Unpopular Opinions.

Shakespeare's Sister

Rasheed wrote: »

God that's a moronic statement.

Are we to confine people with disabilities to certain areas because it's too much to make places accessible?

Accept their taxes but tell them to F off when they just want to be able to go to the same places as you can without fuss?

What would that money be better spent on?

Definitely one of the oddest posts I've seen on this thread.

What it means is: "I'm not disabled, disability doesn't affect my life, therefore facilities for the disabled is an inconvenience to me personally, so costs on it should be reduced."
I don't expect them to come back and address the posts to them.

eyescreamcone

I can't speak for the previous poster but I also believe that we over-cater for wheelchair access.
For instance ALL new houses must by law have a wheelchair accessible toilet on the ground floor. This to me is crazy.

We think by catering for wheelchair bound people we are looking after disabled people.

There are many disabled people not in a wheelchair that are being ignored.

willowthewisp

The Croke park residents are awkward!

Rasheed

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I can't speak for the previous poster but I also believe that we over-cater for wheelchair access.
For instance ALL new houses must by law have a wheelchair accessible toilet on the ground floor. This to me is crazy.

We think by catering for wheelchair bound people we are looking after disabled people.

There are many disabled people not in a wheelchair that are being ignored.

The reason new houses are being made accessible is that, should the worst happen, and the house holder needs the use of a wheelchair, they will be able to stay in their own home. Thus eliminating the need for major renovation, huge money and fuss.

This is usually what the person what a disability will prefer, will keep them out of nursing homes and will decrease the amount of money needed from the council/ the person themselves to make their home accessible and comfortable.

It has nothing to do with Paddy down the road making demands that he should be able to get into every house.

I think it's s great idea to have things right from day one instead of renovating when/ If the needs occur.

Even if, and hopefully you don't, have need for a wheelchair, what about when you're older and the prostate is kicking up? The knees are giving you gip too and you can't make it up the stairs as quick as you could? Makes sense to have a down stairs loo doesn't it?

What disabilities do you think are being ignored in favour for people who use wheelchairs?

eyescreamcone

How do the building regs cater for the blind or deaf??

Rasheed

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How do the building regs cater for the blind or deaf??

I'm sure you'll agree that should a resident of a house develop a visual or audible impairment, their house would be easier to make accessible that a person then that suffers a stroke or spinal injury and becomes a wheelchair user.

According to board M regulations, such as the one where every house should have a down stairs toilet, that surely would suit a person with a visual impairment more than an upstairs toilet?

What regulations would you bring in to aid people with a hearing difficulty in private houses?

eyescreamcone

Nothing!
Similar to how I'd cater for wheelchair users.
If you want a downstairs toilet half the size of your ground floor then go ahead and have one. However, I believe I shouldn't have to waste valuable living space on a giant toilet when I probably won't be in the same house when I'm old and possibly need a giant loo.

What percentage of the population are wheelchair bound anyway??
We don't need ALL houses to have these gargantuan loos.

Rasheed

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Nothing!
Similar to how I'd cater for wheelchair users.
If you want a downstairs toilet half the size of your ground floor then go ahead and have one. However, I believe I shouldn't have to waste valuable living space on a giant toilet when I probably won't be in the same house when I'm old and possibly need a giant loo.

What percentage of the population are wheelchair bound anyway??
We don't need ALL houses to have these gargantuan loos.

So it's just private buildings that you have a problem with being accessable? Do you agree that every effort should be made for public building to be accessible for all?

As regarding big toilets, they aren't that big and I have already explained to you the rational in having them there. You mightn't intend to be there when you get older but most don't intend on getting a spinal injury either, which could happen tomorrow. What if every house owner decided they 'probably won't be in the house when they're older' and told the engineer to not bother with a down stairs toilet? And you buy that house with no accessible toilet and have to go to great expense and hassle to change it? Wouldn't it just be easier to have it accessible from day one?

The county councils of the country spend millions every year renovating private houses due to a change in the residents mobility. Sometimes they aren't given grant or not enough and have to go to a nursing home. I've seen dozens of such cases.

Finally, the recommendation of down staires toilets in private homes are not [\I] for present wheelchair users so your questions about the petcentage of persons that use wheelchairs is moot.

Adamantium

I wish the internet never evolved beyond an educational and strictly/communication work tool.

As it's only ruined a lot of popular culture that loved and has made all the flaws of it apparent, and I can't help be curious and waste my time reading other peoples opinions, which I shouldn't even care about in the first place. Armageddon was one of my favourite films and Lost In Translation as well, yes there is nuances and things to be appreciated in both. Both no they are "TEH WORST MOVIE EVER OR THE BEST"

Nothing is just good enough and enjoyable anymore every thing has to be deconstructed.

Preachy big budget smart movies that get the lucky chance of being made and can't wait to shove a message down your throat as if we're not going to listen/watch to actions, without being told. Nolan's Batman movies. Show don't tell.
Movies should allow teens to grannys to come way with something different

Kilgore__Trout

Humphrey Bogart wasn't very convincing as Philip Marlowe. *Takes Cover*

gctest50

eyescreamcone wrote: »

,,,, However, I believe I shouldn't have to waste valuable living space on a giant toilet when I probably won't be in the same house when I'm old and possibly need a giant loo.

When you're old ????

- could happen you tomorrow just crossing the road - Splat - wheelchair

- fall down the stairs - wheelchair

- everyone goes " oh that'll never happen me"

Rasheed

gctest50 wrote: »

When you're old ????

- could happen you tomorrow just crossing the road - Splat - wheelchair

- fall down the stairs - wheelchair

- everyone goes " oh that'll never happen me"

Thank you for wording it so eloquently! People don't get it though and never will unless they wake up on the spinal unit of the Mater. Then you face the constant agonising battle of planning ahead everywhere you go in case there's steps, grass, gravel, hills, uneven ground, cobbles etc where you intend to go.

eyescreamcone

Can anyone answer what percentage of the population are in wheelchairs??

And it's not just installing a downstairs toilet - it's a downstairs wheelchair accessible toilet.

It's nanny state making every house comply when only a tiny tiny fraction of the population will need this facility.

eyescreamcone

gctest50 wrote: »

When you're old ????

- could happen you tomorrow just crossing the road - Splat - wheelchair

- fall down the stairs - wheelchair

- everyone goes " oh that'll never happen me"

Spare me please.
Why is the state making everybody put these huge toilets in?
Does it foresee a time when a significant percentage of the population will be wheelchair bound.

Rasheed

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Can anyone answer what percentage of the population are in wheelchairs??

And it's not just installing a downstairs toilet - it's a downstairs wheelchair accessible toilet.

It's nanny state making every house comply when only a tiny tiny fraction of the population will need this facility.

It doesn't matter how many people are using wheelchairs presently, it has zero to do with having every house having an accessible toilet.

For the third time, it is so that a person that suffers a debilitating illness or an elderly person can stay in their homes even if they have it rely on a wheelchair to mobilise.

This is where, for once, the government are using fore sight and recognise that we have an aging population that will need care. It is widely accepted that a person is more comfortable and content in their own homes. Therefore if there are accessible facilities, it leaves it easier for them to stay put. Better for them and eases the cost burden on the state as they won't need to be herded into nursing homes.

And please stop using the term 'wheelchair bound', it's offensive and outdated.

jonah_whale

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Can anyone answer what percentage of the population are in wheelchairs??

And it's not just installing a downstairs toilet - it's a downstairs wheelchair accessible toilet.

It's nanny state making every house comply when only a tiny tiny fraction of the population will need this facility.

their is a completely disproportionate number of handicapped parking spaces in shopping centres these days , no way are that many people handicapped in some shape or form , most of them are usually empty

Paddy Cow

jonah_whale wrote: »

their is a completely disproportionate number of handicapped parking spaces in shopping centres these days , no way are that many people handicapped in some shape or form , most of them are usually empty

You'd be surprised. Those spaces are bigger than normal and are a life saver to people with mobility issues. I know people who look perfectly healthy to look at but they need those spaces. Trust me, they would gladly swap the perk of being able to park in disability spaces if they could have full health.

jonah_whale

Paddy Cow wrote: »

You'd be surprised. Those spaces are bigger than normal and are a life saver to people with mobility issues. I know people who look perfectly healthy to look at but they need those spaces. Trust me, they would gladly swap the perk of being able to park in disability spaces if they could have full health.

half of them are nearly always empty from what i can see , im not saying that people with disability dont require those spaces , im saying their is a disproportionate number of them in car parks

Frank Lee Midere

Magaggie wrote: »

What it means is: "I'm not disabled, disability doesn't affect my life, therefore facilities for the disabled is an inconvenience to me personally, so costs on it should be reduced."
I don't expect them to come back and address the posts to them.

It is a thread for unpopular opinions. Not a debating thread.

Although in terms of unpopular opinions the argument against disabled access is winning.

SureYWouldntYa

I've no problem with touts. Even in cases where events sell out.

If you hadn't the know-how or the resources to get a tickets(s) then tough titties

Frank Lee Midere

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

I've no problem with touts. Even in cases where events sell out.

If you hadn't the know-how or the resources to get a tickets(s) then tough titties

Agree. They are just middle men. Like any retailer.

Shakespeare's Sister

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It is a thread for unpopular opinions. Not a debating thread.

Well throughout it, people are giving counter opinions. If a person truly believes their view, they'd support it.

RFOLEY1990

You shouldn't be in danger of prison for making someone cry on the internet.

Happens More in UK haven't heard a lot of it here.

I in no way condone what these idiots do but there's a block button there for a reason.

I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

Shakespeare's Sister

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

You shouldn't be in danger of prison for making someone cry on the internet.

Big time. Especially considering you wouldn't be imprisoned for doing so in real life.

I in no way condone what these idiots do but there's a block button there for a reason.

I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

Nah I think there should be moderation where possible and that people shouldn't be able to harass people.
But yeh, prison - miles too far. Banning is enough, IMO.

RFOLEY1990

Magaggie wrote: »

Big time. Especially considering you wouldn't be imprisoned for doing so in real life.

Nah I think there should be moderation where possible and that people shouldn't be able to harass people.
But yeh, prison - miles too far. Banning is enough, IMO.

I just feel it's a dangerous road to be going down. Where does the line be drawn? I've seen despicable things said to people in public eye for various different reasons on Twitter and there's been sentences given out over them.

Just think it's a very slippery slope and everyone knows the risks of joining a forum such as Twitter. Especially if you're a public figure.

Shakespeare's Sister

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

I just feel it's a dangerous road to be going down. Where does the line be drawn? I've seen despicable things said to people in public eye for various different reasons on Twitter and there's been sentences given out over them.

Just think it's a very slippery slope and everyone knows the risks of joining a forum such as Twitter. Especially if you're a public figure.

Yeh I agree with you on prison being stupidly draconian for social media harassment, but I have no problem with people being banned on social media for same.

Yogosan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Its not so much emotional blackmail but there is a definite media slant towards "think of the people you will leave behind". Friends lost a daughter to suicide at 23 - the whole family was torn apart, and I swear my mother must have reminded us at least twice a day "I'd die if anything happened to you, please dont ever do that to me and your father" - sometimes when someone is struggling with emotional distress, it just seems like another guilt lumped onto them. I fought with depression in my younger years and many a dark time my mother's voice would pop into my head, and the thought of what suicide would do to her was horrendous - to the point that I nearly resented her! But then, if it deters is it not a good thing?

I agree wrt euthanaisia, but floodgate issue a concern too I suppose.

In the area I come from, suicide has been a big problem and has pretty much affected everyone in the town to varying degrees. Of course detering it is a good thing but I think we need to do more to get to the root of the problem instead of tackling it when the trouble has already begun.

I think stating it as being purely selfish is a gross oversimplification and merely proves that people aren't empathising with the victim and unbelievably don't even see the person as a victim but a "coward" (Which I have also heard being said).

DazMarz

I believe that state interference is too big in certain areas. Some stuff really smacks of nanny-state. For example:

-extra taxes on fizzy drinks
-upping and upping the prices of cigarettes making them prohibitively expensive
-plain cigarette packaging
-film censorship in general (but within reason; there should be some, but not to the extent that exists now)
-etc.

I guess I have a pretty libertarian streak in me (if people wanna do something, let them. Once it's not illegal, it's consensual, it's not harming anyone else... have at it).

Extra taxes on sugary and fatty foods/drinks. What's that about? It's a choice. People make a choice. Even the most stupid people know that McDonalds/BurgerKing/etc. is bad for them, ditto with Coke/7UP/Fanta/etc. It is not up to the government to tax the shít out of these items. People are still going to drink/eat these products. It'll just make them resentful.

Cigarettes. Again, same as above. We know it's bad for us, we know about cancer and all that. It's a choice. Tempered by an addiction. The answer is not taxing the shít out of the stuff. It will not stop people smoking. It will drive up the black market for cigarettes. And plain packaging will only make it easier for cigarette smugglers to make cheap, counterfeit knock-off stuff that will net them more money, while the tax revenues from tobacco for the government plummet. James Reilly, you are a stupid motherfúcker. Go back to fondling old men's balls and getting them to cough. Ahem!!!

Film censorship. For sure, there are some things that we don't want young, impressionable people to see. But is clipping out scenes from films (that are usually rated "15" or "18" anyway!!!) going to help that? Where is the line? I believe that any film that is rated "18" (and possibly "15"), be unedited and shown in all its glory. The people watching the film (if it's an "18") are legally adults and do not need to be told what they can and cannot watch by some sexually frustrated guy in the IFCO. Simple.

Anything else I can aim my Penn Jillette like take on life at?

Yogosan

Sadderday wrote: »

It's selfish to express an opinion on this subject if you've had no knowledge or experience of it.

Anybody thats going to describe a mentally ill person as selfish is a dirty scumbag and hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

Expressing these opinions is insensitive and is never going to help anyone.

Not useful, Never going to be appreciated by anyone and just should not be said.

That's why I found his stance unusual. He is from the same town as me where suicide has been a major problem. I think he sees the affect it has had on family and friends and blames the victim for the grief caused. Of course everyone is a victim in some way but but somehow along the way my friend hasn't considered what the victim was going through. What he sees as being selfish, the victim most likely saw as being selfless.

Czarcasm

Hillary Clinton would've been a far better choice for President than Barack Obama.

Chickentown

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hillary Clinton would've been a far better choice for President than Barack Obama.

It would have made no difference; the president is just a face for the people, the real decisions are made by men and women that are not publicly known. Although I have absolutely no proof of this I am, after all, just some fat loser in my moms basement trying to figure out how the world works in my head (in between insanely long and painful masturbation sessions). Rant over, now where did I put that sock...

gugleguy

On air in a radio program, 95% of the time a guest or caller states they want to make "a point" you can be sure it will be longwinded, bloated meandering and moany. Such "point" will also be of trivial consequence to the program topic. Half of the time the guy/ gal says they wanted to state it for "the principle".

Buzz Killington the third

If you're on a low wage, stop whining about "high earners" and go and f**king make something of yourself!

OldNotWIse

gugleguy wrote: »

On air in a radio program, 95% of the time a guest or caller states they want to make "a point" you can be sure it will be longwinded, bloated meandering and moany. Such "point" will also be of trivial consequence to the program topic. Half of the time the guy/ gal says they wanted to state it for "the principle".

And they are usually too stupid to reason with anyway. I tend to avoid those like the plague but on the rare occasions that I have tuned in, I ended up shouting at the radio...Also, whats the name of that idiot with the fake yank accent who "hosts" one of those? He drives me mad with his faux concern when he's actually just a sh1t stirrer - like a Tesco Value Joe Duffy - and Joe Duffy is bad enough!

DazMarz

PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Sounds like a nice, peaceful, kind animal rights group, right?

Wrong.

On the one hand, this is an organisation that claims that all it wants is for cute and cuddly little puppies, kittens and bunnies and cows and chickens and everything to run free and have fun and frolic and all that.

On the other hand... PETA is the animal rights' equivalent of the IRA. Their long list of modi operandi include (and are not limited to): bombing, arson, assault, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, theft, fraud, larceny and supporting a known terrorist.

Note the word "ETHICAL" is embedded in their name. Ethics are something moral, that differ from person to person. It is not something that can be discussed and agreed upon. Morals and ethics are personal to each person, and for a group to use that in their name is more than a bit stupid.

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is a sinister, demi-god-like figure in PETA. Her word is law amongst PETA followers. She is shrewd, enigmatic and a total press-whore. Ingrid controls and commands over 200 dedicated, paid employees in the PETA Headquarters. Whatever she says, goes. Simple as.

This is a sample of what this woman says:

"Most people... realise that slavery is not over in America, or in the Western World, or in the world in general. The animals are today's slaves."

Ok, just to be clear. There are still hundreds of thousands of HUMANS who are being used as slaves today. So she is basically equating the endless suffering of millions upon millions of people throughout history... to chickens. That's a bit nuts, no?

PETA also ran one of the most insensitive and offensive ad campaigns in history. It was dubbed "The Holocaust On Your Plate". It equated the slaughtering of farm animals and the activities in abbatoirs... to what happened in the Holocaust. It showed images of concentration camp victims along side chickens being killed for meat.

Ok... not to sound insensitive. But a chicken is a monumentally stupid animal. It has no idea of what is going on. It is being killed for a purpose. For food.

To equate the mindless slaughter of millions upon millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, communists, mentally ill people, Russians, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., with the commercial activities of today's meat industry. That is sick, exploitative and wrong. On so many levels. This is a level that PETA sunk to.

They basically stated that the way the Nazis treated people in concentration camps was no different to how animals are treated today. It is, to PETA at least, totally moral equivalent. PETA loves animals, and despises humans. That is obvious, from how they could so trivialise the Holocaust for their own twisted propaganda purposes.

Processing animals for food. Yeah, it isn't a pretty sight! But... is that not more an aesthetic problem than a moral one?

PETA, if they had their way, would outlaw fishing, circuses, dog shows, horseback riding, zoos, animal testing, pets and any food that comes from animals (this would include such stuff as honey and milk).

They would also outlaw the use of service animals like seeing-eye dogs, rescue dogs, police dogs and so on.

So... all of you pet lovers who donate to PETA... feel like an idiot? Because the very animal you lavish so much care and love on... well, PETA wants to take it away and you're a horrible person for persecuting your pet like that.

Once again, Ingrid sums it up:

"Our goal is total animal liberation. The day that everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours for experiments and not ours for any other exploitative purpose.

"Total animal liberation" = all animals, in any kind of captivity (including pets), are to be set free. To live their lives as they see fit. No pets. Not meat. No medicine... let that one sink in for a moment.

Now, PETA does not acknowledge this link too much, but they are in bed with the terrorist organisation, the ALF (Animal Liberation Front). Rodney Coronado is an eco-terrorist who has been in the past on PETA's payroll. Coronado fire-bombed a Michigan State University research lab, and has publicly admitted to at least 6 other arson attacks on hospitals and medical research labs.

PETA was directly linked to Coronado, funding him to the tune of over $100,000 in the mid-90's. A convicted terrorist was on PETA's payroll.

Also consider the high-ranking PETA member, Mary Beth Sweetland. Sweetland is a Vice-President in PETA and a member of Ingrid Newkirk's inner circle. Sweetland is also a Type II diabetic. In order to survive, she needs to take daily multiple shots of insulin.

Insulin that is made from pigs and dogs. In medical research labs. Just like the ones PETA fire-bombed. Sweetland is a hypocrite of the highest order. She preaches about how evil animal research is. Yet, were it not for animal research, she'd be in a pine box, 6 Feet Under right now. When it comes to protecting animals, I guess Sweetland's concerns mellow a bit when it's her own life on the line. Yet this flies in the face of everything she stands for with PETA. Total and utter hypocrite.

"I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.

Yeah... supporting fire-bombings of labs where animal testing is conducted... and yet using the same labs' products for your own gain.

Bottom line? PETA are a nasty, hypocritical, criminal organisation that is unworthy of anything other than contempt. But they pluck at the heartstrings so well and come across brilliantly in the media... so they get away with it.

I'm not an animal hater, but I am a hypocrite hater... and PETA are the biggest bunch of fúcking hypocrites in the world!

mickydoomsux

PETA, like pretty much every advocacy group are massive hypocrites.

Once a person or group of people take on a cause they will pursue it to the detriment of all else, including common sense.

Unfortunately they sometimes cross over into criminality once they hit peak zealotry as is the case with PETA and certain pro life groups.

Tarzana

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hillary Clinton would've been a far better choice for President than Barack Obama.

I agree but sadly she wasn't elected to run.

Tarzana

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

If you're on a low wage, stop whining about "high earners" and go and f**king make something of yourself!

Believe me, a lot of us are trying.

Galwayguy35

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

If you're on a low wage, stop whining about "high earners" and go and f**king make something of yourself!

No need, I'm happy being on a low wage, I can live on it and let you "high earners" pay the most tax.:)

Laois_Man

Neither 'Fr. Ted' nor 'Friends' were funny!!

eisenberg1

Laois_Man wrote: »

Neither 'Fr. Ted' nor 'Friends' were funny!!

Well, only one of those was a comedy:D

gugleguy

Laois_Man wrote: »

Neither 'Fr. Ted' nor 'Friends' were funny!!

One comedy was about a bunch of idiot Catholic clerics the other was about a group of idiot thirtysomethings.

Links234

Laois_Man wrote: »

Neither 'Fr. Ted' nor 'Friends' were funny!!

"If you say that to me again, I'll put your head through the wall." - Fr. Fintan Stack

gugleguy

The legal argument going on between the different sides’ professional legal teams regarding the Garth Brooks concerts is following completely cold calculated business manuevering. No barrister or solicitor should be in any way about poor discommoded fans or upset croke park neighborhood residents and how they feel. The winners of the legal argument will be the most detached and ruthless operators here.

Buzz Killington the third

While I accept that there are transgender people who are homosexual or bi, they fight a different cause for the most part and as such don't think that LGBT should be classified as a minority group. There are two different issues so there should be two separate groups; LGB and Transgender. You can fight two causes without diluting either.

Galwayguy35

I think Fox News is a biased news channel.

BobbyPropane

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think Fox News is a biased news channel.

Not unpopular this is fact.

kupus

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think Fox News is a biased news channel.

All papers, media, and tv have their own agenda, its up to you to use those sources left right and middle and come to your own conclusion.

Yamanoto

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think Fox News is a biased news channel.

I think WWE wrestling may be staged, just a hunch mind.

c_man

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think Fox News is a biased news channel.

Is there a non-biased one?



Unpopular opinion: There should be no option to recline your seat on a plane. God bless Ryanair in this regard!