The 8th - Repealed!

sid waddell wrote: UCDFAN wrote: Single Equality Ground politics is not about inclusion. It's about the single narrow message for the Equality Ground. Some of the messages of YES campaign wants to win on the principled, narrow terms of ownership/personal decision-making.  Let other groups present more complex, layered inclusion arguments. For me the majority of YES messages matches exactly the reasons to repeal 27th Amendment (2006). Right of travel, Personal decisions on Medical diagnosis, Gender-specific, Family-specific and perhaps Parental-specific.  The only exclusion is Ethnicity between 8th/36th and 27th. (Both fear of England Medical Procedures and fear of Nigerian Mothers). Twinning 8th/36th and 27th increases inclusion and after that the chance of political success. Single Equality Ground equalists want to win their narrow arguments on their own, without any help from other groups in society, without expanding their political arguments to be more representative. Members of society are aware of the flaws and recognise that Single Equality Ground politics doesn't represent the person.  Layer Single Equality Grounds together (nine atm, there should be more) and it's more representative. More complex too, that's a good thing. That's written in a beautiful Eastern European gibberish style, mate.  You could almost be advertising Polish apartments online.

I think he said he's voting No

I felt it was perfectly cromulent post. 

seanyshuffler wrote: I felt it was perfectly cromulent post.

UCDFAN wrote: the_walls wrote: Baldrick wrote: Somebody needs to take their head out of academic books in the library and speak in normal English to communicate properly.  I was thinking the exact same thing.   Both of you are welcome to ask me directly what it is you didn't understand. But you chose not to do that. You will criticise others for not communicating properly when you don't even talk directly to the person to request clarification.

Het-field wrote: UCDFAN wrote: Single Equality Ground politics is not about inclusion. It's about the single narrow message for the Equality Ground. Some of the messages of YES campaign wants to win on the principled, narrow terms of ownership/personal decision-making.  Let other groups present more complex, layered inclusion arguments. For me the majority of YES messages matches exactly the reasons to repeal 27th Amendment (2006). Right of travel, Personal decisions on Medical diagnosis, Gender-specific, Family-specific and perhaps Parental-specific.  The only exclusion is Ethnicity between 8th/36th and 27th. (Both fear of England Medical Procedures and fear of Nigerian Mothers). Twinning 8th/36th and 27th increases inclusion and after that the chance of political success. Single Equality Ground equalists want to win their narrow arguments on their own, without any help from other groups in society, without expanding their political arguments to be more representative. Members of society are aware of the flaws and recognise that Single Equality Ground politics doesn't represent the person.  Layer Single Equality Grounds together (nine atm, there should be more) and it's more representative. More complex too, that's a good thing. Am I to assume your beef is with the 2004 Citizenship referendum, and its outcome?

Het-field wrote: UCDFAN wrote: For me, the 27th Amendment and those it excluded can be linked with the campaign politics of this 8th/36th Amendment. I would like to say I understand how you draw the link between the politics of this amendment, and the Citizenship referendum in 2004. Don't forget, we had a very limited referendum on the issue in 2002, which had a narrow rejection. Are you saying that the politics of the pro-amendment side in 2004 are similar to the politics of the anti repeal side in 2018?

BigPodge wrote: No voters invaded Arklow yesterday! It was the usual aggressive carry on of handing leaflets to children with graphic pictures on them  (I've heard this happen a lot), yelling at people, stopping cars etc. Though the best story of all is that a priest told 2 young girls that they needed to be shot! You can't help but laugh at them

You see, all these stories that "definitely happen" are making the pro-abortion side even worse than the anti-abortion side. We have no evidence of any of this, just stories that get passed from word of mount to make one side look worse. The pro-abortion side is really shooting itself in the foot with all these stories doing the rounds on Twitter. Stick to the facts and they'll win. Engage in this nonsense and they'll lose.

Het-field wrote: UCDFAN wrote: No, it's some of the YES campaign 2018 that could be used for the defence of the defeated NO campaign of the 27th. Right to personal Medical Decision Right for Women to make personal decision over body Previously Right to Travel was an Abortion issue. The Single Equality Ground equalists for Gender don't seem to link 27th and 8th/36th because 27th was Ethnicity/Nationality and 8th/36th is Gender. My politics links 27th and 8th/36th campaigns. I'd be into multi-Equality Ground politics. Okay. Fair enough. But what aspects of the cdampaign could have been used in both cases?

Edited by UCDFAN - 09 May 2018 at 1:25pm