Unpopular Opinions.

pickarooney

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I read that as if it were written or said by this chap. :pac:

I actually double-checked the avatar after reading the post to see if it wasn't Data.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

But to suggest that love exists independently as a force in itself, separate to jealousy and affection and sentimentality and all of the other curious things that make up what is known as 'love' is going a bit far I think. Because that suggestion would have it that love is an objective metaphysical reality like The Bog of Allen or ginger hair or Derek Davis. And I don't think that's true.

I'm not suggesting that love, sadness, joy etc are physically measurable phenomena like celestial bodies or Derek Davies and his moon.

All I'm suggesting is that objective observation as a form of gathering knowledge fails somewhat when it comes to understanding humans beings with feelings, fears, hopes and dreams etc.

Maybe my philosophical vocabulary is limiting what I'm trying to say (I have no formal training in it).

7Sins

teddansonswig wrote: »

so if social services are able to deem parents unfit, can the not decide people are fit? sex/gender should be beyond the law at this stage, all citizens equal. dont worry im not waiting on you to allow anything, the high court is eventually going to sort this out when the time is right.

ps, its already happening ALL OVER THE GAF

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

Sgt Hartman

Dudess wrote: »

A man could potentially do more physical damage to a woman if he hit her than vice versa.

If you saw some of the aggressive, hefty wagons I've had the displeasure of working with over the years you'd beg to differ:pac:

The King of Moo

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

People are far too obsessed with grammar and not concerned enough with the spoken word. IMO grammar is only important in academia, politics, journalism etc. On Facebook or boards I couldn't give a s**t about grammar as long as what is written is readable (i.e. not 'OMG, iz bn cryn l8ly)

On the other hand we there's an entire generation of middle class educated people under thirty who can't string 5 or 6 f**king words together.

Like "I was... like... talking to this ... like... totally random guy, and he was like... yeah? and I was like... you're so random... and he was just like ... whatever"

While I agree that grammar is more important in the areas you mentioned, and though I'm quite forgiving of understandable mistakes, I think a basic level of grammar is important in any form of written communication.

I wouldn't expect most people to be grammar experts, but there are a surprising number of posts on boards that are borderline illegible, or that at least require a reread or two to get the gist.
At best, I'll get a little mental hiccup and lose the flow of sentence as I read a small mistake. For example: when I see the word "your" and automatically expect a noun to come after, but instead there's an adjective, making it clear that the person should have written "you're."
While I can understand the meaning, the whole rhythm of the sentence is ruined.

I get the argument that grammar's not important as long as you get your meaning across, but too often, grammar errors make meaning ambiguous, and while you might be able to get the gist of what you're communicating across, more attention to grammar allows you to communicate all the nuances of your message.
I worry that simpler language leads to simpler messages, which might lead to simpler thinking.

And while grammar's not as important in a more informal context, I still don't see why people don't want to make sure that they get their message across properly. Especially considering that you only need to know some of the basics learned in primary school to communicate effectively in written English.

At the end of the day, I don't think there should be any excuse for a native speaker being unable to make a fairly simple point in a clear, straightforward way that only needs to be read once.

As for the spoken word, I agree with your assessment, and think it can be fixed with the same solution that would improve people's general grammar ability: reading.

Reading a lot greatly improves one's vocabulary and one's unconscious awareness of the underlying structure and basic principles of English.

Snakeblood

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that love, sadness, joy etc are physically measurable phenomena like celestial bodies or Derek Davies and his moon.

All I'm suggesting is that objective observation as a form of gathering knowledge fails somewhat when it comes to understanding humans beings with feelings, fears, hopes and dreams etc.

Maybe my philosophical vocabulary is limiting what I'm trying to say (I have no formal training in it).

I think what you are reaching for is:
What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
then I guess it's wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
what will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
and you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie.

The King of Moo

7Sins wrote: »

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

We've been meddling in nature for as long as we've been around, and since before we had laws.

Buildings are unnatural environments regulated by laws, should we ban them?

I don't see why the gender or sexual orientation of two parents matters as long as they're both good parents.

I'm sure if gay adoption ruined children we'd hear of many documented cases of this, due to the high number of opponents of gay adoption who would want to spread that information around.

Are you also against single parents? Isn't that as unnatural as gay adoption?

What about a situation where the father of a child died, and the child's straight mother raised him with considerable help from her own widowed straight mother?
Should that child, for example, be given to an infertile straight couple?

7Sins

The King of Moo wrote: »

We've been meddling in nature for as long as we've been around, and since before we had laws.

Buildings are unnatural environments regulated by laws, should we ban them?

I don't see why the gender of two parents matters as long as they're both good parents.

I'm sure if gay adoption ruined children we'd hear of many documented cases of this, due to the high number of opponents of gay adoption who would want to spread that information around.

Are you also against single parents? Isn't that as unnatural as gay adoption?

What about a situation where the father of a child died, and the child's straight mother raised him with considerable help from her own widowed straight mother?
Should that child, for example, be given to an infertile straight couple?

Buildings are natural as far as I can see, in its simplist form buildings are shelter, we all need shelter, a place to retreat to and a starting point from which to begin each day. Nomadic lifestyles are fine too if you're that way inclined.

I'm not against single parents and there's nothing wrong with the scenario you mentioned whereby a daughter and mother bring up a child in the case of an absent father. The whole gay adoption thing is silly "I'm gay and want a kid so I can be equal" nah, tough like. I don't see any legitimate reason for them to be given a child to play house with. :pac:

Chuck Stone

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think what you are reaching for is:
What's it all about, Alfie?

Close but a bit more like this

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

The law should be about protecting children, id say we can agree on that.
currently there are kids with gay parents (of all sexes) who, if one of these parents should pass, will be in legal limbo. taking said child off the parent that raised them for x years and stuffing them in a state care home, i think you'l agree, is not good.

about sex/gender being beyond the law ( im sure i could phrase that better but..) man robs shop, woman robs shop. whats the difference? man buys house woman buys house, both equal in front of the law. gender should have no impact on a person or peoples rights in f.o.t.law.
finally gays have recognition that they should be considered a couple for tax/inheritance ect purposes. there is no reason to deny them every other perk of life because of the body they were born into.

IVF is tinkering with nature. IMF is tinkering with nature. its all we do.

being gay doesn't stop sperm or ovaries from working, if there in working order why shouldn't EVERYONE expect to have kids, and find someone responsable and loving to raise them with.

peace :pac:

The King of Moo

7Sins wrote: »

Buildings are natural as far as I can see, in its simplist form buildings are shelter, we all need shelter, a place to retreat to and a starting point from which to begin each day. Nomadic lifestyles are fine too if you're that way inclined.

I'm not against single parents and there's nothing wrong with the scenario you mentioned whereby a daughter and mother bring up a child in the case of an absent father. The whole gay adoption thing is silly "I'm gay and want a kid so I can be equal" nah, tough like. I don't see any legitimate reason for them to be given a child to play house with. :pac:

What if the child would otherwise have to stay in an orphanage, or a foster home with other foster kids, some of whom may not be the best behaved?

I also don't think you can say gay people simply want to adopt to be equal to straight people, or want to have what they have.

Many people have strong parental instincts and might want to put them to good use.
Or they might just want to bring a little love into the life of a child who otherwise might have none.

7Sins

The King of Moo wrote: »

What if the child would otherwise have to stay in an orphanage, or a foster home with other foster kids, some of whom may not be the best behaved?

That's life, I'd would like to imagine the bullying in school if they had gay parents wouldn't be as relentless either.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I also don't think you can say gay people simply want to adopt to be equal to straight people, or want to have what they have.

Many people have strong parental instincts and might want to put them to good use.
Or they might just want to bring a little love into the life of a child who otherwise might have none.

I know, but that's all about what the gay person wants. It's a cruel blow that God didn't give man and man the abilty to reproduce. This isn't about taking their rights away, it's should they be given those rights? really I don't see it.

teddansonswig wrote: »

The law should be about protecting children, id say we can agree on that.
currently there are kids with gay parents (of all sexes) who, if one of these parents should pass, will be in legal limbo. taking said child off the parent that raised them for x years and stuffing them in a state care home, i think you'l agree, is not good.

about sex/gender being beyond the law ( im sure i could phrase that better but..) man robs shop, woman robs shop. whats the difference? man buys house woman buys house, both equal in front of the law. gender should have no impact on a person or peoples rights in f.o.t.law.
finally gays have recognition that they should be considered a couple for tax/inheritance ect purposes. there is no reason to deny them every other perk of life because of the body they were born into.

IVF is tinkering with nature. IMF is tinkering with nature. its all we do.

being gay doesn't stop sperm or ovaries from working, if there in working order why shouldn't EVERYONE expect to have kids, and find someone responsable and loving to raise them with.

peace :pac:

Having kids isn't really a perk, I can't compare it to their rights with regards to tax. I just believe there's a higher power here than the law itself. Your end piece there is what I have difficulty understanding, a big mental block on my part. Being gay does stop people having kids with their partners, but the arguments is changing that so they can have kids? I can't buy into it. I agree that there's a lot of the law and overlapping aspects here that need to be ironed out, just at it's very simplist. I don't agree with it

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

. I don't agree with it

well thank you for being you, you'v validated my opinion as unpopular

7Sins

teddansonswig wrote: »

well thank you for being you, you'v validated my opinion as unpopular

Ok, it was fun lets do it again sometime

membersonly

Was in the pub the other night and Jedward came up in conversation for some reason. Anyway I was making the point that I've an awful feeling things could end very badly for them, that they're just not as developed mentally and emotionally as other young men of the same age.

And now that they're living in this little fame bubble, they won't get a chance to. They'll never be out in the real world to learn how to behave normally and interact with other people the same age, and will suffer in later years because of this...I hope I'm wrong obviously but doubt very much that I am.

This opinion was fairly unpopular....

pragmatic1

pickarooney wrote: »

We need sociopaths in society to make necessary if unpopular decisions that empathetic people are unable to make.

No we dont. You're average person can make tough calls. I score very high on empathy but I've done some grimey things in my time.

conor.hogan.2

God does not exist.
He is not there just to justify your narrow-mindedness.

karaokeman

The Noel and Liam Gallagher fued is completely fabricated.

Its a publicity stunt and really and truly anyone who has followed it knows they never fell out and are only making this stuff up.

Chuck Stone

The Dinosaurs died out because they all became gays.

wonderfulname

theTinker wrote: »

Thanks for that video. It was really interesting. I had no idea there was different types of nuclear reactions, Its an entirely different fuel being used and seems much safer than Uranium 235.
I was up until now completely against Nuclear power, although always self admitted uniformed, I just always see the dangers in all the previous accidents from across the globe, and dismissed it due to them. I'd love to see a thorium plant operational etc.

We really don't see enough of this on boards, people openly revising their opinion based on new info, pat on the back for you!

7Sins wrote: »

I still don't get it I don't see any reason why they should be allowed to adopt other than this human rights and equality thing, clutching at straws really. I think it's fine for them to get "wed" but is there any reason why they should be allowed meddle with nature and create scenarios that are otherwise against Gods will, ie. man + man = no babies. I still think it's unfair to subject a child to such an unnatural environment for the sake of "equality"

Hello again, I'm baffled that this is the response after reading what I linked you, surely you have now seen that adoption rights mean more than what you paint them and that we have a mountain of evidence to show that there is no negative effect on a child raised in a gay household (and of course some minor suggestion that kids are better off with two mommies than a mum and dad )

Well maybe you didn't read it, should I summarise? For the umpteenth time on this site?

Go on then, adoption rights are not meddling with nature, they are mostly a means of affording rights to children in existing situations that you may deem to be meddling with nature. The lack of adoption rights do not prevent same sex couples raising children, as you should have seen they're doing it anyway. What adoption rights do do is give the children in those situations the same level of security afforded to children in traditional family models. So when you say you are against adoption rights for gay couples, it's not really the gay couples you're pushing against, and your definitely not protecting children, in fact your doing the opposite, and in far worse a manner than you imagine affording same sex couples adoption rights would.

But of course you've already read a more long winded version of that, and seen a number of examples of de facto families to illustrate the actual use of adoption laws.

As for the environment, it's pros, its cons, how natural or unnatural it is, again you've been given a weight of evidence to show sexuality or gender of parents has no bearing on the well being of a child. As for natural, what is natural? By my definition that is a natural environment, natural is not a byword for "the norm".

7Sins

wonderfulname wrote: »

Hello again, I'm baffled that this is the response after reading what I linked you,

Not the first time that's been said to me :pac:

wonderfulname wrote: »

surely you have now seen that adoption rights mean more than what you paint them and that we have a mountain of evidence to show that there is no negative effect on a child raised in a gay household (and of course some minor suggestion that kids are better off with two mommies than a mum and dad )

Where's all the evidence to say that it's a good thing then?

wonderfulname wrote: »

Well maybe you didn't read it, should I summarise? For the umpteenth time on this site?

Nope, I didn't. It was way too long for me and there wasn't enough pictures or even cartoon illustrations to explain stuff to me, plus I got distracted by cats on Youtube.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Go on then, adoption rights are not meddling with nature, they are mostly a means of affording rights to children in existing situations that you may deem to be meddling with nature. The lack of adoption rights do not prevent same sex couples raising children, as you should have seen they're doing it anyway. What adoption rights do do is give the children in those situations the same level of security afforded to children in traditional family models. So when you say you are against adoption rights for gay couples, it's not really the gay couples you're pushing against, and your definitely not protecting children, in fact your doing the opposite, and in far worse a manner than you imagine affording same sex couples adoption rights would.

Thanks for summarising. I'm willing to compromise since you're persistant. I wouldn't mind if gay couples were afforded the oppurtunity to adopt/foster teenagers (15+) but only if the teenager is ok with that. I can't see how it would be ok for a child to be brought up by two daddies It's just not the way things are meant to be.

wonderfulname wrote: »

But of course you've already read a more long winded version of that, and seen a number of examples of de facto families to illustrate the actual use of adoption laws.

Nope

wonderfulname wrote: »

As for the environment, it's pros, its cons, how natural or unnatural it is, again you've been given a weight of evidence to show sexuality or gender of parents has no bearing on the well being of a child. As for natural, what is natural? By my definition that is a natural environment, natural is not a byword for "the norm".

Nor is the norm a byword for natural.

Chuck Stone

In general men are better drivers than women.



Hides in the Tora Bora mountains.

pragmatic1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In general men are better drivers than women.



Hides in the Tora Bora mountains.

Thats just a fact. Doesnt matter if its unpopular.

Chuck Stone

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Thats just a fact. Doesnt matter if its unpopular.

Is it though?

We have bigger crashes.

flutterflye

Hmm.. I drive like a man, so what does that mean?

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

Hmm.. I drive like a man, so what does that mean?

You have huge catastrophic life wrecking accidents? :pac:

Mike Litoris

Women are better at making sandwiches than men.

Paddy Cow

Abortion should be legal in this country.

Kev.OC

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

Kev.OC

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.