Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Article] Lack of understanding main reason for Lisbon No

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Good for you. I judged it on its merits as well. It didn't seem to have any.
    If Brian Lenihan senior wasn't dead I'd be wondering about your identity right now. You seem to subscribe firmly to his views on "the futility of consistency".
    As for dog in a manger you seem to be suffering from the same affliction.
    What's your basis for saying that?


  • Options
    #93
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If Brian Lenihan senior wasn't dead I'd be wondering about your identity right now. You seem to subscribe firmly to his views on "the futility of consistency".

    Can you point out where I have been inconsistent. You keep accusing me of not answering question, inconsistency, etc. I have tried to answer each and every point put to me in a clear way. Also I have tried to be pleasant and respectful of others views. You have treated me with disdain at every turn and to be honest I no longer really want to continue this insult tennis.


  • Options
    #94
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Can you point out where I have been inconsistent.
    Well, let's see. You mentioned that you would have voted no, had you been in the country. I asked you why someone who couldn't see any positives or negatives to the treaty would bother voting. You pointed out that you hadn't, which was a red herring, as you had already said twice that you would have voted no.

    When pressed on this point, you started talking about things smelling funny, and smelling fishy - shortly after saying that there were no negatives to the treaty.

    You acknowledged that there are benefits from the treaty, in the form of "internal housekeeping" - I assume we all agree that housekeeping is something that needs to be done, and doing it is better than not doing it. You then claimed that you would vote no because there was no tangible benefit in it for you personally.

    You then changed tack to complain about the way the treaty was "sold", implying that your problem was with the presentation of the case for the treaty, rather than the treaty itself. Then you switched back and said the problem was that the treaty itself didn't have any tangible benefits for you personally, and described it as smelling fishy.

    Then you changed tack again and said that although there was nothing wrong with it, you didn't see anything good about it, and that you voted no because some people suggested you vote yes.

    The EU are trying to understand why we voted no, so that they can figure out what to do next. If this is the type of thing they're seeing, how exactly are they supposed to know what to do?
    You keep accusing me of not answering question, inconsistency, etc. I have tried to answer each and every point put to me in a clear way.
    With respect, you've been anything but clear. I am no wiser at this point in the thread than I was at the start as to why you would vote against something that may well benefit others, when - by your own admission - it would do you no harm.
    Also I have tried to be pleasant and respectful of others views. You have treated me with disdain at every turn and to be honest I no longer really want to continue this insult tennis.
    I haven't insulted you. I've questioned you. You seem to be the latest in a long line of posters on this forum that are offended at the suggestion that they may be asked questions in relation to the views that they post.


  • Options
    #95
    kmick
    Registered Users Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭kmick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    With respect, you've been anything but clear. I am no wiser at this point in the thread than I was at the start as to why you would vote against something that may well benefit others, when - by your own admission - it would do you no harm.

    Are you a politician by any chance? Your tactic seems to be offensive through obfuscation and waffle. This is the last time Im gonna lay it out.
    1) I would have voted no because there are no obvious benefits of this treaty to me the common man. That is the why.
    2) Your inability to grasp that this (1) is my viewpoint and that I am entitled to it in the same way that you are entitled to yours is a symptom of the arrogance and high handedness that surrounded this treaty.

    You have no problem understanding my viewpoint you just choose to ignore it as far as I can see.

    I dont think I can contribute any more to this thread so good bye and good luck.


  • Options
    #96
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kmick wrote: »
    Are you a politician by any chance?
    Nope.
    Your tactic seems to be offensive through obfuscation and waffle.
    I don't have tactics. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the "no" vote, as I have (to date largely unsuccessfully) tried to do since the result was announced. I'm still no clearer.
    1) I would have voted no because there are no obvious benefits of this treaty to me the common man. That is the why.
    That is, at best, a reason to abstain. Again I'll make the point that you are actively blocking a treaty that you have said yourself has no particular downsides, just because you don't accept that it has any upsides for you personally.

    If I'm asked for my opinion on a topic that I genuinely believe has no particular upsides or downsides for me, my response will be something like "meh". I certainly wouldn't drag myself down to a polling station to vote against it.

    How about the upcoming referendum on children's rights? I don't have children, so there's no upside for me in giving them increased protections under the constitution. Is that a convincing reason for me to vote against such an amendment?
    2) Your inability to grasp that this (1) is my viewpoint and that I am entitled to it in the same way that you are entitled to yours is a symptom of the arrogance and high handedness that surrounded this treaty.
    Of course you're entitled to your viewpoint. Similarly, anyone who believes that George Bush personally organised the controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11 is entitled to that view. Being entitled to a view doesn't mean you're entitled to have your view respected.
    You have no problem understanding my viewpoint you just choose to ignore it as far as I can see.
    I don't understand your viewpoint. I am at a loss as to why someone would make a conscious effort to prevent the implementation of something that, by their own admission, will do them no harm.
    I dont think I can contribute any more to this thread so good bye and good luck.
    That's your prerogative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    utick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 562 ✭✭✭utick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nope. I don't have tactics. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the "no" vote,QUOTE]

    simply under more centralised power the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer in a country such as ireland at the moment


  • Options
    #98
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    kmick wrote: »
    Are you a politician by any chance? Your tactic seems to be offensive through obfuscation and waffle. This is the last time Im gonna lay it out.
    1) I would have voted no because there are no obvious benefits of this treaty to me the common man. That is the why.
    2) Your inability to grasp that this (1) is my viewpoint and that I am entitled to it in the same way that you are entitled to yours is a symptom of the arrogance and high handedness that surrounded this treaty.

    You have no problem understanding my viewpoint you just choose to ignore it as far as I can see.

    It may be simply that while he can understand it (as far as understanding is involved) he doesn't understand why someone would have that viewpoint - or possibly doesn't believe that someone would actually have it.

    More cynicism needed, oscar.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #99
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    More Cycnicism Needed from Pro-Lisbon Forum Elites Towards The Common Man!


    I can see the placards in my minds eye....;)


  • Options
    #100
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Kama wrote: »
    More Cycnicism Needed from Pro-Lisbon Forum Elites Towards The Common Man!

    Heavens. How little it takes to be an élite these days. Still, by how much the status of élite has sunk, so too must that of the Common Man - which, of course, explains a lot.

    condescendingly,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #101
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Heavens. How little it takes to be an élite these days. Still, by how much the status of élite has sunk, so too must that of the Common Man - which, of course, explains a lot.

    condescendingly,
    Scofflaw

    The Lisbon debate has seriously made me question the direction of politics in Ireland alright. Having spent a couple of weeks in the US I was shaking my head at the way its all soundbytes and buzz words etc. But the Lisbon debate has shown me that we're becoming quite guilty of it too. This whole "elite" nonesense is a perfect example. I haven't heard the word elite as many times in all my life until the Lisbon question came up as since. And in nearly every context it is used in the definition is somewhat different. It must be a really great word to be able to categorise so many people in so many different ways.

    I would have to question whether some of the people who use the word actually know what it really does mean. After all in sociology the word "elite" means a small dominant group who enjoy a privileged status. I know I'm not a part of a "dominant" anything and I enjoy no extra privilages to the "common man" either here on this forum or back in the "real world". How about you Scofflaw? On Questions and Answers the other night one guy even suggested that the entire panel were elites and was promoting a "them and us" mentality, mind you this was the same guy who said that the Gardai were out beating people off the streets every night (these were his exact words, or very near enough!). I got the distinct impression from him that they were elites because they supported Lisbon and were prepared to sit around a table in suits and discuss it and that the common man was the guy in the t-shirt and jeans holding the protests outside the GPO. It strikes me that it is often a buzz word used as an insult by people who have no real interest in actual debate, but is really quite meaningless for the most part.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement