Unpopular Opinions.

The King of Moo

7Sins wrote: »

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:

What if the child would otherwise have to stay in an orphanage, or a foster home with other foster kids, some of whom may not be the best behaved?

I also don't think you can say gay people simply want to adopt to be equal to straight people, or want to have what they have.

Many people have strong parental instincts and might want to put them to good use.
Or they might just want to bring a little love into the life of a child who otherwise might have none.

7Sins

The King of Moo wrote: »

What if the child would otherwise have to stay in an orphanage, or a foster home with other foster kids, some of whom may not be the best behaved?

That's life, I'd would like to imagine the bullying in school if they had gay parents wouldn't be as relentless either.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I also don't think you can say gay people simply want to adopt to be equal to straight people, or want to have what they have.

Many people have strong parental instincts and might want to put them to good use.
Or they might just want to bring a little love into the life of a child who otherwise might have none.

I know, but that's all about what the gay person wants. It's a cruel blow that God didn't give man and man the abilty to reproduce. This isn't about taking their rights away, it's should they be given those rights? really I don't see it.

teddansonswig wrote: »

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:

Having kids isn't really a perk, I can't compare it to their rights with regards to tax. I just believe there's a higher power here than the law itself. Your end piece there is what I have difficulty understanding, a big mental block on my part. Being gay does stop people having kids with their partners, but the arguments is changing that so they can have kids? I can't buy into it. I agree that there's a lot of the law and overlapping aspects here that need to be ironed out, just at it's very simplist. I don't agree with it

teddansonswig

7Sins wrote: »

. I don't agree with it

well thank you for being you, you'v validated my opinion as unpopular

7Sins

teddansonswig wrote: »

well thank you for being you, you'v validated my opinion as unpopular

Ok, it was fun lets do it again sometime

membersonly

Was in the pub the other night and Jedward came up in conversation for some reason. Anyway I was making the point that I've an awful feeling things could end very badly for them, that they're just not as developed mentally and emotionally as other young men of the same age.

And now that they're living in this little fame bubble, they won't get a chance to. They'll never be out in the real world to learn how to behave normally and interact with other people the same age, and will suffer in later years because of this...I hope I'm wrong obviously but doubt very much that I am.

This opinion was fairly unpopular....

pragmatic1

pickarooney wrote: »

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

No we dont. You're average person can make tough calls. I score very high on empathy but I've done some grimey things in my time.

conor.hogan.2

God does not exist.
He is not there just to justify your narrow-mindedness.

karaokeman

The Noel and Liam Gallagher fued is completely fabricated.

Its a publicity stunt and really and truly anyone who has followed it knows they never fell out and are only making this stuff up.

Chuck Stone

The Dinosaurs died out because they all became gays.

wonderfulname

theTinker wrote: »

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.

We really don't see enough of this on boards, people openly revising their opinion based on new info, pat on the back for you!

7Sins wrote: »

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"

Hello again, I'm baffled that this is the response after reading what I linked you, surely you have now seen that adoption rights mean more than what you paint them and that we have a mountain of evidence to show that there is no negative effect on a child raised in a gay household (and of course some minor suggestion that kids are better off with two mommies than a mum and dad )

Well maybe you didn't read it, should I summarise? For the umpteenth time on this site?

Go on then, adoption rights are not meddling with nature, they are mostly a means of affording rights to children in existing situations that you may deem to be meddling with nature. The lack of adoption rights do not prevent same sex couples raising children, as you should have seen they're doing it anyway. What adoption rights do do is give the children in those situations the same level of security afforded to children in traditional family models. So when you say you are against adoption rights for gay couples, it's not really the gay couples you're pushing against, and your definitely not protecting children, in fact your doing the opposite, and in far worse a manner than you imagine affording same sex couples adoption rights would.

But of course you've already read a more long winded version of that, and seen a number of examples of de facto families to illustrate the actual use of adoption laws.

As for the environment, it's pros, its cons, how natural or unnatural it is, again you've been given a weight of evidence to show sexuality or gender of parents has no bearing on the well being of a child. As for natural, what is natural? By my definition that is a natural environment, natural is not a byword for "the norm".

7Sins

wonderfulname wrote: »

Hello again, I'm baffled that this is the response after reading what I linked you,

Not the first time that's been said to me :pac:

wonderfulname wrote: »

surely you have now seen that adoption rights mean more than what you paint them and that we have a mountain of evidence to show that there is no negative effect on a child raised in a gay household (and of course some minor suggestion that kids are better off with two mommies than a mum and dad )

Where's all the evidence to say that it's a good thing then?

wonderfulname wrote: »

Well maybe you didn't read it, should I summarise? For the umpteenth time on this site?

Nope, I didn't. It was way too long for me and there wasn't enough pictures or even cartoon illustrations to explain stuff to me, plus I got distracted by cats on Youtube.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Go on then, adoption rights are not meddling with nature, they are mostly a means of affording rights to children in existing situations that you may deem to be meddling with nature. The lack of adoption rights do not prevent same sex couples raising children, as you should have seen they're doing it anyway. What adoption rights do do is give the children in those situations the same level of security afforded to children in traditional family models. So when you say you are against adoption rights for gay couples, it's not really the gay couples you're pushing against, and your definitely not protecting children, in fact your doing the opposite, and in far worse a manner than you imagine affording same sex couples adoption rights would.

Thanks for summarising. I'm willing to compromise since you're persistant. I wouldn't mind if gay couples were afforded the oppurtunity to adopt/foster teenagers (15+) but only if the teenager is ok with that. I can't see how it would be ok for a child to be brought up by two daddies It's just not the way things are meant to be.

wonderfulname wrote: »

But of course you've already read a more long winded version of that, and seen a number of examples of de facto families to illustrate the actual use of adoption laws.

Nope

wonderfulname wrote: »

As for the environment, it's pros, its cons, how natural or unnatural it is, again you've been given a weight of evidence to show sexuality or gender of parents has no bearing on the well being of a child. As for natural, what is natural? By my definition that is a natural environment, natural is not a byword for "the norm".

Nor is the norm a byword for natural.

Chuck Stone

In general men are better drivers than women.



Hides in the Tora Bora mountains.

pragmatic1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In general men are better drivers than women.



Hides in the Tora Bora mountains.

Thats just a fact. Doesnt matter if its unpopular.

Chuck Stone

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Thats just a fact. Doesnt matter if its unpopular.

Is it though?

We have bigger crashes.

flutterflye

Hmm.. I drive like a man, so what does that mean?

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

Hmm.. I drive like a man, so what does that mean?

You have huge catastrophic life wrecking accidents? :pac:

Mike Litoris

Women are better at making sandwiches than men.

Paddy Cow

Abortion should be legal in this country.

Kev.OC

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

Kev.OC

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

steddyeddy

Kev.OC wrote: »

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

There was lots but the rate of temp change has been accelerated by human kind

7Sins

steddyeddy wrote: »

There was lots but the rate of temp change has been accelerated by human kind

Bullsh*t :rolleyes: jesus christ like

orourkeda

Christopher Hitchins was a bollox

orourkeda

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Abortion should be legal in this country.

So should drunken sex

Dionysus

Here's some which I've been thinking of in the past week:


1. The €100 household tax, while crude and regressive, is the start of common sense, and these politicians who oppose it are cringingly opportunist. Most, if not all, developed states in the world have developed property taxes. We don't because one political party fulfilled its promise to abolish rates after it won the 1977 election. That was a terrible decision, and it needs political courage to correct it.

2. We should be paying water rates because having a safe water supply is so blindingly important to our existence. Charging people for what they use is obviously fair and will make people conserve water supplies better. The people who are denying the common sense of water rates are also cringingly opportunist and populist.

3. I'm fully supportive of paying higher taxation in return for better public services and greater social justice. This Reaganite/Thatcherite low taxation ideology is myopic, crude and plainly anti-society. I favour harmonisation of taxes across the EU.

4. Far too many Irish people, largely inspired by the europhobic dregs of the British media in Ireland, are too keen to shift blame for Ireland's current situation on to the shoulders of the Germans and French. It is successive Irish governments, and successive Irish electorates which put them in office, which bear overwhelming responsibility for Ireland's situation.

5. People who seek scapegoats for their own failures, or the failures of their state, are first rate losers. They are spineless cowards who haven't got the courage to be honest with themselves and take on the world honestly.

6. On the whole, the EU has been absolutely brilliant for Ireland. It has helped enormously to move Ireland from being a deeply unhealthy, myopic, anglocentric society with an inferiority complex to most things British (i.e. English), to a modern European state which is open once again to cultures beyond Britain. I want Ireland to be more European, and therefore less anglicised.

7. It's beyond me how people can claim to be Irish nationalists, while supporting an Irish society which is deeply anglicised and opposing the EU, the greatest force that has countered the almost suffocating dominance of Britain and its culture in Ireland.

7Sins

Dionysus wrote: »

Here's some which I've been thinking of in the past week:


1. The €100 household tax, while crude and regressive, is the start of common sense, and these politicians who oppose it are cringingly opportunist. Most, if not all, developed states in the world have developed property taxes. We don't because one political party fulfilled its promise to abolish rates after it won the 1977 election. That was a terrible decision, and it needs political courage to correct it.

2. We should be paying water rates because having a safe water supply is so blindingly important to our existence. Charging people for what they use is obviously fair and will make people conserve water supplies better. The people who are denying the common sense of water rates are also cringingly opportunist and populist.

3. I'm fully supportive of paying higher taxation in return for better public services and greater social justice. This Reaganite/Thatcherite low taxation ideology is myopic, crude and plainly anti-society. I favour harmonisation of taxes across the EU.

4. Far too many Irish people, largely inspired by the europhobic dregs of the British media in Ireland, are too keen to shift blame for Ireland's current situation on to the shoulders of the Germans and French. It is successive Irish governments, and successive Irish electorates which put them in office, which bear overwhelming responsibility for Ireland's situation.

5. People who seek scapegoats for their own failures, or the failures of their state, are first rate losers. They are spineless cowards who haven't got the courage to be honest with themselves and take on the world honestly.

6. On the whole, the EU has been absolutely brilliant for Ireland. It has helped enormously to move Ireland from being a deeply unhealthy, myopic, anglocentric society with an inferiority complex to most things British (i.e. English), to a modern European state which is open once again to cultures beyond Britain. I want Ireland to be more European, and therefore less anglicised.

7. It's beyond me how people can claim to be Irish nationalists, while supporting an Irish society which is deeply anglicised and opposing the EU, the greatest force that has countered the almost suffocating dominance of Britain and its culture in Ireland.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see

Dionysus

7Sins wrote: »

None are so blind as those who refuse to see

And would you care to elaborate with your wisdom?

7Sins

Dionysus wrote: »

And would you care to elaborate with your wisdom?

No.

edanto

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean? Your post doesn't really match that of Dionysis in terms of depth, effort or relevance.

edanto

7Sins wrote: »

No.

Right so, thanks for coming. Door's over there on the left.

/ignore

So anyways Dionysis, think you're spot on with most of those. Would you be interested in being an independent candidate in the local election?

Sure with what you wrote the post before we nearly have the campaign literature written!!

7Sins

Dionysus wrote: »

And would you care to elaborate with your wisdom?

I was agreeing with him, I'm quite drunk like

7Sins

7Sins wrote: »

I was agreeing with him, I'm quite drunk like

That was meant for edanto, such is my level of intoxication

edanto

Kev.OC wrote: »

I think humans being the significant contributing factor to global warming is total bull. In fact i think the whole phenomenon of global warming is a load of rubbish.

How many ice ages were there before people came along? Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

It's funny how that one has gone full circle. First the people that had the 'humans are causing dangerous climate change were the ones with the unpopular opinion, and then like they did 2 decades of proper scientific research and all of a suddin it became like mainstream because of the weight of scientific evidence.

Then oil-industry funded meme polluters get stuck in and all of a sudden being a climate change denier is suddenly slick (see what I did there) and cool (ooooh that pun's not so good)

Dionysus

edanto wrote: »

Right so, thanks for coming. Door's over there on the left.

/ignore

So anyways Dionysis, think you're spot on with most of those. Would you be interested in being an independent candidate in the local election?

Sure with what you wrote the post before we nearly have the campaign literature written!!

I don't think an "I'm in favour of a high taxation better public services in society" election policy will get me as many votes as "I'm in favour of a low taxation better public services in society" election policy which, as illogical as it is, convinces the critical mass of the electorate all of the time.

The fact that Fine Gael and Labour did not raise progressive taxes like income tax in the most recent budget is despairing in the extreme.

AstridBean

Sweet potatoes aren't that nice, but people rave about them. I actually prefer plain spuds.

edanto

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

God does not exist.
He is not there just to justify your narrow-mindedness.

He or She?

Logical Fallacy

Anybody asking for a drop in the Job Seekers Allowance/Benefit is a moron.

Plain and simple.

later12

AstridBean wrote: »

Sweet potatoes aren't that nice, but people rave about them. I actually prefer plain spuds.

But sweet potatoes are fanshy.

Spuds + fancy = fancy spuds
∴ delicious

AstridBean

later10 wrote: »

But sweet potatoes are fanshy.

Spuds + fancy = fancy spuds
∴ delicious

*tries to figure out how to type the 'therefore' symbol*

/nerdette

Pace2008

Kev.OC wrote: »

Over time the world heats up and cools down naturally. It happens. Get over it.

Quick, you better get onto the climatologists and tell them to call off the search. I can't believe they haven't thought of this before!

kieranfitz

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Abortion should be legal in this country.

+1, and fully funded by the state. Has to be a hell of a lot cheaper then years of child benefit and lone parents allowance.

recylingbin

Dionysus wrote: »

Here's some which I've been thinking of in the past week:


1. The €100 household tax, while crude and regressive, is the start of common sense, and these politicians who oppose it are cringingly opportunist. Most, if not all, developed states in the world have developed property taxes. We don't because one political party fulfilled its promise to abolish rates after it won the 1977 election. That was a terrible decision, and it needs political courage to correct it.

2. We should be paying water rates because having a safe water supply is so blindingly important to our existence. Charging people for what they use is obviously fair and will make people conserve water supplies better. The people who are denying the common sense of water rates are also cringingly opportunist and populist.

3. I'm fully supportive of paying higher taxation in return for better public services and greater social justice. This Reaganite/Thatcherite low taxation ideology is myopic, crude and plainly anti-society. I favour harmonisation of taxes across the EU.

4. Far too many Irish people, largely inspired by the europhobic dregs of the British media in Ireland, are too keen to shift blame for Ireland's current situation on to the shoulders of the Germans and French. It is successive Irish governments, and successive Irish electorates which put them in office, which bear overwhelming responsibility for Ireland's situation.

5. People who seek scapegoats for their own failures, or the failures of their state, are first rate losers. They are spineless cowards who haven't got the courage to be honest with themselves and take on the world honestly.

6. On the whole, the EU has been absolutely brilliant for Ireland. It has helped enormously to move Ireland from being a deeply unhealthy, myopic, anglocentric society with an inferiority complex to most things British (i.e. English), to a modern European state which is open once again to cultures beyond Britain. I want Ireland to be more European, and therefore less anglicised.

7. It's beyond me how people can claim to be Irish nationalists, while supporting an Irish society which is deeply anglicised and opposing the EU, the greatest force that has countered the almost suffocating dominance of Britain and its culture in Ireland.

1: We are not getting anything in return
2: We already pay under a different name.
3: Agree up to the harmonisation point. Harmonisation will put a weak nation, such as ourselves, in an even more disadvantaged position than we already are.
4: While we got ourselves into it, the eu isn't doing much to help us out of it. Nor won't as long as Germany and France are motoring well.
5: correct.
6: was.
7: The eu has barely affected our anglicisation. Home and Away has done more - cf D4 accents and lilt of their speech.

gnag

kieranfitz wrote: »

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Abortion should be legal in this country.

+1, and fully funded by the state. Has to be a hell of a lot cheaper then years of child benefit and lone parents allowance.

I used to be of the opinion that every woman should have the choice. However, when I was 11 weeks pregnant i experienced some spotting. I went to the hospital and had a scan. I could see my baby's heart beating and was told to rest and just wait and see. Sadly the next day I miscarried. Since then I've been very glad that abortion isn't legal here. My baby was a living human at 11 weeks and abortions are allowed well after that. At least if women have to travel to get an abortion, they might think about it more.

ILikeTurtles

Cheese is over-rated..

saa

I don't hate or even judge religious people but the authority and control scares me.

There is an assumption that the past was always better and sure isn't now really shít, we've lost our morals but that is no excuse for letting these flawed parts of these institutions having the control they do over the state.

Here that might be a popular opinion but in reality it is one of the popular opinions that exists as an unpopular opinion as the main chunk of the voters won't fight for a secular state or for change in that context, and the politicians won't fight for it to save themselves loosing that majour chunk of voters.

A sad world we live in.

conor.hogan.2

edanto wrote: »

He or She?

He, he is always portrayed as a he by the majority of religions.
But the gender is irrelevant to something which very likely does not exist.

Oranage2

Not sure if this qualifies as an unpopular opinion but being 'intelligent' isn't that important in life and most people that claim they're intelligent really aren't.

nicebutdim

I have a friend who is a pseudo intellectual. He thinks that this makes him not only clever, but also half Japanese

Thank you, thank you...I'm here all week!

Tubbs4

People should have to pass a test before having children.

Paparazzo

ILikeTurtles wrote: »

Cheese is over-rated..

No. Just no.