State spending €3million on communion rituals

I'm drunk off my face & I can spot all that I've written below:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

that's telling...

Galvasean wrote: »

Seriously, learn to type like an adult. You will get more respect in the long run.
It's really not that hard to put a few capital letters into your posts.

How can people just accept posts like this? I mean the rankest hypocrisy
can be exemplified by just examining Galvasean's own posts in this
thread. I mean more than one poster brags about their love for rational
thinking yet they totally ignore such craziness - why don't at least one of
those who brag about their love of rationality on this forum even just
examine this latest post in comparison with your earlier ones & apply
that critical thought process they'd apparently die for. You may dislike
&/or disagree with everything I'm saying as regards the argument but
you can't deny the hypocrisy of this latest comment or the others that
deserve equally confrontational responses.

King Mob wrote: »

Your post makes no sense, beyond the childish writing style.

The childish writing style is the only thing that makes sense?
What a superfluous comment, I don't consider the post's in any way
childish & quite frankly I consider it extremely childish & petty to make
comments like this that betray all the cynical ignorance of bigots who
just don't like to accept anybody who looks different, who has long hair,
who like to read, who likes science etc... But of course who am I to
speak considering I'm just one of those others who posts different as
well so I'm obviously biased.

King Mob wrote: »

The fact that you continue to post in such a silly manner makes you seem either like you don't actual know how to engage in a discussion, are 13 or are a troll. (Or all three.)

Such a scientific conclusion that just follows, as if by logic, from such
iron-clad premises. I see the truth table of possibilities you've drawn up
for us is just impeccably laid out & absolutely no other possibilities could
arise. People just accept these kinds of comments without question?

King Mob wrote: »

But none of this addresses the question, if the catholic church cares about thier members and that people somehow desperately need this money to buy material things for a religious ceremony, why doesn't the church offer to help them out?

As fantastic a question as this is, it's entirely irrelevant to the thread &
I'm surprised such a trivial question could be offered as some form of
counterexample to the topic. Why should those greedy fcukers pay
for this? They don't care, in fact priests encourage emphasis on not
spending money on the day as it distracts from the event (as a quick
google can convince you of). It's the recognition of the non-religious
aspects of this event coupled with the historical societal importance
that fuels the government in providing for this, hence the rank ignorance
in the argument that religion has anything more than a coincidental
relationship to this issue.

kylith wrote: »

There are contradictory interpretations because it's a fecking poem, not a treatise on public spending.

As much as I want to respond entirely to your post I think this bit of
your response sums the rest up entirely in that you ignore what I say
& respond to something you've said in a manner to justify your previous
claim. Note that I called your charlatanism out & you respond with more
of it, I can't argue with nonsense like this, it's a total waste of time.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I disagree - I view it as robbing from those who genuinely have exceptional needs. If it isn't a case of completely over-indulging one particular sect of a multi-cultural society based on bygone celtic tiger-esque priorities - oh purlease tell me what it is?

Also, if you can give me a break down on why €300+ euro is required for a communion service then I'm willing to listen...as far as I'm aware, that's the only part that could possibly be argued as being necessitated by the equally antiquated school system.

Hysterical appeals to emotion and historical generosity are just that, btw.

Cuts to communion allowance mean spirited– Seán Crowe TD
Dublin South West Sinn Féin TD Seán Crowe has described as “mean spirited” the government plans to cut discretionary payments for special occasions, like a child’s first communion, for low income families.
The Tallaght-based Deputy was speaking after the announcement that the regular discretionary payment of up to €305 was to be cut to €105.
Deputy Seán Crowe said:
“For Christians the communion and confirmation, for Judaism the bar mitzvah or the Muslim khatme quran are significant days in the life of a child.
“They are particularly important events for many low income families and this cut will impact severely on all of them.
“Suggestions that some families should consider clothing their children in hand-me-downs or cheap outfits shows a lack of understanding of just how big a milestone this is for families.
“The government ministers and the media pundits that are supporting these cuts are very unlikely to do the same for their own children.
“This outspoken support for cutting this discretionary allowance is in stark contrast to their silence when it comes to paying billions to faceless gamblers and speculators in the bond markets.
“The Fine Gael /Labour Government’s latest attack on low income families is mean spirited and cruel.
“Here is yet another example of the poor and the least well off being unfairly hit by another cruel austerity measure.”
http://seancrowe.ie/latest-news/1-news/190-cuts-to-communion-allowance-mean-spirited-sean-crowe-td

I'm not appealing to your emotions, whether you think I'm hysterical
or not, as I know that would never work. I'm just telling you that you
are entirely ignorant, willingfully ignorant, of how much a part of our
culture this event is - whether you like it or not, whether you want to
deny reality or not (because that's what you are doing, sugar coat it
all you like). You can tell us it's not an exceptional need because your
biases tell you that it's not an exceptional need but if we enter the
world of reality, one in which mothers are whoring themselves out to
deal with this event, one which people really care about, we see that
plenty of people understand that this is an exceptional need - in the
same way a poor Jewish person could apply for their exceptional need
to fund a bar mitzvah (which I'd presume they'd get, as I doubt the
government would be that hypocritical, though if there's evidence of
this please show it).

Also, don't think I don't notice the dishonesty in yours (and everybody
else's) argument in focusing on this payment as if it's entirely for the
dress. Just mimicking the standards all you guys (in the gender neutral
use of that term as I know how petty things like this tend to get emphasized by those
with an axe to grind) accept without question when it furthers your agenda's
I should be calling you all children for making such a childish argument.
That subtle point, one consistently emphasized by those for whom
5 seconds of research is too much when raw anger takes control,
seems to be lost on all those who bang on about their rationality...
Though to be fair to you you've only focused on the dress when it
was convenient for you to do so & the latest post at least mentions
the entire communion so we're learning something as we go along,
though I still think it's dishonestly ignoring reality:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Still no break-down I see, that's telling...

When we focus on communion dresses as if that's the entire issue &
then shift our argument & chastise others for not being insanely pedantic,
I think that's telling. Surely there's a word to describe that...

Do we really need to break it down? Do you really think I couldn't do
that? Deeper question - can you really, truly & honestly not envision
how someone could easily blow 300 euro on an event like this?
This day that (only if we're willing not to deny reality, of course - which you evidentially
just flat out refuse to do) represents "a milestone" "for families". Note I'm
not asking for your personal opinion on the morality of poor people
blowing 300 on a day like this, I've just asked a question about the
mechanics of the situation (as I know anything deeper than that is
simply incomprehensible). I find it very sad that I'd have to paint a
picture of a realistic day to convince you of why people need this
kind of money for that "milestone" day "for families". Surely you'll
fess up & admit you don't need such a pedantic breakdown, note
that it will be done if requested with the assumption of your cheap
as fcuk 2nd hand dress.

Furthermore don't think I don't notice the extremely cynical dishonesty
in this argument (which is, of course, a cover) that we should be
devoting this money instead to hospitals etc... I mean your own logic
defunds the sciences & anything we care to mention - an argument
I've already mentioned & one that was totally ignored. Logically this
argument is impeccable, do you think we should be spending money
on the arts when spending money on the arts means we are basically
murdering people by not providing that money to them in the form of
a hospital bed? I mean a civics class should have caused this question
to never have been posed in the first place, people just forget what it
means to live in a society all of a sudden... As I already mentioned, there
are plenty of things I don't feel good about funding yet that's just part
of living in society. Note also that civics class can never answer this
question in a positive way because as a society that's what we do when
we devote money to physics or the arts etc... and don't devote it to
hospital beds etc... - I just consider it either ignorance to argue from
some moral high ground all of a sudden to take money from poor
people because of reason X while giving money to rich people ignoring
that reason X we cared so much about when poor people were involved
or just plain dishonesty.

Though of course nothing I say matters because of the shape/size of my
posts. How do people miss all (any???) of this? I'll try to be even
more systematic, more direct & more all-encompassing if I have the
time as this issue is just so insane that it needs to be done so I apologize
if I haven't gotten to addressing every miniscule issue at this precise
moment but please try to view this from my perspective in that I have
to chase down easy quotes nobody else cares to mention & it's a lot
for a person pissed off their skull (well, soberer now) to do.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I know that! Which only adds to the confusion.

Apologies for teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. There was me thinking I was dead smart.

MrP

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The childish writing style is the only thing that makes sense?
What a superfluous comment, I don't consider the post's in any way childish & quite frankly I consider it extremely childish & petty to make comments like this that betray all the cynical ignorance of bigots who just don't like to accept anybody who looks different, who has long hair, who like to read, who likes science etc... But of course who am I to speak considering I'm just one of those others who posts different as well so I'm obviously biased.

Typing out a response in text speak is childish and it makes it seem that Lucy is not interested in putting the time in to discuss her points.
I have no idea why you post the way you do, but at least you are using spelling and grammar.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Such a scientific conclusion that just follows, as if by logic, from such iron-clad premises. I see the truth table of possibilities you've drawn up for us is just impeccably laid out & absolutely no other possibilities could arise. People just accept these kinds of comments without question?

What other possibilities are there?
That she is too lazy to write properly?
That writing in textspeak is cool or something?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As fantastic a question as this is, it's entirely irrelevant to the thread & I'm surprised such a trivial question could be offered as some form of counterexample to the topic. Why should those greedy fcukers pay for this? They don't care, in fact priests encourage emphasis on not spending money on the day as it distracts from the event (as a quick google can convince you of). It's the recognition of the non-religious aspects of this event coupled with the historical societal importance that fuels the government in providing for this, hence the rank ignorance in the argument that religion has anything more than a coincidental relationship to this issue.

Because it is to highlight the hypocrisy in Lucy's position. No doubt this vital and important service will suddenly become not as vital if the onus to pay it shifts to the people who are pushing this event in the schools and who claim to be charitable.
And again, it's much preferable that they cut this payment than ones that actually are vital.

I think kids should spend a bit more time in school learning basic grammar and a bit less time learning how to queue for and correctly eat silvermints. It would make the internet a far better place.

dades,

Thx for p.m.

You're a gent( maybe a lady).

There's method to my madness.

In fairness ...you could have wrapped my knuckles much more...but i suspect you know ur game as a mod.

Much appreciated. Ill explain my naughtiness to mc...

But i think u should get recognition for pulling me privatley rather than publicly.

I tip my cap...

we dont have to agree in a thread...nor should we.

gbee,

The bottom issue here is applauding cuts to families who might need the money.

forget the (personal )reasons for cheering those cuts...they are still cuts to those who are honestly in need.

If that makes me mad. ( to question,raise a debate)..lock me up.

Galvasean wrote: »

This thread is like a bad horror franchise. You think it's gone for good, only for it to come back (... again!) relatively unchanged.

Maybe slightly disfigured from the last epic battle.

<verbose irrelevance snipped>

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

3 million, in the scope of things, in no way interferes with anything vital.

If 3 million is such a trifling sum, why doesn't the Catholic Church offer to pay it? Or do they have moral objections to paying for booze ups, while the taxpayer should not?

There are many, many areas where 3 million euro could make a real, beneficial difference to people's lives - e.g. special needs assistants, elderly home care, cystic fibrosis. But having a nice taxpayer-funded day out for cult members is more important, I suppose, eh?

If a penny was taken from the SW of each person in the country this
could be paid for multiple times over, I'd wager a majority of people on
the SW would agree to that.

Grand so, as long as the taxpayer isn't forced to subsidise religious ritual.
Here's an idea - why not take it out of your church collection? Aren't religious congregations supposed to look after their less fortunate members? Why push that burden onto the taxpayer, as this is not an essential expense but an expense resulting from membership of your religion?