I don't think there is a defense of what he done. The way other crimes are handled is a separate conversation. I hate when the Garlic / Onion fraud case gets brought into these type of conversations.
"Don't see how jailing him sorts anything."
Tell that to the family of the woman he stole nearly 40k from.
Do your time and hopefully come out the other end clean.
I understand I was watching a film of stu ungar last night. So sad diff story of course. I don't mean to under empathize with the people he hurt at all. They must be devastated byond the money really. I don't blame people being angry. It was wrong.
I do like to think people deep down are good though. That's all.
Had to bring her mother to mass this morning so went in rather than go up and down twice. Probably the youngest there bar a scattering of under 10s. Sermon was about suffering and spent the whole time imagining Lazare sitting beside me with steam coming out of his ears.
Said a prayer my horse ships the CPT game today so lets see.....
In the name of the Father and the Son and into the hole he goes. (Dave Allen)
Any time limitations being talked about for this?
Bollox you should be allowed to vote for anything if you've been gone for over X amount of years.
*Yet to decide on X, 3-5 I'm thinking off the top of my head.
I'm pretty sure it's all passport holders if passed. This would include those that Charlie gave passports to, people in US or wherever whose grandparents were born here and they just got a passport, as well obviously as proper Irish people who left but were born/raised here.
In the name of the Father and the Son and into the hole he goes. (Dave Allen)
Holy chips currently running well on the final table. Shall be up there again tomorrow to pray for a few Cheltenham nags if this works & i wake up to good news....
I'm pretty sure it's all passport holders if passed. This would include those that Charlie gave passports to, people in US or wherever whose grandparents were born here and they just got a passport, as well obviously as proper Irish people who left but were born/raised here.
IMO
President = Yes
Dancing with the Stars = Yes
real Political referendum or elections = GTFO
families would have not had the outlet which they perceived gave their daughter and child some sembelance of a decent life. They would have had to face the music and it would have become the norm for families to look after their own. At worst, some families would have shunned and turfed out their chilldren but there would have been no hiding place for their acts . An opportunity was seen by the evil powers that were and they fully exploited it. Why you take their case is as baffling as Penny Lane sticking up for Trump. Was it bread of heaven ?
Bread of Heaven is a methodist hymn imo.
I'm not 'taking a side'. I find outright denunciation without reference to the socio-political situation baffling though. In those days, the State was the Church and vice versa. You still see the legacy of that today. Lazare would not have been an atheist in 1950, much as he might like to think otherwise. Likewise, in your example above, you have had to be a very brave person indeed to stand up against the social order of the day. Braver than 99% of us.
Blanket denunciations are naive and simplistic. They seek to impose a different context to that which prevailed.
Moral relativism trumps absolutism here.
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
What would have happened to all of those people in the absence of mother & baby homes, orphanages, laundries etc?
Not in some imagined paralell universe where the state provided proper social services, but in the context of the time.
If they weren't taken in by those type of institutions, then the 'what would have happened them' response you are thinking of was governed by the church then too. People would have shunned them because of the shame which is something ingrained by the church (not just catholic as it would have been similar but less extreme in the UK/US as well.
The attitudes to lots of things back then were entirely shameful, and the older people (not all, but most, including my 82 year old mother) still have views in a lot of ways that reflect those times.
I'm not 'taking a side'. I find outright denunciation without reference to the socio-political situation baffling though. In those days, the State was the Church and vice versa. You still see the legacy of that today. Lazare would not have been an atheist in 1950, much as he might like to think otherwise. Likewise, in your example above, you have had to be a very brave person indeed to stand up against the social order of the day. Braver than 99% of us.
Blanket denunciations are naive and simplistic. They seek to impose a different context to that which prevailed.
Moral relativism trumps absolutism here.
My granny had 8 kids, she took in others, one of whom we still call uncle. Fucked out he was as a 2 year old , his ol wan was shamed for it and fecked off. Some decent folk stuck up for the kiddies despite poxy priests trying to home the kids in institutions where who know what would have become of my 'uncle' . The interference is what sticks in my craw. The pressure from the church put upon people who are basically good but god fearing. My ol granny was a hard old woman but no child would have suffered at the hands of the church on her watch. I like to think your figures are incorrect there. Also I like to think if people really knew the suffering they would have stepped up. It was not medievil times ya know. Alas I have only one example to quote.
If whispering 'you should be ashamed' is truly cuntish behaviour, what in your opinion is taking babes just born from mothers hands, selling or starving them, throwing the starved ones into sewerage pits. Saying now, 'nothing to see here, run along now'?
Just want a guage of your moral compass.
Absolutely if he is walking up to ALL religious and verbally abusing them as he says he intends to.
My opinion on 'taking babes just born from mothers hands, selling or starving them, throwing the starved ones into sewerage pits... is such acts happening in such a sequence are horrendous.
How will you use 2 different scenarios to gauge my moral compass (my best guess on where it is is that I adhere to the innocent until proven guilty maxim, that I do not paint all people with the same brush, that I believe in live and let live,that I believe wrongdoing should be punished, that I do not jump on bandwagons).
What would have happened to all of those people in the absence of mother & baby homes, orphanages, laundries etc?
Not in some imagined paralell universe where the state provided proper social services, but in the context of the time.
I took on board what you said last week about divorcing ones emotions from debating this topic. I find it really difficult to do. I've been trying to though (IPB is not the only place I've been involved in arguing this), with some success.
With that in mind, I'm going to try answer you void of emotion.
What would have happened to all of those people in the absence of mother & baby homes, orphanages, laundries etc?
Probably similar misery, but you didn't ask what would have happened to them in the absence of Irish catholicism, and ergo all of the above. If you had've...
I think the same as what would have happened to them had they lived in any culturally similar European country.
Some would have suffered for sure, in poverty, in sickness.
Families would not have felt the type of intense shame that drove them to disown their daughters or their grandchildren though. To send them off to unimaginable (and admittedly probably unknowingly for the most part) cruelty. The driving force behind society's willingness to go along with this was catholicism. You surely agree with me on this?
Did any other European country have female enslavement at the time? Or in Ireland's case, up until the 1980s (last Magdalen closed in 1996, but the last operating one was in the 80s)?
I am 100% sure women and children would have fared better in this country in the absence of mother and baby homes and magdalen laundries, but only if the absence of those institutions was due to the absence of the catholic church.
I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
What flavors do the e-ciggers in the thread use? Links to buy online if possible. I found a flavor I liked early on and have stuck with it since. It is frozen berries with a hint of menthol. I still enjoy it but wouldn't mind giving a few others a go as a little bored of it at the moment.
Religion talk reminded me of this amazing app I was looking at earlier today. It shows the current state of conflicts ongoing across the world along with current events that have just happened.
Explore World local news alerts & today's headlines geolocated on live map on website or application. Focus on politics, military news and security alerts
Obviously one does not equate with the other, however abusing people because of their religious beliefs is still a cuntish thing to do
Not every person who is in a religious order tacitly agrees with the Church. The church just happened to be the thing closest to home when they felt the need to join something larger than themselves to help people (obviously that a gross simplification but work with me here).
Some people are drawn to these things...The Catholic church was just the local version of the god squad. When they signed up (given how old the average priest etc is, they didn't ALL know what we know now)…you devote decades of your life to something do you turn away or try to improve it? Forget the big hats and think of the grunts.
By all means disagree with the belief or the organisation but don't attack the person without knowing what they are about first.
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner! https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
Best thing to whisper to a Catholic that deserves to be shocked into reality is the simple but effective " I know that deep down you don't really believe in transubstantiation".
It's very easy to deprive someone of their faith, not a fair fight. They would have to deserve, even need, to be knocked off their perch or else its just bullying the afflicted.
What flavors do the e-ciggers in the thread use? Links to buy online if possible. I found a flavor I liked early on and have stuck with it since. It is frozen berries with a hint of menthol. I still enjoy it but wouldn't mind giving a few others a go as a little bored of it at the moment.
Explore World local news alerts & today's headlines geolocated on live map on website or application. Focus on politics, military news and security alerts
Lazare would not have been an atheist in 1950, much as he might like to think otherwise.
What do you mean by that? (I'm conscious of how it's difficult to guage a person's emotions from text, I assure you I'm asking out of curiosity)
Do you mean it would be difficult for me to express my atheism in those times?
If so, I totally agree, and I hope you aknowledge that backs up my point.
If you mean I would not have have actually been atheist, due to social constraints, well that too backs up my point, but I would disagree.
I first questioned everything when I was about ten years old. I had learned that I belonged to a group that were the only true people. The only ones going to heaven. Everyone else was wrong.
I remember thinking that seemed a little off.
I wondered about other people, other kids in school, and what they were being taught. If they were being taught the same thing, that they were correct and we were the ones that were wrong.
I actually remember thinking, 'well, if one group is wrong, everyone is wrong'.
The one thing I remember well about that time and those thoughts is fear. The inner turmoil. This is mid 1980s, catholicism permeated everything. I fought those thoughts for years, racked with guilt, shame and confusion, unable to express it to anyone. Everything you were taught as a child doesn't seem to be true, but you've no alternative.
Then I learned about evolution by natural selection.
I would absolutely have been atheist in 1950, a contented social pariah.
I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
You need to make peace with the likelihood that there will be no more books and this series won't ever be finished in written form. I accepted this a few years ago and it makes it easier.
Any more books will therefore be a pleasant bonus for me.
No. Just no.
Seriously though, if he drops dead tomorrow (likely given the shape of him) I'd imagine there would be enough there from his unfinished current manuscript, personal notes, outlines, etc to finish the series. Or at the very least do a Christopher Tolkien on it.
Originally posted by Ed
On board with that unfortunately, there's just too much money to be had from the successful TV show compared to book sales so best case scenario is that it's after S7 airs and won't contain much that't been covered
Out of curiosity why do you think the buckets load of money to be made from the series affects the completion of the book?
Are you talking about resources, or the producers pressing him/publishers to hold the bok back to keep all the big reveals for the show?
FA cup semis this year look like a lot stronger than recent times. Might actually have a final worth watching for a change instead of the usual portmouth/wigan/qpr one day of glory stuff.
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast.
Obviously one does not equate with the other, however abusing people because of their religious beliefs is still a cuntish thing to do
Not every person who is in a religious order tacitly agrees with the Church. The church just happened to be the thing closest to home when they felt the need to join something larger than themselves to help people (obviously that a gross simplification but work with me here).
Some people are drawn to these things...The Catholic church was just the local version of the god squad. When they signed up (given how old the average priest etc is, they didn't ALL know what we know now)…you devote decades of your life to something do you turn away or try to improve it? Forget the big hats and think of the grunts.
By all means disagree with the belief or the organisation but don't attack the person without knowing what they are about first.
Pretty strong language dude.
My position is this, people who remain loyal to an organisation, proven time and again to be responsible for unimaginable cruelty should feel shamed into rescinding that loyalty, and taking their faith in god elsewhere.
Why do you see that as abuse?
I hold silver in tit for tat, and I love you for that
The older I get the less offended I get at the notion that it's the best and brightest who up and leave.give em the vote they might actually vote in the national interest,can't see them doing too much damage,
Did any other European country have female enslavement at the time? Or in Ireland's case, up until the 1980s (last Magdalen closed in 1996, but the last operating one was in the 80s)?
Magdalene Laundries existed up until the 70s in the UK, at their height there was much more in the UK than Ireland. Owing to the back that they were more industrial, and urbanised (as thus more prostitution).
In Australia they closed around the late 70s. I think the last might have been 1980 in one of the more remote states.
The closure of the laundries was probably down to falling economics (due to washing machines becoming more common) rather than a realisation that it was apprehensible.
That's just the laundries though, I'd be surprised in other forms of slavery weren't widespread throughout Europe. The 20th century was for the most part, incredibly fuckin grim.
I first questioned everything when I was about ten years old. I had learned that I belonged to a group that were the only true people. The only ones going to heaven. Everyone else was wrong. I remember thinking that seemed a little off.
I wondered about other people, other kids in school, and what they were being taught. If they were being taught the same thing, that they were correct and we were the ones that were wrong.
Had lots of similar thoughts myself. Always had keen interest in science and knowledge generally, I remember thinking a few times, that "story about X" was nonsense - especially when adults were trying to convince us that it was completely literal.
FA cup semis this year look like a lot stronger than recent times. Might actually have a final worth watching for a change instead of the usual portmouth/wigan/qpr one day of glory stuff.
For a change? What!
Finals are always worth watching. After 90 mins your view might change but there's a story behind every cup run. Cups are class.
If Chelsea aren't involved I'd rather watch a minnow v giant than 2 good sides play.
Seems mental someone who left Ireland in last few years fair enough but Mr Murphy who has been living in Wisconsin for 40 years they shouldn't have say in Irish politics.
My initial instinct is to vote 'no' on this one, for sure.
It really depends on how they word it and the conditions attached to retaining/gaining the right to vote.
If it's a sloppy passport = vote situation, then I 've no issue with a no vote for obvious reasons. But I don't agree with a blanket no for all scenarios, there's surely a reasonable middleground.
Somebody would have a hard time convincing me that there's no possible way I should get a vote.
What would that be ? I would have thought passport or no passport? I don't understand what you mean sorry??
If they just make it a blanket change that any irish citizen can vote. That's incredibly sloppy, and should be a no vote imo.
But they have other options in how they phrase the rules. Citizens/Passport Holders/Citizens Born in Ireland/Citizens who were ordinarily resident in Ireland within the last 10 years etc
They are just 4 options off the top of my head, and the implications of each are very different.
Having a passport is not currently require to vote.
Do people really think there would be a huge rise in SF support if people with Irish passports born from the US and uk could vote.
Citizens born overseas are currently afforded the same rights to vote as citizens born in Ireland. The issue is nothing to do with where people were born.
It really depends on how they word it and the conditions attached to retaining/gaining the right to vote.
If it's a sloppy passport = vote situation, then I 've no issue with a no vote for obvious reasons. But I don't agree with a blanket no for all scenarios, there's surely a reasonable middleground.
Somebody would have a hard time convincing me that there's no possible way I should get a vote.
I would be a no also. Unless you are directly affected by the country domestic policies or actively contributing to it, I don't see why you should have a vote that can impact on this.
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast.
If they just make it a blanket change that any irish citizen can vote. That's incredibly sloppy, and should be a no vote imo.
But they have other options in how they phrase the rules. Citizens/Passport Holders/Citizens Born in Ireland/Citizens who were ordinarily resident in Ireland within the last 10 years etc
They are just 4 options off the top of my head, and the implications of each are very different.
Having a passport is not currently require to vote.
Citizens born overseas are currently afforded the same rights to vote as citizens born in Ireland. The issue is nothing to do with where people were born.
They can't vote FROM overseas though which is the whole issue.
Buy it here: https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Spa...1. Propaganda - 0:002. At Home, at Work, at Play - 0:233. Reinforcements - 3:294. BC - 7:245. Thanks But...
I would be a no also. Unless you are directly affected by the country domestic policies or actively contributing to it, I don't see why you should have a vote that can impact on this.
Just to clarify this part, are you suggesting that no Irish citizen overseas could possibly affected by domestic issues?
I don't have stats to hand, but I'd guess that Ireland is in the minority here among other developed countries.
His argument is that no-one would vote against their own narrow self serving interests, implicitly suggesting that this always trumps the rights or wrongs of the issue. So by that logic he would vote to disenfranchise women (or ethnic minorities) because that would dramatically increase ones voting power. My point isn't in favour or against the issue of passports for exiles, just pointing out the absurdity in this argument.
Not diectly no. You are directly affected by the domestic policies of whatever country you are currently living in IMO.
When you chose to live/move aboard you give up whatever rights you have to a say (from a voting pov).
I appreciate that's your opinion, which you're entitled to, but I feel it's incorrect. Currently you lose the ability to vote when you leave the country, but I don't think you stop being affect by the government at the same instant.
Somebody who goes overseas for economic reasons, is obviously affected by the situation that they would face when they return (or if they return). That situation is dependant on, and affected by government policy changes, therefore that person is directly affected by the policies. QED.
Consider a hypothetical gay man who spent 2015 on a working holiday visa in Australia. He’s was living in Australia, at the time of the gay marraige referendum, but quite clearly directly affected by the outcome of the referendum. In fact, he was probably affected much more so than the majority of the 2 million or so voters.
Or, somebody whose home is in Ireland, they have a wife and kids that lives there, but due to the nature of their job, they work outside the state (FIFO, international work, etc) for most of the year. They should be ineligible to vote due to not meeting residency requirements. Which hardly seems right given their home is in Ireland.
What about our situations? You've been away for almost 3 years right? I'm a bit longer. Say something changes and either of us decide to go home later this year. Under the current legislation we technically shouldn't get the right/ability to vote back until 2022. The first general election you get to vote in could be as late as 2026.
I'm obvious not suggesting that every single citizen around the world gets unrestricted voting privileges. That would be ridiculous. But I do feel that the current system is deeply flawed imo. I would imagine that, by default, overseas voting also allows for absentee voting. At the very least, if boarding a plane back to Ireland gives you a vote, you should be entitle to vote no matter where you are.
Some sort of overseas voting is present in most countries, we are behind the times.
100% disagree with your view here. Anyone within Ireland and affected by the outcome should be eligible to vote. If there's around 3 million voters in Ireland what sense would it make to open it up to tens of million of passport holders many of whom have never been to Ireland bar a week or two holiday or many who never expect to return. There is some scope to extend this to people overseas on holidays on a working holiday I would imagine 3 years Max and are still Irish domiciled etc. Any further than that no way. Cost effectiveness of the administration of it all will need to be fully explorered.
Greetings. Havn't played poker much in the past few years, but played a 20euro 'Classic' with the lads there on Saturday and I started having these visions, hallucinations even, of poker tracker stats floating above their heads. Johno was surprised when I told him he was 46/2/0.5 as he likes to think he's the alpha of the group.
What do you mean by that? (I'm conscious of how it's difficult to guage a person's emotions from text, I assure you I'm asking out of curiosity)
Do you mean it would be difficult for me to express my atheism in those times?
If so, I totally agree, and I hope you aknowledge that backs up my point.
If you mean I would not have have actually been atheist, due to social constraints, well that too backs up my point, but I would disagree.
I first questioned everything when I was about ten years old. I had learned that I belonged to a group that were the only true people. The only ones going to heaven. Everyone else was wrong.
I remember thinking that seemed a little off.
I wondered about other people, other kids in school, and what they were being taught. If they were being taught the same thing, that they were correct and we were the ones that were wrong.
I actually remember thinking, 'well, if one group is wrong, everyone is wrong'.
The one thing I remember well about that time and those thoughts is fear. The inner turmoil. This is mid 1980s, catholicism permeated everything. I fought those thoughts for years, racked with guilt, shame and confusion, unable to express it to anyone. Everything you were taught as a child doesn't seem to be true, but you've no alternative.
Then I learned about evolution by natural selection.
I would absolutely have been atheist in 1950, a contented social pariah.
Just on the bolded bit. I went to a non denom school and did not attend catholic church at any point in my school years. I was baptised and that was it. While I was in school we were taught ALL religion was a path to god, it never said once that only one was right and others were wrong. We studied Buddhism, Hindu, Judaism, Christianity.
I had never heard of the Magdalene laundries till I grew up and moved to Ireland.
My Aunt (was a catholic) is a born again christian, I would not mock her or think any bad of her at all because she has a belief in her life. I am also friends here in Malta with some Muslim's and I wouldn't slate them for their religion despite so many atrocities caused in the name of Allah.
Each to their own I guess. BUT I do not condone what happened in Ireland. I don't think there has been anything as bad in other countries? I have never agreed with the catholic church. I used to talk to practicing Catholics about how I felt certain things were wrong (confession etc) I think the receiving of communion is a bit weird too and have never partook of it.
That being said, my 3 children will all have done their communion and confirmation and I don't have a problem with that. In Malta you can not get married in the church here if you have not done them anyway.
For me, it is a day out (will just have to grin and bare the service) and then a lovely meal with my family (which is a rare event getting all together) and that is as far as I see it.
I have said before and will say again. I love the fact that religion is NOT taught in the schools here. They have just 90 minutes a month to do at the church school (not with a priest) and that is it. They are taught proper education just and that is what I had in primary school. We did religion as a subject in secondary school.
I think schools should not be segregated by religion and it should all just be across the board education and same no matter what school. The only split in schools comes down to what catchment area you are in.
I took on board what you said last week about divorcing ones emotions from debating this topic. I find it really difficult to do. I've been trying to though (IPB is not the only place I've been involved in arguing this), with some success.
With that in mind, I'm going to try answer you void of emotion.
Probably similar misery, but you didn't ask what would have happened to them in the absence of Irish catholicism, and ergo all of the above. If you had've...
I think the same as what would have happened to them had they lived in any culturally similar European country.
Some would have suffered for sure, in poverty, in sickness.
Families would not have felt the type of intense shame that drove them to disown their daughters or their grandchildren though. To send them off to unimaginable (and admittedly probably unknowingly for the most part) cruelty. The driving force behind society's willingness to go along with this was catholicism. You surely agree with me on this?
Did any other European country have female enslavement at the time? Or in Ireland's case, up until the 1980s (last Magdalen closed in 1996, but the last operating one was in the 80s)?
I am 100% sure women and children would have fared better in this country in the absence of mother and baby homes and magdalen laundries, but only if the absence of those institutions was due to the absence of the catholic church.
Not to argue with your central point but if anybody thinks 'slavery and exploitation' isn't happening to this day in pretty much every country in the world then that's a bit naive imo https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...romanian-women
Maybe not state-sponsored, but ignored and accepted all the same.
100% disagree with your view here. Anyone within Ireland and affected by the outcome should be eligible to vote. If there's around 3 million voters in Ireland what sense would it make to open it up to tens of million of passport holders many of whom have never been to Ireland bar a week or two holiday or many who never expect to return. There is some scope to extend this to people overseas on holidays on a working holiday I would imagine 3 years Max and are still Irish domiciled etc. Any further than that no way. Cost effectiveness of the administration of it all will need to be fully explorered.
None of that really refutes HJ's tbh. He's saying that voting to maximise your power isn't a particularly logical motivation. If it were, why did we give women a vote. He wasn't commenting on the issue one way or another.
As for the points you raised.
Being affected by the outcome isn't exclusive to being in the country, as described above. Regardless, is "affected by" really a deciding factor? The gay marriage referendum didn't affect the majority of the country. The fact is people vote all the time on matters that don't directly affect them.
10s of millions of Irish passport!!! You miles off I'd say. I'd put the over/under line for passports globally at 5million.
And the current residency definition possibably allows emigrants to retain the right to vote for 3 years. But current regulations leave no way to exercise that right.
The Official UK Singles Chart reflects the UK’s biggest songs of the week, based on audio and video streams, downloads, CDs and vinyl, compiled by the Official Charts Company. The UK Top 40 is broadcast on BBC Radio 1 and MTV, the Top 100 is published exclusively on OfficialCharts.com. View the biggest songs of 2024 so far.
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner! https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
None of that really refutes HJ's tbh. He's saying that voting to maximise your power isn't a particularly logical motivation. If it were, why did we give women a vote. He wasn't commenting on the issue one way or another.
As for the points you raised.
Being affected by the outcome isn't exclusive to being in the country, as described above. Regardless, is "affected by" really a deciding factor? The gay marriage referendum didn't affect the majority of the country. The fact is people vote all the time on matters that don't directly affect them.
10s of millions of Irish passport!!! You miles off I'd say. I'd put the over/under line for passports globally at 5million.
And the current residency definition possibably allows emigrants to retain the right to vote for 3 years. But current regulations leave no way to exercise that right.
The Irish President as an important constitutional role which affect the laws of the country for those living in it. Picking one law such as the gay marriage one is not valid as it's just one issue there's many Acts of the Oireachtas passed every year.
The Irish President as an important constitutional role which affect the laws of the country for those living in it. Picking one law such as the gay marriage one is not valid as it's just one issue there's many Acts of the Oireachtas passed every year.
The gay marriage was just one example, that opposed what you said. It not intended to encompass all situations.
And I prefixed it by "regardless", my post previously highlighted how Acts of the Oireachtas affect more than those present in Ireland on a given day.
I took on board what you said last week about divorcing ones emotions from debating this topic. I find it really difficult to do. I've been trying to though (IPB is not the only place I've been involved in arguing this), with some success.
With that in mind, I'm going to try answer you void of emotion.
Probably similar misery, but you didn't ask what would have happened to them in the absence of Irish catholicism, and ergo all of the above. If you had've...
I think the same as what would have happened to them had they lived in any culturally similar European country.
Some would have suffered for sure, in poverty, in sickness.
Families would not have felt the type of intense shame that drove them to disown their daughters or their grandchildren though. To send them off to unimaginable (and admittedly probably unknowingly for the most part) cruelty. The driving force behind society's willingness to go along with this was catholicism. You surely agree with me on this?
Did any other European country have female enslavement at the time? Or in Ireland's case, up until the 1980s (last Magdalen closed in 1996, but the last operating one was in the 80s)?
I am 100% sure women and children would have fared better in this country in the absence of mother and baby homes and magdalen laundries, but only if the absence of those institutions was due to the absence of the catholic church.
So, you are not actually placing your argument in the context of the time but instead in some imagined State where Catholicism was not the de facto State religion.
It doesn't work. Unless as the basis for a movie or a novel.
And Ireland was far from unique. Look at what happened in Spain for example.
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment