Christmas messages from politicians

Geomy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Exactly, i mean if someone is sending you good thoughts of any denomination, surely that's a positive. I mean, isnt getting wound up about a nice sentiment because it doesnt originate from your particular view kind of bigoted.

You hit the nail on the head there. ...

Nice one. ..

SpaceTime

I'd rather they send me cards like that so that I know who not to vote for next local elections!

catallus

^^^^^

I'd rather you didn't vote at all if such a thing would sway you one way or the other.

SpaceTime

Well, seperation of church and state is a BIG deal to me.

We still have local councils that insist on prayers at meetings etc etc.. That's a major issue for me as I thought I was supposed to be living in a liberal republic not a theocracy.

So if you send me an ultra religious item of mail your likelihood of a vote will go down.

I would also prefer if you'd refrain from telling me if I should or shouldn't vote just because you don't agree with my views!

catallus

It is not that I don't agree with your views, SpaceTime, it is that if you are going to base the exercise your franchise upon such trivial matters as whether a candidate sent a christmas card to his constituents then maybe you should re-educate yourself in civic matters.

SpaceTime

catallus wrote: »

It is not that I don't agree with your views, SpaceTime, it is that if you are going to base the exercise your franchise upon such trivial matters as whether a candidate sent a christmas card to his constituents then maybe you should re-educate yourself in civic matters.

You're making MASSIVE assumptions about my level of awareness about civic matters!!!

catallus

I'm neither assuming nor presuming anything. I'm going by your post made at 22:24 (Post No.53)

You said you would not vote for a person who sent a card to his constituents.

SpaceTime

catallus wrote: »

I'm neither assuming nor presuming anything. I'm going by your post made at 22:24 (Post No.53)

You said you would not vote for a person who sent a card to his constituents.

Yes I did. I'm not very engaged by candidates who send me correspondence that looks like a mass card!

Obliq

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Exactly, i mean if someone is sending you good thoughts of any denomination, surely that's a positive. I mean, isnt getting wound up about a nice sentiment because it doesnt originate from your particular view kind of bigoted.

Hi Crooked. This was you apparently agreeing with me, but actually saying something quite, quite different. I disagree with your assessment that someone who gets wound up about a religious christmas card from a politician is being bigoted. I would prefer the words "extremely grumpy", and my opinion is that everyone is well within their rights to get grumpy about meaningless christmas cards from feckless and wasteful politicians with, TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, a bleedin' religious message in them that gets your back up even further. And now I'm feeling properly grumpy about christmas altogether. Gah! :mad:

Geomy wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there. ...

Nice one. ..

Why? Do you two really think that christmas card was anything less than a cynical mail-shot opportunity?

catallus

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yes I did. I'm not very engaged by candidates who send me correspondence that looks like a mass card!

You are "very grumpy". I'll pray that you find the consoling light and warmth of the Christmas message in your heart some day. :pac:

Cienciano

I wouldn't care what's on the card tbh, I'd be offended by any politician sending me a christmas card. Wonder what the annual cost of this shíte is?

McDook wrote: »

Please never let me become the atheist who wants to spoil christmas for everyone else.
Best one I saw last year was a friend who wouldnt take his elderly mother to mass christmas morning because HE didnt believe in it.
Another atheist friend of ours saw how much it meant to her and brought her. I would have too if id known about it before hand.
Some people are just dying to be offended.

How the hell is someone giving out about a poxy christmas card which is sent out in mass by politicians, spoiling christmas for anyone?

SpaceTime

catallus wrote: »

You are "very grumpy". I'll pray that you find the consoling light and warmth of the Christmas message in your heart some day. :pac:

Whatever!

catallus

All I'm saying is that sending these cards isn't the biggest deal in the world and that the idea of not voting for whatever corrupted vagrant who has chosen to chance his arm at politics just because he sent a card is lunacy. Hopefully the Spirit of Jesus will lead all of our electorate to gain prudence and wisdom. God bless.

Cienciano

catallus wrote: »

All I'm saying is that sending these cards isn't the biggest deal in the world and that the idea of not voting for whatever corrupted vagrant who has chosen to chance his arm at politics just because he sent a card is lunacy. Hopefully the Spirit of Jesus will lead all of our electorate to gain prudence and wisdom. God bless.

Of course it's not the biggest deal in the world. But 99.999% of issues aren't the biggest deal in the world, it doesn't mean it's not an issue!

Kiwi in IE

catallus wrote: »

All I'm saying is that sending these cards isn't the biggest deal in the world and that the idea of not voting for whatever corrupted vagrant who has chosen to chance his arm at politics just because he sent a card is lunacy. Hopefully the Spirit of Jesus will lead all of our electorate to gain prudence and wisdom. God bless.

I would most certainly not vote for any politician who is likely to allow their personal religious beliefs to impact on their duties as a public representative! A politician who thinks it is appropriate to send a card with images of their religion to all and sundry, paid for with public money, is highly likely to fit this category.

Does anyone here seriously think it is not an issue that public money is being spent on politicians sending cards to suck up to the very constituents whose tax money paid for them? And how is it appropriate for public representatives to use public money to purchase and send out religious paraphernalia in a supposedly 'secular' state?

Geomy

Why? Do you two really think that christmas card was anything less than a cynical mail-shot opportunity?[/quote]

I don't know what to think now.

I think this is more suited to a different forum, as the advantage is this dojo....

What would mr miagi say ?

Turtwig

Geomy wrote: »

I don't know what to think now.

I think this is more suited to a different forum, as the advantage is this dojo....

What would mr miagi say ?

Daniel-san, what forum should we move this thread to so that Master Geomy answers questions put to him?

pauldla

jimd2 wrote: »

...

You don't believe in God, fair enough. You don't want to celebrate fair enough. However, Christmas is predominantly in this country a Christian celebration for the last hundreds of years but you want people to remove any images associated with Christmas as it is traditionally celebrated in Ireland.

...

Is that what lazygal and Sarky said? I must have missed those posts.

Obliq wrote: »

Ewwwww, I don't like this thread. This (above) ^ , is the only thing I like about this thread. I would be happy enough to receive seasonal greetings with a religious slant from any representative of any religion (with the possible exception of the homeopaths), SO LONG AS they paid for the printing and postage themselves. Ends opinion.

This, +1, with +2 for the homeopaths reference.

I've been prepping students for Oxbridge interviews recently. One young fella is planning to study chemistry, as he wants to work in pharmacology eventually, so I asked him a question about homeopathy. He'd never heard of it, so I explained to him what it is (with the help of the internets, luckily I had one handy). The expression on his face as he realised a) what I was describing, and then b) that some people actually buy into this crap, was priceless. I sent him on his way with a link to the Ben Goldacre site.

Geomy

pauldla wrote: »

Is that what lazygal and Sarky said? I must have missed those posts.



This, +1, with +2 for the homeopaths reference.

I've been prepping students for Oxbridge interviews recently. One young fella is planning to study chemistry, as he wants to work in pharmacology eventually, so I asked him a question about homeopathy. He'd never heard of it, so I explained to him what it is (with the help of the internets, luckily I had one handy). The expression on his face as he realised a) what I was describing, and then b) that some people actually buy into this crap, was priceless. I sent him on his way with a link to the Ben Goldacre site.

I take it you won't be kissing anyone underneath the mistletoe then ;-)

Geomy

pauldla wrote: »

Is that what lazygal and Sarky said? I must have missed those posts.



This, +1, with +2 for the homeopaths reference.

I've been prepping students for Oxbridge interviews recently. One young fella is planning to study chemistry, as he wants to work in pharmacology eventually, so I asked him a question about homeopathy. He'd never heard of it, so I explained to him what it is (with the help of the internets, luckily I had one handy). The expression on his face as he realised a) what I was describing, and then b) that some people actually buy into this crap, was priceless. I sent him on his way with a link to the Ben Goldacre site.

I take it you won't be kissing anyone underneath the mistletoe then ;-)

pauldla

Geomy wrote: »

I take it you won't be kissing anyone underneath the mistletoe then ;-)

Depends on who they are, and where the mistletoe is.

Edit: Isn't mistletoe pre-Christian?

Geomy

pauldla wrote: »

Depends on who they are, and where the mistletoe is.

Edit: Isn't mistletoe pre-Christian?

Lol yes it's pre-Christian....

pauldla

Geomy wrote: »

Lol yes it's pre-Christian....

Then I shall allow it, as apparently my atheism only extends to an abhorrence of all things Christian. I'm quite shallow that way. :cool:

Geomy

pauldla wrote: »

Then I shall allow it, as apparently my atheism only extends to an abhorrence of all things Christian. I'm quite shallow that way. :cool:

Lol I hear ya :-)

I'll take note of that...

SpaceTime

To be fair to Irish politicians, I got a good few political Christmas cards over the years and most of them were pretty non-religious i.e. normal Christmas cards.

Obliq

SpaceTime wrote: »

To be fair to Irish politicians, I got a good few political Christmas cards over the years and most of them were pretty non-religious i.e. normal Christmas cards.

Same here. They all sent me into a spluttering rage over the waste of our money though. One year, I got 3 to my address - to me, my ex husband and my step son (all of voting age, only me still living at the address). Turns out my ex got one to his new address as well. Basically, if Timmy Dooley (FF) does that again, he'll get them all back to his constituency office with a very unholy christmas message inside.

Hotblack Desiato

catallus wrote: »

I'd rather you didn't vote at all if such a thing would sway you one way or the other.

The point of any communication sent by a politician is to attempt to sway voters.
Using taxpayers' or ratepayers' money for this sort of thing should be completely unacceptable however, religious message or not.

Obliq wrote: »

One year, I got 3 to my address - to me, my ex husband and my step son (all of voting age, only me still living at the address). Turns out my ex got one to his new address as well.

The names and addresses come off the voting register, so if there'd been an election around that time you'd have got three polling cards through the door as well!

Obliq

ninja900 wrote: »

The names and addresses come off the voting register, so if there'd been an election around that time you'd have got three polling cards through the door as well!

I always do. Well, I got rid of the step-son's when he finally registered somewhere else, but now I also get my Aunt's, who moved to Cork a few years back. You know what they say though - vote early and often!

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

^^^^^

I'd rather you didn't vote at all if such a thing would sway you one way or the other.

So a public servant mis-spending public money, and pushing his religion on others, is not an issue to sway the electorate?

It's this kind of attitude that leads to our political system being filled almost solely by the kind of person that makes it worthless for me to cast my vote.

Thankyou very much Catallus (pity you didn't use the user name Catiline) for endorsing the same system which has repeatedly ****ed up my country.

Brian Shanahan

pauldla wrote: »

Edit: Isn't mistletoe pre-Christian?

Everything about christmas is pre-christrian. All they did was take away the human sacrifice and move back the "birth of the baby Jeebus" about 6 months.

Remember christianity is a very syncretic religion, most of its festivals are either stuff stolen while other religions weren't looking (if it wasn't nailed down), or if the stuff was nailed down after bashing in the heads of the heads of those other religions.

Sulla Felix

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Thankyou very much Catallus (pity you didn't use the user name Catiline) for endorsing the same system which has repeatedly ****ed up my country.

Thanked, purely for the Cataline reference.

Brian Shanahan

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Thanked, purely for the Cataline reference.

Well the name would suit his attitude much better than Catullus given that Catullus refers to a poet who fell in love with Clodia Metellus or an anti-Marian former Consul.

catallus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So a public servant mis-spending public money, and pushing his religion on others, is not an issue to sway the electorate?

It's this kind of attitude that leads to our political system being filled almost solely by the kind of person that makes it worthless for me to cast my vote.

Thankyou very much Catallus (pity you didn't use the user name Catiline) for endorsing the same system which has repeatedly ****ed up my country.

It is worthless for anyone to vote because politicians send cards out? Hyperbolise much? Your attitude towards our culture stinks to high heaven!

The country isn't fcuked because of this. There are more obvious reasons. Your intolerance (which is shared by many on this thread) being one of the more obvious ones.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

Your intolerance (which is shared by many on this thread) being one of the more obvious ones.

There is a difference between people disagreeing with you and people being intolerant of your opinion. And I can only assume you weren't being hyperbolic as you just called somebody out for it.

catallus

Knasher wrote: »

There is a difference between people disagreeing with you and people being intolerant of your opinion. And I can only assume you weren't being hyperbolic as you just called somebody out for it.

Well that's patently incorrect for a start. If one disagrees with something how can they not be intolerant of it? Without being a whimsical relativist pansy, I mean.

Turtwig

catallus wrote: »

Well that's patently incorrect for a start. If one disagrees with something how can they not be intolerant of it? Without being a whimsical relativist pansy, I mean.

Person A: I accept you right to believe that a computer virus makes you ill. I however think it's a stupid idea.

Person B: People who believe a computer virus can make you ill should be tortured and burned!

I'll leave you figure out who the intolerant one is.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

Well that's patently incorrect for a start. If one disagrees with something how can they not be intolerant of it? Without being a whimsical relativist pansy, I mean.

If intolerance was equivalent to disagreement then it would be completely impossible to be swayed by argument.

I think of a number of issues that I know I disagree with people on this board about, both as individuals and even against the majority. And while I respect their points and I think most of them are valid concerns, on the balance of things I still think they are mistaken. I disagree with their view, but I'm far from intolerant of it.

catallus

Jernal wrote: »

Person A: I accept you right to believe that a computer virus makes you ill. I however think it's a stupid idea.
Person B: People who believe a computer virus can make you ill should be tortured and burned!
I'll leave you figure out who the intolerant one is.

My take on it is that person A is projecting the image of being accepting and tolerant, but is being neither and is being a hypocrite on top of it. Person B is intolerant and letting his intolerance fuel bloodlust. I fail to see the relevance of this to any of the preceding posts.

Knasher wrote: »

If intolerance was equivalent to disagreement then it would be completely impossible to be swayed by argument.

Ye are both muddying the waters here. What's the point of raising such pedantic arguments??

oscarBravo

catallus wrote: »

My take on it is that person A is projecting the image of being accepting and tolerant, but is being neither and is being a hypocrite on top of it.

So in order to avoid being "intolerant", it's necessary not to believe that stupid ideas are stupid?

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

What's the point of raising such pedantic arguments??

Simply because of the irony of accusing somebody of hyperbole while heavily engaging in it yourself.

catallus

oscarBravo wrote: »

So in order to avoid being "intolerant", it's necessary not to believe that stupid ideas are stupid?

No, it is necessary not to state that you find them acceptable.

Turtwig

catallus wrote: »

No, it is necessary not to state that you find them acceptable.

So basically you have to agree with everything? If so, that is the most ridiculous and impractical criteria for tolerance ever. Entire companies are built upon people discussing ideas and criticising them. If there's any large scale project where criticism isn't allowed it'll be a unwholly mess.

catallus

Jernal wrote: »

So basically you have to agree with everything? If so, that is the most ridiculous and impractical criteria for tolerance ever. Entire companies are built upon people discussing ideas and criticising them. If there's any large scale project where criticism isn't allowed it'll be a unwholly mess.

No Jernal, that's not what I'm saying.

If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it. Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

But most people want to disagree with things but still think of themselves as being tolerant, so they hedge their feelings and words. Doublethink, if you like.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

Intolerance is a dirty word. It's synonyms include bigotry, narrow-mindedness, fanaticism, dogmatism, prejudice, bias, sectarianism, one-sidedness, inequality, unfairness, injustice, discrimination. All of which are pretty negative words. Perhaps you are just using it far too lightly? Notable it is not a synonym with disagreement.

Turtwig

catallus wrote: »

No Jernal, that's not what I'm saying.

If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it. Stop treating intolerance as a being a dirty word and it might make it easier.

But most people want to disagree with things but still think of themselves as being tolerant, so they hedge their feelings and words. Doublethink, if you like.

Ah I think I get you now. You don't associate negative connotations with the word intolerant. It's just another word for the concept of disagreement?

catallus

Your transparent tactic of attempting to drag this off-topic by reducing the conversation to a clinical examination of syntax is a sad reflection on the open-mindedness which you claim to have. If the hypocrisy isn't plainly obvious I don't see why I should try to continue engaging with it. Some soul-searching needs to be done by a lot of people who seem to be so sure of themselves that they can unashamedly say they tolerate that which they disagree with. It might be well and good to treat everything like it's a written college assignment, but it is just the same cogs going around and around. I suspect it is all a game to a lot of posters on here.

Sarky

I really don't think you are using the same definition of intolerance that most of the world is using.

oscarBravo

catallus wrote: »

If you disagree with something then you are intolerant of it and there is no mental or linguistic acrobatics that can absolve you of being intolerant of it.

My girlfriend thinks olives taste good. I disagree. That doesn't make me intolerant of her liking for olives.

Disagreement and intolerance are not the same thing, and it takes some pretty fancy mental and/or linguistic acrobatics to pretend that they are.

catallus

What the hell have olives got to do with anything??? Arrgh!

Look if everyone wants to treat all this so flippantly that's ok. The associative dissonance on display here is confounding.

Sulla Felix

It's an analogy.