If I go out of my way to provoke someone then it's to be expected so having a cry on a forum is the last thing I'd do. On conservative catholic views been idiotic well I'm not an arrogant arsehole so just because I don't agree with someone it dosen't mean I think they are idiots. But each to their own on that one.Originally Posted by peadar1987
I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe in god and jesus and all that (imho) nonsense, and they're welcome to do it as long as it doesn't impact upon me. But I'm not talking about them, as should be clear from my post. I'm talking about the kind of idiot that continues to go to mass in light of the criminal acts of the catholic church, and continue to believe every work out of their mouth. I have very little respect for these sheeple.Not to defend the behaviour of the Church and its agents, but that's a bit of a characterisation; I'm sure there are at least some people out there who are well-learned and can think for themselves but might have the audacity to possess outlooks on life that differ from your own...
Sean South, knock the "crying on Foot.ie" stuff on the head please, it's (rather ironically) infantile.
Ah, I see where you might have gotten confused there. I don't think conservative catholic views are idiotic because I don't agree with them, I think they are idiotic because they fly in the face of logic, reason, and often common decency and compassion.
As for Nigel "having a cry", I think you're just projecting. He was merely pointing out the hypocrisy and irony of hatred and bile coming from those claiming to be representatives of a loving and benevolent deity. And a counter-protest isn't necessarily deliberately provoking people, unless you're the sort of thin-skinned insecure person who is provoked by being reminded that an alternative point of view to your own exists.
What ever they proclaim to be I see why they would have hatred for those at a counter demo it goes against something they have really strong views on and they see their core values been eroded from society.
On the counter demo, of course it's to provoke even though those at the counter demo won't want to admit it. I'm sure the ones at the pro life demo are aware of the pro choice side and alternative views but it won't change their views. Like I said these people are hardcore in their views so what would you expect them to do when they read a flyer and hear a chant? "You know what Paddy, I think these pro choice guys are right there is no god" of course not, because thats what it boils down to for most of them. Say if you were in favour of paying off the bond holders in the banks and if you went to counter a protest against paying bond holders and paying your house hold charge what do you think the reaction would be? What do you think you would achieve? It would only provoke and create a more devicive society.
Do such people exist in reality though or are you painting a caricature? I suspect the truth is rather more complex and, if such people do exist, they'd be more rare than commonplace.
I'm not sure what the Mass-attending habits of my God-believing parents are these days - I have a feeling they may attend rarely, if not only on major feast days - but, to use them as an example, I know they still have faith in what they perceive as the more virtuous side of the Church and the goodness of individual clergymen. They may listen to such spokesmen and take their thoughts and opinions into respectful consideration, but they're not zombie idiots who can't think of an alternative opinion for themselves and who are blindly unaware of or stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge the darker side of an institution that, due to the circumstances of their generation, socio-culturally groomed them from birth and was always viewed as not just a moral beacon but the moral beacon. I would imagine that most Irish people who profess to be Catholics nowadays are in a similar boat.
I would have thought that the thousands of ignorant fecktards attending that rally would be a perfect example of those people. Battling and fighting against legislation designed to save lives in a naive attempt to protect the lives of tadpoles, perpetuating lies and deceit about late term abortions and the like because their priests - there with them - told them so. Those people are a waste of air. Those priests, if what was said above was true and I really don't doubt it is, deserve to have their underpants pulled up over their heads, stuck in stocks, and pelted with rotten fruit and veg. They're disgusting creatures.
But I would imagine that most of the people spouting lies and nonsense at 'pro-life' rallies are just the kind of zombie idiots you mentioned.
And I can see why people mightn't be too happy when people call them scum, and tell them their mothers should have killed them.
1: As I said, it's not necessarily to provoke. The main reason I've seen for pro-choice counter-demonstrations is to show the public and the government that there are many people out there who have a particular opinion. So pretty much the same reason as the original demonstration. The main aim is not to convince the Youth Defence people of anything.On the counter demo, of course it's to provoke even though those at the counter demo won't want to admit it. I'm sure the ones at the pro life demo are aware of the pro choice side and alternative views but it won't change their views. Like I said these people are hardcore in their views so what would you expect them to do when they read a flyer and hear a chant? "You know what Paddy, I think these pro choice guys are right there is no god" of course not, because thats what it boils down to for most of them. Say if you were in favour of paying off the bond holders in the banks and if you went to counter a protest against paying bond holders and paying your house hold charge what do you think the reaction would be? What do you think you would achieve? It would only provoke and create a more devicive society.
2: Pro Choice and atheism aren't the same thing. You can believe in any deity you want, or none, and hold any position on abortion.
3: With any contentious issue, I'd expect there to be demonstrations and counter-demonstrations. Better a divided society where people can express their opinions than one where dissent is cracked down upon, either by the police, or by society at large, as was preferred by Catholic Ireland.
I'm with you on calling people scum etc and on a counter demos too but doing a counter demo no mater what the issue is will always provoke when done in someone's face. To me it's just looking to create confrontation.
Your other point about a divided society, I wasn't very clear in making my point. I meant like in America where it's liberals and conservatives with no middle ground and a with us or against us attitude. That serves no purpose and just alienates certain sections of society creating bigger problems.
I don't see how a counter-demo is any more provocative than a demonstration. I wouldn't be the protesting type myself but there's a certain amount of utility in making your voice heard even if it appears futile.
Because it precisely these idiots that have left ireland in the state it is - protesting over the unborn while not giving a sh** about the living. Following orders from the pupit
As for the lapsed Catholics that say they are not so deep these days like its cool - just bring your memory back a few years to when the relic of Theresa was going round the country - jeez it was packing the crowds in all over the country!!!!
Thing is I am no fan of abortion myself but I am definitely with the pro choice people here - its a total non issue in the grand scheme of things.
Firstly, cop yourself on and grow up.
We were there, not to provoke, but to shed light on a load of lies that was being sprouted by these people.
Again, cop on. I have personal reasons for being involved in this. I don't expect someone like you to understand anything of an emotional level.
This is my main point in reply to you Sean South. A demonstration is there in the first place to provoke a reaction from government officials.
Their bad version of 'Another brick in the wall' by Pink Floyd, led by a priest, with provocative lyrics was a key in that factor.
I've noticed the main argument of these 'pro life' people, is that, "if a woman doesn't want the kid, then put it up for adoption".
This is merely papering over the fact that they couldn't care less about the 210 million kids worldwide already awaiting an adoption. I don't see them rushing out to take care of these kids.
It is possible to have a diversity of opinion, commitment and participant knowledge-level even within the one demonstration. Those demonstrating at such events won't necessarily form one single orthodox bloc, all of identical devotion or belief and all guided by hate and intent on deceit. Just because a priest spouts something from a pulpit, it doesn't mean that the whole congregation are in total sheepish agreement with him. I seriously can't imagine that most people at a "pro-life" demo wouldn't be well-intentioned or wouldn't at least think they were doing what they personally felt was morally good and right, even if we do look upon them as naive and misguided from our, of course, more-erudite perch.
Then again, I've not experienced one of these meets in person, nor am I aware of the specific lies alleged to have been spouted.
Nonsense can be a matter of interpretation. No doubt, those aligning themselves with "pro-life" campaigns would dismiss pro-choice arguments as nonsensical just as quickly and with just as much conviction.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 08/07/2013 at 7:25 PM.
It can be but it often isn't a matter of interpretation. And the strength of a person's conviction may only demonstrate their stupidity. Students at Liberty University in the USA may passionately believe that the dinosaur fossils in one of their buildings are only a few thousand years old, as the university tells them, but it doesn't make their position any less nonsensical.
Likewise for any demonstrators characterising the pro-choice side as 'pro-suicide.' You may believe that they carefully formed these opinions independently, but I don't.
Last edited by osarusan; 08/07/2013 at 10:50 PM.
Nothing better then a multi qoute rant. Can't be bothered getting into all what you said but I'm sure they were listening to you when you were shedding light.
... Or, perhaps, their relative lack of enlightenment, or even their adherence to an alternative moral code to your own. I think what I find problematic is your sweeping dismissal of a significant swathe of the population as stupid zombie idiots.
The example of dinosaur fossil age you raise is a matter that can be proven or disproven by scientific method; to hold the belief you outline above would be irrational and objectively nonsensical as it would completely contradict what is evident to us. The issue of abortion, however, is a moral one with no "right" or "wrong" answer. Anything can be subjectively dismissed as nonsense in such an argument if it diverges from one's personal moral perspective.
Someone had to form such an opinion independently. Anyway, were there demonstrators doing that, and, excuse my ignorance (I have been trying to work this one out), but in what sense might or could someone argue that a pro-choice position equates to being "pro-suicide"? Were the demonstrators doing this numerous?Likewise for any demonstrators characterising the pro-choice side as 'pro-suicide.' You may believe that they carefully formed these opinions independently, but I don't.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/07/2013 at 8:47 AM.
You have heard of FF right? This is the country that voted in bent bertie twice!!!
The whole debate hinges on whether or not a newly conceived foetus can be considered a human being. After that it's a simple fact that
1. we're impinging on a woman's rights for the sake of a sack of cells
-OR-
2. we're facilitating unjust deaths
Either way, it can't be dismissed as a non-issue.
That said, neither side will go ahead and accept that the key question is whether the foetus is human (and thereby has human rights). It's bad PR, because when you start to get bogged down in the actual issue you quickly lose the right to call everyone in the opposition's camp a misogynist pig or a baby killer (depending on your stance).
We may find an answer soon enough, be it through government or by referendum, but we'll never actually progress anywhere through debate because nobody wants the bad PR of actually arguing their side.
Pro-Life: 'Yes, we're impinging on women's rights, insofar as a woman's freedom to kill someone can be considered a right. We believe that the foetus is a human being from conception.' (But of course admitting any sort of impingement on women's rights is a no-no because 50% of the electorate are women and 0% are foetuses)
Pro-Choice: 'Yes, we're facilitating the destruction of life. But we don't believe that life starts from conception. The foetus is not a human, so your argument is invalid.' (But of course admitting the destruction of a foetus - whatever they believe that means - angers a still-very-conservative older generation, so that's a no-no.)
A matter of opinion me thinks. A big non issue to me anyway, much more worried about the economy and running (or mismanagment) of the country. Whatever a woman wants to do with her body that's her business
I really don't see a counter demonstration as purely something to provoke. It's also to show that (in this example) the pro life groups aren't the only ones that can get people on to the street, to show the media that not everyone agrees with the pro life side etc.
On the suicide section, the Government still have no choice but to legislate or ask the people for a 3rd time to remove it as an acceptable reason for a termination. Looking at the legislation, I really don't see the "floodgates" argument at all. It will still be easier for a suicidal woman to go to the UK than go through the process, never mind someone just using that excuse. Says an awful lot about what these groups think of women that they think so many will want an abortion and will fake suicide to get one though - hopefully that's enlightening for people.
The state has moved on - polls continue to show that people want a widening of the allowable grounds for termination, such as fatal abnormality, rape, incest and other reasons that civilised people can see that a woman would be justified in not wanting to carry to full term. That the Pro Life/ Youth Defence groups can only get circa 30,000 out shows this. Rather than that rally being a negative, I really took it as a positive, especially some of the politicians that outed themselves.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks