8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Annasopra

thebull85 wrote: »

Why does the anger seem more prevalent on the repeal side though? Why are they angry?

Wouldn't you be angry if you were a woman in this country? Angry at Savitas death? Angry at Michelle Hartes death? Angry at the shabby treatment of Miss X, Miss P, Amanda Mellet? Angry that the 8th forces you to go abroad for healthcare? Angry that women like Siobhan Donohoe and Gaye Edwards are forced to leave the state? Angry that the architects of 8th never wanted legal contraception in the first place? Angry that the 8th meant a woman was taken to court by the HSE to force a caesarean? Angry that our laws say a woman whose child has a fatal foetal anomaly has to be given the option of adoption? Angry that young women who immport abortion pills could face 14 years in jail? Angry that Savita and Women from TFMR Ireland are sneered at by no campaigners? Angry that Irish healthcare providers often cannot provide appropriate aftercare? Angry at every single in her shoes story? Angry that the 8th is a barbaric instrument failing Irish women.

As a man I am angry. Very angry that my friends and family have had to live under this for 35 years. And I can only imagine women's anger.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wouldn't you be angry if you were a woman in this country? Angry at Savitas death? Angry at Michelle Hartes death? Angry at the shabby treatment of Miss X, Miss P, Amanda Mellet? Angry that the 8th forces you to go abroad for healthcare? Angry that women like Siobhan Donohoe and Gaye Edwards are forced to leave the state? Angry that the architects of 8th never wanted legal contraception in the first place? Angry that the 8th meant a woman was taken to court by the HSE to force a caesarean? Angry that our laws say a woman whose child has a fatal foetal anomaly has to be given the option of adoption? Angry that young women whomomport abortion pills could face 14 years in jail? Angry that Savita and Women from TFMR Ireland are sneered at by no campaigners? Angry that Irish healthcare providers often cannot provide appropriate aftercare? Angry at every single in her shoes story? Angry that the 8th is a barbaric instrument failing Irish women.

Wouldn't worry about that poster their constantly giving out about feminists and immigration. His first post on the thread about Ana Kriegels tragic death was to bet it was a immigrant who did it.
Their an example of some of the people on the no side and what people they attract however.

Annasopra

spookwoman wrote: »

Pro life woman says Rape happens do well allow it to happen by having rape rooms.
It was her responve when interviewer said the yes side could say abortion already happen but in the uk

What? A rape room?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sorry for the delay in replying. Your misuse of the QUOTE label made me miss your post for a moment. Though I see you appear to have answered all my questions with a question, thus not really answering anything at all.

Just her wrote: »

Can I ask of any other examples of these life forms which you don't believe are as valuable as others, please? For example, are you talking about grass, trees, plants etc, that never ever will attain sentience? Or are there any examples of life forms which are just about to become sentient which you see as of lesser value and which are therefore in your opinion not to be assigned rights?

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me, but I think my answer to that question would be much the same as most peoples. And you could get that answer by imagining you are running out of a burning building and you can save only one of two animals on the way out.

Generally people's answer to that question falls in line with my suggestions about sentience. In that most people will save the animal that is of a species more capable of higher levels of sentience. They would save a spider before a potted plant, a mouse before a spider, a dog before a mouse, a monkey before a dog, a great ape before a monkey.

You can usually fit any 2 animals in and the answer people will give will pretty much always, phobias aside, fall on the sentience line perfectly. So much so in fact that many people will often save ONE example of the higher sentience of MULTIPLE examples of the lower. Saving, perhaps, a single dog before a box full of mice. Or a single mouse over a box full of spiders.

Just her wrote: »

I know you've said before that it is not sentient before a certain amount of weeks and you are concerned with the now, apologies if that is not exactly what you said but I believe that was the gist of it, but my question is there any other life form you would put in the same category, not assign rights to, that was just on the verge of sentience?

I still do not understand the question but something "on the verge of sentience" is therefore not sentient, and my personal position would therefore be the same about them as I was saying about a 10 week old fetus. If it does not have the faculty of sentience, never has had it, and is a period of time away from ever getting it..... then I simply see no reason to afford it moral and ethical concerns.

January

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wouldn't you be angry if you were a woman in this country? Angry at Savitas death? Angry at Michelle Hartes death? Angry at the shabby treatment of Miss X, Miss P, Amanda Mellet? Angry that the 8th forces you to go abroad for healthcare? Angry that women like Siobhan Donohoe and Gaye Edwards are forced to leave the state? Angry that the architects of 8th never wanted legal contraception in the first place? Angry that the 8th meant a woman was taken to court by the HSE to force a caesarean? Angry that our laws say a woman whose child has a fatal foetal anomaly has to be given the option of adoption? Angry that young women who immport abortion pills could face 14 years in jail? Angry that Savita and Women from TFMR Ireland are sneered at by no campaigners? Angry that Irish healthcare providers often cannot provide appropriate aftercare? Angry at every single in her shoes story? Angry that the 8th is a barbaric instrument failing Irish women.

As a man I am angry. Very angry that my friends and family have had to live under this for 35 years. And I can only imagine women's anger.

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

One thing I have to regarding getting re-elected. Labour were the party who pushed for the marriage referendum and it didn't do much for them in the election!

True but FFers know pro life stances will get them re-elected.

Just her

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Quick question. If Ireland repeal's the Eighth amendment and legislation is passed. Where will abortions take place?
Will it be at a hospital(Certain one's?)
Visiting your GP?
Or a clinic such as Marie Stopes?
Or a mixture of the above.
I take it in certain cases a hospital visit will be needed but others visiting GP would all that would be required.

According to this doctor they don't have the equipment needed and it's not done by GPs in any other European country


https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-independent/20180328/282097752255166

iguana

Junadl wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer have to fund your irresponsible actions?

Um. An abortion pill costs €80, one month of child benefit is €140. What exactly do you think costs the taxpayer more?

Just her

Just her wrote: »

According to this doctor they don't have the equipment needed and it's not done by GPs in any other European country


https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/irish-independent/20180328/282097752255166

What equipment is required to prescribe pills?

Also from having worked in the medical software and devices industry as an engineer, they will purchase any equipment as required in my experience.

Dressing gown

January wrote: »

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Yeah I just lost the plot with my mum because she used some of the trigger words in the same sentence as abortion. Full on tears and tantrum like a child. Weeping for the women of Ireland made to feel shame for trying to do what is best for them.

I would be a terrible canvasser I’d probably try to shake people into their senses. I’ve never felt this strongly about anything.

Igotadose

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As a man I am angry. Very angry that my friends and family have had to live under this for 35 years. And I can only imagine women's anger.

The women I know campaigning aren't angry. Heck, *I'm* more angry. I keep getting gently reminded to 'not engage the no bots.'

Here's this guys opinion: If they're angry, they've freakin' got a RIGHT to be angry. There's nothing wrong with it, get off your misogynistic small horse and pay attention to what's being said, not what you want to hear. Tired of hearing guys (and sadly other other women) using that 'you're just so angry' and 'let it go' crap versus women. They've a right to be angry. It's a natural emotion.

The no side, they're the ones stealing crap, knocking over tables, hounding and threatening people. Rageful.

Which, as I understand it, is better behavior than it was 30 years ago where the violence was more widespread - all from the No side.

Hotblack Desiato

DarkScar wrote: »

Just wondering on this then, if you drop abortion pills in a pregnant woman's tea you are guilty of... nothing at all apparently?

Giving anyone a drug of any kind without their consent is a crime.

Ironically though, if you are a doctor and the patient is pregnant then her consent is not needed for any treatment you consider necessary - because of the 8th.

Hotblack Desiato

Martina1991 wrote: »

A friend of mine sent me a snap of a mass leaflet in Clare. They were putting on a special mass praying for a No vote.

An RC church in Dublin I go past every day has big signs up for "Prayer Vigils for Life" :rolleyes:

Average age at them yokes must be 80+

iguana

iguana wrote: »

Um. An abortion pill costs €80, one month of child benefit is €140. What exactly do you think costs the taxpayer more?

We had a similar argument from another poster who also believes that in her opinion people on social welfare should be sterilised when they have had two kids so their taxes aren't spent on children's allowance. Love both as long as it doesn't cost me money?

iguana

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wouldn't you be angry if you were a woman in this country? Angry at Savitas death? Angry at Michelle Hartes death? Angry at the shabby treatment of Miss X, Miss P, Amanda Mellet? Angry that the 8th forces you to go abroad for healthcare? Angry that women like Siobhan Donohoe and Gaye Edwards are forced to leave the state? Angry that the architects of 8th never wanted legal contraception in the first place? Angry that the 8th meant a woman was taken to court by the HSE to force a caesarean? Angry that our laws say a woman whose child has a fatal foetal anomaly has to be given the option of adoption? Angry that young women who immport abortion pills could face 14 years in jail? Angry that Savita and Women from TFMR Ireland are sneered at by no campaigners? Angry that Irish healthcare providers often cannot provide appropriate aftercare? Angry at every single in her shoes story? Angry that the 8th is a barbaric instrument failing Irish women.

As a man I am angry. Very angry that my friends and family have had to live under this for 35 years. And I can only imagine women's anger.

I'm beyond livid at this. I'm so glad I don't have a daughter, I'd be going out of my mind with the worry at the thought of a No vote. I know that my son could still be affected in the future as the 8th hurts many men too, especially the father's of foetuses with FFAs. But I really don't know how parents with daughters are coping.

Cantona's Collars

There's a Yes poster on one pole down my way, underneath somebody wrote on the blank side of a No poster something along the lines of "If you loved her vote No".

FFS!!

So if doctors said your wife/partner could die without an abortion would you say "sure I love her,let her die?"

DOS

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An RC church in Dublin I go past every day has big signs up for "Prayer Vigils for Life" :rolleyes:

Average age at them yokes must be 80+

It always amazes me how the progressive liberals who strive to create a society of rights and equality always show their true colours by comments like the ageist one above.

Surely a person's age is irrelevant, like gender, sexuality etc?

spookwoman

DOS wrote: »

It always amazes me how the progressive liberals who strive to create a society of rights and equality always show their true colours by comments like the ageist one above.

Surely a person's age is irrelevant, like gender, sexuality etc?

Unfortunately those women are probably the same ones that would have and may have shipped off their fallen daughters to the laundry

Cantona's Collars

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

There's a Yes poster on one pole down my way, underneath somebody wrote on the blank side of a No poster something along the lines of "If you loved her vote No".

FFS!!

So if doctors said your wife/partner could die without an abortion would you say "sure I love her,let her die?"

Only if mentally ill or they wanted rid of their partner.

Other than this the person who wrote it would be on the first plane over to the UK begging them to give their partner the required medical treatment they campaigned so strongly to keep out of their country. Or be online trying to source pills.

Some on the no side have an issue with abortion, others just don't want it in good old Catholic Ireland and are happy to have the escape route.

DOS

On a casual read of this thread one would assume No voters are truly evil and, the aggressive ones who take posters down and are ready to assault you. And Yes voters are the opposite. Anyone with their cognitive functions would see this thread for the propaganda and back slapping it is.

DOS

spookwoman wrote: »

Unfortunately those women are probably the same ones that would have and may have shipped off their fallen daughters to the laundry

A truly bitter statement and trite assumption and generalisation.

Also chronologically out.

eviltwin

DOS wrote: »

On a casual read of this thread one would assume No voters are truly evil and, the aggressive ones who take posters down and are ready to assault you. And Yes voters are the opposite. Anyone with their cognitive functions would see this thread for the propaganda and back slapping it is.

People are free to report accounts of aggressive or violent behaviour from Yes campaigners. Nothing to stop them.

kanadams123

DOS wrote: »

A truly bitter statement and trite assumption and generalisation.

Like a number of her/his posts tbf.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Dressing gown wrote: »

Yeah I just lost the plot with my mum because she used some of the trigger words in the same sentence as abortion. Full on tears and tantrum like a child. Weeping for the women of Ireland made to feel shame for trying to do what is best for them.

I would be a terrible canvasser I’d probably try to shake people into their senses. I’ve never felt this strongly about anything.

Leave your mother alone...it really bugs me when people (like you) can’t see the cold hard logic that each side of the debate can rightfully claim.

It’s perfectly understandable why someone might want to vote NO.

It’s perfectly understandable why someone might want to vote YES.

The issue of abortion will divide families and society for centuries to come.It’s why a lot of people will chicken out of voting on Friday.

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry for the delay in replying. Your misuse of the QUOTE label made me miss your post for a moment. Though I see you appear to have answered all my questions with a question, thus not really answering anything at all.



I am not sure I understand what you are asking me, but I think my answer to that question would be much the same as most peoples. And you could get that answer by imagining you are running out of a burning building and you can save only one of two animals on the way out.

Generally people's answer to that question falls in line with my suggestions about sentience. In that most people will save the animal that is of a species more capable of higher levels of sentience. They would save a spider before a potted plant, a mouse before a spider, a dog before a mouse, a monkey before a dog, a great ape before a monkey.

You can usually fit any 2 animals in and the answer people will give will pretty much always, phobias aside, fall on the sentience line perfectly. So much so in fact that many people will often save ONE example of the higher sentience of MULTIPLE examples of the lower. Saving, perhaps, a single dog before a box full of mice. Or a single mouse over a box full of spiders.



I still do not understand the question but something "on the verge of sentience" is therefore not sentient, and my personal position would therefore be the same about them as I was saying about a 10 week old fetus. If it does not have the faculty of sentience, never has had it, and is a period of time away from ever getting it..... then I simply see no reason to afford it moral and ethical concerns.

Ah thanks for responding, I was looking forward to your answer, can I just say I don't feel the answer addressed my points.

The running out of a burning building analogy to save one animal over the other, firstly all the examples you gave, there level of sentience is at a life long level, none of them will develop sentience of a born baby in a few days.

Secondly I keep trying to get it across to concentrate for a moment please on the vast majority of cases when abortion is done on healthy women and healthy foetuses/ babies. Where one doesn't have to die to save the other.

I don't know what the equivalent would be, choosing to push one of those animals into a burning building at the request of the other maybe?

Remember your post about how you attach value to lives, and how it comes down to sentience in every other case that you'd considered, therefore you would apply it in the case of foetus/babies too, and that is the only way/best way of deciding? What is there that is similar to the developing baby/ foetus that you would have been comparing to? Something that will develop the sentience you attach value and a right to life to in a few days. Or where you speaking of plants and similar life forms that will never become sentient.

Would you not make a distinction, a massive one, between a plant that will never be sentient and a foetus that will be sentient in a short period of time especially as you would it this to make a life or death decision?

If you attach great value to sentience to the point where you decide on its right to life or not, why would you not attach value to a being that is just about, in a period of time, days or weeks, about to become sentient? Again I'm not talking about at the expense of another beings life.

Again thanks again for getting back to me, maybe you're thinking you've already answered this but I just want to explore it more when it's something you and a lot of others appear, to me anyway, to put a lot of weight on.

greenpilot

Another own goal for the No crowd. Does not get any better than this....for Christs sake.


http://theliberal.ie/the-mother-of-the-late-dolores-oriordan-says-her-daughter-was-pro-life-and-has-asked-people-to-vote-no/

DOS

DOS wrote: »

On a casual read of this thread one would assume No voters are truly evil and, the aggressive ones who take posters down and are ready to assault you. And Yes voters are the opposite. Anyone with their cognitive functions would see this thread for the propaganda and back slapping it is.

Nope plenty of evidence, we live in an age where most people have a camcorder and instant access to the Internet. If the yes side were acting the same as the no side they would have it up and be baying about it.

Also see that as a member of the COI I believe, you feel free to not follow some of your bishops who are in favour of repeal as per your beliefs and is your right, but something Catholics get condemned for doing the same however by you.

DOS

DOS wrote: »

A truly bitter statement and trite assumption and generalisation.

Also chronologically out.

Not really the same No poster mentioned earlier who believes in sterilising those on social welfare after they have had two children also supports the reintroduction of mother and baby homes and their taxes being spent on them.

Leroy42

DOS wrote: »

On a casual read of this thread one would assume No voters are truly evil and, the aggressive ones who take posters down and are ready to assault you. And Yes voters are the opposite. Anyone with their cognitive functions would see this thread for the propaganda and back slapping it is.

I don't get that reading at all. Those who are pro the No side seem, IMO, to have a lack of empathy for others and base their position on a ideological position rather than the reality that we face.

Many on the those on yes side do seem to understand the conflict, and in many cases appear to be accepting of the need to vote yes whilst still wishing it not to be the case.

So my reading of it (and this is of course generalisations) is that the yes side have seen the reality for what it is and feel that we need to come up with solutions to the problems that we face, whilst the no side what to deal with theoretical and philosphosical positions without taking into consideration all sides of the debate.

spookwoman

DOS wrote: »

A truly bitter statement and trite assumption and generalisation.

Also chronologically out.

How am I chronologically out? the last one didnt close till 1996

Had a long and difficult conversation with my mother this afternoon. She had my sister as a single mother in the mid 70s and kept her despite a lot of pressure to give her up for adoption. The crap she got from the RCC and the judgemental bigots of the day led to her having a nervous breakdown and she has had mental health issues ever since (now under control thankfully). Despite the way she was treated she ended up becoming very religious and was very much anti abortion.

We talked about the referendum today and she said she can't stand the antics of the pro-life campaign but she can't vote for the taking of a life. She's afraid of partial birth abortions (?) becoming legal and Marie Stopes clinics in every town. After a long conversation about the actual proposed legislation and some of the cases that were posted on In Her Shoes, she said it wasn't a straightforward matter and she would give it some thought. She just rang me to say she's going to vote Yes. Now I would say she's a soft Yes but I'm amazed she was even willing to consider it.

DOS

eviltwin wrote: »

People are free to report accounts of aggressive or violent behaviour from Yes campaigners. Nothing to stop them.

I've seen how that works. I posted that my church was so full today people were standing at the back and was accused of lieing by John Water.

Really any No posters on this thread have been goaded into being banned or unfairly banned in comparison to Yes side comment that is given free reign.

Igotadose

Flying Fox wrote: »

...partial birth abortions (?) becoming legal and Marie Stopes clinics in every town.

First off, kudos to you for trying to get her to think about changing her vote. Hopefully she votes Yes.

As for the 'partial birth' trash. That's a favorite forced birther propaganda in the US. One of their favorite lies, "partial birth." Just another emotional, meaningless phrase like 'abortion on demand.'

eviltwin

DOS wrote: »

I've seen how that works. I posted that my church was so full today people were standing at the back and was accused of lieing by John Water.

Really any No posters on this thread have been goaded into being banned or unfairly banned in comparison to Yes side comment that is given free reign.

Your church being full is irrelevant if you are talking about violence and aggression. If there are any Yes campaigners behaving like that post it. So far there are verified accounts of No supporters acting this way, I was personally on the receiving end of one. Unless you think we are lying?

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

Ah thanks for responding, I was looking forward to your answer, can I just say I don't feel the answer addressed my points.

You can say it, but that does not make it true. You not liking an answer, or not understanding it, would certainly not mean no answer was given for example.

Especially given by answering my own post with nothing but a questions you particularly did not address any of mine. But as I said in my post it is not at all clear to me what you were asking.

Just her wrote: »

The running out of a burning building analogy to save one animal over the other, firstly all the examples you gave, there level of sentience is at a life long level, none of them will develop sentience of a born baby in a few days.

Now hold up there just a moment..... it was YOU not me that brought up "examples of these life forms" and "grass, trees, plants etc" and so forth. So do not presume to admonish me for bring in an analogy to address all of them. You broadened the conversation and I merely followed you where you brought it. If you have any issue with a discussion of creatures where "none of them will develop sentience of a born baby" then ask yourself why YOU brought them up, not me.

Just her wrote: »

Secondly I keep trying to get it across to concentrate for a moment please on the vast majority of cases when abortion is done on healthy women and healthy foetuses/ babies. Where one doesn't have to die to save the other.

Which for me is not an issue. Because what you describe is the CHOICE of a fully sentient being that is being made over a completely not at all sentient entity.

What I am trying to get across, so concentrate for a moment please, is that my entire moral and ethical outlook is that right, morality, and ethics are in the business of mediating the actions, and well being, of sentient agents.

So I believe for that reason if we are to curtail or preclude the freedoms, choices and well being of sentient agents....... like a pregnant woman..... in deference to an entity that is not sentient, never has been sentient, is awhile away from being sentient, and for all we know may never be sentient........... we had better have a damn good, coherent, logical, and justifiable reason for doing so.

Just her wrote: »

Would you not make a distinction, a massive one, between a plant that will never be sentient and a foetus that will be sentient in a short period of time especially as you would it this to make a life or death decision?

Frankly no, I would not. I can not speak for anyone else. An entity that is not sentient is an entity that is not sentient. It really is that simple. Regardless of whether it is a dandelion, or a 10 week old fetus, or a rock.

Let me offer a thought experiment to highlight what I mean here. Though I offer it with some trepidation as I have offered it 4 times before and 2 people ignored it, one screech "irrelevant" over and over again at me before running away and.... I am led to believe..... one even reported me for trolling.

But imagine I built an Artificial Intelligence. Everything was at the ready. I was about to turn it on, the first consciousness ever what would rival and even excel our own. It would be fully self aware. Fully conscious. Fully sentient. Fully as capable of joy and suffering as you and I.

I just have to hit the "on" button and it will be so.

Instead I dismantle it and make toasters out of it for all my mates.

Have I committed some moral wrong? Did this non-sentience have a right to become sentient? If so WHY did it. What logical or philosophical arguments exist to suggest there was some moral onus on me to take this non-sentient entity..... and allow it to attain that potential?

spookwoman

Whoever is holding the gun to the no poster heads, making them put up posts that are getting them banned please stop.

DOS

eviltwin wrote: »

Your church being full is irrelevant if you are talking about violence and aggression. If there are any Yes campaigners behaving like that post it. So far there are verified accounts of No supporters acting this way, I was personally on the receiving end of one. Unless you think we are lying?

The point being you are accused of being a liar on a relatively minor issue. Let alone criticise the Yes camp.

frag420

DOS wrote: »

I've seen how that works. I posted that my church was so full today people were standing at the back and was accused of lieing by John Water.

Really any No posters on this thread have been goaded into being banned or unfairly banned in comparison to Yes side comment that is given free reign.

If you think you are being goaded then report or ignore. If you believe that you are being goaded then why do you reply or entertain goading...its as if you want to get banned when you could have prevented it so you can play the victim!!

You see the Yes side base their argument in facts and stats alone, its all they need. Now when the Yes side present facts and stats it seems the no side return with ideology, emotional arguments and anecdotal stories of miracle births (special cases I wonder??) and when asked to provide stats and facts you get in a fluster as you don't have any stats or facts that stands up to any kind of scrutiny and when pushed for these you get even more flustered and start repeating the same crap over and over like the woman-thing in Total Recall...and then you claim your re being bullied and banned and its oh so not fair...

erica74

Bodie Damaged Oarsman wrote: »

It’s perfectly understandable why someone might want to vote NO.

I totally disagree with you there.

Dressing gown

Bodie Damaged Oarsman wrote: »

Leave your mother alone...it really bugs me when people (like you) can’t see the cold hard logic that each side of the debate can rightfully claim.

It’s perfectly understandable why someone might want to vote NO.

It’s perfectly understandable why someone might want to vote YES.

The issue of abortion will divide families and society for centuries to come.It’s why a lot of people will chicken out of voting on Friday.

Thanks. My mum is very happy for me to have and express an opinion-she raised me to have a mind of my own. I got so upset because she said abortion murder standing next to another family member who has had an abortion. Someone she should have been protective of. So she was bang out of line. The posters have been working on her. There’s more to it than that but frankly it’s none of your business. I love my mum my relationship with her is my business.

Edited to add: you’re right though. I can’t see any logic in the no side of the argument. I’ve tried and failed to put myself in the shoes of a no voter on this site and I’ve set out some of my many issues with the 8th amendment in my previous posts. Take a look if you like. As for my mum, she has been fully indoctrinated by the Catholic Church. I know she’s conflicted but can’t shake off her entrenched belief system to be free to make her own decision on this. I’m sad for her.

DOS

I hope Maria Steen is on the No panel for the final debate.

She upsets the Yes propagandists so.. similar to the effect garlic and crucifixes has on vampires!

DOS

frag420 wrote: »

If you think you are being goaded then report or ignore. If you believe that you are being goaded then why do you reply or entertain goading...its as if you want to get banned when you could have prevented it so you can play the victim!!

Look at the history of the thread. Posters who have been posting for years with good records all banned. Graces7, Outlaw Pete, End of the Road etc.

eviltwin

DOS wrote: »

The point being you are accused of being a liar on a relatively minor issue. Let alone criticise the Yes camp.

well i didn't realise that you were called a liar and I don't doubt your church was full but I wouldn't assume everyone there is going to vote No either tbh.

eviltwin

DOS wrote: »

Look at the history of the thread. Posters who have been posting for years with good records all banned. Graces7, Outlaw Pete, End of the Road etc.

With Good reason! If you are going to make ridiculous claims you have to back them up.

Zubeneschamali

DOS wrote: »

Look at the history of the thread. Posters who have been posting for years with good records all banned. Graces7, Outlaw Pete, End of the Road etc.

Yes. Speaking of history, what about posters who posted years ago and then went silent for many years, only to burst into new life just for this thread?


I speak, of course, of ...


our banned friend BertieInExile. I'm surprised he hasn't found a way to sneak back into the thread.

It wasnt me123

Martina1991 wrote: »

A friend of mine sent me a snap of a mass leaflet in Clare. They were putting on a special mass praying for a No vote.

I'd be curious as to how man go. Have the Mass for the Unborn yet? Its travelling the country apparently. Was in Tipperary 2 weeks ago.

Timberrrrrrrr

DOS wrote: »

Look at the history of the thread. Posters who have been posting for years with good records all banned. Graces7, Outlaw Pete, End of the Road etc.

Seriously?

There is one poster on that list who is not only banned from this thread but every other thread on this topic and for good reason too!

The poster constantly jumps into threads and literally ruins them with the same copy/paste replies while all the time refusing to back up a single claim they make with the slightest bit of evidence.

Martina1991

DOS wrote:

Really any No posters on this thread have been goaded into being banned or unfairly banned in comparison to Yes side comment that is given free reign.

The reasons for many people being banned here include Trolling, hurling personal abuse, comparing the referendum to the holocaust, calling abortion genocide, avoiding questions, derailing the thread, telling lies etc.

But it is quite a coincidence that many of these posters have been on the anti choice side.

wexie

Martina1991 wrote: »

But it is quite a coincidence that many of these posters have been on the anti choice side.

I think I might have to correct you on that one Martina, I don't think it's a coincidence at all. I think it's a consequence of that fact that people come on here debating a very personal and very emotional subject.

Coming to this debate armed with nothing but opinions and beliefs and consequently being confronted with facts and statistics can be quite the eye opener and clearly not everyone takes it as well as others.

I think there are a good few yes voters here who will happily engage anyone in a reasoned and civil debate regardless of their initial posts. (I wouldn't necessarily include myself in this depending on my mood ) but what I've seen time and time again is that once confronted with reason and logic the no voters, once they have run out of arguments, tend to get themselves banned on the basis of their reactions.

I can't even always blame them either, it's not always easy having your views questioned and shown to be based on little other than prejudice.

There are a few notable exceptions (Just Her being one at the moment) but certainly from what I can tell they are the exceptions.

I'd agree with you though that I don't think it's down the moderation. If nothing else there's more than a few yes voters that got infractions today (myself included, though I have to say if I knew I was going to get an infraction for that particular post I'd have been a lot less polite )

spookwoman

wexie wrote: »

I think I might have to correct you on that one Martina, I don't think it's a coincidence at all. I think it's a consequence of that fact that people come on here debating a very personal and very emotional subject.

Coming to this debate armed with nothing but opinions and beliefs and consequently being confronted with facts and statistics can be quite the eye opener and clearly not everyone takes it as well as others.

I think there are a good few yes voters here who will happily engage anyone in a reasoned and civil debate regardless of their initial posts. (I wouldn't necessarily include myself in this depending on my mood ) but what I've seen time and time again is that once confronted with reason and logic the no voters, once they have run out of arguments, tend to get themselves banned on the basis of their reactions.

I can't even always blame them either, it's not always easy having your views questioned and shown to be based on little other than prejudice.

There are a few notable exceptions (Just Her being one at the moment) but certainly from what I can tell they are the exceptions.

I'd agree with you though that I don't think it's down the moderation. If nothing else there's more than a few yes voters that got infractions today (myself included, though I have to say if I knew I was going to get an infraction for that particular post I'd have been a lot less polite )

I thought I was going to wake up to one after last night. Some of the posts make us see red especially the words they use.