nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Publicly unacceptable opinions

Undividual

I posted on the recent referendum and probably deserved a lot of the flak I got for my posts. I was trying to work things out in my head so I don't mind any of that tbh. It did make me think however about unacceptable opinions to voice in public. I've seen other posters get labeled (perhaps correctly) as racist/bigoted etc for discussing some issues online, but to me the problem is that they cant be discussed in real life, as in bad ideas/logic should be challenged openly.

Below are some of my unpalatable opinions:

1) I'm afraid of the effects of Islam on the West (less about terrorism than segregated societies/Sharia law/child grooming gangs etc) and our governments willingness to accept more refugees from Muslim countries. To clarify, I dont believe this will be a problem for Ireland in the next ten years. I have Muslim family members who have assimilated (obviously) to Irish culture, but I feel the discussion in Ireland about the specific difficulties in assimilating Islam are not really broached. I realize it is probably not logical to worry at this point, as we haven't had a terrorist attack in Ireland or any scandal with Muslims here.

2) It really annoys me that the problems between the settled community and the traveller community are never adequately addressed. There are a lot of liberal minded people who would rather defend supposedly oppressed minorities than treat them as fallible humans. I remember a Slavoj Zizek interview where he asked a liberal "Should they live beside you?" The answer obviously wasn't yes. I don't mind segregation up to a point, but what does it say about the settled community's values that the illiteracy rate among travelers is so high? Is it not the duty of the state to try to give every child the same chance at life, regardless?

3) As I get older, I find that I respect women less than men. In general I find men to be more stoic about their situations. I find more women than men to have unrealistic expectations, particularly about relationships. What I would call the feminization of society (therapy culture, obsession with the abolition of traditional gender roles etc) has created a generation of men who are undoubtedly good fathers, though I worry what kind of men these men will raise. A woman in her late 50s recently said to me that she was alone and that no one called in to her. I asked her why she didn't just leave the house. She said "And go where?" If a man said that to me, I would probably laugh in his face.

4) I prefer gay men to lesbians (settle down). I have a lesbian family member who has been overly aggressive towards me in the past, in a way that I don't think she would have been with my female relatives. I do understand that as a lesbian, men must seem like a mixture of nuisances, competitors and outright pests, so it doesn't bother me that much, but it's a pain to be treated differently for what you are rather than who you are (upon re-reading, I realize this may sound ironic). I find most gay men I've met to be funny and easy to talk to, even if less than I thought (hoped) were attracted to me.

And yes, I am Hitler.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Franz Von Peppercorn

Supergurrier wrote: »

Only property or land owning people in gainful employment should have the right to vote.

If you don't have a vested interest in the governance of the country or something to lose then you shouldn't have a voice in the outcome.

It's become very clear as of late party's are buying the unemployed vote/people seeking citizenship to go on social welfare vote.

Unpopular perhaps but I think as it is currently is unsustainable and leading us down a dead end.

Property owning? Get outta that. Plenty of hard working renters. A property owning “democracy” is an oligarchy.

And what about the recently unemployed or pensioned?

PlaneSpeeking

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Property owning? Get outta that. Plenty of hard working renters. A property owning “democracy” is an oligarchy.

And what about the recently unemployed or pensioned?

Yeah here's one - what is being suggested by laddo there ? That I can't vote cos I down own property ???

Jaysus!

weldoninhio

Try_harder wrote: »

Oh youre so risque and edgy... yawn

They beat the 7th, 10th and 11th ranked teams, while ranked 16th themselves.

Going by last season in the Prem Lge that would be Huddersfield beating Newcastle, Palace and Burnley ffs.

PlaneSpeeking

weldoninhio wrote: »

They beat the 7th, 10th and 11th ranked teams, while ranked 16th themselves.

Going by last season in the Prem Lge that would be Huddersfield beating Newcastle, Palace and Burnley ffs.

Except it wouldn't.

[Deleted User]

weldoninhio wrote: »

The women's hockey team got destroyed in the biggest match any of them will ever play in, but they celebrated like they'd won the thing.

Does any country celebrate failure like Ireland??

Have you gotten destroyed in many world cup finals yourself?

Supergurrier wrote: »

Only property or land owning people in gainful employment should have the right to vote.

If you don't have a vested interest in the governance of the country or something to lose then you shouldn't have a voice in the outcome.

It's become very clear as of late party's are buying the unemployed vote/people seeking citizenship to go on social welfare vote.

Unpopular perhaps but I think as it is currently is unsustainable and leading us down a dead end.

So we should lose the vote at 68 or whatever age we all retire at then?

Undividual

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

To what end?

I understand the negative sentiment towards the Catholic church, but some churches are beautiful buildings. Although the religion itself seems to be dying in Ireland, perhaps they should be kept as a reminder of the dangers of blind faith.

In Dublin at least, knock most of 'em down for public housing. The land is valuable, the woo ceremonies to a half dozen midweek attendees are not, and they could go elsewhere anyway.

Plough up every golf course in Dublin for public housing, while you're at it. Full of old self-entitled farts who spend their days worrying about people wearing the wrong type of trousers while half arsedly hitting a ball around. Pathetic. It's dying off at a slower rate than the RCC but it's still dying off, and I shall not weep for either.

So could someone decide that football stadiums, cinemas or restaurants are redundant also? What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what should be done with their property? If the government wants to pursue the Catholic Church legally (which I would doubt they want to, given their own complicity) and sue for Church land, that's fair enough.

The idea of just walking in and re-appropriating or destroying property however is socialism/communism, neither of which are moral.

Undividual

To clarify, I mean pay tax through work.

jimgoose

Wear sunscreen.

PlaneSpeeking

That kids are a pain in the hoop and parents are insufferable.

Undividual

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That kids are a pain in the hoop and parents are insufferable.

That most parents just tick the boxes and want as little responsibility as possible.

Edgware

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That kids are a pain in the hoop and parents are insufferable.

How dare you say that about my Fiachra? He happens to be in the Paelestrina choir and a very good clarinet player

PlaneSpeeking

Edgware wrote: »

How dare you say that about my Fiachra? He happens to be in the Paelestrina choir and a very good clarinet player

:D:D

Undividual

Edgware wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That kids are a pain in the hoop and parents are insufferable.

How dare you say that about my Fiachra? He happens to be in the Paelestrina choir and a very good clarinet player

We were going to put Hudson in crèche, but then we thought that we could sniff that money instead.

PlaneSpeeking

Undividual wrote: »

We were going to put Hudson in crèche, but then we thought that we could sniff that money instead.

Darcie-Mai and Ella-Rae don't like him anyway!

CowGoesMoo100

Disability Allowance is a joke. I don't mean for people who have actual disabilities but I'm talking about those who collect it because they have mild epilepsy or ADHD or some other bull**** "disability".

PlaneSpeeking

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

Disability Allowance is a joke. I don't mean for people who have actual disabilities but I'm talking about those who collect it because they have mild epilepsy or ADHD or some other bull**** "disability".

Never understood why a disabled car in the Motability scheme in the UK covers epilepsy.

My uncle had a seizure driving and crashed, once diagnosed his licence was pulled. I thought that the norm ?

Wanderer78

CowGoesMoo100 wrote:

Disability Allowance is a joke. I don't mean for people who have actual disabilities but I'm talking about those who collect it because they have mild epilepsy or ADHD or some other bull**** "disability".

Have you actually ever lived with such issues? There's a reason why some are called 'hidden disabilities'!

PlaneSpeeking

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Have you actually ever lived with such issues? There's a reason why some are called 'hidden disabilities'!

I'd say they should be on a case by case basis - I've students I look after with autism and ADD/ADHD and they prefer parking on a higher level away from the crowds - parking next door would not be for them.

Yet there are others who will need to be next door.

Absolutely some emotional and psychological conditions should be covered.

JeffKenna

Unacceptable opinion: Liam Miller died with €14m in his estate. I think there are far better causes to be hosting a funding raising match for. His family aren't exactly on the breadline.

PlaneSpeeking

JeffKenna wrote: »

Unacceptable opinion: Liam Miller died with €14m in his estate. I think there are far better causes to be hosting a funding raising match for. His family aren't exactly on the breadline.

Proof ? Plus it's partly a tribute and most is going to the hospice who cared for him.

CowGoesMoo100

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Have you actually ever lived with such issues? There's a reason why some are called 'hidden disabilities'!

I just think the term "disability" is being watered down hugely. I'd like to think that each case or claim is analysed on its individual merits but I'm struggling to see this. I know people on DA and they are literally taking the piss. 200 quid a week in their hand on top of their regular jobs. So they're able to work no problem but are still somehow in need of a hand-out at the same time? How does that work?

PlaneSpeeking

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

I just think the term "disability" is being watered down hugely. I'd like to think that each case or claim is analysed on its individual merits but I'm struggling to see this. I know people on DA and they are literally taking the piss. 200 quid a week in their hand on top of their regular jobs. So they're able to work no problem but are still somehow in need of a hand-out at the same time? How does that work?

Despite what I said earlier you have a limited point - being overweight is classed as a disability in the UK (I can't say I've heard of cases here) and as a big girl myself I find it abhorrent that others consider this a reason not to work.

Sardonicat

Parents who allow unsupervised access to the Internet in any format to kids under 16 are guilty of neglect.

Kids being cyber bullied/are cyber bullying? Take the fugging phones off them! How hard is it like?

CowGoesMoo100

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Despite what I said earlier you have a limited point - being overweight is classed as a disability in the UK (I can't say I've heard of cases here) and as a big girl myself I find it abhorrent that others consider this a reason not to work.

Well the cases I'm referring to are most certainly not people claiming because of being overweight but other ridiculous reasons. This may be a short-sighted view but if you're collecting a full time wage you should not be entitled to DA. You've proved that you aren't reliant on DA by working full time. It serves no purpose. Only those who literally are incapable of working should be entitled to it. Enabling people only results in more laziness and scrounging.

sbsquarepants

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes, grossly unfair. Imagine doing that somebody. She took three off him.

He spent his whole life working for those belts, long before he met her.

Why would she want them anyway. They're replicas and only of value to him. What a spiteful weirdo.

Shítty spitefull weirdo alright, but as you say they are only replicas - surely he can just get more made!

While were on the subject - he was a fantastic fighter!

Supergurrier wrote: »

Only property or land owning people in gainful employment should have the right to vote..

Ridiculous. Basically a throwback to a ruling class of landed gentry. How dare a lowly peasant expect a say in their countries affairs!

Supergurrier wrote: »

If you don't have a vested interest in the governance of the country or something to lose then you shouldn't have a voice in the outcome..

Living in the country long term gives you a vested interest in it's governance.

Supergurrier wrote: »

It's become very clear as of late party's are buying the unemployed vote/people seeking citizenship to go on social welfare vote..

I'm kind of with you on this one - there are increasing numbers of politicians running on "A vote for me, means you won't have to pay for....." platforms.
But that's democracy for you - the country ends up with the government it deserves, vote in enough idiots and you can't complain when they do stupid things!

My own publicly unacceptable opinion is that most national / racial stereotypes are reasonably accurate. There are of course always exceptions - but as a rule of thumb they are a damn good starting point.

Also that people need to accept responsibility for their actions. You are always to blame for the things you do. You weren't led astray, coerced, fell in with a bad crowd, had a tough life, too drunk to know better or any of the bullshít excuses people come up with, usually when you've been caught doing something you know damn well you shouldn't have been doing! You done it - your fault end of story!

super_furry

JeffKenna wrote: »

Unacceptable opinion: Liam Miller died with €14m in his estate. I think there are far better causes to be hosting a funding raising match for. His family aren't exactly on the breadline.

That's absolute bulls**t. Not sure if you're just spitefully making that up or where you're pulling that €14m from, but you could not be further from the truth.

JeffKenna

super_furry wrote: »

That's absolute bulls**t. Not sure if you're just spitefully making that up or where you're pulling that €14m from, but you could not be further from the truth.

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

PlaneSpeeking

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

Either share with the class or withdraw. Poisonous attitude that.

I'm calling bollocks on that - the only "link" is a pathetic click bait article "10 Irish Celebs Whose Net Worth Will Shock You!"

Try Wikipedia - and see who he played for, not exactly hundreds and hundreds of games at the top level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Miller#Career_Statistics

Definitely calling ****e on that figure.

super_furry

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

I'm claiming it because I know the facts of the situation, why the game is being played, why it was so important to ensure as big an attendance as possible and because I'm not making up ****e like he "died with €14m in his estate" because of a 'rumoured' transfer deal made 14 years ago.

CowGoesMoo100

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

Hibernian, Cork City and a bunch of Australian clubs. No way was he even close to being on 25k a week at any of those clubs and that's practically half his career.