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

Millicently

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

That is such a ridiculous statement... :pac:

The williams sisters are bigger and more masculine in physique, by female standards. They most certainly are not more masculine than their male tennis counterparts! Get a grip! :rolleyes:

Even Serena Williams admitted, that she would not stand a chance against any of the top 100 male tennis players! They were far too fast and strong, and she was glad to be competing in the Women's game! (Which is not a statement of weakness btw - just merely a statement of fact)

Massive overreaction there, take a breath and calm down, then have a look at some photos of them stood beside men, they look more like men than most men do. Basically they are obese.

Millicently

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nah, they aren't really.

They are physically more masculine than most of the female players which certainly is an advantage when playing female players but they wouldn't have much of a chance against any of the top 20 male players.

Venus is very tall for a woman at 6' 1". Serena is 5' 9". Venus is pretty near the average for a top male tennis player but certainly not taller than most of them. Serena would be below average on that front.

Have you seen the size of their arms and thighs?

Justin Credible Darts

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why men are necessarily better at darts than women..is it just down to playing it longer?..

Darts is very lower class too..




do you really need to have this explained as to why ?


Men take less darts to win on average. This is a fact.
Men have higher averages.
Mens event sells more tickets.


In fact in the PDC darts is gender neutral and women can compete with the men, and of the 128 tourcard holders - players that can and are allowed compete in the PDC only one of the 128 is a woman, and she only earned her tourcard last month, and she was the multiple times womens champ, but will hardly make an impact against the men who are better.


This is a fact.

Millicently

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

do you really need to have this explained as to why ?


Men take less darts to win on average. This is a fact.
Men have higher averages.
Mens event sells more tickets.


In fact in the PDC darts is gender neutral and women can compete with the men, and of the 128 tourcard holders - players that can and are allowed compete in the PDC only one of the 128 is a woman, and she only earned her tourcard last month, and she was the multiple times womens champ, but will hardly make an impact against the men who are better.


This is a fact.

I've never seen the appeal in darts and given that most of the competitors are chain smoking morbidly obese alcoholics it can hardly be called a sport. There are many of them with beer guts so big they could probably rest a pint on them.

Antares35

al87987 wrote: »

All animals should be in the wild.

Pets shouldn't exist; hate seeing them on leashes, in cages or left in a house all day long

Good news for factory farmed animals everywhere

Justin Credible Darts

Millicently wrote: »

I've never seen the appeal in darts and given that most of the competitors are chain smoking morbidly obese alcoholics it can hardly be called a sport. There are many of them with beer guts so big they could probably rest a pint on them.

I agree its not a sport, despite them looking for Oylmpic recognition.


That said you will find the outdated impression is not typical of the game today.
A successful dart player can make a very good income.


Taylor retired with over 6 million in just ranking money, and millions more in non ranking money.


MVG has made over 4 million already, and countless others with career earnings over a million.


not bad for a game.......now compare that to GAA players

ohnonotgmail

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

do you really need to have this explained as to why ?


Men take less darts to win on average. This is a fact.
Men have higher averages.
Mens event sells more tickets.


In fact in the PDC darts is gender neutral and women can compete with the men, and of the 128 tourcard holders - players that can and are allowed compete in the PDC only one of the 128 is a woman, and she only earned her tourcard last month, and she was the multiple times womens champ, but will hardly make an impact against the men who are better.


This is a fact.

to be fair that doesnt explain WHY men are better at darts

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

If dog owners are required to clean up after their dogs... then cat owners should be obliged to do the very same!

Fair is fair - otherwise it's a double standard.

I don't care if it's a logistical nightmare to find where they went - it's your cat, find it and clean it up! Otherwise you're just a bad pet owner!

Also, why do most cat owners think that their cat is so clean?

Most cats don't get groomed or even given a bath for their entire life! In reality, they are filthy animals who lick themselves clean, with a tongue that has probably had some vermin in it - like a rat or a mouse etc! It's actually quite disgusting when you really think about it. (And don't give me any of that BS about their tongue being anti-bacterial - load of old nonsense!)

Sorry cat owners - the truth hurts! But needs to be said. :P

vriesmays

Throwing eaten fruit and used cigarettes onto grass isn't littering, it's fertilising.

ghost of ireland past

Cats clean up after themselves and are cleaner than many humans.

Raconteuse

Cigarette butts are not biodegradable and they contain toxins.

Unfortunately the population of cats is at pest point. And I love cats. But neuter neuter neuter. Even if it's not your cat. Any opportunity you can.

Kivaro

Raconteuse wrote: »

Unfortunately the population of cats is at pest point. And I love cats. But neuter neuter neuter. Even if it's not your cat. Any opportunity you can.

:eek: I'm currently watching the Netflix series Don't Fluck with Cats, so I'll skip that.

Raconteuse

Kivaro wrote: »

:eek: I'm currently watching the Netflix series Don't Fluck with Cats, so I'll skip that.

Bring them to the vet I mean!

I can't watch that show, even though I believe it's very good.

Vic_08

Raconteuse wrote: »

Bring them to the vet I mean!

I can't watch that show, even though I believe it's very good.

A good synpopsis for anyone who doesn't know what the f you two are talking about.

https://junkee.com/dont-****-with-cats-netflix/237080

Leads into my unpopular opinion:

Most of these real life crime series and podcasts are ghoulish exploitative entertainment products made by people who couldn't give a toss about the victims or their relatives and just want their own slice of fame off the backs of other people's misfortunes. They share more in common with horror films or made for tv thrillers than they do with journalistic documentaries and have little or no value beyond being popcorn fodder.

DEFTLEFTHAND

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to be fair that doesnt explain WHY men are better at darts

Men on average possess greater hand eye coordination and spacial awarness skills.

Therefore they have greater potential to become elite players in the likes of darts pool/snooker.

Raconteuse

Vic_08 wrote: »

A good synpopsis for anyone who doesn't know what the f you two are talking about.

https://junkee.com/dont-****-with-cats-netflix/237080

Leads into my unpopular opinion:

Most of these real life crime series and podcasts are ghoulish exploitative entertainment products made by people who couldn't give a toss about the victims or their relatives and just want their own slice of fame off the backs of other people's misfortunes. They share more in common with horror films or made for tv thrillers than they do with journalistic documentaries and have little or no value beyond being popcorn fodder.

Oh I'm forever watching/listening to true crime/unsolved mysteries shows. It absolutely is entertainment and nothing else, no matter how much they try to dress it up as being in the public's interest. It's fascinating, intriguing and so on. But still entertainment.

Another thing that's messed up is the way I can't watch that show about the kittens being abused but no bother if it's humans. Now I'll be horrified and sometimes upset, but I'll still watch it.

Potential-Monke

I think that we should slowly reduce and eventually get rid of child allowance. Can't afford one? Don't have one. Sick of paying for everyone else's kids.

Tony EH

vriesmays wrote: »

Throwing eaten fruit and used cigarettes onto grass isn't littering, it's fertilising.

Fruit, yes.

Fag butts, no.

Clonmel1000

I couldn’t be bothered voting.

vriesmays

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think that we should slowly reduce and eventually get rid of child allowance. Can't afford one? Don't have one. Sick of paying for everyone else's kids.

If there's a child allowance why not an abortion allowance.

KiKi III

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think that we should slowly reduce and eventually get rid of child allowance. Can't afford one? Don't have one. Sick of paying for everyone else's kids.

If you end up old and childless, those kids will be paying for your healthcare.

vriesmays

The Irish fleeing China should be refused entry here. Some have been away years. They left.

Greyfox

KiKi III wrote: »

If you end up old and childless, those kids will be paying for your healthcare.

But if those kids didn't exist we'd just have other tax payers paying instead, once jobs exist we can always get more tax payers from other countries

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think that we should slowly reduce and eventually get rid of child allowance. Can't afford one? Don't have one. Sick of paying for everyone else's kids.

What if you could afford the child when you conceived and then you fell on hard times? Hard times have happened but your children’s allowance has run out so... fuck you and your child? And, Potential-Monke, anyone can fall on hard times for a wide variety of reasons. I smile ruefully at reading the posts of the people here who think that nothing bad can ever befall them. The hopefulness and innocence.

Millicently

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Men on average possess greater hand eye coordination and spacial awarness skills.

Therefore they have greater potential to become elite players in the likes of darts pool/snooker.

Something something 'manspreading'

saabsaab

vriesmays wrote: »

The Irish fleeing China should be refused entry here. Some have been away years. They left.

Anyone coming here from China should be stopped or at least quarantined for a few weeks.

Raconteuse

Containing the spread of a potentially deadly virus is an unpopular opinion?

Potential-Monke

KiKi III wrote: »

If you end up old and childless, those kids will be paying for your healthcare.

I will be childless, not sure about old, don't know if I'll live that long. But isn't that why I'm now being told to have a pension and healthcare so I can afford it when I'm older?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What if you could afford the child when you conceived and then you fell on hard times? Hard times have happened but your children’s allowance has run out so... fuck you and your child? And, Potential-Monke, anyone can fall on hard times for a wide variety of reasons. I smile ruefully at reading the posts of the people here who think that nothing bad can ever befall them. The hopefulness and innocence.

Basically, yes, fuck them. Life happens, and if we are to listen to other people you should plan for your future, and if that future includes children you need to plan better. I understand things can go wrong, so maybe in those cases it can be limited, but it sure as hell should not be standard for having a kid. Means test it maybe, but still limit it to 2 per family.

I have fallen on hard times myself and have ended up living at home with my parents. Works out ok. Having a child there would be a different matter, but having a child would also mean I could possibly get a house for next to nothing in comparison to rent, so there's that. Meanwhile, my taxes are still paying for people to have kids even when they shouldn't get it. Some people treat kids as an income (regardless of what you believe) and cutting it down to 2 kids, or getting rid of it completely save for an emergency situation where it's limited, would end that.

My mother said it was brought in back in the 60s or 70s or something to make up for the shortfall in income of women not working, those days are gone and we need to put the responsibility back on the parents. Would much prefer if my portion of taxes went to mental health rather than propping up Mz. Cash's eleventeen children.

Genuinely though, why is child benefit a thing? Maybe someone can convince me why it's a good idea... Doubtful.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Basically, yes, fuck them. Life happens, and if we are to listen to other people you should plan for your future, and if that future includes children you need to plan better. I understand things can go wrong, so maybe in those cases it can be limited, but it sure as hell should not be standard for having a kid. Means test it maybe, but still limit it to 2 per family.

I have a friend with terminal cancer. She and her husband both worked full-time before her diagnosis. They have three young children. She was diagnosed in her 30s so probably didn’t have a huge amount of savings what with having bought a house not long before. They don’t have much family between them. Her husband has had to quit his job to care for his wife and children as she couldn’t do it all by herself. They are struggling. Enlighten me - what could they have done differently? What plans would have helped them with this predicament? Do tell.

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. This is literally a family I know living in Ireland at this very moment. No children’s allowance for child number three in a family with little money coming in and a highly stressful health problem? Sure, why not. That’s compassionate.

EDIT: and it goes without saying that she also had to quit her job.

Potential-Monke

Then they should be entitled to it. That's why I said in certain cases yes. But John and Mary who have no issues and decide to pop out a few sprogs get the money anyway. They shouldn't. Just like anyone else who has no reasons. The fact that everyone gets it regardless is wrong and that's what I want to tackle. You shouldn't be entitled to it just because you had a kid. It's like giving everyone the dole even if they're working, or don't need it, imo. And it's obviously unpopular, so perfect for this thread!

Also, I think compassion shouldn't come into it. Go on facts. In your example, the facts clearly show that help is needed, and indeed warranted. If we didn't give everyone the child benefit as a matter of course, we could then afford to give that family a lot more to help them. I'd much prefer they got €300 per child instead of giving it to someone who has no reason for it.

I jsut think it's crazy that the second someone has a kid they get free money, regardless of circumstances. And as said, there are many out there who have kids as a source of additional income for them, not the kids. This would stop that and, imo, would be far more beneficial to the country.