'GAA Athletes for a No Vote'

[longballin]

Wow, I watched that video, and it really stuck in my craw.

Why should I take advice on a grave social issue from lads whose only claim to fame is having fairly decent hand to eye coordination and athletic builds?

The GAA is a sporting association and these lads are good at playing games - I wouldn't be asking them to perform brain surgery the next time I need it.

The entitlement of it. I want my GAA players to take scores and burst opponents. After that I can take them or leave them. Whether they were advocating a Yes or a No, they are doing it by leveraging the very organisation that gave them the profile they are abusing. I don't care what they do or say as private citizens.

They can rev up and f$%k off as far as I am concerned.

Agreed. Shameful carry-on.

Agreed. And I feel the same way about actors, musicians and journalists. Why should I give a f**k what some lad in ER says about politics?

The medical people who spoke so well on the Late Late Show is who I listen to. YES.

[BennyCake]

Why should a woman be able to tell a man that she's not going to carry his baby to full term?

Have you read this sentence back to yourself?

Have you checked what century it is?

It's the 21st century. And in the 16th century, there were still two people involved in a pregnancy. Nothing has changed and it won't change.

It is indeed the 21st century.

But clearly not for you, given that you believe that women should have to answer to men about whether they want to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.

By all means continue to live in your 16th century fantasy world if that's what you really want.

But there's a real world going on around you. It would be much better for you to try to live in it.

You make it sound like "what the man says, goes". That's not what I was implying.

Regardless, if a woman aborts a child off her own bat, she's a murderer. If the man and woman agree to abort, they're both murderers. That's how I see it.

That's exactly what you were implying.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

It wasn't.

At the end of the day, abortion is murder. Someone going to England for one might not be breaking UK law, but it's still murder. You can't deny that.

And if abortion becomes legal in Ireland, people won't bat an eyelid about it. Because it'll be legal, in people's heads, it will then become "acceptable". It's far from acceptable.

[sid waddell]

Why should a woman be able to tell a man that she's not going to carry his baby to full term?

Have you read this sentence back to yourself?

Have you checked what century it is?

It's the 21st century. And in the 16th century, there were still two people involved in a pregnancy. Nothing has changed and it won't change.

It is indeed the 21st century.

But clearly not for you, given that you believe that women should have to answer to men about whether they want to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.

By all means continue to live in your 16th century fantasy world if that's what you really want.

But there's a real world going on around you. It would be much better for you to try to live in it.

You make it sound like "what the man says, goes". That's not what I was implying.

Regardless, if a woman aborts a child off her own bat, she's a murderer. If the man and woman agree to abort, they're both murderers. That's how I see it.

That's exactly what you were implying.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

It wasn't.

At the end of the day, abortion is murder. Someone going to England for one might not be breaking UK law, but it's still murder. You can't deny that.

And if abortion becomes legal in Ireland, people won't bat an eyelid about it. Because it'll be legal, in people's heads, it will then become "acceptable". It's far from acceptable.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

[Syferus]

Why should a woman be able to tell a man that she's not going to carry his baby to full term?

Have you read this sentence back to yourself?

Have you checked what century it is?

It's the 21st century. And in the 16th century, there were still two people involved in a pregnancy. Nothing has changed and it won't change.

It is indeed the 21st century.

But clearly not for you, given that you believe that women should have to answer to men about whether they want to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.

By all means continue to live in your 16th century fantasy world if that's what you really want.

But there's a real world going on around you. It would be much better for you to try to live in it.

You make it sound like "what the man says, goes". That's not what I was implying.

Regardless, if a woman aborts a child off her own bat, she's a murderer. If the man and woman agree to abort, they're both murderers. That's how I see it.

That's exactly what you were implying.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

It wasn't.

At the end of the day, abortion is murder. Someone going to England for one might not be breaking UK law, but it's still murder. You can't deny that.

And if abortion becomes legal in Ireland, people won't bat an eyelid about it. Because it'll be legal, in people's heads, it will then become "acceptable". It's far from acceptable.

It's incredibly weak and incredibly condescending arguments like this that have helped drive so many potential No voters towards Yes over the last two decades.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Wow, I watched that video, and it really stuck in my craw.

Why should I take advice on a grave social issue from lads whose only claim to fame is having fairly decent hand to eye coordination and athletic builds?

The GAA is a sporting association and these lads are good at playing games - I wouldn't be asking them to perform brain surgery the next time I need it.

The entitlement of it. I want my GAA players to take scores and burst opponents. After that I can take them or leave them. Whether they were advocating a Yes or a No, they are doing it by leveraging the very organisation that gave them the profile they are abusing. I don't care what they do or say as private citizens.

They can rev up and f$%k off as far as I am concerned.

And this is the sort of vitriol and venom I referred to in a previous post on the matter. Respect to those that participated, knowing almost certainly that this could be the sort of reaction they would receive on social media for voicing their opinion. 

[BennyCake]

Why should a woman be able to tell a man that she's not going to carry his baby to full term?

Have you read this sentence back to yourself?

Have you checked what century it is?

It's the 21st century. And in the 16th century, there were still two people involved in a pregnancy. Nothing has changed and it won't change.

It is indeed the 21st century.

But clearly not for you, given that you believe that women should have to answer to men about whether they want to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.

By all means continue to live in your 16th century fantasy world if that's what you really want.

But there's a real world going on around you. It would be much better for you to try to live in it.

You make it sound like "what the man says, goes". That's not what I was implying.

Regardless, if a woman aborts a child off her own bat, she's a murderer. If the man and woman agree to abort, they're both murderers. That's how I see it.

That's exactly what you were implying.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

It wasn't.

At the end of the day, abortion is murder. Someone going to England for one might not be breaking UK law, but it's still murder. You can't deny that.

And if abortion becomes legal in Ireland, people won't bat an eyelid about it. Because it'll be legal, in people's heads, it will then become "acceptable". It's far from acceptable.

Given that you say women who have abortions are murderers, would you like to see the bans on travel and access to information about abortion to be re-implemented?

Do you believe women who take the morning after pill should be imprisoned for 14 years?

How can you stop that?

How would you know who took what?

[easytiger95]

Wow, I watched that video, and it really stuck in my craw.

Why should I take advice on a grave social issue from lads whose only claim to fame is having fairly decent hand to eye coordination and athletic builds?

The GAA is a sporting association and these lads are good at playing games - I wouldn't be asking them to perform brain surgery the next time I need it.

The entitlement of it. I want my GAA players to take scores and burst opponents. After that I can take them or leave them. Whether they were advocating a Yes or a No, they are doing it by leveraging the very organisation that gave them the profile they are abusing. I don't care what they do or say as private citizens.

They can rev up and f$%k off as far as I am concerned.

And this is the sort of vitriol and venom I referred to in a previous post on the matter. Respect to those that participated, knowing almost certainly that this could be the sort of reaction they would receive on social media for voicing their opinion.

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

[Rufus T Firefly]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Snowflakes? I don't think so.

It is my belief that they genuinely believe the words they are speaking and are doing so on what they - and I - believe is a life and death issue, and genuinely believe that that is consistent with the ethos of our organisation. You can put YOUR interpretation of their actions in whatever way you want for whatever cause you want. The manner in which you do though will give as much insight into yourself as those it's directed against.

[Jinxy]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Snowflakes? I don't think so.

It is my belief that they genuinely believe the words they are speaking and are doing so on what they - and I - believe is a life and death issue, and genuinely believe that that is consistent with the ethos of our organisation. You can put YOUR interpretation of their actions in whatever way you want for whatever cause you want. The manner in which you do though will give as much insight into yourself as those it's directed against.

Which is?

[trileacman]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Snowflakes? I don't think so.

It is my belief that they genuinely believe the words they are speaking and are doing so on what they - and I - believe is a life and death issue, and genuinely believe that that is consistent with the ethos of our organisation. You can put YOUR interpretation of their actions in whatever way you want for whatever cause you want. The manner in which you do though will give as much insight into yourself as those it's directed against.

Which is?

Begrudgery.

[longballin]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Snowflakes? I don't think so.

It is my belief that they genuinely believe the words they are speaking and are doing so on what they - and I - believe is a life and death issue, and genuinely believe that that is consistent with the ethos of our organisation. You can put YOUR interpretation of their actions in whatever way you want for whatever cause you want. The manner in which you do though will give as much insight into yourself as those it's directed against.

Is absolutely nothing to do with the GAA which doesn't belong to the Hartes or No campaigners

[Rossfan]

Exactly.

[Jinxy]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Rufus, any 'venom and vitriol' (if you could even call it that) directed at Mickey & Co. isn't because they are supporting the 'No' side.
It's how they have gone about it.
The 'Gaelic Athletes for a No Vote' campaign (or was it 'GAA athletes'?) has been a cynical attempt to piggy-back on the good name of the association we are all part of from day one.

Can you tell me why the campaign was launched with a coaching session for children?
Do you think that's appropriate?

Can you tell me why the press release made several references to the GAA's official strategic vision in an attempt to tie it in with the objectives of this group?
Do you think that's appropriate?

Can you tell me why Mickey Harte used an empty GAA pitch, without the club's permission, to record a video for the 'No' campaign?
Do you think that's appropriate?

Can you tell me why almost all of the individuals in this group are wearing official county gear (albeit with the sponsors blurred) in the promotional videos produced for the campaign?
Do you think that's appropriate?

Actually, rather than answering all of those questions, just answer one.

WHAT HAS THIS REFERENDUM GOT TO DO WITH THE GAA?

If you think it has nothing to do with the GAA, then surely you can understand why the actions of the 'Gaelic Athletes for a No Vote' group has rubbed so many ordinary GAA people up the wrong way.
Knowing Mickey Harte is a man of very strong faith, I would 100% expect him to be against repealing the 8th amendment.
I would also fully expect him to publicly campaign against repealing the 8th amendment.
It was possible for him to do this without hijacking the good name of the GAA.

[easytiger95]

You've missed the point. I have no problem with them expressing their views as private citizens, whatever their opinion. I have a huge problem with them hijacking a sporting organisation, conflating their views with the aims of the organisation- under the guise of "inclusivity", no less. The mind boggles at the cynicism.
So if they decide to insert themselves into a debate in such a dishonest way, they can have all the vitriol and venom i can give them.
They are big boys, aren't they, not snowflakes?

I raised the issue of the venom and vitriol being directed against these people. They didn't. They will almost certainly have known the vitriol and venom the likes of yourself would direct their way, but yet they were still prepared to stand up for their beliefs by putting their heads above the parapet. Respect to them for that.

Snowflakes? I don't think so.

It is my belief that they genuinely believe the words they are speaking and are doing so on what they - and I - believe is a life and death issue, and genuinely believe that that is consistent with the ethos of our organisation. You can put YOUR interpretation of their actions in whatever way you want for whatever cause you want. The manner in which you do though will give as much insight into yourself as those it's directed against.

Ah, so you're the snowflake.

[longballin]

It is an insult to the GAA what they did. And of course they are entitled to their opinion but trying to hijack the GAA to peddle their agenda was cynical.