Unpopular Opinions.

wonderfulname wrote: »

7Sins wrote: »

I don't have a problem with gay marraige or civil partnership. I just don't see any reason why they should be allowed adopt. You'll need more than two pdfs to change my mind cos I'm very stubborn and narrow minded.

You do realise that full marriage rights include adoption right? You could actually look at the pdfs before you decide it's not enough for you.

I can have a problem with one and not the other, correct? Dude one of them is 88 pages long, I'll report back when they're read

clare ny wrote: »

and abra is only nice when your loaded

Definitely. Even looks like the menu was designed by a drunk

I believe humanity has failed my standards of moral development. Its over now, we've had 10,000 years of civilisation(in some form). This is all we've accomplished?
From this belief, over the years i've come to some harsh judgements that my friends tell me are ridiculously cruel and dictatory. I think they're just Lacking the conviction to see humanity progress and take responsiblity for our future and treatment of this world.
My harsh opinions on what should be done are as follows.

-Limit birth rate to healthy and mentally able/responsible people.
-Child limits should be placed on families unable to financially cope with the situation, enough for education for several years, health, hobbies etc should all be saved up for. If they cannot afford this, either dont have the child or apply for the state to provide BEFORE hand, so budgets can be organised and perhaps you will be required to work for the state as repayment(though for a fair wage)
-Repeatily cut dole and social payments for unemployment over time, eg every 1-2 months, knock 25% off. (this was more before the current recession).
-All people should be mapped from a medical standpoint, collated with a huge database of profiles, and treated for all illness and disease by the state. An unhealthy populace is detrimental to humanity in all ways. People are required to donate blood/white blood cells/other easily donated organs if they wish to subscribe to the states medical system. Exemptions apply for valid reasons. This could also be financially incentivised by medical credits to be used to pay off future medical expenses.
-Politicions should all need to require detailed exams on thier field of experitise, ministerial reshuffling is archaic idea and should be stopped immediate. Politicians needs should catered for the state at a middle income level type of standard, but they should not be allowed by law to make or earn wealth in any way during thier terms. They are there to serve the state and people. This should be thier only aim. It should be a dedicated intense job for 2-4 years after which case they will be offered several jobs of thier chosen field for state bodies as a thank you and to compensate for thier wealth losses.
-Criminals should all be forced into heavy counselling and therapy, failure to comply and be deemed fit for society by a health carae professional should result in either continued imprisonment or penalties, AND tracking hardware being placed on your body..
-All multiple convicted criminals of harmful to others bheaviour, violent, anti social behaviour should be tagged and tracked for a long periods. Any crimes commited in thier location would reveal if they were to blame and easily apprehended.
- Junkies and drugs users who have problems would be put into rehab by force, they are leech on society. I have no problem at all with recreational drug use of most kinds. However anyone stealing, or lying in streets on multiple instances, or leeching from society should be treated as ill and cured by counselling, therapy, other normal drug treatments.
- Violent and intentional criminals may need to be seperated from society permenantly if they cannot be treated or fixed.
- Majority ruling the votes is not working in my opinon, I'd require voters to pass test in order to earn the right to vote on different types of issues.
- I'd enforce the economy to produce far more of its own goods and force it to become self sufficent. It would employ many more jobs. I'd create state production companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers if necessary. Grow the country into a huge exporter for profit and create a full employment and eductional populace.
- Prisons would be made alot less cosy but much more helpful, in a nice way. I dont believe in belittling or agressive behaviour, EVER.
Everyone has the right to a basic level of housing and this can be bought cheaply from the state as it makes all its own resources for building homes etc.

I dont think they are harsh, but definitely different than most people mention. I just want humanity to be better, to do something useful, to stop all the needless **** we do.

Oh i also think manogamy is stupid for the vast majority of people. I think it stinks of some religous and outdated motivations. People should be allowed to love whoever and whenever they want.

It seems crazy that people meet each other when they are for example are 25. get together and are almost demanded to stay together by the structure of thier relationship until they are 80 to die.. We grow and change into different people all our lives, Why try keep the same circumstances on it? Wouldnt most people prefer multiple lovers throughout thier lives?
Also All the while pretending they dont fancy others, or denying themselves equally great relationships or sexual relations with others.

I would like the norm for each person in a relationship to commit to a certain amount of time/type together before reviewing it for the future.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Monogamy just means one at a time, not one for all time, and we do have divorce now you know, I think it's kind of wierd that you'd set a length of time before "reviewing", does that mean you're stuck with someone til' the next review if you don't like them?
If not, then why the review?

I agree, that would be the definition, however in my experience people seem to want and expect a magnogamous relationship to endure. Contrary to all evidence. Its like a bad thing when it ends. It shouldnt be. I think It was a good thing it existed and most likely improved both participants lives dramatically whilst it did. They also keep the memories and experience from it. It rarely ends in some peaceful way, and ive always found peoples anger usually only raises its head when a perception is shown to be wrong and they werent expecting it, or some injustice..which technically is probably just a subset of the first.
I dont think you should be stuck with a person until next review, I look at it more of you've both promised a commitment of at least this amount of time where you presentily confirm you believe you will try to maintain the relationship and make it a very enjoyable time for both of you.
If circumstances change, of course it can be reviewed changed early.
I guess I just wish there wasnt an expectation of its continuance, which then most likely ends up in the ****ter with people resenting it and the other person for a long time.
Seems very odd.

As for magnogamy, I dont really see why people desire it so much. Its always been very unnatural to me. It seems unnatural for most people, and they seem unable to sustain it most of the time, and if they do, it comes with struggle and denial. Of course, if both people want it for constructive reasons like geniune desire for it, then its of course right. If its for some reason like insecurity the other person will find someone they think is 'better' so you are trying to limit it, then i think this reason is complete and utter arse run off. This seems to be the reason i've encountered when its come into discussion with people.
Infact most ive ever met seem to want to be with others, other than this one 'bad' reason they have.

theTinker wrote: »

I believe humanity has failed my standards of moral development. Its over now, we've had 10,000 years of civilisation(in some form). This is all we've accomplished?
From this belief, over the years i've come to some harsh judgements that my friends tell me are ridiculously cruel and dictatory. I think they're just Lacking the conviction to see humanity progress and take responsiblity for our future and treatment of this world.
My harsh opinions on what should be done are as follows.

-Limit birth rate to healthy and mentally able/responsible people.
-Child limits should be placed on families unable to financially cope with the situation, enough for education for several years, health, hobbies etc should all be saved up for. If they cannot afford this, either dont have the child or apply for the state to provide BEFORE hand, so budgets can be organised and perhaps you will be required to work for the state as repayment(though for a fair wage)
-Repeatily cut dole and social payments for unemployment over time, eg every 1-2 months, knock 25% off. (this was more before the current recession).
-All people should be mapped from a medical standpoint, collated with a huge database of profiles, and treated for all illness and disease by the state. An unhealthy populace is detrimental to humanity in all ways. People are required to donate blood/white blood cells/other easily donated organs if they wish to subscribe to the states medical system. Exemptions apply for valid reasons. This could also be financially incentivised by medical credits to be used to pay off future medical expenses.
-Politicions should all need to require detailed exams on thier field of experitise, ministerial reshuffling is archaic idea and should be stopped immediate. Politicians needs should catered for the state at a middle income level type of standard, but they should not be allowed by law to make or earn wealth in any way during thier terms. They are there to serve the state and people. This should be thier only aim. It should be a dedicated intense job for 2-4 years after which case they will be offered several jobs of thier chosen field for state bodies as a thank you and to compensate for thier wealth losses.
-Criminals should all be forced into heavy counselling and therapy, failure to comply and be deemed fit for society by a health carae professional should result in either continued imprisonment or penalties, AND tracking hardware being placed on your body..
-All multiple convicted criminals of harmful to others bheaviour, violent, anti social behaviour should be tagged and tracked for a long periods. Any crimes commited in thier location would reveal if they were to blame and easily apprehended.
- Junkies and drugs users who have problems would be put into rehab by force, they are leech on society. I have no problem at all with recreational drug use of most kinds. However anyone stealing, or lying in streets on multiple instances, or leeching from society should be treated as ill and cured by counselling, therapy, other normal drug treatments.
- Violent and intentional criminals may need to be seperated from society permenantly if they cannot be treated or fixed.
- Majority ruling the votes is not working in my opinon, I'd require voters to pass test in order to earn the right to vote on different types of issues.
- I'd enforce the economy to produce far more of its own goods and force it to become self sufficent. It would employ many more jobs. I'd create state production companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers if necessary. Grow the country into a huge exporter for profit and create a full employment and eductional populace.
- Prisons would be made alot less cosy but much more helpful, in a nice way. I dont believe in belittling or agressive behaviour, EVER.
Everyone has the right to a basic level of housing and this can be bought cheaply from the state as it makes all its own resources for building homes etc.

I dont think they are harsh, but definitely different than most people mention. I just want humanity to be better, to do something useful, to stop all the needless **** we do.

This post chills me to my bones.

theTinker wrote: »

Oh i also think manogamy is stupid for the vast majority of people. I think it stinks of some religous and outdated motivations. People should be allowed to love whoever and whenever they want.

It seems crazy that people meet each other when they are for example are 25. get together and are almost demanded to stay together by the structure of thier relationship until they are 80 to die.. We grow and change into different people all our lives, Why try keep the same circumstances on it? Wouldnt most people prefer multiple lovers throughout thier lives?
Also All the while pretending they dont fancy others, or denying themselves equally great relationships or sexual relations with others.

I would like the norm for each person in a relationship to commit to a certain amount of time/type together before reviewing it for the future.

As does this one, especially the bolded bit. Why should it matter to you what grown adults do in their personal relationships?

AstridBean wrote: »

Do tell, who decides what is the appropriate length for a contract?

The couple, of course.

Why involve anyone else at all?

AstridBean wrote: »

How would a couple work that out?

In one scenario, a couple might agree to try and remain together and monogamous for the period of their children's youth.

When the children reach maturity, they could decide to move on.

The possibility of moving on after 12 or 16 years ought to be made clear from the outset, it should be a question of "lets raise children together" and not automatically "lets have to care for one another when we're old and infirm because that's what people have always done before now..."

I think if it were the norm to make such short term contracts, society might be a lot happier. People might realise that just because you're 50 and your kids are grown up, you shouldn't feel trapped in a marriage, nor that expecting fun with a new partner, or a new start is an unreasonable expectation/ unfair on the other partner.