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

Genuine thanks. I really appreciate that. And I agree :)

Thanks for that. I thought I may have been going loopy. I'm glad someone else can see what I thought was a pretty obvious stance.

As I've said already, plenty have concluded that there's enough in the public domain to view him as a trafficker and rapist. And I'd say it's beneficial to call a spade a spade at a certain point, particularly when discussing a serial abuser of women. In the same way, plenty viewed Cosby and Weinstein to be a rapist prior to any trial because there was a huge amount of corroboration in terms of evidence. So yell away that I'm prejudiced but since I'm unlikely to serve on the juries in the multiple countries that want to put him on trial, I'm fine with you viewing me as such.

I'm absolutely fine with that. I am not telling you how to think. I do appreciate the fact that you realise that you are prejudiced. But I do take a little bit of an exception that you have referred to me as "yelling". I'm simply putting forward my point of view. I am no more yelling than you are, but it seems that some people like to class me as "yelling" or being "upset" or "annoyed" or various different synonyms meaning the same thing.

It's dishonest

I just said she isn't *defending* the Tates, that's all.

Unsurprising that you are refusing to acknowledge your own duplicity, hypocrites rarely do.

You called him a murderer. You said, verbatim, "My belief that he was a murderer….". This is you labelling him as a murderer; whether you are willing to accept it or not, that's what you're doing.

Rank hypocrisy to then start admonishing others for labelling Tate a rapist. Nobody said he was a convicted rapist, or that their opinion was fact, they just said they'll call him a rapist and you immediately jumped on it, telling them not to do it, because he hadn't been convicted (yet). OJ was not only not convicted, he was acquitted, and you're still labelling him as a murderer……..there's no consistency between your two positions.

I do feel your phrasing is purposely trying to frame me in a bad light which is a little unfair.

Nobody likes having their contradictions being highlighted, so no surprise there again. I'm not trying to frame anything (or anyone) in any light. I'm pointing out that your stance on this is in direct contradiction to your own words. You're judging others to a certain standard and refusing to judge yourself by the same standards. That's on you. You're portraying yourself in a bad light, via your posts, not me.

I have been nothing but consistent.

Nope…..'do as I say, not as I do'…….is anything but consistent. The fact that you're refusing to recognise your inconsistencies changes nothing.

I am not "willfully ignorant", I just have no need to read about the Tate's as it is all public knowledge or unproven allegations.

"I am not being wilfully ignorant, I'm just refusing to educate myself further and remaining ignorant on the matter, on purpose"……….is like, the dictionary definition of being wilfully ignorant. How do you know it's all unproven allegations and public knowledge if you won't read up on it?

Look, you do you…….no skin off my nose what you think or don't think. But you can't start giving others grief for things that apply to yourself, then start scrambling and trying to justify your own position without inviting criticism.

It's my belief that he was guilty. It's not a fact. Nothing duplicitous in that whatsoever. I wouldn't definitively say he was a murderer, but if I was asked my opinion, I would have no issue in saying that the evidence was more than compelling. My belief is not a fact.

Nothing I have said is inconsistent. Waiting for a trial to definitively label people as innocent or guilty is hardly a "hot-take".

If the Tate brothers are found not guilty, I will still have my own unfavourable personal opinion of them, but I wouldn't be able to state that they are proven sex traffickers or rapists.

And I have already read the stories about Andrew Tate, I have no need to read any more. The speculation and allegations will be seen in court.

There is no scrambling, just an honest refutation that I am a hypocrite or inconsistent.

I'll leave it at this as to not derail the thread.

The poster I responded to said "Grand, instead we'll call Andrew Tate a sex trafficker and rapist". I responded by saying "I would just prefer to wait until the verdict has been delivered before I label people as such".

With regards OJ Simpson, my firm belief is what I stated.

"And yes, although I disagree with the verdict of the OJ Simpson case, we have to acknowledge that he is not a convicted murderer.

My belief that he was a murderer doesn't change the fact that he was found not guilty.

We either believe in the legality of court cases or we can just go on personal opinion"

So that pretty much debunks the lie that I labelled him a murderer. I said I think he is. I didn't say he was one. I went out of my way to say that my belief doesn't supersede the fact that he isn't a murderer.

I think that confirms my consistency. Despite you wanting to frame me as someone who flip flops, I wholeheartedly disagree. But to be consistent, you are entitled to your opinion, but the facts prove your wrong.

With regards to reading the links that were given to me, I didn't feel the need to open them as I am more than aware of the allegations levelled against the Tate's but I wanted to be honest to the poster who supplied me with the links because I think transparency is only fair when discussing a topic. I never once said I was ignorant of the allegations. Now perhaps there may have been further allegations, but based on my knowledge of the Tate brothers, they will either be proven guilty or not guilty. Any further allegations will not sway my opinion either way so I didn't even bother opening the links.

I'm not willfully ignorant, I've educated myself to the level required to come to an opinion and have been measured in my method of reaching an opinion. I don't discount anything, but have no interest in re-reading information that has yet to be substantiated. Nor do I think that my opinion is gospel.

There is no high horse. I just believe that people should be free to speak their mind, but not demand that their opinions are facts. This somehow is contentious and controversial.

I get that people get emotional about certain topics. I just think that emotions aren't as important as actual reality.

You think what you want, like I said, you do you…..this doesn't change the facts.

"I think he was a murderer" is you labelling him a murderer. You're not saying it is beyond doubt, nor are you saying this is a 100% indisputable fact, but you are saying it. I find it beyond ridiculous that you refuse to accept this. You are engaging in double-speak to try to justify this….for example…..

"I didn't say that he was a murderer"…..yes you did, you said yourself you believe that he was a murderer:

My belief that he was a murderer doesn't change the fact he was found not guilty.

This is you labelling him as a murderer in your own eyes. Again, it's absolutely bananas that this has to be explained to you.

Despite you wanting to frame me as someone who flip flops

I never said you're flip flopping, I said you're inconsistent in your judgement and hypocritical when it comes to your words versus the previous poster's words. You're attempting to deflect from this by claiming I'm framing you as a flip flopper, but I'm not. Please don't misrepresent my posts, thanks.

I never once said I was ignorant of the allegations.

And I never claimed you were ignorant of the allegations, either, I said you're ignorant of the content in the links that were provided (as am I). You said it yourself, you ARE being wilfully ignorant (of the content of the articles that were linked) by your own admission. You don't know what's in them because you haven't read them. They were supplied to you, you said "I won't be reading them thanks", and opted not to read them. Nobody forced this on you, this was your choice……you chose to remain in the dark and are now trying to weasel out of it by claiming I said you were ignorant of the allegations. I didn't. I said you were ignorant of the articles the were linked. Your claim that they won't sway your opinion holds no water because you don't know what's in them. They could sway you, but you'll never know without reading them.

There is no other possible interpretation of this event, you chose to remain ignorant of the articles because you weren't interested in them. This is again, the very definition of the phrase 'wilfully ignorant'. You're not comprehending the replies to you because you are unhappy at being called out and getting all defensive, instead of taking it all on board.

(1) There is no high horse. I just believe that people should be free to speak their mind, but not (2) demand that their opinions are facts. This somehow is contentious and controversial.

1. You were chastising the previous poster for labelling someone as X, while you are happily justifying your own labelling of someone else as Y. Stereotypical high-horse conduct. You think OJ was a murderer, he thinks Tate is a rapist, you're fine saying it but he's not allowed to say it. Hypocrisy manifest.
2. Nowhere has anyone demanded that their opinions are facts. Feel free to show me where they did and I'll retract this statement. What's controversial and contentious is your claims that they did and your insistence that they shouldn't be allowed to do what you yourself are guilty of. If they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but you are, you're being inconsistent with the rules.

I get that people get emotional about certain topics. I just think that emotions aren't as important as actual reality.

More high-horse bullsh1t.

This is you trying to diminish my posts by claiming I'm getting emotional. I'm neither emotional nor invested in the nonsense surrounding Tate, I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy in the (apparently vain) hope that you might take it on board. Instead, you're getting the hump that someone had the temerity to call you out for your nonsense and throwing out a load of condescending, passive-aggressive insults. That doesn't wash, I'm afraid.

Ugh, I hate having to renege on my statement that I would "leave it there" but feel the need to clarify.

"My belief that he was a murderer" is not saying that it is beyond doubt, nor am I saying it as fact. And I acknowledge the fact he was found innocent. I'm entitled to believe what I want, but I can't state it as fact or that it is true.

If the poster i spoke with said "I believe Tate and his brothers are sex traffickers and rapists" rather than labelling them as such, I would have no issue. Again, your attempt to prove hypocrisy is plainly ridiculous.

My OH believes Liverpool are ****. Doesn't make it so, but they firmly believe it.

If you can't differentiate stating an opinion/belief and stating something as a fact, that's a "you" problem.

"Nowhere has anyone demanded that their opinions are facts. Feel free to show me where they did and I'll retract this statement"

"Grand, instead we'll call Andrew Tate a sex trafficker and rapist"

That's pretty definitive and prejudiced.

"This is you trying to diminish my posts by claiming I'm getting emotional. I'm neither emotional nor invested in the nonsense surrounding Tate, I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy in the (apparently vain) hope that you might take it on board. Instead, you're getting the hump that someone had the temerity to call you out for your nonsense and throwing out a load of condescending, passive-aggressive insults. That doesn't wash, I'm afraid."

There is nothing passive aggressive in my response. Nor have I got the hump. You just seem to be unnecessarily argumentative in your tone but that's ok. I wish you nothing but nice things.

Calling someone a rapist and a sex trafficker is a statement of fact. Saying that you are of the belief that someone was guilty but acknowledging the fact that they were found innocent is completely different.

I haven't taken umbrage and said that I didn't read the articles, not because I didn't want to learn, but because I know from various news reports and podcasts about all of the allegations.

I actually love when I am proved wrong, because it is a learning experience. But in this case, I can safely say that nothing I have said has been wrong.

Look we can leave it here. I'm sure people are bored of us jousting around and around.

Have a lovely weekend.

Aaaaaaaanyway……………controversial opinions:

1. Everyone should be signed up to the organ donation list automatically. If you choose to remove yourself from this list, you should be last on the list for any possible donations, should you ever need one
2. Retention, in a planning context, should be abolished. If you built it without permission, you should be made tear it down and apply for permission. Then you can rebuild it, if you get permission, of course
3. The bright xenon headlights in modern cars are brilliant, in both meanings of the word. People who use them incorrectly are dopes, but the lights are excellent
4. I agree with the poster who said strawberries aren't great. I'd add grapefruit to that list. Pears are amazing, though finding a ripe one can be a challenge.
5. Nobody uses mops correctly in Ireland. And I mean nobody.
6. Socks and sandals at the same time is comfy as f….and doesn't even look that bad
7. Often, the lowest paid employees in any organisation are the hardest workers
8. The speed of cars should be geo-locked based on the max speed of whatever country you're in. There's no point in having cars that can do 200+km/h in Ireland, any car sold here should be restricted to 125 max.
9. The vast, vast, vast majority of civil and public sector workers do a great job and I've seen multiple times the amount of slacking and skiving and acting the maggot in every private sector job I've worked in.
10. Simon Harris is a good politician

I’ll see your sandals and socks and raise you…

crocs & socks

Unless you can round up a few neighbours to complain collectively. That would get the attention of the gaurds alright.

Yeah I'm sure they'll call off the drug searches and drive-by shooting investigations to look into the case of the dog that did bark

Are you fcuking kidding? She makes horrible statements about LGBT people on a constant basis.