Board index » The Soup

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:34 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
london_irish wrote:
Quote:
I cant help but be struck by the similarities with what passes for the outward presentation of the current liberal establishment's presentation of superfical tolerance and diversity that in fact accepts zero diversity of thought, opinion or expression that do not sit neatly within the boundaries of its own chosen narrative.
And yet, PtG, here we are....listening to you.

I love this article from WWN:
Quote:
MEMBERS of the No campaign have yet again remarked upon the clandestine media operation in effect against their group while making their 1,145th media appearance of the day in the hours before the broadcasting moratorium took effect at 2pm today.

Across online, print, TV and radio platforms, a steady stream of representatives from the No side spoke at length, uninterrupted, on some of the most watched and listened to programmes in Ireland, to complain for the 56th day in a row that they are being silenced.

:D
Quote:
And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case.

I don't have to, as one example.. Or this.
Since you have decided to bring in the Maoists and Soviets, I figured I'd better go international too. There's more where that came from, too.

But the real reason I think your comments are hillairsly hytercial is that.....they are hysterical, basically. You say "....the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themslwves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century..."

Then you point at PbP and SF, and use that to cast aspersions on the entire Repeal movement.
The Repeal campaign was a broad movement, of all political persuasions. You seem to forget that senior members of FG were also in support. [urlhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-over-1-000-doctors-call-for-yes-vote-in-referendum-1.3493355]I also never imagined our medical profession as Commie sleeper agents[/url].

You exhibit one dimensional, reds-under-the-bed, thinking. Take a deep breath before replying.


More misrepresentation Im afraid.

I have stated that Repeal contained within its ranks a significant cohort of hard left leaning ideologues. Ive outlined my case for same above. Ive also stated that (IMO) the majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics and in many instances are probably unaware of same.

Ive further outlined why this may have been the case in the context of the employment of 'entryism' as a political tactic.

This is really basic stuff.

Plus I note you've ignored the rest.

Feel free to deconstruct any of it if you so wish.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:43 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5194
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
This is really basic stuff.

No it isn't, it's batshit paranoid lunacy. I'm not even sure what broad point you're trying to make. There was/is support for repeal across the political spectrum, and yet you choose to focus on the left because you hate them and what they stand for.

This isn't a thread about SF/PbP politics, it's a(nother) thread about the repeal of the 8th amendment.

Maybe you should start a new thread/blog about the communists coming to take our stuff/repress our masculinity/flood us with immigrants/murder hundreds of millions of people or whatever the hell it is that's bothering you.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1202
Location: In the Sandpit.
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
london_irish wrote:
Quote:
I cant help but be struck by the similarities with what passes for the outward presentation of the current liberal establishment's presentation of superfical tolerance and diversity that in fact accepts zero diversity of thought, opinion or expression that do not sit neatly within the boundaries of its own chosen narrative.
And yet, PtG, here we are....listening to you.

I love this article from WWN:
Quote:
MEMBERS of the No campaign have yet again remarked upon the clandestine media operation in effect against their group while making their 1,145th media appearance of the day in the hours before the broadcasting moratorium took effect at 2pm today.

Across online, print, TV and radio platforms, a steady stream of representatives from the No side spoke at length, uninterrupted, on some of the most watched and listened to programmes in Ireland, to complain for the 56th day in a row that they are being silenced.

:D
Quote:
And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case.

I don't have to, as one example.. Or this.
Since you have decided to bring in the Maoists and Soviets, I figured I'd better go international too. There's more where that came from, too.

But the real reason I think your comments are hillairsly hytercial is that.....they are hysterical, basically. You say "....the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themslwves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century..."

Then you point at PbP and SF, and use that to cast aspersions on the entire Repeal movement.
The Repeal campaign was a broad movement, of all political persuasions. You seem to forget that senior members of FG were also in support. [urlhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-over-1-000-doctors-call-for-yes-vote-in-referendum-1.3493355]I also never imagined our medical profession as Commie sleeper agents[/url].

You exhibit one dimensional, reds-under-the-bed, thinking. Take a deep breath before replying.


More misrepresentation Im afraid.

I have stated that Repeal contained within its ranks a significant cohort of hard left leaning ideologues. Ive outlined my case for same above. Ive also stated that (IMO) the majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics and in many instances are probably unaware of same.

Ive further outlined why this may have been the case in the context of the employment of 'entryism' as a political tactic.

This is really basic stuff.

Plus I note you've ignored the rest.

Feel free to deconstruct any of it if you so wish.

I didn't bother because I felt you were using a minority subsection of the Repeal movement to denigrate the entire umbrella of groups that feel under Repeal. This is cherrypicking. I still feel it is so.
I certainly will not deny (not that you or anyone has accused me of this) the terrible and pervasive crimes that have occurred that have occurred under both left-wing and right-wing dictatorships over the decades.
But "...Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any leftist regime in history that I can think of."

I just cant see what a comparison with the Church's crimes of cover up, sexual abuse, rape, violence against women and child, indentured servitude and coercion is supposed to achieve. That we had it better than other countries and it could have been worse if the Commies were in charge? This is very Irish. This is what I have a problem with. The Church is seen as benign when compared to mass murderers in another country?

I think the Church's crimes stand alone, as they are. We should not deflect from it.

Quote:
Ive also stated that (IMO) the majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics and in many instances are probably unaware of same.

This is good enough for me. Yes, "majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics". Good.
Also, your statement: "...in many instances are probably unaware of same". Your opinion. Which I find very hard to believe, knowing the people I talk to at home.
Finally - "..the employment of 'entryism' as a political tactic": reds-under-the-bed again. "Entryism" isn't just a left wing thing. It's extensively used by all sides, always has been.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:41 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
london_irish wrote:
I didn't bother because I felt you were using a minority subsection of the Repeal movement to denigrate the entire umbrella of groups that feel under Repeal. This is cherrypicking. I still feel it is so.
I certainly will not deny (not that you or anyone has accused me of this) the terrible and pervasive crimes that have occurred that have occurred under both left-wing and right-wing dictatorships over the decades.
But "...Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any leftist regime in history that I can think of."

I just cant see what a comparison with the Church's crimes of cover up, sexual abuse, rape, violence against women and child, indentured servitude and coercion is supposed to achieve. That we had it better than other countries and it could have been worse if the Commies were in charge? This is very Irish. This is what I have a problem with. The Church is seen as benign when compared to mass murderers in another country?

I think the Church's crimes stand alone, as they are. We should not deflect from it.



Look. If you go back and read you'll see that the initial comment was made in the context of a reply to PS300016 (or whatever the number is) about why it would be better from a conservative/traditionalist/Non-left leaning perspective to get hardline religious people off the political stage. The reasoning was that their presence allows others avoid having to debate actual issues by focussing on historical crimes....despite in my view said crimes being (in the greater scheme of things) of a less serious nature than those committed by some of those throwing around the accusations. It really was that simple.

Its not an attempt to absolve anyone and neither has it anything to with perceived Reds under the Bed scaremongering which Id suggest may be projection on the part of some others around here who seem to be well into conspiracy theories.

Quote:
Quote:
Ive also stated that (IMO) the majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics and in many instances are probably unaware of same.

This is good enough for me. Yes, "majority of Repeal supporters do not share such politics". Good.
Also, your statement: "...in many instances are probably unaware of same". Your opinion. Which I find very hard to believe, knowing the people I talk to at home.
Finally - "..the employment of 'entryism' as a political tactic": reds-under-the-bed again. "Entryism" isn't just a left wing thing. It's extensively used by all sides, always has been.

[/quote]

Well thank you for that. As Ive statde from the outset all Ive sdone is simply point out the political backgrounds of a sub-section of Repeal. Theres nothing false or misleading in anything Ive suggested. And Ive never suggested that this applies to the entire Repeal movement. Im pretty sure Ive stated as much previously.

And finally I find the calls for shutting down threads and seeking to limit what people say to be really poor form. Surely on a discussion forum if you (not you personally) have an issue with what someone else said, (and providing it adheres to the 'play the ball not the man' policy), then the proper action is to respond and seek to advance your own position? Otherwise we migt as well give up and go home TBH.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:48 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
Eschatologist wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
This is really basic stuff.

No it isn't, it's batshit paranoid lunacy. I'm not even sure what broad point you're trying to make. There was/is support for repeal across the political spectrum, and yet you choose to focus on the left because you hate them and what they stand for.

This isn't a thread about SF/PbP politics, it's a(nother) thread about the repeal of the 8th amendment.

Maybe you should start a new thread/blog about the communists coming to take our stuff/repress our masculinity/flood us with immigrants/murder hundreds of millions of people or whatever the hell it is that's bothering you.


Grow Up.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1202
Location: In the Sandpit.
I think sensationalist un-balanced sentiments, in general, have no place in a civilized discussion. Its taken a while to get to this point where your statements are now counter-balanced, and we have the full context of what you are trying to say. Still, there is a discontinuity on the argument you are making: "...despite in my view said crimes being (in the greater scheme of things) of a less serious nature than those committed iy some of those throwing around the accusations". Because I'm pretty sure Richard Boyd Barrett has not personally engaged in genocide.

Now I know that is not what you are trying to say, and I accept its just a turn of phrase gone wrong. But I'm pretty sure that many in the Church hierarchy have not be held to account for their actions. So I think RBB is perfectly entitled to criticise the Church (for instance). Why should he be limited in what to say, as you put it. It works both ways, I'm sure you agree.

As for SF, to be frank, the earth can swallow them up whole.

But still - drawing a straight line between a bunch of people protesting water charges, and people who carried out the Great Leap Forward (for example) comes across as extreme. Hence my tongue in check comment about Gulags in Sweden; as a country it is far further down the journey of "socialist utopia" than any hard Left supporter in Ireland can ever hope for, and I don't think anyone expects the Swedes to go full Stasi at any point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Oct 22, 2007
Posts: 1803
Eschatologist wrote:
Maybe you should start a new thread/blog about the communists coming to take our stuff/repress our masculinity/flood us with immigrants/murder hundreds of millions of people or whatever the hell it is that's bothering you.


No need there are a couple of threads in the Piston that'll cover that off, one of them has Calais in the title the other Scandanavia.

_________________
No tool is omnicompetent. There is no such thing as a master-key that will unlock all doors.
--Arnold Toynbee

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
--Epictetus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2574
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Of course what nobody seems to have ever sought to point out is that the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themslwves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century ie the Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any leftist regime in history that I can think of. Yet this is what these people espouse and what they want for Ireland.


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
First off, People before Profit/Solidarity/The Socialist Party etc are self proclaimed Trotskyist outfits. This means that they believe Stalin sold out to some degree in promoting Communism within one country. Trotskyist outfits believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Bolshevism and aspire to some sort of pan-global borderless communist utopia. That means they support the usurpation of the State as understood in its current form. Their tactics are generally described as 'entryist' which means that they will engage with the democratic process simply with a view to destroying it from the inside out as well as taking part in single issue campaigns with the same intention. This is where Coppinger, Brid Smyth, Paul Murphy etc got their start and built their profiles initially prior to getting elected to the Dail (water charges/Bin Charges etc). Repeal has provided them with a further (national) increase in profile despite many of the mainstream Repealers not really knowing what these people stand for ie the enthusiastic promotion of an ideology which caused the deaths of 100 million people during the 20th century. This is fact.



In the case of Irish voters, the Irish Far Left, Trotskyites and the Catholic Church there is a bit of the Father Dougall going on - 'those bishop autocrats were near, those other autocrats were far away'. People are prepared to share a platform with Monsters in Waiting who would be opening reeducation camps within a year of getting control

Someone on another thread said that Repeal was about the rights of the individual and personal autonomy which therefore made no sense to ascribe the movement as being part of Trotskyite world view. But that is to misunderstand the Far Left in Ireland in 2018 who latched on to this cause and packaged it as cultural Marxism as part of a struggle against oppression, a dominance hierarchy, the poorest not being able to travel etc.

The reason the Far Left support individual rights like transgenderism (which I'm sure gets short shrift in Trotskyite states) is part of a wider strategy to destabilise traditional roles and deconstruct society.

Also remember one of the central drives of the Far Left is to oppose religion and religious influence. Which is a competitor to their quasi religious beliefs. Getting a victory over Religion - with its bedrock on the soul and the transcendent and that the foetus is part of that story - is one up for them.

But let's make no bones about it, the Catholic Bishop were exerting excessive control over Irish civil society. And they were quite happy to control the day to day lives of non Catholics as a by-product.




Now you get jumbled


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Sinn Fein are a self-described 'democratic socialist' party with the emphasis being on socialist. Until recently enough they maintained a private standing army with which they the waged a 30 year war against the Northern and Southern states. Their declared aim is a 32 county socialist Republic. Their leader Ms McDOnald assumed the role of de facto leader of the Repeal movement on a number of national TV and radio debates during the course of the campaign when Varadkar and Harris were in hiding. A significant percentage of Sinn Fein's membership have engaged in or been convicted of crimes such as kidnapping, extrotion, murder etc. One of their current TDs has been convicted of gun running. These again, are facts.

Together, both of the above cohorts constituted a significant sub section of the Repeal movement. Again, this is fact.
Quote:


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Likewise, while I appreciate that desperate times often call for desperate measures (and Im not a pacifist), many of the acts carried out by Sinn Feins military wing again, are of a far more serious sort than those of the above mentioned members of the Irish Catholic Church. In my opinion this removes any moral authority statements by the likes of Coppinger, Smyth, McDonald and the rest have made vis a vis the Irish Catholic Church. People in glasshouses etc.

And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the crimes of the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been on a par with kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case....but youre obviously free to attempt to do so.


I'm capable of making that case. You are switching into Enda Kenny mode, who attempted to silence Sinn Fein on pretty much any issue by repeating Bridget McConville over and over when pushed.

Sinn Fein have a broad mandate North and South. They will have to defend their abortion stance to their voters. They are not in a glasshouse when it comes to political violence stopping them from opposing Catholic Church interference in the State. They are in a strongly built fortress. British rule in Ireland was entirely the product of conquest and therefore devoid of any moral authority whatsoever. The only moral choice when faced with all that was going on, (and all that was strongly suspected of going on e.g. the British State's dirty war) was to oppose it FULLY and without apology. Those that didn't oppose it fully should feel ashamed of themselves. The only clean surgical wars are in US press briefings.

If you want to put IRA violence in an analogy about the abortion debate it was like abortion in the case of rape. Ruthless and tragic at the same time , particularly if you're on the receiving end, but entirely justified and right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Aug 19, 2011
Posts: 782
Quote:
Maybe you should start a new thread/blog about the communists coming to take our stuff/repress our masculinity/flood us with immigrants/murder hundreds of millions of people or whatever the hell it is that's bothering you.

1) Argumentum ad extremum used to create a straw man.

Quote:
"No it isn't, it's batshit paranoid lunacy."

Quote:
"or whatever the hell it is that's bothering you."


2) Projecting/Psychopathologizing the opinions of other posters....based on the created straw man.

It's a pattern. Yawn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
london_irish wrote:
I think sensationalist un-balanced sentiments, in general, have no place in a civilized discussion. Its taken a while to get to this point where your statements are now counter-balanced, and we have the full context of what you are trying to say. Still, there is a discontinuity on the argument you are making: "...despite in my view said crimes being (in the greater scheme of things) of a less serious nature than those committed iy some of those throwing around the accusations". Because I'm pretty sure Richard Boyd Barrett has not personally engaged in genocide.

Now I know that is not what you are trying to say, and I accept its just a turn of phrase gone wrong. But I'm pretty sure that many in the Church hierarchy have not be held to account for their actions. So I think RBB is perfectly entitled to criticise the Church (for instance). Why should he be limited in what to say, as you put it. It works both ways, I'm sure you agree.


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.

Quote:
As for SF, to be frank, the earth can swallow them up whole.

But still - drawing a straight line between a bunch of people protesting water charges, and people who carried out the Great Leap Forward (for example) comes across as extreme. Hence my tongue in check comment about Gulags in Sweden; as a country it is far further down the journey of "socialist utopia" than any hard Left supporter in Ireland can ever hope for, and I don't think anyone expects the Swedes to go full Stasi at any point.


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.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
GameBlame wrote:
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Of course what nobody seems to have ever sought to point out is that the political ideologies espoused by many of those on the Repeal side who spent so much of their time screaming about church abuse etc, have been themslwves responsible for the slaughter of over a hundred million people during the course of the 20th century ie the Irish Catholic Church was a very very benign institution in comparison to any leftist regime in history that I can think of. Yet this is what these people espouse and what they want for Ireland.


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
First off, People before Profit/Solidarity/The Socialist Party etc are self proclaimed Trotskyist outfits. This means that they believe Stalin sold out to some degree in promoting Communism within one country. Trotskyist outfits believe themselves to be the true inheritors of Bolshevism and aspire to some sort of pan-global borderless communist utopia. That means they support the usurpation of the State as understood in its current form. Their tactics are generally described as 'entryist' which means that they will engage with the democratic process simply with a view to destroying it from the inside out as well as taking part in single issue campaigns with the same intention. This is where Coppinger, Brid Smyth, Paul Murphy etc got their start and built their profiles initially prior to getting elected to the Dail (water charges/Bin Charges etc). Repeal has provided them with a further (national) increase in profile despite many of the mainstream Repealers not really knowing what these people stand for ie the enthusiastic promotion of an ideology which caused the deaths of 100 million people during the 20th century. This is fact.



In the case of Irish voters, the Irish Far Left, Trotskyites and the Catholic Church there is a bit of the Father Dougall going on - 'those bishop autocrats were near, those other autocrats were far away'. People are prepared to share a platform with Monsters in Waiting who would be opening reeducation camps within a year of getting control

Someone on another thread said that Repeal was about the rights of the individual and personal autonomy which therefore made no sense to ascribe the movement as being part of Trotskyite world view. But that is to misunderstand the Far Left in Ireland in 2018 who latched on to this cause and packaged it as cultural Marxism as part of a struggle against oppression, a dominance hierarchy, the poorest not being able to travel etc.

The reason the Far Left support individual rights like transgenderism (which I'm sure gets short shrift in Trotskyite states) is part of a wider strategy to destabilise traditional roles and deconstruct society.

Also remember one of the central drives of the Far Left is to oppose religion and religious influence. Which is a competitor to their quasi religious beliefs. Getting a victory over Religion - with its bedrock on the soul and the transcendent and that the foetus is part of that story - is one up for them.

But let's make no bones about it, the Catholic Bishop were exerting excessive control over Irish civil society. And they were quite happy to control the day to day lives of non Catholics as a by-product.



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.


Quote:
Now you get jumbled


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Sinn Fein are a self-described 'democratic socialist' party with the emphasis being on socialist. Until recently enough they maintained a private standing army with which they the waged a 30 year war against the Northern and Southern states. Their declared aim is a 32 county socialist Republic. Their leader Ms McDOnald assumed the role of de facto leader of the Repeal movement on a number of national TV and radio debates during the course of the campaign when Varadkar and Harris were in hiding. A significant percentage of Sinn Fein's membership have engaged in or been convicted of crimes such as kidnapping, extrotion, murder etc. One of their current TDs has been convicted of gun running. These again, are facts.

Together, both of the above cohorts constituted a significant sub section of the Repeal movement. Again, this is fact.
Quote:


Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Likewise, while I appreciate that desperate times often call for desperate measures (and Im not a pacifist), many of the acts carried out by Sinn Feins military wing again, are of a far more serious sort than those of the above mentioned members of the Irish Catholic Church. In my opinion this removes any moral authority statements by the likes of Coppinger, Smyth, McDonald and the rest have made vis a vis the Irish Catholic Church. People in glasshouses etc.

And for you to argue otherwise, you would need to construct a case for Industrial SChools or Magdalene Laundries having been on a par or worse than Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipleago or Mao's cultural revolution..... or for the crimes of the Irish catholic Church to somehow have been on a par with kidnapping, torture, murder, placement of bombs in shopping centres and on occasion, sectarian killings etc etc. I dont believe that youre capable of making such a case....but youre obviously free to attempt to do so.


I'm capable of making that case. You are switching into Enda Kenny mode, who attempted to silence Sinn Fein on pretty much any issue by repeating Bridget McConville over and over when pushed.

Sinn Fein have a broad mandate North and South. They will have to defend their abortion stance to their voters. They are not in a glasshouse when it comes to political violence stopping them from opposing Catholic Church interference in the State. They are in a strongly built fortress. British rule in Ireland was entirely the product of conquest and therefore devoid of any moral authority whatsoever. The only moral choice when faced with all that was going on, (and all that was strongly suspected of going on e.g. the British State's dirty war) was to oppose it FULLY and without apology. Those that didn't oppose it fully should feel ashamed of themselves. The only clean surgical wars are in US press briefings.

If you want to put IRA violence in an analogy about the abortion debate it was like abortion in the case of rape. Ruthless and tragic at the same time , particularly if you're on the receiving end, but entirely justified and right.

[/quote]

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.

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1202
Location: In the Sandpit.
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
london_irish wrote:
I think sensationalist un-balanced sentiments, in general, have no place in a civilized discussion. Its taken a while to get to this point where your statements are now counter-balanced, and we have the full context of what you are trying to say. Still, there is a discontinuity on the argument you are making: "...despite in my view said crimes being (in the greater scheme of things) of a less serious nature than those committed iy some of those throwing around the accusations". Because I'm pretty sure Richard Boyd Barrett has not personally engaged in genocide.

Now I know that is not what you are trying to say, and I accept its just a turn of phrase gone wrong. But I'm pretty sure that many in the Church hierarchy have not be held to account for their actions. So I think RBB is perfectly entitled to criticise the Church (for instance). Why should he be limited in what to say, as you put it. It works both ways, I'm sure you agree.


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.


But PtG, this come across as completely reactionary!

I only see RBB and co. covered in the paper when journalists decide to do so. But the Iona institute seems to have a permanent space in the Indo and IT (divided by David Quinn in the Indo and Breda O'Brien in the the IT.) So "speaking out" is hardly constrained from what I can see.

Second, "...preach morality you really need to ensure that youre firstly squeaky clean yourself" is an impossible goal. For example, I consider every priest to be implicit in the sex abuse abuse cover ups, simply for continuing to work in a a transparently corrupt and immoral organisation, toeing the line. But as people, individually, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll be at a wedding this summer and I'm sure I'll be chatting to the priest as I'll be introduced as an out-of-towner. I'll be polite. I know this is contradictory, but isn't this how we all operate on a day to day basis?
To be frank, on your scale, I'm not sure who i should be talking to!!

But RBB (as an example) doesn't work for a corrupt organisation. And talking about ideology is pie in the sky stuff; warnings about education camps after "these" people come into power....ffs. (sorry, you did't say this,another poster did but I see it all in the same frame.)
In short, if the Swedes go Stasi, then I'll listen to you about socialist thought in the 21st Century.

Your statements and response(s) just don't come across as proportional. Its very hard to take seriously.

I actually don't understand myself why I am saying this. You come across as clearly ridiculous in your statements, and I seem to be telling you how to sell yourself better!

Quote:
As for SF, to be frank, the earth can swallow them up whole.

But still - drawing a straight line between a bunch of people protesting water charges, and people who carried out the Great Leap Forward (for example) comes across as extreme. Hence my tongue in check comment about Gulags in Sweden; as a country it is far further down the journey of "socialist utopia" than any hard Left supporter in Ireland can ever hope for, and I don't think anyone expects the Swedes to go full Stasi at any point.


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.[/quote][/quote]

Sigh.
I thought it was Bismark that said "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain". But a brief google search suggests the truth is more complicated! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
Anyway, this is an old trope. Naive young people! Wow! who da thunk it?
You need to completely rethink how to make your arguments to win and influence people. What upsets me more tan anything, more than your position (which you are entitled to hold) is how inarticulate and coarse your your reasoning is. I personally do want to listen to people on the right, but what we get on this forum is people who come across as extreme and naive at the same time and you don't help yourself.


Last edited by london_irish on Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:55 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 2912
Location: Oighearland
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
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.

_________________
advice to future unemployed TDs at the next general election: dont look at it as a failure, see it as an opportunity to 'upskill'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6149
Location: On the Road
london_irish wrote:


But PtG, this come across as completely reactionary!

I only see RBB and co. covered in the paper when journalists decide to do so. But the Iona institute seems to have a permanent space in the Indo and IT (divided by David Quinn in the Indo and Breda O'Brien in the the IT.) So "speaking out" is hardly constrained from what I can see.


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.

Quote:
For example, I consider every priest to be implicit in the sex abuse abuse cover ups, simply for continuing to work in a a transparently corrupt and immoral organisation, toeing the line. But as people, individually, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll be at a wedding this summer and I'm sure I'll be chatting to the priest as I'll be introduced as an out-of-towner. I'll be polite. I know this is contradictory, but isn't this how we all operate on a day to day basis?


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.


Quote:
Sigh.
I thought it was Bismark that said "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain". But a brief google search suggests the truth is more complicated! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
Anyway, this is an old trope. Naive young people! Wow! who da thunk it?
You need to completely rethink how to make your arguments to win and influence people. What upsets me more tan anything, more than your position (which you are entitled to hold) is how inarticulate and coarse your your reasoning is. I personally do want to listen to people on the right, but what we get on this forum is people who come across as extreme and naive at the same time and you don't help yourself.


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 :)

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A Post 8th Amendment world.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 9, 2008
Posts: 1202
Location: In the Sandpit.
Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
london_irish wrote:


But PtG, this come across as completely reactionary!

I only see RBB and co. covered in the paper when journalists decide to do so. But the Iona institute seems to have a permanent space in the Indo and IT (divided by David Quinn in the Indo and Breda O'Brien in the the IT.) So "speaking out" is hardly constrained from what I can see.


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.

Quote:
For example, I consider every priest to be implicit in the sex abuse abuse cover ups, simply for continuing to work in a a transparently corrupt and immoral organisation, toeing the line. But as people, individually, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll be at a wedding this summer and I'm sure I'll be chatting to the priest as I'll be introduced as an out-of-towner. I'll be polite. I know this is contradictory, but isn't this how we all operate on a day to day basis?


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 the crimes of other members of their organisation?

Im as incredulous at your logic as you appear to be at mine.


Quote:
Sigh.
I thought it was Bismark that said "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain". But a brief google search suggests the truth is more complicated! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
Anyway, this is an old trope. Naive young people! Wow! who da thunk it?
You need to completely rethink how to make your arguments to win and influence people. What upsets me more tan anything, more than your position (which you are entitled to hold) is how inarticulate and coarse your your reasoning is. I personally do want to listen to people on the right, but what we get on this forum is people who come across as extreme and naive at the same time and you don't help yourself.


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 :)


Yes please!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

    Board index » The Soup

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS

Click for Latest PostsFollow, Retweet @dailypinster

- Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!