- Argumentum ad extremum used to create a straw man.
- Projecting/Psychopathologizing the opinions of other posters…based on the created straw man.
It’s a pattern. Yawn
It’s a pattern. Yawn
Ive simply questioned why RBB et al’s authority to speak on what passes for ‘morality’ is greater than a priest who never abused a child (as an example). Both (IMO) represent institutions/ideologies that are seriously compromised in ‘moral’ terms. Yet RBB gets a pass. Thats the extent of the point Ive made ie if youre going to preach morality you really need to ensure that youre firstly squeaky clean yourself.
For example, what type of reception do you think RBB (or indeed a local who shares his political outlook) would receive if he turned up in a former Eastern Bloc country preaching about the ‘immorality’ of the prevailing economic or poltical system? Id suggest about the same as a representative of the Irish Catholic Church speaking on abortion during the recent debate.
Im not seeking to draw a straight line. And neither am I suggesting that the Catholic Church should be excused or pardoned in any way for its crimes. Im simply suggesting that many people (especially younger ones) appear to be unaware of what some of the people Ive been referring to actually stand for. And that if they find Magdalene Laundries or Industrial schools to be repulsive blights on history, they might be pretty surprised at what the political ancestors of some of our more prominently ‘moral’ politicians got up to.
I think its interesting that the left now appears to have eschewed its traditional stance as being focussed on the primacy of the collective and appears to have in some ways adopted a form of Thatcherism ie ‘theres no such thing as society’. There is only the individual that stands apart from nature itself as a form of self-revering God that may interpret the world in accordance with its own whims and desries ie unrestricted by the impositions of nature or concepts of natural law. Subjectivity is paramount and we see a disavowal of science and rationality, stances which would again have been more associated with creationists and others in the past.
Furthermore, the Right (beyond Ireland) appears to have similarly flipped and is now focussing on the collective aspect of life, speaking about society and the benefits of jobs for the working classes etc which would have been the traditional role of the left. These are interesting times.
I dont think opposition to British rule in Ireland or the North more particularly needs to automatically translate into support for the Provisional movement. Episodes such as Stakeknife and Denis Donaldson clearly suggest that there are serious question marks over what it was all about, certainly post-1981. Reading the signs of late from media and also political circles it seems to be the case that a push for a united Ireland may be on the way. Personally Id be very much in favour of it. However, if Sinn Fein were to be the biggest beneficiaries of it in political terms, Id certainly be sceptical (at this moment anyway) with regard to what that new Ireland might look like for reasons that have nothing to do with their historical opposition to British rule.
I can see Leo getting the applause if there is a united Ireland and SF is in opposition in the Dail.
SF, PbP etc… thought it most prudent to sit on the sidelines and not go into government in 2016 at a time when the economy was picking up in a big way. talk about .
The abortion issue was the only policy that the opposition in the Dail had. and all the applause was usurped by Leo and FG.
The point I was attenoting to make in that respect related to moral equivalence. The broader point stems from my own belief that IOna and the like would be better getting off the political stage. That was the initial point which may somewhat tally with what your getting at above.
That may be fair enough in your eyes but I dont see why the same reasoning wouldnt apply to Ruth Coppinger, Brid Smyth or even the cuddlier RBB. You know the political tradition from within which they have emerged. You know their stated aims. You know what attempts to create such utopian societies have resulted in during the course of the 20th century. Why would this time be any different (or at least not seriously negative) should they achieve critical mass? And even if you perceive the likelihood of critical mass being achieved as being highly remote why would you afford them a free pass in ‘moral’ terms when you believe that innocent priests are automatically tainted by historical crimes carried out by other members of their organisation?
Im as incredulous at your logic as you appear to be at mine.
Again, youre entitled to your opinion but stating that your view of something is that its naive doesnt really make it so. You need to say why.
And with that in mind, if for example, any of these named far left leaning politicians were to adopt or represent far right positions, Im guessing that their membership of a political tradition that had sought to exterminate specific sub-sections of the European population over 70 years ago would become very relevant to your interpretation of perceived risks or dangers posed by them…especially if they had recently managed to present themselves as an integral (but minority) part of a broadly respectable mainstream single issue political campaign that had just been approved by a huge majority of the populace.
Indeed, to ignore such a scenario would be quite naive …in my view.
Anyway, it seems we differ which is fair enough…and I dont really see any potential for movement.
You think Im reactionary and naive…and I think youre naive and that your logic is flawed…we should probably leave it there
What would happen if the next President refused to sign abortion legalization into law?
Ah Mossy, we had these discussions before on the bailout bill. That’s not how the presidency works. The President can refer a bill to the supreme court for consitutionality check, but that’s it.
As well as being totally undemocratic.
I’ll pop this here and let it sink in.
Fek me, I never knew FG were a United Ireland party. When did that happen!
And hasn’t Harris come a long way in 2 or so years…he used to be anti-abortion. He’s a raving pro abortion fundamentalist at this stage.
Who’s paying for this by the way?
I never knew they were a lot of things, the next election will be interesting
His or this ?
who is paying?
those who enjoy broadsheet can get the same story here
broadsheet.ie/2018/05/02/to … h-service/
That’s the kind of photo that can be used if any misfortune happens to SF, like a party split or major loss of seats in the Dail.
A bit O/T but didn’t want to start yet another “culture of death” thread.
Three Belgian doctors are to be tried for killing a 38 year old mildly autistic (but otherwise healthy) woman. They approved her for euthanasia in 2010, but her family subsequently complained.
Voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002, and for children since 2013. There were 80 cases in the first year, rising steadily to about 2,000 a year now, or 1.7% of all deaths. Initially those euthanised were terminally ill cancer patients (and two thirds still are), but a growing number of non-terminally ill people including older people in care are being killed. One sixth are people not expected to die in the foreseeable future.
About 3% of euthanasia cases are for psychiatric disorders, from mood disorders to dementia. The majority of people euthanised for these reasons are women.
That is an interesting post but it should have its own thread.
Conflating these two issues is misleading at best and it deliberately seeks to link abortion with euthanasia which is wrong.
Sure, it’s all the same issue. Killing babies, killing disabled people, killing unwanted daughters in third world countries, dispatching inconvenient lives, selfishness of modern society, slippery slope to Logan’s Run, Nazi death camps, Stalin was an atheist etc etc.
Only God can give life and only God should take it away.
Funny you mention that…unless you’re of the view that the UK is ‘third world’ (although I think ‘developing world’ is the preferred term nowadays).
The bolded section in particular seems particularly relevant given that the suggestion that it could happen in Ireland was branded a conspiracy theory by some during the course of the referendum thread.
Maybe some people who oppose this stuff are actually genuine in their belief that its an affront to the defence of human rights generally?
And maybe some who decry anything they dislike as a conspiracy are simply agreeable fuckwits?
It would probably play into Harris’ hands if the Pro Life crowd decided to single him out for negative campaign due to his baby holocaust role. He’d love to distract attention from what his actual day job is. He’s clinging to abortion as a good news story because the health service is so terrible. He was on the news the other night saying ‘I just want to be open and prepare people for how bad the winter will be in hospitals’. He just doesn’t get that as a nation we hate being “managed”. Eoghan Murphy doesn’t get this either btw.
I think Harris is just poor. Tony O’Brien’s criticism of him was severe and is one of numerous things that have permanently damaged him. He’s been made look ridiculous and out of his depth. He’ll keep his seat because he has profile but he’ll be Tourism minister after the next reshuffle and out of the cabinet in the one after that. I don’t know if there’s an astronomical term for a young developing star gradually changing to one that’s declining and disappearing, but that’s what we’re witnessing. Unless Leo takes pity on him.
… in your opinion. If one chooses to view human life as a continuum from conception to death (i.e. the common-sense and scientific view), they are linked.