Are most Irish people thick c.unts?

pone2012 wrote: »

melissak wrote: »

I didn't answer because it is not equating like with like. Public representatives in a democracy come from a variety of backgrounds so the government is in theory representative of the public. Even those you consider idiots.

The government is far from a representative of the public.....theory and practice are two different things

Just take a look at the last election..Looks whos BACK in power and look whos back as Taoiseach...did the public ask for it? No...did it happen anyway

No person unqualified to be in politics should be...that is the very reason this country is so corrupt....you have uneducated people with their own interests at heart running this country

You cannot run a collective society with an individualistic agenda...Politicians time and time again put themselves before the public

Show me a person who's put down 6-7 year of education in Political Science and I'll show you a person who has a true interest in the career...not a teacher/farmer/accountant etc who wants the perks of being a TD

and btw, the answer to the question is no, you wouldn't..unless you wanted a plumber operating on you... and nobody would want that

You have a degree that by your estimate cost the state 16k per year for 4 years so 64k and you are considering doing a PhD for 2 years? At 32 k.? To qualify for btea you have to be unemployed for a certain amount of time don't you? Hmmm. Look i am not looking to get in an argument with you, good for you getting educated but everyone who throws their hat in the ring is entitled to run. If enough people vote for them, they get elected. Having a requirement to study politics etc would create a more political dynasty like system than we already have. Someone deciding to be a politicians at 17 and studying it in college doesn't not make someone a good public representative

Credentialism is simply a bad way of judging intelligence, and particularly morals; it's something that should be less relied upon - primarily for politically sensitive roles - because it's not hard to do what it takes to earn a degree in something, if you put the effort in, while simply aiming to inflate your own credentials for the purpose of 'reputational laundering' - while at the same time having corrupt motives, which would lead you to act in ways contrary to e.g. any education in ethics you've received.

If you limit political candidates, to only well credentialed people, then you open the political process to exploitation, by those who would increase the barriers for getting the education necessary, for achieving those political goals (and universities and their funding, are being increasingly privatized including financially, and are increasingly open to private influence, these days) - and you also open politics to corruption, by corruption of what is taught in education as well (as has happened with the field of e.g. economics).

That's not applying what I said, to other fields of work, that's making up a straw man - pretending I said education is worthless - when I didn't say that.

mahoganygas wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you limit political candidates, to only well credentialed people, then you open the political process to exploitation, by those who would increase the barriers for getting the education necessary, for achieving those political goals (and universities and their funding, are being increasingly privatized including financially, and are increasingly open to private influence, these days) - and you also open politics to corruption, by corruption of what is taught in education as well (as has happened with the field of e.g. economics).

If you apply this logic to any other line of work, then why bother with education at all?

Education is great for those that want it. Freezing people out of public representation because of not having these opportunities is a different thing Entirely. If you can't see any reasons why, then perhaps your "education" is incomplete.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not going to give you benefit of the doubt, that those questions - some of which are very obviously answered in my initial post - are genuine, and not just a very lame attempt at a rhetorical attack on what I said...

If you want someone to respond to you, you can start by not directly misrepresenting them, and not practicing selective deafblind-ness to what they've said, so you can throw stupid rhetorical questions at them, and try lead them in unproductive circles...

Woah.
I've absolutely no idea where this hostility is coming from.
I've joined this thread late and admittedly haven't caught up on earlier posts yet. I appear to be missing something here. Why am I being attacked?

My first question was an analogy with a clearly rhetorical question, demonstrating that your remark is flippant, when compared to my equally outlandish proposition on the opposite side of the spectrum.

My second post was also genuine. How are you making the jump from minimum requirements of a minister's job to

KomradeBishop wrote: »

...then you open the political process to exploitation, by those who would increase the barriers for getting the education necessary...

melissak wrote: »

Another point to ponder is if a large proportion of society have no legitimate means of having their voices heard they tend to make themselves heard by other means.

Everyone should and does have a voice. This is 21st century Ireland after all.

But only bus drivers should drive the school bus.

I agree with you that no person should be prevented from holding political office because they do not have the required level of education. But i would hope that the electorate are smart enough to put their most qualified candidate forward. And by qualified I mean experience, talent, ability and not necessarily education.

Surely you agree that it makes sense to have a minister of finance with at least some academic/work experience with macro-economics, accounting or finance?

Suggesting that we should shy away from electing educated individuals into government smacks of Mao's cultural revolution.

mahoganygas wrote: »

melissak wrote: »

Another point to ponder is if a large proportion of society have no legitimate means of having their voices heard they tend to make themselves heard by other means.

Everyone should and does have a voice. This is 21st century Ireland after all.

But only bus drivers should drive the school bus.

I agree with you that no person should be prevented from holding political office because they do not have the required level of education. But i would hope that the electorate are smart enough to put their most qualified candidate forward. And by qualified I mean experience, talent, ability and not necessarily education.

Surely you agree that it makes sense to have a minister of finance with at least some academic/work experience with macro-economics, accounting or finance?

Suggesting that we should shy away from electing educated individuals into government smacks of Mao's cultural revolution.

And there have been no elitist regimes that went badly?