Far-Right Protests in Fermoy

[Hank Scorpio]

2 minutes on the Internet would clear up any incorrect ideas they might have about blowjobs.

Post all the Helen Lovejoy memes ye like m8s.

Theres nothing tolerant or right on about exposing children to age inappropriate content.

Those saying 'oh its all on the INTERNET anyway' are just too lazy/irresponsible to properly monitor what their kids are viewing online and elsewhere

 

[Padraig Mor]

I said what I said. I am not sure why you keep trying to change it?

I don't take issue with her objecting to surrogacy. I take issue with her telling a representative of the LGBTQ community that he was "lucky to be there" and also with her comments about the surrogates who gave evidence (both of whom were acting as altruistic surrogates for family members btw). She is entitled to her position, but she did it absolutely no justice by the way that she choose to express herself.

Nothing to do with twitter likes. I'm not on twitter and I don't care about the approval of strangers.

She caused a committee that was already short on time to be suspended because she wanted to have a little tantrum. That's fucking disgraceful.

I'm not trying to change anything. You have said that "anything" Keogan says should be "verified". The dictionary definition of verify is "to prove something is true". Any reasonable person would take your comment to mean that Keogan's points should be "verified" as there is a significant chance what she has said is untrue, and that she has a record of telling untruths. If you can provide documented examples of Keogan lying, you have a fair point. If, as I suspect, you cannot point to any lies by Keogan perhaps an apology to the good Senator is in order.

You also further repeat inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the committee hearing, but that's not surprising if someone is just looking for a bit of confirmation bias (Keogan is fAr RiGhT so must be an evil liar).

The "lucky to be here" quote was taken completely out of context by those who wish no debate on these matters, and wanted to dishonestly smear Keogan as a bigot. What actually happened was that, prior to the committee hearing, there had been objections to the inclusion of a range of speakers to the committee but that these speakers were then allowed - hence that specific speaker being "lucky to be here".

She did not cause the committee to be suspended. She represented the views of the many people who have concerns re surrogacy and gave opinions which would not be remotely controversial in any venue other than the NGO led cesspit that is Dail Eireann, opinions which are law in a number of European countries, and spoke in a measured way. For this, she was attacked and roared at by a number of other Senators for daring to having an opinion other than that approved by an NGO. These Senators (Lynne Ruane was a particular disgrace) continued to attack her on multiple occasions even after adjournments and this led to the suspension. It was fucking disgraceful alright and it's frankly embarrassing that intelligent people somehow blame Keogan for the whole charade. Keogan went on BTW to resign from the committee as she didn't feel protected or safe in expressing her view as she is entitled to - unsurprising when even the supposedly impartial committee chair also joined in the pile on. It's funny, most of these people would be the first to scream misogyny at a woman on 'their side' getting even a fraction of the same treatment.

 

[doppellanger]

Post all the Helen Lovejoy memes ye like m8s.

Theres nothing tolerant or right on about exposing children to age inappropriate content.

Those saying 'oh its all on the INTERNET anyway' are just too lazy/irresponsible to properly monitor what their kids are viewing online and elsewhere

Tbh, I don't think it's healthy to be that interested in what 12 year old kids are viewing/reading/watching, m8.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Tbh, I don't think it's healthy to be that interested in what 12 year old kids are viewing/reading/watching, m8.

Tbh I couldn't really give a f*ck what you think on the subject Jimmy m8.

 

[Matlock]

I'm not trying to change anything. You have said that "anything" Keogan says should be "verified". The dictionary definition of verify is "to prove something is true". Any reasonable person would take your comment to mean that Keogan's points should be "verified" as there is a significant chance what she has said is untrue, and that she has a record of telling untruths. If you can provide documented examples of Keogan lying, you have a fair point. If, as I suspect, you cannot point to any lies by Keogan perhaps an apology to the good Senator is in order.

You also further repeat inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the committee hearing, but that's not surprising if someone is just looking for a bit of confirmation bias (Keogan is fAr RiGhT so must be an evil liar).

The "lucky to be here" quote was taken completely out of context by those who wish no debate on these matters, and wanted to dishonestly smear Keogan as a bigot. What actually happened was that, prior to the committee hearing, there had been objections to the inclusion of a range of speakers to the committee but that these speakers were then allowed - hence that specific speaker being "lucky to be here".

She did not cause the committee to be suspended. She represented the views of the many people who have concerns re surrogacy and gave opinions which would not be remotely controversial in any venue other than the NGO led cesspit that is Dail Eireann, opinions which are law in a number of European countries, and spoke in a measured way. For this, she was attacked and roared at by a number of other Senators for daring to having an opinion other than that approved by an NGO. These Senators (Lynne Ruane was a particular disgrace) continued to attack her on multiple occasions even after adjournments and this led to the suspension. It was fucking disgraceful alright and it's frankly embarrassing that intelligent people somehow blame Keogan for the whole charade. Keogan went on BTW to resign from the committee as she didn't feel protected or safe in expressing her view as she is entitled to - unsurprising when even the supposedly impartial committee chair also joined in the pile on. It's funny, most of these people would be the first to scream misogyny at a woman on 'their side' getting even a fraction of the same treatment.

She absolutely caused the committee to be suspended. You clearly have an agenda around her, and you are welcome to it, but opinion aside, you're factually incorrect.

 

[Matlock]

Post all the Helen Lovejoy memes ye like m8s.

Theres nothing tolerant or right on about exposing children to age inappropriate content.

Those saying 'oh its all on the INTERNET anyway' are just too lazy/irresponsible to properly monitor what their kids are viewing online and elsewhere

You're more than welcome to 'properly monitor' what your kids look at. That isn't at question here.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

You're more than welcome to 'properly monitor' what your kids look at. That isn't at question here.

Pointless post.

 

[Matlock]

Pointless post.

Don't be so hard on yourself, almost all of your posts are pointless

If you consider the book inappropriate for your kids, then don't let them read it.

Why do you feel the need to make that decision for other parents, or for the library service?

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Don't be so hard on yourself, almost all of your posts are pointless

If you consider the book inappropriate for your kids, then don't let them read it.

Why do you feel the need to make that decision for other parents, or for the library service?

It shouldn't be available in the young adult section in the library.

Its not that difficult to grasp is it?


You tie yourself up in knots telling us how it's age appropriate to be giving 12 year olds blowjob tips. Sicko.

 

[Matlock]

It shouldn't be available in the young adult section in the library.

Its not that difficult to grasp is it?


You tie yourself up in knots telling us how it's age appropriate to be giving 12 year olds blowjob tips. Sicko.

You seem to think that your opinion should be law. If Dan disapproves of a book it needs to be removed from the library apparently

It may not be appropriate for a 12 year old (depending on the 12 year old) but it certainly is for a 14 year old. It's a book for young adults. If you don't want your kids to read it don't let them( though they'll read it in school or at a friends house, as teenagers with parents who censor their reading material have always done)

The outrage is as unnecessary as it is predicable.