Interesting article about Travellers by a Traveller

Kimbot · 23-06-2017 02:58PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have no idea what he's trying to do. He posted the same thing in the Radio forum after I posted there.

Odd behaviour.

Dont worry it has been dealt with.

benjamin d · 23-06-2017 03:01PM

end of the road wrote: »

so, essentially you read no such thing in this thread? i'm glad we got that sorted.

That is quite clearly shifting the blame to settled people.

"I'm glad we got that sorted." If you're going to act like a child don't be surprised if that's how you're perceived.

markodaly · 23-06-2017 03:25PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not getting into this here, I just want to repeat (although I said it in practically every post, and I'll say it again) that I wasn't defending the North Korean regime, which is a brutal dictatorship.

I also clarified that the images were misleading, since they appear to reflect power outages at night-time, not an absence of electricity. Can we stick to discussing travellers now, please?

:pac:

So what philosophical or 19th century political ideology are we going to be discussing now today?

23-06-2017 03:34PM

markodaly wrote: »

:pac:

So what philosophical or 19th century political ideology are we going to be discussing now today?

Marxism isn't a 19th century political ideology. I would like nothing more than to see Marxist philosophy become extinct, since that that will happen after the fall of capitalism, and at its most fundamental, Marxism is merely a critique of capitalism.

I don't care one jot about online disdain when Marxist methods are used to analyse social problems such as traveller relations, or the treatment of African Americans, etc. Even if you disagree with me, I'm trying to have a serious discussion, and I've been asking others to tell me their analyses based on alternative ideological outlooks.

But so far all we have read is a defence of discrimination, sweeping statements that travellers are "100%" to blame, and similar, puerile nonsense.

markodaly · 23-06-2017 03:46PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Marxism isn't a 19th century political ideology. I would like nothing more than to see Marxist philosophy become extinct, since that that will happen after the fall of capitalism, and at its most fundamental, Marxism is merely a critique of capitalism.

For someone who claims to be somewhat of an expert on it, perhaps you should know more about it.

Marxism is a form of socioeconomic analysis that analyses class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Regardless, of you being wrong on simple things like that, then why the hell do you say that Marxism, is 'merely a critique of capitalism' while earlier you said 'my analysis of the problem is from a Marxist perspective'

Are we going to start talking about Marx's dialectical materialism again? :pac:

I don't care one jot about online disdain when Marxist methods are used to analyse social problems such as traveller relations, or the treatment of African Americans, etc. Even if you disagree with me, I'm trying to have a serious discussion, and I've been asking others to tell me their analyses based on alternative ideological outlooks.

So, please enlighten us, how would Marx's dialectical materialism solve this issue?

Roger Hassenforder · 23-06-2017 03:55PM

markodaly wrote: »

For someone who claims to be somewhat of an expert on it, perhaps you should know more about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Regardless, of you being wrong on simple things like that, then why the hell do you say that Marxism, is 'merely a critique of capitalism' while earlier you said 'my analysis of the problem is from a Marxist perspective'

Are we going to start talking about Marx's dialectical materialism again? :pac:

So, please enlighten us, how would Marx's dialectical materialism solve this issue?

Ooo

Apply water to burn...

Roger Hassenforder · 23-06-2017 04:00PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where?

Where did you read that in this thread?

The same place where the band is marching out of step with my Johnny...

23-06-2017 04:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards the author of the piece in the OP and her experiences as a child, well they are the fault of those who meted that disgraceful treatment out to her.

100% agree. Absolutely one million percent in fact. No "but travellers...." excuses can justify what happened to her. Vile.

23-06-2017 04:09PM

markodaly wrote: »

For someone who claims to be somewhat of an expert on it, perhaps you should know more about it.

Oh, rubbish. Marxism is no more a 19th century philosophy than Liberalism is a 17th century philosophy. I know when these philosophies were first disseminated, but they are contemporary philosophies, which have evolved and continue to do so.

why the hell do you say that Marxism, is 'merely a critique of capitalism' while earlier you said 'my analysis of the problem is from a Marxist perspective'

Marxism may be accurately summed up by that line, but it's about as revelatory and instructive as a book title is to a book's content: not very.

We can observe Marx's dialectics, which is the logical bedrock of communism, and extrapolate from here a way of analysing consciousness and the contemporary world, identifying and understanding human behaviours as a product of our social and economic environment.

So, you solve social ills, such as weak race relations, such as poverty, and suicide, not by a pep talk, but by reforming the material environment in which these problems arise: free access to healthcare, for example; a guarantee of employment, a guarantee of housing, annihilating class divisions insofar as is possible.

It is a method, it is one opinion. If you want to use alternative methods based on your outlook, please do so, I'm sure the thread would be all the better for it, instead of this childish carping and heckling.

23-06-2017 04:10PM

I suppose society is to blame for football hooligans too? Or junkies? Personal responsibility never comes into the equation. You only have to look at the idiot media to see how out of touch the left are. The Manchester bombing was blamed on Ariana Grande in one well known rag because she wears skimpy clothing on stage

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4535970/amp/JAMES-HARKIN-Ariana-Grande-symbol-Islamists-hate.html

23-06-2017 04:10PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The same place where the band is marching out of step with my Johnny...

No really, show us.

It shouldn't take you a moment, you appear to indicate it's been said a lot.

Are you sure you're not making this up?

23-06-2017 04:27PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ooo

Apply water to burn...

Aloe Vera is better for burns

sbsquarepants · 23-06-2017 04:36PM

I can never read the words "aloe vera" without picturing Wallace from Wallace and grommet waving to some lady called Vera in the street.

I'm sure that speaks volumes about the inner workings of my mind!:D

23-06-2017 04:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose society is to blame for football hooligans too? Or junkies?

A better analogy would be hearing some 4 year old kid was from Dublin, and bullying and ostracising her because well, sure they're all junkies, they don't do themselves any favours, none of their reps comes out and apologises for them etc. etc.

seamus · 23-06-2017 04:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose society is to blame for football hooligans too? Or junkies? Personal responsibility never comes into the equation. You only have to look at the idiot media to see how out of touch the left are. The Manchester bombing was blamed on Ariana Grande in one well known rag because she wears skimpy clothing on stage

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4535970/amp/JAMES-HARKIN-Ariana-Grande-symbol-Islamists-hate.html

The Daily Mail qualifies as "the left" now?

sbsquarepants · 23-06-2017 04:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A better analogy would be hearing some 4 year old kid was from Dublin, and bullying and ostracising her because well, sure they're all junkies, they don't do themselves any favours, none of their reps comes out and apologises for them etc. etc.

If your kid was in school with a fellow 4 year old whos parents happen to be junkies - would you be keen on them hanging around your house - would you be happy for your kid to go to a party in their house say?

I know I wouldn't. Is it the kids fault, of course not - would I care about that - not one single iota.

23-06-2017 04:53PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If your kid was in school with a fellow 4 year old whos parents happen to be junkies - would you be keen on them hanging around your house - would you be happy for your kid to go to a party in their house say?

Um, think you got that the wrong way round!

Surely the analogy would be, would you have their kid around at a party?

And yeah, I would.

Roger Hassenforder · 23-06-2017 04:55PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No really, show us.

It shouldn't take you a moment, you appear to indicate it's been said a lot.

Are you sure you're not making this up?

is the band marching out of step with Johnny so unexcogitable?

23-06-2017 04:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, think you got that the wrong way round!

Surely the analogy would be, would you have their kid around at a party?

And yeah, I would.

For sh*ts and giggles, what if it was the other way around? Would you let your kid go to a addicts house or a former addicts house for a party?

23-06-2017 05:00PM

Omackeral wrote: »

For sh*ts and giggles, what if it was the other way around? Would you let your kid go to a addicts house or a former addicts house for a party?

A former addict, no problem.

A current addict, no. Not because I have an issue with lifestyle or anything, know people addicted to drugs and alcohol. I would just be concerned about supervision.

benjamin d · 23-06-2017 05:01PM

Newshoesumunt wrote: »

Is there a link for the full list of games on sale. All I'm getting is todays highlighted games or popular amoung friends. can't find the full list anywhere.

Oh no, an innocent bystander has wandered into the fracas - get down, quick!

23-06-2017 05:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A former addict, no problem.

A current addict, no. Not because I have an issue with lifestyle or anything, know people addicted to drugs and alcohol. I would just be concerned about supervision.

And following on from that, what if you were unsure as to whether they were a current addict or not? Like all you have to base it off is what others in the area think. Would you give the benfit of the doubt?

23-06-2017 06:06PM

seamus wrote: »

The Daily Mail qualifies as "the left" now?

Probably not but that particular opinion seems to be in line with the new form of neo liberalist idiot who blames society around them for the failings of a certain group.

Permabear · 23-06-2017 06:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 23-06-2017 06:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Liam McPoyle · 23-06-2017 07:28PM

I work in the motor insurance industry (boo, hiss, cartel etc) and I can honestly count on my fingers alone the amount of policies I've seen for members of the travelling community that do not have claims on them.

A recent customer I saw has two outstanding claims, one on his commercial insurance and one on his car.

The car one involved him crashing into a tree while three of his children were in the car.

The other involved him crashing into a wall, while two of his brothers were in the van.

All 5 passengers have lodged personal injury claims.

None of them had provable injuries such as broken bones, visible bruising etc.

I can be fairly confident that when one of their policies comes across my desk there will be claims involved.

Now maybe they are disproportionately unlucky when it comes to motoring but I have my doubts.

I had another one that I know was convicted of criminal offences but we couldn't exit the policy because we couldn't 100% prove the policy holder and the individual on Google were one and the same so we slapped a €6000 premium on their renewal. His occupation was noted as been unemployed. He paid the renewal in cash.

They can blame the settled community or the man in the moon for their woes if they want but the fact is that the reason they are mistrusted by large sections of the settled community is because of their own actions.

Sofiztikated · 23-06-2017 07:50PM

Rod Munch wrote: »

I work in the motor insurance industry (boo, hiss, cartel etc) and I can honestly count on my fingers alone the amount of policies I've seen for members of the travelling community that do not have claims on them.

A recent customer I saw has two outstanding claims, one on his commercial insurance and one on his car.

The car one involved him crashing into a tree while three of his children were in the car.

The other involved him crashing into a wall, while two of his brothers were in the van.

All 5 passengers have lodged personal injury claims.

None of them had provable injuries such as broken bones, visible bruising etc.

I can be fairly confident that when one of their policies comes across my desk there will be claims involved.

Now maybe they are disproportionately unlucky when it comes to motoring but I have my doubts.

I had another one that I know was convicted of criminal offences but we couldn't exit the policy because we couldn't 100% prove the policy holder and the individual on Google were one and the same so we slapped a €6000 premium on their renewal. His occupation was noted as been unemployed. He paid the renewal in cash.

They can blame the settled community or the man in the moon for their woes if they want but the fact is that the reason they are mistrusted by large sections of the settled community is because of their own actions.

So someone you THINK had a criminal record, and you put a spurious amount on his premium?

Which company was this, and what would the regulator say?

Blatant discrimination and one of the many reasons insurance is ****ed in this country.

Liam McPoyle · 23-06-2017 08:00PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

So someone you THINK had a criminal record, and you put a spurious amount on his premium?

Which company was this, and what would the regulator say?

Blatant discrimination and one of the many reasons insurance is ****ed in this country.

His name and area he lived in were the same.

Both were members of the TC.

There was an incident involving the vehicle on cover in a very unusual area and the individual was convicted of offences that occurred in that very same unusual area.

Now that could have been some freaky deaky coincidences but If it looks like a duck....

The regulator could not say anything because we had reasons for applying the premium we applied that would stand up in court, I'm not going to go into them here though.

You can call it discrimination if you wish but I call it savvy underwriting.

We have had claims from this individual that were questionable.

I've no doubt we will have more.

At least there will be some padding to pay him off.

If it was as easy to discriminate as you seem to think it is then my job would be a helluva lot easier.

freshpopcorn · 23-06-2017 08:11PM

Rod Munch wrote: »

I work in the motor insurance industry (boo, hiss, cartel etc) and I can honestly count on my fingers alone the amount of policies I've seen for members of the travelling community that do not have claims on them.

Travellers tend to be very unlucky for being involved in accidents in my experience.

end of the road · 23-06-2017 09:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose society is to blame for football hooligans too? Or junkies? Personal responsibility never comes into the equation. You only have to look at the idiot media to see how out of touch the left are. The Manchester bombing was blamed on Ariana Grande in one well known rag because she wears skimpy clothing on stage

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4535970/amp/JAMES-HARKIN-Ariana-Grande-symbol-Islamists-hate.html

read the article. it simply said such outfits were what islamic extremists hate. not that her outfit was to blame for the attack. and the daily mail are as far from left wing as it gets.

Rod Munch wrote: »

I work in the motor insurance industry (boo, hiss, cartel etc) and I can honestly count on my fingers alone the amount of policies I've seen for members of the travelling community that do not have claims on them.

A recent customer I saw has two outstanding claims, one on his commercial insurance and one on his car.

The car one involved him crashing into a tree while three of his children were in the car.

The other involved him crashing into a wall, while two of his brothers were in the van.

All 5 passengers have lodged personal injury claims.

None of them had provable injuries such as broken bones, visible bruising etc.

I can be fairly confident that when one of their policies comes across my desk there will be claims involved.

Now maybe they are disproportionately unlucky when it comes to motoring but I have my doubts.

I had another one that I know was convicted of criminal offences but we couldn't exit the policy because we couldn't 100% prove the policy holder and the individual on Google were one and the same so we slapped a €6000 premium on their renewal. His occupation was noted as been unemployed. He paid the renewal in cash.

They can blame the settled community or the man in the moon for their woes if they want but the fact is that the reason they are mistrusted by large sections of the settled community is because of their own actions.

it's not no . their actions are just excuses by some members of the settled community to discriminate against them because unlike other groups, there are few who will challenge such actions. travelers who behave badly are responsible for that behaviour but those in the settled community who discriminate against travelers are fully to blame for doing so.

Rod Munch wrote: »

His name and area he lived in were the same.

Both were members of the TC.

There was an incident involving the vehicle on cover in a very unusual area and the individual was convicted of offences that occurred in that very same unusual area.

Now that could have been some freaky deaky coincidences but If it looks like a duck....

none of that is technically "proof" though. it's a belief and nothing more. a belief is not technically proof.

Rod Munch wrote: »

You can call it discrimination if you wish but I call it savvy underwriting.

i would call it screwing myself. savvy underwriting my backside. it's simply wanting to make more money.

Interesting article about Travellers by a Traveller

Comments