News

This House Would Make a Musical

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

musical

 

The 16th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 27th of February in the Senate Room. Ciarán Gallagher ended a riff off by starting Bohemian Rhapsody which then turned into a group singing thing with piano played by Henry Adams.

Ciarán Gallagherand Paul Shannon were the proposition. Ciaran had a speech but was interrupted by bagpipes and the arrival of our favourite German Sebastian Eckert. His actual argument was quite good and serious and focused on the uniqueness of musicals and how they consist of wonderful things. Shannon then continued for the proposition. He commented on the shambolic nature of the evening before moving on to his three reasons for supporting the motion, his reasons three. There was singing, logic and observations of the Literific council.

Ben Murphy and Jonny Finlay opposed musicals! Murphy felt musicals contained an unnerving amount of optimism and that they do not reflect life as it is since life can be kind of terrible. Finlay begged us not to waste membership money on a musical that would just end up as gifs on Tumblr. Instead he recommended creating a blockbuster movie, suggested titles being Adam Potter and the Standing Order of the Phoenix or Doctor Whom. Both titles were accompanied by detailed descriptions.

The debate then went to the floor. We then went to a vote and the motion passed.

This House Believes There is a God

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 15th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 20th of February in the Senate Room.

Jess Liningstone, David Cather and Professor David Glass supported the motion. Livingstone explained that in a situation where you can’t determine if or if not a God exists, it comes down to faith to make you decide. Cather determined that the world is far too finely balanced to not have something intervene. Prof. Glass concluded by telling the House that the universe would make more sense if a god did exist. He said that without religion and belief, many scientists would not have discovered what we have today as they wouldn’t have gone looking for God.

Ciaran Gallagher, Nick Millington and Paddy Mallon. C’p’n Gallagher focused on not offending people and accepted that it is a personal issue but that there is insufficient evidence to prove a god’s existence. Mr Millington said it was important for the House to understand his bias as an atheist and so while you can’t say there is a god or that there isn’t, you also can’t say there’s a mystical teapot floating about the universe. Mallon decided to pull a ‘Jonny Gallagher’ as it is so called within the Society (See 1967 Abortion Act Minutes) and said he didn’t believe there was ‘a’ God, but instead a load of them. Batman, something Irish Mythology reduces gods to fairies, to pixies.

We then went to the Floor. Both sides summarised, sand the motion then went to a vote and was defeated with 10 abstentions, 18 ayes and 26 nays.

This House Would Raise Gender Neutral Children

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 14th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 13th of February in the Senate Room. It was co-hosted by QUB LGBT+

Ellen Murray and Fionn Rodgers took the proposition. Murray argued that gender is such a big part of our lives that separates us into boxes from the day we are born. These boxes can later affect what people do with their lives with society not accepting gender imbalances. If children were raised as gender neutral then they would learn to not discriminate between each other. Rodgers argued that it shouldn’t be up to the parent to force a preconceived idea of gender onto a vulnerable child that is open to learning whatever it is told. By raising children as gender neutral you’d be giving them the right to do what they want.

Charlie Barnes and Brendan Kelters opposed the motion. Barnes argued that it is the gender binary that is the problem and that gender is not, and should not, be a social construct. Instead of raising children as gender neutral he suggested we get parents to realise that there is a spectrum when it comes to gender. Kelters closed the debate. He suggested that gender neutrality is in itself a distinct gender and that the gender binary is rudimentary psychology that shouldn’t be something where you are classified as one or the other. By raising children as gender neutral, it could lead to confusion about how they interpret themselves.

The debate then went to the floor. Both sides summarised and the motion went to a vote. The motion was defeated.