Unpopular Opinions.

mickydoomsux

Laois6556 wrote: »

Don't know if anyone's said this but I think there should be some forced abortions. Not just make abortion legal but have vigorous checks in place to see if the person or couple having the baby can look after it when it's born. If they fail the test then they must abort. Some children are growing up in awful places.
There's far too many unhappy kids growing up with terrible parents. So for example, there's some couples who have kids as some sort of social statement. They don't really want the child, they just do it to fit in with society and play happy families. There's a lot of snobby people who have a rotten attitude towards their fellow citizens, they put making money ahead of all else. We don't need people like this having kids, that would mean people like the bankers that ruined this state and people like that wouldn't be able to have kids.

Ugh. A thinly veiled attack on "DEH BANKERS WOT RUINDED DEH COUNTRY11111!!!!!111111".

Shakespeare's Sister

DazMarz wrote: »

I better not...

Pointless post no?

DazMarz

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Pointless post no?

I had something quite vicious and inhumane posted... but I think it was "Too Hot For TV", so hence the ninja edit.

NZ_2014

Laois6556 wrote: »

Don't know if anyone's said this but I think there should be some forced abortions. Not just make abortion legal but have vigorous checks in place to see if the person or couple having the baby can look after it when it's born. If they fail the test then they must abort. Some children are growing up in awful places.
There's far too many unhappy kids growing up with terrible parents. So for example, there's some couples who have kids as some sort of social statement. They don't really want the child, they just do it to fit in with society and play happy families. There's a lot of snobby people who have a rotten attitude towards their fellow citizens, they put making money ahead of all else. We don't need people like this having kids, that would mean people like the bankers that ruined this state and people like that wouldn't be able to have kids.

Would sterilization not be a more proactive measure? Or neutering as its called for pets? Certainly an unpopular opinion!

Chocolate Chip

Laois, you never know what type of parent a person is going to be so that test wouldn't work. Also, everyone who is alive can have another shot at life, when you are dead you can't so I do not like your idea at all and I am glad it's an unpopular opinion.


My own unpopular opinion is that vintage just means old crap.

Wilberto

NZ_2014 wrote: »

Would sterilization not be a more proactive measure? Or neutering as its called for pets? Certainly an unpopular opinion!

Now we're talking!! I have have always been pro sterilization. For example, for scumbags who end up in prison for general scumbaggery stuff could be offered slightly reduced sentences if they agree to be sterilised.

That way, at least it should go some way to reducing the problem that society will have to face in the future as scumbags usually spawn from scumbags.

kupus

Chocolate Chip wrote: »

Laois, you never know what type of parent a person is going to be so that test wouldn't work. Also, everyone who is alive can have another shot at life, when you are dead you can't so I do not like your idea at all and I am glad it's an unpopular opinion.


My own unpopular opinion is that vintage just means old crap.

Im certain that a trackie wearing scummer addict is going to produce an even worse version of himself.
Thats life and life is not a disney/pixar movie with happy endings for a lot of people.

OldNotWIse

kupus wrote: »

Im certain that a trackie wearing scummer addict is going to produce an even worse version of himself.
Thats life and life is not a disney/pixar movie with happy endings for a lot of people.

Well as long as you are sure....

kunst nugget

Interesting podcast from the always amazing Radiolab about that whole issue:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/251887-what-if-no-destiny/

When Barbara Harris was 37, she started wishing she could have a daughter. It was 1989, and by that time only two of her six sons were still at home. So she filled out all the paperwork, and later that summer got a call about an 8-month-old baby girl. As soon as Barbara met her, she knew that was it -- this was her daughter. She named her Destiny Harris. But before she could take her home, the social worker told Barbara that Destiny had tested positive for crack, PCP, and heroin. Her mom was addicted to drugs, and doctors said Destiny was delayed mentally and physically as a result, and always would be.

Producer Pat Walters flew down to North Carolina to meet Barbara and Destiny, who's now 22 years old. And Barbara tells Pat, a few months after she brought Destiny home, she and her husband got another call. Destiny's mom had given birth to another boy. They went to the hospital to pick him up, and he was going through withdrawal from heroin. Then Barbara got another call: a little girl. And a year later, another little boy. By 1994 she'd adopted four kids from the same woman. And she was feeling angry -- how could this be allowed to happen? She decided to take a stand by trying to get a law passed for longterm birth control. And when that failed, she decided to take matters into her own hands. She founded an organization called Project Prevention, and began paying women with drug addiction to get IUDs, or get sterilized.

The_Captain

Laois6556 wrote: »

Don't know if anyone's said this but I think there should be some forced abortions. Not just make abortion legal but have vigorous checks in place to see if the person or couple having the baby can look after it when it's born. If they fail the test then they must abort. Some children are growing up in awful places.
There's far too many unhappy kids growing up with terrible parents. So for example, there's some couples who have kids as some sort of social statement. They don't really want the child, they just do it to fit in with society and play happy families. There's a lot of snobby people who have a rotten attitude towards their fellow citizens, they put making money ahead of all else. We don't need people like this having kids, that would mean people like the bankers that ruined this state and people like that wouldn't be able to have kids.

On the bright side, if this ever came to pass, at least you wouldn't be allowed to procreate and spread your idiocy to your children

Mardy Bum

The_Captain wrote: »

On the bright side, if this ever came to pass, at least you wouldn't be allowed to procreate and spread your idiocy to your children

Whilst his post is stupid there is a very important taboo moral issue at the heart of it. Some children are forced to live horrible lives mainly because their parents did not want them or can't look after them. Some people are not fit to be parents and should not have kids.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Would sterilization not be a more proactive measure? Or neutering as its called for pets? Certainly an unpopular opinion!

You do realise this was around before. The sterilization of the so called "undesirables" was called Eugenics and was all the rage in the US and (surprise surprise) Germany at the start of the 20th century. They started off sterilizing the mentally ill but quickly moved on to Blacks, Native Americans and some people of mixed race. Forced sterilization of anybody is always a dangerous idea as it will simply open the floodgates and then who knows who will be getting sterilized next.

Don't know if anyone's said this but I think there should be some forced abortions.

My unpopular idea for the day is anyone who supports abortion should themselves be "aborted" just so they get a good feel of what is involved.

TheBeardedLady

Joel Fat Lifesaver wrote: »

My unpopular idea for the day is anyone who supports abortion should themselves be "aborted" just so they get a good feel of what is involved.

*Mind boggles*

Instead of it being unpopular, it's just hilarious.

S4960

I don't think the T should be included in LGBTQ

mackg

S4960 wrote: »

I don't think the T should be included in LGBTQ

What's the q?

shruikan2553

mackg wrote: »

What's the q?

Queer I think

S4960

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Queer I think

Yeah it is, it's an inclusion term really. A way to make straight people who support gay rights more involved afaik. It's anybody who lives a queer life

mackg

S4960 wrote: »

Yeah it is, it's an inclusion term really. A way to make straight people who support gay rights more involved afaik. It's anybody who lives a queer life

So why drop t and not q? I had a read of wikipedia on queer there and seems to encompass things that would seem to not belong if trans doesn't.

Wilberto

S4960 wrote: »

Yeah it is, it's an inclusion term really. A way to make straight people who support gay rights more involved afaik. It's anybody who lives a queer life

So, a way to make straight people who support gay rights more involved is to call them "Queer". That's distinctly odd.

S4960

mackg wrote: »

So why drop t and not q? I had a read of wikipedia on queer there and seems to encompass things that would seem to not belong if trans doesn't.

Well queer was originally used to describe gay people and has now become a term more widely used to describe people who support gay rights or have a sexuality or lifestyle which is not seen as part if the norm (pans, asexual,etc). IMO it's a term used to describe someone who is not part of the LGBT community but supports that fight or experiences similar hardship because of how they act, personality, style, etc. queer has a connection with LGB which are all sexualities. Transgenderism is not a sexuality. IMO it should be blanketed with Queer

Laois6556

Do you know the way some gay men speak and act? It seems put on or exaggerated doesn't it? Can get a bit annoying, I think over the top gay men like the one's I'm talking about should have to get behavioral lessons.

Links234

S4960 wrote: »

I don't think the T should be included in LGBTQ

Well tough, the T is going nowhere. Trans people will quite often either be LGB before they come out as transgender, or afterwards, so we'll always be there. For some identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is just a stepping stone, others might come out as trans and realize their sexuality afterwards.

S4960

Wilberto wrote: »

So, a way to make straight people who support gay rights more involved is to call them "Queer". That's distinctly odd.

Sorry odd wording! I didn't mean more involved as in make them do more but as in more included. Queer mainly developed from the anger of people who did not fit into LGBT but still felt like they recieved similar treatment for other issues. They can be straight but also pans, asexual,etc. it is used as an umbrella term.

Doctor Jimbob

Laois6556 wrote: »

Do you know the way some gay men speak and act? It seems put on or exaggerated doesn't it? Can get a bit annoying, I think over the top gay men like the one's I'm talking about should have to get behavioral lessons.

I get that this is unpopular opinions, but surely the fact you only want this to apply to gay men rather than, you know, all people who act over the top is just outright bigotry?

S4960

Links234 wrote: »

Well tough, the T is going nowhere. Trans people will quite often either be LGB before they come out as transgender, or afterwards, so we'll always be there. For some identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is just a stepping stone, others might come out as trans and realize their sexuality afterwards.

Which means they fit into other catogories. Transgenderism is gender related. LGB is not. It's like pick the odd one out. It isn't a sexuality so it should fall under Q like every other non sexuality related groups in the community.

Last_Minute

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I get that this is unpopular opinions, but surely the fact you only want this to apply to gay men rather than, you know, all people who act over the top is just outright bigotry?

I have also wondered this. I know lots of gay men and quite a few of them have very high-pitched, feminine voices. I am not sure why this is.

Laois6556

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I get that this is unpopular opinions, but surely the fact you only want this to apply to gay men rather than, you know, all people who act over the top is just outright bigotry?

Oh yeah, it's just people were talking about the gays. All over the top people to get lessons then.

mackg

Laois6556 wrote: »

Oh yeah, it's just people were talking about the gays. All over the top people to get lessons then.

Can you outline what these lessons would entail?

Laois6556

mackg wrote: »

Can you outline what these lessons would entail?

Just teaching them to calm down with the over the top reactions to things. Stop the high pitched screaming, the mad hand movements, all that sort of stuff.

mackg

Laois6556 wrote: »

Just teaching them to calm down with the over the top reactions to things. Stop the high pitched screaming, the mad hand movements, all that sort of stuff.

Make a tv show, like the opposite of queer eye for the straight guy.