Sand wrote: » No, but you have to be of Irish descent to be Irish.
Sand wrote: » you have to be of Irish descent to be Irish.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The truth is by your definition Leo Varadkar is not Irish, for example.
Why?
You are the kind of hypocrite who I really despise...You are just one of those pathetic hypocrites, which Ireland has to put up with, unfortunately. ...I would actually class you as the worst type of Irishman...Yet gombeens like you have no clue.
One in name only and holding on for dear life that you are 'true Irish' basically because you were born here.
He/She also would not fear other cultures. And not have a really narrow definition of Irishness.
Your sole expression of Irishness seems to start and end with the fact your family were here for a few generations - which is of implicit importance for you as it would imply that they are white.
You cannot weasel out of a quote such as: And refuse to explain it properly, As I have already asked you. Without having some sinister agenda. There is no running away from that comment now.
Justin Credible Darts wrote: » I dont believe in that invisible am in the sky ****. and the general irish people have no problem with "lack of faith" the muslims dont share that prospective. In you r own word that is their identity. I can slate jesus, budda etc,,,,try that **** with the muslims, As for the pub culture, I think you need to check your facts on alcohol consumption per per person n% wise around the world and you will find the french, german etc consume more and they have far more "multiculturism than we have
Sand wrote: » Leo has an Irish parent so he's of Irish descent. He identifies as being Irish. And he's accepted as being Irish by Irish people. Hence he is Irish by my definition.
I dont fear other cultures, and I have a very broad definition of Irish identity. Your definition is extremely narrow, based on a language the vast majority of people cant or don't speak in day to day life. Far fewer people would qualify as Irish under your definition.Irish people are a European people. Again, you need to get over that.
Because that is how Irish identity is defined - by descent, not by language tests. The vernacular for Irish people is English, not Gaelic. Has been that way for hundreds of years. You need to get over it.
Verging into personal abuse there. But it does demonstrate again the hatred you have against Irish people. You're vomiting up an awful lot of resentment. Do Irish people disappoint you?
No, I'm Irish because I am of Irish descent. It doesn't matter where I was born. And people aren't Irish simply because they were born in Ireland - that loophole was closed long ago.
That comment isnt controversial. I refer you to Article 9.2 of the Irish contitution: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.'
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Take the sandwich who invented it? John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich back in 1762 a Britishman. Ireland could not be classed British as this stage as it was prior to the Act of Union 1800. Now we have wraps and all sorts. I still am a hang sambo person. .
Cordell wrote: » Yes, because there is no positives, for that to be the case the multicultural cultures need to be superior, which is not the case, but quite the opposite. And there is no strength in diversity either, the strength comes from unity.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » And had to put a caveat on Leo's Irishness. You could just not say simply say that you view Leo as Irish. You couched it by saying he is accepted as Irish by the Irish people. Sounds like you are typing it through gritted teeth. As I remember on a number of times now you have said that to be of Irish descent you have to go back generations.
Plus we have a weasly contradiction below here.
Again not true, it is clear you have a limited knowledge of Irish law. Legally the Irish language is the first language of the State.
I have great respect for Irish people who express thier Irishness by thier love of Irish culture
So now you have changed your tune yet again.
Judging by the way you went around the houses to grudgingly accept Leo Varadkar as Irish, it gives the distinct impression that such a change was decades too late for you.
Again, you are the worst type of Irish hypocrite anti-migrant, yet distant from thier own Irish culture. Pathetic in my view. If you let yourself loose your own culture it is no wonder you are fearful of other cultures. Because they would make a show of your limited sense of Irishness very fast. You only have to pay a visit to a Ciorcal Comhra, in Conradh na Gaeilge to find that out.
Patrick2010 wrote: » Sean Moncriefe giving a soft interview on the topic of NGO people smugglers.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Again not true, it is clear you have a limited knowledge of Irish law. Legally the Irish language is the first language of the State.
Plus acupuncture another benefit of Multiculturalism. Brought to Ireland by Chinese practitioners. Which I could take a guess at least some of the opponents of multiculturalism availed of in the past. Also, I bet many an opponent of Multiculturalism had had a session of Yoga an Indian invention! Or how about some Thai massage therapy? Most here say multiculturalism never has a happy ending....
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Plus acupuncture another benefit of Multiculturalism. Brought to Ireland by Chinese practitioners. Which I could take a guess at least some of the opponents of multiculturalism availed of in the past. Also, I bet many an opponent of Multiculturalism had had a session of Yoga an Indian invention! Or how about some Thai massage therapy? Most here say multiculturalism never has a happy ending....
excludedbin wrote: » I sincerely hope you're not involved in genetics because that couldn't be further from the truth. Unity results in recessive genes becoming more common, which means more deformities and generally a weaker, poorer gene pool. I'll take different people over inbred hicks, thanks.
In culture too, considering that cultures have never been static but have always interacted and influenced each other. What you call 'unity' would've seen us stuck as a backwards little Catholic ****hole where 'fallen women' would still be shipped off to be brutalised, children would still be raped, and homosexuality would still be outlawed. Media were banned because they deviated from what was considered acceptable, because they were different. And 'unity' would've seen that preserved.
Cultures have never been and never will be static.
You're trying to hold back the tide with your hands and bitter complaining about how much you hate this change. But it'll still happen, whether you want it to or not. You probably think that sounds nihilistic because you can't see change as anything but bad.
So please, by all means, continue to angrily strike at the sea as it comes in around your feet. Just know that you can always move back in with the rest of us and stay dry, whenever you like.
Sand wrote: » As I said, he's Irish by my definition. There's no contradiction there? Which is irrelevant to the definition of the Irish people in the constitution and under citizenship law.
Sand wrote: » I mean the European ethnic group commonly described as Irish, who primarily descend from the same people who lived on the island of Ireland in the 5th-6th century and even before. Those Irish people. Would you be okay with that ethnic group becoming a minority in their own homeland? So long as they were displaced by better, more productive and cost effective workers?
Sand wrote: » Would you be okay with Irish people being a minority in Ireland, so long as the new majority where hard working, well educated and socially liberal? Essentially better people in your view than the Irish working class.
But not the Irish working class who you are happy to throw under the bus, right?
No, I've been very consistent. Which makes it all the more remarkable that you're not keeping up.
The birthright citizenship loophole only existed for a few years, not even a decade.
I think you have to learn to accept that the Irish people as a whole are going to define ourselves and our culture, not you. And that's okay.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Again pure lies this is what you previously said Bluff your way out of that? Because that is all it would be bluffing. I can see right through you.
Cultures change over time
Many in the Irish working class are the first to forego thier Irish culture quicker as many do not advance very far in further education...But on the whole it is the working class people who chose to lose thier Irish culture. And are more influenced by British teams or American celebrities. Man United tattoos and a proliferation of Britney's and so on.
Oh I am well up to you! You firstly defined Irishness as going back generations. And grudgingly redefined Leo Varadkar as an Irishman!
Yet contrast it to the following hysterical posts again. Pure contradiction.
It is clear from this you deep down view Irishness as a white ethnic group that is your main issue with multiculturalism. Deep down your issue is not if someone is defined as Irish but of what ethnic group they are.
Your fear over Irish birthright also seems to be a consequence of the former. You would prefer if other ethnic groups were denied Irish citizenship from birth.
'Defending our culture' is code for being a bigot. Plus again the irony is not lost on me that you have chosen to lose a main tenet of Irish culture - the Irish language. Yet on the other hand view yourself as defending Irish culture!?? :rolleyes:
Sand wrote: » As an aside, I think its interesting how these advocates of multiculturalism try to portray themselves as sensible and reasonable. But under just the tiniest bit of pushback, all the irrational hatred towards comes rushing out. It's almost a waste of time pointing out to them the negative impact of mass migration and multiculturalism on the indigenous people. They know that. For them, that is the point.
jmreire wrote: » Agreed. And for most part, those who are in favour of increasing the Nrs of Immigrants / Asylum Seekers don't seem to have lived in the Countries these people are coming from, and as a result, basically know nothing about them.
Gervais08 wrote: » Or get paid by an NGO and have a vested interest.
Sand wrote: » Huge money in 'refugee' trafficking these days. From the people smugglers to the lawyers and landlords.
jmreire wrote: » But of course, these posters would always state that in their post's....:rolleyes:
biko wrote: » It's a very touchy subject, because the left have made it so, and I think most of the people that want open borders are more focused on their feelings than their head.
vriesmays wrote: » A problem in Ireland is that philosophy is not taught in schools (outside of classical studies). Now we have a generation of dopes thinking with their emotions.
Sand wrote: » Leo is of Irish descent. Hence he is ethnically Irish, like everyone else who is of Irish descent. What aren't you following? The culture of a given people changing organically and naturally is normal. But you're not proposing that Irish peoples culture change. You're proposing that the Irish people be displaced by non-Irish peoples and their non-Irish culture. There is a significant difference between the two. So because the Irish working class haven't lived up to the standards you demand of Irish people, they deserve to be cast aside and crushed under the forces of globalism? Do you listen to yourself? I redefined him as Irish? Do you think hes not Irish then? There isnt any contradiction there. Irish is an ethnicity. A European ethnicity. Same as the Japanese are an Asian ethnicity. Me and 80% of the Irish people voted to remove that birthright loophole. I'm broadly satisfied with the constitution and nationality laws as they exist today. Maybe I'd make a few tweaks in an ideal world, but its fine as is. As I said before its your views which are completely out of step with the Irish people. I've not said anything about defending a culture? To do so, you first have to define what is Irish culture, like you do with language. I think that is a fools errand. Irish culture is whatever Irish people pursue. It's constantly changing and evolving and it wont be caged by narrow definitions such as your own. Irish people are going to define themselves and their culture without you. You can continue shouting at the clouds for all the difference it will make.
Yurt! wrote: » The acupuncturist I went to was a woman from Co Clare. My girlfriend's yoga instructer a lady from Cork. Do you think we need to toss immigration policy out the window and refuse to discuss it to enjoy the wonders of massage?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Good one in fairness. My point was many people seem to ignore the benefits of multiculturalism, a lot of the time. There was a few snide comments on here saying the only benefit was food. Some could not even think of any benefits. If India did not share yoga with the world, would your girlfriend be doing Zuma instead which was invented by a Columbian? Where did the acupuncturist from Clare get the knowledge from? Who provided the initial knowledge to the practitioners when it was introduced to Ireland? Back in the 80's when it was not as widespread in Ireland it was predominantly Chinese led. Also the irony is not lost on me that the most popular food in Ireland - for Irish auld fellas in particular (the spud) was not indigenous to Ireland. It came from the Incas in South America. Modern day Peru.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
