Unpopular Opinions.

mark renton wrote: »

Some people would argue that vegetables are cheaper than meat.

They're a lot harder to round up and move on than livestock.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Of course it is. You go to any famine area, or just some dirt poor hell hole and start handing out big macs and buckets of kfc - Do you honestly think you'll get a lot of vegans opting out on ethical grounds?
You don't need to be lord muck to turn vegan, but you need to be able to readily access and afford an alternative source of food. A large percentage of the world have no choice whatsover in what they eat, they have to eat what's available to survive.

+1,000,000,000.

You are rich enough to have the choice. At least 1 billion people on this planet don't have that choice.

Reekwind wrote: »

There are approx 400m vegetarians in India alone. The staple diet of most pre-industrial European societies was grain, with meat making very occasional appearances. Care to revisit your ignorant opinion?

Probably best not to mention either the one billion Chinese whose diet consists primarily of rice and vegetables!

BusyMum12 wrote: »

I think Adele is over rated. Her voice and music seem fairly average to me.

Best of a bad lot these days thought it seems.

Requesting somebody to "elaborate" is really a form of denial.

Madam_X wrote: »

Well it depends of course.

Making wild, unsubstantiated, inaccurate, short claims (for attention) like on this thread, is piss-boiling... but then again that's not an unpopular opinion.

Opinions dont require elaboration, that is why they are opinions. Requesting elaboration on an opinion defeats the point to having an opinion, unpopular or not.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's just downright ignorant, as is the idea of having an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion, unpopular or not.

My opinion would not agree. Now, it would be great if we had evidence for everything, wouldn't it?

We'd have no need of discussion, would we, there's the evidence and one cannot dispute it, it's there in black n white.

So I'd be more inclined to put the "It's just downright ignorant, as is the idea of having an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion, unpopular or not" in the ignorance section rather than an opinion with no evidence.

Rasheed wrote: »

Well it depends what constitutes as evidence. If you wanted hard details and numbers, it wouldn't be an opinion, it'd be a fact. Or if you took anecdotal evidence to support the opinion, which I suppose is how most people form opinions.

If I said, in my opinion, people from Mayo are lovely and you asked for facts, I wouldn't have any! But you'd be perfectly entitled to ask why I thought this.

I also completely agree that it's pointless saying something without having something to back it up, be it popular or unpopular.

Problem is: the people who post "look at me" comments here present them as statements of fact. They're not opinions in the true sense of the word: a subjective view that's neither right nor wrong; they're just "feelings" they have, notions they'd like to be true, but which are objectively wrong. If someone posts something like "I think there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia", they use the "it's my opinion I'm entitled to it" line to avoid answering questions as to why they think this... because they don't have an answer; they just like thinking that, as it's their simplistic way of making sense of the world.
Usually people with the dumbest, most unpleasant notions are the ones who get whiny when asked for reasons for these views - not difficult to figure out why...

Czarcasm wrote: »

Requesting elaboration on an opinion doesn't at all defeat the point of having an opinion. Everyone has opinions, popular and unpopular, but they should at least be able to elaborate on the reasons for the basis of their opinions, otherwise they're just doing what I call entering a crowded room, farting, and then walking out, leaving everyone else to deal with the smell.

It's just downright ignorant, as is the idea of having an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion, unpopular or not.

Again, one with a lack of context. Thread is called Unpopular "Opnions".

Or to use your analagy, "drop in and fart here".

Downright ignorant to dismiss the context.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, you're hiding now . It's an opinion, I never claime it was fact.

Ah no, I wouldn't like you to take me up wrong, I wouldn't assume my opinion was fact either, but when I say "evidence" in the context of an opinion I meant "can you show me the thought process that led you to that conclusion and what you base your opinion upon?". It just helps further discussion and understanding is all, and you may discover that your opinion might not be as unpopular as you might think! Nobody was too pleased about Christopher Columbus putting forward the unpopular opinion at the time that the world was round! Look how that turned out!

But seeing as you asked: most ofthe subjects, when you look at them, require a certain reaction. History being the classic example. This is why we should be proud to be who we are and where we're from. However, it makes the assumption that we should be proud in he first place: are we proud?

When was the last time a history lesson asked: should we be proud of our history? Of our nationality? Is it even important? And if so, how do we know what we're being taugh is accurate? History, as they say, is written by the winners.

Being proud of history is an interesting one because you have the likes of American Schools whose pupils recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag every morning, and the English well they have their pledge of allegiance to their queen. Irish schools don't have that same patriotism instilled in them, because we never won feckall!

Even the French though are funny about this one- they are a proud and arrogant nation, but it was only recently a pledge of allegiance was suggested (a suggestion didn't go down well either! ).

Rligion is another one. Why is what is on the syllaus not chllenged?

Contrary to popular belief, it actually has, and many times in fact, because now it has to accommodate other denominations, minorities, ethics; you ask the question further down as to why philosophy is not a core subject in schools, but it always has been, we just call it religion. I remember when I was in school- philosophy, free thinking and discussion was encouraged. Even moreso now it's integrated into the curriculum. We're still not at the level of the likes of the UK and the US or France because we have predominantly been a catholic country, whereas other western countries were a mix of cultures, and so their national curriculums were changed to accommodate for other cultures and religions decades ago.

Specific to Ireland, Irish. We spend so mcuh time with this idea of reviving the language no one stops to ask: should we? And if so, if this the right way to do it? Why is EVERY teenager made to study it? At least in other countries, you do need the national langueg to communicate, but the same can not be said of Irish.

I'd have to agree with you on this one in fairness. As much as I love Irish, the reason so many hate it is because it IS indoctrinated and learned by rote in most schools. I just happened to get lucky in that my Irish teacher was passionate about the language itself, and went above and beyond the scope of the curriculum. Just be thankful the curriculum changed a few years back and you didn't have to indulge in the miserable sufferings of Peig!

Now I've nothign against these subjects, but if we want kids to think for themslves, answer me this: why is philosphy not a core subject from the start?

Answer - because it encourages kids to think. And thinking leads to disagreeing.

If you want to encourage your child to think for themselves, that has to start in the home, you can't possibly say schools are churning out numptys and indoctrination is to blame. The apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree! :pac:

twinQuins wrote: »

This is a discussion forum; if you want to post material without engaging people a blog would be the thing you're after.

Downright ignorant indeed.

Get the irony of the above?

Let me help you there chief, pot, kettle.