Best Council Meeting EVER!!!!!!

John_C

gliondar wrote:

I lost a lot of respect for people on the right when I saw that motion about CJH being put forward...... the thought that people consider him some sort of hero. A man who destroyed our nations good will. I tell ya, if another motion like that appears Ill be sickened. Nothing but slime.....

May I propose that next year everyone who shares this opinion think twice before presenting an equally silly left wing motion. Council would be a lot better off without rubbish like this.

scop

Firespinner wrote:

What I mean is that he did a lot of good as well, which has been thrown by the wayside in the rush by his opponents to finish him. Someone once said that the "good that men do is often interred with them". I wouldn't vote for him but pretending that he was some kind of demon is childish and pathetic. He did good deeds as well, and this should not be forgotten.

Oh, seriously man, Haughey did a handful of aight things, he wasnt bad but the guy ran the country whilst ****ing it in the ass on the side.

Thats not my idea of how a representative ought to behave.

Word.

Blush_01

/OT

Firespinner wrote:

3) not all that bad. He brought in free public transport for the elderly etc.

Yeah, free transport for the elderly. Well in that case give the man a medal. Sure, praise someone for the good they've done, but use a scales to weigh the good aganist the bad. I have a huge problem with the idea that a man who told a nation to tighten their belts while he bought Charvaise (sp?) shirts on their backs (that being a minor indescretion when compared with his other behaviour c/f Mad Lad's post for an example, take a goo at his inability to appear at a tribunal but his ability to go golfing and sailing - I can 100% understand how physical exertion is better for you than sitting in a courtroom and being held accountable for your actions, can't you? - for another example) being portrayed as someone who wasn't all that bad.

For féck sake Firespinner, he wasn't stealing apples from a neighbour's orchard. He was a grown man who knew bloody well he was fúcking the general public over. Make no bones about that.

OT So the meeting was a bit of a farce on the whole then?

gliondar

John_C wrote:

May I propose that next year everyone who shares this opinion think twice before presenting an equally silly left wing motion. Council would be a lot better off without rubbish like this.

I didn't support the abortion motion either. Why do you consider me left-wing? I'm not but I'd rather be a communist than be associated with a gutter rat like CJH.




EDIT: I have removed an unnecessary attack on John_C. Sorry got carried away.

Blush_01

So, this council meeting, eh?

The_Minister

Blush_01 wrote:

OT So the meeting was a bit of a farce on the whole then?

Unbelievable, the council lost all dignity. I was waiting for the first fight to break out.

mad lad

Unbelievable, the council lost all dignity

i agree. having KBC'rs come in dressed as a cow when council was discussing abortion and womens rights was disgraceful. No matter what your position on those matters is, you should at least show some dignity and respect. is it any wonder why the majority of students never vote or get involved in SU activity?


http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/07/30/ihead_29.htm

pretty*monster

As I've mentioned before, the council was not typical. We're usually much more restrained.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

As I've mentioned before, the council was not typical. We're usually much more restrained.

It was very entertaining though:D
Sooo much bad blood on a single council *shakes head and giggles as he remembers having to slash his way through the tension to leave the room*
It was like all respect for fellow men went out thewindow, with everyone interrupting and shouting, refusing to be quiet......such chaos.:D

madlad wrote:

i agree. having KBC'rs come in dressed as a cow when council was discussing abortion and womens rights was disgraceful. No matter what your position on those matters is, you should at least show some dignity and respect. is it any wonder why the majority of students never vote or get involved in SU activity?

Was it KBC'rs? I thought it was two of Anto's UCD Ball promoters. I don't think that they meant the cow to = women. I think it was just a prank. The reaction it got was brilliant though.


Article proves nothing. It is an unproven allegation, where Haughey's explanation seems reasonable.

The_Minister

I think that that council meeting was entertaining and hilarious in turns, and I think everyone should have heard about it, but they have and the time has come to close this thread. The discussion is off-topic and circuler. Peachy, do your thing.

singingstranger

...right after we point out that CJH did in fact graduate from UCD, as an accountant (source = Wikipedia).

...and after I say that if Council had turned into a fistfight, I might have considered taking blow-by-blow minutes of it.

pretty*monster

Hey Gav (or anyone else who was paying attention), I zoned out in the middle (to preserve my sanity). What was going on when everyone started shouting 'put your hand up Holly'?

HappyCrackHead

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, though most of the time it is on the money. however with a contravertial character like CJH one would do best to err on the side of caution.

I think you have to remember that this was the last council of the year and people did sacrifice all decorum. This was some people's last time in council and they lost the rag, case in point Connor McGowan. However you should have heard some of the stuff other people were saying. Veronica Raneri (failed arts programme officer candidate) remarked that if a woman got pregnant it was "her own fault".

With people like that its extremely difficult to have a debate. And she was out of order just as much as Connor was during that debate and never got called for it.

Council was mad, it was funny and it was deeply depressing. One thing is that i still cant believe that from what Firespinner says, that he was actually THERE with me. Even though he was two rows behind me.

Samos

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The idea that nobody should be able to impose their ethical views on others is short sighted and arrogant/naive. The need for and benefits of society are so numerous I wouldn’t know where to begin, but without society human evolution and achievement wouldn’t be worth mentioning. However society needs laws, it cannot work without them. At the very least societies laws should be the bare minimum needed to ensure that nobody’s rights and opportunities are infringed upon by anyone else. Shouldn’t society impose on me their moral belief that it is wrong for me to kill you simply because you hold a different opinion to me? … BTW, as a side note/rant to the idea of a lawless society:Anarchism as a political philosophy, is the belief that all forms of social coercion, such as governments and social hierarchies are undesirable. In short nobody should be able to force social standards on others.

My position is that everyone has pretty much the same basic ethical outlook on life, i.e. to avoid pain and maximize pleasure. Difficulty arises when people have different conceptions about what constitutes pleasure and pain for themselves and others, but I think most people are of the view that it is immoral to kill another thinking person. I don’t think a law prohibiting murder should be necessary to ensure this is the case. Suppose this particular law were repealed: would you or I or anyone else go around wantonly killing others? If you think so, then this means that the only thing that motivates a person is the desire to avoid punishment. I do not think this is a justified reason to adhere to any moral viewpoint. It is simply self-interest, which is what ethics and considerations of fairness try to mitigate. Religion and law are based on the fallacy of argumetum ad baculum, the appeal to force, in which a personal reward is offered or a punishment threatened in order to direct behaviour. Not only is this entirely selfish, but it can also be directed towards unethical actions as is the case in many totalitarian regimes. The use of fear is not the best way to achieve a civilised society. Surely it is more worthy to choose what is right upon consideration of the facts and the feelings of others than to be forced to commit to a certain position. I do not have your same faith in law, because it has not been a deterrent for crime still exists, and would hardly increase with any relaxation of governance. I would prefer to teach children from a young age to think for themselves and to empathize with others than to frustrate them with rules that are given no justification.

(I’m not sure if your rants about anarchism, and declaration of its proponents as wilful liars, are required here. I’ve never heard of Kropotkin either. I have tried to justify my position on independent grounds.)

Now, going further from the precept that ‘pleasure’ is good and pain is bad, I can say with some degree of confidence that these are states that only sentient beings can experience. So, the question arises: at what stage does a foetus begin to experience these sensations. That is a scientific question and can only be determined by detailed study into the process. I would venture that it occurs between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation, but can vary. So I would deem abortion before this to be acceptable and unacceptable afterwards except in extenuating circumstances, such as a threat to the mother’s life or if the child would be born with a terminal illness or face a life of incurable pain.

A difficulty arises though, when we consider potential as a possible signifier of rights. Since a foetus has the potential to be a fully human life, should it not be granted rights from conception based on this almost inevitable occurrence? Many pro-lifers take this position, and go further to declare ova as beyond interference also, as well as condemning masturbation and contraception as destroying ‘potential life’. I’m not sure about this. The fact that such people do not consider abstinence to be equally damaging confuses me, and suggests that their basis is inconsistent, if not totally flawed.

Anyway, to stay on topic, I should have been at the Council meeting that evening, but decided cramming for exams would be more beneficial in the long run! Maybe my appearance would have made difference. We’ll never know!!:p

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

However you should have heard some of the stuff other people were saying. Veronica Raneri (failed arts programme officer candidate) remarked that if a woman got pregnant it was "her own fault".

I missed this! When was this? It depends what she meant, most unwanted pregnancies are avoidable ie. use a condom.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Council was mad, it was funny and it was deeply depressing. One thing is that i still cant believe that from what Firespinner says, that he was actually THERE with me. Even though he was two rows behind me.

It is strange how we picked up on different stuff all right. Its probably because we have different standards of what is inappropriate.

AngelofFire wrote:

It must also be noted that Ranieri made a personal slur at the international students officer.

I cannot make the comment that I wish so I will simply say that I could see the temptation and he never shied from that impulse either.

Samos wrote:

A difficulty arises though, when we consider potential as a possible signifier of rights. Since a foetus has the potential to be a fully human life, should it not be granted rights from conception based on this almost inevitable occurrence?

The potential aspect has always been the part to give me difficulty. Its good to know I'm not the only one this bothers.

pigeonbutler

Originally Posted by AngelofFire
It must also be noted that Ranieri made a personal slur at the international students officer.

Do you have any desire Chris to share the alleged slur with us? I must have missed that bit.

Congrats on LY chairmanship by the way. I hear Dillon is back. An interesting year beckons I think.

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

Hey Gav (or anyone else who was paying attention), I zoned out in the middle (to preserve my sanity). What was going on when everyone started shouting 'put your hand up Holly'?

As far as I can remember it was the CJH motion when Holly was sitting over on the right with the KBC heads.

pigeonbutler wrote:

Congrats on LY chairmanship by the way. I hear Dillon is back. An interesting year beckons I think.

I'd have liked to been around for that, actually...

pigeonbutler

"As far as I can remember it was the CJH motion when Holly was sitting over on the right with the KBC heads."

To put that in perspective we were just reminding Holly that Mike-Pat had been the machine that had gotten her elected.

Vainglory

pigeonbutler wrote:

Do you have any desire Chris to share the alleged slur with us? I must have missed that bit.

She said that he should go and have a shower (something she also said about Enda during the election). A shame really.

Vainglory

pigeonbutler wrote:

"As far as I can remember it was the CJH motion when Holly was sitting over on the right with the KBC heads."

To put that in perspective we were just reminding Holly that Mike-Pat had been the machine that had gotten her elected.

And thus, she must do what he says for the rest of her life? What a price to pay for the Ents office.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

She said that he should go and have a shower (something she also said about Enda during the election). A shame really.

*Giggle*shshshsh *bursts out laughing* LOL. That should have gone in the opener.:D

Stabshauptmann

Samos wrote:

My position is that everyone has pretty much the same basic ethical outlook on life

I wrote a different post to the one that appeared here, but I lost the connection and unfortunately the post and hastily wrote it again from memory. I don’t know if you are an anarchist or not, but one of the things I had in my original post and seem to have omitted the second time, is that I am annoyed by the belief of one universal and innate acceptance of what is right and wrong.

I disagree with you fundamental premise that we all have the same basic ethical outlook on life.
That could take up a thread of its own.

to avoid pain and maximize pleasure.

There are so very many people, and systems of faith that would hold the opposite view to that.

Difficulty arises when people have different conceptions about what constitutes pleasure and pain for themselves and others, but I think most people are of the view that it is immoral to kill another thinking person.

I fail to grasp the link between pain and pleasure as behavioral motivators and the act of murder.

I don’t think a law prohibiting murder should be necessary to ensure this is the case. Suppose this particular law were repealed: would you or I or anyone else go around wantonly killing others?

I think that during the evolution of society people appreciated the need to have this law. The ethical standard came first, and was enshrined in law second. If you repeal the law, the standard is still there. However, there are those who don’t hold this ethical stance, and upon whom law, its officers and its consequences are the only inhibitors.
I think many people don’t understand that laws are traditionally a way of protecting and upholding an ethical position, they are the after thought. Civilization seeks a way to normalize behavior, and it finds it in the statute book.

If you think [the legalizing of murder would lead to increased violent crime], then this means that the only thing that motivates a person is the desire to avoid punishment.

Or it could mean that for those people who are motivated to kill (or act in a way otherwise deemed unethical) , the law is the main thing stopping them. There is no law against me eating McDonalds, but I don’t do it because I think its disgusting. If there were the same penalties for eating a Big Mac as for murder, I think a lot less people would eat there.
We could start yet another thread now on the nature and role of government and the nanny state paradigm:).

I do not think this is a justified reason to adhere to any moral viewpoint. It is simply self-interest, which is what ethics and considerations of fairness try to mitigate.

A society run on self interest exists, its called capitalism.

Religion and law are based on the fallacy of argumetum ad baculum, the appeal to force, in which a personal reward is offered or a punishment threatened in order to direct behavior.

From my limited knowledge of psychology and AB I know that such an approach wont maximize effectiveness, but it is marvelously efficient.
So I don’t see how its a fallacy.

Not only is this entirely selfish, but it can also be directed towards unethical actions

Compared to your proposal of being motivated solely by pain and pleasure? That wouldn’t lead to a selfish outcome would it. And I still cant see where ethics comes into the mind of someone simply trying to maximize a two variable utility function.

as is the case in many totalitarian regimes. The use of fear is not the best way to achieve a civilized society. Surely it is more worthy to choose what is right upon consideration of the facts and the feelings of others than to be forced to commit to a certain position.

There is a trade off between fear and commitment/loyalty. The former is easier and cheaper to foster. Its more efficient, less inputs to outputs.
Commitment is more effective, the quality of the output is higher. Its a trade off, there is no one best solution.
You also seem to have plucked the feelings of others out of the air and added it to your theory of social conduct. At what point during the maximization of my own pleasure will I consider the feelings of others. Perhaps you should expand your theory of motivation.

I do not have your same faith in law, because it has not been a deterrent for crime still exists, and would hardly increase with any relaxation of governance. I would prefer to teach children from a young age to think for themselves and to empathize with others than to frustrate them with rules that are given no justification.

Law enforcement has been empirically proved to be a factor in crime rates. The most obvious example I cant think of is the crack down in limerick.

(I’m not sure if your rants about anarchism, and declaration of its proponents as willful liars, are required here. I’ve never heard of Kropotkin either. I have tried to justify my position on independent grounds.)

Perhaps without knowing it you were advocating some anarchist principals.

Now, going further from the precept that ‘pleasure’ is good and pain is bad, I can say with some degree of confidence that these are states that only sentient beings can experience. So, the question arises: at what stage does a foetus begin to experience these sensations. That is a scientific question and can only be determined by detailed study into the process. I would venture that it occurs between 12 and 16 weeks of gestation, but can vary. So I would deem abortion before this to be acceptable and unacceptable afterwards except in extenuating circumstances, such as a threat to the mother’s life or if the child would be born with a terminal illness or face a life of incurable pain.

Two things. By your logic of sentience and capacity for emotion being perquisites to the right to life, my dog deserves the same rights as you. You'll need to be less simplistic.

Secondly, you are now going into the realm of euthanasia. A 3rd thread?

A difficulty arises though, when we consider potential as a possible signifier of rights. Since a foetus has the potential to be a fully human life, should it not be granted rights from conception based on this almost inevitable occurrence? Many pro-lifers take this position, and go further to declare ova as beyond interference also, as well as condemning masturbation and contraception as destroying ‘potential life’. I’m not sure about this. The fact that such people do not consider abstinence to be equally damaging confuses me, and suggests that their basis is inconsistent, if not totally flawed.

Male semen has the potential for life. There should be a law against masturbation. Quite frankly I think that funny (I know its not your opinion). But I know I shouldn’t laugh since the church had quite a big influence on people’s lives here in Ireland in the past and elsewhere at present.

Vainglory

I think this is too much even for me.

Venere

Firstly, I never said that about Niall Dolan. I admire the job he did with the international students. I NEVER made a personal slur about him. Bond find someone else to bitch and backstab about. Secondly, refering to the abortion issue thats not what I said. Personally, I dont give a **** about its legality or illegality, Im pro-choice. However, how many people has Jane talked to that have gone to these clinics? What experience did they have? For all we know they could be butchers. One of my closest friends had an abortion and ended up in hospital haemorraging because the clinician wasnt as professional as he claimed to be. She also came out severely depressed. Is it moral to be sticking up abortion numbers on ones doors? Most of the time abortions do more harm than good.
Chris I dont understand your behaviour. I told you some private things and thought you would have had the decency to at least shake my hand when I lost.

Chinafoot

Oh for the love of god! They're all coming out of the woodwork now.

Kaptain Redeye and Samos....lets keep it on topic here.

AngelofFire

Chris I dont understand your behaviour. I told you some private things and thought you would have had the decency to at least shake my hand when I lost.

Veronica i never refused to shake your hand. In my acceptance speach i offered my comsierations to the candidates who didnt win and declared my hope that they would continue to involve themselves in the union next year. Also i have never said anything about you to anyone else that i wouldnt or havnt said to your face.

Venere

For Jane..I did say that about Enda and I apologise. We all have our bad days and youve surely said things you didnt mean in the past. "my comsierations to the candidates who didnt win and declared my hope that they would continue to involve themselves in the union next year"..babe it was hardly a presidential election!

Vainglory

Venere wrote:

For Jane..I did say that about Enda and I apologise. We all have our bad days and youve surely said things you didnt mean in the past. "my comsierations to the candidates who didnt win and declared my hope that they would continue to involve themselves in the union next year"..babe it was hardly a presidential election!

Fine, but you're probably apologising to the wrong person.