Why you there, you seem like a fair and balanced chap. Please allow me to try to convince you to vote for my preferred referendum choice.
d4n
People keep saying that when they see grafitti… Why exactly is it anti-democratic?
Lorcan Nagle
d4n – the arguement being that if you’re removing or defacing the other side’s posters, you’re refusing them the right to get their arguement out there in the same manner you are with your posters.
I’m not sure to what level I agree with the sentiment.
d4n
I don’t agree with it at all, at least not as it’s happened in this referendum, this is just people showing their annoyance, it’s not a campaign to silence anyone.
To be clear tho, I was only asking newsjustin because he keeps posting soundbytes supporting the no side while claiming to be a yes voter, so far all his objections that I’ve seen are complete nonsense, and I’d like to see him actually defend some of the things he says, or even show some understanding.
Cheers for the explanation tho’. (not sarcasm)
newsjustin
d4n – you don’t want my answer, I know. But…..
I think this kind of thing is undemocratic because it’s vandalising (in a permanent or semi-permanent way) someone else’s property to take away their voice (albeit just in that particular place) and insert yours.
Lorcan has a point though (and you) – it’s not like it silences a particular point of view….not in any grand way…unless it was planned and managed and done in large numbers.
d4n
newsjustin, if I didn’t want your answer I wouldn’t have asked.
So basically you think it’s undemocratic because it takes people’s voice away, even tho it clearly doesn’t. So you really are just concern trolling.
Lush
No more anti-democratic than tearing down the No posters.
Though two wrongs do not a right make.
newsjustin
True
d4n
You ever get around to actually answering questions?
Don Pidgeoni
That’s not how news trolls. Read any thread he’s on
d4n
@Don Pidgeoni Yeah I know, it’s worth pointing it out tho, and since when he does answer he does so with a load of irrelevant questions then vanishes I thought I’d follow up elsewhere.
Don Pidgeoni
I’ve been trying for weeks. He always convienently disappears when his logic comes up flawed even though he is here for the “debate”
newsjustin
Don, remember the question I posed last night?
Tell us all what is the title of Article 41? The one we’re proposing the change. You know, the question you wouldn’t answer. (I believe someone else may have done it for you).
Don Pidgeoni
Ah here now news. I have previously answered on multiple occasions as have multiple other posters. You on the other hand owe about 5090 answers.
newsjustin
No you haven’t. You’ve never told us what the title of Article 41 is. The one we’re hoping to change. Could you tell us now?
Don Pidgeoni
I’m not getting into anything with you. It’s not worth my energy to be honest.
newsjustin
It’s just 2 words Don
Don Pidgeoni
P*** off?
newsjustin
Yeah, I though not.
Just tell us what the name of Article 41 is?
Or tell me what are some of the questions I’ve not answered for you?
Don Pidgeoni
There’s no “us” buddy, it’s just you… Smell you later!
newsjustin
Ladies and Gentlemen – I give you Don: Talks a great game until cornered to answer a single, factual question that she’s worried will reflect badly on her side of the argument.
Joe the Lion
What’s that you were saying about bullies Justin?
You’re a feeble-minded individual playing the big lad bullying lasses round midnight on t’internet. You have no argument in this moot point as the referendum as everyone as pointed out is not providing a redefinition of the family in the context of marriage, but a new definition reflecting modern ordinary meaning of the term.
Don Pidgeoni
It’s not even doing that Joe, the definition of family won’t change as it’s not defined. Marriage isn’t defined either so nothing is changing in the constitution. News is lying. Again. Just like the whole no side are. I mean, they can’t even come up with an actual factual reason! Lol. Mort. O. These dweebs are just fixated by this idea of change where there is none because they are scared and tragic.
Plus, I’d like to see him yet to bully me
newsjustin
Jesus Joe! Bring gender into it why don’t you. People are free to accuse me of not answering questions and can get away scot free without answering questions I pose.
Tragic.
Can anyone admit that Article 41 is called “the Family”? No?
I don’t quite agree Don but I would have to consult with LCD etc. I imagine that even if it’s not in Bunreacht explicitly, the defining characteristics of marriage in the heterosexual case has been set out in case law precedents.
@ Justin – thank dog the people are going to vote next week to define the characteristics of marriage in a broader sense than merely heterosexual. Your entire presence on this site is a byword for the creepy, seditious, heteronormative peasant pig-in-the-parlour mentality that has bedevilled aspects of life here since Cromwell. A weird unbenign sort of useless idiot who collides with reason on a daily basis and always comes out second best. The type who would sell his own granny to Queen Elizabeth/ Ronnie Reagan/ Obama/ Merkel if they will leave you and your ilk free rein to enslave your own people like the prisoner of the intellect you yourself are.
newsjustin
“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence”
Joe – you may be happy to accept unquestioningly that the proposed constitutional change will bring nothing but sweetness and light. I’d like to interrogate it a little further. Forgive me.
When you have people like Don saying (at 11.05): “Nothing is changing in the constitution,” one realty has to pause and consider who’s fooling themselves about a referendum to change the constitution.
Lorcan Nagle
The strength of Don’s argument or lack thereof doesn’t change one thing though. Your insistence that the name of the article to be amended is totally unimportant. If article 41 as called “caterpillars” and it contained the same text .
The text to be amended simply says that marraige will be defined as a union of two adults regardless of gender. That’s all. No amount of goalpost shifting, obfuscation and misdirection will change that/
Don Pidgeoni
Maybe Joe but that is not what news is claiming. He is obsessed by the constitution but I don’t think he has even read it. My points stand as far as the wording of the constitution exists today.
newsjustin
And yet your afraid to mention the name of Article 41. The Article that dare not speak it’s name.
newsjustin
“We’re not changing anything!”
Yet we’re adding 17 words to the constitution.
“It has nothing to do with The Family!”
Yet it’s in the Article called “The Family” (It’s ok Don, you can say it)
No wonder the Yes side is nose-diving in the polls. Down by 13 points according to one poll this morning.
I was laughed at when I said that the Yes side were haemorrhaging support this week. Looks like I was right. You only have yourselves to blame, against a feeble No side.
Lorcan Nagle
So Justin, do you have any reasoning as to why the title of Article 41 is in any way relevant, or somehow more important than the actual text to be amended?
Don Pidgeoni
Read it again and have a little think
Lilly
@ Joe the Lion LOL! Great put down :)
Joe the Lion
Grma Lilly ;)
newsjustin
It’s not more important. It’s just relevant.
Ivan Yates got it so right in his Indo piece yesterday.
Lorcan Nagle
How is it relevant?
Joe the Lion
He doesn’t like it up ‘im!
Answer Lorcan’s question trolly mctroll
newsjustin
Because the proposed amendment is to the Article on the family. But you know this. That’s why you won’t even admit the title of the Article.
newsjustin
Polling day can’t come soon enough for you guys, huh? Losing numbers EVERY day at this stage.
Lorcan Nagle
That doesn’t explain why the title of the article is relevant. Does Article 41 being valled “the family” give the proposed amendment some more power that’s somehow hidden?
Would the amendment be more or less powerful if Article 41 was titled “The Larch.”?
Joe the Lion
Ivan Yates the washed up former boy band political star? Sure – why didn’t you post a link from the Adrian Kennedy phone show like that genius on here yesterday? It’s about your level of debate
newsjustin so just to be clear, the reason you don’t answer questions is because Don Pidgeoni won’t repeat the name of article 41 the family, even though everyone knows that’s what it’s called, other people have answered you, and it’s not even relevant to the referendum.
Good to know.
Don Pidgeoni
I hope I’m not be bullying him by not answering his irrelevant question. They do like to throw this accusation around
d4n
Oh come off it Don, you know full well that your existence is bullying. And as for your war on Christmas…
Don Pidgeoni
On my wedding night I stole a babby right from its mother’s arms just like the geys will. I’m a monster!!
d4n
Nah that’s fine, you’re married, so you’re practically obliged to kidnap babies.
You are Catholic right??
Joe the Lion
She’s actually the Pope here trolling the lay folks
Don Pidgeoni
I bought five today from a nun down the road.
I am so catholic the pope calls me up for advice. We are playing the long game with the old Catholics here just basically waiting for them to die so we can get shit done
newsjustin
And the religious bigotry arrives just on time. What classy people.
d4n
‘And the religious bigotry arrives just on time. What classy people.’ Yes, after much time waiting for you to answer questions, we’re now poking fun at people who claim to be incredibly worried about children, but also invented the concept of the ‘illegitimate’ child, sold children, and hid. enabled, and, defended massive numbers of child molesters.
It’s purely bigotry, and nothing to do with pointing out hypocrisy.
It is kinda predictable tho, so as soon as you come up with some kind of answers for our questions we’ll stop. I will anyway. Maybe.
Don Pidgeoni
I learnt everything from you
newsjustin
I’ll happily answer any question once Don answers mine.
Otherwise I’ll be back here on the 23rd. If the referendum has passed, great. If, as seems more and more likely by the day, it doesn’t, I’ll be ever so keen to hear your feedback on what a stellar campaign the Yes side has run.
Don Pidgeoni
Fly free precious little flower!!!!
Nigel
Your genuine and heartfelt concern is touching, but I don’t think defacing posters is officially part of either campaign.
Bazzamatta
Absolutely agree. I’m an equal opportunities poster defacer.
Well in fairness the yes side have been ripping down posters left and right. Nothing new here.
Can’t wait till this referendum is over, big spoiled children on both sides.
Grace
Any evidence of that Paul? As far as I am aware, the Yes side has a clear policy of telling supporters to not interfere with the stupid lying No posters at all -let’s not give the No side the chance to whinge and play the victim card any more than they already are.
So you know for a fact that Yes Equality people are taking them down? Interesting assumption. My money is on drunken students. Posters always get interfered with by people out on the piss in town, at every election and this ref is no different.
Look all I’m saying is the yes side are no angels as much as the no side.
tm
give it a rest.
Kieran NYC
Campaign posters for all votes should be banned anyway. Can anyone point to research proving they make a difference?
Eyesores.
Lilly
People on both sides of this are getting terribly hot under the collar. Why can’t we just respect everyone’s democratic right to vote as they see fit. I’m voting yes but I have a few friends and family members voting no. I don’t grab them by the throat and show them the error of their ways. Calm and tolerance needed all round.
Ppads
I understand why people are getting wound up about this. I get angry when I see those No posters because they are offensive and I can see why people would not want to be staring at them every morning. They are playing on base homophobic prejudices rather than the real issue of extending marriage rights to all.
Still, at least this sort of thing will stop the Nos from whinging about their posters being taken down. To say their campaign is disingenuous is an understatement. They are linking in issues which we all know have nothing to do with the referendum and the damage they doing to vulnerable young gay people is disgraceful.
Lilly
I agree but any reasonably intelligent people will see that and vote accordingly. Their posters are an own goal.
Lilly
* person
Ppads
I expect the mental health services are on high alert right now because young gay people really are taking a battering. It is probable that a few may even attempt to take their lives. That is the reality of this No campaign, people are getting hurt.
Terry
Both sides doing this – makes little difference, just makes both sides look petty. Looking forward to voting no and moving on. Best.
That’s a shame. Anti-democratic.
Why you there, you seem like a fair and balanced chap. Please allow me to try to convince you to vote for my preferred referendum choice.
People keep saying that when they see grafitti… Why exactly is it anti-democratic?
d4n – the arguement being that if you’re removing or defacing the other side’s posters, you’re refusing them the right to get their arguement out there in the same manner you are with your posters.
I’m not sure to what level I agree with the sentiment.
I don’t agree with it at all, at least not as it’s happened in this referendum, this is just people showing their annoyance, it’s not a campaign to silence anyone.
To be clear tho, I was only asking newsjustin because he keeps posting soundbytes supporting the no side while claiming to be a yes voter, so far all his objections that I’ve seen are complete nonsense, and I’d like to see him actually defend some of the things he says, or even show some understanding.
Cheers for the explanation tho’. (not sarcasm)
d4n – you don’t want my answer, I know. But…..
I think this kind of thing is undemocratic because it’s vandalising (in a permanent or semi-permanent way) someone else’s property to take away their voice (albeit just in that particular place) and insert yours.
Lorcan has a point though (and you) – it’s not like it silences a particular point of view….not in any grand way…unless it was planned and managed and done in large numbers.
newsjustin, if I didn’t want your answer I wouldn’t have asked.
So basically you think it’s undemocratic because it takes people’s voice away, even tho it clearly doesn’t. So you really are just concern trolling.
No more anti-democratic than tearing down the No posters.
Though two wrongs do not a right make.
True
You ever get around to actually answering questions?
That’s not how news trolls. Read any thread he’s on
@Don Pidgeoni Yeah I know, it’s worth pointing it out tho, and since when he does answer he does so with a load of irrelevant questions then vanishes I thought I’d follow up elsewhere.
I’ve been trying for weeks. He always convienently disappears when his logic comes up flawed even though he is here for the “debate”
Don, remember the question I posed last night?
Tell us all what is the title of Article 41? The one we’re proposing the change. You know, the question you wouldn’t answer. (I believe someone else may have done it for you).
Ah here now news. I have previously answered on multiple occasions as have multiple other posters. You on the other hand owe about 5090 answers.
No you haven’t. You’ve never told us what the title of Article 41 is. The one we’re hoping to change. Could you tell us now?
I’m not getting into anything with you. It’s not worth my energy to be honest.
It’s just 2 words Don
P*** off?
Yeah, I though not.
Just tell us what the name of Article 41 is?
Or tell me what are some of the questions I’ve not answered for you?
There’s no “us” buddy, it’s just you… Smell you later!
Ladies and Gentlemen – I give you Don: Talks a great game until cornered to answer a single, factual question that she’s worried will reflect badly on her side of the argument.
What’s that you were saying about bullies Justin?
You’re a feeble-minded individual playing the big lad bullying lasses round midnight on t’internet. You have no argument in this moot point as the referendum as everyone as pointed out is not providing a redefinition of the family in the context of marriage, but a new definition reflecting modern ordinary meaning of the term.
It’s not even doing that Joe, the definition of family won’t change as it’s not defined. Marriage isn’t defined either so nothing is changing in the constitution. News is lying. Again. Just like the whole no side are. I mean, they can’t even come up with an actual factual reason! Lol. Mort. O. These dweebs are just fixated by this idea of change where there is none because they are scared and tragic.
Plus, I’d like to see him yet to bully me
Jesus Joe! Bring gender into it why don’t you. People are free to accuse me of not answering questions and can get away scot free without answering questions I pose.
Tragic.
Can anyone admit that Article 41 is called “the Family”? No?
Here’s a recent picture of Joe:
http://www.masonicleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/White_Knight.jpg
I don’t quite agree Don but I would have to consult with LCD etc. I imagine that even if it’s not in Bunreacht explicitly, the defining characteristics of marriage in the heterosexual case has been set out in case law precedents.
@ Justin – thank dog the people are going to vote next week to define the characteristics of marriage in a broader sense than merely heterosexual. Your entire presence on this site is a byword for the creepy, seditious, heteronormative peasant pig-in-the-parlour mentality that has bedevilled aspects of life here since Cromwell. A weird unbenign sort of useless idiot who collides with reason on a daily basis and always comes out second best. The type who would sell his own granny to Queen Elizabeth/ Ronnie Reagan/ Obama/ Merkel if they will leave you and your ilk free rein to enslave your own people like the prisoner of the intellect you yourself are.
“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence”
Joe – you may be happy to accept unquestioningly that the proposed constitutional change will bring nothing but sweetness and light. I’d like to interrogate it a little further. Forgive me.
When you have people like Don saying (at 11.05): “Nothing is changing in the constitution,” one realty has to pause and consider who’s fooling themselves about a referendum to change the constitution.
The strength of Don’s argument or lack thereof doesn’t change one thing though. Your insistence that the name of the article to be amended is totally unimportant. If article 41 as called “caterpillars” and it contained the same text .
The text to be amended simply says that marraige will be defined as a union of two adults regardless of gender. That’s all. No amount of goalpost shifting, obfuscation and misdirection will change that/
Maybe Joe but that is not what news is claiming. He is obsessed by the constitution but I don’t think he has even read it. My points stand as far as the wording of the constitution exists today.
And yet your afraid to mention the name of Article 41. The Article that dare not speak it’s name.
“We’re not changing anything!”
Yet we’re adding 17 words to the constitution.
“It has nothing to do with The Family!”
Yet it’s in the Article called “The Family” (It’s ok Don, you can say it)
No wonder the Yes side is nose-diving in the polls. Down by 13 points according to one poll this morning.
I was laughed at when I said that the Yes side were haemorrhaging support this week. Looks like I was right. You only have yourselves to blame, against a feeble No side.
So Justin, do you have any reasoning as to why the title of Article 41 is in any way relevant, or somehow more important than the actual text to be amended?
Read it again and have a little think
@ Joe the Lion LOL! Great put down :)
Grma Lilly ;)
It’s not more important. It’s just relevant.
Ivan Yates got it so right in his Indo piece yesterday.
How is it relevant?
He doesn’t like it up ‘im!
Answer Lorcan’s question trolly mctroll
Because the proposed amendment is to the Article on the family. But you know this. That’s why you won’t even admit the title of the Article.
Polling day can’t come soon enough for you guys, huh? Losing numbers EVERY day at this stage.
That doesn’t explain why the title of the article is relevant. Does Article 41 being valled “the family” give the proposed amendment some more power that’s somehow hidden?
Would the amendment be more or less powerful if Article 41 was titled “The Larch.”?
Ivan Yates the washed up former boy band political star? Sure – why didn’t you post a link from the Adrian Kennedy phone show like that genius on here yesterday? It’s about your level of debate
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/raised-by-gay-parents-2102831-May2015/
newsjustin so just to be clear, the reason you don’t answer questions is because Don Pidgeoni won’t repeat the name of article 41 the family, even though everyone knows that’s what it’s called, other people have answered you, and it’s not even relevant to the referendum.
Good to know.
I hope I’m not be bullying him by not answering his irrelevant question. They do like to throw this accusation around
Oh come off it Don, you know full well that your existence is bullying. And as for your war on Christmas…
On my wedding night I stole a babby right from its mother’s arms just like the geys will. I’m a monster!!
Nah that’s fine, you’re married, so you’re practically obliged to kidnap babies.
You are Catholic right??
She’s actually the Pope here trolling the lay folks
I bought five today from a nun down the road.
I am so catholic the pope calls me up for advice. We are playing the long game with the old Catholics here just basically waiting for them to die so we can get shit done
And the religious bigotry arrives just on time. What classy people.
‘And the religious bigotry arrives just on time. What classy people.’ Yes, after much time waiting for you to answer questions, we’re now poking fun at people who claim to be incredibly worried about children, but also invented the concept of the ‘illegitimate’ child, sold children, and hid. enabled, and, defended massive numbers of child molesters.
It’s purely bigotry, and nothing to do with pointing out hypocrisy.
It is kinda predictable tho, so as soon as you come up with some kind of answers for our questions we’ll stop. I will anyway. Maybe.
I learnt everything from you
I’ll happily answer any question once Don answers mine.
Otherwise I’ll be back here on the 23rd. If the referendum has passed, great. If, as seems more and more likely by the day, it doesn’t, I’ll be ever so keen to hear your feedback on what a stellar campaign the Yes side has run.
Fly free precious little flower!!!!
Your genuine and heartfelt concern is touching, but I don’t think defacing posters is officially part of either campaign.
Absolutely agree. I’m an equal opportunities poster defacer.
call the gay detective, he always gets his man
How’s the fishin’ lads?
Both sides doing it.
Knobs everywhere!
and we have a biter.
My heart goes out to our friends and family who came out
To this.
Stay Strong
Keep the Faith
Why you there, you seem like a fair and balanced chap. Please allow me to try to convince you to vote for my preferred referendum choice.
touché
Got all journal.ie
I’ll go back outside, that’s going well.
jk
tractor has wifi
where Liam go?
Good question. Where have I gone, Broadsheet?!
maybe you were too disco?
life’s going nowhere, somebody help me…
Maybe I didn’t fit in to Broadsheet’s secret anti-Yes agenda. Yeah, we know what’s *really* going on on this site.
Secret?
Wait, you knew too?
knobs
Literally lol
Oh they wrote no on the sign, now I don’t know which way to vote.
Kind adds balance to the defaced Ibsen on inside the Abbey.
Booooom
Well in fairness the yes side have been ripping down posters left and right. Nothing new here.
Can’t wait till this referendum is over, big spoiled children on both sides.
Any evidence of that Paul? As far as I am aware, the Yes side has a clear policy of telling supporters to not interfere with the stupid lying No posters at all -let’s not give the No side the chance to whinge and play the victim card any more than they already are.
Yep plenty of photos circulating the net.
So you know for a fact that Yes Equality people are taking them down? Interesting assumption. My money is on drunken students. Posters always get interfered with by people out on the piss in town, at every election and this ref is no different.
What about these guys? https://m.facebook.com/adriankandjeremyd/photos/pb.454739867973243.-2207520000.1431797717./756353191145241/?type=1&source=54&refid=17
Look all I’m saying is the yes side are no angels as much as the no side.
give it a rest.
Campaign posters for all votes should be banned anyway. Can anyone point to research proving they make a difference?
Eyesores.
People on both sides of this are getting terribly hot under the collar. Why can’t we just respect everyone’s democratic right to vote as they see fit. I’m voting yes but I have a few friends and family members voting no. I don’t grab them by the throat and show them the error of their ways. Calm and tolerance needed all round.
I understand why people are getting wound up about this. I get angry when I see those No posters because they are offensive and I can see why people would not want to be staring at them every morning. They are playing on base homophobic prejudices rather than the real issue of extending marriage rights to all.
Still, at least this sort of thing will stop the Nos from whinging about their posters being taken down. To say their campaign is disingenuous is an understatement. They are linking in issues which we all know have nothing to do with the referendum and the damage they doing to vulnerable young gay people is disgraceful.
I agree but any reasonably intelligent people will see that and vote accordingly. Their posters are an own goal.
* person
I expect the mental health services are on high alert right now because young gay people really are taking a battering. It is probable that a few may even attempt to take their lives. That is the reality of this No campaign, people are getting hurt.
Both sides doing this – makes little difference, just makes both sides look petty. Looking forward to voting no and moving on. Best.
ONE, ONE! defaced Yes poster . . .