Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Is that a rhetorical question..? I mean the options are already there. Assuming that the department of education know best is the argument to authority, and still tells us nothing about why the status of Irish (or any other subject, but let's stick to Irish as we're going off topic otherwise). Your main point again seems to be "students should be forced to do things that are hard and boring" and your reasoning is "because the department of education says so."
Shep_Dog wrote: » You confuse 'foreign' an 'native'. Technically, Irish is not a foreign language in Ireland, but for English speakers here, practically, it is might was well be. It certainly is not their native language as they are not born into Irish speaking families or communities.
Shep_Dog wrote: » The radical Conradh na Gaeilge has an bizarre concept of solidarity. It wants to replace English with Irish as our common language. Solidarity is when people of different cultures, living in the same country, respect each other's culture. This invoves a bit of give and take. With Conradh, it's all 'take'.
Shep_Dog wrote: » It's a question. What it proves depends on the answer it receives. What concessions would you make to achieve the solidarity of a united Ireland?
Sleepy wrote: » I do. However I also accept that the purpose of language is communication and that learning a foreign language allows us to expand the number of peoples that we can communicate with. Ergo, while learning Irish may be of equal developmental value, it's of far less practical value to students and the nation in general.
Sleepy wrote: » A woman's life isn't "within the home", all authority doesn't descend from the "Most Holy Trinity" and the attendance rates at religious services would certainly indicate that Irish society doesn't in fact acknowledge "that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God". While there's much to be admired about our constitution, it's a deeply flawed document and the argument that Irish holding a position in it justifies anything is akin to the argument that it proves the existence of God.
Sleepy wrote: » And all are, as I've just demonstrated, flawed arguments.
thattequilagirl wrote: » Seriously time for both sides of this debate to give it up, you're going round in circles
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Go direach!
Shurimgreat wrote: » Thats technically not what I reasoned, you conflated two seperate points into the one sentence. The department are in charge of carrying out government policy in the area of education. If the government decided tomorrow to change something related to education, abolish some set of exams for example, the department would be tasked with implementing it. Education is graded, honours, pass, intermediate and with grades such as A, B, C etc. Good students do well the harder it gets. Its far harder to get an A in honours than a D in pass. We rightly reward students who do well in hard subjects or hard grades (honours). Generally such students have better career and life prospects and rightly so because they are either the best and brightest or else the hardest working. So if you want to dumb down or make everything easy thats quite alright but ultimately you are not do anyone favours in that regard. They will find the leap to college far more difficult for example. Ultimately we want more people doing higher grades and doing well in them.
Caoimhgh1n wrote: » Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam.A country without a language, is a country without a soul.
Dughorm wrote: » So after 1000 posts in this thread I think we have proven that far from being quiet in the grave, Irish is alive generating much discussion and debate!
Dughorm wrote: » Are we closer to answering the question "why do you hate Irish"? I think we are - but I think we have also shown that many people don't hate the language at all - but actually have real love for it! Long may it continue!
Dughorm wrote: » So after 1000 posts in this thread I think we have proven that far from being quiet in the grave, Irish is alive generating much discussion and debate! So many posters have provided amazing insights on both sides of the argument! Are we closer to answering the question "why do you hate Irish"? I think we are - but I think we have also shown that many people don't hate the language at all - but actually have real love for it! Long may it continue!
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Good to hear you believe the entirety of the new world lacks soul. I'll tell those Rio dancers to leave it off this year, Caoimhgh1n thinks they don't have soul. Seriously, has there ever been a more anti intellectual, brain dead quote?
Dughorm wrote: » Irish is not a foreign language here - full stop. One can only have one native language, so for Irish native-speakers they have to learn English to function in a bilingual society. People learn their country's official languages - it's not unusual.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » That's massively insulting to a lot of people around the world who don;t have an indigenous language.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Ah now that is a bit disingenuous! Name ANY sovereign state that does not have an indigenous language? Even in the USA there is Native American languages spoken and in Australia there are still aborigines chatting away. From wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_language It is estimated that 6,809 "living" languages exist in the world today, but 90% of them are spoken by fewer than 100,000 people. Some languages are very close to disappearing. For those who are interested Irish is not an extinct language:http://www.linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-extinct.cfm
Shurimgreat wrote: » We were getting on so well and you come out with a statement like this? I outlined the democratic process to you, the role the department of education in deciding what stays and goes as part of an elected government and you describe me as needing a big stick. Immature much? Its hard to have a mature conversation when you resort to statements like this. Ultimately like I said, you need to go through the democratic process to get a change, so off you go. Let us know how you get on. You wouldn't be using a big stick now to force the majority to change their minds? Like I said some of your views are in an extreme minority, thankfully.
Dughorm wrote: » "Practical" value again?
We already speak English "the" international language of business - I don't think we are disadvantaged in that regard. Learning more languages is a good thing and that is why learning foreign languages is recommended but not mandatory. Don't you realise you want to replace one mandatory national language with a mandatory foreign language?! Now look at the question you posed:"why should you have the right to force anyone to study Irish?" Why do you claim the right to force children to study a foreign language?
You have spent quite a while saying that the "Shakespeare" argument is irrelevant and yet you have no problem shovelling in that same "flawed" logic when it suits you! As you say yourself "A being true does not make B false. This is one of the logical skills you were supposed to pick up in mathematics." Just because the constitution contains those provisions (A being true) doesn't mean that the reference to Irish being a national language in the constitution is not valid (does not make B false). At least engage with the argument instead of trying to dismiss the constitution when it doesn't suit you!
Really? Because I haven't been convinced.
recipio wrote: » It is not our 'native' language. That died with Gaelic Ireland which incidentally was a feudal and barbaric society.It was revived by the pre- revolutionary societies and perpetuated by DeValera when he attained power. We are not 'Gaelic' , we are a blend of all the various ethnic groups who came to this island. The whole emphasis on learning Irish is a giant smokescreen which has left us with one of the lowest rates of literacy in European languages.
Shurimgreat wrote: » As opposed to the "civilising" aspects the likes of Cromwell brought? And numerous other English planters, landlords, Lord Chief Justices, Generals and so on. If you are going to make an assertion like that, you need to consider the alternative. English rule was far far far more barbaric and murderous, even genocidal than gaelic rule, at least admit that. The ultimate truth is, the Irish belonged here, the English did not. At the time of the 1916 Rising, Ireland was coming off the back of a number of disasters including the famine, largely engineered by the English. We also had some of the worst if not the worst slums in Europe in Dublin. Thankfully we changed the situation around, led by many of the pro-Irish revolutionaries you so clearly despise. You and Sleepy and a number of others have little or no pride in our Gaelic and Irish ancestry, that's pretty clear. Thankfully people like me do.
kingchess wrote: » where did the ethnic cleansing come in to play??
