Publicly unacceptable opinions

PlaneSpeeking

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Dumbest thing anyone could do would be to travel to the states with no travel insurance. Squinting at a hospital would cost ya.

Yep!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Plough up every golf course in Dublin for public housing, while you're at it. Full of old self-entitled farts who spend their days worrying about people wearing the wrong type of trousers while half arsedly hitting a ball around. Pathetic. .

I actually agree that golf is a horribly wasteful sport. I would prefer if it didn't exist and the land could be put to good use. And people in the likes of Arizona wouldn't then be using scarce water to keep their stupid golf courses green.

AndrewJRenko

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

I just think the term "disability" is being watered down hugely. I'd like to think that each case or claim is analysed on its individual merits but I'm struggling to see this. I know people on DA and they are literally taking the piss. 200 quid a week in their hand on top of their regular jobs. So they're able to work no problem but are still somehow in need of a hand-out at the same time? How does that work?

I presume that you're totally ignorant about the well-established 'costs of disability' - the additional costs that people with disablities incur just to live. This could involve specialised clothing, assistive technology devices, or even something simple like the cost of nappies, which are very substantial for an incontinent adult. Check it out and let us know who exactly is 'taking the piss', beyond the nappies that is;


https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2017/1129/923751-the-hidden-cost-of-disability/

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

Well the cases I'm referring to are most certainly not people claiming because of being overweight but other ridiculous reasons. This may be a short-sighted view but if you're collecting a full time wage you should not be entitled to DA. You've proved that you aren't reliant on DA by working full time. It serves no purpose. Only those who literally are incapable of working should be entitled to it. Enabling people only results in more laziness and scrounging.

You didn't possibly think of checking out the actual conditions of Disability Allowance before you went accusing people of 'laziness and scrounging'?


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_and_work/disability_payments_and_work.html

Disability Allowance: all earnings from rehabilitative work over €350 are assessed as income and your entitlement to Disability Allowance will be reduced in line with the appropriate reduced rates of payment for Disability Allowance. If you have no other means, the maximum amount you can earn is €432.50 and still keep an entitlement to the minimum personal payment of €3 (from 28 March 2018).

So if you're earning working full-time and earning anything slightly over minimum wage, you get next to nothing on DA.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Despite what I said earlier you have a limited point - being overweight is classed as a disability in the UK (I can't say I've heard of cases here) and as a big girl myself I find it abhorrent that others consider this a reason not to work.

No, it's not. Extreme cases of obesity that have substantial, long-term impacts may be considered a disability in some areas;


https://www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/is-obesity-a-disability-under-the-equality-act-2010/153953/

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd say they should be on a case by case basis - I've students I look after with autism and ADD/ADHD and they prefer parking on a higher level away from the crowds - parking next door would not be for them.

Yet there are others who will need to be next door.

Absolutely some emotional and psychological conditions should be covered.

They ARE done on a case-by-case basis. Any application for a disabled parking pass involves GP confirmation of the medical need, on a case-by-case basis.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Never understood why a disabled car in the Motability scheme in the UK covers epilepsy.

My uncle had a seizure driving and crashed, once diagnosed his licence was pulled. I thought that the norm ?

No norm - it's done on a 'case by case' basis again, with medical assessment of individual circumstance. And just for the record, having epilepsy does not create an automatic entitlement to a Motability vehicle. It's that old 'case by case' basis again, where if the impact of the disability on the person is substantial, they may well qualify. And Motability vehicles are not necessarily driven by the person with a disability. They may well be driven by a personal assistant or a family member, for the benefit of the person with a disability.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Also that people need to accept responsibility for their actions. You are always to blame for the things you do. You weren't led astray, coerced, fell in with a bad crowd, had a tough life, too drunk to know better or any of the bullshít excuses people come up with, usually when you've been caught doing something you know damn well you shouldn't have been doing! You done it - your fault end of story!

So just to be clear, the prevalence of heroin/opiate addiction in working class areas is all down to people making bad choices?

super_furry

All Saints were the best pop group of the 90s.

PlaneSpeeking

super_furry wrote: »

All Saints were the best pop group of the 90s.

And not B*Witched ? Ya mad b*****d!!!!! :D:D:D:D

CowGoesMoo100

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And not B*Witched ? Ya mad b*****d!!!!! :D:D:D:D

What? Are ye serious?

PlaneSpeeking

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

What? Are ye serious?

Nah course not - I spent a lot of the 90s apologising on behalf of my nation!!!!!

sbsquarepants

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, the prevalence of heroin/opiate addiction in working class areas is all down to people making bad choices?

No the junkies are completely innocent, it's those pesky well to do professional types sneaking into shít hole estates and tricking the little angels into taking gear by telling them it's health food I'd say.:eek:

Addiction stems from poor choices considerably more often than it does from wise choices - that should be fairly clear to us all, no?
I'm no statistician, but I'd be fairly certain there is a direct relationship between poor decisions and poor outcomes.

CowGoesMoo100

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Nah course not - I spent a lot of the 90s apologising on behalf of my nation!!!!!

I was being sarcastic referring to a line at the beginning of their most famous song. Don't ask how I know that...

PlaneSpeeking

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

PlaneSpeeking

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

I was being sarcastic referring to a line at the beginning of their most famous song. Don't ask how I know that...

Oh God it's flooding back!!!!!!!!

whisky_galore

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

dr.fuzzenstein

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I actually agree that golf is a horribly wasteful sport. I would prefer if it didn't exist and the land could be put to good use. And people in the likes of Arizona wouldn't then be using scarce water to keep their stupid golf courses green.

Well, they attract the type of tourist Ireland wants. Fly in, rent a car, straight off to the hotel, golf every day, tourist shops, pub lunch and maybe stop at the side of the road, take a few pictures to show how "scenic" and "full of unspoilt nature" Ireland is.
Because the other type of tourist will stay in B&Bs, want to hike through the countryside (Jesus, can't be having that, countryside is for livestock not tourists trampeling through!), buy sandwiches and otherwise are skinflints and tightwads.
They can kindly fcuk off, since they don't spend any money anyway.
That's why Ireland builds Tourist Centers, where tourists can look at pictures of scenic Ireland in a safe and controlled environmemt and look! There's a cafe and giftshop!

ohnonotgmail

whisky_galore wrote: »

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

a swift kick to their front wheel?

PlaneSpeeking

whisky_galore wrote: »

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

Well I have limited mobility due to an injury/condition so running out of the way is not an option.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a swift kick to their front wheel?

Not sure I could manage that tbh!

Yer Da sells Avon

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

MonkeyTennis

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

Pics?

sbsquarepants

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

I can stand golf, but I love golf trousers!

dr.fuzzenstein

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can stand golf, but I love golf trousers!

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

sbsquarepants

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

I just don't know why they have to ruin then by hitting a stupid little ball around a field. I'd be all for it if we could just put on our nice trousers and go take care of bidness

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

I just don't know why they have to ruin then by hitting a stupid little ball around a field. I'd be all for it if we could just put on our nice trousers and go take care of bidness

Yo GangSTAH!!!!

(I might have done that wrong!!)

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

I find big shoulders help, though you've mentioned a mobility difficulty, so this may not suit you. Making it difficult for them to get through is the objective, either by becoming the obstacle yourself or distracting them or whatever.

Have you any tips on how to deal with the one or two or three cars/buses/trucks that go through the red light when you're waiting with a child to cross?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a swift kick to their front wheel?

Probably not a great idea - it's not a solid surface, so it will probably drag your foot with it, and take you off balance as a result.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No the junkies are completely innocent, it's those pesky well to do professional types sneaking into shít hole estates and tricking the little angels into taking gear by telling them it's health food I'd say.:eek:

Addiction stems from poor choices considerably more often than it does from wise choices - that should be fairly clear to us all, no?
I'm no statistician, but I'd be fairly certain there is a direct relationship between poor decisions and poor outcomes.

Have you noticed the direct relationship being being poor, and poor decisions/outcomes? Do you reckon this is entirely coincidental?

Taytoland

Everything I say is seen as unacceptable, so yeah.

Gwynplaine

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

Hotblack Desiato

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

Jam a rolled up umbrella into the spokes, job done. Next!

Hotblack Desiato

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, they attract the type of tourist Ireland wants. Fly in, rent a car, straight off to the hotel, golf every day, tourist shops, pub lunch and maybe stop at the side of the road, take a few pictures to show how "scenic" and "full of unspoilt nature" Ireland is.

that's fine off in some boghole somewhere, but not within the M50.

AndrewJRenko

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I fukcing hate cyclists.

Because?

dr.fuzzenstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

that's fine off in some boghole somewhere, but not within the M50.

Not that different, fly in and then hotel, shop, restaurant, pub, repeat every day with the Guinness Store House thrown in there somewhere and the Book of Kells.

Undividual

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

So could someone decide that football stadiums, cinemas or restaurants are redundant also?

If they're not making efficient use of the site they're on, then yes.

But playing football, going to the cinema or eating out use far less land and are not activities which are dying on their arse.

Heavy property taxes are needed to ensure that properties in important urban locations are used efficiently, or else sold to someone else who will. This is what they do in that bastion of communism, the USA.

What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what should be done with their property?

According to the constitution, private property can be seized in the interests of the common good on payment of compensation. Prime development sites in Dublin city are far too important to be wasted on a few old duffers hitting golf balls around.

Seems quite totalitarian to me.  I believe Ireland has had enough of the social welfare mindset.  Although the constitution may outline that, I doubt the original intention was so rich people could no longer play golf.  More likely it was to allow the government to purchase land to build roads and railways.

Regardless of that, there is plenty of room in Dublin to build housing.  To specify re-appropriation as a potential solution to the housing crisis opens up more problems than it solves.  By that logic, anyone living in a house with a big garden where apartments could be built would be eligible for appropriation.  Imagine the urban sprawl that this would involve in addition to the general lack of morality involved in punishing people (landowners) who have done nothing wrong.

I'd prefer to see a government actually give de-centralization a genuine attempt.  No need for half of Ireland to be living in 3 or 4 counties.

Billgirlylegs

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

When did this opinion become publicly unacceptable?

sbsquarepants

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you noticed the direct relationship being being poor, and poor decisions/outcomes? Do you reckon this is entirely coincidental?

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Undividual

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I fukcing hate cyclists.

As a knight of the road, your hatred only feeds us. 

Once fossil fuels are phased out, we will unite and form our own political party.

BIKE POWER!  BIKE POWER!

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Rich people have more of a net to fall into, so they can make more bad decisions without it instantly ruining their lives, I think.

Poor people will feel the effect of a bad decision more immediately, and much more painfully.

AndrewJRenko

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.


But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

When did this opinion become publicly unacceptable?

It's a good question. Let's put aside the petty small-mindedness of choose to hate somebody simply based on their choice of mode of transport on any given day, and the sheer impracticality of trying to work out whether you still hate the cyclist on the day he takes the bus or the car just for a moment.


So why is it publically acceptable to say that you hate this one particular group. Is it the last remaining group that it's safe to hate? Are the haters the people that would otherwise have been hating on jews, or blacks or gays but get a bit frustrated at this 'pc gone mad' world when you can't proclaim how much you hate people any more, so they pick on cyclists instead?

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

Rich people have more of a net to fall into, so they can make more bad decisions without it instantly ruining their lives, I think.

Poor people will feel the effect of a bad decision more immediately, and much more painfully.

I agree entirely, but that's a separate issue really. At the end of the day it's still the poor decision that's to blame for their troubles, not the fact that they're poor. You can poor and disadvantaged and still not end up strung out on meth. You can rich with every privilege in the world and still end up addicted.

Poverty might make things worse - but then poverty tends to make everything worse. There aren't too many problems that can be alleviated by just being that little bit poorer!

sbsquarepants

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.

You said there was a direct relationship between being poor and making bad decisions, I'm merely pointing out that's not necessarily the case. Charlie was born rich and then went on to earn money that Ronaldo could only dream of - yet went completely off the rails.

Ronaldo on the other hand actually was born poor, into a family of addicts and is probably as clean living as they come.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

I don't know. Escapism? Availability? Affordability? Peer pressure?

What's your theory?

It's basically the opposite for cocaine - much more prevalent in more well to do areas. Why?

ohnonotgmail

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.


But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

It is certainly more visible in poorer parts of cities. It is much easier to hide heroin addiction when you dont have to steal the money for your next fix.

dermo888

Skangers are a scourge and must be eliminated.

sbsquarepants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is certainly more visible in poorer parts of cities. It is much easier to hide heroin addiction when you dont have to steal the money for your next fix.

I think this is most likely the answer - money hides and offers a security net for a whole load of things. If you are rich and an addict - you can just buy drugs, if you're poor and an addict your first problem is you need to get money to buy drugs, very often by stealing or begging.

Your not any less of an addict by virtue of being rich, but you're certainly less of a visible nuisance.

ohnonotgmail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think this is most likely the answer - money hides and offers a security net for a whole load of things. If you are rich and an addict - you can just buy drugs, if you're poor and an addict your first problem is you need to get money to buy drugs, very often by stealing or begging.

Your not any less of an addict by virtue of being rich, but you're certainly less of a visible nuisance.

Just look at Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Heroin addict for years and nobody knew because he could afford to keep it secret.

ittakestwo

Every golf course within the M50 should be compulsory bought by the state, then rezoned residential and developed.

I can't understand why Elm golf course in D4, Miltown GC in D6 and Clontarf GC in D3 which take up huge amounts of land and all beside the dart line or luas track and close to town should be allowed to be used so inefficiently. It's crazy.

It would be OK if they were public parks but these are private lands not open to the public. Probably right now there is less than 20 people on each one yet take take up hundreds of acers of prime land for old farts to woddle around them for a few hours.

Have the farts drive out the N11 or M1 to courses in Wicklow or Meath etc. No need to have them 2 miles from the CC.

ohnonotgmail

ittakestwo wrote: »

Every golf course within the M50 should be compulsory brought by the state for a absurdly low price, then rezoned residential and developed.

I can't understand why Elm golf course in D4, Miltown GC in D6 and Clontarf GC in D3 which take up huge amounts of land and all beside the dart line or luas track and close to town should be allowed to be used so inefficiently. It's crazy.

It would be OK if they were public parks but these are private lands not open to the public. Probably right now there is less than 20 people on each one yet take take up hundreds of acers of prime land for old farts to woddle around them for a few hours.

Have the farts drive out the N11 or M1 to courses in Wicklow or Meath etc. No need to have them 2 miles from the CC.

all sounds a bit communist to me.

ittakestwo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all sounds a bit communist to me.

I hear this a bit from others when rant about it. That is why I thought it would fit this thread

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all sounds a bit communist to me.

Did you overlook the word "bought"?

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Did you overlook the word "bought"?

did you overlook

for a absurdly low price,

ittakestwo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did you overlook

Did edit the post and removed it that as it was a bit OTT so they might not have read that bit.

Cienciano

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because?

I think so many people "hate" cyclists on boards is because cyclists always jump in with stupid arguments "but what about cars, they break red lights sometimes" as is that's a valid argument for cyclists doing the same thing.
There's always a cyclist brigade on boards that jump into threads with the same arguments and at the end of it the cyclists feel smug because they think they "won" and everyone else dislikes them a bit more. Cyclists are an easy target for trolls because you're guaranteed a reaction from them.

ohnonotgmail

ittakestwo wrote: »

Did edit the post and removed it that as it was a bit OTT so they might not have read that bit.

well that was awful of you, wasnt it.

dermo888

Cienciano wrote: »

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because?

I think so many people "hate" cyclists on boards is because cyclists always jump in with stupid arguments "but what about cars, they break red lights sometimes" as is that's a valid argument for cyclists doing the same thing.
There's always a cyclist brigade on boards that jump into threads with the same arguments and at the end of it the cyclists feel smug because they think they "won" and everyone else dislikes them a bit more. Cyclists are an easy target for trolls because you're guaranteed a reaction from them.

I'm a cyclist, and oh boy do I agree with you. 

Theres some right prize gob****es on the road with no regard for other road users or pedestrians, and bad cyclists are up there as the worst of them.