The Daily Wire: "Ofensive" "birth mothers" - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

"Ofensive" "birth mothers" I mean, truly!

#41 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:36 AM

View Posticey, on 29 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

My reference to "blue" skies was hypothetical but within the realms of reason.

Actually, it was another absurd effort to avoid the topic of discussion.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#42 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:25 AM

Apologies for disinterring this thread, but while browsing IA, I came across this.



Quote

It should be noted, however, with respect to that issue, that there is a whole section on the ‘language of adoption’ in the introduction to the Senate’s report: Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices.

1.9 Adoption is a difficult subject to write about in a manner acceptable to everyone affected by it. Forced adoption even more so. Mothers who were forced to give up children for adoption generally reject the terms ‘birth mother’ or ‘biological mother’, and some reject ‘natural mother’. The preferred term is often simply ‘mother’.

Therefore, had Mr Abbott, or his speech writer, taken the trouble to read this document he would have been well aware of the potential insult he was delivering to the mothers in that venue and to those around Australia watching on television.


Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#43 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 May 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostHDMC, on 15 May 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Apologies for disinterring this thread, but while browsing IA, I came across this.

Quote

Therefore, had Mr Abbott, or his speech writer, taken the trouble to read this document he would have been well aware of the potential insult he was delivering to the mothers in that venue and to those around Australia watching on television.




Yes, we're all pretty well versed with the 70,000 plus words of that 337 page document. Clearly someone did not read it right through.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#44 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 16 May 2013 - 05:55 AM

View Posticey, on 16 May 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Yes, we're all pretty well versed with the 70,000 plus words of that 337 page document. Clearly someone did not read it right through.


All pretty well versed? I wasn't for one. Abbott did make a passing reference to it in his non apology -

Quote

"As the Senate inquiry made clear, there is a lot of contention over terminology. It is difficult to make the distinctions that sometimes we are trying to make without upsetting people. We all learn from our experiences and obviously I will learn from today."


- but without spelling out exactly what he was referring to.



But I do note that you, as someone well versed, didn't volunteer the specific info.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#45 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:16 AM

View PostHDMC, on 16 May 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

All pretty well versed? I wasn't for one. Abbott did make a passing reference to it in his non apology -



- but without spelling out exactly what he was referring to.



But I do note that you, as someone well versed, didn't volunteer the specific info.


I've never heard of such sensitivities prior to umbrage taken so easily at reference to such mothers. Maybe Abbott learnt the apparent errors of his ways from a lefty blog our your ABC? I doubt that it was from a marathon read of the said document.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#46 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:09 AM

Well, given Abbotts track record of reading documents, I think its fairly fucking clear that Abbott didnt read anything longer then the list of ingredients on his wheeties box, and even then he was a bit confused.

However, his handlers should know that Abbott has problems with words more than about 3 syllables long, so they should have read the document and outlined the important bits, including the bit where it says that some people find the terminology he used offensive, and made sure he didnt say those words.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#47 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:12 PM

It's easy to find someone who takes offence. Look around or buy a mirror.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#48 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:10 AM

Yes. Its also easy to avoid giving offense, if you have been given a document that says "DONT USE THIS PHRASE, IT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE OFFENSE"

Something a hopeful prime minister should recognise.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#49 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:30 PM

View PostNotFrogman, on 17 May 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Yes. Its also easy to avoid giving offense, if you have been given a document that says "DONT USE THIS PHRASE, IT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE OFFENSE"


Thus croaketh the frog.

Pa-lease!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply