I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
There is an irony in that God (capitalised for a reason rather than an indication of adherence on my part) is the OG non-binary identity and surely “they” would be the appropriate pronoun given the nature of the trinity, ie 3 persons in the one god.
The Burke's a well known Irish Religious family who put themselves in the spotlight for the last decade or so.
There names and some jobs are well known because of their actions. They aren't government secrets.
I wouldn't really care if my siblings names are posted here or on the internet. There online anyway. I've even discussed there personal stuff about my family on here. So, I don't really care.
So, there isn't much to think about. The Burke's put themselves out their and they'll get discussed.
Some people may be mixing up when it's used after an indefinite singular antecedent and as the dictionary indicates it is non standard use
I ask again. Would you use “it” or “they” in the simple example I provided. Or would you jump through some complicated hoops and claim that you’d go out to the door and pull down their pants to verify their gender to your own satisfaction before commenting, just so you don’t have to admit that you’re wrong?
Same difference
My, my! So it’s used as a third person singular personal pronoun in circumstances where “him” or “her” aren’t appropriate?
I wonder what other circumstances that usage would be both very useful and correct?
Can we just all agree that the pronoun brigade are dicks, but the Burkes are c*nts? I's rather have a billion 'gender' right's fools pontificate at me than see this twat's family in the news again.
People don't admit they're wrong! This is 2023, not 1923 😂
"It" isnt appropriate as it refers to something non human or person and therefore is dehumanising.
I’m not saying it is without use, nor incorrect, I’m saying “it” may be more appropriate as it relates to a single person of undefined gender. Nothing more than that.
No it isn’t.
No it is used as non standard in the case where an indefinite ( not undefined) singular is referred to in the plural
Yea the mother is deranged. She’s the root of it all tbh- they were all home schooled by her. Quite a dangerous individual but like all bullies need to be faced head on. Super intelligent intellectually family but as for the rest enough said.
I’d imagine it’ll be straight to appeal his dismissal- not that easy sack anyone let alone from the public sector.
Ahh yes everyone ridiculing the burkes are all part of some secret organized online cabal, it couldn't possibly simply be that they consistently make a ridiculous spectacle of themselves who people enjoy making fun of particularly because of their disgusting bigoted views and entitled attitude of exceptionalism.
Why do you insist on trying to defend them?
Great first post.
Get stuck in, have a go.
No we can't all agree, it's not in our DNA.
Yeah, but if people who wanted to be non-binary started requesting 'it' as a pronoun we'd be having the exact same argument over 'it' instead of 'they'.
In any case, there is a difference betwene personal pronouns and impersonal pronouns.
They are not Catholics.
Good opener Mac……..shows promise.
Be a very boring world if we did. Or a fascist paradise.
”it” is only impersonal if used without a definitive reference or antecedent, it could be personal when referring to a single person who wants to be considered neither, or both, male and female.
Im not sure we would be having the same argument as “it” would correspond more with the singular entity of a person, whereas “they” is more associated with multiples. And despite what any one person wants to be called/thought of, it is still one person.
Look, we know full well that you searched all the online dictionaries, and they all gave a standard definition of “they” that refers to unknown gender, and another that refers to non-binary gender identity. Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Webster, Macmillan… all of them. I mean, a simple Google search confirms this.
Then you went to the attic and pulled out some antique, and lo-and-behold, suddenly it’s the definitive authority on modern English to you because it uses the term “non-standard” and it suits your agenda.
Don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about on such a flimsy pretence.
I might do to you, but to most people I do not.
Whom I represent, is normal people, everyman citizens of this Republic to whom the law actually applies and who are left looking at the Burkes, wondering why they seem to believe that it doesn't apply to them?
That makes me ask, why are you defending them? Defending the indefensible? Are you a friend, a supporter, a fellow traveller, or just a shill from the extremist religious right?
There simply is no justifying what they do, ever. That doesn't make me a vigilante, just someone who believes in the principle of fairness and equality under the law.
And incidentally, its 'Ku', Ku Klux Klan. Get a klu man.
He’s not (was not) employed in a public school, it was a private fee paying school.
You’re right though he is definitely not going to let it rest. He doesn’t know how. What’s up in the air still is will he turn up to the school tomorrow or stand outside with his family picketing like they did when Ammi was sacked from Arthur Cox?
See I don’t think he’s stupid enough myself that he’ll go in and act like he works there. Yes— he was suspended but he was still an employee and that was his justification previously for turning up. But I can definitely see him and/or his family turning up and protesting or some other shite cos they’re deranged simply put.
It’s not nearly the end of this farce, not by a long shot, Enoch is going to drag this out as long as he can. I have a feeling one way or the other the school is happy to have him gone & regardless he won’t be back. There’s no chance any judge or the WRC is going to reinstate his job it would just be the most stupid thing to do after the falling out that’s occurred.
It frankly also sets a bad precedent and really puts truth into the old adage that you “can’t fire a teacher” if he was to be instated. They may give him financial compensation but I wouldn’t even like to see that. After his behaviour it would be a disgrace to see him given a cent, he frankly should have assets to the value of his time spent in prison & the legal fees for the school seized.
I’ve said it before the part that pîssed me off about this whole affair is the money and time wasted by the school & court. Not to mention the Gardai and even the Burkes themselves.
It’s just ludicrous that this family feel so self righteous that the moment they are challenged they act as if they can do no wrong.
But doesn’t the bible say let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Basically meaning we are all born equal and none of us are sin free. Is this not exactly why Jesus died? They are so hyper focused apparently on their religion yet the absolute core fundamentals of the bible are completely ignored at their leisure.
They’re nothing but absolutely bigoted hypocrites. They don’t give half a shite about religion when it’s an opportunity to abuse people and demonise ideas they oppose. They’re basically a cult.
That last point I feel is enforced by the sheer mental gymnastics and outright rubbish the burke defenders here resort to in efforts to defend their behaviour. Asking to have it proven they’ve been homophobic and bigoted for ages, when it is, claiming its irrelevant because it doesn’t pertain to this school. Madness like.
Knowledge comes from learning, wisdom comes from living. We all sometimes need to refer to recognised resources to support our viewpoint, I can’t think of a better place than a dictionary to look up the meaning of words, can you?
Splitting hairs a bit - the contra comes from the refusal to use requested prounouns in the first place and an insistance in sticking to the traditional gender-based ones. It's exacly how Enoch got into trouble. In other words, even if he was asked to use it/its he'd still have refused.
Ya I suppose it is, my viewpoint is only from a grammatical one, I have no issue at all with the gender based argument.
And no, it isn’t exactly how Enoch got into trouble, his objection was on religious grounds, not grammatical.
Yeah, but he'd have objected on relgious rounds to "it" as well. "They" is not a religious issue.
And I know what you mean with they - I was a proofreader for a while and it took an adjustment!
Clearly. And you're not the first to point it out.
No doubt he would have disagreed with anything that went against his religious beliefs, no matter what term or reference was used to describe this student.
Which is why my post that you quoted lists no less than 5 dictionaries that are easily accessible for anyone to check.
Which is why your last two paragraphs seem odd if you acknowledge that the poster used the recognised resource to support what he/she posted, and as a result, does know what he/she is talking about.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
