Marches this Saturday

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the issue of abortion somewhat more nuanced than that... I'm funny that way.

It isnt really. I've certainly never seen a nuanced argument against repealing the 8th and there have been plenty of threads on it here where you could have contributed those nuanced arguments. The lack of said contributions tells me all i need to know.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote:

No religious connotations to pro life marches!?

lawred2 wrote:

Wut?

Do you find it hard to understand that not all people who are pro life are religious?

ohnonotgmail

lawred2 wrote: »

No religious connotations to pro life marches!?

Wut?

You mean you didn't see Agnostics for the 8th appearing in all of the debates on repealing the 8th?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you find it hard to understand that not all people who are pro life are religious?

oh i'm sure there are 1 or 2 but to suggest that the march yesterday was unconnected to religious people is just absolute nonsense.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

It isnt really. I've certainly never seen a nuanced argument against repealing the 8th and there have been plenty of threads on it here where you could have contributed those nuanced arguments. The lack of said contributions tells me all i need to know.

That answer tells me all I need to know about you.

Tell me though, do you think men should be forced to pay for children they don't want if a woman decides to have a baby?

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you find it hard to understand that not all people who are pro life are religious?

No I find out hard to believe that there were no religious connotations to a pro life march.

Read what I posted.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

oh i'm sure there are 1 or 2 but to suggest that the march yesterday was unconnected to religious people is just absolute nonsense.

Sure. The only people who are against abortion on demand are the ned Flanders of the world. FFS.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

That answer tells me all I need to know about you.

Tell me though, do you think men should be forced to pay for children they don't want if a woman decides to have a baby?

I'm not sure that is the winning argument you think it is.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote:

No I find out hard to believe that there were no religious contains connotations to a pro life march.

I'm sure there was. Doesn't make it a religious centric march.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure. The only people who are against abortion on demand are the ned Flanders of the world. FFS.

That's not what that poster posted either.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sure there was. Doesn't make it a religious centric march.

And where did I make any such statement?

lawred2

lawred2 wrote:

And where did I make any such statement?

My apologies if I read you wrong. I may have misrepresented you and I completely withdraw what I said if I had.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I'm not sure that is the winning argument you think it is.

It's not an argument. It's a question.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not an argument. It's a question.

try making an actual argument if you can. Or not, it really doesnt matter. You lost, get over it.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure there was. Doesn't make it a religious centric march.

So it wasnt predominantly religious people then? who organised the march?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

try making an actual argument if you can. Or not, it really doesnt matter. You lost, get over it.

I don't want to argue with you.

I stated that abortion is more nuanced than you make it out to be. You said it's not. That is your opinion. I won't argue against that. Your are entitled to your opinion.

I then asked you on your opinion on whether a man should be forced to pay for a child he didn't want. I just wanted to ascertain if your opinion was consistent across different scenarios.

You don't have to answer. I just wanted to know. I won't lose sleep over your hesitancy.

"You lost, get over it"?

What did I lose?

Again, you can make an "argument" if you want. Whatever gets you through the night.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

So it wasnt predominantly religious people then? who organised the march?

Im not sure. I wasn't there myself. I just know that not everyone there was a religious zealot (and more than one or two were actually non religious)

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

"You lost, get over it"?

What did I lose?

you lost the control you had over womens bodies.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you lost the control you had over womens bodies.

Oh right. I never thought I had control though. Did you feel you were in control of women's bodies? That's a bizarre thought to have.

Are you sure you aren't using glib phrases? Because it's starting to sound like the ramblings of a lunatic.

"Abortion is not a nuanced topic"
"You were in control of women's bodies"

Funny that you never answered my simple question though and instead resorted to telling me that I lost the run of those pesky women who I controlled.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

isnt that what pro-life people want to do?

who organised yesterdays march if there was no religious involvement?

No, pro life people want to protest that life begins at conception and that unborn humans deserve the same protection as born humans.
If you don’t agree with that then that’s your prerogative.
But why do you think the people who do believe it should be prevented from marching.
I don’t believe that a man can become a woman but I have no problem with the trans community marching to protest their position.
Can you not see how that works?
You’ve got yourself into a position now where you are trying to dictate what group gets to protest and march and which don’t, who gets to have an opinion, express it, and who doesn’t.
You seem to be blind to the fact that you are saying that the pro life parade, with no religious show at it, somehow “oppressed” you “religiously” and it shouldn’t be permitted.
That’s ludicrous.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they can find a phonebox somewhere they can hold a meeting.

Well the crowd that were there on Saturday wouldn’t fit in a phone box.
Also, you don’t get to say who can have a meeting or where they can have it.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

oh i'm sure there are 1 or 2 but to suggest that the march yesterday was unconnected to religious people is just absolute nonsense.

Oh good. I’ll just wait here patiently while you fetch the evidence that Saturday’s parade was religiously organized.
Incidentally on that subject, when did you decide that only agnostics/atheists are allowed to gather for meetings?!?

splinter65

lawred2 wrote: »

No I find out hard to believe that there were no religious connotations to a pro life march.

Read what I posted.

Even If there was religious connotations to any parade anywhere about anything, when did you decide that religious people don’t have the same right to congregate as trans activists or the LGBT community?

lawred2

splinter65 wrote: »

Even If there was religious connotations to any parade anywhere about anything, when did you decide that religious people don’t have the same right to congregate as trans activists or the LGBT community?

?

splinter65

lawred2 wrote: »

?

lawred2 wrote: »

?

Well your main objection to the parade appears to be your allegation that the parade would have had religious backing, even though there was no religious theme to Saturday’s parade and you appear to be irrationally insisting that there was.
Even if there was religious backing, why would that make you think that the parade deserves criticism? Can you not see how hypocritical you’re being?

lawred2

splinter65 wrote: »

Well your main objection to the parade appears to be your allegation that the parade would have had religious backing, even though there was no religious theme to Saturday’s parade and you appear to be irrationally insisting that there was.
Even if there was religious backing, why would that make you think that the parade deserves criticism? Can you not see how hypocritical you’re being?

Are you confusing me with someone else?

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Well your main objection to the parade appears to be your allegation that the parade would have had religious backing, even though there was no religious theme to Saturday’s parade and you appear to be irrationally insisting that there was.
Even if there was religious backing, why would that make you think that the parade deserves criticism? Can you not see how hypocritical you’re being?

you still haven't told us who organised the march. everything done publicly is open to criticism. what makes you think the march on saturday is immune from that?

rireland

Society is so draining these days. Calls to join marches and movements all the time now - homelessless, evictions, gay, trans, abortion, babies found in Tuam, banks, insurance companies, palestine, syria, trump, brexit, climate change, union strikes.

I'm going to just focus on mine, my families and friends happiness. Might be selfish but **** it. There's just so much whinging and complaining nowadays. You only get one life!

klaaaz

splinter65 wrote: »

Well your main objection to the parade appears to be your allegation that the parade would have had religious backing, even though there was no religious theme to Saturday’s parade and you appear to be irrationally insisting that there was.

In case you missed the lovely pic of the religious symbols and the Vatican flag at the anti-abortion march https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110622646&postcount=71

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you still haven't told us who organised the march. everything done publicly is open to criticism. what makes you think the march on saturday is immune from that?

The pro life people organized the march. Who organized the Trans parade?