Time to ditch the Irish language and change the National Anthem?

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

Well it's getting panned by Irish people here and yet Sinn Fein want an act in Northern Ireland to waste even more money. So some want to take it out of secondary school now.

who here is panning it apart from the OP and meep?

A Little Pony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Well it's getting panned by Irish people here and yet Sinn Fein want an act in Northern Ireland to waste even more money. So some want to take it out of secondary school now.

who here is panning it apart from the OP and meep?

See it consistently on here, skepticism on the language is high on this forum.

Omackeral

o1s1n wrote: »

I'd be of the opinion that people applying for citizenship should be able to speak some level of Irish, would love to see it made part of the naturalisation process.

Irish is useless for the most part. It really is. It has zero value in the 21st century. Calling for it to be used as a measure of someone's Irishness is madness. If it were to apply to everyone as a way of holding onto your passport, I'd be saying goodbye to every single one of my family and friends bar my gf.

I say this as someone who took Higher Irish in the LC and would be able to hold conversations as Gaeilge, I often do so with my missus just to practise.

We are very lucky to have English as our primary communication tool I think, lucky in the sense that the world adapts to us. If we go away, we expect people to speak English to us. When tourists come to Ireland, we expect them to speak English also. I sometimes find that embarrassing or a shame, not sure which. I'm learning Spanish at the moment and use it when I can. The response you get from locals when you make the effort is really positive and also a bit of a shock for them.

We as a nation can't speak our own tongue but that's just how it is. Count ourselves lucky everyone else speaks it. There are some amount of lying f*cks on the census btw when it comes to who can speak the language!

Our anthem and language should stay as is though. It doesn't take much to learn the anthem of you're that patriotic.

meep

A Little Pony wrote: »

See it consistently on here, skepticism on the language is high on this forum.

Possibly reflective of a section of public opinion, per chance?

A Little Pony

meep wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

See it consistently on here, skepticism on the language is high on this forum.

Possibly reflective of a section of public opinion, per chance?

Yes. How much is spent on the Irish language per year?

meep

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes. How much is spent on the Irish language per year?

I don't know.

I don't even know how one would go about finding out - it's so woven into the fabric of government across education, culture, media, publications, industry, grants and more.

I guess you'd need a FOI to each govt. dept to ask what % of their budget is spent in direct or indirect support of Irish language.

Has that kind of research ever been done, do you know?

I'd love to know the figure and see how it compares to health, social welfare, housing etc.

Omackeral

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we still have nearly 40% who can speak the language. why the rush to get rid of it?

While I don't wanna get rid of Irish per se, that 40% is way off I'd imagine. For example, my brother put down that he can speak Irish on the census, so did his missus. Neither of them can. I'd halve that number again if I were to make an estimate.

I wish we were afforded the opportunity to learn French, Spanish or German in primary school instead of religion. I'd keep Irish but make it optional after primary school rather than a compulsory core subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrg_xuJZsDQ&feature=youtu.be



"We spend mind-boggling amounts of public money on the Irish language. Cf?"

All-Gaeilge road signs in tourist areas; a fortune spent on translations for legislation drafted in English – Eoin Butler on why we need to talk about Irish.

http://www.thejournal.ie/should-irish-be-mandatory-leaving-cert-3012978-Oct2016/

Omackeral

"Rubberchikken wrote: »

Accept our ways or go back. We're forced to accept the ways of other countries when we visit/emigrate.

From South America, to Europe to Asia you'll be grand speaking English to some degree. We're far from forced to accept other languages when on holidays in my experience. It's usually expected that English will be spoken to us when we head abroad but we wouldn't dream of returning the favour to tourists in Ireland.

meep

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrg_xuJZsDQ&feature=youtu.be



"We spend mind-boggling amounts of public money on the Irish language. Cf?"

All-Gaeilge road signs in tourist areas; a fortune spent on translations for legislation drafted in English – Eoin Butler on why we need to talk about Irish.

http://www.thejournal.ie/should-irish-be-mandatory-leaving-cert-3012978-Oct2016/

Couldn't get that video to play embedded or on the linked article. Found it here for those interested;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrg_xuJZsDQ

From 2011

It is estimated that we spend something around €1bn a year just teaching Irish. Other programmes add to that cost. Foras na Gaeilge supports 19 Irish promotion organisations with state funding. Television service TG4 got €32.75m in current funding from Government last year. Its audience stands at something around 2% of the population. Raidi Gaeltachta has, it is believed, an even smaller audience though official figures are not available. It may be assumed that funding for RnaG pushes the bill for Irish language broadcasting towards the €50m mark for just these two outlets.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/the-irish-language--throwing-good-money-after-bad-225250.html

_Kaiser_

There's no reason why Irish shouldn't be downgraded to optional status in schools - certainly at secondary level, but ultimately at primary as well.

Let those who want to learn it do so, but don't force a class of 30 kids to sit through tuition of something most of them have no interest in and which will be no use to them later
I'd also remove it from road signs and end stuff like translating every official form into Irish for the tiny minority who will look for it (and usually only as a political statement, and all of whom speak fluent English anyway)

If it can't survive on its own merit, should it survive at all?

ancapailldorcha

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes. How much is spent on the Irish language per year?

€1 billion was the last figure I'd read, about 2.5% of the government's tax income. I don't have a source for that off-hand.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

wakka12

Omackeral wrote: »

While I don't wanna get rid of Irish per se, that 40% is way off I'd imagine. For example, my brother put down that he can speak Irish on the census, so did his missus. Neither of them can. I'd halve that number again if I were to make an estimate.

I wish we were afforded the opportunity to learn French, Spanish or German in primary school instead of religion. I'd keep Irish but make it optional after primary school rather than a compulsory core subject.

You believe only half of the people who identify as being able to speak irish can actually speak it based on your brother and his wife being in that category

Maybe Im naive but Id assume the majority of those who say they can speak irish actually can as I dont see what advantage there is to lying about it

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that 60% of the population claim they cant speak any level of Irish suggests they just don't care for the language and couldn't wait to ditch it from their memory.

Speaking for the majority again :rolleyes:

The census question of whether or not you can speak Irish is too broad to determine the issues speculated in this thread.
Person A could speak a couple of words of Irish and tick the yes box.
Person B could also have a few words and tick the no box.

We do not have information about whether the nation wants to scrap compulsory Irish in schools. You would need a referendum.

Teaching Irish may cost €1bn, but many people need it for their careers (Teaching, journalism, broadcasting, translation etc.).

I don't use the German I learned in secondary school on a daily basis but how much does that cost to teach nationwide?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, who is lying?

I supported the German claims with links.

Really? Links that "the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population"...?

Not quite sure what other points you have made...

The points you noticebaly deleted from the very post you've quoted. Here they are again:

Fallacies (e.g. - the point that the number of people who don't speak Irish automatically means that they want it ditched) and assumptions (e.g. the point that people who don't speak Irish don't understand the national anthem (i can sing it and the translated lyrics are widely available online; immigrants can't/don't want to learn Irish)

... but it's quite clear that you want to force the majority of people in Ireland to speak Irish.

Now that's a lie right there. Given what I've said
As to your questions: no. I dont like the language
and
"As somsone who couldn't care less for either"
and a pretty bizarre one at that!!!

So in answer to your question, as to who is lying? That would be you. Again. QED.

A very xenophobic attitude to force those coming here to speak a minority language that only 40% of the population claim to speak.

You'd have to take that up with whoever made the claim. I'd recommend quoting their post as well, to avoid confusion.

meep

wakka12 wrote: »

You believe only half of the people who identify as being able to speak irish can actually speak it based on your brother and his wife being in that category

Maybe Im naive but Id assume the majority of those who say they can speak irish actually can as I dont see what advantage there is to lying about it

Although we'll never know due to a lack of data, I'd suggest that a significant number of people tick that box out of some sense of patriotism and the ability to string together the cupla focal is enough in their mind to justify using the ink (since the question doesn't define what speaking the language actually means).

You might have missed it earlier, but a much more interesting stat for me is that only 0.5% of census forms were completed As Gaelige. If up to 40% of the population claim to speak Irish (and are interested in it's health and in defending it's place in our culture), I would expect them to use it as much as possible, on public forms and the like.

jacksie66

jacksie66 wrote: »

Majority of people in New Zealand don't speak Maori..

Maybe not, but a majority of the indigenous people do.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Really? Links that "the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population"...?


Now that's a lie right there...!! Given what I've said
As to your questions: no. I dont like the language
and
"As somsone who couldn't care less for either"
and a pretty bizarre one at that!!!

So yeah - lies.

Maybe you find maths hard, but 1 million from a population of 820000 is 1.2195%

https://percentagecalculator.net/

As for the rest of your post, I havent the faintest what you are on about, how about you put it in question format.

For instance, Do you believe we should force those coming to Ireland to live to speak a language that the majority of the country claim to not be able to speak?

Martina1991

Martina1991 wrote: »

Speaking for the majority again :rolleyes:

The census question of whether or not you can speak Irish is too broad to determine the issues speculated in this thread.
Person A could speak a couple of words of Irish and tick the yes box.
Person B could also have a few words and tick the no box.

We do not have information about whether the nation wants to scrap compulsory Irish in schools. You would need a referendum.

Teaching Irish may cost €1bn, but many people need it for their careers (Teaching, journalism, broadcasting, translation etc.).

I don't use the German I learned in secondary school on a daily basis but how much does that cost to teach nationwide?

Well, let's make this very simple,

Do you believe a majority of the Irish population are fluent in Irish?

Do you beleive we should be forcing those who come to live here to learn a language that the majortiy population claim to not speak?

Cordell

I just want to make this small point: if the Irish language is not really used anymore, then this is so much more reason to keep teaching it. Just like history and literature and other "not useful" things that are taught in the education system in order to...educate the population. Irish or otherwise.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

I just want to make this small point: if the Irish language is not really used anymore, then this is so much more reason to keep teaching it. Just like history and literature and other "not useful" things that are taught in the education system in order to...educate the population. Irish or otherwise.

Do you believe it is worth the 1.25 Billion mentioned above, considering the majority of the country claim to not be able to speak the language?

Maybe we should spend Billions on other minority languages, or pet projects?

meep

Martina1991 wrote: »

The census question of whether or not you can speak Irish is too broad to determine the issues speculated in this thread.
Person A could speak a couple of words of Irish and tick the yes box.
Person B could also have a few words and tick the no box.

You are 100% correct here.

Martina1991 wrote: »

We do not have information about whether the nation wants to scrap compulsory Irish in schools. You would need a referendum.

Agree. Though the referendum would be on the status of the Irish language as the first language of the country as stated in the constitution.

It would be a very interesting campaign. Wonder which language the debates would be held in?

Martina1991 wrote: »

Teaching Irish may cost €1bn, but many people need it for their careers (Teaching, journalism, broadcasting, translation etc.).

This tickled me. If we didn't have the compulsion around Irish, fewer people would need it in those professions as you wouldn't need so many teachers, translators etc.

That argument betrays the commercial imperative that possibly underlies a significant amount of pro-Irish language advocates.

Martina1991 wrote: »

I don't use the German I learned in secondary school on a daily basis but how much does that cost to teach nationwide?

A lot less than Irish, you can be sure. Plus with a study of German, you gain an appreciation the culture of some of our European neighbours, have the option to look outward for career and recreational decisions and increase your facility for learning other languages if required.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you believe it is worth the 1.25 Billion mentioned above, considering the majority of the country claim to not be able to speak the language?

Maybe we should spend Billions on other minority languages, or pet projects?

I don't know its value in money, I would guess is just as valued as history. So drop them both, save 2x as much money. Because this is all that matters.

Sam Quentin

So hopefully the op is being extremely sarcastic!?
If not I'd like to 'bite' and say this is more shocking than when some apparent Irish person and I assume a Catholic? Suggested taking the Angelus of air because we have a 'few' non Catholics living now in our beautiful Country..

meep

Cordell wrote: »

I just want to make this small point: if the Irish language is not really used anymore, then this is so much more reason to keep teaching it. Just like history and literature and other "not useful" things that are taught in the education system in order to...educate the population. Irish or otherwise.

Absolutely.

And support people who wish to study it as it's a cherished and integral part of our culture.

Just don't make it compulsory for everyone, don't make it mandatory for EVERY SINGLE document and publication to be translated and generally waste copious resources that could be much better employed elsewhere.

History and Literature are rightly retained in education. As an option. And we don't spend billions supporting those subjects unnecessarily through redundant bureaucracy.

meep

Cordell wrote: »

I don't know its value in money, I would guess is just as valued as history. So drop them both, save 2x as much money. Because this is all that matters.

That's facetious.

You cannot seriously contend that, as a nation, we spend anything near the estimated 1Bn per year preserving our history?

ohnonotgmail

meep wrote: »

Absolutely.

And support people who wish to study it as it's a cherished and integral part of our culture.

Just don't make it compulsory for everyone, don't make it mandatory for EVERY SINGLE document and publication to be translated and generally waste copious resources that could be much better employed elsewhere.

History and Literature are rightly retained in education. As an option. And we don't spend billions supporting those subjects unnecessarily through redundant bureaucracy.

history is compulsory up until the age of 15, assuming the education system hasnt changed substantially since i were a lad. English is compulsory for all of secondary school.

bear1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe you find maths hard, but 1 million from a population of 820000 is 1.2195%

https://percentagecalculator.net/

As for the rest of your post, I havent the faintest what you are on about, how about you put it in question format.

For instance, Do you believe we should force those coming to Ireland to live to speak a language that the majority of the country claim to not be able to speak?

Coming from the poster that said there are 100 million people in Germany.

meep

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

history is compulsory up until the age of 15, assuming the education system hasnt changed substantially since i were a lad. English is compulsory for all of secondary school.

Things have changed for Junior Cert....

All students must follow courses in Irish (except where exemptions apply), English, Mathematics and Civic, Social and Political Education. There may be other compulsory subjects, depending on the type of school. Examinations in a number of other EU languages are offered to students who meet certain criteria.

(http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/state_examinations/junior_certificate_programme.html)

History is not a compulsory subject. (though may be unavoidable depending on school policy).

We don't spend billions writing, proofing, editing, printing and distributing historical texts. We don't contribute millions to The History Channel. It's just not a valid comparison.

Further, English <> Literature but I do take your point, that's a compulsory subject and we DO spend billions writing, proofing, printing and distributing government publications in that language. Rightly so. It's the un-necessary duplication of effort that I have the problem with.

Omackeral

wakka12 wrote: »

You believe only half of the people who identify as being able to speak irish can actually speak it based on your brother and his wife being in that category

Maybe Im naive but Id assume the majority of those who say they can speak irish actually can as I dont see what advantage there is to lying about it

I base it off what I see around me everyday. I can speak Irish to a decent enough level, not perfect, but enough to speak it in a simplistic manner. I know one other person in my social circle who can speak it and maybe a couple of colleagues. So out of hundreds of people I've spoken with on the matter, I'd say about four can speak it.

I do believe people put down that they can speak it to a decent level because, lets face it, nobody is gonna come knocking on your door quizzing you and it feels nice to be able to say you have another language in your repertoire.

I took French in school for 5 years. I know a few words and phrases but I wouldn't consider that as having the ability to speak French. Others would.

Omackeral

Martina1991 wrote: »

The census question of whether or not you can speak Irish is too broad to determine the issues speculated in this thread.
Person A could speak a couple of words of Irish and tick the yes box.
Person B could also have a few words and tick the no box.

This is what I was getting at with my own post. I would say there's a massive majority in the Person A category. I wouldn't consider a few words as "having the language". I think some people like the thoughts of saying they can speak it and put it down, sure there's no penalty for it.

Cordell

meep wrote: »

We don't spend billions writing, proofing, editing, printing and distributing historical texts. We don't contribute millions to The History Channel. It's just not a valid comparison.

It is when you justify removal by the cost of keeping it. OK, maybe have Irish documents on demand, maybe look at the cost and see where efficiency can be improved, all kind of options are available until you decide that you need to drop the Irish language.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe you find maths hard, but 1 million from a population of 820000 is 1.2195%

So you accept that you have been lying. Good.

As the the Maths; quoting you: "the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population" - this would mean the population of Germany is 100,000,000, not 82 million. So there's either bad maths a or a lie in there.

It's also factually incorrect. About one million arrived last year alone, and there are at least two million immigrants from Turkey alone.

The actually number of immgrants is abotu 15-20% (you can check the links at the bottom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

The EU puts the figure at about 15,000,000 out of 82,000,000 which, again, is a lot highter than 1.2195%.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Immigration_by_citizenship,_2015_(%C2%B9).png

So 15-17 million people out of 82 million. Which you claim is 1.2%.

Bad Maths or lying, proven.

As for the rest of your post, I havent the faintest what you are on about, how about you put it in question format.

And you know exactly what I'm on about - you've deleted it from posts twice in a row now. Here it is for a third time, now in question format, as requested.

Your arguments are made up of fallacies (e.g. - the point that the number of people who don't speak Irish automatically means that they want it ditched) and assumptions (e.g. the point that people who don't speak Irish don't understand the national anthem (i can sing it and the translated lyrics are widely available online; immigrants can't/don't want to learn Irish) - how do you counter this?

For instance, Do you believe we should force those coming to Ireland to live to speak a language that the majority of the country claim to not be able to speak?

No. But if they wish to do so of their own free will, the should be given the opportunity and resources to do so, as should every native.

wakka12

meep wrote: »

Although we'll never know due to a lack of data, I'd suggest that a significant number of people tick that box out of some sense of patriotism and the ability to string together the cupla focal is enough in their mind to justify using the ink (since the question doesn't define what speaking the language actually means).

You might have missed it earlier, but a much more interesting stat for me is that only 0.5% of census forms were completed As Gaelige. If up to 40% of the population claim to speak Irish (and are interested in it's health and in defending it's place in our culture), I would expect them to use it as much as possible, on public forms and the like.

Well thats just false. Im fluent in irish but obviously my english is better as I speak Irish relatively rarely. I would still choose an english form in case there were any technical or less commonly used words that I would misunderstand in Irish. Its not a very telling stat at all imo.

ohnonotgmail

meep wrote: »

Things have changed for Junior Cert....

All students must follow courses in Irish (except where exemptions apply), English, Mathematics and Civic, Social and Political Education. There may be other compulsory subjects, depending on the type of school. Examinations in a number of other EU languages are offered to students who meet certain criteria.

(http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/state_examinations/junior_certificate_programme.html)

History is not a compulsory subject. (though may be unavoidable depending on school policy).

We don't spend billions writing, proofing, editing, printing and distributing historical texts. We don't contribute millions to The History Channel. It's just not a valid comparison.

Further, English <> Literature but I do take your point, that's a compulsory subject and we DO spend billions writing, proofing, printing and distributing government publications in that language. Rightly so. It's the un-necessary duplication of effort that I have the problem with.

the change with history seems to be very recent. and most unwelcome. hopefully schools have the sense to maintain is as a compulsory subject.

meep

Cordell wrote: »

It is when you justify removal by the cost of keeping it. OK, maybe have Irish documents on demand, maybe look at the cost and see where efficiency can be improved, all kind of options are available until you decide that you need to drop the Irish language.

We're getting close to agreement!

I don't advocate dropping the Irish language completely. I am more than happy to find the best way to support it in a cost effective manner and support those with an interest in it to keep learning and using it. I have consistently stated that as my position in this thread.

I do advocate significantly reducing the expense associated with this support and the compulsion approach, with a view to freeing resources for other effort, specifically ICT / STEM programmes in primary schools.

If people have a gra for Gaelige, they can get some exposure to it in school but if they wish to pursue it, like other cultural pursuits such as music or sport, they can join a club and pay for the privilege. Plus stop the insanity of all govt. publications being done twice.

(Found out today that Irish law is drafted in English by English speakers but that the Irish translation takes precedence. Further, EU law is often translated with made-up terms - and that has precedence as well?)

meep

wakka12 wrote: »

Well thats just false. Im fluent in irish but obviously my english is better as I speak Irish relatively rarely. I would still choose an english form in case there were any technical or less commonly used words that I would misunderstand in Irish. Its not a very telling stat at all imo.

We'll have to disagree on that, because to my mind it's interesting and telling.

dealornodeal23

Deleted User wrote: »

With the Irish population having nearly a quarter of its population not even born in Ireland is it time we asked ourselves, "Is It time to drop the Irish Language and change the words of the National Anthem?"



http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/2017/Chapter_5_Diversity.pdf

It's long been the view of the Irish government and other groups to see the population of Ireland to get above 10 million,



http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-population-1972445-Mar2015/

Naturally, to get to this figure by 2050 it won't be coming from citizens born in the country and already we can see from the CSO immigration figures how they plan to reach close to this figure, importing and inviting migrants to this country.

To maximise integration we need to be asking ourselves does the language of Ireland and even our national anthem represent the New Ireland that we are seeing?

From the CSO figures, we can see many of those coming to live here are keeping alive their own language whilst using English as the universal language to communicate with others. Irish has very little place amongst the new Irish communities and is fast falling down the pecking order in languages spoken by the Irish community. Is there a place for Irish in the new Ireland? Is it a language we should be spending money on when many of the new Irish are struggling to adapt to a new culture and English Language? Should we not be investing on more English in classrooms and maximising English as our language?

There is also the issue of our national anthem, again this is sung in Irish and if you ask most people especially those who are "New" Irish wouldn't have a clue what is actually being sung.

As our population increases is there any point in singing the anthem in Irish, would it not be better to sing it in English so that all the Irish can feel represented by their national anthem and able to sing along with it?

You've got to be joking!!! I love the Irish National Anthem

wakka12

meep wrote: »

We'll have to disagree on that, because to my mind it's interesting and telling.

Of course youll take an important government form in the language you are most comfortable with, which is english for literally everybody in ireland no matter how good their irish is.

It has nothing to do with how important we see the langauge as. If you moved to france and became fluent in French and you had the opportunity to fill out their census in english then you would still do that.
Means nothing apart from the fact that youre more comfortable using english.

meep

wakka12 wrote: »

Of course youll take an important government form in the language you are most comfortable with, which is english for literally everybody in ireland no matter how good their irish is.

It has nothing to do with how important we see the langauge as. If you moved to france and became fluent in French and you had the opportunity to fill out their census in english then you would still do that.
Means nothing apart from the fact that youre more comfortable using english.

And this pretty much encapsulates my point.

If literally everyone in Ireland is more comfortable using English and regardless of how well people speak Irish, they will still use the English form - why on earth do we still go to the trouble and expense of producing an Irish-language version of the census form, as well as the Irish language version of the census website, advertisements, notices and all the rest?????????

It's an insane waste of time, money and effort.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

Coming from the poster that said there are 100 million people in Germany.

Just a rough figure, the actual amount is 82 million roughly, or do you want it down to the latest births and deaths?

Still 1% immigrants to the German population, however unlike Ireland which is getting close to 25%.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you accept that you have been lying. Good.

As the the Maths; quoting you: "the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population" - this would mean the population of Germany is 100,000,000, not 82 million. So there's either bad maths a or a lie in there.

It's also factually incorrect. About one million arrived last year alone, and there are at least two million immigrants from Turkey alone.

The actually number of immgrants is abotu 15-20% (you can check the links at the bottom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

The EU puts the figure at about 15,000,000 out of 82,000,000 which, again, is a lot highter than 1.2195%.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Immigration_by_citizenship,_2015_(%C2%B9).png

So 15-17 million people out of 82 million. Which you claim is 1.2%.

Bad Maths or lying, proven.


And you know exactly what I'm on about - you've deleted it from posts twice in a row now. Here it is for a third time, now in question format, as requested.

Your arguments are made up of fallacies (e.g. - the point that the number of people who don't speak Irish automatically means that they want it ditched) and assumptions (e.g. the point that people who don't speak Irish don't understand the national anthem (i can sing it and the translated lyrics are widely available online; immigrants can't/don't want to learn Irish) - how do you counter this?



No. But if they wish to do so of their own free will, the should be given the opportunity and resources to do so, as should every native.

Now, who is lying?

You are using figures that include settled immigrants in Germany over decades!

The actual number of refugees/immigrants to Germany in the past two years is around 1 million.

1.2 MILLION migrants arrived in Germany in two years

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/745147/million-immigrants-Germany-few-find-jobs-migrant-crisis

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a rough figure, the actual amount is 82 million roughly, or do you want it down to the latest births and deaths?

Still 1% immigrants to the German population, however unlike Ireland which is getting close to 25%.

you're not very good at this numbers thing are you? i'll you what, you lend me €100 and i'll give you back €82. its roughly the same after all. and there are 1.5M turkish people in germany not 1M. plus another 4 or 5M of other nationalities.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you accept that you have been lying. Good.

As the the Maths; quoting you: "the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population" - this would mean the population of Germany is 100,000,000, not 82 million. So there's either bad maths a or a lie in there.

It's also factually incorrect. About one million arrived last year alone, and there are at least two million immigrants from Turkey alone.

The actually number of immgrants is abotu 15-20% (you can check the links at the bottom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

The EU puts the figure at about 15,000,000 out of 82,000,000 which, again, is a lot highter than 1.2195%.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Immigration_by_citizenship,_2015_(%C2%B9).png

So 15-17 million people out of 82 million. Which you claim is 1.2%.

Bad Maths or lying, proven.


And you know exactly what I'm on about - you've deleted it from posts twice in a row now. Here it is for a third time, now in question format, as requested.

Your arguments are made up of fallacies (e.g. - the point that the number of people who don't speak Irish automatically means that they want it ditched) and assumptions (e.g. the point that people who don't speak Irish don't understand the national anthem (i can sing it and the translated lyrics are widely available online; immigrants can't/don't want to learn Irish) - how do you counter this?



No. But if they wish to do so of their own free will, the should be given the opportunity and resources to do so, as should every native.

Now, who is lying?

You are using figures that include settled immigrants in Germany over decades!

The actual number of refugees/immigrants to Germany in the past two years is around 1 million.

1.2 MILLION migrants arrived in Germany in two years

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/745147/million-immigrants-Germany-few-find-jobs-migrant-crisis

You claim you don't want to force people to learn Irish? Great so you support its removal from the classroom?

Your arguments are made up of fallacies (e.g. - the point that the number of people who don't speak Irish automatically means that they want it ditched) and assumptions (e.g. the point that people who don't speak Irish don't understand the national anthem (i can sing it and the translated lyrics are widely available online; immigrants can't/don't want to learn Irish) - how do you counter this?

If 60% of the population confess to not being able to speak Irish despite most learning it in school it would suggest they have a severe lack of interest in the language.

right now we are speaking in English, why is Ireland primarily English speaking if there is such a love for the Irish language, why don't we drop English and all speak Irish?

Why is Bank of Ireland ditching Irish from ATM`s?

If 60% of the population cant speak Irish and close to 1 million Irish residents were not born in Ireland it makes sense that we should have a national anthem that everyone can understand and sing.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're not very good at this numbers thing are you? i'll you what, you lend me €100 and i'll give you back €82. its roughly the same after all. and there are 1.5M turkish people in germany not 1M. plus another 4 or 5M of other nationalities.

Are you really going to argue over scematics?

The original point was that in recent years Germany has taken in around 1 million refugees/immigrants.

A small drop in the ocean if none of them speak German.

Ireland on the other hand now has close to 1 million people not born here, 17% of the population, we could probably get that figure closer to 25% if we include those with dual nationalities and those who have become naturalised and dropped their old nationality. As these people were never educated in the Irish education system its fair to assume they do not speak Irish. Thus we have a bigger problem of getting people to speak Irish than the Germans have in getting refugees to speak German.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, who is lying?

You are using figures that include settled immigrants in Germany over decades!

I am indeed. As are you.

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Also, the 1 million immigrants in Germany is about 1% of their population,
...

You claim you don't want to force people to learn Irish? Great so you support its removal from the classroom?

If I supported that, I would have said that. But, as we both know, I didn't.

For the record, my opinion is that it should be available as an option, but not compulsory.

If 60% of the population confess to not being able to speak Irish despite most learning it in school it would suggest they have a severe lack of interest in the language.

right now we are speaking in English, why is Ireland primarily English speaking if there is such a love for the Irish language, why don't we drop English and all speak Irish?

Why is Bank of Ireland ditching Irish from ATM`s?

If 60% of the population cant speak Irish and close to 1 million Irish residents were not born in Ireland it makes sense that we should have a national anthem that everyone can understand and sing.

Dealt with all this - it's a logical fallacy called the Appeal to the Masses.

That Irish is not very widely used or spoken is not up for debate. That is proven in the statistics above. That everyone who do not speak it wants to see it abolished is. And at the moment, that idea - presented by you - is unproven.

Two Questions: do you accept that there are people who do not speak Irish but still want it preserved?
Do you accept that some immigrants have an interest in learning the Irish language?