How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are using it in a derogatory manner. the world can see that. You think it is a slur to lay against somebody.

I disagree with the notion and the argument that is partitionism. If that comes across as derogatory, that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

ohnonotgmail

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Regardless of reasoning behind it, surely anyone in favour of maintaining partition, no matter how noble or sensible said reason is, by definition is a partitionist?

I don't think the word makes any assumption on the right or wrong of your reasoning. It's a descriptive term, which has no real alternative with the same meaning.

I'd see it as pretty different to Shinnerbot, which is exclusively used as a derogatory term.

I've disagreed with Francie on a number of things (and have no doubt he certainly injects the word with his own personal scorn), but what word would you suggest is used as an overarching term to describe the broad group who do not support Irish reunification from the Irish side?

We have Republicans as a term for those who support it on either side of the border and Unionists for those who don't support it on the British/currently British side of the border. Those are all wide groups, with a wide variance of reasons for supporting their viewpoint.

How is it throwing more of a label on you to describe you as a partitionist than to describe myself or Francie as Republican? I'm sure my reasoning behind supporting the unification of Ireland (and what I see as a pathway towards that) differs from Francie's just as significantly as your reasoning against it does with others who support continued partition?

perhaps dont bother throwing around labels and actually engage honestly with the posters you are discussing this with?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I disagree with the notion and the argument that is partitionism. If that comes across as derogatory, that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

I'll stick with shinnerbot so if you call me a partitionist again. If that comes across as derogatory that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Regardless of reasoning behind it, surely anyone in favour of maintaining partition, no matter how noble or sensible said reason is, by definition is a partitionist?

I don't think the word makes any assumption on the right or wrong of your reasoning. It's a descriptive term, which has no real alternative with the same meaning.

I'd see it as pretty different to Shinnerbot, which is exclusively used as a derogatory term.

I've disagreed with Francie on a number of things (and have no doubt he certainly injects the word with his own personal scorn), but what word would you suggest is used as an overarching term to describe the broad group who do not support Irish reunification from the Irish side?

We have Republicans as a term for those who support it on either side of the border and Unionists for those who don't support it on the British/currently British side of the border. Those are all wide groups, with a wide variance of reasons for supporting their viewpoint.

How is it throwing more of a label on you to describe you as a partitionist than to describe myself or Francie as Republican? I'm sure my reasoning behind supporting the unification of Ireland (and what I see as a pathway towards that) differs from Francie's just as significantly as your reasoning against it does with others who support continued partition?

I do use it with 'scorn' when addressing lazy partitionists - those who reject the idea from a position of hate and lack of info.

Otherwise I will argue back and forth without any rancour with those who have thought through their partitionist positions.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

I disagree with the notion and the argument that is partitionism. If that comes across as derogatory, that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

I'd love Ireland to be united but I'm against it for the foreseeable future for the sake of peace in the 26 counties.
Does that make me a partitionist?
Or am I a pacifist?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Regardless of reasoning behind it, surely anyone in favour of maintaining partition, no matter how noble or sensible said reason is, by definition is a partitionist?

I don't think the word makes any assumption on the right or wrong of your reasoning. It's a descriptive term, which has no real alternative with the same meaning.

I'd see it as pretty different to Shinnerbot, which is exclusively used as a derogatory term.

I've disagreed with Francie on a number of things (and have no doubt he certainly injects the word with his own personal scorn), but what word would you suggest is used as an overarching term to describe the broad group who do not support Irish reunification from the Irish side?

We have Republicans as a term for those who support it on either side of the border and Unionists for those who don't support it on the British/currently British side of the border. Those are all wide groups, with a wide variance of reasons for supporting their viewpoint.

How is it throwing more of a label on you to describe you as a partitionist than to describe myself or Francie as Republican? I'm sure my reasoning behind supporting the unification of Ireland (and what I see as a pathway towards that) differs from Francie's just as significantly as your reasoning against it does with others who support continued partition?

perhaps dont bother throwing around labels and actually engage honestly with the posters you are discussing this with?

Sound, so I expect you won't be using the terms, 'Irish', 'British', 'Republican', or 'Unionist', at any point going forwards? After all, they're labels describing a broad range of people with different reasonings and motivations.

Utter nonsense to decide that discussion should ignore the fact that broad groupings exist.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd love Ireland to be united but I'm against it for the foreseeable future for the sake of peace in the 26 counties.
Does that make me a partitionist?
Or am I a pacifist?

Well that would certainly make you a partitionist pacifist and an 'I'm alright Jack, sod the rest of you partitionist'. Not to mention a selfish one too, but how and ever.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

eagle eye wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote:

I disagree with the notion and the argument that is partitionism. If that comes across as derogatory, that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

I'd love Ireland to be united but I'm against it for the foreseeable future for the sake of peace in the 26 counties.
Does that make me a partitionist?
Or am I a pacifist?

Not to answer on Francie's behalf, but a perfect example of someone I would describe as a partitionist, in fact I think likely a similar view to that held by a large number of partitionists.

Purely by definition, right now you support partition, for completely understandable and indeed laudable reasons. That makes you a partitionist, and I don't see any insult in that.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd love Ireland to be united but I'm against it for the foreseeable future for the sake of peace in the 26 counties.
Does that make me a partitionist?
Or am I a pacifist?

Well that would certainly make you a partitionist pacifist and an 'I'm alright Jack, sod the rest of you partitionist'. Not to mention a selfish one too, but how and ever.

I don't think sort of aggressive, combative response is in any way helpful, particularly towards those who make up a large percentage of those who COULD be convinced of the merits of unification.

People are generally more convinced by logic and reasoning than insults and derision.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Well that would certainly make you a partitionist pacifist and an 'I'm alright Jack, sod the rest of you partitionist'. Not to mention a selfish one too, but how and ever.

You are the one that needs a reality check. There will be troubles if we try and unite Ireland right now.
It'll take another 50 years at least before there is any chance of a peaceful United Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Sound, so I expect you won't be using the terms, 'Irish', 'British', 'Republican', or 'Unionist', at any point going forwards? After all, they're labels describing a broad range of people with different reasonings and motivations.

Utter nonsense to decide that discussion should ignore the fact that broad groupings exist.

but not when you think you get to decide who belongs in those groupings. Francie has a history lumping people into groups as he sees fit. Even when those people themselves say they dont belong in them. It is the arrogance of francie and others that is probably the real issue. You might describe me as a partitionist. I support the current political situation. I do that because i want what is best for MY country. My country consists of the 26 counties. 26 not 32. I'm not going to risk my countries future to support some shinner wet dream.

ohnonotgmail

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I don't think sort of aggressive, combative response is in any way helpful, particularly towards those who make up a large percentage of those who COULD be convinced of the merits of unification.

People are generally more convinced by logic and reasoning than insults and derision.

well i think now you are starting the see the issue with the way francie posts.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'll stick with shinnerbot so if you call me a partitionist again. If that comes across as derogatory that isn't my problem tbh.

People can take offence at anything.

Thought you would be above that.

The difference is...YOU are taking offence at a perfectly normal dictionary description. I can do nothing about that.

YOU by calling me a shinnerbot are using a term invented to demean and deride.
I have been called a shinnerbot many many times. I ignore it now, it is a sign that the user's argument is more or less exhausted. Knock yerself out as they say.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thought you would be above that.

The difference is...YOU are taking offence at a perfectly normal dictionary description. I can do nothing about that.

YOU by calling me a shinnerbot are using a term invented to demean and deride.
I have been called a shinnerbot many many times. I ignore it now, it is a sign that the user's argument is more or less exhausted. Knock yerself out as they say.

I'm surprised that you have any positive opinion of me at all. It has certainly never come across in your invective filled posts.
You are not above getting personal so get down off your high horse.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I don't think sort of aggressive, combative response is in any way helpful, particularly towards those who make up a large percentage of those who COULD be convinced of the merits of unification.

People are generally more convinced by logic and reasoning than insults and derision.

People who adopt an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude are hugely dangerous and partly responsible for the north going up in flames before.

It is one of the selfish stances that angers me most.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm surprised that you have any positive opinion of me at all. It has certainly never come across in your invective filled posts.
You are not above getting personal so get down off your high horse.

I am not on any high horse. If I presented you with some of the abuse thrown my way over the years on this site your eyes would water, if you are getting so upset about a perfectly normal word used in political discourse all the time.

I am done with this little tangent, it is way way off topic.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I don't think sort of aggressive, combative response is in any way helpful, particularly towards those who make up a large percentage of those who COULD be convinced of the merits of unification.

People are generally more convinced by logic and reasoning than insults and derision.

well i think now you are starting the see the issue with the way francie posts.

My issue with the way Francie posts isn't really relevant to a discussion of a point between you and I. I can see you've been antagonised by Francie, I don't see how that excuses your flippant response, ignoring my actual question while insinuating that I was somehow engaging dishonestly when asking what alternative word describes the broad group of people on the Irish side who support continued partition?

As you can see from any interactions I've had on this thread (or indeed any others, possibly apart from letting Janfebmar get up my nose every so often), I always try to engage honestly, and strive to understand opposing viewpoints even when I disagree - as evidenced earlier in this thread, I also have no problem with throwing my hands up when I'm wrong. I fail to see how I can be described as engaging in anything but an honest manner.

ohnonotgmail

Fionn1952 wrote: »

My issue with the way Francie posts isn't really relevant to a discussion of a point between you and I. I can see you've been antagonised by Francie, I don't see how that excuses your flippant response, ignoring my actual question while insinuating that I was somehow engaging dishonestly when asking what alternative word describes the broad group of people on the Irish side who support continued partition?

How about irish patriots?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

As you can see from any interactions I've had on this thread (or indeed any others, possibly apart from letting Janfebmar get up my nose every so often), I always try to engage honestly, and strive to understand opposing viewpoints even when I disagree - as evidenced earlier in this thread, I also have no problem with throwing my hands up when I'm wrong. I fail to see how I can be described as engaging in anything but an honest manner.

I didnt say you were engaging dishonestly. I've never engaged with you before today. that was in reference to francie and his love of labels that only he gets to decide upon.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How about irish patriots?



I didnt say you were engaging dishonestly. I've never engaged with you before today. that was in reference to francie and his love of labels that only he gets to decide upon.

Sorry, have to interject here...'Partitionist' is a label, 'partitionist' is a description.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, have to interject here...'Partitionist' is a label, 'partitionist' is a description.

sure thing francie

Fionn1952

15-20 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How about irish patriots? [\QUOTE]

How about them indeed?

Those who supported partition were partitionists. As I said, it isn't a judgement, purely a descriptive term for those who support partition in Ireland.

I didnt say you were engaging dishonestly. I've never engaged with you before today. that was in reference to francie and his love of labels that only he gets to decide upon.

You used the phrase in direct response to me, while ignoring the content of my post. It would seem that if you wanted to reference Francie's engagement, it would've been more suitably placed in a reply to one if his posts. A better reply to my post would've included your suggestions for an alternative word which would describe those of an Irish background who support continued partition?

I understand that the word can be used with certain undertones, but so can the terms, 'Republican' or, 'Loyalist'. That doesn't change the actual meaning or usefulness of those words as broad descriptors.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure thing francie

Thanks for 'engaging honestly'. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

Fionn1952 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How about irish patriots? [\QUOTE]

How about them indeed?

Those who supported partition were partitionists. As I said, it isn't a judgement, purely a descriptive term for those who support partition in Ireland.



You used the phrase in direct response to me, while ignoring the content of my post. It would seem that if you wanted to reference Francie's engagement, it would've been more suitably placed in a reply to one if his posts. A better reply to my post would've included your suggestions for an alternative word which would describe those of an Irish background who support continued partition?

I understand that the word can be used with certain undertones, but so can the terms, 'Republican' or, 'Loyalist'. That doesn't change the actual meaning or usefulness of those words as broad descriptors.

so you decide to ignore how i think i should be described and just continued on as if i had never said it. and then you tell me how i should have replied. You are as arrogant as francie.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thanks for 'engaging honestly'. :rolleyes:

fight fire with fire.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Mornin.

How are we all?

ohnonotgmail

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Mornin.

How are we all?

Ebullient. another day where i dont have to worry about the irish economy being dragged down.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Mornin.

How are we all?

'Out the wrong side of the bed' for some, as me Ma used to say.

mattser

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Mornin.

How are we all?

Well for some. Or are you posting from U.S. or Canada ?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ebullient. another day where i dont have to worry about the irish economy being dragged down.

You don’t hear the word society anymore.

We live in an economy now.

It’s quite sad

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

mattser wrote: »

Well for some. Or are you posting from U.S. or Canada ?

It was a late one. Usually up at 5 or 6. Sore head today though