yes to jobs...

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

Retarded has a negative connotation. You didnt call me a retard? See what you said to me would indicate otherwise. (Or maybe I was meant to read that in a way different to what is written, and I cant because Im retarded)

Look at this post by Scofflaw:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believed that just our Yes would immediately prevent all job losses and/or immediately result in the creation of new jobs on a time-scale of less than a week is, to be entirely frank, feeble-minded.

I doubt that the above applies to any of the posters making the claim.

regards,
Scofflaw

I'm saying this. Do you think he's calling you feeble-minded? If so you should probably report him. I very nearly deleted my first post in this thread when I realised that Scofflaw had already said the same thing

Max Power1 wrote: »

It says "yes to jobs" in clear black on yellow, so the electorate is meant to automatically know not to believe what the pro treaty side said? How do we then believe them on the other promises about the treaty, including the so called "guarantees" for instance

No you're meant to take it in context, such as the context bonkey has put it in here because taking it literally makes it look clearly ridiculous and that can't possibly have been the way it was meant

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

Stock markets reflect changes in outlook as much as changes in current situation.

Companies can announce profit and have their stocks drop because its less then was expected, or because an earnings warning for the future was issued.
Companies can run losses, and have stocks climb, because it was less then expected, or because a rosy outlook can be seen.

Its worth buying stock while its cheap for a company that you believe will do increasingly better over the coming period.

Jobs, on the other hand, tend to be far more rooted in the here and now. Except when personnel are problematic to replace, companies don't hold on to extra staff just because they believe that in a year or two they'll need some or all of them....especially when they're running a loss and need to cut costs.

ETA:

Putting that in context, "Yes to Jobs" would mean "Yes to a better outlook for our economy, which in turn will lead to a better outlook for Jobs".

That's the reasoning, indeed - and it's also something that will take time. I appreciate that No proponents are currently pretending to take it it literally, and asking how, if you put your tick in the Yes box, it improves your employment prospects directly - but if people want to look childish, I don't see that it's up to anyone else to stop them.

Between this and the claims of election fraud and illegal campaigning, No proponents really aren't doing themselves and favours.

Just to clarify the issue of 'feeble-mindedness' - I think it has been made clear that people don't think that anyone currently pushing the "where are the jobs, then?" line actually believes it. I certainly don't - and if the relevant people would like me to be more direct, let me make it clear that I don't think for an instant that brianthebard or MaxPower1 actually thought that there would be jobs this week as a result of last week's vote. And yes, it does make you look like sore losers, because it's so obviously put on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look at this post by Scofflaw:


I'm saying this. Do you think he's calling you feeble-minded? If so you should probably report him. I very nearly deleted my first post in this thread when I realised that Scofflaw had already said the same thing

Retarded is a hell of a lot more insulting. /end

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No you're meant to take it in context, such as the context bonkey has put it in here because taking it literally makes it look clearly ridiculous and that can't possibly have been the way it was meant

BUT ITS NOT IN CONTEXT! Its 3 words. Context means taken in the tone of the accompanying conversation/text. But there is no other text. Its a simple 3 word statement. How can the yes side backtrack from that?????

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not calling you retarded and I know you don't actually believe that a yes vote could have saved these jobs because no one in their right mind would believe that. What I think is that in your desire to call the government liars you have convinced yourself that this is what they meant but the idea that these jobs could have been saved by a yes vote is so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have been what they meant. I'm basically trying to get you to let go of the straw man that you have convinced youself of.

I really don't want to go through a few months of every bit of bad news being posted up along with a "where are these jobs then?" type line while all the good news is dismissed with a "that would have happened anyway" type line. Neither of us know what would have happened anyway, all I know is I'm glad I never have to find out because I'm living in an Ireland that voted yes

Okay, look, I won't be hypocritical - those AerLingus jobs were doomed regardless of the vote.

Nor do I think that anyone who voted yes is terribly surprised by such a loss.

However, I do believe that the majority of those who voted yes believed a number of things which were inherent in the yes-to-jobs campaign;

Namely that we will now get preferential treatment in terms of eu grants, multinationals will be more optimistic, and a two-speed europe in which Ireland would be legally isolated has been averted.

These are all false assumptions. And while you can nit-pick and say that the yes campaign didn't specifically mention the above as reasons to vote yes (and actually they did, they just paraphrased in their posters) the yes campaign WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT said that a yes-vote was inherent to economic recovery.

And that was bull**** of the highest order.

You already know, btw, that I was no fan of the 0.002 cent minimum wage posters either, but that was in the junior league compared to anything FF,FG produced (not least because bumper stickers of 'lies' were plastered all over coir posters in the run up to the vote).

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

Retarded is a hell of a lot more insulting. /end

But it's not insulting when it's not directed at you, as mine wasn't and as Scofflaw's wasn't

Max Power1 wrote: »

BUT ITS NOT IN CONTEXT! Its 3 words. Context means taken in the tone of the accompanying conversation/text. But there is no other text. Its a simple 3 word statement. How can the yes side backtrack from that?????

THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A POSTER!!!!!!!! I'm trying to give you the context but you won't accept it

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it's not insulting when it's not directed at you, as mine wasn't and as Scofflaw's wasn't

Since you have taken an interpretation that only a retarded person would believe, would you not consider that maybe it wasn't meant in the way you're saying?

How is that not directed at me?

Sam Vimes wrote:

THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A POSTER!!!!!!!! I'm trying to give you the context but you won't accept it

But thats my point, you have to try to explain it. A true poster/slogan doesnt need explanation

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But it's not insulting when it's not directed at you, as mine wasn't and as Scofflaw's wasn't


THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A POSTER!!!!!!!! I'm trying to give you the context but you won't accept it

Its not just a poster, yes to jobs and yes to recovery were the two main or only principles behind the yes campaign as I said and at no point was it suggested them to mean anything other than what we've shown. It was only after the vote that Lenihan allowed himself to admit it was a load of bull, as VB showed.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, look, I won't be hypocritical - those AerLingus jobs were doomed regardless of the vote.

Nor do I think that anyone who voted yes is terribly surprised by such a loss.

However, I do believe that the majority of those who voted yes believed a number of things which were inherent in the yes-to-jobs campaign;

Namely that we will now get preferential treatment in terms of eu grants, multinationals will be more optimistic, and a two-speed europe in which Ireland would be legally isolated has been averted.

These are all false assumptions. And while you can nit-pick and say that the yes campaign didn't specifically mention the above as reasons to vote yes (and actually they did, they just paraphrased in their posters) the yes campaign WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT said that a yes-vote was inherent to economic recovery.

And that was bull**** of the highest order.

You already know, btw, that I was no fan of the 0.002 cent minimum wage posters either, but that was in the junior league compared to anything FF,FG produced (not least because bumper stickers of 'lies' were plastered all over coir posters in the run up to the vote).

I would say even that interpretation is too far. I don't think we'll get preferential treatment, just that we'll get equal treatment and I think a two-speed Europe was a possibility. The rest of the countries want these changes and they can opt Ireland out of an awful lot of them. Even a perception of a two-speed Europe down the line could have a negative effect. I also couldn't use the word "inherent" to economic recovery, we could have managed without it, it would have just been more difficult and needlessly difficult at that because the treaty is not as bad as everyone seems to think

Although I do think that multinationals will be more optimistic because they told us they will

Stark

Max Power1 wrote: »

So how was I meant to interpret "YES TO JOBS" then

What other possible meaning is there?

It means that the opinion of campaigners looking for a Yes vote is that a Yes vote was more likely to help Ireland's economy and jobs market than a No vote was. Over the coming years (not days), I'm of the opinion that that will be the case as well.

I mean the treaty's not even ratified yet and people are already expecting a dramatic turnaround?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

How is that not directed at me?

Read Scofflaw's post, I am saying the same thing as him. His feeble-minded comment is directed at the fictional people who believed a literal interpretation of "Yes to jobs" as is my "retarded" comment

Max Power1 wrote: »

But thats my point, you have to try to explain it. A true poster/slogan doesnt need explanation

Seriously? Did you ever hear of a no true scotsman fallacy?

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not just a poster, yes to jobs and yes to recovery were the two main or only principles behind the yes campaign as I said and at no point was it suggested them to mean anything other than what we've shown. It was only after the vote that Lenihan allowed himself to admit it was a load of bull, as VB showed.

Yes they were the main principles but what suggests that it wasn't meant to literally mean it should have prevented these jobs losses is common sense because, as RandomName2 says:

RandomName2 wrote:

Okay, look, I won't be hypocritical - those AerLingus jobs were doomed regardless of the vote.

Nor do I think that anyone who voted yes is terribly surprised by such a loss.

Sam Vimes

This is about the amount of text that is required to properly explain the context. Could you picture that on a poster?

http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62232343&postcount=10

I'm having difficulty taking seriously the subject of this thread ie the proposal that aer lingus being in dire straits the day before the yes vote and still in dire straits the day after but shouldn't be.... ergo that campaign slogan was a lie ...

In actual fact,Either I'm crazy and just don't get something here or more likely the op is being deliberately ridiculous.
The whole proposal is so obviously preposterous as to make me [and others] lack faith in the rest of the posts posted by the op from here on in.
I'd try not to post such ill informed logic lest it damage the credibility of anything else I post anyway.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is about the amount of text that is required to properly explain the context. Could you picture that on a poster?

http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62232343&postcount=10

They could just use a TRUE slogan, one that wouldnt need an explanation.

Max Power1

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not just a poster, yes to jobs and yes to recovery were the two main or only principles behind the yes campaign as I said and at no point was it suggested them to mean anything other than what we've shown. It was only after the vote that Lenihan allowed himself to admit it was a load of bull, as VB showed.

This is the point I wanted to express. brianthebard just phrased it better :P

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

They could just use a TRUE slogan, one that wouldnt need an explanation.

Tell me, did you sue Red Bull because you didn't get your wings?

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me, did you sue Red Bull because you didn't get your wings?

Tell me. Did red bull have the economic future of our great nation,and a change to our constitution riding on my decision whether or not to purchase a red bull?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

Tell me. Did red bull have the economic future of our great nation,and a change to our constitution riding on my decision whether or not to purchase a red bull?

No it didn't but the red bull ads explicitly state that it will give me wings. How can we be expected to believe anything they say when this slogan is not true? Should they not use a true slogan? After all a true slogan doesn't need context or explanation

turgon

I wonder when the OP will be starting a thread about how annoyed he is that minimum wage isnt changed, and that abortion and euthensia arent being brought in, despite what the No side promised us.

View

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Are we talking about the economy or the market here? Because the first involves us all, and the second involves a tiny percentage of us.

Most private and company pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market. Likewise, the NTMA - which has been charged with funding the state OAP pension scheme in the (distant) future - is also heavily invested in the stock market.

As such, unless you either intend to die or are certain you will (due to illness) before reaching pensionable age, the stock market really does involve you and everyone else.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it didn't but the red bull ads explicitly state that it will give me wings. How can we be expected to believe anything they say when this slogan is not true? Should they not use a true slogan? After all a true slogan doesn't need context or explanation

totally different situation

Advertising a product versus advertising a political view. Not the same thing at all. It is biologically impossible for humans to grow wings. It is not impossible to believe the yes slogans on the other hand

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

totally different situation

Advertising a product versus advertising a political view. Not the same thing at all. It is biologically impossible for humans to grow wings. It is not impossible to believe the yes slogans on the other hand

I don't see what the fundamental difference is myself. It's not impossible to take the yes slogans to mean that these aer lingus jobs would not be lost but honestly, I would rank anyone who actually believed they should have been saved by the yes vote despite the company's ongoing major financial problems around the same level as someone who didn't know that humans cannot grow wings*.

*Of course no one here actually thinks that so my comment is not directed at anyone here or anyone in Ireland

oscarBravo

I wish someone would explain to me what this thread is about.

Does someone believe that "Yes to Jobs" should be considered a legally-binding contract, and that Aer Lingus shouldn't have been allowed to lay people off after the referendum?

Did Aer Lingus themselves campaign on the basis of "Yes for Jobs", and thereby leave themselves open to a charge of hypocrisy?

Is someone claiming that because Aer Lingus supported the same outcome as someone else who campaigned on the basis of a "Yes for Jobs" slogan, that they are somehow morally bound by the most simplistically literal interpretation of that slogan?

Help me out here. I can't see how this thread conveys anything other than petulance in its conflation of two completely unrelated things. But maybe I'm missing something.

View

turgon wrote: »

I wonder when the OP will be starting a thread about how annoyed he is that minimum wage isnt changed, and that abortion and euthensia arent being brought in, despite what the No side promised us.

Indeed, no doubt there are lots of Yes voters out there who voted Yes as they believed that a Yes would secure abortion, euthanasia and a EUR 1.84 minimum wage for themselves. They were probably the crucial swing voters that ensured the Lisbon amendment was passed.:rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

Max Power1 wrote: »

Retarded is a hell of a lot more insulting. /end


BUT ITS NOT IN CONTEXT! Its 3 words. Context means taken in the tone of the accompanying conversation/text. But there is no other text. Its a simple 3 word statement. How can the yes side backtrack from that?????

The no posters said my wages would go down to 1.84 per hour. They have not.

What does this mean? That both the Yes and No sides were completely wrong? Pity there wasn't a 'Neither side is right, I want a 3rd option' option in the vote.

It may only be 3 words, but seriously, if people are too stupid and lazy to think about the meaning of the words and look into what the message actually means, they shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.

bonkey

Max Power1 wrote: »

BUT ITS NOT IN CONTEXT! Its 3 words. Context means taken in the tone of the accompanying conversation/text. But there is no other text. Its a simple 3 word statement. How can the yes side backtrack from that?????

The point being made is that without context there is nothing to backtrack from.

It is only by applying context that the statement can actually be judged.

How many jobs? For whom? In what time period? Without assuming something about such questions, there is no actual position that anyone can be backtracking from.

What is being cast as backtracking is people who are choosing one context (jobs for everyone, immediately) and suggesting that because this did not happen, a false promise was made.

By admitting there is no context, you implicitly show acceptance that this may not be what was meant. Once we accept that this may not be what was meant, we implicitly accept that we need to reach some sort of position on what we believe was meant, before we can apply any meaningful critique to it.

What I can't understand is that you seem to disagree that there is any uncertainty about what was meant, when you're simultaneously arguing that the context - the details and specifics of what was meant - is missing.

Mitch Connor

View wrote: »

Indeed, no doubt there are lots of Yes voters out there who voted Yes as they believed that a Yes would secure abortion, euthanasia and a EUR 1.84 minimum wage for themselves. They were probably the crucial swing voters that ensured the Lisbon amendment was passed.:rolleyes:

Indeed, no doubt there are lots of No voters out there who voted Noas they believed that a Yes would secure abortion, euthanasia and a EUR 1.84 minimum wage for themselves. They were probably the crucial swing voters that ensured the Lisbon amendment wasn't passed last time.:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote: »

How many jobs? For whom? In what time period? Without assuming something about such questions, there is no actual position that anyone can be backtracking from.

The treaty creates a new position of president of the European Council and a new foreign representative. So a yes created two jobs, objective reached

ih8northsiders

my family voted yes to lisbon and both my parents have high paying jobs. so yeah yes to jobs makes sense.

bonkey

I would request that everyone stop making claims about how it is <insert insulting term of choice> for someone to hold some opinion or another? Its not adding to the discussion, other than riling up people who may think there is legitimacy to such an opinion and/or hold it themselves.

And yes...that includes Scofflaw.

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The treaty creates a new position of president of the European Council and a new foreign representative. So a yes created two jobs, objective reached

Threads like these make me think that perhaps we should have another moderator here, which would be another job. Of course, it doesn't pay, but then it didn't say on the posters that these jobs would pay.

cordially,
Scofflaw