What is your solution?

TheChizler

yore wrote: »

Maybe you have a good idea, but you would be guaranteed to p1$$ a lot of people off trying to implement that. If you were in charge for that week, and tried to put that into practice, you'd have a lot of the people on here attacking you and calling you an idiot etc.

But the point of this thread is that the attacking is put aside and things are looked at constructively! You seem to be ignoring that condition.

yore

TheChizler wrote: »

But the point of this thread is that the attacking is put aside and things are looked at constructively! You seem to be ignoring that condition.

Well I guess the thread has many points, but it started out saying that it was easy for people to criticise because they don't take into account how difficult it is to implement change. And it invited people to propose solutions that they would think would work, and be acceptable to everyone within that environment. The point being that it is (virtually) impossible to do that.

Johro

yore wrote: »

If they don't have a pipe coming in from the public main, there is nothing to put a meter on!

Ha. It's been suggested though that people who have private water supplies should also pay the water charge. I don't agree as they've had to bear the cost of boring the well, having the pump installed and maintaining the system.
I also don't agree with people having to pay for their water meters. Paying for water, fine.

Doc Ruby

Johro wrote: »

Being on a waiting list for an operation is not the fault of a union, or even the minister for health, it's because not enough money is allocated to the health service,

Aaaahhahahahah!! What really, we pay as much money per capita as your home country and we're nowhere even close to the top of the league in terms of service provided, unlike the Dutch who stand at number one. Throwing more money at the problem sure as hell won't fix it.

Doc Ruby

yore wrote: »

5) The public sector/teacher/guards are overpaid/bloated/inefficient. They should be improved, yet there should be no cutbacks

If you slant your little opinion-making post any further you'll be standing on your head, but let's just deal with this one shall we. You can cut a lot of fat without ever losing front line services, but in a rather grisly mental image its the fat that's pulling the strings.

Johro

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Aaaahhahahahah!! What really, we pay as much money per capita as your home country and we're nowhere even close to the top of the league in terms of service provided, unlike the Dutch who stand at number one. Throwing more money at the problem sure as hell won't fix it.

We have close to 17 million people though. But yeah, lots of money on it's own won't solve the problem, it's how it's managed.

Doc Ruby

Johro wrote: »

We have close to 17 million people though. But yeah, lots of money on it's own won't solve the problem, it's how it's managed.

I did say per capita. And in a situation where you have the HSE meant to replace the health boards, but the health boards still for some reason hanging around, money is no part of the solution.

Johro

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I did say per capita. And in a situation where you have the HSE meant to replace the health boards, but the health boards still for some reason hanging around, money is no part of the solution.

You did. And the HSE is a great example of mismanagement. The best.

Standman

OP fails to realise that many people love arguing about things whether they understand them or not, simply because it distracts them from the problems and inadequacies of their own personal lives and the big question of why the f*ck we even exist in the first place.

ToddyDoody

Society's attitudes being re-moulded to those of a more successful country is what would make an awful lot of difference imo. No better time to try and nudge that trundle wheel than in a crisis. Our attitude towards unemployment is woeful, we could move forward a bit on our attitudes to risk taking and entrepreneurship and towards the business intricacies of service-delivery vs the less value add (but much more prized) professions (such as banking)

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If you slant your little opinion-making post any further you'll be standing on your head, but let's just deal with this one shall we. You can cut a lot of fat without ever losing front line services, but in a rather grisly mental image its the fat that's pulling the strings.

Please give me a practical strategy to do this? One that's easy on everyone concerned and will cause no complaints :rolleyes: . The post was not against public sector etc. It was against the old reliable moans and excuses.

What does "opinion-making post" mean? What use is a post if it's not
"opinion-making"

I don't understand the significance of your single post link.... Is it an example of a "little non-opinion-making post?"

yore

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Society's attitudes being re-moulded to those of a more successful country is what would make an awful lot of difference imo. No better time to try and nudge that trundle wheel than in a crisis. Our attitude towards unemployment is woeful, we could move forward a bit on our attitudes to risk taking and entrepreneurship and towards the business intricacies of service-delivery vs the less value add (but much more prized) professions (such as banking)

Try explaining the "less value add" of banking to a small local business struggling to get credit... Whatever chance they have of gettting that credit, it's zero without banks!

yore

Standman wrote: »

OP fails to realise that many people love arguing about things whether they understand them or not, simply because it distracts them from the problems and inadequacies of their own personal lives and the big question of why the f*ck we even exist in the first place.

Not really. It's just that it's counter-productive to constantly protest against anyone and everything without reason. Eventually people must realise that. People scream for change, just as long as it doesn't adversely change any one single thing for them

ToddyDoody

yore wrote: »

Try explaining the "less value add" of banking to a small local business struggling to get credit... Whatever chance they have of gettting that credit, it's zero without banks!

working banks yes, but irish banks providing services to other countries due to their talent and abilities.. That just aint gonna happen, we've proved time and again we as a country are not as strong as others at this, we'll (practically) never be able sell banking services abroad the way things stand so forget about it in terms of its export value. Whatever it is we've proved to be good enough to export = numero uno of what we want to contribute to in terms of maintaining and diversifying these industries. Again the attitude that food product development is a more worthy career than banking compliments this reality. (as we're good at exporting food products) the thatcher in me is coming alive

Doc Ruby

yore wrote: »

Please give me a practical strategy to do this? One that's easy on everyone concerned and will cause no complaints :rolleyes:

There will be complaints one way or the other before this is done. The only question is how much we end up owing afterwards.

yore wrote: »

What does "opinion-making post" mean? What use is a post if it's not
"opinion-making"

Oho, that's how you want it. Fair enough, every single point in your post boiled down to "pay yur taxes pesints!" Also known as the false dichotomy argument, or the false dilemma, typical of the succinct brand of arguments put forth by someone who managed to decouple their mouth from the taxpayers' teat long enough to type it.

yore wrote: »

I don't understand the significance of your single post link.... Is it an example of a "little non-opinion-making post?"

Its an example of reality laddie. Deal with it or it will deal with you, as with all matters of fact.

yore

ToddyDoody wrote: »

working banks yes, but irish banks providing services to other countries due to their talent and abilities.. That just aint gonna happen, we've proved time and again we as a country are not as strong as others at this, we'll (practically) never be able sell banking services abroad the way things stand so forget about it in terms of its export value. Whatever it is we've proved to be good enough to export = numero uno of what we want to contribute to in terms of maintaining and diversifying these industries. Again the attitude that food product development is a more worthy career than banking compliments this reality. (as we're good at exporting food products) the thatcher in me is coming alive

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Those business realise the "value add", and function, of the banking sector when it is not there or not working smoothly!

In relation to exporting services/jobs etc, the IFSC has 14,000 people working there according to wikipedia

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There will be complaints one way or the other before this is done. The only question is how much we end up owing afterwards.

I think that if you bothered your hole to read the posts, you would see that I said that there is no way to fix everything without stepping on someones toes.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oho, that's how you want it. Fair enough, every single point in your post boiled down to "pay yur taxes pesints!" Also known as the false dichotomy argument, or the false dilemma, typical of the succinct brand of arguments put forth by someone who managed to decouple their mouth from the taxpayers' teat long enough to type it.

False dichotomy? Did you learn that expression lately. you should not use it when you clearly don't understand what it means.
Taxpayers teat .... hardly likely when I do not (and have not for over three years) live in Ireland, you spanner!

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its an example of reality laddie. Deal with it or it will deal with you, as with all matters of fact.

Your post, taken in isolation as you sent it, is incoherent. Get off the drugs and get a job!

ToddyDoody

yore wrote: »

In relation to exporting services/jobs etc, the IFSC has 14,000 people working there according to wikipedia

ireland is a protestant country according to wikipedia. I wouldnt trust those numbers too much.

Doc Ruby

yore wrote: »

I think that if you bothered your hole to read the posts, you would see that I said that there is no way to fix everything without stepping on someones toes.

Great, so tell us why you asked the question again?

yore wrote: »

False dichotomy? Did you learn that expression lately. you should not use it when you clearly don't understand what it means.
Taxpayers teat .... hardly likely when I do not (and have not for over three years) live in Ireland, you spanner!

Its fairly impressive how you managed to acquire the same mindset I have to say. There's a teat involved somewhere alright. Not as impressive as the sarcasm though, that has really rocked my world.

yore wrote: »

Your post, taken in isolation as you sent it, is incoherent. Get off the drugs and get a job!

Do elaborate on the incoherence, I'd have thought it was very much to the point.

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Great, so tell us why you asked the question again?

What question?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its fairly impressive how you managed to acquire the same mindset I have to say. There's a teat involved somewhere alright. Not as impressive as the sarcasm though, that has really rocked my world.

What are you talking about. In one post you are simultaneously telling me my attitude and posts boil down to a

"pay yur taxes pesints!"

i.e I am some kind of upper class knob, while at the same time trying to imply that I am "sucking at the taxpayers test". Which midset are you referring to there? The one where you think I am a scrounger, or the one where you think I am someone who has it easy and is looking down on the poor people.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Do elaborate on the incoherence, I'd have thought it was very much to the point.

Your post is incoherent in the context of a debate about why people always complain about politicians and the people who try to do something about the current problems. It is a random post of ramblings about the public sector pensions which states some random facts. None of which are relevant to the original questions. You might have well as have directed me to any other random, yet probably factual, statement of numbers from any other post. All you seemed to do was to express (perhaps sarcastically, although very difficult to determine from a single post outside the context of even it's own thread) that you were sorry for a list of people :rolleyes:

What point were you trying to make by sending that single post?

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oho, that's how you want it. Fair enough, every single point in your post boiled down to "pay yur taxes pesints!" Also known as the false dichotomy argument, or the false dilemma, typical of the succinct brand of arguments put forth by someone who managed to decouple their mouth from the taxpayers' teat long enough to type it.

Also, in relation to "false dichotomy" nowhere did I propose a dichotomic set of options. My initial post stated a number of the simplistic arguments that others make e.g "stop paying the bank debt and we'll be grand" and people who moan as if there are simple solutions.

I have made over 40 posts in this thread. Point out one where I espouse a dichotomic choice, false or otherwise!
I believe you either don't understand the phrase yourself, or else didn't read my posts!

Doc Ruby

yore wrote: »

What question?


What are you talking about. In one post you are simultaneously telling me my attitude and posts boil down to a


i.e I am some kind of upper class knob, while at the same time trying to imply that I am "sucking at the taxpayers test". Which midset are you referring to there? The one where you think I am a scrounger, or the one where you think I am someone who has it easy and is looking down on the poor people.




You're post is incoherent in the context of a debate about why people always complain about politicians and the people who try to do something about the current problems. It is a random post of ramblings about the public sector pensions which states some random facts. None of which are relevant to the original questions. You might have well as have directed me to any other random, yet probably factual, statement of numbers from any other post. All you seemed to do was to express (perhaps sarcastically, although very difficult to determine from a single post outside the context of even it's own thread) that you were sorry for a list of people :rolleyes:

What point were you trying to make by sending that single post?

yore wrote: »

Also, in relation to "false dichotomy" nowhere did I propose a dichotomic set of options. My initial post stated a number of the simplistic arguments that others make e.g "stop paying the bank debt and we'll be grand" and people who moan as if there are simple solutions.

I have made over 40 posts in this thread. Point out one where I espouse a dichotomic choice, false or otherwise!
I believe you either don't understand the phrase yourself, or else didn't read my posts!

You do realise this isn't normal, right? I mean I know I read your "midset" typo as "which midget are you referring to", but really who comes on here at 4am on a Monday morning with disconnected bullshit like this, the depths of which I have no intention of plumbing, even if you do suck at the taxpayer's test, making the whole public-sector-teatage deal even more mysterious.

I foresee a long and colourful career in AH for you, laddie. I've been wrong before though. Not often mind you.

guitarzero

If you are looking for a solution, dont come here. We are boards. We are not interested in solution. We take pride and revel in ridicule, smugness, mockery, derision and other such traites that will only take away the sacredness of that which you hold dear.

I suggest going to your local TD.

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You do realise this isn't normal, right? I mean I know I read your "midset" typo as "which midget are you referring to", but really who comes on here at 4am on a Monday morning with disconnected bullshit like this, the depths of which I have no intention of plumbing, even if you do suck at the taxpayer's test, making the whole public-sector-teatage deal even more mysterious.

I foresee a long and colourful career in AH for you, laddie. I've been wrong before though. Not often mind you.

Again, if you read my earlier posts I stated I have left Ireland 3 years ago. It is not 4am where I am. Not even close! I think I stated that in a response to you, and I think you even quoted it back to me.

And if you learned how to read and comprehend, you might not think that my first post was sticking up for the public sector (you seem to be obsessed with it, I've never worked for it, nor has anyone in my family). You seem to be obsessed with it and "teats" :rolleyes: .

And it is ironic, that the objective of this thread was to ask why people throw out the same tired arguments and criticisms against everything. (And it did ask them to put forward thoughtful, realistic, solutions that they thought would be better.) Some will say "I'm not doing x because it's going to the bankers" and others will say "I'm not doing y because of public sector inefficiencies". Yet you accused me of manufacturing false dichotomies when you seem to espouse the opinion (in the thread that you sent the irrelevant link to) that you should not have to pay for water meters because some people in the public sector get bloated pensions. You are basically saying that there are two mutually exclusive options open to us - either we pay for the water meters etc. or we cut those people's pensions. Not both, or not neither nor a mixture..... In essence, a dichotomy. And a false one at that!

This thread was made to try to understand people like you! People who, when presented with any extra responsibility, just spout out "Bankers/Public sector/Politicians/<insert-random-gripe>/etc. as a reason not to contribute to society.

And no, I have no intention of sticking around too long.

yore

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh and good luck with the whole "little non-opinion-making posting" thing . God forbid that someone should post an opinion!

starbelgrade

yore wrote: »

I don't know where you got that I have a "smug sense".

Eh....

yore wrote: »

Go off now and play with you special friends and leave the grown ups to discuss something.

Eh...

yore wrote: »

I'd reckon that most of them are better educated than the majoirty of people here.

Eh...

yore wrote: »

I guess I have to keep my viewpoints simplistic so that people here can understand them.

Eh...

yore wrote: »

Am I allowed to call someone an idiot here?

Eh...

yore wrote: »

False dichotomy? Did you learn that expression lately. you should not use it when you clearly don't understand what it means.

Eh...

yore wrote: »

Get off the drugs and get a job!

No.. I don't know where I got the idea from that you are smug.

yore

starbelgrade wrote: »

Eh....



Eh...



Eh...



Eh...




Eh...



Eh...




No.. I don't know where I got the idea from that you are smug.

Well done on your ability to cut and paste selective parts of posts/sentences to form an, ironically, incredibly smug reply. I will deal with each briefly in turn.

First, assuming that you don't have the ability to predict what people will write in the future, I will mainly deal with the ones which came before your inital accusation of smugness.

YORE wrote:

Go off now and play with you special friends and leave the grown ups to discuss something.

Was made in response to a poster whose first contribution to the thread consisted of him complaining that it took him too long to read the post (Not my fault if he's a slow reader). That quote was in reply to his constructive, enlightened and highly relevant contribution about sand and vaginas. Obviously, such a response would not be categorised as "childish" in your book!

YORE wrote:

I'd reckon that most of them are better educated than the majoirty of people here.

I don't see how that could be construed as smugness on my part. I also listed their academic credentials in a further post and said to bear in mind the age profile of these people. Perhaps you grew up in a cosseted world of middle-class professionals, but would you seriously argue that people in their 40s and 50s with degrees do not have "above average" formal academic education? I am assuming that the people who post here are a broadly representative sample of the population.
I never claimed to be more or less educated than anyone. If I said the Chinese/Japanese/Russian/whatever education system was turning out better mathematicians/whatever would you also say that that was smug? If I suggested that most inter-county footballers are probably fitter than the posters here, does that make me smug?
However if you have better academic credentials than those people I listed; from memory there were two qualified doctors, someone with a Economics Masters from Oxford and a chartered accountant who used to lecture on the subject, I say well done to yourself. But the average person on the street does not have that. Therefore there is no reason to assume that a randomly selected sample of boards users would have better qualifications!

YORE wrote:

I guess I have to keep my viewpoints simplistic so that people here can understand them.

Good job on cutting off the end of that sentence to twist the words to try to backup your point. The full quote was "I guess I have to keep my viewpoints simplistic so that people here can understand them....I had more than one complaint about the length of my opening post!" and the next sentence in the same post explained "My post was a response to someone who just copied and quoted a previous post of mine, changed a few phrases to bold, and then said "lol" or something nonsensical to that effect!"

YORE wrote:

Am I allowed to call someone an idiot here?

A perfectly valid response to a nonsensical suggestion that we could solve our problems by nationalising the IMF! I will again explain the reasons why this is nonsensical:
1) The IMF is not even a privately held organisation/company. It is a supranational whose membership consist of (most of) the states of the world. Yes ,including Ireland.
2) It does not have significant (any?) assets in ireland to nationalise.
That poster may as well have proposed that Ireland nationalise the UN, or the central Bank of China for that matter! The list could go on - why not nationalise Apple.
Perhaps you personally agree with the poster though :rolleyes:


The last two quotes happened long after you called me smug. However, I will assume for a moment that you somehow knew exactly what I was going to write, and long before I wrote it, when you made the accusation.

YORE wrote:

False dichotomy? Did you learn that expression lately. you should not use it when you clearly don't understand what it means.

Some poster claimed started out with some irrelevant bullsh1t directing me to a post about the public sector where he stated a list of people he felt sorry for. That was his solution. He said that I was proposing to people a false dichotomy of choices. I will explain this a bit further
1) A dichotomy is a situation where you have two and only two mutually two options. e.g you can be male or female (This is an example before you give me some sh1te about hermaphrodites or some other random non-relevant thing)
2) A false dichotomy is where you present an argument as if it is a dichotomy, when it is not. For example, people can say either you are straight or you are gay. So there are two choices and if you are not one, then you are the other. But there will be people who say that you can be both.So presenting the argument that if you are not one, you must be the other, is therefore a false dichotomy! Or a more relevant example, people will say we have two choices A) stop paying our debts and we'll be grand or pay the rich elites and leave ourselves fu$ked for eternity! Those are the kinds of simplistic arguments that I asked the people who use them frequently, to tell me how they would implement them in a coherent and logical way. I never once proposed a dichotomic set of choices/outcomes! In fact I augued the complete opposite in many posts by saying that politicians were working within constraints and could not just do everything straight off. There are grey areas where there are compromises! The poster obviously does not understand the meaning of the phrase.

This was the posters definition of a false dichotomy

Oho, that's how you want it. Fair enough, every single point in your post boiled down to "pay yur taxes pesints!" Also known as the false dichotomy argument, or the false dilemma, typical of the succinct brand of arguments put forth by someone who managed to decouple their mouth from the taxpayers' teat long enough to type it.

He also seemed to be obsessed with teats and taxpayers and for some reason seemed to imply that I was both a snob and a dole-scrounger in the same paragraph.

YORE wrote:

Get off the drugs and get a job!

It's not a particulary smug comment to make. That poster was clearly incoherent. His addition to this thread, as stated above was a link to a post about people he (perhaps sarcastically) felt sorry for. When I asked him to explain the relevence of this post his response was

"Its an example of reality laddie. Deal with it or it will deal with you, as with all matters of fact."

Just for reference, this is the actual post that contained his solution

Hi there. Spending rocketed northwards during the bubble, based on windfall capital gains taxes from unreal property prices and the sales thereof. The entire apparatus of the Irish government is still spending at bubble levels.

Now I'm sorry that the many overpaid public sector workers with gold plated pensions (speaking of unsustainable, they'd have to pay between 30-40% of their pre-tax salary to pay for what they get from the taxpayer almost gratis) are going to have to take a pay cut to sustainable levels, and I'm sorry for the giant middle management rump who are closing garda stations and letting people rot in trolleys in hospital corridors to try and bludgeon the public into paying more while they sweat their way to the early skiving off to bate the traffic dontcha know, and I'm sorry for the hugely overpaid politicos who won only because their competition was stunningly shite, I am sorry for the ever blossoming garden of quangos that will have to be shut rather than being used as political bargaining chips, and indeed I'm even sorry for collection of knobs that blew billions down the last five years on failed vanity projects and somehow managed to keep their jobs, losing them.

But I guess someday you'll grasp the reality that we are spending a hell of a lot more than we are raising in tax, and what that really means.

I can imagine a possible conversation if this guy went for an interview
Interviewer: So Mr. Poster, how would you handle a situation where two of the people in the team you would be managing had a falling out.
Mr. Poster: I feel sorry for the person who won the lotto last week! I also feel sorry for anyone with a big car.


That's all from me folks. I won't be back for a while, if ever. Not to this particular forum anyway. It didn't turn out to be in any way productive or enlightening. I doubt I'll be missed, but it's not as if I give a sh1te to be honest!

Sharpshooter

yore wrote: »

That's all from me folks. I won't be back for a while, if ever. Not to this particular forum anyway. It didn't turn out to be in any way productive or enlightening. I doubt I'll be missed, but it's not as if I give a sh1te to be honest!

I can't hold my breath any longer.........