Belvedere Students Criticised for Sleepout

Jawgap

I did stand my ground and put forward a reasoned argument, which I repeated. However, there comes a point where you can only repeat things so much. If people are opting not to read what's written further repetition is futile and redundant.

If someone is going to make a counterpoint it should be in response to the argument not a visceral reaction to some vague idea that I'm attacking the school.

I've already - repeatedly - expressed an abundance of appreciation for the funds raised and I wished the lads (meaning the study body) well for their future sleepouts in terms of longevity and success.

I've already explained what the students could do differently without expanding the time commitment given to the sleepout.

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

I've already explained what the students could do differently without expanding the time commitment given to the sleepout.

But my point is that when you found out that they already do a huge amount of additional charitable activities, you never acknowledged any of that. You were quick to jump in and criticise and say they could be doing much more, offering additional alternatives, but have yet to acknowledge that they already DO much more, despite it being clearly spelt out through the thread.

So unless you're now prepared to withdraw your original point that they don't do enough, you're maintaining that stance that not enough is done in Belvedere for the less fortunate in society. Is that your position?

IvySlayer

Don't they all sleep on matts outside the GPO and the bank?

Jawgap

Steve_Carella wrote: »

But my point is that when you found out that they already do a huge amount of additional charitable activities, you never acknowledged any of that. You were quick to jump in and criticise and say they could be doing much more, offering additional alternatives, but have yet to acknowledge that they already DO much more, despite it being clearly spelt out through the thread.

So unless you're now prepared to withdraw your original point that they don't do enough, you're maintaining that stance that not enough is done in Belvedere for the less fortunate in society. Is that your position?

No my position is the event is over, the thread has jumped the shark (pending, no doubt, the matter being discussed further in the inevitable letters that will be published in the IT) and I've explained my points at length and repetitively.

......and my original point wasn't that they don't do enough.......it something else much more outrageous, no doubt, in your view.

Deenie123

Jawgap wrote: »

I've already explained what the students could do differently without expanding the time commitment given to the sleepout.

The students make a 36 hour block contribution that raises a phenomenal amount of money. You say they should do it differently, and suggest they do an hour a week. You were told they do, from 8am on O'Connell bridge. That's not good enough for you, they should be up and out at 7am!

Has the thought crossed your mind that they're doing as much as possible without crossing into the territory of actually jeopardizing their education? If you claim to care so much about the homelessness problem, you definitely wouldn't want that.

You need to just admit it, you got it wrong. You criticize them unjustly. And if you're not criticizing them, why haven't you stopped actually saying they should do more?!?! That IS criticizing their efforts by saying they aren't enough, aren't in the right form or place. Give over. Can you really not see how absurd you're being?

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

......and my original point wasn't that they don't do enough........

In fact, it was. The first two words you posted were 'Pure tokenism'. And then you continued in a pretty hostile tone ('just a bit more low profile', 'token SDP bursary places' and there are more examples from your posts)...

Jawgap wrote: »

Well done them. Why O'Connell Bridge? If the want to PM me I can give them a list of areas where rough sleeping is much more prevalent, just a bit more low profile.......

Instead of 36 hours at Christmas why don't they do one hour a week say helping to clean in some of the hostels, or helping prepare food - maybe some of the older lads can help those involved with advocacy work? Or is that type of 'background' work lacking in glamour?

Perhaps the school could help anchor families by providing more than the token SDP bursary places they currently provide to the children of families who get back into some form or permanent accommodation?

And perhaps even during the next cold spell they could open up their gym to provide some respite and temporary sleeping accommodation to help get people off the streets during the worst of the weather?

Hardly an objective post offering constructive suggestions? Oh and one more thing.

Jawgap wrote: »

.......something else much more outrageous, no doubt, in your view.

I'm sure you've gathered by now that I'm perfectly well able to express myself, so if you're replying to me, I suggest you could stick to the points made rather than trying to force an interpretation of my viewpoint into the conversation. I'm not sure if you were just being inflammatory to try to get a reaction out of me but all it comes across as is an attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

In fact, all of your posts in this thread, when taken together, really put you across as somebody who jumped in with an anti-rich boys agenda, thinking it would be the easiest thing possible to take them down, and who then was simply unwilling and/or unable to back down from that point of view, despite a number of opportunities to do so and despite it being clearly shown that you were absolutely in the wrong in your they-could-be-doing-more-than-their-token-gestures viewpoint. I've basically made my own point absolutely clear now so unless you're able to reply to me on topic and/or prove me wrong, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

Jawgap

No, I wasn't being inflammatory to get a rise out of anyone. If you are heading off down that route, I suggest using the 'report' function.

I was expressing an honestly held opinion, nothing I've heard would make me want to change that. People are free to agree and everyone is free to disagree.

The amount raised this year is impressive, and as per earlier posts, I wish the next group next year every success. Hopefully they'll be the one to breach the 200k figure.

It seems to be a peculiarly Irish thing to judge the value of an act / event by the amount of money raised. There are other, qualitative, metrics.

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems to be a peculiarly Irish thing to judge the value of an act / event by the amount of money raised. There are other, qualitative, metrics.

So you think there's better ways of judging the success of a fundraising event than the amount of money it raises?

Jawgap

Steve_Carella wrote: »

So you think there's better ways of judging the success of a fundraising event than the amount of money it raises?

If it's just a fundraising event then no, the amount is the objective. If an event is an expression of values and animated by a drive to fulfill a social justice mission, meh, maybe there are other metrics.

Venus In Furs

So, the lesson from this thread is:

Don't do anything at all to help the homeless, just whinge about what OTHER people are doing wrong to help the homeless.

Got it.

Littlekittylou

Originally Posted by Jawgap View Post

My God, how dare someone have an opinion that runs counter to the vocal majority.

look you have spent a great deal of time being critical...well if you give you can take it. In fairness to yourself you have been polite and civil.I hope replies to you have been civil too.

Look it's par of the course that if you do something charitable people tend to criticize you. I have no idea what the psychology behind it is but it's true I have noticed it and bore the brunt of it myself on occasion. You do something nice or charitable and you get pettiness and bitterness from some corners. Strangely even sometimes the people you are tying to help themselves. Even people on the streets themselves occasionally.

When I read this article I see a petty bitter middle aged woman picking on young lads who chose instead of sleeping in their comfortable gaffs (yes and they are comfortable as she pointed out) to sleep in the cold in winter because they were moved by those less fortunate than themselves. They are not under an obligation to. They just did it. And they got shat on in the papers for it by a woman much older than themselves probably from a nice home too. There is just something in me that says 'THAT IS UNJUST'. They could easily be off galavanting with other teens. But they chose to do something else this Dec. Fair play.

But the lads who did it are just going to have to say 'ah well' and get on with it. That's character and you know I am sure the school will continue to do it again next year and the year after that. But if they objected to the article they would be crucified. AGAIN.

And for all the nonsense about the article it just put the focus on the school and took it away from the homeless. Fair play to the school for not over reacting and being baited into something so petty.

Stick your neck out for anything people will have their say. Ok fair enough then.

I think the boys and the school demonstrated character and compassion and commitment to a cause. Fair play to them. I think the journalist was petty nasty and pointless and did nothing to highlight homelessness.

I have been doing volunteer work in the run up to Christmas and it can't compare to what they have raised. They used the profile of their school and possible their connections etc for the greater good. That's the way it's MEANT to be. When you donate your 50 squid to something and keep the ball rolling until the big bucks come in if you get bitter about that is ego and then you are missing the point. The big cheques MATTER.

You can't say and act of kindness is less good in character because it comes from someone rich anymore than you can say an act of meanness is less mean because it comes form someone rich.

Yes there is more to acts of charity than how much money raised. But that is a VERY important factor. Because if it is not then it IS all about ego. The more money you raise the more suffering hopefully you can alleviate.




They did something nice at their suffering and expense and she reacted as if they had behaved like spoilt brats. Maybe sometime in the future schools from the inner city and the suburbs will get together (that would be great actually) to do a sleep out so that journalist can talk dirt about everyone Sure she would only love it.

There is a difference between being cynical and being misanthropic.

Jawgap

Littlekittylou wrote: »

look you have spent a great deal of time being critical...well if you give you can take it. In fairness to yourself you have been polite and civil.I hope replies to you have been civil too.

........

I've no problem taking the criticism - I know my opinion is a minority one and I set out to defend it in a rational way. I'm not disposed to change it on the basis of anything posted in this thread - not do I suppose I've changed any minds.

I didn't expect much agreement and I sought to keep things civil, if I didn't I'm happy to apologise.

Other the that I don't think your post requires further response from me as it presents an alternative (and valid) view, not one I would disagree with.

evolving_doors

Jawgap wrote: »

I've no problem taking the criticism - I know my opinion is a minority one and I set out to defend it in a rational way. I'm not disposed to change it on the basis of anything posted in this thread - not do I suppose I've changed any minds.

I didn't expect much agreement and I sought to keep things civil, if I didn't I'm happy to apologise.

Other the that I don't think your post requires further response from me as it presents an alternative (and valid) view, not one I would disagree with.

Frankly Jawgap I dont think you even know what your opinion was anymore. At one stage you tried the same strawman argument as the 'journalist' and tried to rise some rabble with the FEE PAYING SCHOOL angle but folk saw through it.

Just let it go.... let it go..

Jawgap

Armelodie wrote: »

Frankly Jawgap I dont think you even know what your opinion was anymore. At one stage you tried the same strawman argument as the 'journalist' and tried to rise some rabble with the FEE PAYING SCHOOL angle but folk saw through it.

Just let it go.... let it go..

I'm not pushing it or hanging on to anything. Just responding to posts, rather than posting. It seems if I respond to a post I'm cited for not letting go and if I don't respond I get called out for not answering points raised.......

As for the point about fee paying schools, yes, guilty as charged I introduced (uncomfortable?) data from DES and from the OECD - if that's a strawman argument then fair enough.......

Ave Sodalis

Jawgap wrote: »

Sometimes you find those who volunteer rarely look at their watches, and quite often the one hour becomes four.

And I'm not getting into what I do or who I do it - beyond saying I am involved in advocacy and admin work (on a voluntary basis) for an organisation that deals with housing and, to a lesser degree, people coming out of homelessness. My time commitment is about 2 to 4 hours a month with them and another couple of hours each week dealing with issues remote from them. I do about 2 home visits per month, as required.

Fair play to them for raising the money, but lets not pretend it's more than that.

You don't really seem to see what people are saying to you so lets take this post as an example. You do this. Now, imagine you do lots of other charity work during the year on top of this. Then imagine that someone comes in and tells you that you aren't doing enough and that you should be doing more for the homeless. You do 2-4 hours a month... what about 5 or 6? Why not a whole week? That would be far more productive, no? 2 home visits? Why not 8? In fact, why don't you spend every evening doing a home visit? What if I turned around and told you that what you're doing isn't enough and therefore you shouldn't be encouraged to keep doing it? Because that is essentially how you're coming across.

I get it, there are other ways to help with the homelessness problem. We all know that. However, fundraising is one thing that also needs to be done, whether you think it's good enough or not. There are many ways to help, this is the way they chose and they're doing it very successful. By the sounds of it, the school do enough and go above and beyond what's expected of them. It's like giving someone your last piece of chocolate and them complaining that they didn't get the whole bar...

Jawgap

sup_dude wrote: »

You don't really seem to see what people are saying to you so lets take this post as an example. You do this. Now, imagine you do lots of other charity work during the year on top of this. Then imagine that someone comes in and tells you that you aren't doing enough and that you should be doing more for the homeless. You do 2-4 hours a month... 5 or 6? Why not a whole week? That would be far more productive, no? 2 home visits? Why not 8? In fact, why don't you spend every evening doing a home visit? What if I turned around and told you that what you're doing isn't enough and therefore you shouldn't be encouraged to keep doing it? Because that is essentially how you're coming across.

I get it, there are other ways to help with the homelessness problem. We all know that. However, fundraising is one thing that also needs to be done, whether you think it's good enough or not. There are many ways to help, this is the way they chose and they're doing it very successful. By the sounds of it, the school do enough and go above and beyond what's expected of them. It's like giving someone your last piece of chocolate and them complaining that they didn't get the whole bar...

Or imagine the volunteer co-ordinator said to me, 'I know you've been doing a certain amount of work for the last X years but from next month on we want you to do something else that we think is more useful.'

Is my response 'I've always done this, it's what I do and I'm good at it.' Or do I say 'I've made a time commitment and I'll leave it to the managers to decide how that time is used' ?

In other words just because it's the last piece of chocolate it doesn't automatically follow that the sacrifice giving it up represents is the best outcome for the recipient, unless the only thing the donor has to offer is chocolate.

Deenie123

sup_dude wrote: »

It's like giving someone your last piece of chocolate and them complaining that they didn't get the whole bar...

I was once at a match with someone and went to get goodies at half time. He goes "Nah I'll pass, too pricey for a bar of chocolate". Fair enough. I get mine, go back to my seat. Then he asks me for some and gets offended that I only give him a piece rather than sharing it 50/50. Some people really do have necks like that... :eek:

Jawgap wrote: »

Or imagine the volunteer co-ordinator said to me, 'I know you've been doing a certain amount of work for the last X years but from next month on we want you to do something else that we think is more useful.'

But what they're doing IS still very useful. Is shaking a bucket more effective? Nope. Seeeeeeeriously doubt it. People see them actually going to a little bit of pain once a year to raise money for a worthy cause and so once a year, they throw in a tenner, maybe twenty, maybe more. As they walk past the bucket shaker on the next corner. The country is inundated with bucket shaking. What they're doing WORKS. Works better than anything else I can see going on. Jesus, they raised hundreds of thousands in the last two years alone. You just don't raise that kind of money shaking a bucket or knocking on doors.

So what's your gripe? How on earth do you think that their sleep out should be replaced with something more effective when what they're doing is about the most effective method I've ever seen?

Jawgap

Deenie123 wrote: »

I was once at a match with someone and went to get goodies at half time. He goes "Nah I'll pass, too pricey for a bar of chocolate". Fair enough. I get mine, go back to my seat. Then he asks me for some and gets offended that I only give him a piece rather than sharing it 50/50. Some people really do have necks like that... :eek:



But what they're doing IS still very useful. Is shaking a bucket more effective? Nope. Seeeeeeeriously doubt it. People see them actually going to a little bit of pain once a year to raise money for a worthy cause and so once a year, they throw in a tenner, maybe twenty, maybe more. As they walk past the bucket shaker on the next corner. The country is inundated with bucket shaking. What they're doing WORKS. Works better than anything else I can see going on. Jesus, they raised hundreds of thousands in the last two years alone. You just don't raise that kind of money shaking a bucket or knocking on doors.

So what's your gripe? How on earth do you think that their sleep out should be replaced with something more effective when what they're doing is about the most effective method I've ever seen?

Seriously? I think I've repeated my position often enough - along with an acknowledgement that the money raised is very useful, and the final total is impressive. Likewise, my best wishes for their future endeavours.

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

I was expressing an honestly held opinion, nothing I've heard would make me want to change that.

This was the sentence that made me realise that Jawgap is either a troll or just completely clueless. She/he came on and made a point that the students could be doing more and has continued to refuse to acknowledge how much more is done. In other word, ploughing on regardless when their basic viewpoint has been immediately demonstrated to be wrong - and no Jawgap, before you yet again come out with your "I'm entitled to my opinion" statement, it wasn't an opinon: you stated that the students could be doing more and you were then told how much more they do - that's not a matter of opinion, that's a statement based on available information, information which has been proven wrong.

Somebody who maintains a viewpoint which has been flatly and clearly shown to be wrong is themselves either just too stubborn or contrary to change their mind, is incapable of acknowledging when they're wrong, even when it's staring them in the face - or is a troll. Either way they're not worth wasting effort on.

Jawgap

Steve_Carella wrote: »

This was the sentence that made me realise that Jawgap is either a troll or just completely clueless. She/he came on and made a point that the students could be doing more and has continued to refuse to acknowledge how much more is done. In other word, ploughing on regardless when their basic viewpoint has been immediately demonstrated to be wrong - and no Jawgap, before you yet again come out with your "I'm entitled to my opinion" statement, it wasn't an opinon: you stated that the students could be doing more and you were then told how much more they do - that's not a matter of opinion, that's a statement based on available information, information which has been proven wrong.

Somebody who maintains a viewpoint which has been flatly and clearly shown to be wrong is themselves either just too stubborn or contrary to change their mind, is incapable of acknowledging when they're wrong, even when it's staring them in the face - or is a troll. Either way they're not worth wasting effort on.

So much for not playing the man......

......and - once again - my point wasn't they shouldn't be doing more, but they could do things differently.

Deenie123

Jawgap wrote: »

So much for not playing the man......

......and - once again - my point wasn't they shouldn't be doing more, but they could do things differently.

Yet you've yet to say how they could do things differently that they aren't already doing.... That's kinda the point that everyone is trying to get through to you. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Deenie123 wrote: »

Yet you've yet to say how they could do things differently that they aren't already doing.... That's kinda the point that everyone is trying to get through to you. :rolleyes:

Yes, I have. Can I recommend the search function to you?

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

So much for not playing the man......

......and - once again - my point wasn't they shouldn't be doing more, but they could do things differently.

And - once again - my point is that they DO do things differently, as has been shown throughout the thread.

As for playing the man - all I've done is summarise your arguments and the weakness of your general approach. Commenting on points made and how they're made is a perfectly acceptable method of debate. I'm sure if I'd played you in any way the mods would have stepped in by now.

evolving_doors

So basically Jawgap, I take it you agree with what the Journalist wrote?

Jawgap

Steve_Carella wrote: »

And - once again - my point is that they DO do things differently, as has been shown throughout the thread.

As for playing the man - all I've done is summarise your arguments and the weakness of your general approach. Commenting on points made and how they're made is a perfectly acceptable method of debate. I'm sure if I'd played you in any way the mods would have stepped in by now.

Well someone introduced the 't' word into the conversation and it wasn't me.

I'm sure you feel I have a weak argument, I would disagree.

Jawgap

Armelodie wrote: »

So basically Jawgap, I take it you agree with what the Journalist wrote?

Where did I say I did? (EDIT: And why would you assume I do?) I'm not sure I even commented one way or the other on the article in 10 pages of posts.

And for the record I don't - but I doubt that will suffice.

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sure you feel I have a weak argument, I would disagree.

You don't have any argument at all.

Jawgap

Steve_Carella wrote: »

You don't have any argument at all.

Again, we'll just have to disagree on that point.

Steve_Carella

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, we'll just have to disagree on that point.

In my opinion the sky is green. You and everybody else may think it's blue, but we'll agree to disagree.

Jawgap

Sounds like that's settled then.