Christmas messages from politicians

catallus

old hippy wrote: »

It actually makes me saddened when people dismiss the concerns of those who don't buy into an archaic way of doing things. Your revered politican is forcing his or her religious beliefs unto others and you positively encourage it.

People here have raised genuine concerns and yet all you can do is claim your culture is under threat. How twee.

Revered politician? Try harder oldhippy

Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone, even the OP wasn't going that far.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

I think it is being used as a shield by those who would like to pretend that they are not intolerant and prejudiced against a perceived enemy (in the form of the easy cheap and safe target of religiosity and communal celebration), when in fact they are just subsuming their hatred in a pre-approved fashion.

It costs nothing to be self-deluded.

Harry Angstrom

koth wrote: »

where does it say that in the OP?

I believe the OP described it as "tasteless".

"Sending them all a picture of the virgin Mary in a stable and wishing them a happy christmas is at the very least totally tactless. I certainly think it's bad taste."

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice.

As you have made it perfectly clear that you consider this to be a non-issue, perhaps you aren't the most qualified person to decide what the issue is.

catallus wrote: »

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

Every year we receive at home christmas cards from various companies we have contracted with over the year. I'm not naive enough to think they specifically wished me well as their printer scrolled through their database of customers and printed my name on a card. It is a form of targeted advertising, it doesn't do much for me personally (unlike the bottle of wine that accompanies some of the cards), but I wouldn't count it against them either. It is probably a relatively effective advertising campaign.

They are a private company paying for advertising out of their own pockets. I've yet to see or hear a single complaint from anybody. I'm simply not in the target demographic.

This thread is about a government official using public funds to send christmas cards. The fact that they are christmas cards is important primarily because I doubt some people would try and defend them if Cllr. O'Flynn decided to send around cards on the lead up to some sporting final, wishing the Cork team well, using tax payer funds. Or what I would interpret as advertising to another majority demographic in Cork. If he wishes to advertise in this fashion, then let him pay for it out of his own pocket. I'd be happy to receive such a card in the spirit it was sent (blatant but acceptable self promotion). It is also a little alienating to receive targeted advertising from a politician aimed at a group you're not a member of, but it is par the course in Irish politics.

catallus

Knasher wrote: »

As you have made it perfectly clear that you consider this to be a non-issue, perhaps you aren't the most qualified person to decide what the issue is.

What is the point of that sentence?

..........

Knasher wrote: »

This thread is about a government official using public funds to send christmas cards. The fact that they are christmas cards is important primarily because I doubt some people would try and defend them if Cllr. O'Flynn decided to send around cards on the lead up to some sporting final, wishing the Cork team well, using tax payer funds. Or what I would interpret as advertising to another majority demographic in Cork. If he wishes to advertise in this fashion, then let him pay for it out of his own pocket. I'd be happy to receive such a card in the spirit it was sent (blatant but acceptable self promotion). It is also a little alienating to receive targeted advertising from a politician aimed at a group you're not a member of, but it is par the course in Irish politics.

Should politicians be proscribed from all postal communication with their constituents unless they can pay for it themselves? (This has been suggested earlier by a particularly vehement poster)

Hotblack Desiato

catallus wrote: »

Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone, even the OP wasn't going that far.

No. But he is using taxpayers' money not just to promote himself, but to promote himself to followers of a specific religion on the basis of his membership of that religion rather than any of his other qualities. This is an appeal to primitive bigotry, really - 'he's one of us lads'.

He even added bible verses on the front, just in case anyone didn't get the message.

It'll also lose him votes from the rapidly increasing number of non-members of that religion, but that's his tough luck.

It costs nothing to be self-deluded.

You are expected to put money on the plate every Sunday, though.

catallus wrote: »

Should politicians be proscribed from all postal communication with their constituents unless they can pay for it themselves? (This has been suggested earlier by a particularly vehement poster)

Yeah. The purpose of it is not to benefit the voters, but the politician himself and at the voters' expense.
It's also unfair to opposing candidates who don't have the benefit of taxpayer largesse to seek election, and promote themselves in advance of an election.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

You're the one making the claim that it's cheaper if the government does it.

Would you like to back up your silly claim or would you prefer to withdraw it?

Hotblack Desiato

Bulk mail is cheaper, especially if pre-sorted. Unaddressed bulk mail is much cheaper again.

However, I very much doubt under EU state aid rules that An Post would be allowed to give the government or any type of state body a better or worse deal than a commercial entity would get.

Or perhaps the argument is that if the state pays a state body to do something, it doesn't actually cost anything? Well, that's false, as there's the opportunity cost of what else could have been done with that money.

catallus

robindch wrote: »

You're the one making the claim that it's cheaper if the government does it.

Would you like to back up your silly claim or would you prefer to withdraw it?

It is cheaper if the government does it. Pre-sorted unaddressed bulk mail is dirt-cheap. The cost base is negligible.

Hotblack Desiato

That is exactly the opposite of what I said, actually, and just because it's cheaper than going into the post office to buy stamps doesn't mean it's in any way cheap.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

It is cheaper if the government does it. Like Ninja pointed out, pre-sorted unaddressed bulk mail is dirt-cheap. The cost base is negligible.

The government can (and should) avail of cheap postage to serve the people, it shouldn't be allowed for an incumbent to abuse such postage for the purpose of self-promotion.

If bulk postage is so cheap that we shouldn't be concerned - dirt-cheap, as you put it - then surely the politician and his party can easily arrange to pay for it out of their own pockets?

robindch

catallus wrote: »

Pre-sorted unaddressed bulk mail is dirt-cheap.

And how do you know this politician is using this kind of post?

catallus

Like I said, this is really really Off Topic. And it is sad that the topic isn't being discussed.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

What is the point of that sentence?

It is a bit condescending for you to try and define an issue if you also don't think it exists. What exactly is the point, beyond enjoying the sound of your own keystrokes? You have a different definition of the issue that we seem to, as well as believing that the issue doesn't exist. Do you really think that you can convince anyone to accept both your definition and its non existence? It would be equivalent to me arguing against the existence of your god, and also feeling entitled to defining it in such a way that it couldn't possible exist.

catallus wrote: »

Should politicians be proscribed from all postal communication with their constituents unless they can pay for it themselves? (This has been suggested earlier by a particularly vehement poster)

Politicians have an allotment of free post they can use to communicate with their constituents, however they are restricted in using that in the discharge of their duties. Being allowed to use it beyond that would give an unfair advantage to incumbents over their opposition when it comes to elections. Even still I'd imagine that because the letter was on a cork council letterhead, it was paid for by his office instead of his allotment (which is probably more discretionary than it should be). Which means that he is misusing his office for self promotion as well.

Knasher

Lucy8080 wrote: »

How do you edit a post without the edit showing up?

If you edit a post within a certain amount of time then the edit doesn't show up.

Sarky of course doesn't edit in this fashion, instead he abseils down into the boards datacenter in order to edit the database directly and change this posts. It apparently has been explained to him that in a lot of cases this is unnecessary, however he still persists.

catallus

So is it all coming down to the cost of stamps here?

robindch

catallus wrote: »

So is it all coming down to the cost of stamps here?

Not really. Your posts are generally aimless and contain little, if anything, of substance to rebut, or even understand.

So you can perhaps understand why people might be interested in following up on a comment that has a fixed, comprehensible meaning, even if it's a trivial one. All the more so since you continue to avoid answering it in any real sense.

catallus

robindch wrote: »

Not really. Your posts are generally aimless and contain little, if anything, of substance to rebut, or even understand.

So you can perhaps understand why people might be interested in following up on a comment that has a fixed, comprehensible meaning, even if it's a trivial one. All the more so since you continue to avoid answering it in any real sense.

If by "aimless" you mean "doesn't conform to the forum orientated objective of mainly taking the piss out of our mam and dads religious beliefs, cos how cool are we" then maybe I'm guilty.

On the other hand there is a cogent argument to be made that just maybe the formulation, degree by slow degree over the last 10000 years of social and political development, (of a philosophical and metaphysical theory of existence and the idea that there may or may not be something beyond our knowledge of the universe), has led us to our current culture, and that those who would say that we should throw out that baby with the bath-water are to be shunned as surely as we shun neo-nazis.

Turtwig

I actually preferred Harry Angstrom's line of discourse. If folks could focus on it would be nice.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

If by "aimless" you mean "doesn't conform to the forum orientated objective of mainly taking the piss out of our mam and dads religious beliefs, cos how cool are we" then maybe I'm guilty.

If that's what you think this forum is for and if that's what you think this forum does, and why it does it, then you are missing just about everything it has to offer.

Why not start off with the assumption that people here have something interesting to say and work with that, instead of delivering broad-brushed, cock-eyed insults?

catallus

robindch wrote: »

If that's what you think this forum is for and if that's what you think this forum does, and why it does it, then you are missing just about everything it has to offer.

Why not start off with the assumption that people here have something interesting to say and work with that, instead of delivering broad-brushed, cock-eyed insults?

Well, Robindch, that's my observation and experience of being a long time lurker and some-time poster on this forum. One might say that I am biased by my observation and experience of the reality of the content of the thread.

If my posts can be categorised as being cock-eyed then maybe the flaw isn't in my eye.

pauldla

catallus wrote: »

Well, Robindch, that's my observation and experience of being a long time lurker and some-time poster on this forum. One might say that I am biased by my observation and experience of the reality of the content of the thread.

If my posts can be categorised as being cock-eyed then maybe the flaw isn't in my eye.

You mean the fault isn't in your eye, it's...er...elsewhere?

(sorry, couldn't resist, so beautifully marked and downwind as well)

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

If by "aimless" you mean "doesn't conform to the forum orientated objective of mainly taking the piss out of our mam and dads religious beliefs, cos how cool are we" then maybe I'm guilty.

On the other hand there is a cogent argument to be made that just maybe the formulation, degree by slow degree over the last 10000 years of social and political development, (of a philosophical and metaphysical theory of existence and the idea that there may or may not be something beyond our knowledge of the universe), has led us to our current culture, and that those who would say that we should throw out that baby with the bath-water are to be shunned as surely as we shun neo-nazis.

Nazis, you say?

There's nothing cool or zeitgeist in debunking religious myths and superstitions; it's just common sense.

Geomy

old hippy wrote: »

Nazis, you say?

There's nothing cool or zeitgeist in debunking religious myths and superstitions; it's just common sense.

It's common sense from your world view yes.

Are saying it should be common sense for all mankind or is that just your opinion ?

kylith

catallus wrote: »

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

A culture which, statistically speaking, at least 16% of his constituents don't subscribe to. So why waste everyone's money on a specifically Catholic card?

old hippy

Geomy wrote: »

It's common sense from your world view yes.

Are saying it should be common sense for all mankind or is that just your opinion ?

An an ideal world it would be great if all mankind were purged of such religious tosh. But as long as the brave defenders of faith are steadfast in their beliefs I realise we shall be at loggerheads.

Geomy

old hippy wrote: »

An an ideal world it would be great if all mankind were purged of such religious tosh. But as long as the brave defenders of faith are steadfast in their beliefs I realise we shall be at loggerheads.

That's clear enough ;-)

Hotblack Desiato

Isn't it odd the total disdain with which religious believers regard other forms of worship, e.g. "St Patrick saved Ireland from paganism" and led us away from 'primitive' beliefs, human sacrifice and all that that supposedly went with it.*

Well, from my point of view christianity and all the rest are primitive beliefs, and it'll be better when humankind moves on, just as christians thought that moving on from Roman gods or paganism was an improvement from their POV.


* Of course christianity and islam, among others, have plenty of blood on their hands too.

Brian Shanahan

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I read this post first time, the faux outrage et al

So we're not allowed to be outraged by the misuse of public funds and the shovelling of your religion down our throats, that it is all faked (maybe atheism is a cry for attention)?

How christian of you.

Amazingly enough that last sentence is neither ironic nor sarcastic. Shows how little the "religion of love" tolerates others.

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

[citation needed]

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

AnPost charges state bodies the same rate for postage from a councillor as a private citizen.

Actually they get a 1c discount on all stamps if they're self franked. But that is technically available to anyone, you just have to buy a franking machine and pre-pay for the stamps.

Brian Shanahan

Knasher wrote: »

As you have made it perfectly clear that you consider this to be a non-issue, perhaps you aren't the most qualified person to decide what the issue is.

Ah, but to catallus [sic] the, non-existent, destruction of catholic Ireland by us satanist atheists is a far more pressing issue than the misuse of public funds and waste of tax payers money!