Irish generosity

Dahecall

You see and hear a lot on this site about the begrudgery of the Irish. However last week in our school we sold wristbands( each one costing €3 ) for the sunnie Mae charity( Lilly Mae ). On the first day alone we raised 300 euro. This is from a school with only 450 students. After the 5 days we had raised close to €900. This shows how despite how bad things get most Irish people are generous to those in need. With all of the bad news stories this shows a different side of the Irish. What other stories out there is of the great generosity shown by Irish people.

The Corinthian

I think you've misunderstood what is meant as Irish begrudgery; it's defined as "resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth". What you're describing is charity, or rather its antonym.

The Irish have always had time for those less well off than ourselves - it's those who're better off we can't stand.

Dahecall

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood what is meant as Irish begrudgery; it's defined as "resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth". What you're describing is charity, or rather its antonym.

The Irish have always had time for those less well off than ourselves - it's those who're better off we can't stand.

True that

Shout Dust

I don't agree that we're a nation of begrudgers, or at least to the extent its made out. There are certain people who are constantly derided, but I think its more to do with the person. There are plenty of successful Irish people who are admired, the likes of Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, Aiden Gillen

The Corinthian

I think our collective approach to begrudgery is more to do with wealth than success, per say. We love sports people and entertainers, as you cited, but what happens when we discover they're making pots of money? Ryan Tubridy springs to mind, in that there's been more than a few nasty things said of him where it comes to his salary.

Indeed, while there are plenty of successful Irish entertainers out there whom we universally admire, how many Irish businesspeople are there?

Shout Dust

I don't think its the wealth either, its peoples attitude when they have that wealth, or how they attained it. If people feel celebrities are condescending, or maybe Tubridys case getting overpaid off the back of taxpayers money and not justifying the salary, then there will be begrudgery. Graham Norton would be on more but I don't think there's begrudgery when it comes to him. Can't think of much business people off the top of my head, but someone like JP McManus would be respected. Michael O'Leary splits people into camps who either love him or hate him, but I don't think the hate side dislike him because out of begrudgery.

The Corinthian

Shout Dust wrote: »

I don't think its the wealth either, its peoples attitude when they have that wealth, or how they attained it.

You mean their perceived attitude when they have that wealth and presumed or perceived means of how they attained it.

If people feel celebrities are condescending, or maybe Tubridys case getting overpaid off the back of taxpayers money and not justifying the salary, then there will be begrudgery.

See above.

Graham Norton would be on more but I don't think there's begrudgery when it comes to him.

Another entertainer. Is he well known for his wealth? Didn't think so myself.

Can't think of much business people off the top of my head, but someone like JP McManus would be respected.

They're all 'respected', but that doesn't mean that they don't all also have a fair bit of begrugery directed against them either - JP McManus in particular.

Michael O'Leary splits people into camps who either love him or hate him, but I don't think the hate side dislike him because out of begrudgery.

What makes you say that the hate side don't dislike him because out of begrudgery?

Shout Dust

The Corinthian wrote: »

You mean their perceived attitude when they have that wealth and presumed or perceived means of how they attained it.

See above.

Another entertainer. Is he well known for his wealth? Didn't think so myself.

No more so than Tubridy I'd imagine, but peoples attitude to them here differs a lot, Tubridy is an entertainer is he not? In Britain I think there's a lot more begrugdery towards Norton.

They're all 'respected', but that doesn't mean that they don't all also have a fair bit of begrugery directed against them either - JP McManus in particular.

What makes you say that the hate side don't dislike him because out of begrudgery?

It's certainly not the impression I get.

The Corinthian

Shout Dust wrote: »

No more so than Tubridy I'd imagine, but peoples attitude to them here differs a lot, Tubridy is an entertainer is he not?

But he's resented not for his role as an entertainer, but how much he earns. In most cases we really don't know anything about how wealthy or not entertainers are - it's not the focus of how we define them. When it begins to be, and they turn out to be loaded, you find that we begin to grumble about them.

In Britain I think there's a lot more begrugdery towards Norton.

And when we have a discussion on British 'begrugdery', that will be a relevant point.

It's certainly not the impression I get.

No one's ever mentioned the Glackin report in relation to JP McManus to you? Or you've never heard anyone suggest that O'Leary's grown rich by screwing over Ryanair passengers? I assure you, financial success is a serious catalyst for begrugery in Ireland.

Shout Dust

The Corinthian wrote: »

But he's resented not for his role as an entertainer, but how much he earns. In most cases we really don't know anything about how wealthy or not entertainers are - it's not the focus of how we define them. When it begins to be, and they turn out to be loaded, you find that we begin to grumble about them.

And when we have a discussion on British 'begrugdery', that will be a relevant point.

No one's ever mentioned the Glackin report in relation to JP McManus to you? Or you've never heard anyone suggest that O'Leary's grown rich by screwing over Ryanair passengers? I assure you, financial success is a serious catalyst for begrugery in Ireland.

Well my impression is he's resented because people don't think he justifies his wealth. I think everybody knows entertainers are wealthy, yet they all get different levels of respect from the public. In Neesons case he's probably one of the wealthiest Irish actors.
In relation to McManus, in my experience most people respect what the likes of himself and Magnier built up.

In regard to Britain, its thrown at us that we're a nation of begrudgers. Yet I don't think its much more so than other nations, look anywhere else and anyone with a high profile naturally comes under more scrutiny. Justin Bieber is derided across the world because of how he acts, its not down to an individual nation being full of begrudgers.

The Corinthian

Shout Dust wrote: »

Well my impression is he's resented because people don't think he justifies his wealth.

You can say the same about McManus - or at least I've heard others do. Indeed, that's the whole point of begrugery.

I think everybody knows entertainers are wealthy, yet they all get different levels of respect from the public.

No they don't and also in reality not all entertainers are wealthy.

In Neesons case he's probably one of the wealthiest Irish actors.

Is he? Not exactly the first thing you think of when you think of him. O'Leary, on the other hand, being wealthy, is.

In relation to McManus, in my experience most people respect what the likes of himself and Magnier built up.

In mine the opposite.

In regard to Britain, its thrown at us that we're a nation of begrudgers. Yet I don't think its much more so than other nations, look anywhere else and anyone with a high profile naturally comes under more scrutiny.

It's a lot more so in Ireland than other nations, I can assure you, as I've plenty of experience living in other nations.

Justin Bieber is derided across the world because of how he acts, its not down to an individual nation being full of begrudgers.

In that case Ireland seems to have a lot of Biebers, judging by how many we deride.

clairefontaine

The Irish are incredibly generous per capita to those they perceive less well of than they are. The particular obsession with Africa harks way back even to the days of the Laundries where the fruits of that slave labor was sent off to the dysfunctional continent.

For years, decades, the most successful guilt tripping self abnigating cult in history convinced the Irish that they should be happy with their lot, to be humble, to be grateful for that crap that was handed to them, And that to ask for or demand better was selfish. Beatings to follow. They exploited this use of selfishness like some crippling psychological warfare to subjugate the willing victims of the Irish people, who still to this day have not overcome this, such is it has been successfully ingrained.

As a result successful people are treated with suspicion, and justifiable so when you consider the nepotistic cronyism, and viewed as selfish because that is how the brainwashing works.

KyussBishop

The "it's worse in Africa" thing is certainly something you hear a fair bit, as a strange sort of sympathetic statement - and yes it's pretty unhelpful, as I can see how it benefits those who have excessive power, as it helps people settle and prevent challenges to the current order of things, when better standards should constantly be sought.

I don't think that translates to successful people being treated with suspicion though, out of people viewing that as selfish, i.e. to begrudgery - I don't think the population have a problem with those who are successful, just those who are successful through various unethical means; as much as cronyism and such in politics and large institutions like the church, have been defended/protected by the state for decades, fraud/corruption in business has an equally long (and less documented, due to its breadth) and ongoing history, with ties to politics, and I think this is what people disagree with.

The 'it could be worse in Africa' type of psychology which can help make people accept the status quo, is equally useful to those in business (those who abuse fraudulent ways for gaining personal enrichment/advantage, and don't want that investigated or reformed), as it is to the state and other powerful institutions like the church.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think that translates to successful people being treated with suspicion though, out of people viewing that as selfish, i.e. to begrudgery - I don't think the population have a problem with those who are successful, just those who are successful through various unethical means;

The thing with Irish begrudgery though is that there is generally the presumption that various unethical means were employed. Those who are wealthy are presumed crooked until proven poor.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

The thing with Irish begrudgery though is that there is generally the presumption that various unethical means were employed. Those who are wealthy are presumed crooked until proven poor.

I don't know how prevalent that view is, I think people are more aware that fraud is pretty common in Ireland, but I don't think that means people view all wealthy people with suspicion as a result of that.

That would not even be begrudgery either (which would be jealousy at another persons success), that would be anger at the injustice, of another person becoming successful through fraud or other unethical acts.

People would be angry/resentful about fraud and a lack of ethics, not about wealth - so I don't think people are automatically resentful of the wealthy.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't know how prevalent that view is, I think people are more aware that fraud is pretty common in Ireland, but I don't think that means people view all wealthy people with suspicion as a result of that.

Such attitudes are prevalent enough that the concept of Irish begrudgery exists and a topic of discussion.

That would not even be begrudgery either (which would be jealousy at another persons success), that would be anger at the injustice, of another person becoming successful through fraud or other unethical acts.

To scorn someone who's made their fortune through illegal or unethical means may not be begrugery, but it is the presumption that they've made their fortune through illegal or unethical means that is.

It's not unusual that people presume that this is the case, despite there being no conviction of such or sometimes even evidence.

In fairness, begrudgery decreased during the Celtic Tiger as more and more people made their fortunes - getting rich stopped being the dirty an occupation as it once was.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

To scorn someone who's made their fortune through illegal or unethical means may not be begrugery, but it is the presumption that they've made their fortune through illegal or unethical means that is.

There is nothing to show that is what happens, that people hold this view/presumption against the wealthy in general, and that is not begrudgery either - begrudgery is jealousy/envy about anothers success; if people suspect someone of gaining success through illicit means, that is anger at the injustice, not envy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not unusual that people presume that this is the case, despite there being no conviction of such or sometimes even evidence.

If people presume it when there is evidence but lack of a conviction, that is perfectly rational - cronyism/corruption/fraud is protected in Ireland and is rarely subject to the law.

There is no kind of envy/jealousy behind judging someone for that (which would be necessary for it to be labelled 'begrudgery'), that is a perfectly rational judgment (when there is evidence), based on peoples corrupt/unethical actions.


Labelling it bebrudgery, is accusing people of envy/jealousy - if people disagree with fraud and judge for that reason (even if the judgment is mistaken), there is no rational link between that and envy/jealousy, it is a judgment based on the well known impression, that Ireland is rife with fraud.

I think really, that the idea of Irish begrudgery, is just proliferated to defend fraud (i.e. the idea that people who are against fraud and unethical means of gaining wealth, are just jealous - puts people on the defensive before they even take issue with fraud) - same reason there is a "mind your own business" type of attitude about fraud in Ireland, to prevent anyone reporting fraud (under threat of repercussions from breaking this societal norm), even when they know someone is engaging in it.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

There is nothing to show that is what happens, that people hold this view/presumption against the wealthy in general, and that is not begrudgery either - begrudgery is jealousy/envy about anothers success; if people suspect someone of gaining success through illicit means, that is anger at the injustice, not envy.

Just as there is nothing to show that is not what happens. This entire discussion, to date, is little more than personal opinions, with a smattering of anecdotal evidence.

What we can, at least, say is that the concept of Irish begruggery didn't get invented in this thread - it is at least perceived to exist, enough that we're actually discussing it. That's probably the only thing here that cannot be put down to only 'opinion'.

If people presume it when there is evidence but lack of a conviction, that is perfectly rational - cronyism/corruption/fraud is protected in Ireland and is rarely subject to the law.

I never argued that it was rational; indeed, most criticism of begrudgery is precisely because it is not rational. But since when does something have to be rational to exist?

it is a judgment based on the well known impression, that Ireland is rife with fraud.

Surprisingly, Ireland scores pretty high internationally, even within the West, where it comes to lack of corruption.

I think really, that the idea of Irish begrudgery, is just proliferated to defend fraud (i.e. the idea that people who are against fraud and unethical means of gaining wealth, are just jealous - puts people on the defensive before they even take issue with fraud) - same reason there is a "mind your own business" type of attitude about fraud in Ireland, to prevent anyone reporting fraud (under threat of repercussions from breaking this societal norm), even when they know someone is engaging in it.

And therein you have articulated the essence of begrudgery; if someone has attained wealth it must be because of corruption. Even if the index of corruption in Ireland was high (which apparently it's not), you still cannot presume that one is wealthy because they must be corrupt.

As I suggested earlier; guilty until proven poor.

All that serves to do is make the less wealthy begrudger feel morally superior; they're less successful, not because they're less talented, lazy or squandered past opportunities, but because they're honest.

KyussBishop

You're still getting the very definition of begrudgery wrong: Begrudgery is envy/jealousy, which is completely different to criticism/anger based on (real or perceived) fraud/corruption or general lack of ethics.
That is not a matter of opinion, that is what the definition of begrudgery is.


Ireland does not score high on the CPI, out of a scale from 0-100 (with 0 being worst), Ireland is at 69, and is behind most other prominent western nations, including the US which has just blown one of the most fraud-ridden economic bubbles in modern history (something quite in common with Ireland).

The Corruption Perceptions Index is not even a reliable indicator of corruption either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#Criticism

It especially, does not factor in corruption that is not visible or is hidden, as can be seen by Irelands significant drop in CPI ratings, in the wake of recent tribunal findings (all based on documenting past corruption):
http://transparency.ie/news_events/ireland-suffers-sharpest-drop-corruption-perceptions-index-its-history

The CPI doesn't even provide a clear definition of corruption either: No indication of whether it includes fraud within business - and that is certainly something that is not immediately visible within Ireland (I remember you even saying yourself, in a debate long ago, how someone you know is readily able to get away with tax evasion through a company - which is fraud).


Fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurance up until the crisis - there are even documented cases of whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman trying to expose this fraud, and being threatened with prison by regulators if that fraud is exposed, showing that it is protected.

Accusations of begrudgery, the "if nobody was convicted it didn't happen" line of argument, and general denial of fraud/corruption in Ireland, are proliferated to protect fraud - fraud is also protected in general, by the "mind your own business" attitude that is proliferated, with people being aware of fraud and not reporting it, and investigations into fraud being watered down or never occurring in the first place.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're still getting the very definition of begrudgery wrong: Begrudgery is envy/jealousy, which is completely different to criticism/anger based on (real or perceived) fraud/corruption or general lack of ethics.

I'm sorry, but presuming someone is guilty is nothing more than a justification for envy or jealousy. You're confusing a reaction to someone being guilty of something with a reaction to someone being not proven, or perhaps never even accused of being, guilty of something. Not the same thing.

That is not a matter of opinion, that is what the definition of begrudgery is.

Not according to the dictionary definition I gave in post #2.

Fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurance up until the crisis - there are even documented cases of whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman trying to expose this fraud, and being threatened with prison by regulators if that fraud is exposed, showing that it is protected.

Ergo all people who work in banks are corrupt and should be treated as such?

Accusations of begrudgery, the "if nobody was convicted it didn't happen" line of argument, and general denial of fraud/corruption in Ireland, are proliferated to protect fraud - fraud is also protected in general, by the "mind your own business" attitude that is proliferated, with people being aware of fraud and not reporting it, and investigations into fraud being watered down or never occurring in the first place.

Ironically, you're proposing the other extreme; "if nobody was convicted there was a cover up".

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but presuming someone is guilty is nothing more than a justification for envy or jealousy.

That's simply wrong. If there are good grounds to think someone has gained their wealth unethically, then even if a person is wrong about someone being guilty, that does not make jealousy/envy the motive for their presumption.

There is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption - that does not mean anyone who presumes that, is just jealous/envious.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not according to the dictionary definition I gave in post #2.

You just ignored my whole point; I said: "Begrudgery is envy/jealousy, which is completely different to criticism/anger based on (real or perceived) fraud/corruption or general lack of ethics"

I am talking about people being angry/resentful over fraud/corruption (real or perceived), that is not begrudgery, and no definition of begrudgery fits that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ergo all people who work in banks are corrupt and should be treated as such?

Now you're putting words in my mouth to setup a straw-man, to try and fit me into your 'begrudgery' definition, when I haven't said anything remotely fitting that.

That's a particularly sneaky way to try and warp the argument. Here is what I said:
"Fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurance up until the crisis - there are even documented cases of whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman trying to expose this fraud, and being threatened with prison by regulators if that fraud is exposed, showing that it is protected."

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically, you're proposing the other extreme; "if nobody was convicted there was a cover up".

Ok let me put that in bold this time:
"Fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurance up until the crisis - there are even documented cases of whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman trying to expose this fraud, and being threatened with prison by regulators if that fraud is exposed, showing that it is protected."


You have extremely loose standards to labelling people begrudgers for suspecting fraud (even when there is evidence but it is unconvicted), yet are suddenly the skeptic when it comes to actual occurance of fraud in finance/business (despite, to my recollection, having direct experience hearing of it from someone who engages in it).

You were even saying before in that past discussion, that there are a myriad of ways of hiding tax evasion, that it occurs all the time, and that (in your view) that is impossible to stop: Well, tax evasion is fraud.


The existence of fraud in Ireland is not exactly controversial, so it's ridiculous that you can encounter denialism over the issue when discussing it like this - it's a huge problem, that is at the root of why our economy and society is so screwed right now, and people try to keep it out of discussion.

clairefontaine

It's not just about wealth though. Crosses over into any kind of talent or accomplishment, that managed to escape the place keeping getting above yourself system of a lifetime of slagging matches.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's simply wrong. If there are good grounds to think someone has gained their wealth unethically, then even if a person is wrong about someone being guilty, that does not make jealousy/envy the motive for their presumption.

Perhaps you set the bar on good grounds a bit lower than me, but presumption is not good grounds for anything. Remember presumption, by definition, is something to take as true before you even look at the facts; we often refer to presumptions that associate individuals with the demographic they belong to as biases or prejudices as a result.

There is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption - that does not mean anyone who presumes that, is just jealous/envious.

Actually, there isn't. Fianna Fail may have serious issues with corruption, but that does not imply that all Fianna Fail politicians are corrupt. Just as it would be wrong to label all bankers as unethical crooks, or all Travellers as thieves.

Unless you believe that prejudice qualifies as good grounds, of course.

On the other hand, one may conclude that Ahern is guilty of corruption on the basis of evidence surrounding his case, but that's not the same as your presumption of collective guilt.

You just ignored my whole point; I said: "Begrudgery is envy/jealousy, which is completely different to criticism/anger based on (real or perceived) fraud/corruption or general lack of ethics"

I didn't ignore your point, I just rejected it, because it is not justifiable.

Your attempt even to put it all down to criticism or anger is flawed too; begrudgery's been around long before the economic crisis. What was it about back then? The weather?

Now you're putting words in my mouth to setup a straw-man, to try and fit me into your 'begrudgery' definition, when I haven't said anything remotely fitting that.

Unfortunately for you, you've just said it again, by arguing collective guilt can be presumed. I didn't put those words in your mouth.

"Fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurance up until the crisis - there are even documented cases of whistleblowers like Jonathan Sugarman trying to expose this fraud, and being threatened with prison by regulators if that fraud is exposed, showing that it is protected."

Sure, but what you're doing is taking your statement "fraud exists in Ireland, and especially within finance it has been a common occurrence up until the crisis" and them concluding that this constitutes good grounds for a blanket presumption of guilt.

It doesn't. Doesn't matter how many whistle-blowers were threatened. Just because some, even a majority in finance are guilty of fraud, does not imply that all in finance are. Basic logic.

You have extremely loose standards to labelling people begrudgers for suspecting fraud (even when there is evidence but it is unconvicted), yet are suddenly the skeptic when it comes to actual occurance of fraud in finance/business (despite, to my recollection, having direct experience hearing of it from someone who engages in it).

That's not true; you've cited precedence above, not evidence. To other cases and other people. Then you've applied it to new cases and people. Surely it can't be that difficult to tell between that and actual evidence.

You were even saying before in that past discussion, that there are a myriad of ways of hiding tax evasion, that it occurs all the time, and that (in your view) that is impossible to stop: Well, tax evasion is fraud.

Sure it does and is. Does that mean that everyone is evading taxes? Are you? Should I presume you're a tax dodger because it's widespread?

Plenty of precedence to say you are, which would give me good grounds to conclude so - by your logic.

KyussBishop

Except I didn't say presumption or prejudice was 'good grounds' - what I said is really simple: If a person thinks someone has gained their wealth unethically, and judge the wealthy person because of that, then (whether that judgment is correct/justifiable or not) that is not down to jealously or envy, and by-definition, is not begrudgery.

"that's not the same as your presumption of collective guilt."
Now you are accusing me of collectively labelling all wealthy as guilty of unethical acts - you know this is bullshít, and that I never said that, you're doing it purely for shít-stirring here.

The Corinthian wrote:

I didn't ignore your point, I just rejected it, because it is not justifiable.

You're not even bothering to make your replies relevant to what you're quoting; this is what you were quoting when you said the above:

You just ignored my whole point; I said: "Begrudgery is envy/jealousy, which is completely different to criticism/anger based on (real or perceived) fraud/corruption or general lack of ethics"

The Corinthian wrote:

Unfortunately for you, you've just said it again, by arguing collective guilt can be presumed. I didn't put those words in your mouth.

Eh, yes, you did - ask if I have said something, don't assume, as it makes it look like you're trying to put words in my mouth and stir shít.

You're extremely loose with even bothering to make your replies relevant to what you're quoting, which gives little impression that you're replying with honest intent - and you directly lie, by saying I generalized that an entire group of people is guilty of fraud.


What you post is pretty much tantamount to accusing anyone who suspects a wealthy person of fraud (short of conviction - no matter how good the justification), of engaging in begrudgery, and of playing down the prevalence of fraud and general lack of ethics in business/finance in Ireland - something which the existence of is utterly uncontroversial, and is far more widespread a concept in Ireland than any kind of begrudgery.

Ugh, the usual "begrudgery" rubbish.

In terms of showbiz, there's generally a little backlash against people at first because whatever their shtick is to get attention is usually grating (Norton/Farrell etc.) and once that passes the "begrudgery" passes. Tubridy being an exception since we pay his salary in case that was somehow forgotten. Does anyone in Ireland worry about Dara O'Briain's salary?

In terms of business, how many successful, high-profile businesspeople are there who haven't been shown to use their connections to screw over the little man and pad politicians' pockets? With Ireland being a small place a lot will be widely known of such activities. I've never heard anyone moan about someone doing well with a shop or restaurant or any of those things that don't require pay-offs for success. I can think of one guy who did exceptionally well for himself in America and has funded school projects and other local stuff in the last 20 years. That distance means that anything not by-the-book that he may or may not have done to get there isn't known locally so no-one has anything bad to say about it.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except I didn't say presumption or prejudice was 'good grounds' - what I said is really simple: If a person thinks someone has gained their wealth unethically, and judge the wealthy person because of that, then (whether that judgment is correct/justifiable or not) that is not down to jealously or envy, and by-definition, is not begrudgery.

Except you've only given presumption, effectively prejudice, as the reason that person would 'think' someone has gained their wealth unethically.

As to motivation, that's another discussion, however jealousy or envy would be the most likely reason.

"that's not the same as your presumption of collective guilt."
Now you are accusing me of collectively labelling all wealthy as guilty of unethical acts - you know this is bullshít, and that I never said that, you're doing it purely for shít-stirring here.

That's what you did though. Now show me how you did not label entire groups and I'll believe you, because from what I can see, you included no caveat of the sort.

I ran with the example you raised about tax evasion. If we both agree that there's a lot of that about, does that mean I may presume you are a tax dodger? I am using the same logic (whether it "is correct/justifiable or not") as you have presented. Rather than ignore the point, how about you address it?

You're extremely loose with even bothering to make your replies relevant to what you're quoting, which gives little impression that you're replying with honest intent - and you directly lie, by saying I generalized that an entire group of people is guilty of fraud.

I see it hasn't taken you long to resort to ad hominems.

So explain your statement "there is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption" if you were not generalizing? What were you referring to when you referred to "someone like Bertie Ahern"? A politician? A Fianna Fail politician? A Northsider?

What you post is pretty much tantamount to accusing anyone who suspects a wealthy person of fraud (short of conviction - no matter how good the justification), of engaging in begrudgery, and of playing down the prevalence of fraud and general lack of ethics in business/finance in Ireland - something which the existence of is utterly uncontroversial, and is far more widespread a concept in Ireland than any kind of begrudgery.

False. I already pointed out with your Ahern example that "one may conclude that Ahern is guilty of corruption on the basis of evidence surrounding his case", so nothing there about needing a conviction.

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of business, how many successful, high-profile businesspeople are there who haven't been shown to use their connections to screw over the little man and pad politicians' pockets? With Ireland being a small place a lot will be widely known of such activities. I've never heard anyone moan about someone doing well with a shop or restaurant or any of those things that don't require pay-offs for success.

Ahh, so we can presume that all Irish businesspeople are crooked?

I can think of one guy who did exceptionally well for himself in America and has funded school projects and other local stuff in the last 20 years. That distance means that anything not by-the-book that he may or may not have done to get there isn't known locally so no-one has anything bad to say about it.

You don't actually know what unethical things the Irish-based businesspeople did either - you're just assuming that they must have - so why so hesitant to point the finger with American-based businesspeople?

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except you've only given presumption, effectively prejudice, as the reason that person would 'think' someone has gained their wealth unethically.

As to motivation, that's another discussion, however jealousy or envy would be the most likely reason.

No that's not another discussion, that's exactly what I've been talking about: Making a false presumption, that someone gained wealth through unethical means, is not envy/jealousy and thus not begrudgery.

What that is, is anger at the perceived injustice of someone gaining from society unethically, and that requires no ulterior motive - just a (misdirected) sense of justice.

If someone is wrong about a wealthy person acting unethically, that does not magically change their motive - it means they are wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's what you did though. Now show me how you did not label entire groups and I'll believe you, because from what I can see, you included no caveat of the sort.

I'm not here to convince you, you've just put words in my mouth and are trying to flip the burden of proof around "well prove you didn't say that!" - childish bullshít that, which amounts to shít-stirring.

Pointing out your shít-stirring is not an 'ad-hominem' either, but a direct criticism of your methods of argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So explain your statement "there is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption" if you were not generalizing? What were you referring to when you referred to "someone like Bertie Ahern"? A politician? A Fianna Fail politician? A Northsider?

Yes because obviously when I'm talking about one specific person, the logical conclusion isn't that I'm talking about one specific person, but that I'm instead actually making a generalization about an entire group of people...

I'm sure anyone who isn't deliberately shít-stirring, can think back to some good reasons for suspecting Ahern of corruption.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, so we can presume that all Irish businesspeople are crooked?

See again, you're deliberately trying to put words in peoples mouth, as he specifically mentioned businesspeople who he would not view as crooked there (immediately disproving what you're casting on him), and hasn't said anything about suspecting all businesspeople of fraud, just of suspecting that fraud is widespread (and no, that doesn't give you grounds to take the extra leap, of applying that to businesspeople).


You're always in a rush, in every one of your posts, to take what someone says and apply it generally, when that is not what has been said - when that is what you are doing, by taking the position that anyone who suspects someone of fraud, is engaging in begrudgery (when that is not even logically consistent, you just make the unwarranted assumption that is motivated by jealousy - as if you can collectively read the populations minds).
You're not actually debating with what people have said, just the straw-man you put up in place of what they said.

Couple that with playing down the occurrance of fraud in Ireland, when there is a common conception (much more common than 'Irish Begrudgery') that it is widespread in Ireland, and equally so that it is protected (which there is actual evidence of, with people like Jonathan Sugarman being threatened with prosecution by regulators, if he exposes fraud).


When fraud and unethical acts are widespread and protected from prosecution in Ireland, then conviction is not a requirement for having good grounds to suspect someone, but evidence is.

Given that the Greshams Dynamic causes fraud and unethical acts to be proliferated throughout business (by giving unethical business a competitive edge), this gives good backing as well, to suspect widespread fraud - but not in individual cases, absent evidence.

biko

I wouldn't say begrudgery is particularly Irish. In all of the countries I have lived in it seems to be the same, except for America.
Then again Americans are conditioned to succeed and to idolise anyone who does succeed. "The American Way"

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

No that's not another discussion, that's exactly what I've been talking about: Making a false presumption, that someone gained wealth through unethical means, is not envy/jealousy and thus not begrudgery.

Indeed, it may be a false presumption, just as your presumption that "there is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption" may be. Would you care to explain why your presumption is acceptable while mine is not?

I'm not here to convince you, you've just put words in my mouth and are trying to flip the burden of proof around "well prove you didn't say that!" - childish bullshít that, which amounts to shít-stirring.

Actually you are here to convince me, and others; that's the purpose of a debate. And I've not put words in your mouth - I've quoted you with the words that came "out of your mouth", denying this won't change that fact. So where did you not make generalizations in the statements I cited?

Pointing out your shít-stirring is not an 'ad-hominem' either, but a direct criticism of your methods of argument.

And accusing me of not "replying with honest intent" is not ad hominem either?

Or perhaps I might suggest that mental illness belies you responses? After all, that is just as much a direct criticism of your methods of argument as yours was of mine - this is not to say I am actually accusing you of mental illness, only to demonstrate how your defence of an ad hominem doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Yes because obviously when I'm talking about one specific person, the logical conclusion isn't that I'm talking about one specific person, but that I'm instead actually making a generalization about an entire group of people...

Sorry but "someone like Bertie Ahern" is not a specific person by any definition. You didn't cite him, you cited anyone like him.
Look, I don't see much point in arguing with you further here. You keep on claiming I'm putting words in your mouth, despite the fact I'm actually specifically quoting what you've said. Maybe you meant something completely different, but unfortunately all I can do is base my rebuttals on what you actually write.

But when you start turning to ad hominem's, to defend yourself, then there's not much point in continuing the discussion. I waste enough time on Boards without wasting it on such drivel.

KyussBishop

You haven't specifically quoted anything showing me making generalizations - you've provided an extremely weak quote, of me talking about Bertie Ahern, and then pretend I am talking not about Ahern, but about a group of people in general - I've even told you I'm talking about Bertie Ahern, yet apparently you are still 'unconvinced' - that's how ridiculous and disingenuous your quality of argument is.

So no, when you obviously are arguing with dishonest intent, I am not here to convince you, but I will post to highlight your (in my estimation, deliberately dishonest) methods of argument to other posters, so they can see precisely how you are arguing with dishonest intent (a criticism based on your actual arguments, not an 'ad hominem') - which I'll then leave them to make their own judgments on.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

You haven't specifically quoted anything showing me making generalizations - you've provided an extremely weak quote, of me talking about Bertie Ahern, and then pretend I am talking not about Ahern, but about a group of people in general - I've even told you I'm talking about Bertie Ahern, yet apparently you are still 'unconvinced' - that's how ridiculous and disingenuous your quality of argument is.

"there is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption"

That is not talking about Bertie Ahern, at least not in English. Do you at least accept that, seeing that it is in front of your face?

So no, when you obviously are arguing with dishonest intent

More ad hominems. Please look up the term, it means 'against the man' and from it you'll often hear the expression 'attack the post, not the poster'. You're attacking the poster, clear and simple. Another one and I'll just report your post and leave it at that.

clairefontaine

Begrudgery is not jealousy or envy. It is jealousy or envy the begrudge feels but does not want to take responsibility for. So instead of being honest with themselves and saying "I want that too!" they avoid such honesty by engaging in a character assassination or demotion of the other personally.


It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.

Contrast with the Protestant work ethic.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, so we can presume that all Irish businesspeople are crooked?

Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? Name some high-profile successful Irish business people who haven't been implicated in wrongdoing in the last few years. Or in the case of a certain car dealer who somehow managed to get the government to put measures in place that helped his business (and the other car dealerships) and kept things afloat until the inevitable happened.
There are some who have done things that right way but they're not widely known.

You don't actually know what unethical things the Irish-based businesspeople did either - you're just assuming that they must have - so why so hesitant to point the finger with American-based businesspeople?

Still claiming I said something I didn't, nice.
We're talking in generalities here (kinda goes with the territory) and I gave a generality. In America (where corruption is likely just as bad) they have the benefit of distance and more social stratification so that fewer people (as a proportion) will have near contact with successful business people so any wrongdoing (actual or perceived) won't be as widely known within the general population.


Care to address the Tubridy point? Or are you waiting to make up something I said about that too?

clairefontaine

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? Name some high-profile successful Irish business people who haven't been implicated in wrongdoing in the last few years. Or in the case of a certain car dealer who somehow managed to get the government to put measures in place that helped his business (and the other car dealerships) and kept things afloat until the inevitable happened.
There are some who have done things that right way but they're not widely known.


Still claiming I said something I didn't, nice.
We're talking in generalities here (kinda goes with the territory) and I gave a generality. In America (where corruption is likely just as bad) they have the benefit of distance and more social stratification so that fewer people (as a proportion) will have near contact with successful business people so any wrongdoing (actual or perceived) won't be as widely known within the general population.


Care to address the Tubridy point? Or are you waiting to make up something I said about that too?

Michael O' Leary. Bono.

Tubrity is resented because he is a talentless git.

Also your Taoisochs make more than US presidents, plus some of the RTE salaries do earn their resentments, IMO.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

"there is a lot of past precedent for presuming someone like Bertie Ahern is guilty of corruption"

That is not talking about Bertie Ahern, at least not in English. Do you at least accept that, seeing that it is in front of your face?

I said:
"Now you are accusing me of collectively labelling all wealthy as guilty of unethical acts"

You said:
"That's what you did though. Now show me how you did not label entire groups and I'll believe you, because from what I can see, you included no caveat of the sort"

You are accusing me of collectively labelling all wealthy people as guilty of unethical acts - show me exactly how saying 'people like' Bertie Ahern, is making that generalization.

I've even explicitly said to you, that I was specifically talking about Bertie Ahern, and not making a generalization.

The Corinthian wrote: »

More ad hominems. Please look up the term, it means 'against the man' and from it you'll often hear the expression 'attack the post, not the poster'. You're attacking the poster, clear and simple. Another one and I'll just report your post and leave it at that.

You don't understand what an ad-hominem is, or you are trying to put your methods of argument beyond criticism, by pretending it is a personal attack - I'm not going to be intimidated away from criticizing your arguments because you might run off to the mods - if anything, you're threatening an abuse of the reporting system to try and protect your arguments from criticism.

Criticizing your methods of argument, and showing that you know what you are saying is false, shows that you are being dishonest, and is a valid criticism of your methods of argument.

Just as it is valid to point out a straw-man during the course of an argument, it is valid to point out generalizations a poster knows are dishonest - if that reflects badly on the poster, that is due to their methods of argument.

If you want to complain to mods, to try and defend against your methods of argument being criticized (something which would make any kind of debate pretty pointless - seeing as debate pretty much depends on exposing fallacious argument), then go right ahead - it's perfectly valid to point out issues with someones method of argument.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Michael O' Leary. Bono.

I like O'Leary and most people do. In my experience experience it's mainly the Brits and Spaniards who like to try and drum up antipathy towards him.
Bono is fine for the music, don't think anyone disputes that. It's the pontificating while avoiding taxes (in business, see that?) and the charity he has that in one year spent 1.2% of donations on action and over 50% of donations on salaries.

Tubrity is resented because he is a talentless git.

Exactly.

Also your Taoisochs make more than US presidents, plus some of the RTE salaries do earn their resentments, IMO.

They don't have the earning opportunities after office that the US president does. I don't think many like how much Taoisigh get paid.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

Such attitudes are prevalent enough that the concept of Irish begrudgery exists and a topic of discussion.

Begrudgery exists in every culture. The fact that it exists as a topic of conversation here (and indeed it frequently does) suggests that it is used as a means of smothering discussion of sharp practices, corruption etc. in Irish society.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

Begrudgery exists in every culture.

Some more than others.

The fact that it exists as a topic of conversation here (and indeed it frequently does) suggests that it is used as a means of smothering discussion of sharp practices, corruption etc. in Irish society.

Bit of a leap in logic there. Sure, it might suggest what you say, but it could also suggest that begrudgery is simply the manifestation of a collective wish to follow a path of poverty and charity. Or the product of mind-altering government satellite signals. Depends on how big a leap you want to take in your logic, after the initial statement.

Could you explain how you deduced that begrudgery has evolved as a means of censorship in Irish society?