Unpopular Opinions.

girlonfire

Christmas is s****e

stupidusername

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I think the "LET'S ALL LAUGH AT PEOPLE WITH DEPRESSION" thread is monumentally annoying.

What's annoying you about it?

Kanoe

W123-80's wrote: »

I also think she was never hot back in the day, nor did she have a nice ass back in the day.

I agree she's not my idea of beautiful but disagree on the ass part. That vid for can't get you out of my head, kinda made me realise I might be just a bit gay.

W123-80's

Kanoe wrote: »

I agree she's not my idea of beautiful but disagree on the ass part. That vid for can't get you out of my head, kinda made me realise I might be just a bit gay.

Nah, can't agree. Could never understand the hype. I assume you are on about the video with the hot pants.

But I expect I am in the minority with that opinion hence I've posted it here..!

I've seen better bums walking down grafton street on a Sat afternoon.

Kanoe

W123-80's wrote: »

Nah, can't agree. Could never understand the hype. I assume you are on about the video with the hot pants.

But I expect I am in the minority with that opinion hence I've posted it here..!

I've seen better bums walking down grafton street on a Sat afternoon.

it was that see through catsuit/thing (in around 1.25 and 1.58ish especially..arse there) and the shiny shiny dress and also, all the other girls dancing around in formation at the start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuB3AQlKsc

Chuck Stone

smegmar wrote: »

I very willingly accept. Current "Generation 3.5 nuclear reactors, using Thorium only have Plutonium-238 as a waste product. 238 is not radioactive and actually quite valuable. I could sell that stuff to NASA. While I'm mining Thorium I'll pull up Neodymium, That's needed to make windmills. So your windfarms can buy it from me, seems like a good investment, cheers.

HA Science fail on your part.

Please educate yourself on nuclear technology before you bash it.

Check out these links which happen to be quite some time before your criticism of me.

My post on Thorium as a fuel source

My understanding that thorium is much safer.

And finally!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd be far more comfortable with a Thorium reactor nearby than a traditional uranium reactor because as TAC says they pretty much negate the nuclear fallout accident.

Now here's a tip for you.

When you think someone doesn't know something you are aware of write it as a question so you don't end up looking smug and foolish.

Jimoslimos

Kanoe wrote: »

it was that see through catsuit/thing (in around 1.25 and 1.58ish especially..arse there) and the shiny shiny dress and also, all the other girls dancing around in formation at the start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuB3AQlKsc

Nah, good but her arse in the spinning around vid is better - check from 0:15-0:18

Omackeral

I think Sile Seoige is far hotter than Grainne Seoige.

Batsy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think proponents of nuclear power who get their wishes granted for nuke-power stations to be built should be required to invest in it as a private individual and should be required to keep their fair share of the waste in their own shed for ten thousand years.

We need to invest in more nuclear power stations. They are the best form of power generation in today's world.

A great example of how useless wind turbines are is the fact that one of them was blown down in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire during the recent windy weather. It seems that that particular wind turbine couldn't cope with a bit of wind.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/08/article-2071633-0F1B4D7000000578-392_964x642.jpg

By looking at the picture, I reckon it would have made a particularly good fan heater, though.

Chuck Stone

Batsy wrote: »

We need to invest in more nuclear power stations. They are the best form of power generation in today's world.

There are arguments for and against. I think the arguments against are more convincing than the arguments for so I'm against traditional nuclear until convinced otherwise.

flanders1979

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Nah, good but her arse in the spinning around vid is better - check from 0:15-0:18

better than porn.

Napper Hawkins

flanders1979 wrote: »

better than porn.

You must look at some ****ty porn!

Micky Dolenz

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

You must look at some ****ty porn!

Porn is for ****.

Napper Hawkins

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Porn is for ****.

I can live with it.

HEADHUNTER1980

I THINK PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS SHOULD FULLY PAY FOR THEIR OWN PENSIONS

pragmatic1

Indian food is overrated. Chinese, Italian, kebabs and even chippers are better.

Mike 1972

Seanchai wrote: »

Political point received clearly.

Title of thread seemingly missed ?

Must try harder !

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I love the Angelus
I think it's cute.

Maybe they should bring out a DVD ?

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Porn is for ****.

Isint that the whole point

pragmatic1

Nordies are friendlier than the rest of us and they have better manners.

wonderfulname

Batsy wrote: »

We need to invest in more nuclear power stations. They are the best form of power generation in today's world.

A great example of how useless wind turbines are is the fact that one of them was blown down in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire during the recent windy weather. It seems that that particular wind turbine couldn't cope with a bit of wind.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/08/article-2071633-0F1B4D7000000578-392_964x642.jpg

By looking at the picture, I reckon it would have made a particularly good fan heater, though.

Really? There are real arguments against wind energy, but that one is like saying you once saw a story about a car crash in the paper so you'll never go near a car again.

Kanoe

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Nah, good but her arse in the spinning around vid is better - check from 0:15-0:18

I think it was the thigh slapping bit in the other one that did it. I think I'm a thigh person. Or a verging on S&M person. :pac: (no it's definitely the thighs)
either way that's way more Kylie than anyone should ever have to listen to in one day

Ricardo G

Timberland boots are for scumbags

DEFTLEFTHAND

Mickey D is a little leprechaun man who fooled us all into thinking that the Presidency actually means anything.

seanybiker

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Mickey D is a little leprechaun man who fooled us all into thinking that the Presidency actually means anything.

Mickey dolenz is president?

7Sins

Gays shouldn't be allowed adopt, it's not rocket science like, you put two queers together...can they reproduce? No. Tough sh*t like.

pragmatic1

7Sins wrote: »

Gays shouldn't be allowed adopt, it's not rocket science like, you put two queers together...can they reproduce? No. Tough sh*t like.

Then by that logic people who are infertile shouldnt be allowed to adopt either. You're right, its far from rocket science.

7Sins

pragmatic1 wrote: »

7Sins wrote: »

Gays shouldn't be allowed adopt, it's not rocket science like, you put two queers together...can they reproduce? No. Tough sh*t like.

Then by that logic people who are infertile shouldnt be allowed to adopt either. You're right, its far from rocket science.

That's not the point, man + woman = babies. Man + man = no babies.

wonderfulname

7Sins wrote: »

That's not the point, man + woman = babies. Man + man = no babies.

I refer you to my earlier post:

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, I mean ignorant as in unaware of the facts, there are no cons involved in gay adoption.

Like I said, you should read up on it. Luckily I always have a report* or two to hand

If you're going to persist that your "opinion" holds any merit it should be based on something.

*pre civil partnership but definitely worth a read for you, especially the case studies

When you actually have any idea of the facts surrounding gay adoption then yeah, its not at all rocket science, but the obvious conclusion is the exact opposite to yours.

7Sins

wonderfulname wrote: »

7Sins wrote: »

That's not the point, man + woman = babies. Man + man = no babies.

I refer you to my earlier post:

wonderfulname wrote: »

No, I mean ignorant as in unaware of the facts, there are no cons involved in gay adoption.

Like I said, you should read up on it. Luckily I always have a report* or two to hand

If you're going to persist that your "opinion" holds any merit it should be based on something.

[SIZE="1"]*pre civil partnership but definitely worth a read for you, especially the case studies[/SIZE]

When you actually have any idea of the facts surrounding gay adoption then yeah, its not at all rocket science, but the obvious conclusion is the exact opposite to yours.

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.

wonderfulname

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.

Paparazzo

Every Chinese takeaway in the country is the same - shìte.
Chipper are the same. If you think your local chipper is a "great chipper", you're wrong. It's the same as every chipper in the country

wonderfulname

Not a hope, I have two chippers near me, one stinks the town up with the smell of dirty oil and turns out food consisting mainly of a mix between it and e numbers, the other makes everything fresh on site, including the chips and burgers, and it tastes great.

I'd agree with you on the chinese take outs though, never had a nice one.

clare ny

Paparazzo wrote: »

Every Chinese takeaway in the country is the same - shìte.
Chipper are the same. If you think your local chipper is a "great chipper", you're wrong. It's the same as every chipper in the country

and abra is only nice when your loaded

7Sins

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

longshanks

clare ny wrote: »

and abra is only nice when your loaded

Abra is never nice son. Never.

Paparazzo

clare ny wrote: »

and abra is only nice when your loaded

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

conor.hogan.2

There is unpopular opinions and then there is just plain idiotic/ignorant opinions.

theTinker

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.

kieranfitz

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Nordies are friendlier than the rest of us and they have better manners.

That's because and armed society is a polite society.

theTinker

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.

fergiesfolly

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.

Not sure which would have suited you better, Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

wonderfulname

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.

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?

theTinker

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Not sure which would have suited you better, Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

I know. It can sound really out there. I sincerely do only mean all of it for the greater good though.
Theres just soooo much wrong with the world, and the wishy washy opinions and policies we make now are not stopping it. Its all just ignore and we eat our dinners whilst watching the simpsons. I hate to see so many people suffer, and i hate to see so many great nations full of beaten down populaces. Life should be happy and productive and fulfilling. We've the technology to solve most of our problems already. Our education is growing rapidily and i think we've already been lucky enough to have enough philosphers who have laid the basis for true happiness for people.

theTinker

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

smegmar wrote: »

Please educate yourself on nuclear technology before you bash it.

*youtube link*

Thanks for that video. It was really interesting. I had no idea there was different types of nuclear reactions, Its an entirely different fuel being used and seems much safer than Uranium 235.
I was up until now completely against Nuclear power, although always self admitted uniformed, I just always see the dangers in all the previous accidents from across the globe, and dismissed it due to them. I'd love to see a thorium plant operational etc.

IsThisIt???

Discrimination against the majority is too widely accepted and is often just as bad and hateful as other discrimination.

AstridBean

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Indian food is overrated. Chinese, Italian, kebabs and even chippers are better.

Chinese food in this country better than Indian? Come off it.

Indian food can vary from bad to sublime in this country, Chinese food tends to vary from to bad to decidely meh. Sugary, gloopy crap.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Every Chinese takeaway in the country is the same - shìte.
Chipper are the same. If you think your local chipper is a "great chipper", you're wrong. It's the same as every chipper in the country

I agree on the Chinese takeaway bit - they're ALL the same crap, no matter how much people insist their local is different.

Can't agree on the chipper thing though, they vary A LOT.

AstridBean

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?

later12

I don't believe in love.

I believe in strong sentimental attachment, but not love.

I am strongly attached to my family and my friends, some moreso than others, but I'm not sure it is wise to wrap these relationships up in some mysterious and undefined human construction and call it 'love' for the sake of it.

I could go my whole life without saying "I love you" to anybody.

I almost cringe when someone I'm dating says it.

There are some members of my own family whom I don't even like very much, cousins etc, yet I would miss them terribly were they no longer around. It's little more than sentimentality, in my opinion.

I also agree with The Tinker on a number of points, especially the expectation that couples should want to stay together for life, and not (more naturally) only commit to shorter 'contracts' so to speak.

challengemaster

Going to prison should not be a state-funded holiday.

Why the fcuk they get treated like royalty is beyond me. Games consoles for everyone, free TV, free food, free gym, everything to keep the prisoners happy so they don't start fighting with eachother or get depressed, that'd just be terrible :rolleyes:

Oh, and the gardaí are fúcking useless.

AstridBean

later10 wrote: »

I also agree with The Tinker on a number of points, especially the expectation that couples should want to stay together for life, and not (more naturally) only commit to shorter 'contracts' so to speak.

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

A disturbingly meddlesome proposition.

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?

Exactly.