Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

sid waddell

#315
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on May 11, 2018, 10:09:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 01:21:37 AM
Quote from: Rufus T Firefly on May 10, 2018, 11:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 04:11:15 PM
My offer to humble gallsman is not exclusive to this discussion - it's been an ongoing thing with him.  Most of his responses to me in discussions start with an insult. He doesn't know how to play the ball and I'd be happy to play the man if we ever did cross paths.  It's unfair to push that on anyone who votes no. And to be fair there are a fair few aggressive yes voters on this thread.

It's not hard to debate and discuss like adults. I have to draw a line somewhere and say enough is enough if I am being continually insulted. I wouldn't stand for it in person and I certainly am within my rights to call it out here.

I saw this earlier and I didn't have time to respond in your defence, after others came in.

I can understand your reaction to the personal insults. For someone else then to come in and link your response - on what is clearly a personal issue -  to the wider 'no' vote campaign, is deliberately misleading and provocative.

There are one or two posters here over the years who I have found opinionated, abrupt and abrasive in their debating manner and I have had fall outs as a consequence. However there is a new breed of posters here that have taken those aforementioned 'qualities' to new depths. It doesn't do much for the standard of the debate or the reputation of the forum itself.

The wider "No" campaign have been only too willing to throw insults around and employ gutter tactics.

Have a look at the Twitter feeds of some of the main figures in the No campaign if you don't believe me.

Have a look at what's happening outside hospitals where people are being routinely intimidated by headbangers thrusting giant pictures of dead foetuses in their faces.

There are no "Yes" campaigners going around thrusting pictures of dead women in people's faces.

Have a look at some of the No campaign's propaganda, lies and deliberate attempts to misinform, as well as their dishonest attempts to gather online information about undecided voters in an attempt to microtarget them.

And yes, it is one side which is overwhelmingly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere around the campaign.

Well this is blatantly not true, both sides are equally odious from what I can see and completely unaware that their tactics are almost identical.

If you're voting yes you're a baby murderer, how could you kill a baby that has hands and feet, it'll be abortion on demand next.

If you're voting no then you're killing mothers by not allowing them the right to life in cases of FFA

Both poisonous extremes. Sid you seem to be completely oblivious that you do exactly what you accuse the NO side of. Yer both at it, it would put me off voting altogether

It's not enough to just state blandly that "both sides" are equally odious, when the evidence so clearly suggests otherwise.

Facts not feelings please.

sid waddell

#316
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a strong tendency to of throw in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. I've no problem with antagonistic comments, we're big boys and girls here, but by threatening other people, you only make a fool of yourself. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.








AZOffaly

Are you referring to all No voters here sid? Because if you are, then you are referring to me,and I would take exception to that. I also wouldn't count myself as ultra conservative. I'd be slightly left of centre on social issues. I think the No voters would be across a fair portion of the spectrum. I also think a Venn Diagram of voters would show a fairly significant intersection of No Voters appearing in the 'Voted Yes on Marriage Equality' section.

trueblue1234

Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a history of throwing in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.

You keep saying this but this thread has shown debate, people have explained why they have issues / concerns over the ruling. Your inability to accept that makes it hard to move forward. You might not agree with some of the debate that the No camp have put forward, which is fair enough. But you constantly give out that they are whingers and then you go on to belittle them. People in the no camp aren't doing it to be contrary and their basis, rightly or wrongly is with regards to life. If their view on when life begins differs from yours, that's fine. That's the reason they hold a different viewpoint, it's not out of any vindictive plan to restrict the rights of women across the country for no reason. I felt initially that I would vote no, but have swayed to yes. But I understand where a lot of the issues that No supporters struggle with. You can debate and still feel empathy with the other side.

With regards to the comment from Syf, I found it in bad taste (Although I'll admit I had picked it up as an early abortive nature rather than preventative when first reading it so apologies to Syf on that). So I'll hold my hands up on that.




Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 11, 2018, 11:09:21 AM
Are you referring to all No voters here sid? Because if you are, then you are referring to me,and I would take exception to that. I also wouldn't count myself as ultra conservative. I'd be slightly left of centre on social issues. I think the No voters would be across a fair portion of the spectrum. I also think a Venn Diagram of voters would show a fairly significant intersection of No Voters appearing in the 'Voted Yes on Marriage Equality' section.
I didn't refer to all No voters. I refer to most No voters.

I think you'll find a way more significant crossover between No voters in the marriage referendum and No voters in this referendum.

I'd say pretty much 100% of those who voted No in 2015 and who can still vote, will be voting No this time.

At most there is around 10% of the voters in 2015 who may vote No this time and current polls show it will be significantly less than that.


Mayo4Sam

Ok, so here is a selection of tweets with #repealthe8th


At a repeal panel talk recently one of the speakers said the No campaign were already making post-referendum plans for further reducing women's rights in Ireland if they win. She said they will be pushing for women to be jailed for the 14 years. THAT'S what's at stake here.


Look at them. Not one will get pregnant as a result of rape. Not one of them will have their cancer treatment stopped because they are pregnant. Not one of them will have a crisis pregnancy. Not an ounce of compassion among any them. " Support women" my arse. #Repeal8th

#voteno nazi bus is in Carlow with its brit yellow reg, the amount of lads trying to tell me to vote against my sisters, mothers, daughters and friends, f**k off. #VoteYes #repeal8th #menforyes

When women/men on RTÉ say they haven't decided yet b/c they haven't heard enough - here! - dailymail.co.uk/debate/article...  see also comments 7 re 1940s and 10 re 1960s. My question: Does Éire want 2b the latest Nazi regime? #8thAmendment #Repeal8th  #Abortion #IrishDoctors #protectlife

One thing I've learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She cannot understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to my house and tell me what is best for my child? Because that is what your No vote means, in practice. /1

The last one is particularly annoying, so we should legislate for disabled people who get raped, FFS, that is not how things work!


For balance the other side is just as bad

Yes, cry. Cry for all the babies that will be killed as a result if our Constitution is changed. Yes, cry for all the babies already killed in Ireland, in the first 2 weeks of life, and in our hospitals after the 2013 Act .#repealthe8th,#savethe8th,#ProLife

You are right. The deliberate killing of unborn babies is an atrocity. Every baby killed in their mothers womb is a sacrifice to Satan.#repealthe8th, #savethe8th, #prolife

Uhm ... I am trying to remember the last time a European republic chose to un-person a category of human being that previously were recognised as holders of right to life? Oh well of to google histories ... or may be a trip? Wannsee?

Are we really going to place unborn babies in a subhuman class and strip them of all constitutional rights?
The objective being to allow them to be lawfully killed with no restriction as to reason.
Progressive?

Much easier for a tyranny to destroy children in some quick fix kill than invest in measures to support them; the latter of which can be politically risky. So it's a way of pressurising poor people to kill their children. In sum, abortion is a hyper-austerity measure. #savethe8th
Excuse me for talking while you're trying to interrupt me

sid waddell

Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 11:18:42 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:33:49 AM
Am I missing something here?

Iceman made a made a personal threat against gallsman to "humble him" if he ever met him in person.

Syferus then says "I'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill".

A woman doesn't "finish an embryo" with the morning after pill, that's the whole point. Some posters really aren't the sharpest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that comment.

Most No supporters have very little effort to engage on substantive points here, with some preferring to engage in constant victim playing while dishing out personal abuse themselves.

But apparently it's the No supporters who are being "bullied".

Victim playing on the internet is pretty much always the tool of thse who are losing the argument. It's a classic alt-right technique.

And it's soooo boring.

Classic case of some lads being able to give it but not take it.
If you don't believe Syf was making a deliberately antagonizing post to Iceman in his post then we can leave it there. We won't agree on it. It's his MO in most posts. And your generalisation of the No camp on here is also BS. There's been numerous posts by posters on why they feel they should vote no, and others who have explained that they might vote yes but have issues with some of it. Your attempt to whitewash all No voters as victim playing whinges is disingenuous. Just because you might not agree with their viewpoint doesn't make it it any less of an opinion than your own.
Like a lot ultra-conservative reactionaries on this forum, Iceman has a history of throwing in not only deliberately antagonistic comments, but bilious threats, which are actually unintentionally hilarious, and he certainly did here. And like other conservative reactionaries he tends to not debate and not answer valid questions. For example, I posed some very reasonable questions to him about his views, which he has made no attempt to answer.

The reality is that most No posters are strangely reticent to actually debate, and do prefer to play the victim. And that's what the wider No camp does.

The same tired, cliched, reality-denying technqiues, over and over and over and over again. Gaslighting, I believe it's called.

These are the techniques of people whose views are based on dogma, not facts.

You still haven't told me what was wrong with Syferus's comment.

It was delightfully withering, actually - which, to be absolutely fair, is all Iceman deserves.

You keep saying this but this thread has shown debate, people have explained why they have issues / concerns over the ruling. Your inability to accept that makes it hard to move forward. You might not agree with some of the debate that the No camp have put forward, which is fair enough. But you constantly give out that they are whingers and then you go on to belittle them. People in the no camp aren't doing it to be contrary and their basis, rightly or wrongly is with regards to life. If their view on when life begins differs from yours, that's fine. That's the reason they hold a different viewpoint, it's not out of any vindictive plan to restrict the rights of women across the country for no reason. I felt initially that I would vote no, but have swayed to yes. But I understand where a lot of the issues that No supporters struggle with. You can debate and still feel empathy with the other side.

With regards to the comment from Syf, I found it in bad taste (Although I'll admit I had picked it up as an early abortive nature rather than preventative when first reading it so apologies to Syf on that). So I'll hold my hands up on that.
The No side were the ones who started whinging here - let's get that straight. And that's the case in the wider campaign.

Ultimately their objections come down to a particular moral belief that a one hour old zygote deserves the same rights as a born woman.

That's pretty much it.

There are a whole host of serious issues with the 8th Amendment. I haven't seen one addressed properly, either here or in the wider campaign.

I have seen no positive case from the No campaign for keeping the 8th Amendment, only scaremongering and fear against the Yes side.

If the 8th Amendment didn't exist, what would be the positive case for introducing it?

Same as with the ban on contraception, the ban on divorce, the criminalisation of homosexuality, the failure to legislate for abortion where there was a threat to life.

If there were referendums now on banning contraception, divorce, homosexuality, same sex marriage or on overturning the X Case, ie abolishing the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, what do you think the results of any of these would be?

The same people who wanted to ban all those things are for banning abortion. Figures.

trueblue1234

The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:21:54 PM
I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.


This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints. 
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

sid waddell

Quote from: Mayo4Sam on May 11, 2018, 11:56:40 AM
Ok, so here is a selection of tweets with #repealthe8th


At a repeal panel talk recently one of the speakers said the No campaign were already making post-referendum plans for further reducing women's rights in Ireland if they win. She said they will be pushing for women to be jailed for the 14 years. THAT'S what's at stake here.

14 years is the penalty on the books for abortion. That's a fact. If you want to keep abortion banned, it's illogical and hypocritcal not to want to imprison women who have abortions.


Look at them. Not one will get pregnant as a result of rape. Not one of them will have their cancer treatment stopped because they are pregnant. Not one of them will have a crisis pregnancy. Not an ounce of compassion among any them. " Support women" my arse. #Repeal8th

A perfectly legitimate view, and one I hold. For one to consider the real issues at play here and to still think the 8th Amendment is a good thing, I think ultimately, yes you have to leave compassion and empathy at the door.

#voteno nazi bus is in Carlow with its brit yellow reg, the amount of lads trying to tell me to vote against my sisters, mothers, daughters and friends, f**k off. #VoteYes #repeal8th #menforyes

When women/men on RTÉ say they haven't decided yet b/c they haven't heard enough - here! - dailymail.co.uk/debate/article...  see also comments 7 re 1940s and 10 re 1960s. My question: Does Éire want 2b the latest Nazi regime? #8thAmendment #Repeal8th  #Abortion #IrishDoctors #protectlife

I've seen the Nazi slurs thrown around a lot more on the No side than on the Yes side - feminists are frequently referred to as Nazis (plenty of times on this forum by the way) and No supporters frequently call the Yes side "Nazis". Calling others "Nazis" and "fascists" (and, simultaneously and rather ironically, "communists") is a very big thing particularly with the conservative religious right in America, and it has spread to Ireland. I don't agree with calling anybody a Nazi, but there certainly a lot more similarities between that sort of ideology and the No side - given that the 8th Amendment is very similar to actual Nazi policy, as well as the perpetual imagined victimhood, the misgogynism, the attempts to impose your views on others through the constituion and law, the bullying tactics, the links to all sorts of right-wing groups with abhorrent agendas for society in general.



One thing I've learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

There is a very strong crossover. Not all No supporters are racist or homophobic, but pretty much 100% of racists and homophobes in this country are supporting No. When it comes down to the issues, the inescapable conclusion I come to is that to vote No, you have to be on some level a misogynist or at leastprepared to support misogynism. Most no voters would clearly feel otherwise, but ultimately, they are supporting a misogynistic constitutional provision with deeply misogynistic outomes.

I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She cannot understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to my house and tell me what is best for my child? Because that is what your No vote means, in practice. /1

It is.

The last one is particularly annoying, so we should legislate for disabled people who get raped, FFS, that is not how things work!

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that the the law in this country should make no provision whatsoever for such cases. That is cowardice and wilful abdication of responsibility and the very essence of why the 8th Amendment doesn't work.

You are saying in other words that a disabled woman who is raped and made pregnant as a result, should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. And you wonder why Yes voters think that No voters lack compassion and empathy....



sid waddell

#324
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 12:21:38 PM
The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:21:54 PM
I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.


This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.
You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.









Mayo4Sam

I've seen the Nazi slurs thrown around a lot more on the No side than on the Yes side - feminists are frequently referred to as Nazis

My point was that both sides are horrible, your response is basically "well they started it"

I'm sorry? You are suggesting that the the law in this country should make no provision whatsoever for such cases. That is cowardice and wilful abdication of responsibility and the very essence of why the 8th Amendment doesn't work.

You are saying in other words that a disabled woman who is raped and made pregnant as a result, should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. And you wonder why Yes voters think that No voters lack compassion and empathy....


So I work in an industry where we write risk assessments for everything. You can never write everything that could possibly happen, you just can't

Likewise with laws, you can never legislate for everything, the amount of disabled women who get raped will be less that 0.0001%.
We do make provision for rape and we do make provision for abortion.


One thing I've learned this month: the Venn diagram of anti-choice, racist, homophobic and misogynistic people: ⭕️ #RepealThe8th #together4yes #TogetherForYes #Repeal8th

There is a very strong crossover.


It is outrageous that anyone would think there is a strong crossover, my mam is voting No, she is literally none of the above. This is exactly the counter balance for the No side calling people baby murders

Excuse me for talking while you're trying to interrupt me

The Boy Wonder

It will be interesting to see how voting patterns will pan out across the country and whether there will be any noticeable Dublin/country divides or indeed social class divides.

There are some who believe that socio-economic factors might be a factor in some womens' choosing to have abortions in the first 12 weeks as exemplified by the following extract from a letter to yesterday's Indo from a medical professional :

"In my experience, terminations in the first trimester (12 weeks) are undertaken for social reasons – loss of education possibilities, shame on the family name, or potential employment opportunities – and these women come from the more leafy areas of our cities.
In the poorer areas, women tend to use termination as a last option but then they may not have the chances that their wealthier sisters have.
First-trimester terminations are not a healthcare issue but are, in my opinion, a social decision".


I'm sure that this letter writer's opinion will be deemed very non-politically correct at best but I do believe there is more than a grain of truth in what he says.

Question to Sid – why do you have to shoot down every contribution that is contrary to your own beliefs ?  You continually demonstrate an intolerance to those who have chosen to vote NO. Your bombarding this thread with multiple posts is akin to continual interruptions and shouting down the oppositions in a real debate scenario – you would be shown the door very quickly in such a situation.

trueblue1234

Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 12:21:38 PM
The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:21:54 PM
I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.


This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.
You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.


Whinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way. You have very much done that about the no side in this thread.

We were chatting about on this thread. No one on the thread had posted any disinformation. A debate hadn't even broken out, but instead of starting the debate you went after the other side rather than debating your own beliefs. Not all the information coming from the no side is disinformation yet you have consistently generalised against the no side in most of your posts.
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

sid waddell

Quote from: The Boy Wonder on May 11, 2018, 01:07:47 PM


Question to Sid – why do you have to shoot down every contribution that is contrary to your own beliefs ?  You continually demonstrate an intolerance to those who have chosen to vote NO. Your bombarding this thread with multiple posts is akin to continual interruptions and shouting down the oppositions in a real debate scenario – you would be shown the door very quickly in such a situation.
This is a discussion forum.

Points are there to be debated.

If I see a point that I don't agree with, why shouldn't I engage with it and question it?

Your post here is the very definition of the "whinging" from the No side that I'm talking about.  You appear to believe you should not be questioned. You deliberately and mendaciously brand debate as "bullying" to portray yourself as a victim.

That's not an attempt to debate - it's an attempt to shut down debate.

Belief systems are there to be questioned. You can have any belief system you want - but if you can't defend it, you shouldn't then expect others to take it seriously.




sid waddell

Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 11, 2018, 12:50:02 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 11, 2018, 12:21:38 PM
The whinging on here started with you on the first page of the thread.

Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 04:21:54 PM
I think there is a clear majority in favour of repealing the 8th Amendment among all the public, but I expect the actual poll to be very close, perhaps as close as the divorce referendum in 1995.

The No side polled 37.93% in the 2015 same sex marriage referendum. It's hard to imagine anybody who voted No in that referendum voting Yes to repealing the 8th Amendment.

So, notwithstanding the small turnover in the electorate in that three year gap, the No side are effectively starting with almost 38%.

But there will be people who voted Yes in the 2015 referendum voting No this time.

Then, the Yes side have the age old problem of getting young people to actually come out and vote. That won't be a problem for the No side.

The potential for fake news and lies pushed by the No side to become the dominant narrative over the next three and a half weeks is very real. That's the only way they can win. Gavin Sheridan was on Twitter and on radio over the last couple of days detailing how the No side are putting up fake "unbiased" Facebook pages in order to gather data on undecided voters and microtarget.

The No campaign, like Brexit and Trump, are relying on underhand Cambridge Analytica-style methods to sway voters.


This was before any debate on here with regards to the whys and wherefores of why people had their positions. Your first post was to have a whinge at the no side before anyone on here really got into a debate on the subject. So spare me the "it's all coming from the no side" BS.
You are right the difference is down to that one point on when life begins. I would certainly struggle to accept aborting a 11 week old fetus, but understand that there can be circumstances where the alternative is equally harrowing. So it's hard to draw a line in the sand and say this is the point after which there is life and therefore should be protected. And that's been debated in this thread multiple times. And it's an interesting debate when you open yourself up to considering other peoples viewpoints.
You clearly don't understand what "whinging" is.

The fact is that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation and from the official No campaign and its constituent entities and it was obvious there was going to be before it started given that the No campaign had engaged Aggregate IQ. The No campaign was and is engaging in deceitful methods to gather details about undecided voters through fake "unbiased" Facebook pages.

There is no such parallel campaign on the Yes side.

So called "pro-life" groups, and particularly the American-based ones, have a long track record of propaganda and disinformation - far right groups in general have a long and storied history of such, and never more so than now.

One's attitude to the methods of the Brexit and Trump campaigns says a lot about one's attitude to democracy and whether one takes it seriously or not. This holds firm for this referendum campaign, as the same tactics being used by Brexit and Trump are again in use by the NO campaign. I mean, have you opened your eyes at all over the last few weeks?

Objecting to lies and disinformation is not whinging. It's correctly demanding that the campaign be fought on the issues. Democracy is not a joke.

Your rationale here appears to be that political campaigns should be allowed to get away with disinformation and dishonest trickery. But if anybody objects, they're "whingers" apparently. That is reasoning straight out of the school playground.


You have very much done that about the no side in this thread.

We were chatting about on this thread. No one on the thread had posted any disinformation. A debate hadn't even broken out, but instead of starting the debate you went after the other side rather than debating your own beliefs. Not all the information coming from the no side is disinformation yet you have consistently generalised against the no side in most of your posts.
Are you denying that there is a concerted campaign of disinformation coming from the No campaign?

Do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

Do you think it's correct to object to such a campaign?

If Donald Trump chants "lock her up", or says about a debate moderator "there was blood coming out of her eyes, there was blood coming out of wherever", is it whinging to object to such?

If the No campaign says that a nine week old foetus can yawn, which is a lie, is that disinformation? Is it correct to object to such?

Or is it "whinging"?

QuoteWhinging - complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.
I've seen a hell of a lot of that from No-supporting posters over the last couple of days.