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

trueblue1234

Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 10, 2018, 05:01:27 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 04:59:54 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'd say you'd finish him like a woman finishes an embryo with the morning after pill..

You really are an odious poster...

I'd be genuinely upset if someone with your mindset didn't think that.

Well you can sleep soundly tonight.
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

trileacman

You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

Syferus

#287
Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

It already has more than 50% support. You'd swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they way you're play-acting. Not surprised, though.

Hardy

Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
... I see no problem with a woman who was attacked getting a morning after pill or whatever it takes, quite the reverse I think the State must ensure that such people are treated.
However,  in my opinion, this is not the same thing as waiting 3 months and then deciding to have an abortion.

Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

Like most reasonable people, I respect the convictions of all who have considered the issues and come to a decision. I must say, though, that I have never understood this contention and cannot see how it doesn't destroy the argument of those whose opposition to abortion at any stage is based on the right to life from conception.

If a zygote or foetus has an unquestioned right to life (and I'm not, in this post, addressing that point one way or the other), how is that right so easily withdrawn based on its parentage and how can someone who believes this propose abortion in the case of rape?

macdanger2

Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

It already has more than 50% support. You'd swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you're paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided

Syferus

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

It already has more than 50% support. You'd swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you're paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided

Extrapolate that to the vote. All those supposedly undecided voters aren't going to uniformly vote No. I think like with most votes people like to pretend they're closer than they really are when a big lead exsists. Anything else just feels boring.

As long as the GOTV is good on the Yes side - and I have every reason to believe that it will be excellent - there will be little drama when the votes are tallied.

gallsman

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.

No, instead you just land into every debate with your insufferably misguided patronising attitude and play the holier than thou card when pulled on it.

"My mate was raped and had a beautiful, healthy baby as a result therefore nobody should be allowed abortion. Don't worry about the distress it'll inflict on any woman, my mate was grand so they can get through it too."

Odious, obnoxious bollocks.


armaghniac

Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
... I see no problem with a woman who was attacked getting a morning after pill or whatever it takes, quite the reverse I think the State must ensure that such people are treated.
However,  in my opinion, this is not the same thing as waiting 3 months and then deciding to have an abortion.

Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

Like most reasonable people, I respect the convictions of all who have considered the issues and come to a decision. I must say, though, that I have never understood this contention and cannot see how it doesn't destroy the argument of those whose opposition to abortion at any stage is based on the right to life from conception.

If a zygote or foetus has an unquestioned right to life (and I'm not, in this post, addressing that point one way or the other), how is that right so easily withdrawn based on its parentage and how can someone who believes this propose abortion in the case of rape?

It is a minimal intervention. If you do not accept the idea of minimal intervention than you can justify abortion to 9 months, or infanticide.
Stopping a pregnancy starting is a different order of magnitude from ending one. 
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 12:47:59 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 09:28:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:40:36 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:28:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 04:45:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 12:28:34 AM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?

I didn't dismiss the UN Bill of human rights merely pointing out your twisted interpretation of it for your own agenda, all the rights are not present at birth or for a good few years afterwards.

I have repeatedly said that the actual born woman takes precedence so please stop with that straw man.
Repeating a straw man does not make it rational or true.

Under the proposed legislation the unborn child will be afforded no legal protection.
This leads to abortion on request for children that have no health issues there needs to be some degree of legal protection for healthy unborn consensually conceived babies of which the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on.

The punishment should fit the crime and they differ for every circumstance. 14 years seems excessive but I am sure someone could point to a case where a child was naturally conceived where the abortion was carried out in a fit of rage to spite someone else, like a partner. Or because the child is a girl instead of a boy or something like that. In those cases 14years seems about right especially if its a repeat offence.
But 14 years seems excessive for the majority of the convenience abortions, I know a lot of woman are in crisis not thinking straight, bad influences etc etc. I believe women who abandon their babies aren't usually charged, or those suffering postpartum depression who hurt kill their babies are usually found not to be liable for their actions. Similar compassion should with abortion but of course it all depends on the circumstance.

I have answered yours questions so can you answer me this one which I have asked repeatedly...

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies (embyros/humans etc) have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right to life of the child?
I didn't twist the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in any way.

You talked about the supposed "right to life" as a human right. The way you framed that was clearly as an absolute right. I've already explained why that shouldn't be offered to the unborn and why when it is, as in Ireland's case, it proves to be a disaster.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't offer it to the unborn and neither do other European countries. That doesn't mean the unborn don't have rights under abortion laws. They clearly do, that is why time limits are imposed for elective abortion.

If you believe the woman carrying an unborn takes precedence, then you believe the 8th Amendment must go as the 8th Amendment denies this.

As I said prevously, abortion is happening in Ireland right now. Thousands of Irish women abort using pills which work up to 12 weeks.

If you believe 14 years is an appropriate punishment, what should be done about these women? How do you plan to catch them and punish them? How do you plan to lock them up, because there are a hell of a lot of them and there isn't space in our prisons for them.

Why are the No campaign furiously denying they want to see any women locked up?

If a woman murders a (born) baby, she will almost certainly go to jail. See the link to the Jennifer Crichton case earlier. I absolutely agree that a woman who murders a baby should go to jail unless there are serious mental health issues at play.

But the so called pro-life side claim that an unborn, from conception, is a human being. Yet they say they don't want women to go to jail if they have an abortion. This doesn't make sense. One either believes that abortion is a human being or they don't, and if they do, why the difference in prescribed punishment, or lack of it, for killing a born baby versus an unborn foetus?

If there is a threat to health at any stage in the pregnancy, I believe the woman's right should always supercede that of the foetus, yes, and it should never ever be subservient in any circumstances. In practice, under the 8th Amendment, it is.

I firmly believe women all should have the right to choose up to a specified time limit. I'm happy with 12 weeks as the limit as it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, ie. 0, but I would be happier with a higher limit, as I've said, previously, perhaps 16 weeks or 18 as Sweden have. Nevertheless, the fact is that the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks. After that, as the foetus develops sentience in the post 20 week period it becomes a matter of balancing rights as is best possible. I'm happy with the provisions for up to 6 months for threat to health etc. After that in the rare cases where the pregnancy needs to ended it will become a case of inducing labour if necessary with the primary aim to save the mother, but also with the aim of delivering a healthy baby. The proposed legislation is a quantum leap forward for Irish women.

The question of possible "exceptions" has been brought up here.

Now, let's say the 8th Amendment is abolished, and legislators are free to frame legislation. The problem with legislating only for, say, rape and incest, is that it would place at least some burden of proof on the mother to prove she had been raped. Under normal circumstances, and as we saw so clearly in Belfast recently, rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and it will never, ever be proved in the time frame of a resulting pregnancy.

So, how do you prove it? We know rape is a hugely underreported crime and in reality there are a huge number of rape victims out there who have never even reported it.

What burden of proof would be required? It would have to be reported for a start. Then a woman would presumably have to come before a panel a very short time after her rape and attempt to prove to some as of yet unknown burden of proof that she had been raped.

During and after Belfast many people talked about how it felt it was the complainant on trial, not the defendants. Legislating only for cases such as rape is a recipe for victims to be put on trial in order to obtain an abortion. I really don't think we want that.

I can get that people don't like abortion. Nobody "likes" abortion. Nobody is saying "go abortion!" But it is necessary for women's welfare for it to be available to all. The alternative is that a particular, narrow view of morality continues to be imposed on everybody. Whereas pro-choice campaigners are not attempting to impose their morality on anybody. Nobody would be forcing anybody to have an abortion.

The reality that No campaigners must face up to is, as I have already said, that abortion is already happening in Ireland. Anybody can buy abortion pills online. They work up to 12 weeks.

So we have thousands of women carrying out their own abortions (currently illegally, of course). Now these pills will generally be safe, but there is always the chance of something going wrong. Perhaps the mother has an underlying health condition which makes it unsafe for her to take an abortion pill.

What happens if something goes wrong? What if a woman has an adverse reaction to the pill and needs urgent medical help? She'll already have been in a vulnerable position given she is taking the pill to terminate her crisis pregnancy in the first place. What goes through her mind? If she goes to a public hospital, she'll have to tell the staff that she has had an abortion via a pill. And what if somebody on the staff is a strict Catholic and reports her? A 14 year prison sentence could hang over her.

So, should we leave women who encounter complications as a result of taking abortion pills to face a nightmarish dilemma between i) not seeking medical help, which could result in grave health implications, and ii) presenting at a hospital and possibly facing prison time?

Or do we face up to reality and legalise it, regulate it and make it safe for everybody?

Because, it is happening, a No vote won't mean it's not happening - it will be delusion, and it will be cowardice. We will just continue on as before, and the reality will be swept under the carpet.

1stly the UN declaration of human rights is not ground zero point for all human rights, its not like human rights began in 1948, they have been around for as long as civilsation has been around and will evolve with generations, human rights are in no way constrained by this declaration they can be built upon and Ireland did this by affording protection to the unborn.

The bit of being born free as I said is a well used phrase regarding civil liberties as it is in the case to intro designed to introduce  the main point of Article #1 which is that we should behave to each other in the spirit of brotherhood, could a new born child suddenly start behaving with conscience and brotherhood? Of course not! it develops over time.

Article 1 or any other Article is not a precondition to all the other rights, every one is entitled to each one regardless of whether they have access the one previous or not

And lastly and most significantly it is a declaration of Human Rights that means all humans should be able to experience these rights at the relevant point in their life, and as I have said an unborn child no matter the stage of development is a unique human so my interpretation is that any relevant rights should extend to them also in this case that would be the right to life.


I said that 14 years may be an appropriate punishment in some extreme cases...for most tho probably not but it depends on each individual circumstance, take another read I thought I made myself perfectly clear. BTW this is not a debate about law enforcement, it is debate about law.

I agree there are complications both moral and legal with rape incest etc etc and I would like there to be a solution for these women. I also agree there are situations when women's health should be put first but again it depends on the situation.

Abortion is happening in Ireland illegally everyone knows that, but that does not make it against the law, it does not make it right. All types of crimes happen in Ireland everyday, it does not mean that we should make them legal.

But in actually fact all these things are actually irrelevant to your reasoning on abortion as you just believe that a woman should be able to choose to terminate her pregnancy up to 18 weeks (is there any rational to that gestational point or just because you feel that way?) for no reason what so ever or just because she doesn't want the hassle of the child, to spite a partner, wrong gender whatever.

I got to wonder why you make such a point about Healthcare when at the end of the day the reason for your position is that you believe that a woman's right to choose overrides an unborn child's to life.

omaghjoe

Quote from: Hardy on May 10, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
... I see no problem with a woman who was attacked getting a morning after pill or whatever it takes, quite the reverse I think the State must ensure that such people are treated.
However,  in my opinion, this is not the same thing as waiting 3 months and then deciding to have an abortion.

Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

Like most reasonable people, I respect the convictions of all who have considered the issues and come to a decision. I must say, though, that I have never understood this contention and cannot see how it doesn't destroy the argument of those whose opposition to abortion at any stage is based on the right to life from conception.

If a zygote or foetus has an unquestioned right to life (and I'm not, in this post, addressing that point one way or the other), how is that right so easily withdrawn based on its parentage and how can someone who believes this propose abortion in the case of rape?

It's an excellent and difficult point that I really cannot come to a clear decision on, the life is innocent but the mother has just gone through an horrific ordeal and to carry out the pregnancy would be a constant reminder and an undue burden she should not have to bear.. how do you legislate for it as sid was pointing out the crime would have to be proved. Its difficult but I also think that using cases like this as a crutch to support on request abortion is insincere. One thing I am sure of is that I would not be in favour of serve (if any punishment) in these cases.

But to put it in context there is a similar dilemma for those on the prochoice side but believe there should be a cut off at 6/12/20/24.... weeks. Why should there be a cut off?..... the child needs the mother at any of these cutoff dates so why isn't it still the mother's choice after these dates?

macdanger2

Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 10:18:48 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2018, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: trileacman on May 10, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
You'd find few people who would say that a rape victim shouldn't have access to a morning after pill or abortion. Likewise I'd be in favour of termination for people who carry babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. If the prorposed legislation addressed those issues without allowing for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks then it would enjoy a lot more support.

It already has more than 50% support. You'd swear it was the No side that had a 15-25 point lead in every single poll they Way you're paltacting. Not surprised, though.

The last poll I saw was 45/34 for yes/no with the remainder undecided

Extrapolate that to the vote. All those supposedly undecided voters aren't going to uniformly vote No. I think like with most votes people like to pretend they're closer than they really are when a big lead exsists. Anything else just feels boring.

As long as the GOTV is good on the Yes side - and I have every reason to believe that it will be excellent - there will be little drama when the votes are tallied.

The Yes side have a decent lead but not more than 50% support as we stand. The gap has been decreasing so it will all come down to turnout and what way the undecided voters go. I think this will be a very tight result in the end

Rufus T Firefly

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.

Syferus

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.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.

Rufus T Firefly

Quote from: Syferus on May 10, 2018, 11:34:25 PM
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.

It's tough when people won't pretend to be nice to you when you hold a hard to defend position, isn't it?

Cry me a river kid, I've got three times the abuse thrown at me and you don't hear me complaining.

You accept therefore that you were deliberately misleading and provocative, and you do so because of the abuse you receive?

I despair. 

sid waddell

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.