Michael D Higgins insists he is President of Ireland, refuses to commemorate partition

I've only spent multiple posts discussing it, Downcow. Your famed Twaddell 'Peace Camp' lads losing their sh*t because they were asked to adjust their route to not walk down a Nationalist part of the Crumlin Road.

I expect you'll come back with your usual nonsense, probably try to blame it on SF, moan about St Patrick's Day or the GAA, argue that the OO did nothing wrong, try and distance the OO from the bands they parade with, and probably explain to us that the people at the camp were hard working folks who just happened to have very....flexible working arrangements.

Perhaps instead of that, you could return the favour with an example of a time where the Orange Order have had the consideration and self-awareness to voluntarily adjust their plans to suit residents rather than having to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Parades Commission? Your convenient cut off period is entirely predictably after the Parades Commission curbed the worst of your excesses, so let's look to the period before a legal act and public body had to be put in place to control the triumphalism?

"We haven't gone where we're not wanted NEARLY as much as we used to" isn't quite as strong a defense as you think when the reason for it is because you can't rather than because you recognise that you shouldn't.

Let’s take it one step at a time. I will deal with your question in due course but let’s not use it as a deflection tool simply because you don’t want to tell us how we can define some of these subjective terms being bandied about on the last few pages?

catholic area

nationalist area

area where they are not wanted

I honestly don’t know what you mean by these. It’s quite possible I will agree with you when you explain what you mean by these areas?

Life is not just as simple and black and white as you like to make it sound - and I think well you know it.

Would you try and argue that the Shankhill or Tiger's Bay aren't Unionist Areas, or that New Lodge or Andersonstown aren't Nationalist areas? The blatant sophistry on display with your, 'oh I do say....I really don't know what this term commonly used by every political party and news outlet in the place I've lived my entire life means' is tedious to deal with.

It REALLY takes the p*ss to then accuse ME of deflecting because I haven't answered a question that you didn't ask me....while avoiding answering one I directly asked you. Catch yourself on; it's half a step from, 'I know you are, but what am I'.

I would describe an area in which a significant majority are from a Nationalist background as a Nationalist area, one in which a significant majority are from a Unionist background as a Unionist area and one which doesn't have a significant majority of one or the other as a mixed area, but of course you knew this, and were hoping for this answer to try and further deflect with a nonsensical attempt to try and ask for a specific percentage at which point it becomes a Nationalist or Unionist area....pure sophistry of course; let's not play games with Sorities Paradox.

Any chance you'll answer what you were asked or are you having trouble, desperately Googling and need to buy more time with nonsense deflection into widely understood terminology?

They moved this one...

"...“Taking the procession through the commercial heart of the city while the wider culture continues with its afternoon activities is not appropriate any longer,”.."

Seems clear that conflict is reduced if compromises are made on routes though flashpoints.

"..The Parades Commission had imposed conditions on a number of marches this year.

A planned nationalist protest in west Belfast was cancelled after the Orange Order amended the proposed route..."

It's not rocket science...

Yes, your deflection into sophistry really is like pulling teeth. I've literally anticipated and addressed your attempts to go to specific percentages in the post you quoted. You're so predictable that I'm addressing your points before you even make them.

As I predicted, you're messing about with nonsensical arguments to avoid answering the question. I've already said, look up Sorities Paradox. You've agreed that there are Nationalist areas and Unionist areas in your post, even if you don't like the nomenclature. You're trying to play with words and have me commit to a definition which places every area into being either a Nationalist area or a Unionist area, which isn't a position I hold....so why precisely would I provide a definition to that effect? If Stewart's Test for Obscenity is good enough for the US Supreme Court, it's good enough for me and certainly good enough for your pointless rabbit hole.

I haven't used the term Catholic areas; I'm certainly not being dragged down another rabbit hole to define terminology I haven't used. Answer the question or don't, but quit p*ssing about and dodging it while pretending you're going to shower us with examples in just a few more minutes. You might think it's clever, but your little game is ridiculously obvious.

😆

Weren't you the one crying about pejoratives earlier. Now people are "monkeys in a zoo".

FFS

I see you have little respect for the Parades Commission. There's a surprise.

There is nothing nonsensical about wanting clarity. I don’t know what question you are referring to but Ask me a question and I promise I will answer with clarity.

your answer is entirely subjective. ‘Significant’ means nothing. The reality is that when posters on here talk about catholic areas etc , they are just talking nonsense. I agree with you that the Shankill and new lodge are republican/loyalist areas. But that’s the easy stuff because they are, to all intent and purpose, 100% one or other. But no one is parading through streets in these areas.

If you can’t/won’t answer then just have the balls to say so - everyone can see anyhow.

The mistake is thinking someone asking a question actually wants an answer.

That is an extremely poor measure. It encourages bigots to prevent diversity by ensuring ‘repeated conflict’. Dangerous territory and often just tells you that some people can’t stomach ‘the other’ about the place. Would you rethink this as a measure?

I am not arguing the to allow communities to dictate based on majorities, who is and is not allowed through there area. Of course that will reduce overt conflict.

I have just been asking how we decide when it is and is not ok for a majority to say that we do not want the minority celebrating their culture here?

fionn has demonstrated the complexity of it and how it is going to be very subjective in most cases.

why is it absurd to say that a majority not allowing a minority to express its culture is reducing diversity in that area??? I’m baffled by this.

The principle should be quite simple, go where you are welcome and it is a genuine celebration, and keep out of places you are not, No march needs to be cancelled if this principle is applied. Only if the intent is to antagonist and you are prevented from doing so would you have cause for compliant.

It really is no different to the English Defense League staging a march through a Indian community with the intention of causing trouble.

This isn't rocket science unless you are been disingenuous in what you are stating you are trying to say. Doing something in the full knowledge that it will intentionally cause conflict is the real issue here. The intent, at least partly, is like a cat **** on its territorial boundary to tell other cats to **** off this is mine.