@Diarmuid of course can't cite one lie I told.
He goaded me yesterday to state what did I think about his "idea" about a certain manner in which to treat Irish women who got pregnant and were considering their choices.
I told him. - And in case anyone missed it, you can see in what he said that there was an attitude towards the woman expressed. Read what I wrote there and judge did I tell the truth. Let us know on this thread.
For I said there exactly what I thought about it. As he invited me to.
So he claims what I wrote there is libellous, and untrue. No it's not. If I have made an error, point it out to me.
But of course I have not made any error. I considered very carefully what I wrote, and it was fully warranted. In addition I would say
that response was demanded through what he wrote.
Actually here's yet another point about what Dermot wrote that I might have made:
For recall in my own (uncensored) thread about abortion I wrote about how people
voted for repeal also for exactly the reasons that Dermot demonstrated for us in what he said yesterday. Now
@Diarmuid laid
that out for all to see, did he not? Yes, he did, certainly.
Well let's go on.
Next we found out that Dermot expects people to be so stupid that they can't connect his ravings on his vile Holocaust thread, with his ravings about the gas chambers (to give one instance), with his public published ravings about the exact same thing:
Dermot on TV
: "... Auschwitz had heated dormitories, a swimming pool, bakeries, a theatre and a football pitch ... There were no extermination chambers... the Jewish people were looking to "profit" from inventing the atrocities of the Holocaust, and has previously stated that there is ample evidence that starvation and carpet bombing from Allied forces were the main cause of the deaths of 6 million Jews..."
Amazingly all the published views of this public figure match up exactly with the ravings of @Diarmuid that we witness on here!
(Let us make a note here that anyone putting themselves forward to the Irish public with a view to assuming public office thereby invites that public to judge of their logos, ethos and pathos, to assess if they are indeed fit to assume that office.)
Let's go on again.
In this regard, i.e. this assessment
of fitness for public representation - after
@Diarmuid deleted my posts (about circularity, which was very much on topic) - I then referred to a close family connection of his that I think may cast revealing light on psychologically, where Dermot is coming from.
In response to that, rather than reinsatating my post as I asked, he then claimed to be some "Diarmuid McConville" writing to the Dail etc.
In other words he was afraid to admit that he is the public figure who approached the Irish public to grant legitimacy to his views through assessing those views, and his character, and on that assessment to consider granting him a vote for those views (god help the 39 who did so).
But there are two very important points we need to thrash out here:
The first point is that I think
@Diarmuid spelled out very clearly yesterday that he has to the fore in his views a violent intent against women, that seriously compromises his stance on genuinely acting in the best interest of the unborn.
For instance, we see that the far left yesterday rolled back what I would consider a fairly common sense protection of the unborn. - What I want to demonstrate is that this is happening
precisely for the reasons that @Diarmuid laid bare in his post yesterday, that I (rightfully) reacted strongly to.
The second point is that I think we need to look at where
@Diarmuid is really coming from, psychologically, and the character of his projections.
Now we have an advantage as regards this examination as since he is a public figure we may examine some of his personal and family history.
I actually did that yesterday, briefly, and immediately it jumped out at me that there may be something there that explains a hell of a lot of what he raves about on here about,
as projection.
I mean, consider that he rationalises the kind of violence he wields against women, and other objectional stances, by holding up the catholic church's
“teaching on sexual morality”.
But then consider in this regard that Dermot's own brother worked as a priest in a Diocese where in the process of investigating cases of abuse it was found, to give just one illustration - that his brother's fellow priests would be
"... in bed with another man and that the priest would walk around his home nude while the youth was there..."!
So was this just an exception? Where was Dermot's precious
“teaching on sexual morality” here?
I think if
@Diarmuid's great concerns about these matters were directed towards his own house first, perhaps then he would be possessed of
more integrity when he directs his fury at young vulnerable pregnant women, gays, and every other group he takes aim at, etc.
So let's take that for starters.
Maybe he really is an aging Hebrew homosexual?
