|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 21, 2009 7:57:59 GMT
You will find me condemning both sides if they start using murders to support their side. The issue in these discussiions should be whether abortion should be legalised and how... or not... the rightness or wrongness of such a thing is independent of how many people get knocked off by lunatics with too many guns.
If someone says to me, in an argument over abortion, that a pro-lifer shot an abortion doctor, all I have to say is that this is irrelevant to the discussion.
Both the people firing these guns, and the people using the murderers as a pawn in the debate, are both doing so because they have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation and rather than stay out of it until they do, they bypass conversation and just get opportunistic.
Keep the discussion on topic, and deal with these law breakers as the law suggests.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 28, 2009 15:27:33 GMT
Hazelireland apparently does not realise that one purpose of this board is to provide links to items of interest; it is not confined to direct debate. In this spirit, here is a link to the Irish lefty blog Cedar Lounge revolution giving their viewes and gossip on Coir/youth defence. Anyone got any comments on this? Note that I do not endorse the views expressed by the bloggers and posters, but merely provide them for informaTtion purposes.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 29, 2009 7:01:07 GMT
Again you appear to think this is your board and you have some say in how people should talk or what the board is "for". I am well within my rights to voice my opinions on the articles posted here.
Also is it not normal practise when saying "here is a link" to actually provide a link??
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 29, 2009 12:03:49 GMT
Again you appear to think this is your board and you have some say in how people should talk or what the board is "for". I am well within my rights to voice my opinions on the articles posted here. Also is it not normal practise when saying "here is a link" to actually provide a link?? Well, more or less, as you certainly know, and I repeat myself, this part of the Forum is normaly for catholics. You know, the discussions between us and you, is that we are in a never ending story. You white, I say black. You say cold, I say Hot. In matter of faith, we will never agree. At some stage it is nearly useless, for both of us, and upsetting. We reach confrontations, and we get angry, that's it, we do not progress at all. We are not in a forum on gardening, cars or movies. But in a forum on religion, a serious subject indeed, which, necessary, leads to passion and sometimes confrontations, even within the catholics. In the French forum i frequent often, the moderation is omnipresent. I think they have 7 or 8 moderators + the Webmaster. I suppose, it is the same in others well frequented forums, like fisheaters or angelqueen. I personally do not know "michael", and i do not give too much importance to whatever he writes. I do not know, but if we want to promote Tradition in Ireland, using this format, an internet forum, i repeat and repeat, we have to change things here, in order for some people concerned and interested in this particular subject to gives us attention. I am thinking about priests for example. I think it would be at least polite for Michael G to tell us what are his intentions regarding this forum. Because we cannot continue like this. G:
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 29, 2009 14:02:00 GMT
I am afraid you will have to edit the word "we". I have never been angry while writing on this forum or because of it. Mildly impatient with hibernicus' constant attempts to put words in my mouth on every thread I post on, but aside from that no.
In MGs defence however, this is his forum. If you are not happy with how he runs it then make your own forum, or join another?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 30, 2009 11:42:57 GMT
I am afraid you will have to edit the word "we". I have never been angry while writing on this forum or because of it. Mildly impatient with hibernicus' constant attempts to put words in my mouth on every thread I post on, but aside from that no. In MGs defence however, this is his forum. If you are not happy with how he runs it then make your own forum, or join another? "Welcome to the Irish Catholics' Board. This board is, as it says, for Irish Catholics. If you are neither Irish nor Catholic, you may post on the Open Forum. Whoever you are, you must register to post. Common standards of courtesy apply to all members. Please do not be abusive, obscene or aggressive. This rule will be enforced strictly. One offence, and you will get a warning; do it again and you're barred. Anti-Catholic postings outside the Open Forum will be deleted and the poster will be banned." Michael G.So, well, yes, regarding those rules that you and others are breaking, well, yes, you could be for the "defense" of the Moderator.... and the rules of "his" forum. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 30, 2009 12:26:24 GMT
Well mr Junior Member of this forum, this Senior mamber is both Irish and, according to the rules of the Catholic church, a catholic as I received baptism, communion and confirmation in my youth.. and even if I was not, the quote is "neither Irish nor Catholic" which, if you would allow me to give you an English lesson, means that I would have to be not Irish AND not Catholic. So I am afraid I qualify for posting here on at least 2 counts and your attempt to whack me with the rules therfore fails utterly, regardless of how many times you push the 'h' and the 'a' key on your keyboard to make yourself feel good in what was a very unbecoming and petty gesture.
May I also point out that you left this forum, by choice, on June 11th, and then returned without a word just over a month later, so you are hardly in a position to discuss it’s operation.
However as I said, the moderator runs this forum and not you, and I have recieved no such "warning" as you quoted above, therefore your attempt to admonish me on how to act here have been considered, noted, denied and dismissed, in that order. Thanks for your time.
Now if you have anything on the topic of the actual thread to write, instead of derailing the topic with personal attacks that could have been conducted in the private messaging system, I would be agog to hear them… I was at least on topic until you started lashing into me personally for no reason.
I think we would find it more constructive to stay on the topic of the thread and if you have a problem with me, discuss it with me, in the messaging system where I would be more than happy to reply to your messages. Maybe therefore you can scroll back to posts #45-47 and comment on their content?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 1, 2009 13:35:50 GMT
So, well, yes, regarding those rules that you and others are breaking, well, yes, you could be for the "defense" of the Moderator.... and the rules of "his" forum. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... ;D ;D ;D Guillaume, why are you so angry all the time? Just because many of us have different beliefs there no need to get angry. Even catholics have different views on many topics never mind atheists and people of other faiths. Let everyone express their views and make your own decision. Trying to prevent members of the forum from stating their opinions is a form of censorship. Of course atheists and Catholics have different views. What else would you expect?!?! ;D Instead of getting angry when someone expresses an opinion different to yours, simply disagree with them, say WHY you disagree with their opinion and move on....... Does that not sound reasonable? Try not to get so upset about what other peoples opinions are. It is not the reaction of a reasonable person.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 2, 2009 21:27:24 GMT
Apologies, here is the link cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/a-smack-on-the-head-is-just-what-you-get-coir-youth-defence-and-the-catholic-right/Once more: hazelireland says I behave as if this was my discusion board. It is more my board than it is his, because I try to work it for the purpose for which it was founded - as a resource for Catholics - and he tries to wreck it. I point out that he routinely ignores the moderator's rule that certain sections of the board should be reserved for Catholics. When he objects to my "putting words into his mouth" he is really objecting to my trying to examine his basic assumptions. My objection is not that he advocates atheism but that he wishes to conduct discussions on the basis of taking the truth of atheism (and a very blunt, positivistic version of atheism at that) for granted and refusing to allow it to be questioned. If the unexamined life is not worth living, then Hazelireland is worthless indeed. OIn the meantime we now have one more thread whcih has been hijacked from its original subject and turned into a procedural wrangle. We really need the moderator to intervene and sort this out - if he is listening.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 5, 2009 8:21:32 GMT
So now you not only invent words for me, but you are inventing what I "intend" too. Lovely.
No really, when I object to you putting words in my mouth, I literally mean putting words in my mouth. I can provide examples on request.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 5, 2009 20:27:16 GMT
This only seems to me to be the proper atheist thing to do with restraint and a bit of charity in a respectable manner. What does the above sentence mean Michael? Are you saying I am an Atheist or are you saying Atheists are charitable and respectable. I really am confused.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 12, 2009 12:06:53 GMT
I presume he is saying that the natural moral law applies to atheists as well; they ought to observe the rules of common decency and courtesy and cannot exempt themselves from them at their own sweet will.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 13, 2009 14:08:43 GMT
I presume he is saying that the natural moral law applies to atheists as well; they ought to observe the rules of common decency and courtesy and cannot exempt themselves from them at their own sweet will. I'm sure that goes for everyone on the forum. Still, I would like him to clarify what he means rather than us trying to interpret it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2009 10:49:52 GMT
The question of whether there is a natural moral law or not has been much debated; Ezigbotutu expects everyoneon the board to accept his view of the matter because he says so - like Guillaume's comment on the Lisbon Treaty, except that this involves a far wider issue. I would point out that those who believe in a natural moral law argue that it is inherent in the condition of eing human, whether this is seen as devised by a creator or simply a fact of life. In the present case, the point is that if participants in a discussion see fit to confine themselves to abuse and name-calling and refuse to acknowledge their opponent's good faith or respond in depth to the arguments put forward, any debate will soon turn into a bedlam - just as if someone jumps out of the eighth floor of a building and falls to the ground without interruption or artificial assistance, he is extremely unlikely to get up and walk away uninjured. There is no objection to interpreting other people's statements so long as you give reasons in support of your interpretation and are prepared to modify them if the person who makes the statement clarifies it. (By "clarifies it" I mean explains further what the original statement meant, not yells "i didn't say that! You're a liar!" without further explanation.) My original pos on this thread was intended to clarify the meaning of what Guillaume said, since some of the other speakers appear to have difficulty in understanding it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 14, 2009 12:02:59 GMT
However when you have something clarified to you and yet still REFUSE to acknowledge that while also you CONTINUE to tell people that your victim is saying X when they have clearly said and then shown they have said the exact polar opposite, then the term liar is both fair and deserved and will continue to be used until such time as you rectify your actions. I am more than happy to point you to such a situation if required.
You talk about a moral law with or without a creator. I would disagree on either side, whether the person was espousing the view with a creator at its basis or not. I have seen no evidence for a natural moral law of any kind, let alone of a creator laying one out.
What I have seen is certain mostly common truths (with minor exceptions to prove the rule) about the human condition which lead people to come to the same conclusions about what they would like a moral law to be. I can list such mostly common truths at length if asked. Some of them are so common to our species that they give an illusion of an “objective moral standard”.
|
|