Unpopular Opinions.

later12

AstridBean wrote: »

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

The couple, of course.

Why involve anyone else at all?

AstridBean

later10 wrote: »

The couple, of course.

Why involve anyone else at all?

How would a couple work that out? The exact moment in the future when their relationship goes sour?

later12

AstridBean wrote: »

How would a couple work that out?

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

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

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

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

AstridBean

Marriage might be outdated, but I don't see how introducing shorter, arbitrary contracts is any better!

How Soon Is Now

I don't agree with the fact a person in todays world can change nearly every little detail about there appearance just because there not happy with it anymore....... And I mean everything from your average liposuction to a sex change.

How can paying to have fat sucked out of u because your to much of a lazy fat ****e to go on a diet and actually work towards being healthy be exceptable ?


Your born male but for whatever reason god only knows why you decide your not happy with your life this way its not what you where meant to be and you want to be female...........

So thanks to the wonders of medicine and science you can totally transform yourself into what you reckon you where meant to be in the first place!!

Touchy subject but imagine you where born years an years ago in a world that was not so medically advanced then what would u of done ?? Nothing!!

Would of just got on with your life and well at least you where fortunate to be born healthy!!!

What choice has a person who's born mentally or physically handicaped got ?? Money can't buy them a new life.

What makes you different ?

later12

angerfist2009 wrote: »

Your born male but for whatever reason god only knows why you decide your not happy with your life this way its not what you where meant to be and you want to be female...........

So thanks to the wonders of medicine and science you can totally transform yourself into what you reckon you where meant to be in the first place!!

Some of this thread seems to have gone from unpopular opinions to posting absolute rubbish without even bothering to think about the matter before you type

You think people undergo major, irreversible gender reassignment surgery on some sort of a whim because they "decided" they weren't happy with their lives?

Touchy subject but imagine you where born years an years ago in a world that was not so medically advanced then what would u of done ?? Nothing!!

Would of just got on with your life and well at least you where fortunate to be born healthy!!!

Ignorance isn't bliss for everyone.

Pherekydes

angerfist2009 wrote: »

Touchy subject but imagine you where born years an years ago in a world that was not so medically advanced then what would u of done ?? Nothing!!

Quote this to yourself the next time you have a strep throat and want an antibiotic or a paracetamol.

Just GTF on with it.

And tell your dentist to skip the anaesthetic...

How Soon Is Now

later10 wrote: »

Some of this thread seems to have gone from unpopular opinions to posting absolute rubbish without even bothering to think about the matter before you type

You think people undergo major, irreversible gender reassignment surgery on some sort of a whim because they "decided" they weren't happy with their lives?


Ignorance isn't bliss for everyone.

Its not a choice they make on a whim as you put it but its still something they decided they wanted to changed based on how they feel. If they didn't have the option what choice would they have ? It's not a life or death situation they won't die without it.

How Soon Is Now

Pherekydes wrote: »

Quote this to yourself the next time you have a strep throat and want an antibiotic or a paracetamol.

Just GTF on with it.

And tell your dentist to skip the anaesthetic...

How is using medicine due to being sick and its available the same as getting a sex change even though u don't medically need it.

gamgsam

reduce dole, and give ration cards for the essentials.

AstridBean

gamgsam wrote: »

and give ration cards for the essentials.

Aaaah, nice and stigmatising.

Oranage2

Gay couples should not be allowed own a dog.

sbsquarepants

later10 wrote: »

I don't believe in love.

I believe in strong sentimental attachment, but not love.

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

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

.

You're missing out, whether you believe you are or not - you are.

later10 wrote: »

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


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

This is nothing short of idiotic. If you don't want to be with someone, by all means move on, but agreeing on a contract term from the outset is fúcking ridiculous. That's not a relationship, it's a hooker!

sbsquarepants

Oranage2 wrote: »

Gay couples should not be allowed own a dog.

What about a gay dog? Like a chihuaha?

Pherekydes

angerfist2009 wrote: »

How is using medicine due to being sick and its available the same as getting a sex change even though u don't medically need it.

It's just the application of science or medicine. Mankind sees a problem and solves it with everything at its disposal.

Take a leaf out of Levinas' book and try to put yourself in someone's shoes who is walking around in a male body with a female brain. Modern science has a solution.

pickarooney

We need sociopaths in society to make necessary if unpopular decisions that empathetic people are unable to make.

Seachmall

pickarooney wrote: »

We need sociopaths in society to make necessary if unpopular decisions that empathetic people are unable to make.

If the world was full of sociopaths it would be a much more honest place.

A lot colder of course but at least you'd know who you could trust.

eilo1

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What about a gay dog? Like a chihuaha?

ah now its not just toy dogs that can be gay, my German shepherd is gay, he likes the lovin' of a male springer spaniel from time to time.

Chuck Stone

pickarooney wrote: »

We need sociopaths in society to make necessary if unpopular decisions that empathetic people are unable to make.

They're called politicians.

The decisions they make are only necessary because they lead us into leaky boats with false promises of a lushly pastured paradise just over the horizon.

sbsquarepants

eilo1 wrote: »

ah now its not just toy dogs that can be gay, my German shepherd is gay, he likes the lovin' of a male springer spaniel from time to time.

Well, if internet porn has taught us anything, it's that germans will get up to all sorts of shenanigans.

onlyrocknroll

keano_afc wrote: »

Religion should be banned outright. (It is the root of all evil)

You should go and live in North Korea for a couple of months, then come back and tell us how wonderful it was.

My own:

Junkies should be sterilised. If they cant take care of themselves they should not be allowed to bring children into the world.

I think that your opinions on totalitarian state control of individuals are confused at best.

Snowie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're called politicians.

The decisions they make are only necessary because they lead us into leaky boats with false promises of a lushly pastured paradise just over the horizon.

Il see you and raze you

Zee French and the Germans

later12

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is nothing short of idiotic. If you don't want to be with someone, by all means move on, but agreeing on a contract term from the outset is fúcking ridiculous.

You mean like marriage?

And nobody said "from the outset", I'm talking about couples making a mature adult decision well into their relationship.

I don't see why a promise like "lets stay together for our whole lives" when you're in your late 20s should seem more reasonable than the more pragmatic "lets raise some kids together, and then see what we want to do".

later12

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're missing out, whether you believe you are or not - you are.

On what planet is "love" an objective truth?

cazzzzz

Deal or no deal is BY FAR the best programme on tv

onlyrocknroll

People are far too obsessed with grammar and not concerned enough with the spoken word. IMO grammar is only important in academia, politics, journalism etc. On Facebook or boards I couldn't give a s**t about grammar as long as what is written is readable (i.e. not 'OMG, iz bn cryn l8ly)

On the other hand we there's an entire generation of middle class educated people under thirty who can't string 5 or 6 f**king words together.

Like "I was... like... talking to this ... like... totally random guy, and he was like... yeah? and I was like... you're so random... and he was just like ... whatever"

tfitzgerald

Sh1t some of the post on here would frighten me , even Stalin did not ho as far as Tinker wants

ShagNastii

Suicide is a form of natural selection.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

On what planet is "love" an objective truth?

This line presupposes that the only legitimate way of understanding the world is through that which can be observed by the senses.

You can't observe 'sadness' as an objective truth but that does not mean people do not feel sadness.

Can the same not apply to love?

later12

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This line presupposes that the only legitimate way of understanding the world is through that which can be observed by the senses.

You can't observe 'sadness' as an objective truth but that does not mean people do not feel sadness.

Can the same not apply to love?

Sadness is a very specific type of subjectivity called metaphysical subjectivity - a sensation which is generally consistent amongst individuals and possibly can be verified biochemically, but whose experience is the experience of one person only, and which cannot be verified to be equal to that experienced by another.

It is reasonable to put love in this category too, although personally I would put it in this category under the heading affection and/or strong personal attachment, possibly sentimental.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

Sadness is a very specific type of subjectivity called metaphysical subjectivity - a sensation which is generally consistent amongst individuals and possibly can be verified biochemically, but whose experience is the experience of one person only, and which cannot be verified to be equal to that experienced by another.

Yes but the original point still stands. Feelings of love, sadness, joy, in and of themselves, can't be observed through the senses but that doesn't mean those feelings don't have a very real effect on the person experiencing them. Their effect gives them a sense of reality only felt by the individual experiencing them.

It is reasonable to put love in this category too, although personally I would put it in this category under the heading affection and/or strong personal attachment, possibly sentimental.

I read that as if it were written or said by this chap. :pac:

theTinker

AstridBean wrote: »

This post chills me to my bones.



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

Well as grown adults are who i interact with as friends and lovers, It tends to very much affect my life and surroundings how they behave, thier opinions, and how they are expected to behave.

I see the same repeating patterns of problems with alot of relationships and i usually come to the conclusion that its often because of restraints the relationship has, the pre concieved notions they had on entering it which often doesnt suit thier actual needs.

for instance, A friend of mine is deeply in love with her girlfriend, absoultely ga ga about her. Yet, she feels quite constricted as she cannot date, sleep with, or get to know other girls in that way. Shes 21 so I'm sure that urge is quite strong and impulsivey feeling from what i remember when i was 21. It causes her sadness, especially when we are out and she mights a great fun girl, and yet has to decline sexual or person attentions.. simply because shes with someone. When she got into the relationship, its just the accepted societal norm to be manogamous so it was predecided for her...almost. It'd most likely cause alot of hassle and issue if it was suggested to be different.
Her girlfriend often talks about thier future together, and it goes to show me that it is preconcieved by her that its suppose to last a long long long time. It most probably wont.

sebastianlieken

Criminals (beyond a certain threshhold) should be sterilised. This makes them more docile and less likley to repeat offend. It also removes their ability to reproduce and burden society with their spawn.

EDIT: plus it would make prison the disinsentive it should be when the offender knows their junk is on the chopping board.

theTinker

later10 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I completely agree with this! thanks! Its refreshing

7Sins

wonderfulname wrote: »

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 still don't get it I don't see any reason why they should be allowed to adopt other than this human rights and equality thing, clutching at straws really. I think it's fine for them to get "wed" but is there any reason why they should be allowed meddle with nature and create scenarios that are otherwise against Gods will, ie. man + man = no babies. I still think it's unfair to subject a child to such an unnatural environment for the sake of "equality"

theTinker

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is nothing short of idiotic. If you don't want to be with someone, by all means move on, but agreeing on a contract term from the outset is fúcking ridiculous. That's not a relationship, it's a hooker!

Would you mind me asking why you think its idotic and ridiculous to suggest a type of agreement on the initial assumption of a relationship?

As circumstances can change rapidily, its of course open to constant change of terms etc.
In my opinon, and it seems in Later10s opinion too, there is always this unspoken pre agreed contract term of 'forever' or 'as long as possible even if one or both of us changes and is no longer suitablely the same'.

Talking about it and agreeing up front for say a year, is more honest to me. When you meet someone, you have no idea what your circumstanes will be in a years time. So lets not pretend we will stay together forever, or we even will want to.
I think it would be alot more honest if a person says "Well Im still undergoing alot of changes in my life, I may want to travel and meet other people next year, Im not ready to settle on one person or I may simply want not be with you forever. Im not going to give you the false impression now that im not possibley going somewhere else. However I do deeply care for you, So I would happily commit myself to a year long relationship of magnogamy, and good supportive times, and lots of kinky sexy time with you . I'd like to see how we feel after that year and see if we both want to try something else after it.".

It enters the relationship with an agreement that its end is quite likely and the idea of it to continue indefinitely is not in tune with the persons actual needs.

Ive hard a few people after break ups, say stuff like "well thats 2 years wasted"... I do be gobsmacked, 2 years of a supportive fun meaniful relationship, and they are resentful of the thing because it ended? It seems they were always suspecting it to continue and to just absorb any changes in the participants, rather than acknowledging its often unsuitable to continue it.

later12

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but the original point still stands. Feelings of love, sadness, joy, in and of themselves, can't be observed through the senses but that doesn't mean those feelings don't have a very real effect on the person experiencing them. Their effect gives them a sense of reality only felt by the individual experiencing them.

But their effect can be real in itself, that seratonin acts to polarise a chain of sells in a wave of happiness is a metaphysical objective fact.

However the individual end sensation, as you say, gives rise to a sense of reality only felt by the individual experiencing them i.e. the metaphysical subjective state of happiness.

And yes, love is similar, if love is shorthand for sentimental affection.

But to suggest that love exists independently as a force in itself, separate to jealousy and affection and sentimentality and all of the other curious things that make up what is known as 'love' is going a bit far I think. Because that suggestion would have it that love is an objective metaphysical reality like The Bog of Allen or ginger hair or Derek Davis. And I don't think that's true.

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

unfair to subject a child to such an unnatural environment

Junkies, abusers, alcoholics, sadistics, as parents are all natural but not in the best interest of pets let alone children.

adoption agencys/the state do a better job of selection than buying the burd a bag of chips and copping off in a laneway.

7Sins

teddansonswig wrote: »

Junkies, abusers, alcoholics, sadistics, as parents are all natural but not in the best interest of pets let alone children.

adoption agencys/the state do a better job of selection than buying the burd a bag of chips and copping off in a laneway.

With regards to "Junkies, abusers, alcoholics, sadistics, as parents" thanks for the extreme there, obviously that's a case for social services and what not. As for creating unnatural environments, I still remain unconvinced that it should be allowed.

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

With regards to "Junkies, abusers, alcoholics, sadistics, as parents" thanks for the extreme there, obviously that's a case for social services and what not. As for creating unnatural environments, I still remain unconvinced that it should be allowed.

so if social services are able to deem parents unfit, can the not decide people are fit? sex/gender should be beyond the law at this stage, all citizens equal. dont worry im not waiting on you to allow anything, the high court is eventually going to sort this out when the time is right.

ps, its already happening ALL OVER THE GAF

pickarooney

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I read that as if it were written or said by this chap. :pac:

I actually double-checked the avatar after reading the post to see if it wasn't Data.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

But to suggest that love exists independently as a force in itself, separate to jealousy and affection and sentimentality and all of the other curious things that make up what is known as 'love' is going a bit far I think. Because that suggestion would have it that love is an objective metaphysical reality like The Bog of Allen or ginger hair or Derek Davis. And I don't think that's true.

I'm not suggesting that love, sadness, joy etc are physically measurable phenomena like celestial bodies or Derek Davies and his moon.

All I'm suggesting is that objective observation as a form of gathering knowledge fails somewhat when it comes to understanding humans beings with feelings, fears, hopes and dreams etc.

Maybe my philosophical vocabulary is limiting what I'm trying to say (I have no formal training in it).

7Sins

teddansonswig wrote: »

so if social services are able to deem parents unfit, can the not decide people are fit? sex/gender should be beyond the law at this stage, all citizens equal. dont worry im not waiting on you to allow anything, the high court is eventually going to sort this out when the time is right.

ps, its already happening ALL OVER THE GAF

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

Sgt Hartman

Dudess wrote: »

A man could potentially do more physical damage to a woman if he hit her than vice versa.

If you saw some of the aggressive, hefty wagons I've had the displeasure of working with over the years you'd beg to differ:pac:

The King of Moo

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

People are far too obsessed with grammar and not concerned enough with the spoken word. IMO grammar is only important in academia, politics, journalism etc. On Facebook or boards I couldn't give a s**t about grammar as long as what is written is readable (i.e. not 'OMG, iz bn cryn l8ly)

On the other hand we there's an entire generation of middle class educated people under thirty who can't string 5 or 6 f**king words together.

Like "I was... like... talking to this ... like... totally random guy, and he was like... yeah? and I was like... you're so random... and he was just like ... whatever"

While I agree that grammar is more important in the areas you mentioned, and though I'm quite forgiving of understandable mistakes, I think a basic level of grammar is important in any form of written communication.

I wouldn't expect most people to be grammar experts, but there are a surprising number of posts on boards that are borderline illegible, or that at least require a reread or two to get the gist.
At best, I'll get a little mental hiccup and lose the flow of sentence as I read a small mistake. For example: when I see the word "your" and automatically expect a noun to come after, but instead there's an adjective, making it clear that the person should have written "you're."
While I can understand the meaning, the whole rhythm of the sentence is ruined.

I get the argument that grammar's not important as long as you get your meaning across, but too often, grammar errors make meaning ambiguous, and while you might be able to get the gist of what you're communicating across, more attention to grammar allows you to communicate all the nuances of your message.
I worry that simpler language leads to simpler messages, which might lead to simpler thinking.

And while grammar's not as important in a more informal context, I still don't see why people don't want to make sure that they get their message across properly. Especially considering that you only need to know some of the basics learned in primary school to communicate effectively in written English.

At the end of the day, I don't think there should be any excuse for a native speaker being unable to make a fairly simple point in a clear, straightforward way that only needs to be read once.

As for the spoken word, I agree with your assessment, and think it can be fixed with the same solution that would improve people's general grammar ability: reading.

Reading a lot greatly improves one's vocabulary and one's unconscious awareness of the underlying structure and basic principles of English.

Snakeblood

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that love, sadness, joy etc are physically measurable phenomena like celestial bodies or Derek Davies and his moon.

All I'm suggesting is that objective observation as a form of gathering knowledge fails somewhat when it comes to understanding humans beings with feelings, fears, hopes and dreams etc.

Maybe my philosophical vocabulary is limiting what I'm trying to say (I have no formal training in it).

I think what you are reaching for is:
What's it all about, Alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, Alfie,
then I guess it's wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie,
what will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie,
I know there's something much more,
something even non-believers can believe in.
I believe in love, Alfie.
Without true love we just exist, Alfie.
Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie.
When you walk let your heart lead the way
and you'll find love any day, Alfie, Alfie.

The King of Moo

7Sins wrote: »

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

We've been meddling in nature for as long as we've been around, and since before we had laws.

Buildings are unnatural environments regulated by laws, should we ban them?

I don't see why the gender or sexual orientation of two parents matters as long as they're both good parents.

I'm sure if gay adoption ruined children we'd hear of many documented cases of this, due to the high number of opponents of gay adoption who would want to spread that information around.

Are you also against single parents? Isn't that as unnatural as gay adoption?

What about a situation where the father of a child died, and the child's straight mother raised him with considerable help from her own widowed straight mother?
Should that child, for example, be given to an infertile straight couple?

7Sins

The King of Moo wrote: »

We've been meddling in nature for as long as we've been around, and since before we had laws.

Buildings are unnatural environments regulated by laws, should we ban them?

I don't see why the gender of two parents matters as long as they're both good parents.

I'm sure if gay adoption ruined children we'd hear of many documented cases of this, due to the high number of opponents of gay adoption who would want to spread that information around.

Are you also against single parents? Isn't that as unnatural as gay adoption?

What about a situation where the father of a child died, and the child's straight mother raised him with considerable help from her own widowed straight mother?
Should that child, for example, be given to an infertile straight couple?

Buildings are natural as far as I can see, in its simplist form buildings are shelter, we all need shelter, a place to retreat to and a starting point from which to begin each day. Nomadic lifestyles are fine too if you're that way inclined.

I'm not against single parents and there's nothing wrong with the scenario you mentioned whereby a daughter and mother bring up a child in the case of an absent father. The whole gay adoption thing is silly "I'm gay and want a kid so I can be equal" nah, tough like. I don't see any legitimate reason for them to be given a child to play house with. :pac:

Chuck Stone

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think what you are reaching for is:
What's it all about, Alfie?

Close but a bit more like this

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

Sure is, doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. See this is what I don't get, sex/gender as you say beyond the law Why? I can't see why the law needs to meddle with nature and create environments that shouldn't exist. I think if someone is gay, they should just get over it and accept that having a 2.1 family isn't possible :pac: sadly the world isn't perfect. I'm for equality in every other sense for them, just not this one.

The law should be about protecting children, id say we can agree on that.
currently there are kids with gay parents (of all sexes) who, if one of these parents should pass, will be in legal limbo. taking said child off the parent that raised them for x years and stuffing them in a state care home, i think you'l agree, is not good.

about sex/gender being beyond the law ( im sure i could phrase that better but..) man robs shop, woman robs shop. whats the difference? man buys house woman buys house, both equal in front of the law. gender should have no impact on a person or peoples rights in f.o.t.law.
finally gays have recognition that they should be considered a couple for tax/inheritance ect purposes. there is no reason to deny them every other perk of life because of the body they were born into.

IVF is tinkering with nature. IMF is tinkering with nature. its all we do.

being gay doesn't stop sperm or ovaries from working, if there in working order why shouldn't EVERYONE expect to have kids, and find someone responsable and loving to raise them with.

peace :pac: