Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Trinity news, coca cola, and random blitherings

2

Comments

  • #32
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    That's exactly the problem John. I support the SU ban on Coke/Nestlé, even though I continue to buy Coke. But people saying that a vote by one body, of ~20% of the electorate, has some sort of mandate over another body, is a bit too much. That said, I do agree with Andrew's comment that it should be taken note of.


  • #33
    John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,135 ✭✭✭✭John


    So do I but I don't think that TN didn't take note of the situation and that they did weigh the pros and cons. If they didn't then they're fools.


  • #34
    Andrew 83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭Andrew 83


    John wrote:
    I don't know, with such a low turn out I wouldn't consider it a proper vote. Is there a minimum turn out for SU referenda? Or could in theory ten people turn up and it be allowed?


    10% is the minimum. Funnily enough the referendum that brought it in had a turnout of less than 10%!


  • #35
    John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,135 ✭✭✭✭John


    Really? 10% seems very low to me, I would have thought it should be up around 25% or so. Even then I think that's pushing it.


  • #36
    Andrew 83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭Andrew 83


    John wrote:
    Really? 10% seems very low to me, I would have thought it should be up around 25% or so. Even then I think that's pushing it.

    Before that there was no minimum!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,735 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Andrew_83 wrote:
    Before that there was no minimum!
    Andrew_83 wrote:
    10% is the minimum. Funnily enough the referendum that brought it in had a turnout of less than 10%!

    There was a 10% minimum turnout for constitutional changes before, but policy changes (i.e. Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Abortion) didn't require the 10%. Now there is no requirement for either bar a simple majority.


  • #38
    ApeXaviour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,523 ✭✭✭ApeXaviour


    Wow this is a boring thread


    note to self, don't drink so much on sundays, don't smoke so much tobacco on sundays, don't stay up so late on sundays and don't get tonsilitis on sundays.


  • #39
    foxybrowne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 520 ✭✭✭foxybrowne


    ApeXaviour wrote:
    Wow this is a boring thread
    Hi, this is a really interesting and engaging thread. Its the first one I've ever read start to finish on the TCD Forum. For more info on the worldwide Coca-Cola boycott, check out http://www.killercoke.org/ and check out the sterling work carried out by Killer Coke activists at the Aussie Rules match yesterday, see here.


  • #40
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    Andrew83 wrote:
    Let's not make this a debate about the referendums.

    *Ronan wishes he'd said this two pages ago*
    All I'll say is if the other 87% all disagreed they should have come out and voted (I know that some did but less than came out to support the ban).

    Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say as well only to receive accusations of all sorts!
    Andrew 83 wrote:
    On the Coke ad: When I was editor last year Coke showed some interest in advertising but I made clear to the person in charge of getting the ads in that I wouldn't print a Coke ad. It's possible to get by without the ad but it's the editor's decision. I wouldn't have printed it (as I didn't) but I don't know the financial situation this year.

    Yeah, the financial thing is tricky. Does TN rely much on advertisements? I still think they could have gotten different ad's. Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!
    On the Irish articles: I'm in two minds. I had an Irish page and thought it was better that way but I can see the argument for the other way too. Instead of Irish being a token page, it puts articles in Irish more generally into the paper. It's not the first time there hasn't been a specific Irish page. The year the paper was tabloid (2002-2003 I'm pretty sure) it was not uncommon to have at least half, and sometimes more, of the news section in Irish including front page stories. I think this can be a little alienating however when it goes that far. Personally I would like to see Pubs have a termly magazine wholly in Irish (maybe in association with the Cumann Gaelach or someone like that if they're interested?).

    Yeah I'd agree that making Irish really prominent in the paper is a bad idea. There's plenty of non-Irish speaking people in Trinity, native and Erasmus students, so to give it half the paper would be a bit over the top.

    I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea when I first saw that they were cutting the page and mixing the Irish articles in but the number of Irish articles has just about halved since that happened and I think that's a bad thing.

    It wouldn't be so bad if there were the same amount of Irish articles interspersed throughout the paper as there used to be on the page but there aren't, there's only been two in each issue and that's a little bit minimalistic.

    Someone was talking about Irish a few pages back as though it was a patronising exercise in 'doing our bit' for the language whereby we all (as leaving cert graduates) try to decipher the meaning of this weeks articles like it's a Sudoku puzzle.

    For one thing, the standard of Irish is usually, I am sure, significantly better than the reading comprehension section of the Leaving Cert. examination.

    Some Trinity students actually went to Irish speaking schools and/or come from Gaeltacht areas. Those people, I'm sure, try to or at least would like to communicate as much as possible in Irish when they can in Trinity. Modern and Early Irish are subjects with reasonably strong numbers of students as well.

    The Irish articles in the paper allow these students to write and read in a different style than they would for their essays. They get to communicate in Irish as well. The Irish articles are first and foremost for them. The way you could say the Science page is of most interest to science students?

    Yeah the idea of a term based Irish publication wouldn't be a bad idea either. I just think it's admirable that Trinity News, over most college papers, has always recognised the genuine demand for an Irish page and it would be a shame to play it down now.
    Andrew83 wrote:
    Immediate interview: Haven't read it.

    Don't! Or do, it's kind of funny but it's hard to tell if that's what the author wanted!


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,735 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Spectator#1 wrote:
    Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!

    I think that their thinking after Coke was removed from the SU shops was that they now have the monopoly on cola (apart from lesser known/purchased) products in the SU shops. Plus from my experience from travelling around Europe you saw millions of ads for Coke everywhere you could with not that many Pepsi ads.

    I remember being told that after the Coca-Cola ban C&C didn't wish to offer sponsorship to the SU due to a lack of competition, similar to the above. This all anecdotal, of course.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Andrew 83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭Andrew 83


    Spectator#1 wrote:
    Yeah, the financial thing is tricky. Does TN rely much on advertisements? I still think they could have gotten different ad's. Pepsi would probably jump at the opportunity considering the vote that's in place!


    For every euro raised in advertising the paper receives a grant of 50 cent from college. eg. If an edition of the paper costs 3,000 euro, 2,000 has be raised in advertising. You need to raise circa 20,000 euro for a year's worth of issues.

    So, if this is all making sense, TN is reliant on advertising for 2/3 of its funding and the other third is reliant on getting that 2/3 in.


  • #43
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    Ibid wrote:
    That's exactly the problem John. I support the SU ban on Coke/Nestlé, even though I continue to buy Coke. But people saying that a vote by one body, of ~20% of the electorate, has some sort of mandate over another body, is a bit too much. That said, I do agree with Andrew's comment that it should be taken note of.

    I do see your point about the referendum Ibid, and John, and LiouVille. I still think my argument stands. It's not a case of one body having a mandate over and against another. It's a case of a whole body of students having the opportunity to put a mandate in place by each using their vote and most of them not bothering to do so.

    If the students that didn't vote had cared about their opinion being heard at all, whatever their stance on the Coca-Cola/Nestlé issue was, they could have made that clear in the referendum. By not voting, they effectively nulled any right to a claim on the matter. It's not like I'm discriminating against them, there were no obstructions there to stop them from voting.

    Whatever way you look at it, the Student Union's anti-Coke/Nestlé stance is democratically decided, official and representative of the voting student body.

    I'm not saying that TN printing the ad is an attack on the whole student body, I never did. I'm saying that I think it demonstrates a derisive attitude towards that officially implemented boycott.

    One point you could make - which still wouldn't change anything about the fact that Trinity News printed the ad - is that a lot of the students who might have voted in that election may not be in the college anymore. In this instance it would be fair to suggest that perhaps the referendum be renewed to update current student opinion.


  • #44
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    Andrew83 wrote:
    For every euro raised in advertising the paper receives a grant of 50 cent from college. eg. If an edition of the paper costs 3,000 euro, 2,000 has be raised in advertising. You need to raise circa 20,000 euro for a year's worth of issues.

    So, if this is all making sense, TN is reliant on advertising for 2/3 of its funding and the other third is reliant on getting that 2/3 in.

    That's a lot of money. I still think there are other companies/organisations who'd take an ad out in the paper in Coke's place. Hell, I'll even take an ad out:

    Indignation-of-the-World-Taken-Form/Beacon-of-Light-for-the-Student Populace (IWTFBLSP). Available for consultation Mondays and Wednesdays, 12-2. Bring own lunch, opinions provided.

    Also available for weddings and business events.

    Contact: 1850-U-P-E-O-P-L-E or VOICE_OF_THE_WORLD@factorfiction.com

    What you think LiouVille? Would you make a booking?
    Myth wrote:
    I think that their thinking after Coke was removed from the SU shops was that they now have the monopoly on cola (apart from lesser known/purchased) products in the SU shops. Plus from my experience from travelling around Europe you saw millions of ads for Coke everywhere you could with not that many Pepsi ads.

    I remember being told that after the Coca-Cola ban C&C didn't wish to offer sponsorship to the SU due to a lack of competition, similar to the above. This all anecdotal, of course.

    I suppose that makes sense yeah, maybe St. Bernard or Thrift cola would consider taking an ad out! Yeah I noticed that too, Coke is kind of marketed differently on the continent isn't it? I think Pepsi is bigger in the states than it is over here.

    I wouldn't know though, I drink Domestos.


  • #45
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Spectator#1 wrote:
    What you think LiouVille? Would you make a booking?

    I don't know, how good are you at oral sex.


  • #46
    xebec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭xebec


    Bartronilic wrote:
    And now it's useless now that everyone knows who is behind it.

    Obviously not everyone knows who's behind it! I don't!! And I am friends with/have contact with over half the people mentioned in the most recent article.

    Although I have heard some rumours, I still don't actually know who it is, so please feel free to enlighten me!


  • #47
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    There's an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy going around on this thread.
    LiouVille wrote:
    I have my doubts that you've evolved to a level capable of being able to comprehend the complex concepts I'm trying to present here.
    If you're going pull a trick like this, you could be a lot more careful about deploying relatively complex concepts (like evolution) in a manner that seems to demonstrate to all and sundry that you don't really understand them yourself.
    LiouVille wrote:
    You are not the world, you do not speak for the world, you are not the worlds righteous indignation taken form, you are not the beacon in the dark, the white knight, nor the peoples champion,
    And neither, it might be said, are you any of those things. So it is counterproductive in the context of what's going on here to get nearly as riled as you've been getting about the matter in hand. A fitting riposte to what you've written would be that if you deny someone the right to "speak for the world" you shouldn't object when, equally, they demand not to be stereotyped and conflated by you with any group of people with whom it would appear you have some sort of problem. Address people on their own terms, not on terms you (erroneously) attribute them.

    First, responding to:
    LiouVille wrote:
    I love the way you try to make out that just because a handfull of students voted against coke, it represents the whole student bodies opinion on the matter......
    [and in another post later on]
    .......The student body consists of more then those that voted against coke. The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke, however it cannot be taken as insult against the student body as a whole, since the mandate in no way can lay claim to represent the majority of students views.
    So if that mandate, based on an SU referendum, did have some claim to representing all students' views, then it could be construed that the ad was insulting, right?

    Oh wait, what's this?
    Trinity College Dublin, Students' Union, Constitution, Paragraph 2 wrote:
    The organisation shall be the only official representative organisation of all
    the students of Trinity College and the University of Dublin,

    So the mandate does represent the student body as a whole. The use of that phrase by Spectator#1 is, in this case, correct, and is not, as you have accused, an attempt to assume the cloak of "people's champion". The SU is constitutionally adequate to fill that cloak.

    You might claim that the Coke vote is misrepresentative of people's views on the basis of voter apathy, as you have here:
    LiouVille wrote:
    The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, .....
    [and later on]
    ......I don't consider 13% of the people deciding for 100% of the people to be democratic, nor to be a mandate for anything.
    Considering that those 13% are the people who voted, and bearing in mind that it is by voting that one exercises one's democratic prerogative for collective decision-making, one might be forgiven for missing the point of exactly how this situation is undemocratic.

    And as for whether it's a mandate, well....
    Princeton University Wordnet, Definition of Mandate wrote:
    the commission that is given to a government and its policies through an electoral victory




    So, the boycott on CocaCola is an (1)official, (2)democratic sanction for the boycott of CocaCola by the SU, which (3)represents the student body as a whole. As an official crystallisation of the views of the student body, it is not vulnerable to second-guessing.
    LiouVille wrote:
    The overwhelming majority didn't care enough about this crap to vote, therefore they are unlikely to give a crap about some add, stop pretending.
    It doesn't matter that a majority are apathetic. The TN, in printing this ad, is in contempt of the official line of the student body as a whole. The TN has no contractual obligation to uphold the boycott, but Spectator's point was that printing the ad is contemptuous of the official stance of the student body.

    As a public act, it is hard not to notice it, and seeing as all of the parties are public institutions, there is no need to make reference to indeterminate data, such as what you imagine the 77% of students who didn't vote might think. Those voices have auto-absented themselves from the official tally. There is no need. We are dealing only with official institutions and stances here, not individual opinions - those have been dealt with already.

    Which you have as much as said here:
    LiouVille wrote:
    The only real thing you can infer from the people that didn't turn out is that they are neither for nor against the mandate, and as such are highly unlikely to care about an add. Now see if you can grasp that.
    Which only serves to reveal that you have failed to grasp that Spectator isn't talking about whether or not the students care. He's voicing an opinion on the fact that the TN chose to publicly act in contempt of an official SU stance. And since you seem to have allowed earlier that if the mandate could be seen to represent the whole student body, then the TN action could be considered insulting ("The add may be an insult to those that voted against coke,"), then bearing in mind the extract from the SU constitution, Spectator's initial point seems rather unobjectionable.

    People like you who claim to speak for the student body really annoy me, when it truth you only speak for your on agenda and are will to twist anything you want to suit that agenda.....[blah blah blah]....You came in here talking about the student body, in the typical way you people do, failing to realise that the majority of us don't care about your silly games. So what if less then 13% of people think something, why should the TN be bound by that?.......[blah blah blah].......You people have a problem separating reality from fiction. .......[blah blah blah].......see the fallacy of your arguements.
    I was tempted to make a general statement about people who make faulty generalisations here, but I decided that that'd be a hasty generalisation about you. So I won't. I will direct you to this article on fallacies, however, with an injunction to pay particular attention to the Straw Man Fallacy, the Biased Sample Fallacy, and the Hasty Generalisation Fallacy, all which you have expertly deployed in the past couple of days. Well done.


  • #48
    Andrew 83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭Andrew 83


    Sorry I know I said I didn't want this to be a debate on the referendum but just one more thing.

    The most recent referendum was an attempt to get rid of the two boycotts, not to introduce them. Therefore it was up to those who don't want the boycott to be in place to vote. Not enough people cared about getting rid of the ban for it to be reversed. The majority of the student population, through not bothering to vote either way on overturning it, indicated that they had no major problem with the status quo (ie. the boycott). It's a minority, both in absolute terms and in terms of the turnout for the referendum, who have an active wish to remove the boycotts.


  • #49
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    FionnMatthew wrote:
    Blah blah blah BIG WORDS GO HERE, Blah blah blah, look at me I'm SMART

    People like you, without any real grounds to rebuke arugements often hide behind high-falutin language. Your point is clear, you are full of it, but your point is clear. We should all give care because 13% of us care, once, along time ago, and everybody should repsect that the SU decided 13% of students can make decisions for us all. Personally I think it's perfectly valid to say that 87% didn't care then, and sure a **** don't care now. They don't care, how can I make that clearer to you. The vast majority of the papers readers don't care, so how was it in concept of the actual student body, as apposed to the fake student body you talk about


  • #50
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    LiouVille wrote:
    I don't know, how good are you at oral sex.

    I'm sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding there. I was suggesting that you might benefit from hearing my opinion, which I am told also happens to represent that of the entire world. I had no intention of offering any kind of sexual gratification.

    I can see how you made that mistake though. I apologise for leading you on. I'm sure you won't mind 'looking after yourself' for a bit longer will you? You could always try the personals section of TN if all else fails!


  • #51
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Spectator#1 wrote:
    I'm sorry, there seems to have been a misunderstanding there. I was suggesting that you might benefit from hearing my opinion, which I am told also happens to represent that of the entire world. I had no intention of offering any kind of sexual gratification.

    I can see how you made that mistake though. I apologise for leading you on. I'm sure you won't mind 'looking after yourself' for a bit longer will you? You could always try the personals section of TN if all else fails!

    I think I'm in love.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    FionnMatthew wrote:
    There's an unbelievable amount of hypocrisy going around on this thread.

    Thank you. You could also have pointed out that John, the just and esteemed moderator here went a bit overboard too but anyway...
    Boston wrote:
    Missing the point missing the point missing the point missing the point, I'm embarrassing myself and I don't even know it...THEY DON'T CARE...

    While those basic ideas are floating about in your head, I'll just go ahead and hit home the actual point I've been trying to explain to you for nigh on three pages now:

    I care.

    I don't care if no-one else in the college cares anymore, I care. The papers disrespected the official line reprasentative of the students and it pissed me off.

    That's why I posted, that's why I argued with you when you missed the point the first time and that's what you've been failing to understand that for the whole argument. I wasn't speaking on anyone else's behalf, just my own.

    You actually didn't deserve me to go to the lengths I did to illustrate that for you, try harder to behave civilly towards people in future.

    Do you understand? Please tell me you understand.


  • #53
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Personal abuse. I no longer love you.

    I'll sum up this thread

    poster A; "Ignoring the spirit of the SU ban on coke sale by publishing this add is a slap in the face of the student body".

    Moi; "Actually most people don't care"

    Poster A; "But we had a referendum and the student body spoke".

    moi; "yea, but only a tiny minority of people cared enough to vote, and only just over half of them are against it, so you see, the majority dont' care, so are unlikely to be insulted by the ad"

    Poster A; "but the SU is our representative body, so by ignoring a mandate of them it goes beyond just to coke ban and shows concempt for that body which represents the SU as a whole".

    moi; "Yes, but sure the majority don't care about the SU either, so it's still not the student body, merely the students that feel the SU represents them. These students are in the minority, you can't just redefine the student body to be students that take part in your activities"

    poster A; "You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. A tiny minority of people voted for something in the majority, that should be respected"

    Moi; "That minority shouldn't be taken as speaking for the rest of us"

    poster A; "YOUR A MORON".

    moi; "I AM THE WIN".

    Now good day to you sir.


  • #54
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    LiouVille wrote:
    Personal abuse. I no longer love you.

    Acknowleged, I'm changing it from moron, that was a bit harsh but you're still wrong.
    "I AM THE WIN"

    Well, when you put it like that...

    *Puts gold star on LiouVille's collar, pats him on the head

    LiouVille turns to the audience.

    Bows.

    Flourishes.

    Exeunt.

    Curtains.*

    Fin.


  • #55
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    I feel our relationship has come along way in the past few days, and we should take it to the next level.


  • #56
    Nietzschean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    uh huh, do i smell personal abuse? i've long grown bored of this thread, but regardless, did spectator #1 call you a moron louiville?


  • #57
    Spectator#1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Spectator#1


    Nietzschean wrote:
    uh huh, do i smell personal abuse? i've long grown bored of this thread, but regardless, did spectator #1 call you a moron louiville?

    I'll field this one LouiVille.

    Yes I did, but not like

    "You're a moron"

    it was more like

    "blah blah blah and this is why you're behaving like a moron..."

    Not sure if that's the smell you got, perhaps you're wearing yesterday's boxers?


  • #58
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Ian, what ever it takes ot close this thread.


  • #59
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Boston wrote:
    People like you, without any real grounds to rebuke arugements often hide behind high-falutin language. Your point is clear, you are full of it, but your point is clear. We should all give care because 13% of us care, once, along time ago, and everybody should repsect that the SU decided 13% of students can make decisions for us all. Personally I think it's perfectly valid to say that 87% didn't care then, and sure a **** don't care now. They don't care, how can I make that clearer to you. The vast majority of the papers readers don't care, so how was it in concept of the actual student body, as apposed to the fake student body you talk about
    "High-falutin language"? Are you actually in a University? Do they actually let you in with an attitude as stubbornly illiterate as this? Since when was a university a haven for populist anti-intellectualism?

    And with regard to the thread at large, "I don't care", or "Nobody cares", is not an argument. As an apathetic position, it's quietist. At the most, a quietist position merits a single mention, and then sits out of debate. Misdeployed as an aggressive argument, "nobody cares" doesn't really have any compelling argumentative force. If you make a song and dance about it, if you try, with it, to suppress the voice of someone who's actually saying something, the subtext of what you are saying is "shut up, shut up". As an argument, it's pretty weak. That's why often, when you see the "nobody cares" argument in a public forum, it makes up in ferocity for what it lacks in argumentative rigour.

    But there are better ways to make a point, or to have a discussion, than cheap shots like "People like you....".

    And I would express grave doubts about the quality of moderation on this forum. When reading posts like #35, I'm forced to assume that John didn't read this thread at all, but only the single line of spelling correction that he assumed was characteristic of Spectator's posts.

    On a lonely fact, drawn from the only bit he read, he was willing to arrive at a false conclusion ("You've spent a lot of time deriding both Liouville and Nietzschean for the way they type their messages"), to advance an article of personal abuse ("you come off as a condescending asshole whose points are irrelevant") and to offer redundant advice ("Why not just argue about the points in hand?"), advice that would have been better spent on other contributors.

    This kind of behaviour from general users would appear to be tolerated here, but from a moderator, a little more rigour is expected, and a little less bias.


  • #60
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    FionnMatthew wrote:
    "High-falutin language"? Are you actually in a University? Do they actually let you in with an attitude as stubbornly illiterate as this? Since when was a university a haven for populist anti-intellectualism?

    And with regard to the thread at large, "I don't care", or "Nobody cares", is not an argument. As an apathetic position, it's quietist. At the most, a quietist position merits a single mention, and then sits out of debate. Misdeployed as an aggressive argument, "nobody cares" doesn't really have any compelling argumentative force. If you make a song and dance about it, if you try, with it, to suppress the voice of someone who's actually saying something, the subtext of what you are saying is "shut up, shut up". As an argument, it's pretty weak. That's why often, when you see the "nobody cares" argument in a public forum, it makes up in ferocity for what it lacks in argumentative rigour.

    wow, way to twist my point. Bravo. Majority of peope l don't care enought to be insulted by the article. The orginal issue was peopel pretending the opposite, that everyone was/should be insulted.

    And I would express grave doubts about the quality of moderation on this forum. When reading posts like #35, I'm forced to assume that John didn't read this thread at all, but only the single line of spelling correction that he assumed was characteristic of Spectator's posts.

    On a lonely fact, drawn from the only bit he read, he was willing to arrive at a false conclusion ("You've spent a lot of time deriding both Liouville and Nietzschean for the way they type their messages"), to advance an article of personal abuse ("you come off as a condescending asshole whose points are irrelevant") and to offer redundant advice ("Why not just argue about the points in hand?"), advice that would have been better spent on other contributors.

    This kind of behaviour from general users would appear to be tolerated here, but from a moderator, a little more rigour is expected, and a little less bias.

    Since you're so intelligent, you'd realise John isn't a moderator of this forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    LiouVille wrote:
    Poster A; "but the SU is our representative body, so by ignoring a mandate of them it goes beyond just to coke ban and shows concempt for that body which represents the SU as a whole".

    moi; "Yes, but sure the majority don't care about the SU either, so it's still not the student body, merely the students that feel the SU represents them. These students are in the minority, you can't just redefine the student body to be students that take part in your activities"

    poster A; "You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. A tiny minority of people voted for something in the majority, that should be respected"

    Moi; "That minority shouldn't be taken as speaking for the rest of us"
    Would you, then, advocate abolishing the democratic structures by which the students are represented? Would you abolish representation for the student body?

    If I were to conduct a statistical experiment, in a test group, for s specific condition, I'd get a percentage divide like 33%-77%. That statistic stands as it was taken. It isn't disproven by the fact that there are 6 billion other people in the world who weren't in the test group. You might cast doubts about the statistical irregularity. But the info for the 6 billion other people is indeterminate until a new experiment is conducted. For whatever purpose I conducted that first experiment, that information is representative.

    The kernel of this is that the TN should respect the majority of people who do have an opinion. People who registered their opinion, who made it count. People who don't care - they'll have it either way - the subtext is "let the people who care decide". And they have done so. And to do something to upset a majority of people who actually registered that they cared, and hence made it the mandate of the student body as a whole - that's questionable.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement