When does the speakers motive/position , trump whatever question they ask ?

Drumpot

Just curious . . I see many people fail to answer fair questions posed by certain people (whether it be Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley etc), simply because they oppose what these people stand for . .

It seems that people who are unable/unwilling to engage in debate with views other to their own prefer to simply throw mud at the credibility of the speaker or brand them something (socialist etc) that they feel wins a debate by default.

Have people lost the ability to debate or are people so ignorant that they cant see that opposing sides can in fact have good points even if you dont agree with their main argument ?

Examples:

Public Sector Bashing - Supposedly trumps all questions/information/facts that suggests this sector get more then it should.

Fianna Fail Sympathiser: Supposedly trumps all Questions/Information/Facts that suggests that the opposition arent the answer to all our problems.

Loopie Leftie: Supposedly Trumps all questions/information/facts that suggests that the current economic system is a failed hybrid feudal system (or something on those lines).

It seems for some time , that in most debates/arguments, the main base of a defence seems to be how much mud you can throw or how you can pidgeon hole your opponent into something that takes credibility away from their argument (whether or not they make good points).

Considering the attention span of most people these days, wagging the dog has become the most important part of controlling countries.

Why hasnt anybody been taken to court over the financial irregularities ?

Why hasnt ANY councellors been legally persued for obvious rezoning of land that was innapropriate ? (we all know what went on!)

Why hasnt the position and actions of our former Regulator been disclosed if they did nothing wrong ? (eg "Don the green jersey")

Why hasnt there been a referendum on the "bailout"?

Why is'nt there accountability within the Public service ?


Why is'nt there are clear out of the failed/unqualified department of Finance ?

I am sure that there are many other questions, I just forgot. While many of us know the answers to these questions, they are ones that continuous governments have failed to answer (and will more then likely fail to answer).

"At All Cost" is the best answer I can give .. Radical change is usually avoided "at all cost" because this threatens the stability of a country and most importantly the leadership of a government.

Upsetting the Public service too much, a referendum that could upset our European "friends", pursuing legal action that may implicate high ranking public servants (politicians) should all be avoided AT ALL COST because the cost of an actual cleanout of everything could bring serious pain to those who benefit so much from what little this country has left.

Now is the time for complete change, not in a few years when evyerthing has been forgotten. But unfortunatley we replaced one lame ass government with another. I see some people making posts about Kenny speaking about his "leadership". Publically he has improved immensley, but judging a Taoiseach on his public speaking (Bertie) hasnt served us well in the past! Lets stop allowing debates to be about unimportant factors ("he came across well on tv") and start being about the substance ("what has he actually achieved?").

Liam Byrne

Drumpot wrote: »

Just curious . . I see many people fail to answer fair questions posed by certain people (whether it be Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley etc), simply because they oppose what these people stand for . .

It's a good question.

Having said that, it's understandable not to want to take advice from someone that you can't respect or has undermined your trust - is it their agenda to just make you look bad so that they can get back into power ? Would you take relationship advice from someone who had just dumped you, or financial advice from someone who had robbed you ?

Taking it a level further, would you even talk to your local drug-dealer/racist/murderer ?

Then you have the double-standards, where the question / objection might be valid but FF/SF wouldn't even ask it if it were "their side" doing it; this is a regular one for sports fans too, where screams of "penalty/send him off" are - to some people - dependent on which "side" does it.

And then you have to factor in the fact that if someone had thrown a gallon of blackberries around your white carpet, and then stomped them into the ground for good measure, I think you'd not only ignore their "you're not cleaning that up right" comments but you'd practically thump them - regardless of the validity of their cleaning "advice".

Wolfe Tone

Nearly any topic involving SF and you will get "well what about Jerry McCabe"


Its an age old tactic, stir up moral outrage to deflect what someone has said.

Drumpot

Yeh, its understandable how people can have their differances and motives for not wanting to accept alternative views. .

I just get annoyed when people think that their views are superior by default by downgrading the importance of the topic/question and making their opponents credibility more vital issue to discuss.

The perfect and widely understood example was Bush not getting impeached for starting a war without just cause, while Clinton nearly got impeached for a girl playing with his cigar . . :eek:

Liam Byrne

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Nearly any topic involving SF and you will get "well what about Jerry McCabe"


Its an age old tactic, stir up moral outrage to deflect what someone has said.

And rightly so.

A party who for ages refuses to condemn the murder of a protector of the citizens of the state and whose members collect said murderers from prison is not in a position to dictate what constitutes "law & order"

There's a difference between stirred-up "moral outrage" a la Joe Duffy and actual moral outrage and disgust. Don't ever confuse the two.

SF correctly telling FF to kick out Ahern because of his corruption while allowing the above is laughable.