Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

734 Excellent


About La_Dolce_Vita

  • Rank
    MF Veteran
  • Birthday 12/15/2006

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,007 profile views
  1. I've only been looking on here within the last month. Thank you though. xxx
  2. A cow shed is a baaieagh, so the translation looks right.
  3. It's because the horses would be already be tired from their long journey (from outside of Douglas) and then go slow on that long slope. I've seen it mentioned in the Streets Names of Douglas but not heard it spoken.
  4. Does anyone use or has anyone heard anyone use the name 'Lazy Hill' for the slope from the entrance of Hill's Meadow up to the Brown Bobby?
  5. I thought it might have been the southern side of the hill. The monument site: "A large mound on the top of the hill above Mount Murray and overlooking Douglas Bay is recent, and was erected about 1812 [? 1782], by Sir Wadsworth Busk, Attorney-General, to commemorate the recovery of King George III from illness. At a Triangulation mark, 728. 4. O.S. XIII/9 http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fulltext/lma1930/sn.htm If I had the right spot then another source said it was just a tumulus. I was a bit confused.
  6. Where was Ashole? Is this the name of the area before Mount Murray was built? I did try to see whether anything still exists of some form of monument that was built by Wadsworth Busk. I presumed it was on the hill, on the east side. I did find a mound but was not sure if this was a bronze age tumulus or whether it was all that was left of the monument. Would you know anything about it?
  7. We don't have freedom of speech. No country does. If you cannot say certain things without being punished then there is no freedom of speech. And such freedoms relating to speech have only reduced in the last twenty years.
  8. Oh, ok, you just seem to be repeating yourself. Is it irritating because I am asking you to explain your argument further? If thinking is irritating, I can't help you. But you're wrong. Abortion is not and never has been a matter of rights and wrongs completely based upon clinical evidence and decisions. Instead, clinical evidence gives society an idea of what abortion is and then everybody has formed their idea of what is right or wrong. Your view on abortion is your based on your own personal idea of what is right and wrong and it's not one that solely comes from clinical evidence, for example. And I wasn't claiming that women should have no control - I did write below that I do not subscribe to that view. However, as I said, some people consider that the thing to be removing is a life because it is living and because it is human and has potential to be a person in future then it has great value. If you want to argue against this non-religious view against abortion then you have to think about why they are wrong. Yes, you are right, there are some exceptional circumstances when killing is condoned by the State. In the main, however, people don't have such liberty. But talking about this is missing the point. What I am saying is that if society judges that the life that is removed is a killing because the foetus is according enough value as a child's life then this changes things. And of course, it wouldn't be the woman's decision, as her choice about controlling her body is in opposition to ending a life as importance as a child's. And the decision of society would be not to allow abortion. But fortunately, the majority of us, don't think the foetus is worth much at all, so abortion is considered to be acceptable. But I do think most people have never really engaged their brains on the rights and wrong of this issue, which makes discussions with people very difficult. It should be discussed more.
  9. I think she should be made to explain whether she did or didn't as all she has done is leave a lot of women unprotected and vulnerable at a time when they probably need the support of the Manx health system the most. If that is because she, or people in her team, hold certain religious views then I think thats utterly disgusting.Someone's dislike of abortion doesn't need to stem from religion. It does really because they should have relied on clinical advice when setting policy on clinical matters. If clinical advice had said that there were issues then it's fine to act on that advice. Otherwise it's just people's opinions (as it would seem to be in this case) that are setting clinical policies. Most people opinions are driven by their beliefs and a good proportion of those beliefs come from their religious beliefs or personal views on mortality. Those views should have absolutely no role in setting clinical policy. Pursuing this policy will leave women more vulnerable and more exposed simply because the people setting the policy clearly believe that these women should continue to be outcasts who should be denied medical support and treatment in the IOM that is freely available to women in the UK because they simply don't like the situation they end up in (i.e, pregnant and distraught) and falsely assume they are women of low morals if they wish to have an abortion (which is totally untrue in most cases) because that's what their religion or beliefs has told them. But...society's views on abortion are down to personal beliefs, both religious and non-religious. Our medical understanding only partly informs our views on abortion. I thinkyou are looking at all this very subjectively or in a very simplistic manner. There are very many people who are opposed to abortion because they think that the life has such a value that ending the life would be a killing. If they believe that and if through a particular understanding it is thought to be correct then it is society's decision whether abortion is right or wrong, not the woman's. We don't allow individual people to kill. Other people that I have met think abortion is wrong because they look at the issue from a non-rational, emotional perspective and think that it is wrong to abort because the child COULD have grown up and been someone and done things. I don't agree share these views but they exist and are why there is opposition to abortion.
  10. But where will it stop? Gay men not getting treated for prostate cancer as their prostate has taken a bit of a battering and the health chiefs don't agree with their lifestyle? It sets an awful precedent and all those concerned need to explain why the decision was made without consulting professionally qualified and trained staff on the actual clinical issues. I understand the point of your analogy, but it is a stupid analogy considering a lot of gay men never have anal sex, nevermind being bottom when it comes to sex.
  11. I agree. On a similar note, isn't the name supposed to be pronounced 'kinnish'. I always thought so but noticed recently some people with the surname say it 'kennish'.
  12. Unfortunately though this thinking that education is mainly or simply about making useful workers is all too common. I completely agree with you.
  13. It's easy to forget and or dismiss as irrelevant to modern life. Only this afternoon I went for a walk in a village down the road and looked at the 1st world war memorial on the wall of the post office. This village is about the size of Sulby and there were 63 names on the memorial with their dates of birth and death with the message <<Morte pour la France>>. The youngest was 18 and the eldest 30. Given the size of the place now and its likely size in 1914, I'd guess the entire able bodied young male population of the village was killed. If that doesn't make you consider "its importance" nothing will. Most of us have aged in a golden era in so many ways and perhaps we should acknowledge the reasons for that. Even a simple walk in the warm autumn sun suddenly felt like an enormous privilege. When you say 'acknowledge the reasons for that', can you elaborate with reference to WW1. I think you'd have a bloody hard job of demonstrated how the fact that people had life easy in the 50s,60s, 70s, etc. is down to WW1, as we really wouldn't know what the balance would have been were the war not to have happened. One thing I don't think we should think is that these men and boys gave us some sort of gift that we should be thankful for and part of some wonderful and incomparable sacrifice. The whole conflict was a calamity. It incomparable but only because of the waste of life and sheer stupidity of society then (and maybe still then) when patriotism blinds us to the value of human life and when other interests not in accord with the working population are obscured to motivate people to join. WW1 is very important and needs to remembered, as an example of human folly and because the people who were sent to France and Belgium died for an unworthy cause and that's society's fault. But I don't think patriotism has such a hold and power that it is hard to abandon the warm glow it brings and people really don't like the truth, so the myth of a grand sacrifice and worthy cause of war (and all British warmongering) still prevails.
  14. Yes, and it appears the decision was made based on the interpretation or wording of the law that would categorise Ashers behaviour as direct discrimination (and as such there being an injustice) because the cake referred to gay marriage. The decision is made because of the association with the LGBT community. As said, this is quite different to the use of the law to actually deal with oppression or marginalisation, which I would argue is not taking here place. It seems more of a question that there is a perception of injustice because someone was done on a matter concerning or relating to the community rather than behaviour that in any way oppresses people of that community. Maybe I am missing something here in my understanding. I would rather the matter was very clear-cut, but it doesn't seem to be.
  • Create New...