• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

The Look of the Irish - Redifining the Irish person | Saffa Musleh | TEDxWexford

Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,406
Likes
573
Points
113
Location
Dublin
In contemporary terms it's being permissive in the face globalist lunatic sociology. A permissive attitude for parents to destroy their children is one example. Rendering marriage incoherent to flatter sexual minorities is another. Allowing mentally ill men to mutilate themselves because they "feel" like women whilst enlisting the population to indulge in this grotesque pretence so as to not to hurt feelings.... All that kinda thing.
Sounds more like the "progressive" left.

The abortion issue is complex. I don't agree with abortion on demand, but you won't see me on any pro-life marches any time soon.

On the marriage issue, I don't think the state should be involved in the first place. Marriage should be a matter for churchs and other private institutions. If there's deemed to be a need for state involvement, the state could provide a civil partnership contract that's dealt with separately from any religious ceremony.
But the status quo is what it is.

As for the trans issue, the state shouldn't be funding the procedures; let them fund it themselves or solicit voluntary donations.
When it comes to the toilet use/changing room matter, it should be solely at the discretion of private property owners; the state shouldn't coerce business owners.

The gay cake issue, ditto.
Hell if a business owner wanted to ban gingers, gays and blacks, I'd support their right to do so.

Am I a "social liberal"?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,939
Likes
7,262
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
Sounds more like the "progressive" left.

The abortion issue is complex. I don't agree with abortion on demand, but you won't see me on any pro-life marches any time soon.

On the marriage issue, I don't think the state should be involved in the first place. Marriage should be a matter for churchs and other private institutions. If there's deemed to be a need for state involvement, the state could provide a civil partnership contract that's dealt with separately from any religious ceremony.
But the status quo is what it is.

As for the trans issue, the state shouldn't be funding the procedures; let them fund it themselves or solicit voluntary donations.
When it comes to the toilet use/changing room matter, it should be solely at the discretion of private property owners; the state shouldn't coerce business owners.

The gay cake issue, ditto.
Hell if a business owner wanted to ban gingers, gays and blacks, I'd support their right to do so.

Am I a "social liberal"?
Yes, it is. A little right off mainstream but well within the boundaries of social liberalism.

I might agree to the libertarian solution on marriage myself but the globalist-left aren't interested in "debate" or "compromise"; they are waging a zero sum cultural war and we should give them no quarter.

With abortion, the style or the fashionability of a particular cause is a meaningless and a clown-metric for choosing not to partake in that issue. It's kind of easy virtue signaling without having the spine to declare a position on it. It is harrowing, hard and tough issue, of course. But the principles underpinning it are easy to discern. So, yeah, an indifferent attitude to prime social matters would be social liberal. The truth is what matters, "style" is tertiary and society that can't coherently agree to value or defend its children is on a slow burning suicide dance.

The toilet matter is that the state should mandate, enforce and police strict policies to defend the interests of children and when the interests of children are at hand, let duh rights of property owners go straight out of the blasted window. And let there not be one whit of an apology nor ambiguity on that.
 

maxflinn

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
4,476
Likes
5,176
Points
263

An enricher talking about "reshaping Irish identity" and the "new Irish. " This is population replacement. Pure and simple.
She seems like a good person and she made it her business to learn about Irish history and culture before becoming a citizen, so I say fair play to her, and I have no issue with similarly decent people coming here and making a life for themselves as Irish citizens, getting jobs, having families etc.

However, IMO she ought to forget about any crusade designed to warn people off from asking where others who do not look Irish are originally from. Asking such a question is perfectly natural and nobody should be bothered by it. It is PC bollocks to say otherwise and we've got far too much of that already.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,406
Likes
573
Points
113
Location
Dublin
Yes, it is. A little right off mainstream but well within the boundaries of social liberalism.

I might agree to the libertarian solution on marriage myself but the globalist-left aren't interested in "debate" or "compromise"; they are waging a zero sum cultural war and we should give them no quarter.

With abortion, the style or the fashionability of a particular cause is a meaningless and a clown-metric for choosing not to partake in that issue. It's kind of easy virtue signaling without having the spine to declare a position on it. It is harrowing, hard and tough issue, of course. But the principles underpinning it are easy to discern. So, yeah, an indifferent attitude to prime social matters would be social liberal. The truth is what matters, "style" is tertiary and society that can't coherently agree to value or defend its children is on a slow burning suicide dance.

The toilet matter is that the state should mandate, enforce and police strict policies to defend the interests of children and when the interests of children are at hand, let duh rights of property owners go straight out of the blasted window. And let there not be one whit of an apology nor ambiguity on that.
The lack of a strong stated opinion on the matter of abortion doesn't imply the lack of a spine. It also isn't indicative of a lack of reflection -- at least not in every instance. On the contrary, deep reflection on a moral issue often leads one to conclude that it isn't black and white in nature.

Simplistic "for" or "against" positions are often the product of lazy thinking. The Catholic position that life begins at conception and that the embryo should be as worthy of moral consideration as a fully formed human being is based on a truncated neo-aristotellianism that reduces ethics to a set of rigid axioms.
To demonstrate the idiocy of this position, how many "pro-lifers" do you think would be prepared to run into a burning building to save a fertilised embryo in a testube? Not very many I'd guess.

The extreme pro choice (abortion on demand) position is equally truncated. For example, most people would consider ending the life of a 1 day old to be infanticide. But the extreme pro-choice position would permit abortion up until just before birth. The average person's visceral reaction would make little distinction between the two.

Some people seem to think that ethical matters are like a set of syllogisms. But this ignores the complexity of human nature.
To paraphrase David Hume, you cannot derive an ought from an is.

As for the trans toilet issue, your whole "think of the children" justification for state meddling is paranoid horsesh1te.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,939
Likes
7,262
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
The lack of a strong stated opinion on the matter of abortion doesn't imply the lack of a spine. It also isn't indicative of a lack of reflection -- at least not in every instance. On the contrary, deep reflection on a moral issue often leads one to conclude that it isn't black and white in nature.

Simplistic "for" or "against" positions are often the product of lazy thinking. The Catholic position that life begins at conception and that the embryo should be as worthy of moral consideration as a fully formed human being is based on a truncated neo-aristotellianism that reduces ethics to a set of rigid axioms.
To demonstrate the idiocy of this position, how many "pro-lifers" do you think would be prepared to run into a burning building to save a fertilised embryo in a testube? Not very many I'd guess.

The extreme pro choice (abortion on demand) position is equally truncated. For example, most people would consider ending the life of a 1 day old to be infanticide. But the extreme pro-choice position would permit abortion up until just before birth. The average person's visceral reaction would make little distinction between the two.

Some people seem to think that ethical matters are like a set of syllogisms. But this ignores the complexity of human nature.
To paraphrase David Hume, you cannot derive an ought from an is.

As for the trans toilet issue, your whole "think of the children" justification for state meddling is paranoid horsesh1te.
Globalism promotes this there's "no right answer" garbage in order to undermines people's grounding in reality. So we have this landfill society with people who believe in nothing. Or other dizzy types who fill that vacuum with their property-god.

Not declaring a position on child murder and other critical issues doesn't just imply a lack of a spine, it is a lack of a spine. Much easier to yammer endlessly about duh Church in a breezy globalist-friendly effort to flee the issue, look trendy in the process and escape the opprobrium that follows on from declaring a position on transgressive matters that globalism has declared taboo.

Save both lives if there is a medical window to do so. That's the pro-life position justified on humanitarian grounds. Mind-numbing babble about duh Church is surplus to that. It's a tough metric in a mass consumer society, granted, but it's a reasonable one. Whether particular pro-lifers have a blind-spot here or a faultine there in their behaviour is one matter. But the pro-life argument remains consistent and correct. And it's the argument that counts.

I don't have any time for people who sideline the interests of children for their glorious property-god. A person is infinitely more important than any trinket. That should be obvious to functional people but with people who worship their property god -- you just never can tell I guess.
 

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
16,076
Likes
12,719
Points
313
Ireland will be OK
You said they were non-committal. So their supporters were left to their own devices.
Their Supporters were advised to vote Yes by FG but the FG Canvassers weren't deployed to bring in the Vote.

Now it's Sunday & I'm Socialising- go & do likewise (not all Women are out to get you) {actually the better looking they are, the less hassle they give} - well for me anyway...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,406
Likes
573
Points
113
Location
Dublin
Globalism promotes this there's "no right answer" garbage in order to undermines people's grounding in reality. So we have this landfill society with people who believe in nothing. Or other dizzy types who fill that vacuum with their property-god.
That sounds more like post modernism. Hume's guillotine doesn't imply that one moral interpretation is as good as another.

Not declaring a position on child murder and other critical issues doesn't just imply a lack of a spine, it is a lack of a spine. Much easier to yammer endlessly about duh Church in a breezy globalist-friendly effort to flee the issue, look trendy in the process and escape the opprobrium that follows on from declaring a position on transgressive matters that globalism has declared taboo.
There you go again with your loaded statements -- "child murder". Did you not read my previous post? Are you capable of interpreting mildly challenging arguments? Or, like that schizoid jizzstain, "Taighd", are you just another incoherent, p1ss and horsesh1te merchant?

Save both lives if there is a medical window to do so. That's the pro-life position justified on humanitarian grounds. Mind-numbing babble about duh Church is surplus to that. It's a tough metric in a mass consumer society, granted, but it's a reasonable one. Whether particular pro-lifers have a blind-spot here or a faultine there in their behaviour is one matter. But the pro-life argument remains consistent and correct. And it's the argument that counts.
I was referring specifically to the meta-ethical approach taken by the Catholic church. I take the Emotivist view, with it's origins in Humean empiricism, while the RCC take a Neo-Aristotellian, moral "realist" view.

I don't have any time for people who sideline the interests of children for their glorious property-god. A person is infinitely more important than any trinket. That should be obvious to functional people but with people who worship their property god -- you just never can tell I guess.
I don't have any time for demagogic phuckwits who use 'Da childer' to justify any and every encroachment into people's lives.
And what's this "property god" palaver? I'm guessing it's just a bit of sophistry cobbled together in an attempt to appeal to some folksy, anti-capitalist sentiment in order to conceal an advocacy of tyranny.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,406
Likes
573
Points
113
Location
Dublin
Well said. Anyone who supports child murder is a cowardly criminal.
I hope you're not accusing me as such.

I'll tell you one thing Tadhg, your online, DPRKesque bellicosity would be curiously absent if we were debating in person. Do you follow me? There's a good lad.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,939
Likes
7,262
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
That sounds more like post modernism. Hume's guillotine doesn't imply that one moral interpretation is as good as another.



There you go again with your loaded statements -- "child murder". Did you not read my previous post? Are you capable of interpreting mildly challenging arguments? Or, like that schizoid jizzstain, "Taighd", are you just another incoherent, p1ss and horsesh1te merchant?



I was referring specifically to the meta-ethical approach taken by the Catholic church. I take the Emotivist view, with it's origins in Humean empiricism, while the RCC take a Neo-Aristotellian, moral "realist" view.



I don't have any time for demagogic phuckwits who use 'Da childer' to justify any and every encroachment into people's lives.
And what's this "property god" palaver? I'm guessing it's just a bit of sophistry cobbled together in an attempt to appeal to some folksy, anti-capitalist sentiment in order to conceal an advocacy of tyranny.
I did read your previous. And you pointed out a fault in pro-life behaviour. i.e not being inclined to rescue the frozen embryo. That doesn't impact on the pro-life argument though which remains valid and independent of pro-life behaviour. People are imperfect and don't always live up to every dimension to the arguments they espouse. So you've landed a punch on pro-lifers. But not the pro-life argument.

And you do worship property. You are apparently OK with quacks running around on license lobbing off limbs of mentally distressed men who think they are women as long as the state doesn't pay for it!. You are also OK with mentally distressed men who think they are women being alone in toilets with young girls. All in the name of worshipping these property rights you think are literally sacrosanct. It's a profoundly disturbed worldview. As if configuring toilets appropriately is some undue tyranny, lol.

And these Anglosphere philosophers are lethal. You should stay away from them. Emotivism, lol.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,939
Likes
7,262
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
It's Liberalism that does this. It was doing that before Globalism became possible. Globalism is really just an imperialist effort to force Anglo-Jewish Liberalism on the rest of the world.
Liberalism emerged from capitalism. Liberalism is in its various variants is a critical misreading of man that animates capitalism.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,134
Likes
21,748
Points
313
Liberalism emerged from capitalism. Liberalism is in its various variants is a critical misreading of man that animates capitalism.

Capitalism certainly spread Liberalism around the world, but I don't think Capitalism is possible without Liberalism having gained some intellectual ground first. I think it was a Liberal strain in the Church that allowed Capitalism to emerge. You need this Liberal idea of the atomized individual owner of private property for Capitalism to work. That goes completely against Feudalism. It's even against Roman republicanism or imperialism - and certainly against the Greek ideal. The connection of family and tribe were still of the utmost importance in those societies. In fact, a slave was described as a person cut off from their family and tribe, and thus powerless in the world, effectively dead. Of course, I am distinguishing between markets and Capitalism. Markets exist in other forms of society to Capitalism. In my view, that Liberal strain in the Catholic Church comes from Judaism, which does represent a private, unmediated, relationship between God and the individual. This was utterly alien to Roman or Greek religion, and surely was alien to Celtic or Germanic religions, in short to all Aryan religions. The Church was clearly well aware of this Liberal strain inside itself, and put up an heroic resistance to it for many centuries, perhaps culminating in the Spanish Inquisition - which was perfectly justified and necessary, if doomed to ultimate failure.
 
Last edited:

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,134
Likes
21,748
Points
313

I don't have any time for people who sideline the interests of children for their glorious property-god. A person is infinitely more important than any trinket. That should be obvious to functional people but with people who worship their property god -- you just never can tell I guess.
That reminds me of a "man" I spoke to during the so called gay marriage referendum. He said he'd support anything that didn't lower the value of his house. And he wasn't being ironic.