Unpopular opinions

Old Jakey

I want Donald Trump to win.

I admire Vladimir Putin.

I do not accept transsexualism. Fair enough if transexuals are happy with their new body but I will not accept that you have changed your gender.

Veganism is a terrible diet and every vegan I've met has looked like ****.

Tattoos look awful on women.

Game of Thrones is crap and the fans are really annoying.

Old Jakey

FallSilently wrote: »

Please don't use the term "minorities." I prefer the term "lesser numerous" or "differently quantified."

Priceless. I'll have to remember that one the next time some pc loon is giving out to me.

Rothko

Evangeline Full Foreigner wrote: »

I dislike this whole nerd culture where people are crazy about comic books, punk music and cosplay (girls dressing up as video game characters usually).

I can't think of anything less nerdy than punk rock.

Old Jakey

Multiculturalism has failed.

We should only allow immigrants in who are skilled and can contribute to our economy.

Black people in America cause most of their own problems.

I don't believe in white guilt, white privilege or any of that nonsense. I don't care about what whites did hundreds of years.

American Indians were not the peace loving spiritual people the media portrays them as.

Billy86

Above is Jakes fifth post on boards.ie... no matter how high a number he reaches before he stops posting here, I think I know what the jist of 90% of them will be.

RainyDay

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What other possible reason could there be?

A person is either one or the other. Sorry that your trans lifestyle has become (thankfully) so widely accepted that you have to come up with something else to label it as so that you can feel unique.

Gender is not binary. It is a spectrum.

You're just coming out with your unpopular opinion to feel special about yourself. What other possible reason could there be?

[See how well that works now]

222233

If smokers are being taxed because of their potential future health costs - overweight people should be taxed for being overweight because of their potential health costs.

Kev W

222233 wrote: »

If smokers are being taxed because of their potential future health costs - overweight people should be taxed for being overweight because of their potential health costs.

There are multiple reasons why a person may be overweight, not all of which are a matter of choice. Smoking is always a matter of choice.

222233

Kev W wrote: »

There are multiple reasons why a person may be overweight, not all of which are a matter of choice. Smoking is always a matter of choice.

I agree so maybe we could screen out the ones who are over weight because of a MEDICAL ILLNESS or GENETICS

Mental associations with food would still be taxed as it could be claimed that as smoking is an addiction people may become mentally dependant etc.

Billy86

222233 wrote: »

I agree so maybe we could screen out the ones who are over weight because of a MEDICAL ILLNESS.

Mental associations with food would still be taxed as I could also claim as smoking is an addiction people may become mentally dependant etc.

How do we do that though, without just costing ourselves more than the taxes bring in?

222233

Billy86 wrote: »

How do we do that though, without just costing ourselves more than the taxes bring in?

Simply have every person who visits their GP weighed and charged based on them having created a self health inflicted risk. Everyone has to go to the doctor every once in a while anyway!

Kev W

222233 wrote: »

Simply have every person who visits their GP weighed and charged based on them having created a self health inflicted risk. Everyone has to go to the doctor every once in a while anyway!

If they later turn out to have a medical issue at the root of their weight problem will they be refunded the extra money?

Billy86

222233 wrote: »

Simply have every person who visits their GP weighed and charged based on them having created a self health inflicted risk. Everyone has to go to the doctor every once in a while anyway!

It's not quite as straight forward a process as that.

One eyed Jack

222233 wrote: »

If smokers are being taxed because of their potential future health costs - overweight people should be taxed for being overweight because of their potential health costs.

There are a number of problems with this. First of all - people who smoke don't pay more tax, the tobacco products they buy are taxed.

Second of all, overweight smokers would then be paying double tax, and if they were unemployed they would be paying no tax at all.

Thirdly, a person who smokes can give up smoking the same as a person who is overweight can give up overeating, and exercise is free for both.

Fourthly, how would you possibly arrange an extra tax for people who were yo-yo dieters? Self assessment tax? You'd have to rework the whole tax system.

Fifthly, in order to equate more tax on cigarettes for people who smoke, you would have to put more tax on food, and that would affect even those who do not have an eating disorder.

Yeah, definitely needs more thought that one...

Arytonblue

Unpopular opinions are becoming more popular than the popular opinions which are unpopular with a loud minority who like to espouse opinions considered unpopular by the quieter majority who hold opinions considered lily-livered and PC by the unpopular but popular opinions crowd. Or something.

jobbridge4life

222233 wrote: »

If smokers are being taxed because of their potential future health costs - overweight people should be taxed for being overweight because of their potential health costs.

They aren't being taxed. Tobacco products are subject to extra tax as a policy to discourage smoking not primarily to cover the cost involved in treating smoking related illnesses.

Anyway some have postulated that smokers and the overweight may actually be saving money for the state by dying off earlier. So maybe we should be rewarding them? How do you like them chocolate coated apples?

Maybe try and spend some time working on why you are so bitter towards the overweight?

spacetweek

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Anyway some have postulated that smokers and the overweight may actually be saving money for the state by dying off earlier. So maybe we should be rewarding them? How do you like them chocolate coated apples?

Every time someone dies prematurely you lose the economic value they could have contributed.

arayess

i think Samuel L Jackson is a very poor actor and has dined out on Pulp Fiction for the past 20 years.

BehindTheScenes

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Utter bollocks, but you're entitled to your opinion & I respect that :P

Fair play and I would do the exact same for yourself.

222233

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a number of problems with this. First of all - people who smoke don't pay more tax, the tobacco products they buy are taxed.

Second of all, overweight smokers would then be paying double tax, and if they were unemployed they would be paying no tax at all.

Thirdly, a person who smokes can give up smoking the same as a person who is overweight can give up overeating, and exercise is free for both.

Fourthly, how would you possibly arrange an extra tax for people who were yo-yo dieters? Self assessment tax? You'd have to rework the whole tax system.

Fifthly, in order to equate more tax on cigarettes for people who smoke, you would have to put more tax on food, and that would affect even those who do not have an eating disorder.

Yeah, definitely needs more thought that one...

I really don't think we need to be so in-depth here, this will never materialise in a society like ours where the word "fat" is practically considered a criminal offence, just a nice thought - unpopular opinion that everyone who is a self inflicted risk would share the tax burden

222233

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They aren't being taxed. Tobacco products are subject to extra tax as a policy to discourage smoking not primarily to cover the cost involved in treating smoking related illnesses.

Anyway some have postulated that smokers and the overweight may actually be saving money for the state by dying off earlier. So maybe we should be rewarding them? How do you like them chocolate coated apples?

Maybe try and spend some time working on why you are so bitter towards the overweight?

I'm not bitter towards the overweight I have no problem with anyone who decides to live an unhealthy lifestyle that is their own business, I have health insurance so my smoking won't cost you a cent, I have an issue with paying for other peoples lifestyle choices.

BehindTheScenes

RainyDay wrote: »

And why do you think that Sherriff St and other parts of the inner city had a proliferation of 'gougers' (your word)? Could it have related to the housing conditions there?

Well no, please read what I wrote in post #272.

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

The same issues that rural and urban people up and down the country have been dealing with while not resorting to the same level of criminality. Remove substance abuse and the majority of the nation were dealing with the same issues.

My family, originally from Mayo, on my father's side, grew up in a 2 room stone cottage 300 foot from the Atlantic. The had one door and no windows. In 1960 they moved to Killarney St. and they thought they were going up in the world as where they had come from was so bad. They didn't resort to the criminality that is rife in the area and went out and found work, nothing particularly special but they secured work unlike the hordes around who chose to resort to criminality.

The reason why criminality is so prevalent in these communities is because on criminal is seen to be making decent money and every other gouger around them sees that this is an easy way to make money and then join along.

Granted this is anecdotal evidence but I'm sure most people with parents based in the rural parts of Mayo, Donegal, Kerry, Sligo and Galway could vouch that housing and general conditions in these parts of the country were considerably worse than those of inner city Dublin. Sure hell there was even a mini-famine in the west after the formation of the Free State. http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/1925-irelands-forgotten-famine/ Just because you're poor doesn't mean that you have to go robbing. Hell though if anyone deserved to be the exception it's the people who had to suffer through that mini-famine in the West after we had taken our 'freedom'.

Dirty Dingus McGee

arayess wrote: »

i think Samuel L Jackson is a very poor actor and has dined out on Pulp Fiction for the past 20 years.

Nah.

To pick out a couple of fairly recent performances he was brilliant in both Lakeview Terrace and Django Unchained.every time I've seen him in a film I've liked him

He should have been at least nominated for an Oscar for Django Unchained in my opinion.Although it was a pretty good shortlist for that award that year.

WearstheFoxhat

I can't understand how somebody from Ireland says "we" when talking about an English soccer club.

Cienciano

arayess wrote: »

i think Samuel L Jackson is a very poor actor and has dined out on Pulp Fiction for the past 20 years.

Not the most versatile, but he's amazing at playing Samuel L motherfúcken Jackson. Jack Nicholson the same, not very versatile, but brilliant at playing Jack

RainyDay

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Well no, please read what I wrote in post #272.




Granted this is anecdotal evidence but I'm sure most people with parents based in the rural parts of Mayo, Donegal, Kerry, Sligo and Galway could vouch that housing and general conditions in these parts of the country were considerably worse than those of inner city Dublin. Sure hell there was even a mini-famine in the west after the formation of the Free State. http://irishhistorypodcast.ie/1925-irelands-forgotten-famine/ Just because you're poor doesn't mean that you have to go robbing. Hell though if anyone deserved to be the exception it's the people who had to suffer through that mini-famine in the West after we had taken our 'freedom'.

No real answer there - you correctly state that others who had similar or worse conditions didn't engage in criminality, but you have no answer for why criminality is so prevalent in certain areas of really crap housing conditions.

newmug

Robert Pattison has an ugly, ugly face. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think Pepsi is better than Coke.

There, I said it.

Links234

newmug wrote: »

Robert Pattison has an ugly, ugly face. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think that's pretty damn far from an unpopular opinion, he's got a head shaped like a broken cricket bat.

Links234

Links234 wrote: »

I think that's pretty damn far from an unpopular opinion, he's got a head shaped like a broken cricket bat.

He's got a face like a worn-through shoe.