great if, for once, Ireland didn’t just follow other countries and be ahead of the times.

The silly thing has herself all jumbled up and backwards! :pac:

david75

And after all that is somehow allowed on national airwaves.

Baffling.

PopePalpatine

david75 wrote: »

And after all that is somehow allowed on national airwaves.

Baffling.

I guess the usual suspects from the Merrion Square Tardis had other arrangements.

January

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I guess the usual suspects from the Merrion Square Tardis had other arrangements.

Nope, she's actually being rolled out by that crowd as a spokesperson now.

She held her miscarried brother at the age of 15. He was 13 weeks apparently.

david75

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I guess the usual suspects from the Merrion Square Tardis had other arrangements.

I’m not keeping score but she had a full opinion piece in the Times last week. One in the indo as posted above. And now allowed on radio.

She lied and caused uproar in ucd.

How is she allowed anywhere near print or airwaves??

And are the Plc THAT tone deaf and that stupid they don’t see it’s terrible optics?

Oldtree

erica74 wrote: »

Oh that's who it is!! They just played a quick clip with no context.
Full of delightful soundbites, isn't she?!

I listened to it this morning on Newstalk, pat did a reasonable job with the articulation of repeating the questions to be more exact but she just slid around everything in a bouncy manner.

david75

Oldtree wrote: »

I listened to it this morning on Newstalk, pat did a reasonable job with the articulation of repeating the questions to be more exact but she just slid around everything in a bouncy manner.

And it’s exactly that kind of nonsense loses them people. Even the most undecided person half listening would be eye rolling at the non answers.

Looks like Campaign suicide is the name of the game once again.

Leave them to it.


‘Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake’.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

And after all that is somehow allowed on national airwaves.

I'd rather she was on the telly than Ronan Mullen, in fairness.

david75

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd rather she was on the telly than Ronan Mullen, in fairness.

The walking talking contraceptive himself?

Indeed

Oldtree

david75 wrote: »

The walking talking contraceptive himself?

Indeed

Indeed