Unpopular Opinions.

Reekwind · 18-01-2013 05:45PM

mark renton wrote: »

Opinions dont require elaboration, that is why they are opinions. Requesting elaboration on an opinion defeats the point to having an opinion, unpopular or not.

To quote Harlan Ellison: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant"

Fromthetrees · 18-01-2013 06:00PM

I wish the US hadn't killed Osama Bin Laden because the ads of some god forsaken wankfest of film about 'getting their man' keep popping up on youtube videos.

I couldn't give a sh1t about teams of highly trained and highly armed special forces units murdering an old beardy man on his own in the dark.

Okay maybe I care a little bit, he should have been caught and made to stand trial just like any country that claims to stand behind democracy should have made any 'guilty' man do, but I generally forget stuff so to be reminded of my annoyance by annoying me multiplies my annoyance enough to post it here.

I don't like it okay.

If the above is more of a rant than an unpopular opinion just pretend I said something about the Jews being responsible and Hiltler and stufff like that yeah.

Mardy Bum · 18-01-2013 06:13PM

mark renton wrote: »

Ignorant Opinions dont require elaboration, that is why they are opinions. Requesting elaboration on an opinion defeats the point to having an opinion, unpopular or not.

You forgot the important word.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-01-2013 06:24PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

And I'll do just that, when you elaborate upon your assertion that the ultimate goal of western education is indoctrination and conformity. If you could give examples based on your experience that'd be great. Otherwise we can just leave it here with all the other throwaway populist opinions.

Ah, you're hiding now

. It's an opinion, I never claime it was fact.

But seeing as you asked: most ofthe subjects, when you look at them, require a certain reaction. History being the classic example. This is why we should be proud to be who we are and where we're from. However, it makes the assumption that we should be proud in he first place: are we proud?

When was the last time a history lesson asked: should we be proud of our history? Of our nationality? Is it even important? And if so, how do we know what we're being taugh is accurate? History, as they say, is written by the winners.

Rligion is another one. Why is what is on the syllaus not chllenged?

Specific to Ireland, Irish. We spend so mcuh time with this idea of reviving the language no one stops to ask: should we? And if so, if this the right way to do it? Why is EVERY teenager made to study it? At least in other countries, you do need the national langueg to communicate, but the same can not be said of Irish.

Now I've nothign against these subjects, but if we want kids to think for themslves, answer me this: why is philosphy not a core subject from the start?

Answer - because it encourages kids to think. And thinking leads to disagreeing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 18-01-2013 06:26PM

and a classroom full of teenagers disagreeing with the teacher would be ****ing brilliant

gbee · 18-01-2013 06:32PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Answer - because it encourages kids to think. And thinking leads to disagreeing.

I wish I had written that.

Madam_X · 18-01-2013 07:33PM

Rasheed wrote: »

Well it depends what constitutes as evidence. If you wanted hard details and numbers, it wouldn't be an opinion, it'd be a fact. Or if you took anecdotal evidence to support the opinion, which I suppose is how most people form opinions.

If I said, in my opinion, people from Mayo are lovely and you asked for facts, I wouldn't have any! But you'd be perfectly entitled to ask why I thought this.

I also completely agree that it's pointless saying something without having something to back it up, be it popular or unpopular.

Problem is: the people who post "look at me" comments here present them as statements of fact. They're not opinions in the true sense of the word: a subjective view that's neither right nor wrong; they're just "feelings" they have, notions they'd like to be true, but which are objectively wrong. If someone posts something like "I think there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia", they use the "it's my opinion I'm entitled to it" line to avoid answering questions as to why they think this... because they don't have an answer; they just like thinking that, as it's their simplistic way of making sense of the world.
Usually people with the dumbest, most unpleasant notions are the ones who get whiny when asked for reasons for these views - not difficult to figure out why...

mark renton · 18-01-2013 08:06PM

Reekwind wrote: »

To quote Harlan Ellison: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant"

Ok so start a thread and call it "Informed Opinions".

People seem to forget the context here.

mark renton · 18-01-2013 08:10PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Requesting elaboration on an opinion doesn't at all defeat the point of having an opinion. Everyone has opinions, popular and unpopular, but they should at least be able to elaborate on the reasons for the basis of their opinions, otherwise they're just doing what I call entering a crowded room, farting, and then walking out, leaving everyone else to deal with the smell.

It's just downright ignorant, as is the idea of having an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion, unpopular or not.

Again, one with a lack of context. Thread is called Unpopular "Opnions".

Or to use your analagy, "drop in and fart here".

Downright ignorant to dismiss the context.

Reekwind · 18-01-2013 08:13PM

Again, I don't understand why people seem to conflate 'unpopular' with 'stupid' or 'ignorant'

Czarcasm · 18-01-2013 08:15PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, you're hiding now . It's an opinion, I never claime it was fact.

Ah no, I wouldn't like you to take me up wrong, I wouldn't assume my opinion was fact either, but when I say "evidence" in the context of an opinion I meant "can you show me the thought process that led you to that conclusion and what you base your opinion upon?". It just helps further discussion and understanding is all, and you may discover that your opinion might not be as unpopular as you might think! Nobody was too pleased about Christopher Columbus putting forward the unpopular opinion at the time that the world was round! Look how that turned out!

But seeing as you asked: most ofthe subjects, when you look at them, require a certain reaction. History being the classic example. This is why we should be proud to be who we are and where we're from. However, it makes the assumption that we should be proud in he first place: are we proud?

When was the last time a history lesson asked: should we be proud of our history? Of our nationality? Is it even important? And if so, how do we know what we're being taugh is accurate? History, as they say, is written by the winners.

Being proud of history is an interesting one because you have the likes of American Schools whose pupils recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag every morning, and the English well they have their pledge of allegiance to their queen. Irish schools don't have that same patriotism instilled in them, because we never won feckall!

Even the French though are funny about this one- they are a proud and arrogant nation, but it was only recently a pledge of allegiance was suggested (a suggestion didn't go down well either!

).

Rligion is another one. Why is what is on the syllaus not chllenged?

Contrary to popular belief, it actually has, and many times in fact, because now it has to accommodate other denominations, minorities, ethics; you ask the question further down as to why philosophy is not a core subject in schools, but it always has been, we just call it religion. I remember when I was in school- philosophy, free thinking and discussion was encouraged. Even moreso now it's integrated into the curriculum. We're still not at the level of the likes of the UK and the US or France because we have predominantly been a catholic country, whereas other western countries were a mix of cultures, and so their national curriculums were changed to accommodate for other cultures and religions decades ago.

Specific to Ireland, Irish. We spend so mcuh time with this idea of reviving the language no one stops to ask: should we? And if so, if this the right way to do it? Why is EVERY teenager made to study it? At least in other countries, you do need the national langueg to communicate, but the same can not be said of Irish.

I'd have to agree with you on this one in fairness. As much as I love Irish, the reason so many hate it is because it IS indoctrinated and learned by rote in most schools. I just happened to get lucky in that my Irish teacher was passionate about the language itself, and went above and beyond the scope of the curriculum. Just be thankful the curriculum changed a few years back and you didn't have to indulge in the miserable sufferings of Peig!

Now I've nothign against these subjects, but if we want kids to think for themslves, answer me this: why is philosphy not a core subject from the start?

Answer - because it encourages kids to think. And thinking leads to disagreeing.

If you want to encourage your child to think for themselves, that has to start in the home, you can't possibly say schools are churning out numptys and indoctrination is to blame. The apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree! :pac:

twinQuins · 18-01-2013 08:18PM

mark renton wrote: »

Again, one with a lack of context. Thread is called Unpopular "Opnions".

Or to use your analagy, "drop in and fart here".

Downright ignorant to dismiss the context.

This is a discussion forum; if you want to post material without engaging people a blog would be the thing you're after.

Downright ignorant indeed.

mark renton · 18-01-2013 08:22PM

twinQuins wrote: »

This is a discussion forum; if you want to post material without engaging people a blog would be the thing you're after.

Downright ignorant indeed.

Get the irony of the above?

Let me help you there chief, pot, kettle.

gbee · 18-01-2013 08:23PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, it actually has, and many times in fact, because now it has to accommodate other denominations, minorities, ethics;

OOOPPs! Big big no no here. They can't possibly allow anything that does not have evidence to back it up surely.

Belief is just not enough.

Czarcasm · 18-01-2013 08:38PM

mark renton wrote: »

Get the irony of the above?

Let me help you there chief, pot, kettle.

Irony is when you post in a thread called "UNpopular opinions" and then get post of the day for the huge numbers of thanks you get!

Because that's all should happen if the thread were to run the way you put forward- reams and reams of "This is what I think" posts, and no way to gauge their unpopularity or otherwise, because by definition the "Thanks" button, like facebook likes, is the easiest way of showing you agree with the opinion put forward, and the more thanks or likes you get, the more it becomes confusing as to whether your opinion was actually unpopular, or a hell of a lot more popular than you thought!

Czarcasm · 18-01-2013 08:48PM

gbee wrote: »

OOOPPs! Big big no no here. They can't possibly allow anything that does not have evidence to back it up surely.

Belief is just not enough.

You do understand the difference between ones personal beliefs, and what is contained within the curriculum, right?

OT- Stop embarrassing yourself. Enough is enough already.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-01-2013 10:22PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Being proud of history is an interesting one because you have the likes of American Schools whose pupils recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag every morning, and the English well they have their pledge of allegiance to their queen. Irish schools don't have that same patriotism instilled in them, because we never won feckall!

Even the French though are funny about this one- they are a proud and arrogant nation, but it was only recently a pledge of allegiance was suggested (a suggestion didn't go down well either! ).

Contrary to popular belief, it actually has, and many times in fact, because now it has to accommodate other denominations, minorities, ethics; you ask the question further down as to why philosophy is not a core subject in schools, but it always has been, we just call it religion. I remember when I was in school- philosophy, free thinking and discussion was encouraged. Even moreso now it's integrated into the curriculum. We're still not at the level of the likes of the UK and the US or France because we have predominantly been a catholic country, whereas other western countries were a mix of cultures, and so their national curriculums were changed to accommodate for other cultures and religions decades ago.

I'd have to agree with you on this one in fairness. As much as I love Irish, the reason so many hate it is because it IS indoctrinated and learned by rote in most schools. I just happened to get lucky in that my Irish teacher was passionate about the language itself, and went above and beyond the scope of the curriculum. Just be thankful the curriculum changed a few years back and you didn't have to indulge in the miserable sufferings of Peig!

If you want to encourage your child to think for themselves, that has to start in the home, you can't possibly say schools are churning out numptys and indoctrination is to blame. The apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree! :pac:

To unite a few points: bare in mind that in some parts of the US creationism is taught as fact.

I disagree with you about religion, certainly when I went through it (early 90s). Why, when having an abortion "debate" was Roe v. Wade never brought up? Admittedly by a catholic nun, but balance is balance. And thee is a massive difference between religion and ethical philosophy.

Agree with you on the last point to an extent: but if your child is educated by the state, said state at least has the repsonsibilty for balance. And again, why are more expressive subjects - not just philosphy, but also art (and by art, I mean cinema, dance, visual art, music, etc.) and how use different media to express themselves not on the curriculum?

Because we live in a conservative environment where people are taugh what to think and not these and are liberal subjects whcih teach people how to think.

gbee · 18-01-2013 10:39PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Because we live in a conservative environment where people are taugh what to think and not these and are liberal subjects whcih teach people how to think.

I agree. School is not education, or more precisely, state school is not. A very valid point about the arts, it is quite an expense to explore these fields outside the basic curriculum.

I personally of a know of a few exceptions locally, nonetheless your point holds.

Cienciano · 18-01-2013 10:45PM

NIMAN wrote: »

The Big Bang Theory TV show is seriously unfunny.

I'm with you on this one. The worst thing is when people think it's a comedy for intelligent people cos the dickhead main character makes jokes about shíte like gravity.

jaffacakesyum · 18-01-2013 10:54PM

Cienciano wrote: »

I'm with you on this one. The worst thing is when people think it's a comedy for intelligent people cos the dickhead main character makes jokes about shíte like gravity.

I don't think the comedy is for intelligent people but the references certainly are. There's no way in hell I would get half of them if I wasn't studying Science. Not that I think Big Bang Theory is in any way funny though :pac:

Czarcasm · 18-01-2013 11:06PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

To unite a few points: bare in mind that in some parts of the US creationism is taught as fact.

Ikky I gotta be honest- you're all over the place!

I disagree with you about religion, certainly when I went through it (early 90s). Why, when having an abortion "debate" was Roe v. Wade never brought up? Admittedly by a catholic nun, but balance is balance. And thee is a massive difference between religion and ethical philosophy.

Roe v. Wade? Perhaps because American constitutional law has nothing to do with Irish constitutional law? Not to mention that Harvard grads still argue over Roe v. Wade, so can you imagine how it would be interpreted by a bunch of 15 year olds? It might come up in the American classroom alright, but over here the X case and it's repercussions might be more relevant.

Agree with you on the last point to an extent: but if your child is educated by the state, said state at least has the repsonsibilty for balance. And again, why are more expressive subjects - not just philosphy, but also art (and by art, I mean cinema, dance, visual art, music, etc.) and how use different media to express themselves not on the curriculum?

They ARE on the curriculum, there's just not as big a focus on them in Ireland. Ireland though, to refer back to your original point, is not representative of western world educational systems as a whole. In the Netherlands and Austria for example, their curriculum is very much focussed on arts and culture. German and Eastern European curriculums are very much focussed on languages and technology. Ireland again fails very much in this regard.

Because we live in a conservative environment where people are taugh what to think and not these and are liberal subjects whcih teach people how to think.

That's more due to the fact though that the curriculum adapts to meet the needs of society, and Irish society has had a massive upheaval in the last 20 years. That's why you notice the delay moreso in Ireland than you would in other countries, because the curriculum has been slow to catch up to the changes in society, and the money just isn't there at the moment to fund a complete change in the educational system overnight unfortunately.

mark renton · 18-01-2013 11:15PM

Anyone who thinks Big Bang Theory is not funny should have their internet connection forcibly removed from them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-01-2013 11:44PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ikky I gotta be honest- you're all over the place!

Roe v. Wade? Perhaps because American constitutional law has nothing to do with Irish constitutional law? Not to mention that Harvard grads still argue over Roe v. Wade, so can you imagine how it would be interpreted by a bunch of 15 year olds? It might come up in the American classroom alright, but over here the X case and it's repercussions might be more relevant.

They ARE on the curriculum, there's just not as big a focus on them in Ireland. Ireland though, to refer back to your original point, is not representative of western world educational systems as a whole. In the Netherlands and Austria for example, their curriculum is very much focussed on arts and culture. German and Eastern European curriculums are very much focussed on languages and technology. Ireland again fails very much in this regard.

That's more due to the fact though that the curriculum adapts to meet the needs of society, and Irish society has had a massive upheaval in the last 20 years. That's why you notice the delay moreso in Ireland than you would in other countries, because the curriculum has been slow to catch up to the changes in society, and the money just isn't there at the moment to fund a complete change in the educational system overnight unfortunately.

Roe v Wade is very important in an ethical debate. It had massive implications not just in the context of abortion but also in the contexts of womens' human rights and privacy. Should these rights be universal? Or just based on nationality? Very relevant if you're going to argue that religion is a good substitute for ethics and philosopy. And you don't have to go massively deep into it - if a 15-year old is old enough to have an abortion (or be a father for that matter) they are certainly old enough to debate the issue. That or abortion shouldn't be brought up in the classroom in the first place.

Fair enough on the Irish v Western education point. I'm not as knowledgable on the systems you mentioned, but I was thinking more in lines of English-seaking systems.

I would like to think that we are movign in the right direction. I don't have kids or know much about more modern education, but I know one or two teachers and they still have very conservative outlooks. I hate to think it's out of nessecity.

Czarcasm · 19-01-2013 12:21AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Roe v Wade is very important in an ethical debate. It had massive implications not just in the context of abortion but also in the contexts of womens' human rights and privacy. Should these rights be universal? Or just based on nationality? Very relevant if you're going to argue that religion is a good substitute for ethics and philosopy. And you don't have to go massively deep into it - if a 15-year old is old enough to have an abortion (or be a father for that matter) they are certainly old enough to debate the issue. That or abortion shouldn't be brought up in the classroom in the first place.

See THAT might qualify as an unpopular opinion Ikky because the American judicial system wouldn't have any relevance to Irish law, and call it a hunch, but a lot of Irish teenagers if you mention the X case, let alone Roe v Wade, would stare back at you with a blank expression and wonder what the hell you were on about. It can be hard enough for them to wrap their heads around contraception, let alone concepts like abortion! You just happen to be crediting most teenagers with your level of intellect and maturity, but remember what you and your friends were like as teenagers- your interest in sex didn't extend much beyond the physical act, never mind the ethical considerations of the possible consequences.

I would like to think that we are movign in the right direction. I don't have kids or know much about more modern education, but I know one or two teachers and they still have very conservative outlooks. I hate to think it's out of nessecity.

I think people are just people Ikky tbh. I know plenty of liberal thinking people who just happen to BE teachers, and then I know plenty of conservative people who again just happen to BE teachers. Some people will just treat teaching as a profession, and will just about impart the bare minimum curriculum requirements, but some teachers are passionate about imparting their knowledge because they are passionate about the subjects they teach and are passionate about seeing their students do well.

Those are the kind of teachers I like because they inspire their students, and engage with them on a level where someone who is just doing it for the money wont, and the students become less interested in the subject as a result of an apathetic teacher. You get those in every educational system though worldwide, not just in western society.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-01-2013 12:43AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

See THAT might qualify as an unpopular opinion Ikky because the American judicial system wouldn't have any relevance to Irish law, and call it a hunch, but a lot of Irish teenagers if you mention the X case, let alone Roe v Wade, would stare back at you with a blank expression and wonder what the hell you were on about. It can be hard enough for them to wrap their heads around contraception, let alone concepts like abortion! You just happen to be crediting most teenagers with your level of intellect and maturity, but remember what you and your friends were like as teenagers- your interest in sex didn't extend much beyond the physical act, never mind the ethical considerations of the possible consequences.

But why not? I argue that they have the capacity (to debate) but are not receiving the education.

I think people are just people Ikky tbh. I know plenty of liberal thinking people who just happen to BE teachers, and then I know plenty of conservative people who again just happen to BE teachers. Some people will just treat teaching as a profession, and will just about impart the bare minimum curriculum requirements, but some teachers are passionate about imparting their knowledge because they are passionate about the subjects they teach and are passionate about seeing their students do well.

Those are the kind of teachers I like because they inspire their students, and engage with them on a level where someone who is just doing it for the money wont, and the students become less interested in the subject as a result of an apathetic teacher. You get those in every educational system though worldwide, not just in western society.

Have to confess some ignorance here: what's a "BE" teacher...?

I take your point, though, but as was my initial point, it's the curriculum rather than the teachers. The teachers hands are a bit tied.

Mardy Bum · 19-01-2013 12:52AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Have to confess some ignorance here: what's a "BE" teacher...?

BE=be I'd say.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-01-2013 12:55AM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

BE=be I'd say.

Czarcasm · 19-01-2013 01:05AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But why not? I argue that they have the capacity (to debate) but are not receiving the education.

Have to confess some ignorance here: what's a "BE" teacher...?

I take your point, though, but as was my initial point, it's the curriculum rather than the teachers. The teachers hands are a bit tied.

Ha! Sorry Ikky, the "BE" was meant for emphasis as in "to BE a teacher", but both your points tie in nicely to each other anyway- the reason they are not receiving the education is not because of the curriculum, it's because some teachers lack the passion to go beyond the curriculum! It's not that their hands are tied, it's that they really just couldn't care less about what they do, they lack the passion and drive to inspire their students and encourage them to think for themselves. The best teachers will always encourage a child to think for themselves, regardless of the curriculum. Their students do better because they are inspired to learn more, and because they are interested in the subject, they take in more and form a broader point of view and do better in tests because they have a better understanding of the material than a student who learns by rote.

The worst teachers will just about cover the curriculum and give their students the answers to bump up their test scores. The uninspired students will become lazy and will take what's given to them without question and without understanding, and because they don't understand, they don't take anything in. They become closed off to learning concepts and will just "learn by rote so they're able to quote", so to speak.

Think about it- we all had our favorite teachers in school; were they the teachers who inspired us and were passionate about their subject, or were our favorite teachers the ones who let us mess and horseplay and generally doss through the whole class?

As I just wrote that last paragraph I could still remember the teachers that inspired me to go outside the curriculum and learn more. I struggle to remember the teachers who were so apathetic that I had to go outside the curriculum out of necessity to teach myself the subject!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-01-2013 01:19AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ha! Sorry Ikky, the "BE" was meant for emphasis as in "to BE a teacher", but both your points tie in nicely to each other anyway- the reason they are not receiving the education is not because of the curriculum, it's because some teachers lack the passion to go beyond the curriculum! It's not that their hands are tied, it's that they really just couldn't care less about what they do, they lack the passion and drive to inspire their students and encourage them to think for themselves. The best teachers will always encourage a child to think for themselves, regardless of the curriculum. Their students do better because they are inspired to learn more, and because they are interested in the subject, they take in more and form a broader point of view and do better in tests because they have a better understanding of the material than a student who learns by rote.

The worst teachers will just about cover the curriculum and give their students the answers to bump up their test scores. The uninspired students will become lazy and will take what's given to them without question and without understanding, and because they don't understand, they don't take anything in. They become closed off to learning concepts and will just "learn by rote so they're able to quote", so to speak.

Think about it- we all had our favorite teachers in school; were they the teachers who inspired us and were passionate about their subject, or were our favorite teachers the ones who let us mess and horseplay and generally doss through the whole class?

As I just wrote that last paragraph I could still remember the teachers that inspired me to go outside the curriculum and learn more. I struggle to remember the teachers who were so apathetic that I had to go outside the curriculum out of necessity to teach myself the subject!

Still brings me back to the original point: put things like philosophy on the syallabus and the lazy teachers have nowehre to go. Job done

. Good points though.

IrishExpat · 19-01-2013 01:29AM

I honestly do not have a problem with auto-tune. Wouldn't mind hearing a few old Bob Dylan numbers given this treatment. That man could write, but not sing.

Unpopular Opinions.

Comments