Anyone else sick of ad hominin attacks in Irish politics?

steddyeddy

Every time a question is put to Fine gael or Labour by Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail or an idependent TD the response is "Blah blah blah you would know a lot about bombs, banks, taxes, ect. Enda seems particualrly prone to this tactic and I haven't heard him answer a question properly for some time now.

When someone asks a valid question I wan't the points of the questions debated and not the personal history of the person asking the question.

Galwayguy35

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every time a question is put to Fine gael or Labour by Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail or an idependent TD the response is "Blah blah blah you would know a lot about bombs, banks, taxes, ect. Enda seems particualrly prone to this tactic and I haven't heard him answer a question properly for some time now.

When someone asks a valid question I wan't the points of the questions debated and not the personal history of the person asking the question.

Enda uses this tactic because without his advisors prompting him he ofton finds himself unable to answer the hard questions.

It was no accident that he kept a somewhat low profile during the election.

steddyeddy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Enda uses this tactic because without his advisors prompting him he ofton finds himself unable to answer the hard questions.

It was no accident that he kept a somewhat low profile during the election camgaign.

Good point. Now that you mention it he responded to the invitation to the Vincent Browne show by declaring "not wanting anything to do with him".

ILikeFriday

If it results in a complete failure to answer the question, it's a bit pathetic. But I don't really mind a few "reminders" of who caused a problem and whether they're in any position to talk about it thrown in in the course of answering a question. Short memories is our biggest problem here and it's a legitimate political tactic to force people to remember imo.

Nodin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every time a question is put to Fine gael or Labour by Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail or an idependent TD the response is "Blah blah blah you would know a lot about bombs, banks, taxes, ect. Enda seems particualrly prone to this tactic and I haven't heard him answer a question properly for some time now.

When someone asks a valid question I wan't the points of the questions debated and not the personal history of the person asking the question.

...theres nothing that can be done about it. I do however, object to such rants being dropped from repeat showings of the days proceedings later in the evening, as it paints those who indulge in them in far too good a light.

steddyeddy

ILikeFriday wrote: »

If it results in a complete failure to answer the question, it's a bit pathetic. But I don't really mind a few "reminders" of who caused a problem and whether they're in any position to talk about it thrown in in the course of answering a question. Short memories is our biggest problem here and it's a legitimate political tactic to force people to remember imo.

Anyone who's elected has every right to ask a question in the Dail. It's not for Enda to decide.

Nodin

ILikeFriday wrote: »

If it results in a complete failure to answer the question, it's a bit pathetic. But I don't really mind a few "reminders" of who caused a problem and whether they're in any position to talk about it thrown in in the course of answering a question. Short memories is our biggest problem here and it's a legitimate political tactic to force people to remember imo.

Not every time though. It gets pathetic quick.

ILikeFriday

steddyeddy wrote: »

Anyone who's elected has every right to ask a question in the Dail. It's not for Enda to decide.

He's not controlling whether or not they ask the quesiton, he's just using his right to expression to question their credibility.

steddyeddy

ILikeFriday wrote: »

He's not controlling whether or not they ask the quesiton, he's just using his right to expression to question their credibility.

Which have nothing to do with the points raised often. It sounds quite childish.

ILikeFriday

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which have nothing to do with the points raised often. It sounds quite childish.

It depends. If someone is asking him about the banking enquiry (made up example), and he says something to the effect that they never cared about standards in banking when they were in power. That's a legitimate point even though it's not really directly relevant to the banking enquiry. If the opposition are trying to present themselves as people who care about regulation of banking to score political points, it is fair for him to question whether that is true based on their history.

Whether he does it too often or what takes it too far to the point of what some might see as childish is his political judgement to make. The opinion polls and ultimately election polls will help him decide.

Godge

An internet forum trying to control free speech?

If Enda Kenny stands up in the Dail every day and reminds us of the murderers in Sinn Fein and the economy-wreckers in FF, then he is doing the country a favour. If the people get tired of it, they will vote him out in the next election.

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

If Enda Kenny stands up in the Dail every day and reminds us of the murderers in Sinn Fein and the economy-wreckers in FF, then he is doing the country a favour. If the people get tired of it, they will vote him out in the next election.

If the people didn't want those parties in the house, they wouldn't have voted them back in. Clearly, the voters have elected these representatives for a valid parliamentary purpose.

I don't mind anyone raising the troubles or the financial crisis as part of a legit, substantive reply to a criticism, but when it's totally off the wall and irrelevant, it just undermines your own public perception.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ILikeFriday

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't agree that much of what the Taoiseach says is ad hominem in the true sense - attacking the characteristics of the person without addressing the substance of the argument. He normally addresses the substance, but throws in a few criticisms of how the opposition handled the same situation in the past. That's criticising their handling of a situation as opposed to saying "you're stupid" or something personally insulting. It's normally very justified and relevant if he's explaining the challenges of fixing a problem, to go through how the problem came about.


In relation to your first paragraph, it is up to the opposition to make those points if they want to. In relation to your second point, the opposition is quite free to take shots at the governments backgrounds if they want to. It isn't out of fairness that they don't. It is because half of them would be open to the same criticism and they would also be insulting the electorate who voted for them.

endacl

Where on the triangle, I wonder, would we find the majority of debate in Ireland...?

_Kaiser_

Kenny simply hasn't got the wit or ability for the job he holds.. it's that simple really! He's a primary school teacher who has been in politics since 1975 - instituionalised doesn't even begin to describe it!

This is why he shies away from any sort of debate or situation where he might have to respond without the aid of a speech writer. Look at how he handled himself when challenged by an off-duty Garda in Ashbourne during the recent by-election, or his response to Vincent Browne. Throwing petty insults in response to legitimate questions only further serves to undermine him and his competence.

Our "leader" is far more concerned with earning gold stars for being the "European of the year" than representing the people or country who put him there. Just watch some of the footage of him at the G8 summit, or his declaring himself to be "truly, madly, deeply European" yesterday in Strasbourg! :rolleyes:

Embarrassment to the country is what he is and a contender for worst Taoiseach we've ever had is more like it!

goose2005

ILikeFriday wrote: »

I don't agree that much of what the Taoiseach says is ad hominem in the true sense - attacking the characteristics of the person without addressing the substance of the argument. He normally addresses the substance, but throws in a few criticisms of how the opposition handled the same situation in the past. That's criticising their handling of a situation as opposed to saying "you're stupid" or something personally insulting. It's normally very justified and relevant if he's explaining the challenges of fixing a problem, to go through how the problem came about.

Yes, and it would be good if the govt. did the same to SF - i.e., if they criticise household charges, ask them do they have any plans for eliminating council taxes in Northern Ireland? Rather than going, ah sure ye're all a load of Provo terrorists, what would Jean McConville and Jerry McCabe think of the household charge, ha?

Lenin Skynard

Joan Burton pulled this rubbish the other day too. I was never a supporter of this government and have very little time for Kenny or Gilmore but I honestly thought more of Joan Burton. She was asked a question by Mary Lou MacDonald on what the government's plans are regarding investigating the Anglo thing and she didn't answer at all, just said something along the lines of "Sure you and your colleagues would know all about banks hah?" while nodding her head in a silly way, not answering the question at all. I thought it was a shambolic response and incredibly frustrating, even more frustrating for a constituent of MacDonald who voted her into office and wants these very serious questions answered.

steddyeddy

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

Joan Burton pulled this rubbish the other day too. I was never a supporter of this government and have very little time for Kenny or Gilmore but I honestly thought more of Joan Burton. She was asked a question by Mary Lou MacDonald on what the government's plans are regarding investigating the Anglo thing and she didn't answer at all, just said something along the lines of "Sure you and your colleagues would know all about banks hah?" while nodding her head in a silly way, not answering the question at all. I thought it was a shambolic response and incredibly frustrating, even more frustrating for a constituent of MacDonald who voted her into office and wants these very serious questions answered.

That's exactly the comment that prompted me to start the thread. The country's in recession, people are p1ssed off with the banks and we want answers. Ad hominem attacks to sidestep the answer are not good enough. If the point is important I don't give a monkeys about the background of the person asking the question. This is about now and the future.

Stabshauptmann

steddyeddy wrote: »

Every time a question is put to Fine gael or Labour by Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail or an idependent TD the response is "Blah blah blah you would know a lot about bombs, banks, taxes, ect. Enda seems particualrly prone to this tactic and I haven't heard him answer a question properly for some time now.

When someone asks a valid question I wan't the points of the questions debated and not the personal history of the person asking the question.

You rang?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056836208

Its been going on for far too long, and the electorate I'd wager, is getting tired. Blaming FF does not appear to hold the same weight it once did. Time to wise up and engage in proper debate me thinks

Stabshauptmann

ILikeFriday wrote: »

He's not controlling whether or not they ask the quesiton, he's just using his right to expression to question their credibility.

Why not do both.
"I think its rich Mr FF that you would pose a question on banking regulation to me, but to answer your question the legislation will impose an x% levy designed to encourage spending on xyz"

But instead what we get "I'm not going to answer that Q from you, you ruined the country".

It is disgusting. A TD asks you a question, you answer it.

maccored

goose2005 wrote: »

Yes, and it would be good if the govt. did the same to SF - i.e., if they criticise household charges, ask them do they have any plans for eliminating council taxes in Northern Ireland? Rather than going, ah sure ye're all a load of Provo terrorists, what would Jean McConville and Jerry McCabe think of the household charge, ha?

isnt Sammy Wilson the finance minister in the north? Bit pointless asking SF surely?

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dfp-250213-assembly-approves-2013-14

Red Kev

Godge wrote: »

An internet forum trying to control free speech?

If Enda Kenny stands up in the Dail every day and reminds us of the murderers in Sinn Fein and the economy-wreckers in FF, then he is doing the country a favour. If the people get tired of it, they will vote him out in the next election.

Kenny is paid to do a job, part of that is to answer questions, this he fails repeatedly to do. He can have a dig at SF, FF or whoever else, but he should also answer the question. He is, to be frank one of the most incapable leaders a western european nation has thrown up since WWII.

Worse again is Sean Barrett, the Cean Comhairle who accepts the fact that kenny never answers the question with a smirk and has in the past two and a half years rarely stepped in to get Kenny to answer a question properly.

ILikeFriday

There seems to be some perception here that TDs have some sort of "right" to respectful answers in the Dail. They don't. Freedom of expression is even more robust in there than outside it. TDs, opposition or goverment, are free to ask and answer questions any way they want to. They will decide this politically. They will look silly if they don't answer certain questions properly. They know the public will enjoy watching others not being taken seriously.

It is up to the electorate to vote for people who have enough credibility and command enough respect to be effective in their job. You wouldn't hire an employee or a professional to represent you if you felt that due to their history they didn't have any credibility. You can't vote for someone like that and go crying that they're not getting enough respect. There is no right to respect per se. The right is to freedom of expression. To the argument that it is disrespectful of the government towards the people who voted for the opposition, well obviously the government like any political party play to the people who tend to vote for them not those who vote for the opposition.

_Kaiser_

ILikeFriday wrote: »

There seems to be some perception here that TDs have some sort of "right" to respectful answers in the Dail. They don't. Freedom of expression is even more robust in there than outside it. TDs, opposition or goverment, are free to ask and answer questions any way they want to. They will decide this politically. They will look silly if they don't answer certain questions properly. They know the public will enjoy watching others not being taken seriously.

I'd have to disagree. As a citizen and voter I expect my elected representatives to take the responsibility that comes with their position seriously and act accordingly at ALL times - not take verbal pot-shots at each other and behave like kids in a playground as is so often the case when you watch a "debate"

But you're right, the responsibility for this does ultimately also lie with the electorate to demand better of the people they choose to vote for.

bumper234

Godge wrote: »

An internet forum trying to control free speech?

If Enda Kenny stands up in the Dail every day and reminds us of the murderers in Sinn Fein and the economy-wreckers in FF, then he is doing the country a favour. WHEN the people get tired of it, they will vote him out in the next election.

FYP

steddyeddy

ILikeFriday wrote: »

There seems to be some perception here that TDs have some sort of "right" to respectful answers in the Dail. They don't. Freedom of expression is even more robust in there than outside it. TDs, opposition or goverment, are free to ask and answer questions any way they want to. They will decide this politically. They will look silly if they don't answer certain questions properly. They know the public will enjoy watching others not being taken seriously.

It is up to the electorate to vote for people who have enough credibility and command enough respect to be effective in their job. You wouldn't hire an employee or a professional to represent you if you felt that due to their history they didn't have any credibility. You can't vote for someone like that and go crying that they're not getting enough respect. There is no right to respect per se. The right is to freedom of expression. To the argument that it is disrespectful of the government towards the people who voted for the opposition, well obviously the government like any political party play to the people who tend to vote for them not those who vote for the opposition.

On boards the slogan is "attack the post and not the poster". It's there for good reason. What sort of discussion would there be if ad hominem attacks were allowed?

Now if an internet forum couldn't function with ad hominem attacks how could a parliment function in the biggest crisis the country has faced yet?

ILikeFriday

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards the slogan is "attack the post and not the poster". It's there for good reason. What sort of discussion would there be if ad hominem attacks were allowed?

Now if an internet forum couldn't function with ad hominem attacks how could a parliment function in the biggest crisis the country has faced yet?

There is no freedom of speech here. it is a private website and anyone can be banned, any post can be deleted. I can see the merit in keeping things civil on an internet forum, but I want more robust freedom of expression in the Dail.

I don't get the second point. Curtailing what goes into the public domain is detrimental to solving the crisis.

As I've pointed out before, I don't believe much of what goes in is truly ad hominem.

Two ways to solve it if it is: (i) vote for politicians who use a different style (ii) vote for politicians who aren't so suceptible to these attacks.

steddyeddy

ILikeFriday wrote: »

There is no freedom of speech here. it is a private website and anyone can be banned, any post can be deleted. I can see the merit in keeping things civil on an internet forum, but I want more robust freedom of expression in the Dail.

I don't get the second point. Curtailing what goes into the public domain is detrimental to solving the crisis.

As I've pointed out before, I don't believe much of what goes in is truly ad hominem.

Two ways to solve it if it is: (i) vote for politicians who use a different style (ii) vote for politicians who aren't so suceptible to these attacks.

I'm not talking about the "right" to ad hominem attacks I'm asking people are they sick of ad hominem attacks and whether they have merit in politics.

ILikeFriday

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not talking about the "right" to ad hominem attacks I'm asking people are they sick of ad hominem attacks and whether they have merit in politics.

I see keeping public memory alive as to past actions of people who the public might vote for in the future as merit. If I go for a job, I would be rejected for a lot less than what some of them have done.

The market will decide whether they go too far or not.

Cody Pomeray

ILikeFriday wrote: »

There seems to be some perception here that TDs have some sort of "right" to respectful answers in the Dail. They don't. Freedom of expression is even more robust in there than outside it.

Nobody here seems to be protesting that the opposition's "rights" were denied.

Most people appear to be making the point that the citizens' have a legitimate expectation of hearing questions raised by our representatives and be appropriately answered by our representatives.

"Freedom of expression" has to be balanced with the right of the people to a functional democracy, although I believe you are the one who raised the 'rights' issue.

ILikeFriday

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Nobody here seems to be protesting that the opposition's "rights" were denied.

Most people appear to be making the point that the citizens' have a legitimate expectation of hearing questions raised by our representatives and be appropriately answered by our representatives.

"Freedom of expression" has to be balanced with the right of the people to a functional democracy, although I believe you are the one who raised the 'rights' issue.

Actually, another poster asked what sort of debate there would be if ad hominem attacks were allowed (as if they aren't/shouldn't be) so discussing rights is relevant when we are talking about what is allowed. I was far from the only one mentioning rights. Read the thread.

And what specificually are you suggestiong a functional democracy entails that should be balanced against freedom of expression?

Cody Pomeray

ILikeFriday wrote: »

Actually, another poster asked what sort of debate there would be if ad hominem attacks were allowed (as if they aren't/shouldn't be) so discussing rights is relevant when we are talking about what is allowed.

That seems to me to be a discussion about expectations. The poster has not claimed that any of his or another's human or civil or constitutional or legal rights are being violated. That is an argument you have raised all by yourself, i.e. a strawman.

ILikeFriday

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That seems to me to be a discussion about expectations. The poster has not claimed that any of his or another's human or civil or constitutional or legal rights are being violated. That is an argument you have raised all by yourself, i.e. a strawman.

I have never argued that anyone said any human, civil or constitutional legal rights are being violated. I just reminded people that there is no "right" to a respectful serious answer, because the tone of the thread seemed to be going along the line that they should get one. It is a relevant point to make that politicians do not have to do it in discussing whether or not they should.

Cody Pomeray

ILikeFriday wrote: »

I just reminded people that there is no "right" to a respectful serious answer, because the tone of the thread seemed to be going along the line that they should get one. It is a relevant point to make that politicians do not have to do it in discussing whether or not they should.

It's plainly a straw man. People are discussing their legitimate expectations of grown ups. I don;t think we need reminders about the law if it's not relevant. I'll let you have the last word because i don't think there's anything more to add.

ILikeFriday

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's plainly a straw man. People are discussing their legitimate expectations of grown ups. I don;t think we need reminders about the law if it's not relevant. I'll let you have the last word because i don't think there's anything more to add.

I think it is relevant to discuss what a persons obligations are in assessing their standard of behaviour. It's a sort of benchmark.

Thanks for "letting me have the last word."

renegademaster

Godge wrote: »

An internet forum trying to control free speech?

If Enda Kenny stands up in the Dail every day and reminds us of the murderers in Sinn Fein and the economy-wreckers in FF, then he is doing the country a favour. If the people get tired of it, they will vote him out in the next election.

fine gael and labour have dark histories too you know or did you not know this?

EURATS

renegademaster wrote: »

fine gael and labour have dark histories too you know or did you not know this?

Of course they do. Only recently they spent millions entertaining the heads of the British and American armed forces. Two nations renowned for their peace and love.

bumper234

Would it be considered an ad hominem attack to point out the misspelling of ad hominem in the thread title?

Iwasfrozen

renegademaster wrote: »

fine gael and labour have dark histories too you know or did you not know this?

Difference is neither Dev or Mick are still alive while SF murderers are.

steddyeddy

bumper234 wrote: »

Would it be considered an ad hominem attack to point out the misspelling of ad hominem in the thread title?

No just scientific ignorance (something grammer bullies don't really care about. I refer to the order hominin which means primate. That includes man

bumper234

steddyeddy wrote: »

No just scientific ignorance (something grammer bullies don't really care about. I refer to the order hominin which means primate. That includes man

Surely you mean Hominini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

steddyeddy

bumper234 wrote: »

Surely you mean Hominini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

Plural and hominin is also used bud.

bumper234

steddyeddy wrote: »

Plural and hominin is also used bud.

Touche,

But in the context of the thread one makes sense and the other doesn't

steddyeddy

bumper234 wrote: »

Touche,

But in the context of the thread one makes sense and the other doesn't

What doesn't make sense is four posts about spelling.

bumper234

steddyeddy wrote: »

What doesn't make sense is four posts about spelling.

I know!....curse these quiet Fridays

EURATS

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Difference is neither Dev or Mick are still alive while SF murderers are.

No..but Gilmore and Rabbit are. And kenny et all have no problem sucking up to US and UK killing machines.

Iwasfrozen

EURATS wrote: »

No..but Gilmore and Rabbit are. And kenny et all have no problem sucking up to US and UK killing machines.

A very big aspect of diplomacy is being polite to people you may personally find distasteful. Unless Kenny himself is the killing machine the comparison is nonexistence.

EURATS

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A very big aspect of diplomacy is being polite to people you may personally find distasteful. Unless Kenny himself is the killing machine the comparison is nonexistence.

Show me your company and ill tell you what you are!

raymon

I think, while it is important to answer the question, it is also good idea to remind others of their recent past record if it is relevant, to keep hipocracy in check.

For example if an opposition party is complaining about special needs cuts , but recently cut their own special needs budgets when in government , then they should be reminded of this. This should not allow the government to sidestep a question. They should be held accountable in their own right.

Iwasfrozen

EURATS wrote: »

Show me your company and ill tell you what you are!

That you base your opinion of the most politically powerful man in the country on a childish proverb is frankly scary.

Anyway by that definition we can condemn all of SF as they keep the company of numerous terrorists.