Sacred Cows (people no one dares criticise)

The Corinthian

Kev W wrote: »

This may be the first case of self-Godwining. Congratulations.

Godwin's law is probably another long standing semi-sacred cow that needs serious criticism. Or at least people's lack of understanding of it.

Not a NSA agent

Kev W wrote: »

May I ask where you get that 40%?

I would assume its the 38% who voted against SSM but I doubt anyone could really claim that they all think that gay people are luring children in with rainbows to rape them. Im probably wrong though as I have yet to see newmug use child abuse as a reason to prevent anyone else from marrying.

jobbridge4life

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so, you're on the Endlösung list then.

Does that mean I'm on your list for the final solution or that I'm in favour of one? Or perhaps there is an altogether less genocidal meaning that escapes me.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

NachoBusiness

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that's a bad comparison. Clearly people do have control over their brain chemistry otherwise cognitive behavioural therapy simply wouldn't work. Neither would the placebo effect, which in low to mid level depression is as efficacious as SSRI meds.

Plus the low serotonin theory is extremely hard to nail down. "An imbalance eh, yippee we can treat that", but the science is sketchy. For a start it can't be directly measured in a living brain, they can only measure byproducts/markers in the blood that seem to be linked to levels in the brain but the jury is still out and even there some studies have shown those with anxiety often have higher levels than normal, yet they're often given the same drug and it works? Riiiiight.

I am surprised you would go to show much trouble defending such a bullsh1t statement...

Of course there is some truth in what you say here, I am not suggesting anything to the contrary but a statement was made suggesting that anyone suffering from depression just needs a good kick up the hole. If they had suggested that just *some* people that suffer from depression do, then I wouldn't have bothered replying as it's a point of view easily argued, as you have demonstrated, but they didn't. Far from it, they implied that depression of all kinds is a nonsense.

The reason I use brain chemistry as a retort to the idiotic opinion that the user expressed is because I work with autistic adults (and also some adults who have ended up in residential care as a result of brain injuries) and they without question can suffer from severe depression as a result. Dopamine was generally the focus with the adults I worked with in regards to treatment and not serotonin. Indeed, a member of my family who is autistic was put on Largactil as part of a study.

All of which is not really relevant to the overall point I was making, which is that it's not really up for debate that some people suffer from pretty severe depression for which no amount of 'boots up the hole' will remedy. Making a case that there are some people who can improve with CBT etc doesn't in any way negate that.

As for diabetics, yep for type 1 there's nada they can do, but type 2?

Quite obviously I am talking about Type 1.

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Does that mean I'm on your list for the final solution or that I'm in favour of one? Or perhaps there is an altogether less genocidal meaning that escapes me.

Or that you could be part of it. After all, violence does deserve recognition in virtually every debate to a certain extent according to you and given that feelings are even more valid, according to you, I'd feelz it appropriate.

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you for the demonstration of the lack of understanding I mentioned.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Look, Wibbs and Corinthinan, just stop saying 'Feelz'. It's cringeworthy.

jobbridge4life

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or that you could be part of it. After all, violence does deserve recognition in virtually every debate to a certain extent according to you and given that feelings are even more valid, according to you, I'd feelz it appropriate.

Except I didn't really say that. I said that emotions are part of the human condition and that they have a place in debate. I didn't give them a ranking order of importance. I didn't suggest that they ought to control a debate. I didn't even say how I felt they should be part of/recognised in a debate. Like wise with violence.

I am of the opinion that the notion of debating without emotion is firstly not genuinely possible in the vast majority of cases and secondly would not be appropriate in many instances.

In regards to violence I think ignoring it as a reality is self-defeating. I see Ayn Rand and the objectivist philosophy as an example of that.

Omackeral

The vast vast majority of soccer/football fans in Ireland. They've been called The Best Fans in the World because they go on a p!ss-up once a decade. Week in, week out doesn't mean anything to these people for the most part. Most of them say they support top English teams yet salivate at the thoughts of England failing. It's the default setting and it's totally brushed under the rug. If someone asks who you support and you say Galway United or Shelbourne, you're probably asked who you really follow, as in a 'real' team. These types deserve to be questioned IMO but never are.

They use the defense that their uncle or whoever worked in the UK in the 70's but it's gas how you never hear of people following Oldham Athletic or Crystal Palace, just historically the best sides. It's also funny because they say they wouldn't follow their own league as it's sh!t (despite most of them never giving it a chance) but then say they'd keep supporting their own team if they dropped to League One, which is around the same standard as over here. That's hypocrisy. In general, I think the common Irish person hasn't a clue what it means to actively support a team in the way people across Europe do it. People from Bolton go to see Bolton Wanderers, people from Warsaw go to see Legia Warsaw. People from Dublin go to......the pub.

Your Superior

Omackeral wrote: »

The vast vast majority of soccer/football fans in Ireland. They've been called The Best Fans in the World because they go on a p!ss-up once a decade. Week in, week out doesn't mean anything to these people for the most part. Most of them say they support top English teams yet salivate at the thoughts of England failing. It's the default setting and it's totally brushed under the rug. If someone asks who you support and you say Galway United or Shelbourne, you're probably asked who you really follow, as in a 'real' team. These types deserve to be questioned IMO but never are.

They use the defense that their uncle or whoever worked in the UK in the 70's but it's gas how you never hear of people following Oldham Athletic or Crystal Palace, just historically the best sides. It's also funny because they say they wouldn't follow their own league as it's sh!t (despite most of them never giving it a chance) but then say they'd keep supporting their own team if they dropped to League One, which is around the same standard as over here. That's hypocrisy. In general, I think the common Irish person hasn't a clue what it means to actively support a team in the way people across Europe do it. People from Bolton go to see Bolton Wanderers, people from Warsaw go to see Legia Warsaw. People from Dublin go to......the pub.

I follow Oldham Athletic. My mother was a fan and used to take me when i was younger, and now I take my kids. Then again, I'm English and live in England. Our attendances are so low that they now announce the crowd changes to the team before the game... One correction though, League 1 is way way above LOI standard. I watch a bit of Conference football at Chester too, and that's closer to LOI. If the standard was similar you'd see more LOI players moving to L1 or L2 clubs. Do you really think A LOI team could beat the likes of Sheffield United?

Never met an Irish fan of any team in England who could be classed as anything other than a day-tripping glory-hunter. They have zero, and i mean zero, connection to the team they "support". Always great fun letting the Man Utd "fans" know what the team doesn't even play in Manchester.

Best fans in the world? Load of rubbish that is.

Magico Gonzalez

Omackeral wrote: »

The vast vast majority of soccer/football fans in Ireland. They've been called The Best Fans in the World because they go on a p!ss-up once a decade. Week in, week out doesn't mean anything to these people for the most part. Most of them say they support top English teams yet salivate at the thoughts of England failing. It's the default setting and it's totally brushed under the rug. If someone asks who you support and you say Galway United or Shelbourne, you're probably asked who you really follow, as in a 'real' team. These types deserve to be questioned IMO but never are.

They use the defense that their uncle or whoever worked in the UK in the 70's but it's gas how you never hear of people following Oldham Athletic or Crystal Palace, just historically the best sides. It's also funny because they say they wouldn't follow their own league as it's sh!t (despite most of them never giving it a chance) but then say they'd keep supporting their own team if they dropped to League One, which is around the same standard as over here. That's hypocrisy. In general, I think the common Irish person hasn't a clue what it means to actively support a team in the way people across Europe do it. People from Bolton go to see Bolton Wanderers, people from Warsaw go to see Legia Warsaw. People from Dublin go to......the pub.

An English league 1 team would win the FAI league year in year out, don't be trying to fool yourself otherwise!

I'd rather see the best entertainment product available, not some amateur production made with 1/100th of the skill.

You're naive and incorrect if you think that each English town follows it's home side. Not since the 70s.

Your Superior

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

An English league 1 team would win the FAI league year in year out, don't be trying to fool yourself otherwise!

I'd rather see the best entertainment product available, not some amateur production made with 1/100th of the skill.

You're naive and incorrect if you think that each English town follows it's home side. Not since the 70s.

The vast majority of fans of all teams in England come from within a 10 mile radius of their club. There was a survey 2 years ago that showed it. Haven't time to look for it now.

none of us support teams from another country though!!! rather watch Oldham or Chester than claim to be a Barca fan, "for the product".

This is why Irish "fans" get so little respect here. Follow your own teams, maybe?

Magico Gonzalez

Your Superior wrote: »

The vast majority of fans of all teams come from within a 10 mile radius. There was a survey 2 years ago that showed it. Haven't time to look for it now.

none of us support teams from another country though!!! rather watch Oldham or Chester than claim to be a Barca fan, "for the product".

This is why Irish "fans" get so little respect here. Follow your own teams, maybe?

I really don't care what the average Oldham Athletic fan thinks, really it doesn't interest me. I don't solicit your respect or value it.

In the same way Irish football doesn't interest me.

How that effects your definition of me as a fan or your level of respect for me is about as interesting to me as the colour of socks you may or not be wearing.

My team are glad to have international fans, a full stadium and revenue generated from merchandise all around the world. Now I support them from even further away, living on the other side of the world. I also support a local side. I also support other sports team.

Sport is entertainment, we create loyalties to generate an interest at club level. I laugh at people who believe that being born in or near a certain city means they have "special" fan status. Well done for being born somewhere and following the local herd. Nice one.

Your Superior

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I really don't care what the average Oldham Athletic fan thinks, really it doesn't interest me. I don't solicit your respect or value it.

In the same way Irish football doesn't interest me.

How that effects your definition of me as a fan or your level of respect for me is about as interesting to me as the colour of socks you may or not be wearing.

My team are glad to have international fans, a full stadium and revenue generated from merchandise all around the world. Now I support them from even further away, living on the other side of the world. I also support a local side. I also support other sports team.

Sport is entertainment, we create loyalties to generate an interest at club level. I laugh at people who believe that being born in or near a certain city means they have "special" fan status. Well done for being born somewhere and following the local herd. Nice one.

This post represents exactly why genuine fans, who travel far and wide to watch a team they have a connection to, have little time for your kind who only want a "product" and "entertainment ".

If all fans were like you, there'd be no grass roots football at any level, just the marketing behemoths and oligarch's play things at the top.

And as for "the herd" Man U and Cuty are 6 miles from where I grew up. I'm just not a glory hunter I suppose.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Like another poster said earlier on in the thread, people in Ireland see football as a tv show. There's no ingrained football culture like you'll see in Britain and on the continent.

Magico Gonzalez

Your Superior wrote: »

This post represents exactly why genuine fans, who travel far and wide to watch a team they have a connection to, have little time for your kind who only want a "product" and "entertainment ".

If all fans were like you, there'd be no grass roots football at any level, just the marketing behemoths and oligarch's play things at the top.

And as for "the herd" Man U and Cuty are 6 miles from where I grew up. I'm just not a glory hunter I suppose.

I imagine Oldham are closer though, right. You being from Oldham. Followed that "herd" didn't you.

Grass roots football isn't my responsibility. It's the FA's responsibility.

I'd suggest that genuine fans from Ireland travel far enough and spend enough to be considered genuine, apart from the closed minded bitters from the local herd.

Kev W

Relax lads, it's just a game.

Your Superior

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I imagine Oldham are closer though, right. You being from Oldham. Followed that "herd" didn't you.

Grass roots football isn't my responsibility. It's the FA's responsibility.

I'd suggest that genuine fans from Ireland travel far enough and spend enough to be considered genuine, apart from the closed minded bitters from the local herd.

I think the herd of 50k at Man U matches, particularly those from far afield, demonstrates a far more obvious herd mentality. But hey, the Irish are the best (part time) fans in the world!

And if location means nothing, find me a Mancunian who supports Liverpool, and vice versa.

PopePalpatine

I live in Meath, it'll just get desperate looking for a FAI team to support! :pac:

DEFTLEFTHAND

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I live in Meath, it'll just get desperate looking for a FAI team to support! :pac:

Give Drogheda Utd a go, they're right on the Meath border.

Omackeral

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I really don't care what the average Oldham Athletic fan thinks, really it doesn't interest me. I don't solicit your respect or value it.

In the same way Irish football doesn't interest me.

How that effects your definition of me as a fan or your level of respect for me is about as interesting to me as the colour of socks you may or not be wearing.

My team are glad to have international fans, a full stadium and revenue generated from merchandise all around the world. Now I support them from even further away, living on the other side of the world. I also support a local side. I also support other sports team.

Sport is entertainment, we create loyalties to generate an interest at club level. I laugh at people who believe that being born in or near a certain city means they have "special" fan status. Well done for being born somewhere and following the local herd. Nice one.

It's not special status or anything like it. In fact, it's the norm the world over for the most part. Look at GAA, Meath people follow Meath, Kerry people support Kerry. It's the basis of sporting rivalries. When you're there each game, that connection comes naturally. You may laugh at people of this ilk but the joke is on you, you'll never know what it feel like to beat your bitter rivals in the way a local will. Liverpool vs Everton is a massive derby on Merseyside but here in Ireland, it's just another game to any Pool fan.

Calvin and Hobbes

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I really don't care what the average Oldham Athletic fan thinks, really it doesn't interest me. I don't solicit your respect or value it.

In the same way Irish football doesn't interest me.

How that effects your definition of me as a fan or your level of respect for me is about as interesting to me as the colour of socks you may or not be wearing.

My team are glad to have international fans, a full stadium and revenue generated from merchandise all around the world. Now I support them from even further away, living on the other side of the world. I also support a local side. I also support other sports team.

Sport is entertainment, we create loyalties to generate an interest at club level. I laugh at people who believe that being born in or near a certain city means they have "special" fan status. Well done for being born somewhere and following the local herd. Nice one.

Teams like Dundalk and Drogheda represent the town and the region where their fans are from. The places of where you grow up , like it or not, put a stamp on your current identity. Family and friends , along with yourself, are represented on the football stage by these clubs, without the fan even acknowledging it. This is why football has such a passionate following at nearly all levels.

Yet you give up on this idea to follow something that rich millionaires devised a plan to get you to follow. How any real fan of anything can talk about merchandise and revenue is beyond me. Simply put, you are consuming a product which is inherently vapid. And you think the clubs care about you !! Like McDonalds cares about the health of its consumers !

If you want to know why fans of lower league and irish league seem snobbish, its because we know travelling hundreds of miles (in europe too! something oldham wont do for a long time ) together with family and friends to watch a team you seen grow and shrink, win or lose , is a lot better way to spend a life then sitting in a pub waiting for what gary neville says.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

partyguinness

TBH I grew disillusioned with the PL several years ago and just have no interest anymore. It's not a sport that I can relate to- it's a circus centered around over paid millionaire 20 yr old kids and the fans are just gullible pawns being bleed dry of their hard earned money.

If I am ever asked 'Who do I support?' I just 'I don't follow it'

Sorry...not for me anymore.

partyguinness

I remember back in 1991-1994 my local soccer club was set up- now this is in a staunchly GAA rural Ireland backwater. No other sport is played in the village (save for GAA football- hell even hurling would have been a foreign game).

But the resistance from the local GAA boys was disgusting e.g. openly telling young lads (under 12s) that if they togged out for the soccer they would never play GAA, scheduling friendlies to clash with the soccer match.

We all know the type- smug church going local small business Fine Gael types who regard themselves as the pillars of the community.

There was one particular group who openly and proudly banned their children from playing soccer.

The ironly was/is- the same bunch of 'holier than ****ing though' GAA heads frequently go to Old Trafford and are fanatic Man U fans.

It was the very worst in small parish Irish hypocrisy.

Capt'n Midnight

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I think Dev is always seen as the bad guy and Micheal Collins seen as the handsome messianic freedom fighter.Dev gets a lot of unfair criticism imo with people taking cheap shots at him.He got rid of the oath, returned the treaty ports and affirmed Irelands Neutrality.He also stopped a March of blueshirts from marching on Dublin.

Remind us how he got rid of the oath.

Now explain why it was worth fighting a civil war when he could have just done the same thing earlier ?

RainyDay

conorh91 wrote: »

The Patron in Louise O'Keefe's case was the Bishop of Cork and Ross.

The abuser in these cases was employed by the Patron (Bishop), and was hired by the School Manager. In this case the School Manager was an Archdeacon; typically, the manager was a local priest.

The Supreme Court noted with interest that Louise O'Keefe did not sue the Patron of the school, nor the Manager

The Supreme Court variously described the abuser as the employee of the Manager and the employee of the Patron. It's irrelevant, because one was an Archdeacon, the other a Bishop of the Diocese. You do realize the patron was a bishop, right?

I am not aware of any "rules for reporting abuse cases". What rules are you referring to?

If you're talking about the law on vicarious liability, that is a judge-made law that began in England in the 1600s. The system of religious-run school networks under the Commissioners for National Education began in Ireland in the early 1800s, pre-dating the State by about 100 years.

What rules are you specifically referring to here?

Louise O'Keefe and others like her could have informed the State at any time of the abuse they suffered, either through the Department of Education or the Garda Síocána. If there was thereafter some negligence on behalf of either body, some question of liability may have arisen.

To award damages in this case (when she had already been awarded €50,000 by the State under the criminal injuries Compensation Scheme) is farcical in the extreme, There is no excuse for that carry on.

Interesting update, FYI http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-issues-significant-judgment-improving-the-entitlements-of-parttime-teachers-31350192.html

BuilderPlumber

partyguinness wrote: »

I remember back in 1991-1994 my local soccer club was set up- now this is in a staunchly GAA rural Ireland backwater. No other sport is played in the village (save for GAA football- hell even hurling would have been a foreign game).

But the resistance from the local GAA boys was disgusting e.g. openly telling young lads (under 12s) that if they togged out for the soccer they would never play GAA, scheduling friendlies to clash with the soccer match.

We all know the type- smug church going local small business Fine Gael types who regard themselves as the pillars of the community.

There was one particular group who openly and proudly banned their children from playing soccer.

The ironly was/is- the same bunch of 'holier than ****ing though' GAA heads frequently go to Old Trafford and are fanatic Man U fans.

It was the very worst in small parish Irish hypocrisy.

These 'GAA Taliban' types are everywhere and what they don't realise is that they actually turn people off GAA instead of getting people interested in it. They don't see this of course.

True, they are hypocrites too. A love for Man U or Liverpool does exist with them and I'm sure they have some argument that it is 'ok to enjoy soccer played by English people' and the like!

conorh91

RainyDay wrote: »

Interesting update, FYI http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-issues-significant-judgment-improving-the-entitlements-of-parttime-teachers-31350192.html

You don't get it.

You just don't get it.

I already showed you the Supreme Court link confirming that the law has changed, and that the State now has a greater role in regulating teachers than it had in the early 1970's.

But at the time of the the abuse of Louise O'Keefe, the State did not have such an involvement in privately-run schools.

That's the point you keep ignoring. You keep harking back to the current rules, even though they are not relevant.

Your illogical refusal to see how ridiculous it was for Louise O'Keefe to pursue the State for damages, just underlines what a sacred cow it is. Why did she not sue the Diocese, who actually employed teachers in their private school?

RainyDay

conorh91 wrote: »

You don't get it.

You just don't get it.

I get it. I happen to disagree with you, as did the European Court of Human Rights. Don't assume that I don't get it, just because I can see the holes in your opinion.

conorh91 wrote: »

I already showed you the Supreme Court link confirming that the law has changed, and that the State now has a greater role in regulating teachers than it had in the early 1970's.

I've read your quotes from the SC judges again, and I don't see any explicit reference to greater regulation. It does say that the Dept pays teachers directly now, which implies that that they didn't pay them directly at that stage. So yes, that does seem to have changed. Dept rules for BoM have changed, but it is not clear to me whether that involved 'greater regulation' or not.

conorh91 wrote: »

But at the time of the the abuse of Louise O'Keefe, the State did not have such an involvement in privately-run schools.

That's the point you keep ignoring. You keep harking back to the current rules, even though they are not relevant.

The current rules are indeed not directly relevant - though interesting for comparative purposes. But it is simply untrue to say that the State did not have such an involvement in privately run schools. The State set the rules - so whether the State involvement was direct or indirect, that was the choice of the State - and the State must bear responsibility for that decision. So by delegating direct responsibility to the Patron or Board, the State still bears responsibility for that delegation - for ensuring that Patron / Board did their job effectively.

conorh91 wrote: »

Your illogical refusal to see how ridiculous it was for Louise O'Keefe to pursue the State for damages, just underlines what a sacred cow it is. Why did she not sue the Diocese, who actually employed teachers in their private school?

I can't answer for her, but I suspect that like many people in many legal dispute, she chose to move up the line of responsibility to find a 'mark' - a person or body that had the resources to bear the responsibility for past actions, or indeed inactions.

fryup

anyone mention Matt Talbot ??

was watching a documentary about him this evening,

the guy was a demented alcoholic nut job who used to flog himself and wrap himself in chains

if he were alive today he would be under some kind of psychiatric/social care

only in ireland would they name a bridge after such a guy

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I think that applies to most religious figures. If Jesus showed up today, claiming to be God and all, he'd just get sectioned rather than crucified.

Dirty Dingus McGee

fryup wrote: »

anyone mention Matt Talbot ??

was watching a documentary about him this evening,

the guy was a demented alcoholic nut job who used to flog himself and wrap himself in chains

if he were alive today he would be under some kind of psychiatric/social care

only in ireland would they name a bridge after such a guy

In fairness to him you have to admire a man who had an allergy to cats but decided to carry a kitten around in his pocket and sniff it from time to time causing his head to inflate like a ballon.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

are you f&cking serious??

efb

Conor McGregor.

Junkyard Tom

efb wrote: »

Conor McGregor.

In fairness CMcG has plenty of home grown haters.

fryup

Good ol'Matt

"he stole a blind man's fiddle" love it.. like something out of Fr Ted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZaAbNx9uU

Dirty Dingus McGee

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

are you f&cking serious??

Absolutely.

It was mentioned as part of a conversation in a documentary about priests living in remote locations.

philstar

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

In fairness to him you have to admire a man who had an allergy to cats but decided to carry a kitten around in his pocket and sniff it from time to time causing his head to inflate like a ballon.

some people want him beatified :rolleyes: