The Irish attitude to development – what is holding us back?
- This topic has 44 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
You dont have to produce moderately detailed plans of anything. On a per cost basis the plans outlined by Platform11, with whom I am not affiliated, and which are available online trump the metro. The interconnector can do more with the same resources than a single line metro which would probably just go to the Airport. Government has to make decisions based on finite resources, and if we spend the first 5 years, and 3 billion on a one line metro it will solve no problems at all. The Interconnector would massively increase the capacity of the DART and Dublin’s light rail ( and would be underground in parts for people who must have that), and a spur can be built to the Airport. Capacity can be added to this entire system, later, and if needed a metro can service areas that are not serviced by the joining up of the rail lines into Dublin.
This seems to patronisingly deride all people who favour the construction of a metro in Dublin but who cannot offer moderately detailed suggestions on its location and so on.
God, but there are a lot of timid souls on this thread. Dont ever get involved in real live debating, wimpering to the stage about how patronising the last argument was. This a forum for debate and I really wasn’t thinking of you, since I have no idea what you thought about anything, and any of my points may seem “patronising” to somebody.
In any case the details are all out there and you should argue on the merits and demerits of the metro or interconnector – then you can offer moderately detailed suggestions on “it’s location”, or not.
but we can have experientially based opinions without being accused of suffering from a lack of knowledge.
Clearly since I had mentioned the interconnector an d you failed to research it, but rather took umbrage, I can now acuse you of a lack of knowledge, and a deliberate one.
I dont buy this experts must decide thing either, or else why have any debate at all on these threads. You are a graduate of UL and probably a engineer, so research the issue. if you cant, who can? We would in this scenario have an unaccountable government who could do anything the experts say, as we are all soo stupid to understand the fundamentals. Dont buy it.
@asdasd wrote:
Clearly since I had mentioned the interconnector an d you failed to research it, but rather took umbrage, I can now acuse you of a lack of knowledge, and a deliberate one.
I dont buy this experts must decide thing either, or else why have any debate at all on these threads. You are a graduate of UL and probably a engineer, so research the issue.
Thank you Asdasd for your constructive response. I wasn’t ware that I was ‘wimpering’ in my last comment – I must learn to be much more aggressive in the way I relate to people when expressing opinions. How right you are: people engaged in public debate should cast aside all pretensions to civil discourse.
You seem to assert that I ‘lack knowledge’ on the issue of a metro for Dublin because (you assume) I failed to research the Interconnector. Do you suggest that because I neither refer to the Interconnector or agree with it, that I ‘deliberately lack knowledge’. In short, because I don’t focus on something you do, I therefore lack knowledge. Does this also imply that the Interconnector = knowledge. If so, are the people behind the Interconnector aware of the heavy philosophical burden they have to bear??
Indeed. You are right Asdasd, there is nothing worse than the lack of knowledge in a public debate. Oh, sorry, tehre is. That is making falsely grounded assumptions such as ‘I failed to research the Interconnector’, ‘I was a student in UL’, ‘I am probably an engineer’. Actually, I did research the Interconnector]www.ul.ie[/url]
This seems to have gotten a little personal. Could we steer it back to the general point about whether it is reasonable to champion something without having concrete details on the proposal? I don’t think there’s any need to refer to each others’ knowledge or lack thereof or motivation or indeed their education or status.
My contention is may possibly be reasonable to feel favourable towards a plan without knowing the precise details (for example, you could be infavour of a plan described as one to “improve the heath service” without knowing the specific details of what is involved). However if you are going to enter a public debate about the merits of such a plan, you need to be able to present details. Otherwise, because you are offering nothing up to debate about the proposal itself, the argument moves away from debating the actual proposal and inevitably ecomes personal.
@jimg wrote:
Otherwise, because you are offering nothing up to debate about the proposal itself, the argument moves away from debating the actual proposal and inevitably ecomes personal.
Point taken, jimg. Further up this thread I offered a number of quite detailed opinions on the topic of this thread – ie the difficulties concerning development in Ireland. Previously I refered to the Dublin metro as an example of one of the areas in which we show our reluctance to engage in coherent infrastructural development. The thread was never intended to be about the Dublin metro (or any specific aspect pertaining to it) alone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
