The Status Of Irish.

Cú Giobach

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

c'mon now, Cú, it's pretty obvious in fairness.:rolleyes:

I'll say it again then, I dislike this buisness of "so and so said this, why can't you", it doesn't matter what the argument is and when I am used in this way I will comment on it.
If this happens in real life I also ask the person to stop invoking me and use their own arguments. Now do you get it??

You believe that Cyclopath must accept the will of the majority.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69607166&postcount=688

Do you also believe that Deise must accept the will of the majorty?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69613809&postcount=740

If not, why?
Just a case of some animals are more equal than others?;)

First there is a big difference between asking someone to do something and insisting that they must do it.

People should consent to the will of the majority, but they do not have to agree with it, can hold a different opinion and can work towards changing peoples attitudes.

I will not discuss with you what Deise or Cyclopath must do.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont have to agree with it, Do I?

Let's leave aside the interpretation of the polls. Let's leave aside the odiousness of compelling people to speak language they don't wish to use...even if it may or may not be the "will of [other] peoople".

It's clear from the massive number of people speaking English in their daily lives that this is in fact, in reality, genuinely "the will of the people". We don't need surveys or polls to tell us this.

How can you, in the worst recession in Irish history' justify spending a billion euro a year 'promoting Irish' and have so little to show for it?

It's time CnaG faced reality.

Lord TSC

I think this discussion should really be ended soon. It's becoming increasingly obvious that either side simply refuses to budge, that neither side is willing to give anything to the other and that nothing either side says will change that. Arguements have been made on both sides which make sense but which neither will agree is enough to sway their decisions, and unless there's any new points to be made, I think I'm done.

cyclopath2001

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

that neither side is willing to give anything to the other

This is not fair...one side is giving a billion euro a year to the other and putting up with compulsory Irish lessons.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This is not fair...one side is giving a billion euro a year to the other and putting up with compulsory Irish lessons.

You make the assumption that people who speak English are not interested in Irish and do not value it. I dont know why you have come to this conclusion as its simply not true and there is no evidence to support it.

You assume that people who dont have Irish are unwilling to support it, even despite the fact that in every piece of evidence seen here so far there has been clear support by the vast majority for the Irish language(I am not claiming support for compulsion, just for the language its self)

You have framed the situation time and again as a small minority of Irish speakers imposing the Irish language on Ireland against the will of the majority for their own gain. This is simply not the case, the Vast majority of Irish people support the Irish language(Again, The language, not necessarily compulsion)
It is not imposed on the state against the will of the Irish people, but by their will.
(The imposition I speak of here is the Irish language on the state in general, rather than compulsion in the education system)


If you want to claim that Irish is imposed on the state(Just to make sure its clear, I am not talking about compulsion in the education system, but rather The relationship between the state and the Irish language in general) by a small minority then why cant you provide anything to support such a claim?

Dionysus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This is not fair...one side is giving a billion euro a year to the other and putting up with compulsory Irish lessons.

Since when did the anti-Irish language lobby become the "side" which funds Irish and enacts legislation? Don't flatter yourselves. You're a minority interest group, as is usually the case with 'anti' groups. Ironically.

As for 'compulsory Irish', I note your lack of concern about compulsory English and maths lessons which force all children to learn pointless things like Shakespearian poetry and trigonometry. Really - what percentage of people upon whom this is forced use that nonsense in the real world? Another revealing double standard from the anti-Irish lobby. :rolleyes:

compaqlaptop1

deise go deo wrote: »

I believe that that question was quite vague, several posters have agreed with me, weather you think it is or not, the fact that several posters have come to the same conclusion suggests that others, those answering the poll may have felt the same.

I cleared that up with my last post so there is no point in trying to say there is still confusion as to the meaning of the question. While the question displayed in the table may have seemd a bit vague it was 100% qualified earlier in the report by this sentence -

The statements that attracted the least support (though the majorities still favoured them) were to make Irish an optional subject after the Junior Certificate Examination (66.8%) and to provide new subjects at Leaving Certificate level (71.9%).

There is no ambiguity here. This sentence makes it absolutely clear that the majority want Irish to be optional. It literally says the majority favor making Irish an optional subject after the junior cert. And as another 17.2% either have no opinion or dont think it's an important issue, that leaves 15.9% left who want it to remain compulsory.

I think that it is a falicy to suggest that the 15.9 are those who support compulsion remaining, Given the fact that the same group of people overwhelmingly supported the same or greater emphasis for Irish then 15.9 being in favor of compulsion simply dosent add up. I think you are choosing to see what you want to see and ignoring what dosent suit you.

Supporting greater emphasis doesnt automatically mean compulsion. And I'm afraid you are the one choosing to see what you want when it suits you. As I pointed out above the survey literally states that the majority favour making Irish optional. You had no problem citing this survey when you believed it supported your opinion so there's no point in trying to disregard it now.

This is untrue, a poster has already apologized to me for making this accusation, I disagree with your interpretation of the poll results

I didn't interpret the results, there was no need. The survey completely clarified what question it was asking earlier in the report. When I pointed out these results earlier you dodged replying to me, even after I specifically asked you for a second time for a reply. You only replied after others then continued to bring up the issue and you couldn't avoid it anymore. And now you are trying to muddy the waters, but that will not work either as the survey leaves no room for ambiguity.

deise go deo wrote: »

The quote is from a survey on what people want to happen with the education system. The question was not 'Do you agree with Irish being made optional' but rather, 'what importance do you attach to a proposal being put forward that Irish be made optional'.

As it was a question on the Importance people attach to the issue and not if they agree with it or not, the question is somewhat vague, coupled with the fact that an overwhelming majority said that they wanted the same emphasis as now maintained on Irish in the education system or for that emphasis to increase, it is not at all clear what people wanted to happen Irish in the education system.

The question was not, as you put it, the purposely vague 'what importance do you attach to a proposal being put forward that Irish be made optional' - it was actually worded 'Make Irish an optional subject after the Junior Certificate examination'.

And even if you might think that is still a bit vague, the survey clarifies the meaning of the question earlier in the report and it literally states that the majority favour Irish being optional after the junior cert. And not only that but that question was one of a series but forward to the respondants asking them to respond to various proposals to achieve the objectives schooling in Ireland. Other questions in the same table included -

Reduce the size of classes in primary schools
Reduce the size of classes in secondary schools
Provide more school equipment
Improve school buidlings
Teach continental language in primary school
Improve the training of teachers before they begin to teach
Make Irish an optional subject after the junior certificate examination

The context of these questions is clear but even if you had an issue with it, there is no lack of clarity here -

The statements that attracted the least support (though the majorities still favoured them) were to make Irish an optional subject after the Junior Certificate Examination (66.8%) and to provide new subjects at Leaving Certificate level (71.9%).

deise go deo

compaqlaptop1 wrote: »

I cleared that up with my last post so there is no point in trying to say there is still confusion as to the meaning of the question. While the question displayed in the table may have seemd a bit vague it was 100% qualified earlier in the report by this sentence -

There is no ambiguity here. This sentence makes it absolutely clear that the majority want Irish to be optional. It literally says the majority favor making Irish an optional subject after the junior cert. And as another 17.2% either have no opinion or dont think it's an important issue, that leaves 15.9% left who want it to remain compulsory.

Supporting greater emphasis doesnt automatically mean compulsion. And I'm afraid you are the one choosing to see what you want when it suits you. As I pointed out above the survey literally states that the majority favour making Irish optional. You had no problem citing this survey when you believed it supported your opinion so there's no point in trying to disregard it now.

I didn't interpret the results, there was no need. The survey completely clarified what question it was asking earlier in the report. When I pointed out these results earlier you dodged replying to me, even after I specifically asked you for a second time for a reply. You only replied after others then continued to bring up the issue and you couldn't avoid it anymore. And now you are trying to muddy the waters, but that will not work either as the survey leaves no room for ambiguity.



The question was not, as you put it, the purposely vague 'what importance do you attach to a proposal being put forward that Irish be made optional' - it was actually worded 'Make Irish an optional subject after the Junior Certificate examination'.

And even if you might think that is still a bit vague, the survey clarifies the meaning of the question earlier in the report and it literally states that the majority favour Irish being optional after the junior cert. And not only that but that question was one of a series but forward to the respondants asking them to respond to various proposals to achieve the objectives schooling in Ireland. Other questions in the same table included -

Reduce the size of classes in primary schools
Reduce the size of classes in secondary schools
Provide more school equipment
Improve school buidlings
Teach continental language in primary school
Improve the training of teachers before they begin to teach
Make Irish an optional subject after the junior certificate examination

The context of these questions is clear but even if you had an issue with it, there is no lack of clarity here -

Lets clear this up, The ambiguity in the question dose not arise in how they phrased 'Make Irish optional' It arises because it asks 'What importance do you attach to', rather than 'do you agree with'.

Weather or not those conducting the survey knew the correct interpretation of the question is irrelevant, as has been shown by the disagreement on the meaning of the question here, the question its self is not clear, and as such the result is less credible.

I disagree that those who attached importance to the proposal necessarily agreed with it, no doubt some did, probably most, but to claim that all those who put very important agreed and all those who put unimportant disagreed is false.

Think of it this way, someone who thinks Irish should be made optional, but thinks its of relatively little importance, where do they go?
Someone who thinks its a very important issue, but dosent agree that it should be made optional, where do they go?

The question asks what importance people place on the Issue, As such people will be lead to answer based on the importance they place on the issue rather on weather they agree with it or not.

That is why its a vague question.

cyclopath2001

Dionysius wrote:

Since when did the anti-Irish language lobby become the "side" which funds Irish and enacts legislation?

It is very unhelpfulthat a discussion on value-for-money in teaching Irish would be perverted into an anti-Irish/pro-Irish argument. The survival our or nation depends on spending money effectively.

We should look at the reasons why we spend money on Irish and if it is a good use of money to teach Irish to people who don't wish to speak it. We should also decide if spending money on promoting Irish is an economic priority.

deise go deo wrote: »

You make the assumption that people who speak English are not interested in Irish and do not value it. I dont know why you have come to this conclusion as its simply not true and there is no evidence to support it.

Unless you live in a Gaeltacht, the evidence is all around you - millions of Irish people speaking English as their daily language. Millions of Irish people not learning Irish. Nobody buying Irish language newspapers. Irish language media surviving on handouts. This demonstrates just how much Irish people value the Irish language....a bit but not a lot.

We should adjust spending on Irish language promotion commensurate to the true level of support for the langauge. When we drew up the constitution we gave Irish and the Catholic Church a special place. The latter has been revised, now we should re-examine our relationship with the Irish language.

deise go deo wrote: »

You assume that people who dont have Irish are unwilling to support it,

Can't we discuss 'value for money'? There's a recession on and we should can't just throw money around like we used to. Cnag's Fianna Fail sugerdaddies who gave them compulsory Irish, the OLA and a quarter of a million to do up their HQ building will soon be removed from power. Instead of throwing a billion at Irish, would you settle for just 100 million? Reduce the number of compulsory lessons, and we'll still have the same number of Irish speakers.

deise go deo wrote: »

If you want to claim that Irish is imposed on the state....by a small minority then why cant you provide anything to support such a claim?

The number of English speakers says volumes on this.

A regards Irish speakers enduring compulsory English lessons, I would be very happy for them to be given a choice.

Lord TSC

Since when did the anti-Irish language lobby become the "side" which funds Irish and enacts legislation? Don't flatter yourselves. You're a minority interest group, as is usually the case with 'anti' groups. Ironically.

As for 'compulsory Irish', I note your lack of concern about compulsory English and maths lessons which force all children to learn pointless things like Shakespearian poetry and trigonometry. Really - what percentage of people upon whom this is forced use that nonsense in the real world? Another revealing double standard from the anti-Irish lobby.

*Smacks head on desk*

1. I hate when people try and make this an "anti-Irish language" debate. I, for one, am not "anti-Irish". I am anti-compulsion of Irish. Big difference. I am open to allowing those who want to study the language to continue doing so. I am of the mindset that those who do not want to should not be forced to. That does not mean I am anti-Irish. I believe that the minority interest group is the "pro-Irish" group, and I believe that the language is dying. But I also believe that everyone should have a choice.

So again, I'll ask the question; why is it that the pro-Irish brigade refuse to give people the choice? You say the majority want to do Irish but refuse to give people the choice to back that up. There's no logic there. You can be of the opinion the majority want to do the subject all you want but until we give people the choice (and not in a questionaire or a survey, but in the actual choosing of investing time to do the subject), this is moot.

2. Time and time again, people have said that they think not only should Irish be optional but so should English and Maths. As an English teacher, I would debate the pointlessness, obviously, but you seem to be implying that people are ignoring this aspect of the debate. We are not. We have answered a few times, the answer is ignored and then a few pages later, people bring English and Maths back into the topic.

It has been argued by the anti-compulsion side that if Irish is made optional, then so too should English and Maths. People should have the choice and the option to outline their own priorities.

Dionysus

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

*Smacks head on desk*

Right there could be your problem.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I hate when people try and make this an "anti-Irish language" debate. I, for one, am not "anti-Irish". I am anti-compulsion of Irish. Big difference.

Not really when you demonstrate, clearly, your cultural predilections by subscribing to the standard "language is dying" line and talk about "compulsion" and "force" as if kids are only forced to study Irish in school and otherwise are going around enthusiastically choosing everything they do in school. Hell, kids are even forced to go to school by this state. So, your feigned objection to "compulsory Irish" alone reflects a much deeper and more obvious cultural bias on your part.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I am open to allowing those who want to study the language to continue doing so.

How very patronising generous of you.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I am of the mindset that those who do not want to should not be forced to.

While we're at it, how about legislating that those who do not want to go to school should not be forced to and can do whatever they want at home? How about we only allow children to 'study' what they want in school when they come - art, basketball, football, hurling and so on? "I'm not against school, just against compulsory school-going...."

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I believe that the minority interest group is the "pro-Irish" group

Perhaps, then, you'd like to produce evidence for a majority of Irish people being anti-Irish language?

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So again, I'll ask the question; why is it that the pro-Irish brigade refuse to give people the choice?

Why, once again, is it that the anti-Irish brigade refuse to apply the same logic to everything else children do, including their forced attendance at school?

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

You say the majority want to do Irish

I never said that; I never even implied that. Are you really a teacher of English? I do, however, believe that the majority of kids would prefer to be doing something else other than being forced to sit in a classroom listening to boring school stuff and having their afternoons robbed by being forced to do homework for same. This ridiculous assumption that school is an option, in contrast to Irish, exposes your professed objection to the 'compulsory' nature of Irish alone as being a cover for what really is your personal wish list for future culture in Irish schools and society (i.e. make them more English and less Irish): anti-Irish, in other words.

later12

compaqlaptop1 wrote: »

I cleared that up with my last post so there is no point in trying to say there is still confusion as to the meaning of the question. While the question displayed in the table may have seemd a bit vague it was 100% qualified earlier in the report by this sentence -

The statements that attracted the least support (though the majorities still favoured them) were to make Irish an optional subject after the Junior Certificate Examination (66.8%) and to provide new subjects at Leaving Certificate level (71.9%).

There is no ambiguity here.

Surely you realise that is simply their interpretation of the result based on their understanding of the question they posed.

If their question is problematical or ambiguous therefore so too must be their interpretation of the responses.

Seems pretty simple, no?

cyclopath2001

Dionysus wrote: »

While we're at it, how about legislating that those who do not want to go to school should not be forced to

The only reason I can think of for you seeking to widen the debate is because you cannot justify compelling children to learn a language which is not their own and which confers no economically useful skills for later life. You therefore choose an argument which distracts from the problem.

You totally ignore the economic argument, where we expend huge sums of money and achieve very little with it.

It might be better to split the sides into 'people with a rational attitude towards Irish langauge promotion' and the 'Irish at any cost' side. I assume you're in the latter camp?

Lord TSC

I was going to post a big reply but cyclopath summed up my feelings on the “why not make school optional” aspect of the debate. What a ridiculous notion.

RandomName2

FOR THE LAST TIME!

It's not relevant, by definition, fr the pro-compulsory group to care about opinion.

AND AS FOR WHY SHOULD IRISH IN PARTICULAR BE COMPULSORY?

The answer is nationalism (in one form or the other; for the purposes of simplicity, cultural-nationalism = nationalism)

Less of the shouting please

cyclopath2001

RandomName2 wrote: »

The answer is nationalism (in one form or the other; for the purposes of simplicity, cultural-nationalism = nationalism)

Perhaps, for the low-brow Irish enthusiasts, but usually, it's best to 'follow the money' when you want to know what motivates people.

Dionysus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The only reason I can think of for you seeking to widen the debate is because you cannot justify compelling children to learn a language which is not their own and which confers no economically useful skills for later life. You therefore choose an argument which distracts from the problem.

'I can think of' patently being the operative words amid this nonsense. That you don't like the compulsory nature of school, and the "economic uselessness" of most things learnt in school, being highlighted when you want to single out Irish as uniquely 'compulsory' and 'useless' is evidently your real problem here. By removing Irish from the school context you are attempting, poorly I might add, to distort the reality of Irish in the education system and ascribe a wide range of negative traits - uselessness, expense, etc - to it uniquely. You are, wilfully, misrepresenting the reality to suit your bias.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You totally ignore the economic argument, where we expend huge sums of money and achieve very little with it.

1. Your evidence for what I do, or do not, ignore is what, exactly?

2. Looking around me I don't see many Shakespearian scholars. Does this mean all those millions spent teaching Shakespeare and so forth were wasted, in your view?

3. And the "economically useful" skills for later life of being forced to learn English poetry or calculus are what for the average person? Do tell. You persist in propagating a myth that, with the exception of Irish, all subjects taught in school are "economically useful" when clearly the vast majority of things which students learn in school are not so, and are mostly forgotten as soon as the relevant exams are over.

4. Your conflation of the money spent and its results into an argument against compulsory Irish says much more about your own irrationality, to use your word. It's perfectly intelligible to support compulsory Irish but favour a radical overhaul of teaching methods to increase results. That this clearly never entered your head is not, I must say, terribly surprising.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It might be better to split the sides into 'people with a rational attitude towards Irish langauge promotion' and the 'Irish at any cost' side. I assume you're in the latter camp?

Given that you've contributed an OCD-like 108 posts to this single thread so far, your questioning of my rationality is disingenuous.

Dionysus

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I was going to post a big reply but cyclopath summed up my feelings on the “why not make school optional” aspect of the debate. What a ridiculous notion.

Interesting. You claimed you're not anti-Irish but rather against Irish because it's compulsory, but now it appears you're not against school being compulsory. At least we've now clarification that you've little compunction in forcing children to learn things per se, just as long as you happen to favour the things in question.

Until this point you were giving the impression that you just didn't believe in forcing children to do things they didn't want. How far from the truth that was. I'm sure we could do an equation and find out that what you're really against, after all, is: Irish.

cyclopath2001

Dionysus wrote: »

when you want to single out Irish as uniquely 'compulsory' and 'useless' is evidently your real problem here.

We're discussing compulsory Irish, that's what the topic is about. The pros and the cons. Advantages and disadvantages. Costs and benefits. Why it should be compulsory. Can you show any advantages to it?

Dionysus wrote: »

By removing Irish from the school context

We're not discussiong removing it from schools, just making it optional. If you think making it optional will result in it not being taught, then you are admitting that people don't want to learn it.

Dionysus wrote: »

favour a radical overhaul of teaching methods to increase results.

This assumes many people want to speak Irish. They don't.

Dionysus wrote: »

Given that you've contributed an OCD-like 108 posts to this single thread so far...

In any discussion, I always know I'm getting near the truth when people start getting personally abusive.

later12

Dionysus wrote: »

Interesting. You claimed you're not anti-Irish but rather against Irish because it's compulsory, but now it appears you're not against school being compulsory. At least we've now clarification that you've little compunction in forcing children to learn things per se, just as long as you happen to favour the things in question.

I like this.

I find that many people have a chip on their shoulder in relation to Irish. This seems to have largely come about by being forced to study a program which they found difficult, old fashioned, un interesting, complex, or all of the above.

But we do that with all sorts of things. We do tend to approach the imposition of obligations on a rather piecemeal and haphazard way in Ireland, not just in education, but particularly in education. In my opinion Irish is just another relic of that.
The Irish education system is, I would suggest, overly rigid. I honestly cannot fathom why one must study Shakespeare in order to become a Theoretical Physicist, or demonstrate the ability to recall proficiency in advanced line geometry formulae in order to become an English teacher.

I forget all the religious knowledge I ever learned.
Who's to say that a French teacher who forgets all of his second level maths (or may never have been obliged to study it) is any less of a valuable asset in his job?

Lord TSC

Dionysus wrote: »

Interesting. You claimed you're not anti-Irish but rather against Irish because it's compulsory, but now it appears you're not against school being compulsory. At least we've now clarification that you've little compunction in forcing children to learn things per se, just as long as you happen to favour the things in question.

Until this point you were giving the impression that you just didn't believe in forcing children to do things they didn't want. How far from the truth that was. I'm sure we could do an equation and find out that what you're really against, after all, is: Irish.

What? Seriously?
I seriously struggle to the arguement you're trying to put forward.

*Sigh* I'll try and answer the accusations I think you're throwing at me, but your logic is a bit hard to follow at times.

I am not against education. Jaysus, I don't know how anyone could be. Education is vital to the upbringing of a kid and I cannot see how anyone could argue that education should be made optional, unless the aim is to create a society of idiots.

Furthermore, it's not a case of "here's what I think everyone should be taught, regardless of what they want." My opinion is that once kids finish their JCs, they are starting their journey to college. At that stage, they should be choosing what subjects THEY feel are most important to them and what THEY feel should be prioritised. They should have a choice. My kids should have a choice, and your kids should have a choice. I am not going to force any subjects on anyone. More, I am in favour of them choosing from a selection of subjects based on their own priorities.

This system is more or less in place anyway, except most schools force kids to do Irish, English and Maths. I've already said I think these three should be made optional as well (though for some reason, people seem to ignore this because they think it would suit their arguements better to; eg. Later's post above). All three have their pros and cons, obviously, but it's up to the individual to choose. If they really think English has no more importance for them, then so be it. If they think Irish will be of little use to them, again, so be it.

I don't get the image you're trying to paint of me here, as if my pro-choice status means I'm some sort of paradoxical dictator. I could care less what everyone chooses to learn. I simply wish them to get the choice. Which is seemingly something that the pro-compulsion crew refuse to do; some would rather that people have no choice and are forced to do whatever they please. I mean, you say "you've little compunction in forcing children to learn things per se, just as long as you happen to favour the things in question. ". If I have given off that vibe, I apologise cause it was certainly not my intenions. I am pro-choice in this matter. You can choose to do Irish if you want and I should get the chance to opt out.

I'm not anti-Irish in a way where I want to see it die. I am simply for allowing people to choose their own priorities. Irish plays absolulty no role in my life at the moment. I watch British and American TV, I talk English in everyday life and I can only remember one or two phrases. I don't hate Irish or wish it would go away for the simple reason that, for me, it plays absolutly no role in my life. As such, my belief is that it would be a waste of time for my kids to learn it. As Deise has said so often, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Likewise, you too are entitled to yours. I just don't get why you think the pro-compulsion brigade should get to force their beliefs on those who disagree with them...

later12

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I've already said I think these three should be made optional as well (though for some reason, people seem to ignore this because they think it would suit their arguements better to; eg. Later's post above)

No offence, I didn't even read your post so I was neither responding to it nor ignoring it. I'm merely adding that I concur with something that Dionysus said, or rather his line of thinking.

Personally I'm pro choice. That doesn't mean I'm in favour of abortion, it means I'm in favour of optional Irish; which is a far, far less important issue. Hence my earlier post on the 'importance of compulsion' question

Lord TSC

Fair enough. But this is a topic on whether Irish should be made optional and that's the main question being asked in this topic. It is importance to the topic at hand.

Furthermore, its cool if you've not read everything but please do realise that the "why is Irish up for discussion and not English and Maths" has been addressed multiple times throughout the topic...

later12

I'm sure it has, but 54 pages on I'm sure everything bar the price of coal has been discussed. Anyway, point taken.

marienbad

Dionysus wrote: »

Interesting. You claimed you're not anti-Irish but rather against Irish because it's compulsory, but now it appears you're not against school being compulsory. At least we've now clarification that you've little compunction in forcing children to learn things per se, just as long as you happen to favour the things in question.

Until this point you were giving the impression that you just didn't believe in forcing children to do things they didn't want. How far from the truth that was. I'm sure we could do an equation and find out that what you're really against, after all, is: Irish.

Dionysus, Why do all these discussions have to descend to the extremes ? There is no connection between Irish being compulsory and school being compulsory. You know that ,I know that and everyone reading this thread knows that.

One can be profoundly pro Irish and anti compulsion, and you definitely do have a point on the compulsion of maths and english.

But whether you are pro or anti surely you must accept that the current system has dismally failed Irish . Something has to change, would you agree with that ? And is it reasonable to ask that the organisations at the heart of that failure have limited input into those changes.

It seems to me that compulsion has only had a completely polarising effect and has produced a small core of dedicated language enthusiasts,
another core dis-illusioned with irish/compulsion and in the middle a huge mass content to pay lip service to some language ideal as the civil war rages all round them , million s are wasted and the numbers speaking Irish continues to plummet.

And please dont ask me to produce a poll/survey to prove any of this.I have already stated my view that such polls are of limited value and this is based on experience where most effort is dedicated to phrasing and placing of questions in the survey, to such an extend that the results ( as we have seen here) can satisfy everyone and no-one and all at the same time.

As compulsion has been at the heart of that failure is that not the most reasonable place to start

Dannyboy83

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'll say it again then, I dislike this buisness of "so and so said this, why can't you", it doesn't matter what the argument is and when I am used in this way I will comment on it.
If this happens in real life I also ask the person to stop invoking me and use their own arguments. Now do you get it??

You can comment all you like, I'm certainly not stopping you.
But if you post statements here, I can quote your points when refuting them or making other points.
It's a debating forum, I thought you knew that?

( I never heard Brian Lenihan pleading with Leo Varadkar to stop invoking his arguments - I'd find that amusing tbh:))

People should consent to the will of the majority, but they do not have to agree with it, can hold a different opinion and can work towards changing peoples attitudes.

But why did you ask Cyclopath to accept the will of the majority and not Deise?

I will not discuss with you what Deise or Cyclopath must do.

I'm noticing a pattern here:rolleyes:
I guess some animals are more equal than others after all.

Cú Giobach

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

You can comment all you like, I'm certainly not stopping you.
But if you post statements here, I can quote your points when refuting them or making other points.
It's a debating forum, I thought you knew that?

I'll ask you again,
Why on earth would or should someone say or agree to something just because that is my opinion??
The question "Fred says X why don't you" is a question worthy of a five year old, because the simple answer is "Because I am not Fred".
This would only be different when discussing the official policy of, and with a member of, an organisation or group.
Have you ever noticed how little that kind of question is asked here??

When someone quotes me or "talks" about me I will comment on it, unless they are just quoting facts or figures I have provided.

But why did you ask Cyclopath to accept the will of the majority and not Deise?

Because I wasn't talking to Deise.
And that was my parting comment to someone I have no desire to engage in discussion with any longer.

I'm noticing a pattern here:rolleyes:
I guess some animals are more equal than others after all.

You made a statement..Quote; "You believe that Cyclopath must accept the will of the majority".
That is incorrect, I do not believe anybody must accept the will of the majority.

You asked me a question.. Quote: "Do you also believe that Deise must accept the will of the majorty?"
I explained quite clearly I will not discuss what someone must do with you, because I do not discuss what others should or shouldn't do with other people. It is called manners.
I would give this same answer to anyone on this board asking me a similar question, regardless of what side of the debate they are on.

thisisadamh

I am student currently in 5th year and I think if would be nice if a student shared their views on the subject. I have 2 views both opposing each other so here I go. Please read to the end as I do have two different views!

1) Firstly is my anti irish after jc view. I am in 5th year as said before, and I do 8 subjects all higher level except irish which I do on pass as it is my worst and least favourite. With all this talk about the points race, it is really annoying to have to do a subject I do not like, will not count in my points as I am doing 7 other higher level subjects, and I dont think it will help me in engineering (which is the course I would like to do). I think in the last 2, most important years in a students educational life, they should at least be allowed to choose the subjects that most interest them and will help them. Also I think it is stupid that colleges require extra languages for courses that dont use them. (eg. I dont see anywhere on the "what you will study" for engineering list the word French or Irish).

2) Secondly is my pro irish language view. I am from South Africa, moved to Ireland with my parents when I was 9. Afrikaans in South Africa is taught similarly to the way Irish is taught in Ireland. But there is the difference that more people use Afrikaans as an everyday language. Recently I have become very interested in my South African culture and I want to learn Afrikaans (parents say it will be a waste of my time). But my point is that I am now interested in my culture and I am wanting to learn my country's language and I am disappointed that I never got the chance. This is what I would assume teens would feel after school when they look back.

Although it might be a good thing for colleges to implement an OPTIONAL irish course that students can learn on their terms with out the pressure of exams.

Oasis_Dublin

thisisadamh wrote: »

Although it might be a good thing for colleges to implement an OPTIONAL irish course that students can learn on their terms with out the pressure of exams.

This is an idea I've mentioned before, totally agree with it. Cleachtadh, cleachtadh agus tuilleadh cleachtadh, sin an rud níos tábhachtach le haigheadh an téanga an sábhail. People are intimidated by the Irish language and I definitely think there is a certain element of 'looking down one's nose' from those who are quite líofa at the language.