Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

1…7374767879…251

Comments

  • #2252
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'd say this qualifies as an unpopular opinion seeing as it involves the probability that stupid fcukers will die.

    Gobsh1tes like those in the article below deserve to be left on top of the mountain to die. I wouldn't bother endangering the lives of the rescue crew to go rescue them. If they are stupid enough to go do dangerous sh1t without the proper gear, let them reap the consequences of their dumbass decisions.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/ben-nevis-tourists-rescued-from-scotlands-highest-peak-in-horrendous-weather-were-wearing-trainers/ar-BBZTuL7?ocid=spartandhp

    It seems like they appreciate how stupid they were

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51473800


  • #2253
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    It seems like they appreciate how stupid they were

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51473800

    Or this stupid fcukhead. :mad:

    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/sailors-slammed-after-rescued-twice-11360144

    How thick are people really?


  • #2254
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    The once venerable yahoo has become no more than a parody to MSN.


  • #2255
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,737 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Oh, that reminds me, my next unpopular opinion!

    Remove the mandatory requirement to have maternity/child cover on private health insurance!

    I'm pretty sure that no one is obliged to take out medical insurance for children that they don't have. People pay for their children to be covered.

    Maternity cover is included in all medical policies, yes.


  • #2256
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Re: children's allowance, here's an "unpopular opinion", people who begrudge others for what they think they are undeserving of, whether it's the dole, or children's allowance, or whatever, should be made live in those conditions for a couple of years.

    That'll soon rearrange their thoughts on the matter.

    Uh huh, as an very unwilling social welfare recipient, I feel like shaking such whingers. They don’t know they’re born.


  • Advertisement
  • #2257
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Well then they don’t need CA now either . If they don’t need the vouchers they don’t need CA

    Point missed. We were talking about vouchers being stigmatising. The people who really need them would have to use them and it would be noticed. Believe me, in a small town, it would be noticed.
    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    So you don't think the current amount is enough? Could you do without it? Do you really need it in that case? Would it not being available have prevented you from having kids? What would have changed?

    And some people treat it as a reward, rather that what it's supposed to be for. Maybe if it was actually all spent on the children it wouldn't be as bad, but there are people out there who use it to treat themselves and ta fook with the kids. That's mainly where this is coming from, and the only way to get rid of this, imo, is to stop it or limit it.

    And I do have issues with how a lot of tax money is spent, but this is the top of my list because it will never benefit me in any way, and is starting to creep into my private affairs too. And shouldn't I have a (unpopular) opinion on this? Am I supposed to just shut up and accept it? Why are we giving free money to people who can prove they can procreate? Add on top of this that it looks like the Government will have to intervene in the creche craic that's going on and I'll end up having some of my money going towards paying for people to put their kids in creches.

    Of course you’re entitled to an opinion. And people can have an opinion about your opinion. And so on.


  • #2258
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Point missed. We were talking about vouchers being stigmatising. The people who really need them would have to use them and it would be noticed. Believe me, in a small town, it would be noticed.



    Of course you’re entitled to an opinion. And people can have an opinion about your opinion. And so on.

    And you missed my point . If CA was paid in voucher to all parents then they would not be unusual at all .


  • #2259
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    And you missed my point . If CA was paid in voucher to all parents then they would not be unusual at all .

    Yeah, better off people don’t need CA. An upper means test might not be a bad idea but then why cut off those paying the most in taxes? Meanwhile, the voucher system would be stigmatising if those who didn’t need it didn’t use them. It would highlight who really needs them and most people don’t want their financial situation highlighted. I suspect that anyone who suggests voucher systems for various social welfare payments (because it’s not just CA that it’s suggested for) has never had to rely on them. I’m a very unwilling social welfare recipient and it would probably piss some people off to know that I’ve saved some of that money and taken foreign holidays with it. A voucher system would stop me doing that and I honestly think that many people would be happy at that despite foreign holidays being one of the few bright spots in my life.

    And back to CA, I’ve noticed that the complaints about CA don’t really focus on the wealthy people who still receive it. They’re generally not the target. It’s the people who would need to use the vouchers that people begrudge.


  • #2260
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,798 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    If you genuinely think there's a profit to be made in CA, I've little hope for ya. :D:D:D:D

    Seriously, if I was thinking about having a child I wouldn't be thinking "yeah, I can keep it for only 100 euro a month and gain 40". :rolleyes:

    There is a profit, for those who don't use it on the children. I'm not saying everyone does, but there are a lot that do simply because it's free money that isn't legally required to be spent on the kids.
    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Your money already goes towards educating kids you don't have, providing GP care for kids you don't have and generally looking after kids you don't have. Same thing for old folk you don't know or care about. It's buying methadone for junkies and masters for D4 rugger buggers. Crazy eh!

    When you're old and unable to work, those kids will be ones looking after you, their taxes will be funding your care and your pension.

    It's a quid pro quo kinda deal - Society is not actually all about you, you know!

    I know that about the methadone (no idea what a rugger bugger is), and I'm none too happy about that either. But let's tackle one thing at a time. And I've no issues with it going towards the elderly, they've (mostly) worked their entire lives and deserve it imo. I just think it's wrong we automatically give money to people just for having kids without any terms or conditions. Again, keep it for those genuinely in need but it shouldn't be the standard for everyone. Just like everyone can get the free methadone if they want to become junkies, but most don't, however the vast majority of people decide have kids.

    And, if I'm hearing and reading correctly, there may not be a pension when I get there, which is why I'm having to take out pension plans.
    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that no one is obliged to take out medical insurance for children that they don't have. People pay for their children to be covered.

    Maternity cover is included in all medical policies, yes.

    Check out this link. It brings you to the plan I'm paying for. Under the 'Maternity, fertility and child healthcare benefits', that's the minimum cover I can bring it down to, the rest is legally mandatory. I know this as I've researched and queried it with Laya, they cannot drop that from any plan because of legislation.


  • #2261
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    There is a profit, for those who don't use it on the children. I'm not saying everyone does, but there are a lot that do simply because it's free money that isn't legally required to be spent on the kids.

    It is physically impossible to raise a child on 140 a month, unless you consign him/ her to a bare room and feed them on water and rice. Even if a parent spends the 140 on themselves, they will end up spending some (and more) of their own money on raising the child - how can there be an overall profit? :confused:

    Also, did your parents not avail of CA?


  • Advertisement
  • #2262
    Millicently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 478 ✭✭Millicently


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    There is a profit, for those who don't use it on the children. I'm not saying everyone does, but there are a lot that do simply because it's free money that isn't legally required to be spent on the kids.



    I know that about the methadone (no idea what a rugger bugger is), and I'm none too happy about that either. But let's tackle one thing at a time. And I've no issues with it going towards the elderly, they've (mostly) worked their entire lives and deserve it imo. I just think it's wrong we automatically give money to people just for having kids without any terms or conditions. Again, keep it for those genuinely in need but it shouldn't be the standard for everyone. Just like everyone can get the free methadone if they want to become junkies, but most don't, however the vast majority of people decide have kids.

    And, if I'm hearing and reading correctly, there may not be a pension when I get there, which is why I'm having to take out pension plans.



    Check out this link. It brings you to the plan I'm paying for. Under the 'Maternity, fertility and child healthcare benefits', that's the minimum cover I can bring it down to, the rest is legally mandatory. I know this as I've researched and queried it with Laya, they cannot drop that from any plan because of legislation.
    I think it depends on how many kids people have. 4 seems to be the new norm. Most people don't have children because of CA but if you have 5+ kids and you don't work you're most likely going to be paying very little rent and be taking in at least if not more per month than a working couple with 1 or 2 children. There are a lot of people on benefits who are quite happy to feed their kid on frozen junk from Iceland and aren't interested in a job. I'm not for a second tarring all unemployed people with that brush. But there are generations of families who've never worked and never will and many of their kids will never work either. A life of cradle to grave benefit dependency shouldn't be an option.


  • #2263
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Millicently wrote: »
    I think it depends on how many kids people have. 4 seems to be the new norm. Most people don't have children because of CA but if you have 5+ kids and you don't work you're most likely going to be paying very little rent and be taking in at least if not more per month than a working couple with 1 or 2 children. There are a lot of people on benefits who are quite happy to feed their kid on frozen junk from Iceland and aren't interested in a job. I'm not for a second tarring all unemployed people with that brush. But there are generations of families who've never worked and never will and many of their kids will never work either. A life of cradle to grave benefit dependency shouldn't be an option.

    True, and somewhat related would be another unpopular opinion of mine - that there should be a greater difference between the contributory and non-contributory pensions.


  • #2264
    razorblunt
    Registered Users Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    It seems like they appreciate how stupid they were

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51473800

    I live in Scotland, the mountain rescue are always out and about, fair enough this particular crowd were particularly inept with the trainers etc. but at least they used that app to draw attention. In the summer they repeatedly have to take people down who are stuck due to darkness falling and not giving themselves enough time. Often those folk are just wearing gym gear too.


  • #2265
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    razorblunt wrote: »
    I live in Scotland, the mountain rescue are always out and about, fair enough this particular crowd were particularly inept with the trainers etc. but at least they used that app to draw attention. In the summer they repeatedly have to take people down who are stuck due to darkness falling and not giving themselves enough time. Often those folk are just wearing gym gear too.

    Leave them up there I say. Gobsh1tes.


  • #2266
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Gretas Gonna Get Ya!


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Leave them up there I say. Gobsh1tes.

    And how exactly would you do that?

    The rescue crew usually has very little info, when the call comes in... they just respond to someone who is stuck, lost or injured.

    Most of the people who get into difficulty and need rescuing, have usually made some sort of mistake or error in judgement. Yes, some make more foolish mistakes than others... but you still cannot start making judgements on what is an acceptable mistake and what is unacceptable. But like I said, it's irrelevant anyway as they likely do not have that info before going out on said rescue!


  • #2267
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    And how exactly would you do that?

    The rescue crew usually has very little info, when the call comes in... they just respond to someone who is stuck, lost or injured.

    Most of the people who get into difficulty and need rescuing, have usually made some sort of mistake or error in judgement. Yes, some make more foolish mistakes than others... but you still cannot start making judgements on what is an acceptable mistake and what is unacceptable. But like I said, it's irrelevant anyway as they likely do not have that info before going out on said rescue!

    Hey, it's an unpopular opinion, and maybe not very practical but I don't see why people should put their lives in danger to rescue stupid people.

    To be honest, I feel the same way about Mount Everest climbers etc. that get in trouble. Pick some sort of hobby that doesn't put your life at risk.


  • #2268
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Antares35 wrote: »
    It is physically impossible to raise a child on 140 a month, unless you consign him/ her to a bare room and feed them on water and rice. Even if a parent spends the 140 on themselves, they will end up spending some (and more) of their own money on raising the child - how can there be an overall profit? :confused:

    Also, did your parents not avail of CA?

    You’re getting ignored. I think you’re making too much sense. :pac:


  • #2269
    Alun
    Registered Users Posts: 21,417 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Leave them up there I say. Gobsh1tes.
    Luckily the rescue teams think otherwise, and posted the following calm, measured and non-judgemental response to the flood of remarks such as yours that inevitably get posted when such incidents occur.
    Thanks to everyone for their messages of support to the Team - very much appreciated. The incident has created a huge amount of media/public/government and international interest and comment.
    The casualties admit that they made a significant error of judgement and are extremely sorry for the results of their actions. The guys were just members of the public who perhaps were unaware of what they were getting into. Not being from the UK and with very limited English, a lot of the information available to mountaineers and hill walkers would not have been accessible to them, so perhaps there is an element of mitigation in respect of their actions, clothing and lack of equipment.
    At present money from the Scottish Government is channeled, via Sportscotland, quite rightly so, into the Avalanche Information Service and for training and education through centers like Glenmore Lodge and agencies such as Mountaineering Scotland. Most of this will be targeted at people who are either engaged in the sport or have an interest in taking it up. Perhaps more thought needs to be given into how to inform the general public/casual tourist about how dangerous our small mountains are and how severe our weather can get and how it will catch-out the unwary and uninformed at any time of the year.
    Unfortunately it takes incidents like yesterdays to raise the profile in the media and the message has definitely got out. So there is a positive from the incident. Therefore, let us just cut the guys a little bit of slack. For those who call for charging and insurance for mountaineers/hill walkers, be careful for what ask for, as where do you stop, insurance for fishing, rugby, football all of which have more incidents and injuries than mountaineering.
    Mountain rescuers are all mountaineers who volunteer their services at absolutely minimal cost to the public purse. Insurance would lead to a professional service, which, for yesterdays incident would have required about 30 full time paid people on one single shift plus equipment etc to have been able carry out and then you have the admin, health and safety, bean counter et al - all funded by tax payer. Leave as is, as we have a world class voluntary mountain rescue service which delivers via public donations.
    To ensure it is sufficiently funded, we need public donations so please give to a mountain rescue team. Not all mountain rescue is about mountains and many teams outwith the Highlands, and even those in the Highlands, do provide resilience cover at times of severe weather/flooding and when the full time agencies cannot cope with scale of an incident. This is also significantly funded by donations for mountain rescue but we are sure our supporters would not grudge some of their money going back to the communities which we live in and allow access to our mountains and countryside.
    Finally, we would like to thank the guys from yesterday's rescue for making the donation shown in the picture attached. These were very young guys who without any prompting made a very generous gesture which is very much appreciated. Not everyone rescued appreciates that we are not full time or not paid to be at their beck and call.
    Stay safe.


  • #2270
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,716 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Leave them up there I say. Gobsh1tes.

    How about if it was one of your family that was up there? Would you still leave them there?


  • #2271
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    posts deleted, opinion was well in excess of unpopular.


  • Advertisement
  • #2272
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Gretas Gonna Get Ya!


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Hey, it's an unpopular opinion, and maybe not very practical but I don't see why people should put their lives in danger to rescue stupid people.

    To be honest, I feel the same way about Mount Everest climbers etc. that get in trouble. Pick some sort of hobby that doesn't put your life at risk.

    They're not... that was my whole point to you. They more than likely have no idea, how dumb or smart anyone is before they go out to rescue them! All they know, is that someone needs to be rescued.

    What do you want them to do, make an assessment when they get up on the side of a mountain...? "No sorry, you guys are really stupid... so we'll just leave you here to die!" :pac:

    Very few people get rescued off Everest btw. It's usually too dangerous to attempt a rescue, because of the thin air up that high... you're far too weak to carry anyone else down that mountain! And people usually know this, before they climb at those altitudes... they accept they'll probably die, if they can't walk down themselves!


  • #2273
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    And how exactly would you do that?

    The rescue crew usually has very little info, when the call comes in... they just respond to someone who is stuck, lost or injured.

    Most of the people who get into difficulty and need rescuing, have usually made some sort of mistake or error in judgement. Yes, some make more foolish mistakes than others... but you still cannot start making judgements on what is an acceptable mistake and what is unacceptable. But like I said, it's irrelevant anyway as they likely do not have that info before going out on said rescue!
    There are the cases though where they're not mistakes - just people being stupidly reckless. Not saying they shouldn't be rescued but it's not always simply an error in judgment.


  • #2274
    Justin Credible Darts
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Justin Credible Darts


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    posts deleted, opinion was well in excess of unpopular.


    considering this is a thread for unpopular opinions , you delete it ?


    it had a few like the post so was not that unpopular....playing devils advocate


  • #2275
    SporadicMan
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭SporadicMan


    Ireland is regressing


  • #2276
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Justin Credible Darts wrote: »
    considering this is a thread for unpopular opinions , you delete it ?


    it had a few like the post so was not that unpopular....playing devils advocate

    I didn't realise it was unpopular for a mod to delete misogynistic comments about an accident where people died.



    Just a general reminder to all, please don't question mod actions on thread. PM them instead. No more on thread discussion please.


  • #2277
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,798 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Antares35 wrote: »
    It is physically impossible to raise a child on 140 a month, unless you consign him/ her to a bare room and feed them on water and rice. Even if a parent spends the 140 on themselves, they will end up spending some (and more) of their own money on raising the child - how can there be an overall profit? :confused:

    Also, did your parents not avail of CA?

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying there are people out there who treat it as extra free money for themselves. The post after you explained it better. If there was no CA it might stop them from popping them out and lead to a better overall situation where they might actually look after the kids they do have.

    But again, you're saying it's impossible, so what's the point? If it's small enough to not really make a difference, then why are we paying it at all?
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    You’re getting ignored. I think you’re making too much sense. :pac:

    Not ignored, I'm just not no this all the time. Only at work when it's quiet.


  • #2278
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Gretas Gonna Get Ya!


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    I didn't realise it was unpopular for a mod to delete misogynistic comments about an accident where people died.



    Just a general reminder to all, please don't question mod actions on thread. PM them instead. No more on thread discussion please.

    What if the mod in question is really rude, and completely ignores someone's PM? ;)


  • #2279
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »
    What if the mod in question is really rude, and completely ignores someone's PM? ;)

    I've told you to stop sending me them pic's..
    :pac:

    DR forum is there for any unresolved issues.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397


  • #2280
    Gretas Gonna Get Ya!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Gretas Gonna Get Ya!


    Ted_YNWA wrote: »
    I've told you to stop sending me them pic's..
    :pac:

    DR forum is there for any unresolved issues.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

    So your earlier advice about sending a PM to the mod is a bit useless then?

    Depending on the mod in question, of course, and whether they are bit rude and/or lazy! ;)

    Are you suggesting we should circumvent that first point of contact, and go straight to this DR forum... where we are more likely to get some kind of response?


  • Advertisement
  • #2281
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:
    Depending on the mod in question, of course, and whether they are bit rude and/or lazy!

    Contacting mod is first point of call.

    If you have encountered a rude or lazy mod, then you obviously havent resolved your issue, so DR is next step..

    Can we draw a line under this now.


Advertisement