nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Unlearning what our society has taught us.

Kraft.l

Hello, what things do people feel they've had to unlearn in Irish society that they've
been taught from a young age and they're more happier because of it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

da_miser

the beer revolu wrote: »

So, you don't know what school is in question, yet you know what it is that makes it a good school?
That's as fcuking bonkers as your inability to write English.

But we do know you chose a catholic school to educate your child, that tells us plenty about your hypocrisy.
As for the quality of the school, its good because its a catholic school, look at the USA, pubic schools are terrible, parents of all religions do everything to get their children into a catholic school, i wonder why that is?

the beer revolu

storker wrote: »

I agree.

I'm happy for them to form their own opinions.

I don't believe they're being indoctribated. Alternatives are being presented to the set of catholic beliefs, and there's more to indoctrination than just teaching someone about something. And just two religious ceremonies in a childhood that are seen as much as rites of passage as expressions of belief don't alter that.

See above and previous posts. You seem to be saying that any religious education is that same as indoctrination. I think that's a false dichotomy, I see it as a sliding scale that has "make no reference to religion" at one end and "teach only catholicism and lots of it" at the other, and there are positions that lie between the two.

.

You seem to think I'm questioning the kids being in a Catholic school. I'm not. It's often the best option for a variety of reasons.
I'm questioning the doublethink of the fact that as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, your children are Catholic as they have been through the sacraments - at one of which you, most likely, professed your faith and vowed to bring the children up in the that faith, yet you claim that your children aren't being brought up Catholic. Catholic teaching, absolutely tells people how to think. You can't avoid Catholic catechism and make the sacraments.
The children continue to take part in sacraments.
This is not a class lesson - these are solemn rites with vows.
It's ironic that you think that both you and your wife have moved away from religion but still choose to bring the children up as catholics.

It's extremely common in Ireland. Much as people seem to want to break away from the church, it seems, when it comes to children, they can't.

the beer revolu

da_miser wrote: »

But we do know you chose a catholic school to educate your child, that tells us plenty about your hypocrisy.
As for the quality of the school, its good because its a catholic school, look at the USA, pubic schools are terrible, parents of all religions do everything to get their children into a catholic school, i wonder why that is?

Hello?
Wtf are you on about.
Are you drunk or insane?

[Deleted User]

Your Face wrote: »

Don't trust anyone.

That’s the most important lessons anyone can learn.

da_miser

the beer revolu wrote: »

Hello?
Wtf are you on about.
Are you drunk or insane?

You have been found out.
Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham

Catholic church bad, but ill send my children to a catholic school as they are the best.

the beer revolu

da_miser wrote: »

You have been found out.
Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character traits or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence, in a general sense, hypocrisy may involve dissimulation, pretense, or a sham

Catholic church bad, but ill send my children to a catholic school as they are the best.

But I don't have any children.
How can I cleanse myself of this hypocrisy?

[Deleted User]

What I have had to unlearn that was taught to me:

If one has great college grades university degree PhD, qualifications then they are going to be a very morally upright virtuous member of society to be respected in that light irrespective of their outward appearances.

To a further extreme, someone bragged to me about the extent to which they could speedily command a computer tech support phone line to get him an engineer on site without doing any tech support. Applies to users using other devices like printers.

- if you practiced this then look on Google for the problem first.

Mad_maxx

NIMAN wrote: »

I think we are.

It's only when you travel and meet other nationalities do you discover how socialable us Irish actually are.

We are incredibly nosey but once we gather the facts on someone, we often ignore them afterwards

[Deleted User]

the beer revolu wrote: »

I wonder if the children of non practising Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, in Catholic schools casually get baptised, make their communion, get confirmed and go to mass, all while being "not brought up in the Catholic faith"?
Somehow, I doubt it.

Well, regarding Jews and Muslims, the chances of them being non-practicing while also being part of their local religious community, is extremely rare. Those two religions have a cultural component in addition to the religious, something that Catholics have mostly lost in Ireland. And Buddhism isn't really an organised religion with strict rules for their followers to abide by, especially when it comes to their children. Somewhat in traditionally Buddhist nations in Asia, but not even slightly in the west.

Which makes me wonder why you used these religious and faiths. You can doubt it because you picked religions which are nowhere similar to Catholicism in Ireland... Probably because there is nothing similar.

storker

the beer revolu wrote: »

I wonder if the children of non practising Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, in Catholic schools casually get baptised, make their communion, get confirmed and go to mass, all while being "not brought up in the Catholic faith"?
Somehow, I doubt it.

I doubt it too, but then they probably haven't grown up in a society where the religious rites of passage also became the national rites of passage because of the catholic church's historical stranglehold on life in Ireland.

.

storker

the beer revolu wrote: »

It's extremely common in Ireland. Much as people seem to want to break away from the church, it seems, when it comes to children, they can't.

Oh I think they can, but it's more a process than an event. When we were growing up we had to go to mass every week. My kids don't. The church didn't get to dictate how my wife and I voted in the divorce, abortion or same-sex marriage referendums. We used contraception for a long time before we had kids. And although my kids go to a catholic school (that used to have "convent" in its title but replaced it with "college"), they don't show any enthusiasm for it - the catholicism that is - they love the school. I would be surprised if their kids go through the same sacraments as they did because we, the future grandparents, won't have anything invested in them doing so, unlike the current grandparents for whom not to do so would have been unthinkable and upsetting. Being seen to be right about something isn't that important to me. The church's grip is almost gone, and a couple of big occasions doesn't change that.

the beer revolu wrote: »

But I don't have any children.
How can I cleanse myself of this hypocrisy?

I think he's confusing you with me.

debok

da_miser wrote: »

Would appear i struck a nerve?
Where did i pretend to be offended on the behalf of Islam?

No nerve struck I'm not the kinda a person that gets upset over anonymous posters comments on an after hours thread. Looking at your comments you seem to have a nerve struck permanently though because your reading everyones posts with your own bitter perception. When you add fascinating and interesting onto the end of nearly every post kinda cones across that you don't want to partake in a thread or hear other people's opinions because you think your right about everything.

coinop

As children, that we needed to donate the little bit of money we had to the Trocaire box during Lent to the "starving black babies in Africa." Little did we know that the heads of these charities were paying themselves huge salaries and living the high life from the pocket money stolen from children. I have vowed to never donate a single cent to any charity since, no matter how sincere their pitch is.

storker

coinop wrote: »

As children, that we needed to donate the little bit of money we had to the Trocaire box during Lent to the "starving black babies in Africa." Little did we know that the heads of these charities were paying themselves huge salaries and living the high life from the pocket money stolen from children. I have vowed to never donate a single cent to any charity since, no matter how sincere their pitch is.

The highly-paid CEO trend has poisoned the water for a lot of charities, I think, and people are now not only asking how much of their money actually goes to the needy recipinets, but why we need multiple charities for the same issues/causes/problems anyway. I think you can get figures for the ratio of running costs to net donations for each charity.

.

whisky_galore

coinop wrote: »

As children, that we needed to donate the little bit of money we had to the Trocaire box during Lent to the "starving black babies in Africa." Little did we know that the heads of these charities were paying themselves huge salaries and living the high life from the pocket money stolen from children. I have vowed to never donate a single cent to any charity since, no matter how sincere their pitch is.

Charities are only needed when governments fail their people.

coinop

whisky_galore wrote: »

Charities are only needed when governments fail their people.

You're correct. So why is the feeding the Ethiopian population the responsibility the Irish? I remember during Live-Aid that it was announced the Irish donated more per head than anyone else in the world. A nation of suckers.

EmmetSpiceland

storker wrote: »

The highly-paid CEO trend has poisoned the water for a lot of charities, I think, and people are now not only asking how much of their money actually goes to the needy recipinets, but why we need multiple charities for the same issues/causes/problems anyway. I think you can get figures for the ratio of running costs to net donations for each charity.

Without the “highly paid” CEO the charity would collapse and fade into obscurity. They bring their expertise to the role and ensure the charity brings in big money.

It would be great to see already successful “business people” take these positions for “nominal” salaries but that’s just not the case right now.

Hard to see any CEO, who is not already “independently wealthy”, taking the job for peanuts, say 75k when they could, easily, make 3 times that somewhere else.

People on here can snipe, bitch and moan all they want but those big charities do excellent work and everyone from the lowly office “administrator“ right up to the CEO are well worth their salaries. Every penny of them.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluded.

mr_fegelien

That looks don't matter. It's the biggest load of bollocks ever. Grooming (what clothes you're wearing, how neat your hair is) and bodily appearance (race, facial features) determine how you're treated in society.

[Deleted User]

coinop wrote: »

As children, that we needed to donate the little bit of money we had to the Trocaire box during Lent to the "starving black babies in Africa." Little did we know that the heads of these charities were paying themselves huge salaries and living the high life from the pocket money stolen from children. I have vowed to never donate a single cent to any charity since, no matter how sincere their pitch is.

You can take being cynical too far though. Not all charities operate the same way. The turning point is when they become so large, and also when their focus is beyond the view of their supporters. I've been giving to the ISPCA, and ISPCC from the month I first received a salary amount. They're good charities. I also gave to trocaire as a teen, but as you said, they became corrupted. I tend to look at most NGO's that way these days, but it's worth doing the research before donating rather than giving trust away freely. That's the lesson of modern living. Do your own research and don't automatically trust any organisation.

[Deleted User]

coinop wrote: »

You're correct. So why is the feeding the Ethiopian population the responsibility the Irish? I remember during Live-Aid that it was announced the Irish donated more per head than anyone else in the world. A nation of suckers.

I don't see it that way. There are good reasons to give to foreign charities. Educational supports, dispersal of medicine, etc. All of which can increase the stability of the receiving nation, and decrease the numbers of migrants coming to Europe. I don't particularly agree at simply throwing money at a problem, like feeding, since it doesn't resolve the root problems, but as I said above, not all charities operate in the same manner. I give to the Jesuits (I'm not religious) because they do tremendous good in educational programs throughout the 3rd world... which hopefully will encourage them to fix their own problems.

Some support of developing 3rd world nations is logical. Live Aid was more than just feeding people. The funding went towards a host of services.

IMHO, this nation of suckers, is more applicable nowadays with regards to immigration, than it did back then, for Live Aid.

[Deleted User]

mr_fegelien wrote: »

That looks don't matter. It's the biggest load of bollocks ever. Grooming (what clothes you're wearing, how neat your hair is) and bodily appearance (race, facial features) determine how you're treated in society.

Not strictly true. Beautiful people, the world over, have an easier time than everyone else in terms of social benefits. They tend to get breaks that the rest of us don't. Human society is rather superficial at times. So... looks/appearance do matter. A woman with a great body, is going to have a better time influencing men, than a woman that looks like a boy. It's just the way things are with biological responses, and that feeds in to many aspects of society, from employment through to friendships.

However, I'd say that personality counts far more than appearance, and more importantly, personality is something that can be changed/modified. This idea of personality being static and that you're stuck with that way when were born, was such a limiting factor. Leaving that limiting belief behind me, was one of the greatest changes in my life.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Nature is hardwired into us.

The human being is the only animal who attempts to deny its nature.

whisky_galore

coinop wrote: »

You're correct. So why is the feeding the Ethiopian population the responsibility the Irish? I remember during Live-Aid that it was announced the Irish donated more per head than anyone else in the world. A nation of suckers.

And did throwing money and food at it solve the problems? No it didn't, they're still living from harvest to harvest to this day.

[Deleted User]

whisky_galore wrote: »

And did throwing money and food at it solve the problems? No it didn't, they're still living from harvest to harvest to this day.

Kinda hard to resolve a drought from external aid.... and there's little a charity can do about ethnic conflict. The aid has helped in other ways, like increasing access to education, and the training of medical staff.

I'm not an advocate of the NGO's/Charities in Africa, but I can appreciate the problems that they face. Corrupt governments, and a system of abuse on both an institutional and social level make it difficult to resolve problems. It's not as simple as you want to suggest....

Ultimately change can only come internally, as the people themselves become educated, and more aware of options other than the traditional way of behaving. The charities and western government support, provide some momentum towards such a change.

skooterblue2

storker wrote: »

I remember one day in primary school the head brother had the class because the teacher was out, and at some point he said "...a man and woman get married and go off and commit mortal sin together...". In my then-innocent mind I imagined the newlyweds donning balaclavas and going into a bank to rob it. It just didn't make sense to me, but I think when you're a kid you have a sixth sense for which things to pursue and which to leave alone.

Years later when I remembered that episode and realised what he really meant, I wonder how fcuked-up would someone have to be to believe such a thing and how fcuked-up would the society have to be that thought them to think like that.
.

You dont know where babies come from, do you? Couples steal them from the Baby bank!!!

eviltwin

Always respect and be good to your parents. Still elements of that school of thought around today but it was worse when I was young.

One eyed Jack

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Without the “highly paid” CEO the charity would collapse and fade into obscurity. They bring their expertise to the role and ensure the charity brings in big money.

It would be great to see already successful “business people” take these positions for “nominal” salaries but that’s just not the case right now.

Hard to see any CEO, who is not already “independently wealthy”, taking the job for peanuts, say 75k when they could, easily, make 3 times that somewhere else.

People on here can snipe, bitch and moan all they want but those big charities do excellent work and everyone from the lowly office “administrator“ right up to the CEO are well worth their salaries. Every penny of them.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluded.

This simply isn’t true though. The reality is that without volunteers willing to work for nothing, and without Government schemes which are taken advantage of by the larger charities with the CEOs on larger salaries who act as money managers rather than leaders, the larger charities wouldn’t be as wealthy as they are now, and in a position to employ people who demand large salaries for their positions.

It is true though to say that they bring their expertise to the role and ensure the charities not only do they bring in big money, but they manage to keep it to themselves too, as opposed to it being spent on resources and providing services for the people they claim to be providing for. Whether they actually do good work or not is easily measured by any performance review tools, and by most metrics, the bigger charities grossly underperform and give very little in the way of value for the big money they have ensured they bring in.

Consider for example if you will the charity Ammesty International, once a small charity founded by a small group of friends into being the global political powerhouse it is today, and in Ireland the head of the Irish organisation is none other than Colm O’ Gorman. You might remember him from such charities as One in Four, where he made demands of the HSE that if he and his staff weren’t paid nearly half a million euro, the organisation would have to close its doors. The HSE relented and Colm got his €100k salary and almost an equivalent amount for his personal assistant. Five people in total, if I remember correctly, with €500k shared between them.

Colm fcuked off to Amnesty International shortly after, where his salary jumped to €125k, and the majority of the organisation are again, unpaid volunteers. When it was proposed that Colm’s salary be cut to the average industrial wage of €35k, it was voted down -

Amnesty International members vote against cutting director's salary

The argument that they wouldn’t be able to attract the calibre of CEO they do without paying a them a huge salary is a valid one, they get exactly the CEO who is more interested in bringing in big money than distributing the money that’s brought in to spend on resources to help the people they claim to be advocating for. A good point is made at the end of that article -

Speaking after the vote, Kieran O' Sullivan said he was disappointed by the outcome.

"People felt I was attacking Colm O'Gorman, which wasn't the case," he said.

"I was just basically making a point about the salary itself, not Colm O'Gorman, who is a very good director of Amnesty International.

"And the other one was people felt that they wouldn't be able to attract a good-calibre person to the role with that salary.

"That I disagree with, on the grounds that people are measured by their deeds not necessarily by their remuneration. The calibre of a person is not just how much they are paid."

The calibre of a person is not just how much they are paid, and there are plenty of CEOs whose salaries are just one dollar, a nominal sum -

One dollar salary

No Emmet, it’s just pure and simple selfishness and greed is what it is, which goes against the whole meaning of charity -

The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.

[Deleted User]

Delirah wrote: »

The Catholic Church is all knowing and always correct.

It is best to sweep things under the carpet and not talk about anything

Boys are bad

Is that not modern feminism in a nutshell?

skooterblue2

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Without the “highly paid” CEO the charity would collapse and fade into obscurity. They bring their expertise to the role and ensure the charity brings in big money.

It would be great to see already successful “business people” take these positions for “nominal” salaries but that’s just not the case right now.

Hard to see any CEO, who is not already “independently wealthy”, taking the job for peanuts, say 75k when they could, easily, make 3 times that somewhere else.

People on here can snipe, bitch and moan all they want but those big charities do excellent work and everyone from the lowly office “administrator“ right up to the CEO are well worth their salaries. Every penny of them.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluded.

You have seen Gerry Ryans ex? She got Liam Neeson doing publicity work and he through his marriage to Natasha Richardson brought the whole Redmond family in and other celebs onto the Irish UNHCR publicity campaign.

I very foolishly thought that was a self funded thing by Governments and didnt need charity from private citizens. She was doing it for a Bargain price of 250k about 10 years ago.

skooterblue2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.

Not when you can write it off against Tax.