[Darius]

(05-26-2015 11:54 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 07:47 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

The Irish catholic church isn't quite finished yet; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32856232

The referendum has enshrined gay marriage having equal rights to normal marriage in the Irish constitution, BUT has made it optional, not mandatory for the Catholic Church to carry out and bless gay weddings.

As the catholic faith considers homosexual activity to be a sin how long will it be before Irish gays have a push back against the priests, and try and force mandatory gay Catholic weddings???

I thought that was a given. The Roman Church or any other church for that matter, does not have the authority from scripture to recognise gay marriage, in fact it would be blasphemous to invoke the name of Christ.

The Roman Catholic church asserted itself as the ultimate authority of the church on earth. They also claim Papal Supremacy. They can whenever they choose diverge from scripture. This was one of the main reasons for the initial schism of the church.

[johhny]

delete

[Darius]

(05-26-2015 04:17 PM)johhny Wrote:  

And, according to Exodus 35:2, if you work on Sunday, you deserve the death penalty: "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."


Disclaimer: My interpretation of the bible might not be 100% correct.

Definitely a modern translation. Exodus is concerning the Jews. The Jewish Sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-26-2015 04:05 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

Some of these laws, the laws of Moses, were completed after Jesus did his ministry work. They are no longer valid are were only intended for a certain time that has now long past. Not following them does not mean you have altered anything. They are no longer relevant after the ministry work of Jesus.

Some of the things you quote still stand: reverence of the Sabbath (Saturday not Sunday)and not eating unholy meats like Crab and Pork. And of course no gay marriage. No that doesn't mean we should kill people who break these laws, again that's the law of Moses, but it does mean it is still a sin.

You have been blasting on this thread against the bible but your understanding of it isn't the best. You are also switching between the Bible and religion a lot while the two are very different things. The Bible particularly warns against false prophets and those who do evil in the name of God. The idea of mainstream religions doing terrible things is not surprising and is predicted by the bible. I think this is blinding you to evaluate the Bible separate of that.

I get your view that you see all the damage that religion has done so surely the whole thing is a scam. The two (religion and the Bible) are quite separate and the failings of one does not mean the falsehood of the other.

So who gets to decide which parts of the bible are valid and which aren't?

How can someone say part of the Book of Leviticus is what God wants and part isn't?

Maybe the revisionists are false prophets and God is really really pissed off about people not following His law and not stoning the unbelievers?

Or maybe the traditionalists are false prophets God is actually somewhat liberal and wants people to look out for each other and seek peace and understanding?

It sounds like we need a Reformation, a Counter Reformation, an Inquisition, and numerous crusades and religious wars to settle these questions. In the end, after hundreds of millions of deaths, the true believers will triumph. And God will be happy. He truly does work in mysterious ways.

Lastly, I apologize if you are offended, I am just speaking openly given the nature of the idea sharing that thrives on this forum. I did live in southern Spain for a number of years and am skilled in the art of keeping my mouth shut around conservative Catholics who have no interest in hearing what I have to say and would just get offended. As far as the nuns I volunteered with were concerned, I was a baptized Christian open to matters of faith but not yet fully convinced.

[TheWastelander]

It sounds like you should seek counseling for your negative obsession with Christianity, VVVV. Whenever there's a whiff of religion being discussed on the forum, there you are, acting like a snarky SJW vociferously attacking a religion whose influence is negligible in the world today.

You would do well to read Quintus Curtius's analysis of religions and culture and mimic his mature scholarly style instead of acting like a bombastic teenage neckbeard internet atheist.

It is hard to take you seriously, even when you have good points, because of it.

[johhny]

(05-26-2015 04:27 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 04:05 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

Some of these laws, the laws of Moses, were completed after Jesus did his ministry work. They are no longer valid are were only intended for a certain time that has now long past. Not following them does not mean you have altered anything. They are no longer relevant after the ministry work of Jesus.

Some of the things you quote still stand: reverence of the Sabbath (Saturday not Sunday)and not eating unholy meats like Crab and Pork. And of course no gay marriage. No that doesn't mean we should kill people who break these laws, again that's the law of Moses, but it does mean it is still a sin.

You have been blasting on this thread against the bible but your understanding of it isn't the best. You are also switching between the Bible and religion a lot while the two are very different things. The Bible particularly warns against false prophets and those who do evil in the name of God. The idea of mainstream religions doing terrible things is not surprising and is predicted by the bible. I think this is blinding you to evaluate the Bible separate of that.

I get your view that you see all the damage that religion has done so surely the whole thing is a scam. The two (religion and the Bible) are quite separate and the failings of one does not mean the falsehood of the other.

So who gets to decide which parts of the bible are valid and which aren't?

How can someone say part of the Book of Leviticus is what God wants and part isn't?

Maybe the revisionists are false prophets and God is really really pissed off about people not following His law and not stoning the unbelievers?

Or maybe the traditionalists are false prophets God is actually somewhat liberal and wants people to look out for each other and seek peace and understanding?

It sounds like we need a Reformation, a Counter Reformation, an Inquisition, and numerous crusades and religious wars to settle these questions. In the end, after hundreds of millions of deaths, the true believers will triumph. And God will be happy. He truly does work in mysterious ways.

Lastly, I apologize if you are offended, I am just speaking openly given the nature of the idea sharing that thrives on this forum. I did live in southern Spain for a number of years and am skilled in the art of keeping my mouth shut around conservative Catholics who have no interest in hearing what I have to say and would just get offended. As far as the nuns I volunteered with were concerned, I was a baptized Christian open to matters of faith but not yet fully convinced.

(05-26-2015 01:57 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 01:23 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

Someone in my extended family (who is not in the Catholic Church) has a marriage license. They are also against gay marriage as per bible teachings. Although they said they won't it will be interesting how long it will take till they try force such people to marry gay people. At a guess Id say 1 - 2 years.

I think there should be a clear difference between the duties of civil and religious authorities. Civil authorities should be required to serve all citizens equally. Religious authorities, unless they are acting in a civil capacity or being funded by the state, should be free to discriminate as they see fit.

I also think people like that are a bit interesting. First off, the bible is a work of fiction that is the collective product of many different authors' imaginations. It has been edited, translated, altered, etc, numerous times.

However, if you truly believe in the bible, and base your life on biblical truth as being absolute, you can't logically pick and choose which parts to obey. It is God's word, and therefore 100% truth.

But, Exodus 21:7 says that selling your daughter into slavery is permitted: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

Slavery in those times was common obviously. In Isreal however, it was very regulated, nothing like a slavery that we usually have in mind, read Exodus 21: 1-7 to see what I mean. Rules regarding men and women were different, and you as a »red pill« probably understand why.

And, according to Exodus 35:2, if you work on Sunday, you deserve the death penalty: "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

All the rules in the Bible are for the good of the people and not to harm the people. Sabbath was there to protect the people. With sabbath implemented, every worker was granted one day of rest per week.

And according to Leviticus 11:7-8, bacon is a big no no: "and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

This rule, is more of an advice actually, for the good of the people. There is no death penatly for eating pork. God urges us not to eat it, for obvious reasons. Eating pork is unhealthy.

Also, no cross breeding of animals, multiple crop rotations, or wearing clothes of two different threads is allowed according to Leviticus 19:19:"Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Another set of rules/advices for the good of the people. Again, no death penalty.

Crap, and no lobster, crabs, or shellfish either according to Leviticus 11:12:"Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you"

This one doesnt seem to make sense, but im sure there is a reason why God urged us not to it these sea foods. There must be some negative effect of it, but we simply dont know it yet. Its not like we know everything.



Disclaimer: My interpretation of the bible might not be 100% correct.

[Atlantic]

VolandoVengoVolandoVoy ' Wrote:  

Lastly, I apologize if you are offended, I am just speaking openly given the nature of the idea sharing that thrives on this forum.

I am not offended but no one is going to spend much time replying to questions that are mixed with such a condescending tone and a large ignorance of the subject. You have no interest in knowing the answers to any of these questions so there is no point in debating it. No offense either man but your posting on this thread has been disappointing forum standard wise.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-26-2015 04:40 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

It sounds like you should seek counseling for your negative obsession with Christianity, VVVV. Whenever there's a whiff of religion being discussed on the forum, there you are, acting like a snarky SJW vociferously attacking a religion whose influence is negligible in the world today.

You would do well to read Quintus Curtius's analysis of religions and culture and mimic his mature scholarly style instead of acting like a bombastic teenage neckbeard internet atheist.

It is hard to take you seriously, even when you have good points, because of it.

I don't have a negative obsession with Christianity, I just think it is odd how an ancient belief not based on observable reality is allowed to play such an outsize role in government, law, and culture. While many major politicians surely do not believe in anything except their own glorification, it is still a requirement for a national US politician to be Christian to have any chance at holding office.

And what a wonderful phrase, did you come up with it all on your own?

Such a witty riposte makes it hard to take you seriously, even when you have good points.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-26-2015 04:55 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

I am not offended but no one is going to spend much time replying to questions that are mixed with such a condescending tone and a large ignorance of the subject. You have no interest in knowing the answers to any of these questions so there is no point in debating it. No offense either man but your posting on this thread has been disappointing forum standard wise.

Further discussion is bound to be mutually disappointing.

I know that normal polite discourse generally involves someone partially agreeing with the other, and assuming some of his point of view as ideas and experiences are exchanged back and forth. But how can I do that in a religious discussion when religious belief and a belief in God requires me to accept something for which there is no objective evidence? I get the idea of a leap of faith and all of that, but it's not something I could comfortably do. I base my life on what I can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell. Perhaps that makes me a caveman or a lower primate in the eyes of someone religious, but them's the breaks.

[Lizard King]

(05-26-2015 04:27 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

So who gets to decide which parts of the bible are valid and which aren't?

How can someone say part of the Book of Leviticus is what God wants and part isn't?

Apologies for not replying to your reply to my question. I will get round to it after this.

The teachings of Jesus supersede the Old Testament for Christians.

For example(off the top of my head):

Circumcision is not necessary.

I think the shellfish and crustacean ban is lifted, but I'm not certain.

Basically there are some OT rules that Christians can dispense with based on the teachings of Jesus. If anyone who is more knowledgeable on the New Testament, it would be interesting to hear some more of the NT rules that supersede the OT.

[Lizard King]

(05-25-2015 11:17 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 11:08 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Ignoring difference in belief or lack thereof, could you explain how same sex marriage benefits society?

I never said that it did. Nor have I hidden my personal belief that homosexuality is repulsive.

But I also don't think that the legality or illegality of a particular form of conduct should be based on whether or not it benefits society (which is highly subjective in any event).

Instead, I think that the goal of the law should be to safeguard the freedom of the individual to do as they see best for themselves, without interference from the state. Obviously this is not an absolute principal, and state intervention is necessary to maintain public order. However, the spirit of state intervention should be limited to perserving the maximum possible level of freedom for the individual.

I agree with you, but not entirely.

Humans need direction and control, in many areas of life.

I agree that gays should be allowed to be gay and live their life how they want. They make up a very small segment of the population so it isn't intrusive on the rest of society.

We should have freedom to live how we want, but too much freedom is a bad things for humans, because they like to push boundaries and ignore things if it suits them.

Legalised same-sex marriage is a step too far in my opinion. It diminishes the value of normal marriage, which(as has been explained in this thread) serves a purpose to society.

Just as humans can have too much freedom, societies can have too much progression. While the West legalises more and more things that were previously taboo, places like China, Russia, other Asian countries and the Middle East are out breeding the Anglosphere, and they're not becoming more liberal. They stand a good chance of crushing the West in the future. It's going to be interesting.

[scorpion]

Not to derail the thread further, but there's a very simple explanation for the harsh laws handed down in the Old Testament: they were civil laws made to ensure that the Israelites would be able to survive and maintain their identity as a unique people, which was crucial to God's plan. These were laws specific to the governing of the nation of Israel at that time. The Old Testament civil laws are no longer in effect because that plan (Jesus Christ) has already been carried out. The laws were handed down to a specific people (the Israelites) during that specific period of time. The ceremonial laws (i.e. eating and sacrificing) are similarly defunct for the same reason (they served the purpose of pointing toward Christ and were totally fulfilled after his mission was complete). The moral laws (i.e. Ten Commandments) are still in effect because they are representative of the unchanging nature of God toward sin, and what he considers good versus what is unacceptable in his eyes.

As for Volando's question about who gets to pick and choose which parts of the Bible have certain applications, how about Jesus Christ himself?

Mark 7:14-23 (NASB) Wrote:

14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

Matthew 22:37-40 (KJV) Wrote:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The Apostle Paul also wrote extensively on the Old Testament Law and how it applies to Christians:

Galations 3:19-22 (NLT) Wrote:

19 Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. 20 Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.

21 Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. 22 But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10:1-5 (NLT) Wrote:

10 The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. 2 If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared.

3 But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why, when Christ came into the world he said to God,

“You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings.
But you have given me a body to offer.
6 You were not pleased with burnt offerings
or other offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—
as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”

8 First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

[Deluge]

The outcome of the Irish Referendum is having a huge impact in Australia, perhaps unsurprisingly since we are the most Irish Catholic country in the world outside of Ireland itself.

The Labor Opposition Leader Bill Shorten (a Jesuit educated nominal Catholic) moved to introduce a bill on same-sex marriage into Parliament yesterday. Bill Shorten belongs to and is a leader of the dominant Right faction of the Labor Party and was the former head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he is not known as an SJW. The polls show 70%+ support for gay marriage and a slim majority in favour in both Houses of Parliament, but the majority in both major parties have been quite reticent to actually follow through. Up until now Labor had been unwilling to try and change the marriage laws, in part because of the influence of one of it's very prominent affiliated union's (the SDA) which is headed by very socially conservative Catholics.

Australia's conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott (a practicing traditional Catholic who only entered politics after he dropped out of the seminary) has today began hinting he may allow his Liberal Party (the main Centre-Right party in Australia) to have a conscience vote on the issue, even though he isn't in favour of same-sex marriage at all. Labor already has a policy to have a conscience vote on it (despite a recent failed attempt from some MP's on it's progressive fringe to bind all MP's at their upcoming National Conference).

The net impact of this would be a free for all later this year where individual MP's not in favour of same-sex marriage would get hounded by the media to change their positions. I think this would especially be the case with socially moderate MP's on the Right who haven't publicly stated their position, of which there are quite a few. If it weren't for the Irish referendum I think a same-sex marriage bill passing would have been politically infeasible until after the 2019 election, assuming as is reasonable that Tony Abbott will win a second term in 2016 despite being behind in the polls. No other change in gay marriage laws overseas has ever been as publicized as much as the Irish referendum has in the media or on my Facebook news feed, it may be a small country but this is a very significant development.

[Que enspastic]

If both Labor and Liberals had a conscience vote and rejected same sex marriage what impact would that have on the political mood in Australia ?

If as you say 70%+ people (and rising) are in support you could feasibly have entire cities like Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney (except the fringes) astonished that their elected representatives have rejected a global shift towards marriage equality as well as the Australian people's views on the matter.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Is too much freedom the root problem or is it too much prosperity?

Who cares if some dudes are gay or some bitches are so ugly they turn lesbo? The problem is when these people have so much free time that they can start a movement to somehow redefine the standards of normal behavior. Only in relatively prosperous modern times have people had the time and money to support such destructive movements.

There have always been homos. Gay marriage is not the problem, it's a symptom. If we keep attacking symptoms, the West is still going to die. Socialism, the welfare state, weak marriages laws, etc. All of these things are symptoms.

[Deluge]

(05-27-2015 01:41 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

If both Labor and Liberals had a conscience vote and rejected same sex marriage what impact would that have on the political mood in Australia ?

If as you say 70%+ people (and rising) are in support you could feasibly have entire cities like Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney (except the fringes) astonished that their elected representatives have rejected a global shift towards marriage equality as well as the Australian people's views on the matter.

There would be a furor. Similar to what will happen when Tony Abbott wins again next year. In typical fashion the commentariat would say it failed because MP's got spooked that it wouldn't fly with the battlers of Western Sydney. The most interesting thing about what's happened since the Irish referendum is that a number of Labor MP's in those safe working class ethnic Western Sydney seats have come out in favour of gay marriage despite how socially conservative their constituents are.

I think it will pass though. If there's already a slim majority in both houses (even though the combined Left only has less than 40% of lower house seats) that would only increase once a campaign properly starts. Most Labor MP's still against are probably too set in their ways and unwilling to lose the patronage of the conservative unions, but a lot of Liberal MP's will come out of the woodwork. There's too much bi-partisan support. Economic neoliberalism is the glue that holds the Liberal Party together, just like Labor it's MP's span the entire spectrum in terms of social issues.

[iknowexactly]

t

(05-26-2015 04:57 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I don't have a negative obsession with Christianity, I just think it is odd how an ancient belief not based on observable reality is allowed to play such an outsize role in government, law, and culture.

The main good thing about Christianity was the basic idea that each person had value, because each is loved by what they imagined as "God."
And that people should treat each other kindly.

Some of what was written down was by people who had met Jesus and were basically fanatics with a few screws loose, like Apostle Paul, who (was described as) cast a spell on a fortune teller making him blind. And exorcising a demon from a young woman. No serious person can include include tales like this in their analysis of cosmology.

But even Paul stated in Corinthians that among faith hope and charity, charity was the most important.

However erroneous the cosmology behind this idea, it served to reduce wholesale slaughter, slavery and made more use of people's talent and eventually helped get rid of the parasitic royalty who claimed divine right.

Of course slimeballs got into power in the Church and raped and pillaged to their hearts delight and until only recently were molesting children to beat the band, but the difference between the institution and the ideas is important. Of course the lip-service to the institution continues long after the thing is decayed beyond repair.

As far as the sky-lord stuff, well, around year zero people's idea's about chemistry, physics, and biology were total shit also. It's just sky-lord stuff is un-disprovable,and for many people they're happier believing in "God" than not. As long as they don't go on violent rampages or try to impose this ancient philosophy on us, what's the difference?

I don't go looking for 5 year olds to badger them until they break down and admit Santa Claus isn't real, and sky lord is just an more vicious, adult version of Santa Claus. Santa Claus just withholds reward, sky lord punishes cruelly.

I believe Christ was a schizophrenic/schizotypal poetic genius who probably ended up doing a lot for human rights if you compare the Christian world to Muslim or Confucian cultures.

[amity]

Thanks everyone, for all of your intelligent, constructive (and some truly inspired) comments.
Turned into an epic thread, which morphed in some unforeseen directions, in true RVF style.
I wasn't able to contribute in recent weeks, as I was away.
I've written some more post referendum thoughts here.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[davyjose]

(06-10-2015 04:17 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  

Just had a look at your blog there. Great post and I agree 100%

By the by did you see that shit that was trending on twitter Ireland in the past 48hrs - #Femistfuture

The horror...the horror...

We are trotting after the yanks with gusto...

Shouldn't have looked. So.Much.Stupidity.

As someone who's lived in both Toronto and San Francisco, I can confidently say Dublin now outstrips both of them in terms of femtardom.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[DickDastardly]

delete

[amity]

It's true man.
Newstalk and many of the domestic newspapers and TV channels are pushing more and more women to the forefront, so we're increasingly getting a more feminised worldview from these sources.
I occasionally pick up an Irish newspaper or tune into radio and sometimes to TV but I'm far more selective than before.
The 'Female Imperative' really has come home to roost now in Ireland, even moreso since May 23rd.
It's become the default narrative and because the media are so influential, particularly in this small country of ours, I can't see it getting any better.
It's a tricky one isn't it, I try not to let shit like this get to me, and try to enlighten people here and there, if I think they're open to it.
I'm learning to rise above it, tune out the noise, and focus on what's important.
Not easy I know, but to be fair, there's never been so many good resources out there as there is now, so long as you know where to look, and plenty of things in this world still that we can be positive about, like travelling to amazing places, incredible nature and many many people who there still have the self awareness to value truth and beauty over short term fixes and external validation.

[Phoenix]

Of course there will be an increased pandering to even more depraved and abnormal individuals. The Left never just stops because it's had a win, it just keeps going. Gangrene doesn't just stop after it takes a victims foot - it keeps going until they die.

[davyjose]

(06-11-2015 05:22 AM)amity Wrote:  

It's true man.
Newstalk and many of the domestic newspapers and TV channels are pushing more and more women to the forefront, so we're increasingly getting a more feminised worldview from these sources.
I occasionally pick up an Irish newspaper or tune into radio and sometimes to TV but I'm far more selective than before.
The 'Female Imperative' really has come home to roost now in Ireland, even moreso since May 23rd.
It's become the default narrative and because the media are so influential, particularly in this small country of ours, I can't see it getting any better.
It's a tricky one isn't it, I try not to let shit like this get to me, and try to enlighten people here and there, if I think they're open to it.
I'm learning to rise above it, tune out the noise, and focus on what's important.
Not easy I know, but to be fair, there's never been so many good resources out there as there is now, so long as you know where to look, and plenty of things in this world still that we can be positive about, like travelling to amazing places, incredible nature and many many people who there still have the self awareness to value truth and beauty over short term fixes and external validation.

Ian O Doherty seems to be the one sane voice in an Irish wasteland of SJW hamstering..

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/column...14248.html

Here is his (very) rational take on professional troll Joe Brolly's outburst which had everyone so "offended"..except the actual the person who was supposed to be offended..

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/column...59769.html