Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Options
1…3334363839…333

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If i was black, in fact if i was with a black person and someone said the word N***er to them i would see it as both an insult and offensive.

    Would you?

    No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

    What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

    For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?


  • Options
    #1053
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Excuse me?

    You are advocating that it is ok to offend some people but not others?

    Who defines that criteria?

    The Irish human rights and equality commission would in the legal sense... Protected groups are pretty well established and are bash on groups that are traditionally subject to bigotry. If the president were Jewish for example and subject to anti semetic rhetoric then that would be an issue of hate speech. (Although don't believe hate crimes exist in US under their constitution so while not criminal, it would be pretty fine to call it hate speech)

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html


  • Options
    #1054
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kimsang wrote: »
    No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

    What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

    For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?

    Who uses yid as an affectionate term? And to answer your question, the person who is being called Ni**er gets to decide hence why they can report said use of the word.

    In ireland i would be greeted by my friends using the word cùnt, "ah ya happy cùnt, where you been?"

    That wouldnt be offensive to me.

    Random stranger says "**** me you're an ugly cùnt"

    That's offensive.


  • Options
    #1055
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Who uses yid as an affectionate term? And to answer your question, the person who is being called Ni**er gets to decide hence why they can report said use of the word.

    Tottenham Hotspurs' supporters. Its an interesting story, from reclaiming the word yid much like the gay community did with words in the 90's. Although they are coming from incoming pressure from the FA to ban the word, in this current climate they could never do what they have done.

    To your part in bold, don't you think people misunderstand things all the time? Especially in the face of a perceived attack? If you viewed an Australian calling you c*** as offensive you might be wrong, they often use it in an affectionate way

    Shouldn't there be an objective standard by which to measure it?


  • Options
    #1056
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Guy is **** posting and contradicting himself.
    Reported.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    Kimsang wrote: »
    No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

    What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

    For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?

    In 99.9% of cases the person who is the subject of the potential abuse will determine if the language used is appropriate or not. People don't normally tend to make a formal complaint about friends of family using what is in context a term of affection. As a result, very rarely will a comlaint be made when the language used was clearly not abusive.

    For those cases where complaints are made, we have a police force to invistigate those complaints and a courts system where both parties can make their case, the evidence is presented and a professional judge can decide if a complaint has merit. It all works fairly effectivly.


  • Options
    #1058
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    The latest from Gemma - The tuam babies is a hoax.


  • Options
    #1059
    Harvey Weinstein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Harvey Weinstein


    Odhinn wrote: »
    The latest from Gemma - The tuam babies is a hoax.

    It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

    Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.


  • Options
    #1060
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,405 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

    Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

    so they didnt find the bodies of babies then? I dont suppose you have anything to support that?


  • Options
    #1061
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

    Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.




    So there were no bodies found in the sewage works/septic tank/whatever?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

    Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

    You really should read the archaeological report cause it was found to be accurate. Page 64, it was likely for sewage or waste water treatment. So misrepresented?


    https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/mother_and_baby_homes/20190416Mother&BabyHomesBurials5thInterimReport.pdf


  • Options
    #1063
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So there were no bodies found in the sewage works/septic tank/whatever?

    It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.


  • Options
    #1064
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    jackboy wrote: »
    It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

    You should read the report I posted above, all indications are that it was for waste water treatment or sewage treatment. So effectively a septic tank... So an acceptable burial?


  • Options
    #1065
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    jackboy wrote: »
    It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.


    Septic tank/sewage system....they weren't buried in the ground as one would expect, were they.


  • Options
    #1066
    Harvey Weinstein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Harvey Weinstein


    When news of the common grave on the grounds of the former State-regulated home run by the Sisters of Bon Secours in Tuam, Co. Galway, was first reported in the media in 2014, when newspaper reports claimed up to 800 children who died at the home had been buried in a septic tank. The story quickly circled the globe and caused a wave of anger and revulsion.

    However, in an interim report published on Wednesday, the Commission of Investigation of the Mother and Baby Homes said “in the light of a great deal of inaccurate commentary about the Tuam site, the commission considers it important to emphasise what it has established and what it has not established,” the report says. It goes on to point out that the “human remains found by the Commission are not in a sewage tank”.


    The storey that went around the world was that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank...not true

    No matter how much you want it to be its not true.


  • Options
    #1067
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    No records kept of any of their names either let’s not forget.

    Inhuman way to treat babies remains


  • Options
    #1068
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    When news of the common grave on the grounds of the former State-regulated home run by the Sisters of Bon Secours in Tuam, Co. Galway, was first reported in the media in 2014, when newspaper reports claimed up to 800 children who died at the home had been buried in a septic tank. The story quickly circled the globe and caused a wave of anger and revulsion.

    However, in an interim report published on Wednesday, the Commission of Investigation of the Mother and Baby Homes said “in the light of a great deal of inaccurate commentary about the Tuam site, the commission considers it important to emphasise what it has established and what it has not established,” the report says. It goes on to point out that the “human remains found by the Commission are not in a sewage tank”.


    The storey that went around the world was that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank...not true

    No matter how much you want it to be its not true.


    So because it was a sewage system and not a septic tank everythings cushty?


  • Options
    #1069
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    jackboy wrote: »
    It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

    The commission of investigation into Mother and Bay Homes discovered a significant number of human remains found in a long tank that appeared to be related to the treatment/containment of sewerage and/or waste water.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/human-remains-found-baby-home-tuam-3268465-Mar2017/


  • Options
    #1070
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So because it was a sewage system and not a septic tank everythings cushty?

    Yeah, it's strange thinking.


  • Options
    #1071
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    He went from ‘never happened! hoax’ to ‘sewer not a septic tank!’
    Quite quickly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Septic tank/sewage system....they weren't buried in the ground as one would expect, were they.

    Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.


  • Options
    #1073
    Harvey Weinstein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Harvey Weinstein


    The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.


  • Options
    #1074
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.

    So what was the structure where they found a significant number of remains?


  • Options
    #1075
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,405 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    jackboy wrote: »
    Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.

    they didnt even bother to register the births. they didnt give a monkeys for the children they were caring for.


  • Options
    #1076
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    And the sheer amount is so far outside the infant mortality rate there are serious questions about how long the space was being used and how often a baby was dumped in there.

    And of course there are no records.


    Can’t inagine why that might be


  • Options
    #1077
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Harvey Weinstein wrote: »
    The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.

    Have you looked at the report? What does it say on page 64? You are being incredibly dishonest right now or incredibly ignorant...


  • Options
    #1078
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,091 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    jackboy wrote: »
    Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way.


    They weren't buried, the remains were just left there.


    jackboy wrote: »
    There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.




    Why? The whole Irish church covered up horrendous abuse for decades - putting childrens bodies in a sewer is one of their smaller sins.


    Many of these children were seen as a product of sin, and thus "lesser".


  • Options
    #1079
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Odhinn wrote: »
    They weren't buried, the remains were just left there.


    Why? The whole Irish church covered up horrendous abuse for decades - putting childrens bodies in a sewer is one of their smaller sins.


    Many of these children were seen as a product of sin, and thus "lesser".

    Well if the story is true it is horrific and those nuns were appalling human beings with no empathy. That is why we need the full story, before we label them as such.


  • Options
    #1080
    knipex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

    Random stranger says "**** me you're an ugly cùnt"

    That's offensive.

    Well............... I would need to see a picture..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Surprised to see Gemma taking this tack on this topic.
    The government and previous ones have dragged their heels and possibly even blocked any proper investigation into this.
    So many people and orginisatjons involved including gardai clergy and TDs



    You’d think she’d be going for this angle


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement