State spending €3million on communion rituals

gbee

deelite wrote: »

Children getting money from relations etc., where did that tradition come from -

As a special need, confirmation could be included. The practice evolved from the very need to assist people in dressing the children for the sacraments. The better effort made by the parents, indicated a greater sacrifice and elicited a better donation.

The money was given to the child but it was really being given to the parents as all children handed up everything, so it was a social sharing in times of yore and poverty.

However, as time progressed the money was increasingly being kept by the child who contribute nothing back to the parents and is not expected to.

But that's where the money idea comes from, effectively a community sharing the costs and the 'save face' for the parents, the child was the intervention tool employed.

deelite

Thanks for that information gbee very informative would love to see the kids faces if the envelopes were handed directly to parents....

Back to the confirmation "payment" does that mean that the people who get this money are just given twenty euro for the alb rental.

kylith

deelite wrote: »

Thanks for that information gbee very informative would love to see the kids faces if the envelopes were handed directly to parents....

They were in my day, and that's only about 23 years ago. Every single penny of my communion and confirmation money went into my mothers pocket to feed and clothe the rest of us. If anyone suggested to my nephew that he do that he would have had a stroke: he pocketed €800! His little sister's one is coming up this year. I'm thinking of giving her a book of cathecism (sp?), or possibly a copy of The God Delusion

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

And we continue to entirely miss the point:



The payment is for a religious event coincidentally, it's just a product of
our history that this is the case. It could easily be any other situation,
and in fact is sometimes (in the case of school books, uniforms), we
are basically talking about support for parents in dealing with things
forced onto them, like this religious event. It may very well be just
nonsense to me & you but it's still a fact of reality, whether we want
to brazenly deny it or not, that this is forced on parents & this money
is being offered to help them considering history has us landed in this
certain circumstance. This obvious fact explains why money isn't just
thrown at parents for christenings & confirmations etc... It's just a
historical accident.

And what needs to be addressed is the forcing of the event.

Why does there have to be a dress? Why can't the kids be dressed in school uniform?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But shoes are just a "luxury" :rolleyes: Similarly I think your logic means we
should be deducting the social welfare payments drastically because
all those 'professionals' are indulging in luxurious items like toilet paper.
I mean honestly, no shoes? Do you not see how your own argument
can easily be used against you to nullify it? You might consider shoes to
be an acceptable level at which we should throw money at people but I
mean other people don't think we should even be providing children with
shoes & god help you if a libertarian comes to power. At this level of
argument we're both right, jesus even the guy who wants to have sex
with those shoes is right... There's a reason such subjective opinions
shouldn't be offered in such a serious matter as this.

See, now you are just being silly. There are certain things that are considered to be essential; food, shelter and clothing. In the clothing section I would include shoes, but I would exclude a fricking communion dress. The fact that you are mentioning toilet roll as a luxury item, I think, show you are really just trying to take the p1ss here.

I am not going to respond to the rest because, quite frankly, the formatting does my head in, particularly when I am reading on my phone.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

While we're at it lets gang up on me for the way my posts are shaped,
see the seeds of that lynching have already been sown...

Suffer form persecution complex much? One person, me, mentioned your formatting. One other person offered a suggestion as to why it was like that.

I know it has been mentioned before, but you have never given a reason. I understand that the reason might somehow be very personal to you, but you need to understand that it really is very irritating to read your posts formatted the way they are.

If someone was posting in caps or in bold or in a giant font or all their text in one block they would get called on it. You aren't being ganged up on, people are simply telling you that the formatting of your posts make them difficult and annoying to read.

This is especially irritating as I typically (though not in this thread ) enjoy your posts, but the formatting is really beginning to turn me off them. I mostly read boards on my phone now, so the formatting has an even greater effect on the readability.

No ganging up on you, just wondering, again, if there is a good reason for your posts being formatted this way.

MrP

MagicMarker

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

While we're at it lets gang up on me for the way my posts are shaped

No one is ganging up on you, I've lost count on how many times in multiple threads people have told you that the way you right your posts is really annoying. People have asked you to write your posts normally but you refuse, personally I usually just skip past your posts because of this.

Ickle Magoo

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

And we continue to entirely miss the point:...

We?

I have already stated I accept that communion dresses may be required, what I cannot understand is why the tax-payer is being expected to subsidise it given parents would have known their child would be taking communion years in advance...

Even if families are struggling to the point that they require an extra welfare payment to cover a dress that can be picked up for €20 and pair of shoes you can get for less than a tenner in Dunnes after years of knowing they'd need just that, what "exceptional need" is €300+ quid going on? Nobody has answered that.

Birthday parties are a cultural norm here, is it possible to make a request for exceptional need payments so kids don't feel embarrassed that they don't have a bouncy castle like their mate up the road did? It's ridiculous. At some stage you have to draw a line and cut your cloth...a general knees up should definitely be that stage and the "exceptional needs" fund should be left for those who genuinely have exceptional needs, ie sudden situation change meaning they are struggling to put food in their mouths, unforeseen travel expenses to see a dying parent - you know, life changing, important stuff.

magicbastarder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Birthday parties are a cultural norm here, is it possible to make a request for exceptional need payments so kids don't feel embarrassed that they don't have a bouncy castle like their mate up the road did?

the point being that communion is essentially mandated by the state. birthday parties are not.
if the state insisted on a ceremony at a child's birthday, it would be a different matter.

Ickle Magoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Birthday parties are a cultural norm here, is it possible to make a request for exceptional need payments so kids don't feel embarrassed that they don't have a bouncy castle like their mate up the road did?

the point being that communion is essentially mandated by the state. birthday parties are not.
if the state insisted on a ceremony at a child's birthday, it would be a different matter.

And does the ceremony cost 300 bucks?

SerialComplaint

robindch wrote: »

Try posting using something other than txtspk.

Yes, that would be a great help.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

the point being that communion is essentially mandated by the state. birthday parties are not.
if the state insisted on a ceremony at a child's birthday, it would be a different matter.

That is utter nonsense.

Communion is not mandated by the State. There is no legal obligation for a child to participate in any religious ritual or become a member of any religion. Education is mandated - religion is not.

It is a wholly optional affair. One in which many children in this country do not participate.

gbee

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is a wholly optional affair. One in which many children in this country do not participate.

now, whilst accepting what you've said is actually factual, the point is education is mandatory, and if the child is sent to a religious school, then there is a certain expectation of following that school's rules and whilst all schools always abided by parent's wishes, automatically all students will be prepared for the first sacrament.

MrPudding

gbee wrote: »

now, whilst accepting what you've said is actually factual, the point is education is mandatory, and if the child is sent to a religious school, then there is a certain expectation of following that school's rules and whilst all schools always abided by parent's wishes, automatically all students will be prepared for the first sacrament.

I think you have it the wrong way round. The schools rules, in relation to religion, do not take priority over the parent or child's wishes. To say that education is mandated and most educator schools offer communion preparation therefore communion is mandated is rubbish.

Communion is not mandated by the state. The church and the schools need to make the rule that communion is taken in school uniform. This will remove the requirement for this payment.

MrP

magicbastarder

if communion is handled as part of the school day, requesting that your child be excused creates a headache for the school as they have to make arrangements to have somewhere for your child to go and be supervised safely, or for the parent to come down to mind them - which is obviously not an option for a working parent. so requesting that your child be excused from communion is not a light decision, and one which will quite possibly strain relations between the parent and the school.

as mentioned before, it also is isolating for the child, and much as people here might argue that it's up to the parents to buck up and do it, no parent will be happy making an active decision which will result in their kid feeling left out.

the problem here isn't the money. it's a sideshow. the problem is the communion itself.

MagicMarker

Or you could just let the kid stay home for the day, I know which one I would have preferred as a 7 year old.

Ickle Magoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

the problem here isn't the money. it's a sideshow. the problem is the communion itself.

While I'd obviously love to see religious ceremonies taken out of schools all together - just discussing the status quo, money most definitely IS the problem. Parents suffering economic hardship have always, quite rightly, been entitled to state help for unavoidable costs they may not be able to meet while their child/ren attend state education facilities - for instance they are entitled to a back to school allowance to cover uniforms and stationary and so on, in my old school there was a voucher system for families that could not afford to give lunch money or provide a nutritious packed lunch.

My issue is much the same as it would be had it been announced that the back to school allowance was €10,000 or lunch voucher €50 a day or whatever other completely over-the-top and unnecessary extravagant cost to the tax-payer that goes well beyond what is actually required to cover "unavoidable" costs.

kylith

magicbastarder wrote: »

if communion is handled as part of the school day, requesting that your child be excused creates a headache for the school as they have to make arrangements to have somewhere for your child to go and be supervised safely, or for the parent to come down to mind them - which is obviously not an option for a working parent. so requesting that your child be excused from communion is not a light decision, and one which will quite possibly strain relations between the parent and the school.

as mentioned before, it also is isolating for the child, and much as people here might argue that it's up to the parents to buck up and do it, no parent will be happy making an active decision which will result in their kid feeling left out.

the problem here isn't the money. it's a sideshow. the problem is the communion itself.

I can't really believe that it would be much hassle for the school. Certainly when I was in primary at communion and confirmation time the Buddhists were just given some work to do and sent to one of the other classrooms to be supervised; i.e. 6th class girls went to 5th class classrooms. No parents were called in, no extra teacher had to be hired - their teacher simply supervised them as they walked next door and that was the end of it.

Bannasidhe

gbee wrote: »

now, whilst accepting what you've said is actually factual, the point is education is mandatory, and if the child is sent to a religious school, then there is a certain expectation of following that school's rules and whilst all schools always abided by parent's wishes, automatically all students will be prepared for the first sacrament.

Given that the vast majority of National Schools are under the control of the Catholic Church parent's often have no option but to send their child to a 'religious' school or risk imprisonment - and they do imprison http://www.learningireland.ie/Parents_of_130_child_truants_face_fines_or_prison/index.html

I personally would love someone in the situation where the only available school is run by the Catholic Church to take a test case as to the constitutionality of this as it could be considered to be the State endowing one particular religious ethos with special privileges (guaranteed pupils= funding)- something that is specifically not allowed under the Constitution.

However, while the State has decreed most of our schools are Catholic, and that all schools must teach religion - the State has not decreed that all pupils must participate in religion. That is absolutely optional.
Schools are not abiding by parent's wishes, they are abiding by the -IMHO-unconstitutional rules set down by the Dept. of Education.

As a parent it was my wish that my son was not indoctrinated into a religion - any religion - I had to fight in some schools, others had no problem with that and were very supportive.

Now, I have been back against the wall on many, many threads defending SW provision in this country, including exceptional needs payments, as I truly believe that a country which cannot care for the most vulnerable members of society, esp while those in power 'earn' over generous salaries at the State's expense, is a failure. But I find the idea of a State payment of 200 euro for a dress to participate in an optional religious ritual utterly appalling at a time of sweeping cutbacks in education, health, and welfare provision.

Paparazzo

MrPudding wrote: »

No one needs this payment. No one. Not one single person in the whole country.

MrP

This post sums it up nicely. Making your communion is free. When I was a kid lots of parents couldn't afford communion dresses so their parents made them. Now it's the taxpayer paying for them.

sponsoredwalk

I'm sorry bit I honestly just don't have the time to spare to go & quote
nearly every post since I last posted to correct them & point out the flaws,
or quote the previous parts of my posts that actually answer points
subsequently made, or actually analyze the logic of the latest points &
highlight how they fare in other areas - especially when the majority of my
comments that criticize pivotal arguments in this thread will just be brushed
over & ignored. Just remember I'm making a bad argument, somehow, &
that you shouldn't feel bad for taking money away from poor people, for
reasons X, Y, Z, W, J, K, ..., ... ......, ...

MagicMarker

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'm sorry bit I honestly just don't have the time to spare to go & quote
nearly every post since I last posted to correct them & point out the flaws,
or quote the previous parts of my posts that actually answer points
subsequently made, or actually analyze the logic of the latest points &
highlight how they fare in other areas - especially when the majority of my
comments that criticize pivotal arguments in this thread will just be brushed
over & ignored. Just remember I'm making a bad argument, somehow, &
that you shouldn't feel bad for taking money away from poor people, for
reasons X, Y, Z, W, J, K, ..., ... ......, ...

The Mad Hatter

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'm sorry bit I honestly just don't have the time to spare to go & quote
nearly every post since I last posted to correct them & point out the flaws,
or quote the previous parts of my posts that actually answer points
subsequently made, or actually analyze the logic of the latest points &
highlight how they fare in other areas - especially when the majority of my
comments that criticize pivotal arguments in this thread will just be brushed
over & ignored. Just remember I'm making a bad argument, somehow, &
that you shouldn't feel bad for taking money away from poor people, for
reasons X, Y, Z, W, J, K, ..., ... ......, ...

No-one is talking about taking money away from poor people - we're saying that there's no good reason to give anyone — poor or otherwise — €200 from the state coffers for a wear-once dress for a religious ceremony.

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No-one is talking about taking money away from poor people - we're saying that there's no good reason to give anyone — poor or otherwise — €200 from the state coffers for a wear-once dress for a religious ceremony.

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone?
For men were born to pray and save:
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Ickle Magoo

Hello there IMF, welcome to romantic Ireland...

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone?
For men were born to pray and save:
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

You do realise that the 'fumble in the greasy till' remark is aimed at the people praying? If anything it supports the opposite position to yours.

Sarky

Also Yeats was a miserable whiny jerkface.

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

You do realise that the 'fumble in the greasy till' remark is aimed at the people praying? If anything it supports the opposite position to yours.

Could you explain in a little more detail, preferably with reference to
something like this?

Tim Robbins

Facebook page set up for anyone who thinks the government should stopfunding this fiasco.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Could you explain in a little more detail, preferably with reference to
something like this?

Your link wrote:

The poem is a scathing criticism of the mercenary materialism he felt was rampant in the Ireland of 1913.

The mercenary materialism of the type of people who would demand that the public purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for their child, perhaps?

gbee

I can see two sides to this, but I call on the minister to stop ALL special needs for the sacraments entirely.

I've had my two interviews for the dole myself and I will get a surprise visit from an inspector ??? I need a special needs payment before I'm thrown out in the street, if I go silent shortly it's because the phone an internet is cut off.

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

The mercenary materialism of the people demanding that the public purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for their child, perhaps?

Ignoring your gross, gross, misunderstanding of the poems message
that we'll go through in a minute, I'm more concerned about how Yeats
focusing on people praying somehow makes the poem supporting the
opposite position to mine (you know, the thing you actually said?).

In fact, just as a teaser - "the poem is also a comment on the refusal of
commercial interests to support Yeats’ appeal for money to build an Art
Gallery to house the Lane collection", please explain how Yeats could
be motivated enough to write a poem lambasting the business
community for not giving him free money for art galleries that they
may or may not get back at a future date while simultaneously
chiding other's for giving free money to the mercenary poor people?
Correct me if I'm wrong but is Yeats not one of these mercenaries for
demanding money from what was the equivalent of the public purse
back in his day? Surely you aren't contradicting yourself that ridiculously
already?

I have to be cautious here, you're either saying Yeats poem as a
whole supports the position opposite to mine (in which case I'd love
for you to explain the above hilarity) or Yeats poem supports the
opposite position of mine due to this religious comment you made
(which doesn't explain your latest comment, admittedly, but I just
can't make sense of it). The more detail (i.e. more than one liners)
the better.

gbee

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The more detail (i.e. more than one liners)
the better.

TBH, if you haven't got it by now, you're probably using google translation.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ignoring your gross, gross, misunderstanding of the poems message
that we'll go through in a minute, I'm more concerned about how Yeats
focusing on people praying somehow makes the poem supporting the
opposite position to mine (you know, the thing you actually said?).

In fact, just as a teaser - "the poem is also a comment on the refusal of
commercial interests to support Yeats’ appeal for money to build an Art
Gallery to house the Lane collection", please explain how Yeats could
be motivated enough to write a poem lambasting the business
community for not giving him free money for art galleries that they
may or may not get back at a future date while simultaneously
chiding other's for giving free money to the mercenary poor people?
Correct me if I'm wrong but is Yeats not one of these mercenaries for
demanding money from what was the equivalent of the public purse
back in his day? Surely you aren't contradicting yourself that ridiculously
already?

I have to be cautious here, you're either saying Yeats poem as a
whole supports the position opposite to mine (in which case I'd love
for you to explain the above hilarity) or Yeats poem supports the
opposite position of mine due to this religious comment you made
(which doesn't explain your latest comment, admittedly, but I just
can't make sense of it). The more detail (i.e. more than one liners)
the better.

How about this then:

The poem you have quoted as, in your opinion, supporting your position not only doesn't have anything to do with us money grubbing atheists and our desire to have public money going to, for example, paying nurses, it doesn't have anything to say about the issue of public funds being used at all. It is a criticism of what Yeats saw as the hypocrisy of Irish businessmen at the time who hid their greed behind a veneer of piousness, and it is a lament for the passing of what Yeats saw as a more noble type of Irishman; one in the fashion of Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone et al.

The trouble with using poetry to try to support arguements is that so much symbolism and flowery prose is used that one can, as demonstrated in this thread, find lines that will support any side of the arguement. The only way around this is if the poem were to read something like:

I think it's a shame,
And that the government's to blame
For spending all our dosh
So that people could buy dresses, posh,
For archaic religious rights.
It keeps me up at nights.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I think it's a shame,
And that the government's to blame
For spending all our dosh
So that people could buy dresses, posh,
For archaic religious rights.
It keeps me up at nights.

All is changed. Changed utterly.
A Terrible poem is born.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All is changed. Changed utterly.
A Terrible poem is born.

*sniff* doesn't like my poem... I'm gonna go cry... *sniff*

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

The poem you have quoted as, in your opinion, supporting your position not only doesn't have anything to do with us money grubbing atheists and our desire to have public money going to, for example, paying nurses, it doesn't have anything to say about the issue of public funds being used at all.

This coming from the person who just last night, when it was convenient,
made this argument about the poem:

kylith wrote: »

The mercenary materialism of the type of people who would demand that the public purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for their child, perhaps?

In other words, when challenged the poem goes from talking about
the mercenary materialism of poor people and their materialistic quest
for public funds to, in fact, all along actually saying nothing about
the issue of public funds.

kylith wrote: »

It is a criticism of what Yeats saw as the hypocrisy of Irish businessmen at the time who hid their greed behind a veneer of piousness, and it is a lament for the passing of what Yeats saw as a more noble type of Irishman; one in the fashion of Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone et al.

I see the greedy people have now become the businessmen & not the
mercenaries known as poor mothers of 8 year old girls (as you'd have
had us believe last night if left unchallenged). What will the next
interpretation be?

kylith wrote: »

The trouble with using poetry to try to support arguements is that so much symbolism and flowery prose is used that one can, as demonstrated in this thread, find lines that will support any side of the arguement.

You've clearly demonstrated your own ability to pervert a few lines of
poetry into any shape convenient to you.

Notice this response doesn't even bother to address the comment you
made about religion somehow, someway, meaning the poem supported
a position opposite to mine (or is that even what you meant? I think it
would have to be as I doubt you can explain claiming that the poem
could be interpreted, even with as loose an interpretation as you'd like,
as somehow railing against "people who would demand that the public
purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for
their child" considering one of the main objectives of the poem was to rally against the
business establishment for not giving him free money to indulge in his IMF-friendly
romanticism let alone that this is the reason why the poem supports a
position opposite to mine although that makes sense if you just confused yourself
in this quest to disarm me).

magicbastarder

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook page set up for anyone who thinks the government should stopfunding this fiasco.

the government must be quaking in their boots. a facebook page, no less!

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

*sniff* doesn't like my poem... I'm gonna go cry... *sniff*

There there no need to cry *pats back in a condescending manner* It was a lovely poem. It made me titter.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This coming from the person who just last night, when it was convenient,
made this argument about the poem:



In other words, when challenged the poem goes from talking about
the mercenary materialism of poor people and their materialistic quest
for public funds to, in fact, all along actually saying nothing about
the issue of public funds.



I see the greedy people have now become the businessmen & not the
mercenaries known as poor mothers of 8 year old girls (as you'd have
had us believe last night if left unchallenged). What will the next
interpretation be?



You've clearly demonstrated your own ability to pervert a few lines of
poetry into any shape convenient to you.

Notice this response doesn't even bother to address the comment you
made about religion somehow, someway, meaning the poem supported
a position opposite to mine (or is that even what you meant? I think it
would have to be as I doubt you can explain claiming that the poem
could be interpreted, even with as loose an interpretation as you'd like,
as somehow railing against "people who would demand that the public
purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for
their child" considering one of the main objectives of the poem was to rally against the
business establishment for not giving him free money to indulge in his IMF-friendly
romanticism let alone that this is the reason why the poem supports a
position opposite to mine although that makes sense if you just confused yourself
in this quest to disarm me).

That is EXACTLY my point; the poem can be twisted to fit a multitude of agendas; whether it's my materialistic people demanding money from the public for a private event, or the idea that it's a lament about the declining standards of Irish people, or your ideas that it is about Yeats wanting money, or your original insinuation that those of us calling for this payment to be scrapped are 'fumbling in the greasy till'. It's ambiguous and better looked at as a collection of fancy words written by some bloke a hundred years ago who was prone to waffling on about things, rather than something to support any arguement that you care to name.

Either say what you mean in your own words or keep schtum. Posting lines of poetry that have nothing to do with the conversation is Dead One's party piece.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

the government must be quaking in their boots. a facebook page, no less!

Sure, its when you send in postcards that they take notice.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook page set up for anyone who thinks the government should stopfunding this fiasco.

Needs a better blurb IMO, to emphasise that it's a waste of our tax money. also the picture chosen is nice and humble, should be something tacky to hammer the point home.
Gave it a like anyway. Good luck.

number10a

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I personally would love someone in the situation where the only available school is run by the Catholic Church to take a test case as to the constitutionality of this as it could be considered to be the State endowing one particular religious ethos with special privileges (guaranteed pupils= funding)- something that is specifically not allowed under the Constitution.

The State gets around this not paying teachers from 12.00 to 12.30. The teachers then volunteer (read: are required by the religious authorities of the school on pain of redundancy) to teach religion for that unpaid half an hour. As a result, the State is not funding any religion. Well, on paper anyway.

Of course, we all know this is not true with prayers at the start and end of the day, during the teachers' paid time, and with much more than those 30 minutes per day being dedicated to "faith formation" in the run up to communion, confirmation, confession or the impending visit of a religious inspector. In addition to this, I am sure that State funds have been used to buy statues, crucifixes, candles and flowers for altars etc. As a trainee teacher myself, I know very well that plenty of photocopying funded by State coffers ends up being done for religion classes, as well as State-funded art materials being used, electricity for a CD player to play a song, or a DVD player to be used to show the kids an Alive-O video. I know I'm nitpicking, but if this were France or Turkey there would be people protesting at the thought of any threat against their rightfully closely guarded state secularism.

So, someone could possibly challenge the constitutionality of it, because it does happen, but I reckon it would be a long, hard and expensive battle possibly ending up in Luxembourg.

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

That is EXACTLY my point; the poem can be twisted to fit a multitude of agendas; whether it's my materialistic people demanding money from the public for a private event, or the idea that it's a lament about the declining standards of Irish people, or your ideas that it is about Yeats wanting money, or your original insinuation that those of us calling for this payment to be scrapped are 'fumbling in the greasy till'. It's ambiguous and better looked at as a collection of fancy words written by some bloke a hundred years ago who was prone to waffling on about things, rather than something to support any arguement that you care to name.

Either say what you mean in your own words or keep schtum. Posting lines of poetry that have nothing to do with the conversation is Dead One's party piece.

Wait, so you offer up contradictory interpretations of the same paragraph
when it conveniently suits you to in an argument, and then use this
charlatanism as PROOF that every poem ever in the world can be twisted
to suit your agenda ignoring rhyme or reason? When this logic is employed
by creationists everybody sees it immediately, yet when taken in a
different context nobody notices (no wonder the Yeats poem is just
incomprehensible).

Also I've said what I mean multiple times, quoted & requoted arguments
only to have 99% of it ignored in the way your latest post exemplifies
amazingly despite me trying to chase you down to get an honest
response, so telling me to say what I mean in my own words is rich coming
from someone who still, still, refuses to justify any of the claims you've
made on this one tiny issue of the stanza.

If you disagree with my use of Yeats that's fine, but that doesn't mean
your disagreement is justifiable & quite frankly contradicting yourself as
you have tells me there's none of that famous rationality involved in such
a disagreement.

Also, this argument about a collection of fancy words? Seriously?
I think I need that Bill Hicks video again... And telling people how
it's best for them to read poetry? I'm thinking nobody sees the insanity
in a comment like that because this argument is accepted when it tickles
our biases (as of course this argument is used all the time with reference
to the bible), though maybe people just agree that others should be told
how to read poetry considering we have other posters in here who
think it's alright to tell poor people how to live and nobody has a problem
with that...

Bannasidhe

number10a wrote: »

So, someone could possibly challenge the constitutionality of it, because it does happen, but I reckon it would be a long, hard and expensive battle possibly ending up in Luxembourg.

Well, that's sorted what I'm doing when I win the euro millions so.

kowloon

Dades wrote: »

As a classic car enthusiast I wholly endorse this suggestion of yours!

+1 The chrome on my bike has gone rusty and the whitewalls are looking a bit dull.

Galvasean

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, that's sorted what I'm doing when I win the euro millions so.

"Militant Secularist Wins Lotto.
Thanks Self."

magicbastarder

Galvasean wrote: »

Needs a better blurb IMO, to emphasise that it's a waste of our tax money. also the picture chosen is nice and humble, should be something tacky to hammer the point home.
Gave it a like anyway. Good luck.

it needs information on how best to complain about it.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wait, so you offer up contradictory interpretations of the same paragraph
when it conveniently suits you to in an argument, and then use this
charlatanism as PROOF that every poem ever in the world can be twisted
to suit your agenda ignoring rhyme or reason? When this logic is employed
by creationists everybody sees it immediately, yet when taken in a
different context nobody notices (no wonder the Yeats poem is just
incomprehensible).

There are contradictory interpretations because it's a fecking poem, not a treatise on public spending.

Also I've said what I mean multiple times, quoted & requoted arguments
only to have 99% of it ignored in the way your latest post exemplifies
amazingly despite me trying to chase you down to get an honest
response,

You want my honest answer in the matter of the interpretation of a poem? I've given it and you won't accept it. Ask any English teacher; poetry is open to personal interpretation.

Why don't you explain exactly how this centuary old piece of writing supports your position on giving handouts to people who want to buy over priced outfits for their children?

so telling me to say what I mean in my own words is rich coming
from someone who still, still, refuses to justify any of the claims you've
made on this one tiny issue of the stanza.

You mean that my repeated statements that this poem a) is completely off topic and b) is open to being interperated in any number of ways doesn't count?

If you disagree with my use of Yeats that's fine, but that doesn't mean
your disagreement is justifiable & quite frankly contradicting yourself as
you have tells me there's none of that famous rationality involved in such
a disagreement.

You've posted something non-sensicle and now you're trying to turn it round on me. Good for you.

Also, this argument about a collection of fancy words? Seriously?
I think I need that Bill Hicks video again... And telling people how
it's best for them to read poetry? I'm thinking nobody sees the insanity
in a comment like that because this argument is accepted when it tickles
our biases (as of course this argument is used all the time with reference
to the bible), though maybe people just agree that others should be told
how to read poetry considering we have other posters in here who
think it's alright to tell poor people how to live and nobody has a problem
with that...

When exactly did I tell you how to read poetry? Now you seem to just be making things up.

Now, the format of your posts is making my eyes bleed, so I'm done here.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Now, the format of your posts is making my eyes bleed, so I'm done here.

I can't read them.

Galvasean

Facts > poems

magicbastarder

not necessarily. the fact that bavaria has a total area of 70,549 sq.km is much less interesting than the love song of j. alfred prufrock.