The Status Of Irish.

Dannyboy83

"The charade of Irish language tests for public employment when everyone knew the language would hardly ever be used again, the whole fetid system of favouritism associated with language knowledge, as distinct from language use, inevitably left its mark, stamping the most idealistic and most important task undertaken by the new state as yet one more sleazy political racket."

Ireland 1912-1985, J.J. Lee

"An infallible way to paralyse people is to aim at a utopia."

(D. P. Moran)

http://anghaeltacht.net/ctg/altveritas.htm#_ftn46
The belief that Ireland is a bilingual country is also a delusion. The only bilingual areas of Ireland are in the Gaeltacht. The danger that of such delusions is that the Government will waste scarce resources and energy on flogging the dead horse, while the wounded horse continues to weaken

Donncha Ó hÉallaithe

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Irish language Taliban Grow up:rolleyes:

True, your followers are no longer allowed to beat the language into people. That much has chanhged, but the scars remain.

deise go deo wrote: »

There is no need to be confrontational

You represent an organisation that has a manifesto for making Irish the common langauge of everyone in this country and enforcing compulsory lessons. That is confrontational.

deise go deo wrote: »

Now, I am well aware that students do not Like Irish. The point I am making is that students dont dislike Irish Because it is compulsory. They dislike Irish because of its poor curriculum.

Or perhaps they are simply indifferent to it?

deise go deo wrote: »

Stop with the ott arguments, Liberty? We are not talking about some program of forced cultural indoctrination imposed on the population against their will.

Compulsory language & culture lessons anyone?

deise go deo wrote: »

English is compulsory, Students dont hate English even though its compulsory therfore students seam not to hate something just because its compulsory so there must be some other factor,

English is compulsory becuase it is the primary language of almost the entire population and is essential for the pupil. The same cannot be said of Irish.

deise go deo wrote: »

There are employment opportunities. There is a list of them. Dose that = Opportunities to use Irish for people not In those jobs? No.

State-subsidised jobs that do nothing for the economy. Expect them to to be dropped as the IMF helps us adjust our spending.

deise go deo wrote: »

The simplest explanation is that there is a poor curriculum for Irish in School(The dogs in the street know this) which fails to teach Irish to students regardless of their Interest.

This is the explanation you prefer. Surely, you cannot agree to compulsory teaching of a bad curriculum?

So, which would you prefer?

Compulsion to learn Irish as its taught now.

or

Optional to learn Irish taught as you would like it?


Remove compulsion: Let Irish stand on its merits.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Please don't run from the debate with answers such as 'what?' and '?'

If you think this:'OK, how about I call round and force your kids to learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language everyday?'

Forms part of a reasonable debate then I don't think there is any point to this.

As regards the statistics; here it is 2 more times
(you asked for proof that significant number of students are not 'open' to learning Irish - here it is, plain as day -> students are playing the system to learn a different language instead:P)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0414/1224268309255.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0413/breaking55.html

More than half of the students granted an exemption from studying Irish for the Leaving Certificate due to a learning difficulty over the last three years have sat or intend to sit other European language exams such as French or German, data from the Department of Education shows.

The figures show 2,119 pupils were granted an exemption from taking Irish in the 2008-2009 school year due to learning disabilities, but more than 1,200 studied another European language.

In the 2007-2008 school year, 1,772 students got a similar exemption. The figures show, 1,210 studied other European languages over the period.

Provisional figures this year’s crop of Leaving Certificate students show 2,297 students will not sit the Irish exam due to an exemption, but 1,326 of those intend to sit an exam in another European language.

The figures, obtained initially by RTÉ under the Freedom of Information Act but released generally by the Department of Education today, indicate the total numbers obtaining exemptions from learning Irish has risen from 4,497 in 2008 to 5,818 this year.

The latter figure corresponds to more than 10 per cent of 55,400 students intending to sit this year’s exams, and adds weight to suggestions by many in the sector that some students were deliberately exploiting the exemption criteria to avoid studying Irish.

Now, please go back and address the questions and points I put to you in my previous post rather than evade everything.

If you claim I'm making a lot of assumptions, you need to outline what those assumptions are.

You are assuming that the majority are being 'Forced' to learn Irish, Against their will. Ie that they are not open to learning Irish.

Now if we take your 10% claim, do you believe that everyone who is exempt from Irish is not open to it?
You do realize that the exemptions are for people who cant learn Irish, Not for those who don't want to. Which do you think is the case? Of the people who are exempt from learning Irish and do not learn a second language, is it that they reject Irish and found some way to get an exemption? or that there is something preventing them learning Irish like a learning disability.
Now it is fair to assume that those exempt from learning Irish but do learn a second language could learn Irish. That just about halves the 10%. but odds are a good section of that segment are exempt because they came to Ireland after the age of 12, so they could learn another language because they are fluent in it or were learning it at home but cant learn Irish because of never being tought it before.

So there are people getting exempt to avoid Irish, but to suggest that this is true of everyone getting exempt is false, as I said, you need to look at other factors that can explain the result besides the one you want/expect.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This is the explanation you prefer. Surely, you cannot agree to compulsory teaching of a bad curriculum?

Of course I dont agree with compulsory learning of a bad curriculum, I have made that abundantly clear.

I have pointed out several times now that I am not arguing in favour of leaving the status quo in place.
What do you think Major reform of the curriculum means? Dose it mean leaving it as it is? No
It means changing the curriculum.

So, which would you prefer?

Compulsion to learn Irish as its taught now.

or

Optional to learn Irish taught as you would like it?


Remove compulsion: Let Irish stand on its merits.

There are more options than that.:rolleyes:

Neither. I want Irish to remain compulsory but its curriculum to be reformed to allow people to learn it to a good standard while in school.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Neither. I want Irish to remain compulsory but its curriculum to be reformed to allow people to learn it to a good standard while in school.

Go ahead and reform the curriculum, maybe you can make compulsory Irish lessons more pleasant before the children leave school and continue with their English-speaking lives.

The fact that you want Irish kept compulsory weakens the merit of your cause and prolongs wasteful expenditure at a time when we can no longer afford it or the other pillar of CNaG's influence - the Official Languags Act.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

If you think this:'OK, how about I call round and force your kids to learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language everyday?'

Forms part of a reasonable debate then I don't think there is any point to this.

Yes, there is.
You are again cowering from the debate.
Why not simply debate the points as put to you instead of evading?:rolleyes:

Judeo-Crimean Tatar Language is an endangered language.
It's of extremely limited use beyond that community.

Now, I want my children to learn Russian in school, not Irish, yet they are obliged to learn Irish because you and people like you who are making money from the industry insist it must be compulsory.
Now my children cannot learn Russian, because their time is wasted learning Irish instead. Furthermore, they hate learning it and do not want to learn Irish- they want to learn Russian.

So everyone's desires are ignored, simply to serve yours! Whatever happened to Liberty?

None of this matters to you.
We are hostages to your Ceauşescuian ambition of forcing Irish down their necks, against their will.


So how about if we reverse that role?

You want your kids to learn Irish.
Instead, I demand that the must learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language, because my goal is to increase the amount of speakers of that language.
I don't care that it is of little use beyond that community and endangered, I only care about my personal ambition - to increase the number of speakers, everything else is collateral damage.

So now your kids cannot learn Irish even tho they want to, because they have to learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language instead. When they get older, they have to emigrate to an Irish speaking country and are stranded when they could have been streets ahead. That is the opportunity cost.

How do you feel about this?
Would you feel pleased about this or displeased?

Please - no more infantile 'what' answers or faux-misunderstanding.
Just answer the question as put to you.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Go ahead and reform the curriculum, maybe you can make compulsory Irish lessons more pleasant before the children leave school and continue with their English-speaking lives.

The fact that you want Irish kept compulsory weakens the merit of your cause and prolongs wasteful expenditure at a time when we can no longer afford it or the other pillar of CNaG's influence - the Official Languags Act.

With any luck, Then we will really see the state of Irish, I am confident that If Irish is tought effectively in schools it would put an end to all these hangups about the language and allow it to grow in our society.

If it dosent, if you are right and no matter how well it is tought People will still 'reject' it than I would have no objection to it being made optional.

Weakens it in whos eyes? Yours no doubt but I have yet to see such disdain for the Irish language from the people in general. In my experience they are quite open minded about Irish.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Yes, there is.
You are again cowering from the debate.
Why not simply debate the points as put to you instead of evading?:rolleyes:

You make rediculus points and accuse me of evading them when I dont take you seriously? Lol.

Judeo-Crimean Tatar Language is an endangered language.
It's of extremely limited use beyond that community.

Now, I want my children to learn Russian in school, not Irish, yet they are obliged to learn Irish because you and people like you who are making money from the industry insist it must be compulsory.
Now my children cannot learn Russian, because their time is wasted learning Irish instead. Furthermore, they hate learning it and do not want to learn Irish- they want to learn Russian.

-They want to learn Russian or you want them to learn Russian?
-Now, why do they hate learning Irish? Is it because it is compulsory? Ie they hate it because they are liberals who believe that they should be given a choice on these matters or do they hate it for other reasons?
-I have never made one cent from Irish,
-I believe Russian is offered as a subject on the leaving Cert, did you look into getting classes for your kids?

So everyone's desires are ignored, simply to serve yours! Whatever happened to Liberty?

And what are everyones desires and how do you know this? What happned to reality?

None of this matters to you.
We are hostages to your Ceauşescuian ambition of forcing Irish down their necks, against their will.

If its against their will, Why cant you show that it is, the burden of proof to show that is on you, You cant just make a claim and expect it to be accepted with out support.

So how about if we reverse that role?

You want your kids to learn Irish.
Instead, I demand that the must learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language, because my goal is to increase the amount of speakers of that language.
I don't care that it is of little use beyond that community and endangered, I only care about my personal ambition - to increase the number of speakers, everything else is collateral damage.

Do you believe it is a national ambition to Increase the use of Judeo-Crimean Tartar Language in Ireland? Can you show anything to suggest that it is?

So now your kids cannot learn Irish even tho they want to, because they have to learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language instead. When they get older, they have to emigrate to an Irish speaking country and are stranded when they could have been streets ahead. That is the opportunity cost.

Now you are being facetious, You are framing it in a way that suggests that learning Irish prevents other languages being learned, Not true. And you are suggesting that I want Irish to replace English which is also not true.

How do you feel about this?
Would you feel pleased about this or displeased?

If there were opportunities to use that language, jobs available in that language, and that language had a long history in my home country and was the First national language of that country, and it could be shown that many many people wanted to increase its use in that country, I wouldent feel displeased at all. I would just be disappointed that the curriculum of the subject was holding it back.

Please - no more infantile 'what' answers or faux-misunderstanding.
Just answer the question as put to you.

If you promise not to expect me to take rediculus Questions seriously then i promise not to give Infantile answers to them.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

Im not surprised, I have said that the way Irish is tought now turns people off Irish, Why do you think I want Irish to be reformed?

As clearly explained to you, they do not want to learn Irish.
Reformed or unreformed.

What is your answer to this?

deise wrote:

dannyboy83 wrote:

But we are not talking about children, are we?
We're talking about Secondary school students - in the specific case where they do not wish to learn a language and it is forced into them against their will - as show by facts from the department of education.
And as happens the length and breadth of this country every school day for the last 80 odd years, so much so that the incoming MoE wishes to change the system.
But you are arguing against this based solely on your opinion, which is biased and devoid of facts to support it.

Im sorry but you are making a lot of assumptions there.

What assumptions am I making?
I am not making any assumptions.

I am telling you as a straight fact - my niece does not wish to learn Irish, reformed or otherwise. She wishes to study a different language.
What is your response to this?

There is no need to be confrontational

I'm not being confrontational - I'm trying to drag an answer out of you.
You initiated this thread/debate, yet you are cowering from every question put to you, instead you answer every question by repeating your mantra of reforming Irish.

Just answer the questions.

Now, I am well aware that students do not Like Irish. The point I am making is that students dont dislike Irish Because it is compulsory. They dislike Irish because of its poor curriculum.

A secondary school pupil has stated he does not wish to learn Irish, he wishes to learn a different subject. His parents do not want him to learn Irish.
He doesn't care if the curriculum is reformed, he is not interested under any circumstances.

What benefit will arise from forcing this pupil to learn Irish against his will?

What ever happned to proportion?
Stop with the ott arguments, Liberty? We are not talking about some program of forced cultural indoctrination imposed on the population against their will.
We are talking about a subject in school.

What oppresion? We are talking about a school subject like English and maths.

Liberty; an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will.

Do you agree that compulsory Irish, in the situation where a pupil does not want to learn it, is violating their free will?

English is compulsory,

English is the vernacular.
Irish is not.

Students dont hate English even though its compulsory therfore students seam not to hate something just because its compulsory so there must be some other factor, In fact there is, Irish has a very poor curriculum, that must be the other factor that is turning student off.

That is not a tautology in any sense.
That is extremely flawed reasoning.

deise wrote:

There are employment opportunities. There is a list of them. Dose that = Opportunities to use Irish for people not In those jobs? No.

deise wrote:

The fact is that there are few opportunities available to use Irish outside the education system. Its a fact that if you don't use a second language you will lose it weather you want to or not,

:rolleyes:
As I said - contradicting yourself

Now some advice. If you are going to claim someone is contradicting themselves you need to be right.
And if you are going to come to a conclusion on an issue you need to look at other possible explanations other than the one you want/expect.;)

:rolleyes:
See above, plain as day.

The simplest explanation is that there is a poor curriculum for Irish in School(The dogs in the street know this) which fails to teach Irish to students regardless of their Interest.

BINGO!

Why would making something compulsory affect its curriculum? They are two separate things.

PRECISELY!!

So why do you insist it must be compul$ory?

deise wrote:

The only way to make the curriculum work is to reform it, Making it optional or leaving it compulsory wont affect the curriculum one bit.

deise go deo wrote: »

Not when you realize that Welsh dident start from being Compulsory to LC(Or equivlant)
It was never dropped, It received the enhancement of being made compulsory till 16, enhancing its status. Not Being dropped to Optional Reducing its status. Thats the point of the thread, Making a language optional dosent make that language thrive, The opposite infact. That is what the evidence points to.

Contradicting yourself again:rolleyes:

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

You make rediculus points and accuse me of evading them when I dont take you seriously? Lol.

My points are not ridiculous, you are simply unable to answer them as they point to a different outcome than you desire.
Nor are you able to refute the evidence/statistics I have put forward.
Labellings something ridiculous, simply because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true.:rolleyes:

-They want to learn Russian or you want them to learn Russian?

Both, their entire maternal side are Russian.
Their mom speaks Russian to them, I speak English to them.

Their mom doesn't see the sense in them learning Lithuanian, just as I do not see the sense in them learning Irish.

They don't want to learn Lithuanian or Irish, they want to learn English and Russian.

-Now, why do they hate learning Irish? Is it because it is compulsory? Ie they hate it because they are liberals who believe that they should be given a choice on these matters or do they hate it for other reasons?

They hate learning the language because it doesn't interest them, because they have no use for it, because they would rather concentrate on learning Russian instead so they can talk with their cousins.

They hate the fact that it is cumpolsory, because they don't want to learn it and none of their Irish relatives speak Irish.

They are able to distinguish between a useful language and a useless one.

-I believe Russian is offered as a subject on the leaving Cert, did you look into getting classes for your kids?

Opportunity cost Deise.
Time wasted learning Irish is valuable time that could be spent learning Russian or programming.

If they want to learn it, then there is no opportunity cost.
But they don't.
Yet it's compulsory.
Senseless.

And what are everyones desires and how do you know this? What happned to reality?

I have explicitly stated that nobody in this scenario desires to learn the language.
I am not the one struggling with reality.:rolleyes:

Care to answer the question as originally put to you?
Or will you simply continue to cower from it?

deise wrote:

dannyboy83 wrote:

Now, I want my children to learn Russian in school, not Irish, yet they are obliged to learn Irish because you and people like you who are making money from the industry insist it must be compulsory.
Now my children cannot learn Russian, because their time is wasted learning Irish instead. Furthermore, they hate learning it and do not want to learn Irish- they want to learn Russian.

So everyone's desires are ignored, simply to serve yours! Whatever happened to Liberty?

None of this matters to you.
We are hostages to your Ceauşescuian ambition of forcing Irish down their necks, against their will.

If its against their will, Why cant you show that it is, the burden of proof to show that is on you, You cant just make a claim and expect it to be accepted with out support.

I am giving you a hypothetical scenario, therefore the burden of proof is not required.
Care to answer the question or will you continue to evade?:rolleyes:

Do you believe it is a national ambition to Increase the use of Judeo-Crimean Tartar Language in Ireland? Can you show anything to suggest that it is?

LOL, evading the question again.
It is not my ambition to increase the usage of Irish.
Let me remind you, we live in a democracy, not a totalitarian dictatorship.

I will put the question to you again:

dannyboy83 wrote:

So how about if we reverse that role?

You want your kids to learn Irish.
Instead, I demand that the must learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language, because my goal is to increase the amount of speakers of that language.
I don't care that it is of little use beyond that community and endangered, I only care about my personal ambition - to increase the number of speakers, everything else is collateral damage.

So now your kids cannot learn Irish even tho they want to, because they have to learn Judeo-Crimean Tatar language instead. When they get older, they have to emigrate to an Irish speaking country and are stranded when they could have been streets ahead. That is the opportunity cost.

How do you feel about this?
Would you feel pleased about this or displeased?

Now you are being facetious, You are framing it in a way that suggests that learning Irish prevents other languages being learned, Not true. And you are suggesting that I want Irish to replace English which is also not true.

I am not being facetious, you are faux-misunderstanding to evade the question.

There is an opportunity cost associated with everything.
Studying Honours Maths means there is an opportunity cost of applied maths.
Studying Irish means there is an opportunity cost with another language.

Do you deny this?

If there were opportunities to use that language, jobs available in that language, and that language had a long history in my home country and was the First national language of that country, and it could be shown that many many people wanted to increase its use in that country, I wouldent feel displeased at all. I would just be disappointed that the curriculum of the subject was holding it back.

Great.
And how do you feel then about the opportunity cost?
All of those factors also apply to the Irish language, but your kids were not able to learn it as they had to learn JCT language instead.
How do you feel about that?

If you promise not to expect me to take rediculus Questions seriously then i promise not to give Infantile answers to them.

Any answer at all would be a start, rather than the constant evasion of questions.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As clearly explained to you, they do not want to learn Irish.
Reformed or unreformed.

What is your answer to this?

My answer id that the evidence you provided dose not point to this conclusion.

What assumptions am I making?
I am not making any assumptions.

I am telling you as a straight fact - my niece does not wish to learn Irish, reformed or otherwise. She wishes to study a different language.
What is your response to this?

And If I were to say that Ten, One hundred, One thousand people dident want to study English For the LC what would your responce be? Would you then want it to be optional?

I'm not being confrontational - I'm trying to drag an answer out of you.
You initiated this thread/debate, yet you are cowering from every question put to you, instead you answer every question by repeating your mantra of reforming Irish.

Just answer the questions.

I have answered every question put to me. That you dont like the answers I have given dosent mean they are not there, Stop with this cowering nonsence, There are plenty of questions you have yet to answer.

A secondary school pupil has stated he does not wish to learn Irish, he wishes to learn a different subject. His parents do not want him to learn Irish.
He doesn't care if the curriculum is reformed, he is not interested under any circumstances.

What benefit will arise from forcing this pupil to learn Irish against his will?

Again this could be applied to any subject, Why are you applying it to Irish only? If there are so many parent and kids who are set against Irish in any circumstance where are they? Why can you not show evidence for their existence,
There is no campaign for the removal of Irish, Explain this.

Liberty; an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will.

Do you agree that compulsory Irish, in the situation where a pupil does not want to learn it, is violating their free will?

In the very same way it dose with English and Maths. I a student want to go to school at all and their parents/the state makes them is that not also a violation of free will?

English is the vernacular.
Irish is not.



That is not a tautology in any sense.
That is extremely flawed reasoning.

My logic is that students tend to react negativly against something JUST because it is Compulsory. If they did they would do so in all cases. If that is the case then there must be some other factor causing the negative reaction? True?

:rolleyes:
As I said - contradicting yourself


:rolleyes:
See above, plain as day.

I said that there are Job opportunities In Irish. That is a fact.

I said there are few opportunities for the General population to use Irish that is also a fact.
There are opportunities to use Irish. More than any other second language in this country. That dosent mean that there are enough opportunities for use to prevent people losing the Irish they learn in School(this is true of other second languages too)

Show me the contradiction there.

BINGO!

It dosent teach Irish to people who want to learn Irish so you cant conclude that people not learning Irish don't want to learn Irish.

PRECISELY!!

So why do you insist it must be compulsory?

I am not insisting on it being compulsory so its curriculum will be affected. I am suggesting that it should remain Compulsory and its Curriculum should be reformed.

Two entirely separate points.

Contradicting yourself again:rolleyes:

I am pointing out that making somthing optional or making it compulsory will not change its curriculum.

The only way to change a curiculum is to actually change it.

Evidience suggests that making a lower status language optional will not promote people learning that language, this is not due to its curriculum, its due to its status.



Now, when you claim people are contradicting themselve it helps if you take the time to understand what they are saying, Otherwise you end up looking silly, no matter how many big words you use.;)

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

Weakens it in whos eyes?

So being able to compel people to learn Irish strengthens the langauge?

deise go deo wrote: »

I have yet to see such disdain for the Irish language from the people in general. In my experience they are quite open minded about Irish.

I never mentioned disdain, just indifference. I am sure that English speakers are quite open-minded about other people speaking Irish. Their tolerance of your bullying them to utter 'cúpla focal' and wear one of your stiickers demonstrates just that. There is simply no evidence that the majority wish, in any purposeful way, to speak Irish as a common daily language.

The fact that you want to compel people to learn Irish is ample evidence that they will not learn Irish willingly.

deise go deo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So being able to compel people to learn Irish strengthens the langauge?

I never mentioned disdain, just indifference. I am sure that English speakers are quite open-minded about other people speaking Irish. Their tolerance of your bullying them to utter 'cúpla focal' and wear one of your stiickers demonstrates just that. There is simply no evidence that the majority wish, in any purposeful way, to speak Irish as a common daily language.

The fact that you want to compel people to learn Irish is ample evidence that they will not learn Irish willingly.

How dare you Cyclopath, You claim that I bully people with out the slightest bit of evidience. I have had enough of you.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

How dare you Cyclopath, You claim that I bully people with out the slightest bit of evidience. I have had enough of you.

LOL
Why did you start a debate if you are simply going to cower out of it when you are proven wrong?

Now you are just making yourself look silly, you could just concede.;)

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

LOL
Why did you start a debate if you are simply going to cower out of it when you are proven wrong?

Now you are just making yourself look silly, you could just concede.;)

I have been arguing with that poster since the start of this thread and long before it. I have never resorted to insults, he has. I am not puting up with it any more.


Claiming that someone is contradicting themselves, claiming they are evading questions or are cowering and claiming to have proven them wrong dosent make those claims true, and repeating them dosent make them any more true.

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

Again this could be applied to any subject, Why are you applying it to Irish only?

Because there are 3 subjects which are compulsory.
One of the vernacular, English. This makes sense.
One is Maths. Goes without saying.
One is Irish. Makes absolutely no sense. If religion were compulsory I would gladly argue against that too.

In the very same way it dose with English and Maths. I a student want to go to school at all and their parents/the state makes them is that not also a violation of free will?

English and Maths are necessary for survival.
Irish is not.

My logic is that students tend to react negativly against something JUST because it is Compulsory. If they did they would do so in all cases. If that is the case then there must be some other factor causing the negative reaction? True?

Your logic is warped as usual.
It's been put to you that a student does not want to learn the language, yet you duck and dive the question.

Your reasoning is as follows.
Children do not like being raped by priests.
It is not the fact that the child is being raped by the priest, it is the manner in which the priest is raping the child which matters.

I am not insisting on it being compulsory so its curriculum will be affected. I am suggesting that it should remain Compulsory and its Curriculum should be reformed.

But you cannot give any reason why it should be compulsory.
Why should it be?

Evidience suggests that making a lower status language optional will not promote people learning that language, this is not due to its curriculum, its due to its status.

How do you propose to change the status? LOL, I can't wait to hear this.:pac:

Now, when you claim people are contradicting themselve it helps if you take the time to understand what they are saying, Otherwise you end up looking silly, no matter how many big words you use.;)

But luckily, when you prove they have contradicted themselves numerous times throughout a debate, it adds strength to your debate and the person contradicting themselves ends up looking ridiculous.;)

As when you offer facts and figures, which are met only by biased opinion.;)

Dannyboy83

deise go deo wrote: »

I have been arguing with that poster since the start of this thread and long before it. I have never resorted to insults, he has. I am not puting up with it any more.

He didn't insult you, he argued successfully that the fact that you want to compel people to learn Irish is ample evidence that they will not learn Irish willingly.

Please don't think anyone will be fooled by the sanctimonious charade.

Claiming that someone is contradicting themselves, claiming they are evading questions or are cowering and claiming to have proven them wrong dosent make those claims true, and repeating them dosent make them any more true.

When a question is put to you, and you refuse to answer it, but trot out the same old mantra, or side step and answer with a question, it just serves to make you look ridiculous. Just as it does with politicians.
I'm not sure what you were expecting.

Being wrong is nothing to be ashamed about - that's why pencils have erasers.
Obdurately sticking to a position when you have been proven wrong simply because of your personal desire is something else tho, not good for credibility and doesn't strengthen your argument.

My mind is completely made up after this thread to be honest.
It shows that you are prepared to steamroll the Irish people's free will and force the language onto them, clinging to the idea that this is morally acceptable because you will reform the curriculum and satisfying your own selfish desires.

All I can say is, Brian Hayes and anyone prepared to reform this travesty has got my support.

FIN.

deise go deo

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

FIN.

Indeed, I could point out why your logic is flawed, Such as here:

Your reasoning is as follows.
Children do not like being raped by priests.
It is not the fact that the child is being raped by the priest, it is the manner in which the priest is raping the child which matters.

But I get the feeling that it would be pointless.


You have clearly already made up your mind, No argument I make can change that it seems so lets just call it a day.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

How dare you Cyclopath, You claim that I bully people with out the slightest bit of evidience. I have had enough of you.

If you think it reasonable to compel people to learn Irish against their will, then harassing others in a public place to speak Irish and wear your stickers would seem normal to you.

DJP

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If you think it reasonable to compel people to learn Irish against their will, then harassing others in a public place to speak Irish and wear your stickers would seem normal to you.

How was he harassing?

I challenge anyone to ring Joe Duffy and say, using their real names, that they do not think Irish should be taught in school. Anyone who has that argument is a crank.

cyclopath2001

Darren J. Prior wrote: »

How was he harassing?

No one wants to be seen to offend the deeply-held beliefs of Irish enthusiasts. For the same reason as they won't phone Joe Duffy saying it should not be taught in schools. It would be like attacking Bambi.

Darren J. Prior wrote: »

I challenge anyone to ring Joe Duffy and say, using their real names, that they do not think Irish should be taught in school. Anyone who has that argument is a crank.

Not so fast! That's an interesting shift of topic you've attempted. I've learned to never underestimate the deviousness of the Irish Language Lobby, especially when they're on the ropes trying to justify what cannot be justified.

The issue is not if Irish should be taught in schools but if it should be compulsory for people to learn it.

RandomName2

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Because there are 3 subjects which are compulsory.
One of the vernacular, English. This makes sense.
One is Maths. Goes without saying.
One is Irish. Makes absolutely no sense. If religion were compulsory I would gladly argue against that too.

Oh if I could have got an exemption from LC Irish I would.

It was dead weight in terms of points and study.

If I hadn't done it though I would have been permanently excluded from 3rd level education and public service work (how often do firemen/ etc. have to use Irish? )

Why the Irish state wants to foster a language barrier is beyond me.

LordSutch

deise go deo wrote: »

I have activly promoted Irish in the University that I attend. I, along with other members of the society, have spoken Irish to strangers in efforts to make it more visiable, Offering Stickers like this to people so they can show their Grá don Theanga, Out of the hundreds of people we have come in contact with
I have only come accross people who have clearly Rejected Irish in the way you suggest Twice.

Everyone else was happy to wear the sticker, Why? Because they are open to Irish

Many people have claimed to be 'open to Irish' since the foundation of the State, problem is (gaelscoileanna aside) people are not learning Irish in relevant numbers, in reality speaking Irish is just not part of everyday life in Ireland. Lip service is one thing, but actually embracing & learning the language is another thing.

DJP

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The issue is not if Irish should be taught in schools but if it should be compulsory for people to learn it.

I for one think it should be optional for the Leaving Cert, but I think that anyone who thinks that it shouldn't be required up until Junior Cert is a crank or a moron.

deise go deo

LordSutch wrote: »

Many people have claimed to be 'open to Irish' since the foundation of the State, problem is (gaelscoileanna aside) people are not learning Irish in relevant numbers, in reality speaking Irish is just not part of everyday life in Ireland. Lip service is one thing, but actually embracing & learning the language is another thing.

That is true, But it has been claimed that the reason Irish is not learned is because it is compulsory, I dont see the logic in that,

Irish has a poor curriculum, A curriculum that fails to teach a decent standard of Irish to anyone.

Now, If the curriculum was reformed I believe that this would change.

Chuchoter

It was reformed this year. The oral and aural hold a massive portion of the exam.

cyclopath2001

Darren J. Prior wrote: »

I for one think it should be optional for the Leaving Cert, but I think that anyone who thinks that it shouldn't be required up until Junior Cert is a crank or a moron.

You need to come up with more than insults to justify your position. It is not surprising that people pretend to support Irish so as to avoid unpleasantness from Irish enthusiasts like you.

cyclopath2001

deise go deo wrote: »

That is true, But it has been claimed that the reason Irish is not learned is because it is compulsory, I dont see the logic in that

you are simply creating a straw man argument here.

The reason people do not learn Irish is because they do not want to. But, you are unwilling to accept this decision and resort to coercive measures to impose your will on others.

DJP

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You need to come up with more than insults to justify your position. It is not surprising that people pretend to support Irish so as to avoid unpleasantness from Irish enthusiasts like you.

Yea and when asked in studies do they like Irish or not they are afraid to offend the questionnaire who is neutral are they?

cyclopath2001

Darren J. Prior wrote: »

Yea and when asked in studies do they like Irish or not they are afraid to offend the questionnaire who is neutral are they?

Provide links to these studies, please?