Is Phil Hogan a "bigoted racist"?

Reformed Character wrote: »

So you don't believe in the concept of social housing, for anyone?

Not what I said.

You have the means to provide for yourself, others don't. Yeh some are freeloaders but lots just don't have many opportunities and are still trying to be as self sufficient as they can - you see it for instance when people eventually buy the house they live in, off the local authority.
I would never want an end to state supports - it is disappointing that they can be taken advantage of though, of course, but I still wouldn't like to see an end to them. There but for the grace, etc.

Fine, but where is the line between personal responsibility and entitlement? He has 7 kids - I dread to think of the amount of social welfare the family receives every year, and now a free house. I would suggest he should pay back the tax payer through community work - 40 hours a week sweeping streets etc.

The criminal record is just the cherry on the cake, it's a bitter pill to swallow for anyone busting their asses working and paying 52% tax to read of such generosity for such a non contributing member of society.

Nodin wrote: »

Theres nothing in law that says people who have been convicted lose their normal entitlements after serving their sentence.

Yes, and it feels like we read of violent crimes committed by people with 80 previous convictions on an almost daily basis. And we get labeled a racist for questioning the criminal tendencies of certain sectors of society.

Ah yes little old Ireland - a fine, lenient and extremely generous country to be a criminal in. Whatever happens the tax payer is there to pick up the tab.

Nodin wrote: »

You should really just ring Joe.

Racist!

Zonda999 wrote: »

It being a generalistion almost that travellers bring trouble with them. Unfortunately though, in the real world people do think, and make their minds up on issues based in generalisations! Its pathetic to ignore this.

Yes they do. And in most cases making decision on the basis of our experiences serves us quite well, even if sometimes we use the minimum information (a sample experience of size one) to make such decisions. Thus if we have a favourable experience in a shop / restaurant / holiday destination we will be disposed to a re-experience, and conversely if we do not.

However, there is a difficulty when we generalise about people who we characterise by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age or anything else. And it is not that the principle of pattern detecting fails in such cases, though some who would (properly!) argue against such behaviour will try to suggest that it does. It is quite simply that we have learned time and again from history that such thinking tends not to serve society well.

For example, the prejudice in Britain against the Irish until recent times (and maybe still?) probably contributed to the fact that the Irish were unique amongst migrants to Britain in that their life expectancy was shortened.

Perhaps there was some truth in the various stereotypes of the Irish which led those in Britain to make up their minds negatively based on generalisations but that kind of thinking does not serve society well. And this example is perhaps on the benign side.

In short, generalising about a people is not a bad idea because generalising doesn’t work as well in such circumstances. It is simply a bad idea. But because it does work, people sometimes fail to see that it is a bad idea.

Though a problem with such noble attempts to eradicate harmful prejudices is that in some cases the very people who would benefit from this seem willing to cynically exploit these attempts for short term gain (playing the race card is how it is sometimes colloquially put)

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Phil is off to the great gravy train in Europe.

Embarrassed that a man like that will be representing Ireland

I will bet he is not embarrassed. Brass neck, ego, conceit, arrogance, superiority,....he has it all. I doubt he would be re elected to the Dail in the next election.