State spending €3million on communion rituals

gbee

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The more detail (i.e. more than one liners)
the better.

TBH, if you haven't got it by now, you're probably using google translation.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ignoring your gross, gross, misunderstanding of the poems message
that we'll go through in a minute, I'm more concerned about how Yeats
focusing on people praying somehow makes the poem supporting the
opposite position to mine (you know, the thing you actually said?).

In fact, just as a teaser - "the poem is also a comment on the refusal of
commercial interests to support Yeats’ appeal for money to build an Art
Gallery to house the Lane collection", please explain how Yeats could
be motivated enough to write a poem lambasting the business
community for not giving him free money for art galleries that they
may or may not get back at a future date while simultaneously
chiding other's for giving free money to the mercenary poor people?
Correct me if I'm wrong but is Yeats not one of these mercenaries for
demanding money from what was the equivalent of the public purse
back in his day? Surely you aren't contradicting yourself that ridiculously
already?

I have to be cautious here, you're either saying Yeats poem as a
whole supports the position opposite to mine (in which case I'd love
for you to explain the above hilarity) or Yeats poem supports the
opposite position of mine due to this religious comment you made
(which doesn't explain your latest comment, admittedly, but I just
can't make sense of it). The more detail (i.e. more than one liners)
the better.

How about this then:

The poem you have quoted as, in your opinion, supporting your position not only doesn't have anything to do with us money grubbing atheists and our desire to have public money going to, for example, paying nurses, it doesn't have anything to say about the issue of public funds being used at all. It is a criticism of what Yeats saw as the hypocrisy of Irish businessmen at the time who hid their greed behind a veneer of piousness, and it is a lament for the passing of what Yeats saw as a more noble type of Irishman; one in the fashion of Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone et al.

The trouble with using poetry to try to support arguements is that so much symbolism and flowery prose is used that one can, as demonstrated in this thread, find lines that will support any side of the arguement. The only way around this is if the poem were to read something like:

I think it's a shame,
And that the government's to blame
For spending all our dosh
So that people could buy dresses, posh,
For archaic religious rights.
It keeps me up at nights.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I think it's a shame,
And that the government's to blame
For spending all our dosh
So that people could buy dresses, posh,
For archaic religious rights.
It keeps me up at nights.

All is changed. Changed utterly.
A Terrible poem is born.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All is changed. Changed utterly.
A Terrible poem is born.

*sniff* doesn't like my poem... I'm gonna go cry... *sniff*

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

The poem you have quoted as, in your opinion, supporting your position not only doesn't have anything to do with us money grubbing atheists and our desire to have public money going to, for example, paying nurses, it doesn't have anything to say about the issue of public funds being used at all.

This coming from the person who just last night, when it was convenient,
made this argument about the poem:

kylith wrote: »

The mercenary materialism of the type of people who would demand that the public purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for their child, perhaps?

In other words, when challenged the poem goes from talking about
the mercenary materialism of poor people and their materialistic quest
for public funds to, in fact, all along actually saying nothing about
the issue of public funds.

kylith wrote: »

It is a criticism of what Yeats saw as the hypocrisy of Irish businessmen at the time who hid their greed behind a veneer of piousness, and it is a lament for the passing of what Yeats saw as a more noble type of Irishman; one in the fashion of Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone et al.

I see the greedy people have now become the businessmen & not the
mercenaries known as poor mothers of 8 year old girls (as you'd have
had us believe last night if left unchallenged). What will the next
interpretation be?

kylith wrote: »

The trouble with using poetry to try to support arguements is that so much symbolism and flowery prose is used that one can, as demonstrated in this thread, find lines that will support any side of the arguement.

You've clearly demonstrated your own ability to pervert a few lines of
poetry into any shape convenient to you.

Notice this response doesn't even bother to address the comment you
made about religion somehow, someway, meaning the poem supported
a position opposite to mine (or is that even what you meant? I think it
would have to be as I doubt you can explain claiming that the poem
could be interpreted, even with as loose an interpretation as you'd like,
as somehow railing against "people who would demand that the public
purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for
their child" considering one of the main objectives of the poem was to rally against the
business establishment for not giving him free money to indulge in his IMF-friendly
romanticism let alone that this is the reason why the poem supports a
position opposite to mine although that makes sense if you just confused yourself
in this quest to disarm me).

magicbastarder

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook page set up for anyone who thinks the government should stopfunding this fiasco.

the government must be quaking in their boots. a facebook page, no less!

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

*sniff* doesn't like my poem... I'm gonna go cry... *sniff*

There there no need to cry *pats back in a condescending manner* It was a lovely poem. It made me titter.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This coming from the person who just last night, when it was convenient,
made this argument about the poem:



In other words, when challenged the poem goes from talking about
the mercenary materialism of poor people and their materialistic quest
for public funds to, in fact, all along actually saying nothing about
the issue of public funds.



I see the greedy people have now become the businessmen & not the
mercenaries known as poor mothers of 8 year old girls (as you'd have
had us believe last night if left unchallenged). What will the next
interpretation be?



You've clearly demonstrated your own ability to pervert a few lines of
poetry into any shape convenient to you.

Notice this response doesn't even bother to address the comment you
made about religion somehow, someway, meaning the poem supported
a position opposite to mine (or is that even what you meant? I think it
would have to be as I doubt you can explain claiming that the poem
could be interpreted, even with as loose an interpretation as you'd like,
as somehow railing against "people who would demand that the public
purse pays an extortionate amount of money for a dress and party for
their child" considering one of the main objectives of the poem was to rally against the
business establishment for not giving him free money to indulge in his IMF-friendly
romanticism let alone that this is the reason why the poem supports a
position opposite to mine although that makes sense if you just confused yourself
in this quest to disarm me).

That is EXACTLY my point; the poem can be twisted to fit a multitude of agendas; whether it's my materialistic people demanding money from the public for a private event, or the idea that it's a lament about the declining standards of Irish people, or your ideas that it is about Yeats wanting money, or your original insinuation that those of us calling for this payment to be scrapped are 'fumbling in the greasy till'. It's ambiguous and better looked at as a collection of fancy words written by some bloke a hundred years ago who was prone to waffling on about things, rather than something to support any arguement that you care to name.

Either say what you mean in your own words or keep schtum. Posting lines of poetry that have nothing to do with the conversation is Dead One's party piece.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

the government must be quaking in their boots. a facebook page, no less!

Sure, its when you send in postcards that they take notice.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook page set up for anyone who thinks the government should stopfunding this fiasco.

Needs a better blurb IMO, to emphasise that it's a waste of our tax money. also the picture chosen is nice and humble, should be something tacky to hammer the point home.
Gave it a like anyway. Good luck.

number10a

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I personally would love someone in the situation where the only available school is run by the Catholic Church to take a test case as to the constitutionality of this as it could be considered to be the State endowing one particular religious ethos with special privileges (guaranteed pupils= funding)- something that is specifically not allowed under the Constitution.

The State gets around this not paying teachers from 12.00 to 12.30. The teachers then volunteer (read: are required by the religious authorities of the school on pain of redundancy) to teach religion for that unpaid half an hour. As a result, the State is not funding any religion. Well, on paper anyway.

Of course, we all know this is not true with prayers at the start and end of the day, during the teachers' paid time, and with much more than those 30 minutes per day being dedicated to "faith formation" in the run up to communion, confirmation, confession or the impending visit of a religious inspector. In addition to this, I am sure that State funds have been used to buy statues, crucifixes, candles and flowers for altars etc. As a trainee teacher myself, I know very well that plenty of photocopying funded by State coffers ends up being done for religion classes, as well as State-funded art materials being used, electricity for a CD player to play a song, or a DVD player to be used to show the kids an Alive-O video. I know I'm nitpicking, but if this were France or Turkey there would be people protesting at the thought of any threat against their rightfully closely guarded state secularism.

So, someone could possibly challenge the constitutionality of it, because it does happen, but I reckon it would be a long, hard and expensive battle possibly ending up in Luxembourg.

sponsoredwalk

kylith wrote: »

That is EXACTLY my point; the poem can be twisted to fit a multitude of agendas; whether it's my materialistic people demanding money from the public for a private event, or the idea that it's a lament about the declining standards of Irish people, or your ideas that it is about Yeats wanting money, or your original insinuation that those of us calling for this payment to be scrapped are 'fumbling in the greasy till'. It's ambiguous and better looked at as a collection of fancy words written by some bloke a hundred years ago who was prone to waffling on about things, rather than something to support any arguement that you care to name.

Either say what you mean in your own words or keep schtum. Posting lines of poetry that have nothing to do with the conversation is Dead One's party piece.

Wait, so you offer up contradictory interpretations of the same paragraph
when it conveniently suits you to in an argument, and then use this
charlatanism as PROOF that every poem ever in the world can be twisted
to suit your agenda ignoring rhyme or reason? When this logic is employed
by creationists everybody sees it immediately, yet when taken in a
different context nobody notices (no wonder the Yeats poem is just
incomprehensible).

Also I've said what I mean multiple times, quoted & requoted arguments
only to have 99% of it ignored in the way your latest post exemplifies
amazingly despite me trying to chase you down to get an honest
response, so telling me to say what I mean in my own words is rich coming
from someone who still, still, refuses to justify any of the claims you've
made on this one tiny issue of the stanza.

If you disagree with my use of Yeats that's fine, but that doesn't mean
your disagreement is justifiable & quite frankly contradicting yourself as
you have tells me there's none of that famous rationality involved in such
a disagreement.

Also, this argument about a collection of fancy words? Seriously?
I think I need that Bill Hicks video again... And telling people how
it's best for them to read poetry? I'm thinking nobody sees the insanity
in a comment like that because this argument is accepted when it tickles
our biases (as of course this argument is used all the time with reference
to the bible), though maybe people just agree that others should be told
how to read poetry considering we have other posters in here who
think it's alright to tell poor people how to live and nobody has a problem
with that...

Bannasidhe

number10a wrote: »

So, someone could possibly challenge the constitutionality of it, because it does happen, but I reckon it would be a long, hard and expensive battle possibly ending up in Luxembourg.

Well, that's sorted what I'm doing when I win the euro millions so.

kowloon

Dades wrote: »

As a classic car enthusiast I wholly endorse this suggestion of yours!

+1 The chrome on my bike has gone rusty and the whitewalls are looking a bit dull.

Galvasean

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, that's sorted what I'm doing when I win the euro millions so.

"Militant Secularist Wins Lotto.
Thanks Self."

magicbastarder

Galvasean wrote: »

Needs a better blurb IMO, to emphasise that it's a waste of our tax money. also the picture chosen is nice and humble, should be something tacky to hammer the point home.
Gave it a like anyway. Good luck.

it needs information on how best to complain about it.

kylith

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wait, so you offer up contradictory interpretations of the same paragraph
when it conveniently suits you to in an argument, and then use this
charlatanism as PROOF that every poem ever in the world can be twisted
to suit your agenda ignoring rhyme or reason? When this logic is employed
by creationists everybody sees it immediately, yet when taken in a
different context nobody notices (no wonder the Yeats poem is just
incomprehensible).

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

Also I've said what I mean multiple times, quoted & requoted arguments
only to have 99% of it ignored in the way your latest post exemplifies
amazingly despite me trying to chase you down to get an honest
response,

You want my honest answer in the matter of the interpretation of a poem? I've given it and you won't accept it. Ask any English teacher; poetry is open to personal interpretation.

Why don't you explain exactly how this centuary old piece of writing supports your position on giving handouts to people who want to buy over priced outfits for their children?

so telling me to say what I mean in my own words is rich coming
from someone who still, still, refuses to justify any of the claims you've
made on this one tiny issue of the stanza.

You mean that my repeated statements that this poem a) is completely off topic and b) is open to being interperated in any number of ways doesn't count?

If you disagree with my use of Yeats that's fine, but that doesn't mean
your disagreement is justifiable & quite frankly contradicting yourself as
you have tells me there's none of that famous rationality involved in such
a disagreement.

You've posted something non-sensicle and now you're trying to turn it round on me. Good for you.

Also, this argument about a collection of fancy words? Seriously?
I think I need that Bill Hicks video again... And telling people how
it's best for them to read poetry? I'm thinking nobody sees the insanity
in a comment like that because this argument is accepted when it tickles
our biases (as of course this argument is used all the time with reference
to the bible), though maybe people just agree that others should be told
how to read poetry considering we have other posters in here who
think it's alright to tell poor people how to live and nobody has a problem
with that...

When exactly did I tell you how to read poetry? Now you seem to just be making things up.

Now, the format of your posts is making my eyes bleed, so I'm done here.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Now, the format of your posts is making my eyes bleed, so I'm done here.

I can't read them.

Galvasean

Facts > poems

magicbastarder

not necessarily. the fact that bavaria has a total area of 70,549 sq.km is much less interesting than the love song of j. alfred prufrock.

kylith

And if beauty is truth, and truth beauty, does that mean that a really beautiful poem is true, and therefore fact?

Galvasean

kylith wrote: »

And if beauty is truth, and truth beauty, does that mean that a really beautiful poem is true, and therefore fact?

Beauty is deceptive and therefore can't be trusted..
Like dolphins. Cute but assholes.

magicbastarder

Galvasean wrote: »

Facts > poems

one fact that will beat any poem; aged 12, andre the giant was driven to school by a neighbour, because he was too big to fit on the school bus.
that neighbour was samuel beckett.

MagicMarker

magicbastarder wrote: »

one fact that will beat any poem; aged 12, andre the giant was driven to school by a neighbour, because he was too big to fit on the school bus.
that neighbour was samuel beckett.

Deadly, I love that guy from Quantum Leap...What episode was that? Did he just have to give him a lift to leap again?

kylith

Galvasean wrote: »

Beauty is deceptive and therefore can't be trusted..
Like dolphins. Cute but assholes.

Never trust a species that smiles all the time; it's up to something - Douglas Adams

Galvasean

kylith wrote: »

Never trust a species that smiles all the time; it's up to something - Douglas Adams

Cats, dolphins, politicians... even the slow loris is venomous!

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can't read them.

Not too bad on the laptop, still fairly irritating. Horrific reading it on the phone. I am seriously considering putting him / her on ignore as they are simply too difficult to read.

MrP

kylith

Galvasean wrote: »

Cats, dolphins, politicians... even the slow loris is venomous!

OMG, is it wearing nail polish?!?!?!?? Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Newaglish

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can't read them.

However, it is ironically quite a suitable style for posting poetry.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

one fact that will beat any poem; aged 12, andre the giant was driven to school by a neighbour, because he was too big to fit on the school bus.
that neighbour was samuel beckett.

Nah, it wasn't that he was too big to fit on the bus... he just couldn't stand waiting...





...I'll get me coat...