Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Justin Credible Darts

Midster wrote: »

Well I definitely wouldn’t hire a man to baby sit my 2 girls, I’d be to scared he’d either be drinking beer all night in my house with his friends, or a frickin pervert.

As far as choice goes, hiring a woman over a man for baby sitting duties wins hands down every time,

too right.




I doubt you will be called a "man hater" by the snowflakes

, as you are only a hater if you dont employ women.

Midster

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Might be only 5 words, but an excellent and concise contribution.

That actually contribute precisely nothing

Justin Credible Darts

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Might be only 5 words, but an excellent and concise contribution.

Really ?
It got him a warning it seems.



If you are so strong in your convictions why dont you repeat it and get a warning too.


Somehow I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to.

Plumbthedepths

Midster wrote: »

That actually contribute precisely nothing

Your opinion.

Plumbthedepths

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Really ?
It got him a warning it seems.



If you are so strong in your convictions why dont you repeat it and get a warning too.


Somehow I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to.

Don't have to repeat what the lad said, but I fully agree with the sentiment. ;-)

Midster

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Your opinion.

Fact

Plumbthedepths

Midster wrote: »

Fact

Nah still just your opinion. ;-)

Midster

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Nah still just your opinion. ;-)

And your contribution is what exactly? I’m not seeing anything worth while reading so far. Lol

Plumbthedepths

Midster wrote: »

And your contribution is what exactly? I’m not seeing anything worth while reading so far. Lol

Good thing that your permission is not required to comment here. Feel free to use the ignore function or scroll on by. ;-)

Midster

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Good thing that your permission is not required to comment here. Feel free to use the ignore function or scroll on by. ;-)

Ok

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

good for you.




However that is not the case for all women.

You probably shouldn’t make blanket statements then, huh?

Midster wrote: »

Says the person who has nothing to add to this thread other than 5 words. Lol

You... you know that people read threads, right? That’s kinda the idea behind a forum. People read threads and sometimes interject. You don’t need to consistently participate in threads.

That was a worthy, succinct contribution that I’d imagine was easily worth the infraction.

Justin Credible Darts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You probably shouldn’t make blanket statements then, huh?

Where did I make a nlanket statement.


Go back, educate yourself and see my initial post where I said "some" women



I suggest you read the posts you are going to whinge about before making yourself look more stupid.


Your deflecting will not change the point I made.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Really ?
It got him a warning it seems.



If you are so strong in your convictions why dont you repeat it and get a warning too.


Somehow I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to.

You’re an idiot.

I will happily take an infraction for repeating it. Wrist slap totally and completely worth it.

Justin Credible Darts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You don’t need to consistently participate in threads.

If there was an award for the poster with zero self awareness it would be you.


you have the audacity to lecture people and tell them they dont have to participate in threads, while you are doing the very same thing in participating.



Then this is the mentality of a lot of people on here when faced with reason or facts, they resort to telling people to shut up or resort to name calling, or try drive the posters away.

Paddy Cow

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I would never employ a woman.

men dont suffer periods which cause some of them to be less productive every month.
Also some women take maternity leave longer than any man, which means you not only have to pay them when they are off, you have to hire someone else to take over their role.

Notice how i said "some", as I am not saying its that way for all, but from a business sense, its not economically viable.


"sits and wait for the calls of me being a woman hating sexist"

I've never been on maternity leave but I thought the way it works is that the company has to keep their job open for them when they finish maternity leave and the government pay them a certain amount per week. Some companies will top that up but not all. Maybe someone who knows can clear that up for me?

Leg End Reject

I think people get too worked up arguing online.

Midster

Still the question remains, why is it always looked at as being sexist for hiring a man to do a job a woman could do just as well in.

Ten of Swords

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you have the testicular fortitude to.

Mod
Stop baiting other posters.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re an idiot.

I will happily take an infraction for repeating it. Wrist slap totally and completely worth it.

Stop rise to the bait



Lets move on please

Justin Credible Darts

there is something seriously wrong with some people, who come onto a thread clearly entitled "unpopular opinions"...read said unpopular opinions, and then get so upset they are calling people names, telling them to shut up or get out of the thread for the unpopular opinions they read in an unpopular opinions thread.

what were they expecting ? everyone to agree with them and have the same opinions as them. ?

Midster

Was we arguing? I thought we were debating?

I actually fact I’ve spent half the time laughing at what people were saying.

What do you think they do in government? Talk politely???

Raconteuse

Midster wrote: »

The bottom line here I think is that for one reason or another women just don’t seem to aim for the top jobs out there.

I thought that it was just because we're not good enough?

You can see that when you look at any category of jobs.
So if women want to be included in everything everywhere because that’s what they believe to be fare.
Well then it doesn’t seem to much of a put down to say that they had better try harder.

Hard working men loose out to other men all the time, but do we complain, dam right we do, but we don’t demand inclusion, because we understand that’s just how the world works, sometimes bosses do have there favourites.
So men try harder, we stay at work for longer, get more done in a day than any of the other staff, suck up to the boss, in fact suck up to anyone in charge.
And when the pressures of work get to us, we muscle through it.

Women in general seem to be of the opinion that if they work really hard, the work speaks for itself, and it doesn’t.
It’s hard work, doing overtime, sucking up, and not taking things personal when they don’t go your way that gets you better paid jobs

Who are these women you are talking about? It seems to be the case that whenever feminists go on a rampage about something, it's = women full stop who are doing it. Plenty of women do the same as what you have described - it's my last three female managers to a T. They put up with unbelievable sh1t (not because they're women - just because they had arsehole clients and arseholes above them) but kept a cool head all the time. And of course there are the women who aren't able for that (me certainly) and the men who are great at that, and also the men who aren't suited to it.

Day to day life is different to the internet and social media. I think only one woman I know who isn't a mad feminist, would agree with gender quotas. And I don't know for definite if she would. No others do, just the three hardline feminists. And even then, they're more nuanced than just gender quotas and that's it.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

so is discrimination wrong ?

In my opinion its not wrong where there is a clear reason why it should happen. If a builder for arguments sake was looking for block layers, he would hire a man over a woman. Is there some women who could do the job, maybe, but in reality men are stronger than woman and more suited to that job.
again you can call that discrimination, but its not wrong.

People bandy about the word discrimination , implying negative connotations,
My initial point is I would not hire a woman, and the responses tried to portray me in a negative light for those comments.
Is my opinion unpopular...maybe, but that does not mean its not valid and there is no logic behind my statement.

There are jobs where I would not hire a man, again that would be discrimination to some, but there is a reason why certain fields are dominated by certain genders.

Depends on the discrimination. Like you said yourself, the discrimination against men of "Female applicants only" is obviously terrible discrimination. Your points on maternity leave make sense but it's still discrimination on the grounds of sex, and it's on the grounds of something that *might* happen, not a definite. You can keep playing the victim but you know you were being total provocative (you even hinted you were looking for a fight). Also, own what you say - the responses did not try to depict you in a bad light. You depicted yourself in one.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

good for you.
However that is not the case for all women.

It's the case for the vast majority of women, so refusing to hire any woman due to a minority of women becoming ill every month... yeah that's bad form. Displays a lack of knowledge/research too. And usually those women who get terribly sick/endure terrible pain during their period go on the pill to remedy it anyway.

Midster wrote: »

Nobody hates women

Not everyone here hates women, no, but clearly some do on After Hours. If they don't hate women, then I shudder to think what actual woman hating is.

Yeah I agree there are differing strengths for men and women which will affect their ability to do the job - never disputed that - but that doesn't make it ok to say any old derogatory sh1t about women as hiring prospects. And this being the unpopular opinions thread doesn't make it ok either. Any view should be based on accuracy.

A man babysitting? A stranger, no, but a male relative or friend - of course.

Whereisgalway

Gay Byrne was a awful presenter, I grew up watching the late late in the 80’s/90 it was sh1teeeeee

Justin Credible Darts

Whereisgalway wrote: »

Gay Byrne was a awful presenter, I grew up watching the late late in the 80’s/90 it was sh1teeeeee

As did I and always found him a smug kissarse.


If it was a politician, member of the child raping catholic church, or some business man he would kiss their hole.
Acted different to the ordinary person and came across as over bearing and condescending.

MayoAreMagic

Raconteuse wrote: »

I can't stand the idea of quotas - best person for the job. As a woman, I can't get down with us receiving special treatment, as that's also quite sexist. But I'm not sure of it being that widespread. Are there specific examples you can give? Just asking a question (before that guy loses his sh1t).

Without naming names, I can think of one double voting politician who is 100% making hay off the back of it. Another former rose of tralee winner is doing her best to do the same. Neither are there on merit.

smilerf

All these go fund me things
Just **** off

Whereisgalway

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Without naming names, I can think of one double voting politician who is 100% making hay off the back of it. Another former rose of tralee winner is doing her best to do the same. Neither are there on merit.

Maria Walsh? I wasted my vote on her

blueshade

I watched a Sky news report from that camp for IS wives and kids earlier today and it was frightening. There was one little kid telling the reporter that he would slaughter him. The reality is these women and children will never be anything but a threat to society, there is no integrating them back into society, they will never be de radicalised. These camps need to be razed to the ground with not a single soul left living.

Johnny Sausage

castletownman wrote: »

Now its great to see Sean Cox on the mend, but I think there is ulterior motives at play with Liverpool inviting him to attend the game this weekend.

If they were playing a mid- to lower table team instead on Sunday, do I think he'd be a guest of honour? I don't. They are the masters at stoking up extra atmosphere from the crowd, and will use the occasion to add a layer of intimidation for City.

Different breed.

Well I guess the "intimidation" worked didnt it

Hahaha

Tomw86

People who drive motorbikes rarely adhere to the rules of the road and are a danger on it.

Also, very little is done about them.

joe40

blueshade wrote: »

I watched a Sky news report from that camp for IS wives and kids earlier today and it was frightening. There was one little kid telling the reporter that he would slaughter him. The reality is these women and children will never be anything but a threat to society, there is no integrating them back into society, they will never be de radicalised. These camps need to be razed to the ground with not a single soul left living.

So you support the mass murder of children, and they're the radicals?