Irish generosity

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?