What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

cant imagine everyone being able to achieve what someone like James Cracknell has, i certainly couldnt, takes something else to do that.....

The opinion about Ireland being nothing more than a top 8 team is common knowledge amongst people who don't know much about rugby.

What do you propose to improve it?

Of course someone like that would disagree because it's how he makes his money.

My point is that if someone is obsessed with something then it's not that difficult to do it. If he really hated running and exercise then I'd be impressed.

Someone running around the place is not really beneficial or interesting for anyone except the person doing it. It's not heroic.

Doctors and nurses working 18/24 hour shifts in A&E is heroic to me. They're actually using their brain, helping others and under the intense pressure of knowing what happens if they make a mistake. That is what mental fortitude really is for me.

And then you have lads jogging around in Skechers trying to sell themselves as heroic and strong willed. Give me a break. They're just big kids.

...its been explained to me a millions times, and im still clueless, and im a wonk!

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about, Goggins is proof that the battle with your mind is the most important thing. His mindset is the main reason he achieved such a huge transformation.

Yeah but very few of us stay obsessed with something, people who enjoy running still have to be able to run on the days they don't feel like it. Almost everyone has to battle against their brain making excuses for not exercising or not doing something important.

Getting really good at running is not an easy thing to do, I'll never run a marathon but well done to anybody who does one. Working hard as a doctor or nurse is brilliant but working 18/24 hrs is putting patients lives in danger and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

true, but also if a test had things that were too difficult for the "dum dums" to remember, it might make the candidates propose easier and more simple straight forward propsals without overcomplicating things and without a need for a phd to understand implications lol.

think of the "for dummies" book serious, something laid out like that. the harder their policies are to remember = the less votes they get lol.

marketting and young candidates would be hired much more as a face and mouthpiece for policies i'd imagine, with much elder people behind the scenes pulling the strings and telling them what to say, then the younger face translating it in a way the younger crowd would be able to comprehend and simplifying it.

would be funny if somewhere in translation the message got lost or corrupted like this https://youtu.be/RZfUF9g89GQ?feature=shared&t=63

i know there's many differences between the two, even towards the end there's certain parts that had been left out (not saying any spoilers just incase). There is much more detail for sure in the books, it's just really sickening how most book people think they are higher than movie only people, and go around bible bashing their beliefs and spewing the canon crap. Some ways the books may be better, some ways they may be worse. My point really is no one should have to give a crap. Why don't people like those say the same for lord of the rings? ever seen the size of them books? its a horrible elitist mentallity these book readers give thats really off-putting and ruining alot of the fun and magic the movies provide. Not only that but they're often posting weird overdramatic takes and opinions based on horrible things they've experienced within the books. Like if its that disguisting and horrible then maybe its better to not have read it in the first place?

Honestly the attitude is not with the books themselves, its with the people they create and the higher than thou elitist condescending snobby bible thumper attitude. it's like they're out to harrass anyone who has'nt read the books but did see the movies. They tryna gate-keep the franchise and claim x things didnt happen or x things happened differently despite movie showing otherwise. "book is source material and counts only, anything else didnt really happen" etc etc.

Ah hold on, that'd dumbing it down even further and I'm totally opposed to that. Politics IS complicated. Soundbites are easy but they usually completely miss the point.

I'm fine with better communication in politics, but using younger people to get on board with old people's politics is just repackaging exactly what we have right now.

Getting young people involved is a great idea, but politics needs to address young people's issues from young people's perspective. I generally don't trust the old people with houses and maybe a rental property, talking about addressing the housing problems. And I generally don't trust established, big business owners talking about the issues of setting up a small business. And I generally don't trust wealthy people talking about the issues facing poor people.

Instead of putting a young face on old people's ideas, we need a broad range of people with a broad range of experience to address the issues.

We've gone off the point about who should vote. If you introduced a test for voting, I imagine a lot of old people would fail. If you improve education on the topic, then a lot of young people would pass. If I were only self-interested, I'd support that. But I'm not only self-interested.

The test was going to be about knowing how the electoral system works, what voting 1, 2, 3 means, and not about remembering what policy each candidate was proposing, although a general awareness of that is good too. It's not as if every candidate sticks to their campaign promises once elected. Some don't! 😲

However, the electoral system is still the same.

well in that case how about this then? a legal thing a new law where candidates who hold promises are then held to fulfilling that promise and bound by law. And face legal consequence of inescapable jail time or worse if they don't keep their promise. And also a transparency thing put in place so they can show the public what they are doing towards the promise once elected and what steps they take to turn the promise into a reality

i was about to agree until reaching the middle part and strongly disagree, its coming from a place of hatread and superiority or elitism. They openly say they despite the movies and outright give hatred, or they keep saying books are better and movies suck. They need people standing up to them for once. They ruin the internet and ruin HP for people that do not wish to have anything to do with the books, they take all the fun out of it. Deep hatred much more than passion is often what they're spewing, and clear biases. They bully and gang up on people. really toxic. idc if they like the books more, they shouldnt have to force that onto others. it reminds me of when people attempt to force religion onto others, nothing short of abusive.

its okay for book readers to say they wished peeves (hp) or tom bombadil (lotr) was in the movies, i don't mind this at all.

The point that "everyone" should be allowed to vote within reason, is an interesting one. We are flippant about disenfranchising everyone under 18 in case they don't understand politics, flippant about the fact that lots of adults over 18 definitely don't understand politics but have a vote no questions asked, and steadfast that no old person, even with dementia, should be stopped from voting.

I think our approach to who should and shouldn't vote is very confused to say the least.

i'll put it in a different way, if a person is not old enough does not have the mental capacity to drink, smoke, drive etc, and be fully aware of the potential consequnces that comes along with those, then maybe they shouldnt vote as they may only be voting based on having a bias towards a party or only voting because so and so told them they should do it.

How about this instead: make voting based on policy, not party. remove the party names from the voting booths so people only vote based on policies put forward rather than vote based on biasedly identifying with a political party

Mental capacity or legal capacity? Lots of old people might not have mental capacity to do things, but nobody has legally stopped an old person smoking because they don't understand the consequences.

But that's just a proxy for understanding the political system. If you want a test for understand the political system to disqualify people who don't have enough knowledge, then using proxies is a worse way to do it than just testing for the actual thing you want to test for.

As I see it, there's no way to justify disqualifying ALL under 18s from voting that wouldn't also disqualify loads of old people (and plenty of people between 18 and old age).