33% of Irish men aged 34 live at home

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

i just think it's likely to lead medocrity you're cushioned by living at home.

So phantom, please do tell me in what way I am mediocre?? Am dying to know.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why am I taking this personal? Are you serious?! You say that anyone living at home over 20 is a failure. That is the same as calling me personally a failure.

Once again you talk about self sufficiency, do you not realise that people who live at home can still be self sufficient? Can you really not understand that?

You haven't told me why I'm a failure. I live at home, I'm over 20 AND I support myself. So tell me why I'm a failure.

Why are you living at home if you're self sufficient?

R P McMurphy

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I'm living at home and I consider myself a failure.

Mind you, I also considered myself a failure when I worked a life-sapping desk job and paid some ****ing asshole extortionate rent for a crummy apartment. We're not exactly Maasai tribesmen here. Bring back a dead lion and I'll be impressed. Hell, a mountain goat would do. Jerking yourself off because you've the mental capacity to make a couple of clicks on Monster and a couple more on Daft doesn't quite do it. Let's be honest, most of the smugly self-sufficient masses are failures too. Not all of them of course, but the odds of you falling into this category do rise steeply if you like to spend your time clucking about it on your Crackpot Central soapbox.

Great post, sounds like it could have been included in the dialogue from Fight Club

phantom_lord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

So phantom, please do tell me in what way I am mediocre?? Am dying to know.

I'm talking about people who are living at home to mooch off their parents. You're completely the opposite you did it for altruistic reasons.

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm talking about people who are living at home to mooch off their parents. You're completely the opposite you did it for altruistic reasons.

As do many that you included in your sweeping statement, I refer back to my statement of not to judge. You would have very smugly included me in that statement without the exact background as to why I did it. Everyone has different reasons to do things, I tend to mind my own business on it, it doesn't particularly affect my life who lives where unless the set up camp in the back garden.

RayM

phantom_lord wrote: »

My posts haven't been inconsistent, I may not have been as clear or explicit in this topic, but if you look at the last thread on this subject my position has been exactly the same.

As I said earlier buying a house/moving out/etc does not equal success. But having to be supported by your parents is failure.

You don't seem capable of drawing any distinction between a person living in their parents' house and a person 'mooching' from their parents. You just lump them all in together as 'embarrassments' (if under 25) and 'failures' (if over 25). In your (thus far less-than-humble) opinion, if somebody in their 20s or 30s lives in their parents house - but is not supported by them in any way - are they automatically a failure?

dark crystal

MagicMarker wrote: »

Once again you talk about self sufficiency, do you not realise that people who live at home can still be self sufficient? Can you really not understand that?

Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy

Not having a go, just saying

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Why are you living at home if you're self sufficient?

Because I can't afford to move out, but I still contribute fully. No one pays for me. I'm not mooching off anyone.

Do you think everyone living at home is supported by their parents?

phantom_lord wrote: »

I'm talking about people who are living at home to mooch off their parents. You're completely the opposite you did it for altruistic reasons.

No, you said anyone over 20 who still lives at home is a failure and should be embarrassed.

Ya see what happens when you make stupid comments? People pull you up on it and you attempt to backtrack, which makes you look like a fool.

HarryPotter41

MagicMarker wrote: »

Because I can't afford to move out, but I still contribute fully. No one pays for me. I'm not mooching off anyone.

Do you think everyone living at home is supported by their parents?



No, you said anyone over 20 who still lives at home is a failure and should be embarrassed.

Ya see what happens when you make stupid comments? People pull you up on it and you attempt to backtrack, which makes you look like a fool.

Well said . And if you're a mediocre failure as suggested I would rather have a pint with you than the roaring success that apparently is phantom.

MagicMarker

dark crystal wrote: »

Self-sufficiency refers to the state of not requiring any outside aid, support, or interaction, for survival; it is therefore a type of personal or collective autonomy

Not having a go, just saying

In that case there's probably very few people who are really self sufficient.

Agricola

MagicMarker - Its all because you have Maurice Moss as your avatar. You're an easy target!

phantom_lord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

As do many that you included in your sweeping statement, I refer back to my statement of not to judge. You would have very smugly included me in that statement without the exact background as to why I did it. Everyone has different reasons to do things, I tend to mind my own business on it, it doesn't particularly affect my life who lives where unless the set up camp in the back garden.

I already said earlier that I didn't include people that did it for altruistic reasons.

RayM wrote: »

You don't seem capable of drawing any distinction between a person living in their parents' house and a person 'mooching' from their parents. You just lump them all in together as 'embarrassments' (if under 25) and 'failures' (if over 25). In your (thus far less-than-humble) opinion, if somebody in their 20s or 30s lives in their parents house - but is not supported by them in any way - are they automatically a failure?

If someone is living at home in order to save money then yes. It's effectively mooching.

No, you said anyone over 20 who still lives at home is a failure and should be embarrassed.

Ya see what happens when you make stupid comments? People pull you up on it and you attempt to backtrack, which makes you look like a fool.

I later clarified that. I think it's a bit much to expect to have someone's whole position outlined in one post. Saying what I said doesn't apply to people that are doing it for extenuating circumstances is in no way inconsistent with my overall opinion on this.

As I've said many times already you can look at the last thread on this and see I already held this position.

The thread is about 33% of men 25-34 living at home, I think it's a safe assumption that most of those aren't doing it for altruistic reasons.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Because I can't afford to move out

Well that would mean you're not self sufficient wouldn't it?

dark crystal

MagicMarker wrote: »

In that case there's probably very few people who are really self sufficient.

True enough.

My name is URL

lol @ the idea of self-sufficiency in this discussion. Yeah, living in servitude to a bank and depending on having a job is really self-sufficient.

Different people depend on different things, for some it's having a steady wage in order to pay a mortgage, for others it's temporarily making the decision to live at home until things improve.

Agricola

phantom_lord wrote: »

If someone is living at home in order to save money then yes. It's effectively mooching.

If a person lives at home and on top of paying rent for the use of a room, they also do domestic chores and pay bills from time to time to help out their parents, ie ESB, phone bill etc, are they mooching?

If that person lives aways from home, the parent gets no rent, no housework done and doesnt get bills paid for them. So they are at a disadvantage without them.
The lodger gets to live without the extortionate landlords rent and generally has a better standard of living than if they were fully out on their own. So everyone is a winner. Mooching is where other people have to pay for your food, your transport, your broadband bill or whatever else. Saving some money, while still benefiting others cant be mooching.

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

I already said earlier that I didn't include people that did it for altruistic reasons.



If someone is living at home in order to save money then yes. It's effectively mooching.



I later clarified that. I think it's a bit much to expect to have someone's whole position outlined in one post. Saying what I said doesn't apply to people that are doing it for extenuating circumstances is in no way inconsistent with my overall opinion on this.

As I've said many times already you can look at the last thread on this and see I already held this position.

The thread is about 33% of men 25-34 living at home, I think it's a safe assumption that most of those aren't doing it for altruistic reasons.



Well that would mean you're not self sufficient wouldn't it?

You actually only changed your attitude and brought altruism into it because you realised your sweeping statement was an insult to lots of people who stayed at home for genuine reasons so don't make statements that you have to back pedal on ( not clarify ). Abd beleive me I and most of my friends don't judge people on how much of a success they are on the basis of whether they live on their own or at home. Give me a solid reliable person with decency and goodness and they can live in a cardboard box for all I care. Plenty of a******s living in their own jice big mansions.

phantom_lord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

You actually only changed your attitude and brought altruism into it because you realised your sweeping statement was an insult to lots of people who stayed at home for genuine reasons

No I only clarified it at that point.

Look here's a post about this topic from several months ago where I made that distinction.

Agricola - you're still using your parents as a crutch.

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

Well that would mean you're not self sufficient wouldn't it?

How? Explain to me how paying rent, paying bills, washing my own clothes, cooking my own dinner, working full time. Explain to me how I'm not self sufficient all because of the person I live with?

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

How? Explain to me how paying rent, paying bills, washing my own clothes, cooking my own dinner, working full time. Explain to me how I'm not self sufficient all because of the person I live with?

If you were self sufficient you'd be able to afford to move out.

HarryPotter41

MagicMarker wrote: »

How? Explain to me how paying rent, paying bills, washing my own clothes, cooking my own dinner, working full time. Explain to me how I'm not self sufficient all because of the person I live with?

I wouldn't waste any more bandwidth on the argument magicmarker, I have firmly come to the conclusion that when people like phantom sit beside me in the canteen I down my coffee and go back to work.

LevelSpirit

Imagine going out on a first date with some hot babe.
She asks you where you live.
"With me mammy"...... OUCH!!!

And since we're n statistics i bet 90% of single women wouldnt date a man living at home. But 90% would say they would if asked.

phantom_lord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I wouldn't waste any more bandwidth on the argument magicmarker, I have firmly come to the conclusion that when people like phantom sit beside me in the canteen I down my coffee and go back to work.

I apologise if you were insulted by my first post I should have been clearer.

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

I apologise if you were insulted by my first post. I don't think I can be any clearer that you weren't included in my statement at the start of the thread.

Actually no, your rubber band posts have been perfectly clear as they exppand and contract, anyone who lives at home is a moocher, that has been a consistent them with your posts.

I would respectfully suggest that you give some consideration to what you say when you make broad sweeping statements because it is so obvious that you live in a very insulated world detached from the harsh realities of life. we get one life and I am sure everyone that has posted here is giving a bash at enjoying it, because it doesn't match what you think it should be does not make it any more or any less rewarding an existence than yours.

phantom_lord

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Actually no, your rubber band posts have been perfectly clear as they exppand and contract, anyone who lives at home is a moocher, that has been a consistent them with your posts.

I really give up. I've said several times that that's not the case when it's for altruistic reasons. I even said it months ago in the last topic about this. And to be fair that demographic isn't the basis of the op.

opinion guy

Echospace wrote: »

Is this true? Is the recession to blame for this? I am 26 and living at home but plan to move out within the next year. Whether that materializes or not is the question.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Recession my arse. They were publishing stories like this in the middle of the boom too. Its Irish-Mammy-Irish-Son syndrome

Agricola

phantom_lord wrote: »

Agricola - you're still using your parents as a crutch.

Well according to you I am. I learned along time ago not too pay too much attention to the elders of the internet as they are invariably younger than me and talk alot of ... how can I put this............bollóx!

I remember your contributions to this same topic before and thinking back then how distasteful and troll like alot of your disparaging remarks were. Oh well. We'll leave it there so.

Merch

phantom_lord wrote: »

If you were self sufficient you'd be able to afford to move out.

Personally I think you are taking the pi$$, you just winding people up, anyway you said you had rent paid for a year when you moved out, did that make you a failure, according to you yes, but were you,

seriously, what age are you?

MagicMarker

phantom_lord wrote: »

If you were self sufficient you'd be able to afford to move out.

Yeah, you've said that already. You may as well be saying ''if you were self sufficient you'd be able to buy a newer car''. Which would be just as retarded.

Now explain to me how I'm not self sufficient.

phantom_lord

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yeah, you've said that already. You may as well be saying ''if you were self sufficient you'd be able to buy a newer car''. Which would be just as retarded.

Now explain to me how I'm not self sufficient.

Um, being able to buying a new car has nothing to do with being self sufficient, being able to afford to live does.

You can't afford to live without the help of your parents. Therefore you're not self sufficient?

HarryPotter41

phantom_lord wrote: »

Um, being able to buying a new car has nothing to do with being self sufficient, being able to afford to live does.

You can't afford to live without the help of your parents. Therefore you're not self sufficient?

I know a married couple where the husband has told me without his wifes part time job they wouldb't be able to pay the bills. I guess by your reckoning that means hes not self sufficent.