Publicly unacceptable opinions

Chris_Heilong

Try_harder wrote: »

People should take the https://www.politicalcompass.org test

I'm near Ghandi!

That is too far left, lol.

I am centre left(on the test) and feel we need limited immigration, I feel Women get payed for what they work(I dont care about what a tiny percent of CEOs earn I mean normal jobs) and have had the same rights as men for years and Islam is problematic to western values and needs to be called on it.

sbsquarepants

I like that political compass site. I've just printed myself a very nice certificate, proving beyond all reasonable doubt that myself and Nelson Mandella are one and the same! I'll take that I suppose:D

I would have classed myself as a quite a bit more libertarian though.

Edit - I've just read the explanation of the certificate - the people on it are only in the correct quadrant, their placement in the quadrant is purely aesthetic. Still, I'm in the opposite quadrant to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and in the same as Mandella and Ghandi, so I think I'm probably where I should be!

PlaneSpeeking

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

That is too far left, lol.

I am centre left(on the test) and feel we need limited immigration, I feel Women get payed for what they work(I dont care about what a tiny percent of CEOs earn I mean normal jobs) and have had the same rights as men for years and Islam is problematic to western values and needs to be called on it.

Apparently I'm in the "right authoritarian" quadrant.

Apparently I share values with General Pinochet. Who knew ?!!!

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Still, I'm in the opposite quadrant to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Eh.... and Plane Speaking:D

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Eh.... and Plane Speaking:D

So you're good lol!!!!!!

DEFTLEFTHAND

I don't know where the perception comes from that only old farts play golf in Ireland. The game has massive representation from all age groups and get this even women play it.:eek::eek:

We'd over 80 u12s playing in a junior open last Saturday morning.

PlaneSpeeking

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I don't know where the perception comes from that only old farts play golf in Ireland. The game has massive representation from all age groups and get this even women play it.:eek::eek:

We'd over 80 u12s playing in a junior open last Saturday morning.

On of our Vice Deans plays off 2 and regularly beats the men!!

They're not thrilled!!!!

Wheety

That people should have to work to afford kids/houses.

Hotblack Desiato

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I don't know where the perception comes from that only old farts play golf in Ireland. The game has massive representation from all age groups and get this even women play it.:eek::eek:

We'd over 80 u12s playing in a junior open last Saturday morning.

on the expensive courses within the M50 though?

PlaneSpeeking

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

on the expensive courses within the M50 though?

Why not ?

If they can afford green fees then sure. I tried to learn years ago (I hit my own led on the downswing - probably not for me!!) but it was at a driving range in the UK where a bucket of 40 balls was 8 sterling.

The Vice Dean I mentioned has a membership for Portmarnock costing - I think - a few grand a year. Each to their own.

Shenshen

Another publicly unacceptable opinion I just realised I have :

Nobody should care what another person wears, or how much. I don't mind seeing naked people, nevermind how old and flabby they might be, and I don't mind nuns or women wearing burqas. The only thing I DO mind is that it should be the person's choice how much or how little they wear.

Skelet0n

Nurses should be allowed to put restraints on aggressive patients.

PlaneSpeeking

Shenshen wrote: »

Another publicly unacceptable opinion I just realised I have :

Nobody should care what another person wears, or how much. I don't mind seeing naked people, nevermind how old and flabby they might be, and I don't mind nuns or women wearing burqas. The only thing I DO mind is that it should be the person's choice how much or how little they wear.

That is exactly bang on the point!

There is nothing worse than during the recent heatwave seeing a dude walk through Dublin in shorts and t-shirt looking cool, when his wife and daughters are next to him in head to toe, face covered black cloth.

That is not their choice surely and is as much of a problem as the stories you hear of boyfriends making their girlfriends wear baggy stuff as they have an issue with them dressing a certain way.

Choice is key.

Shenshen

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That is exactly bang on the point!

There is nothing worse than during the recent heatwave seeing a dude walk through Dublin in shorts and t-shirt looking cool, when his wife and daughters are next to him in head to toe, face covered black cloth.

That is not their choice surely and is as much of a problem as the stories you hear of boyfriends making their girlfriends wear baggy stuff as they have an issue with them dressing a certain way.

Choice is key.

I was actually far more annoyed at the blokes running around in just a pair of shorts, bellies and man-tits on full display, yet if I dared to undress I'd be liable to be fined.
Good thing my garden isn't overlooked.

Can't say if it was the choice of the ladies you mentioned - as I said, when growing up in Germany I saw nuns walk around in full black gear (long dress, long sleeves, and full head cover) in 37 degrees.
But anyone unhappy with the clothing prescriptions society or their family is trying to place on them has my full support.

PlaneSpeeking

Shenshen wrote: »

I was actually far more annoyed at the blokes running around in just a pair of shorts, bellies and man-tits on full display, yet if I dared to undress I'd be liable to be fined.
Good thing my garden isn't overlooked.

Can't say if it was the choice of the ladies you mentioned - as I said, when growing up in Germany I saw nuns walk around in full black gear (long dress, long sleeves, and full head cover) in 37 degrees.
But anyone unhappy with the clothing prescriptions society or their family is trying to place on them has my full support.

Some blokes can get away with it - but unless you're built like a supermodel, us girls tend to be asked nay begged to cover up.

No one wants to see me topless I guarantee!!

Shenshen

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Some blokes can get away with it - but unless you're built like a supermodel, us girls tend to be asked nay begged to cover up.

No one wants to see me topless I guarantee!!

That might be my next unacceptable opinion : It's none of their f*cking business. There's tons of stuff I don't want to look at, but I don't demand the world conform to my aesthetic sensibilities. There's no such thing a a right to only lay eyes on beauty. So the argument that people shouldn't be naked because they don't conform to some beauty standard - F*ck that.



Actually, it's a very strong opinion I've got there

AndrewJRenko

dermo888 wrote: »

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.

There are certainly prize gob****es on bikes, in cars and on foot. But I'm not sure about the 'up there with the worst of them ". It's not the gob****es on bikes that are killing 3 or 4 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.

PlaneSpeeking

I love it when a point is proved and people are made to look stupid.

May be unpopular but what are ya gonna do ???!!!

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I love it when a point is proved and people are made to look stupid.

May be unpopular but what are ya gonna do ???!!!

No need to be so coy, Plane - why not have the courage of your convictions and say what you really mean?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No one wants to see me topless I guarantee!!

I guarantee you that you're wrong. I guarantee you that there is a community of blokes who would be absolutely over the moon to see you topless. There are all kinds of speciality categories in porn.



Just to be clear, I'm not recommending porn or suggesting this is something you should do. I'm just commenting on the audience, rather than on yourself.

Cienciano wrote: »

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 ran this through Google Translate and here's what I got;

I wanted to come on boards, and post some biased, bigoted nonsense that has no basis in fact to have a go at a vulnerable group. I was dreadfully disappointed when some nasty people (those vulnerable ones I was having a go at) used facts and evidence to prove me wrong.



I hate it when facts get in the way of a good prejudiced rant.

PlaneSpeeking

Cyclists who thinks the world revolves around them and the shines out of their a**e and will accept zero responsibility for ANY bad cyclists behaviour.

Yet can happily parrot anti car statistics that came from the same place as they thought the sun did in response.

It's purely Pavlovian at this point.

Muggers with guns have TECHNICALLY killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. Does that mean we excuse ISIS and let them do whatever they want while we demonise muggers ??? Idiotic point of view at best.

marieholmfan

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Cyclists who thinks the world revolves around them and the shines out of their a**e and will accept zero responsibility for ANY bad cyclists behaviour.

Yet can happily parrot anti car statistics that came from the same place as they thought the sun did in response.

It's purely Pavlovian at this point.

Muggers with guns have TECHNICALLY killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. Does that mean we excuse ISIS and let them do whatever they want while we demonise muggers ??? Idiotic point of view at best.

What's this we business. Are you now or have you ever been an American?

PlaneSpeeking

marieholmfan wrote: »

What's this we business. Are you now or have you ever been an American?

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

As the poster above said; we live in Ireland's society, not American's.

What a toxic poster you are. Spreading nothing but hate and extremism. While having a go at others like me for trying to spread moderation and rationality. Tut Tut.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

As the poster above said; we live in Ireland's society, not American's.

What a toxic poster you are. Spreading nothing but hate and extremism. While having a go at others like me for trying to spread moderation and rationality. Tut Tut.

Still waiting on the proof for the slur you cast at me.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Still waiting on the proof for the slur you cast at me.

Posted it two days ago.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

Posted it two days ago.

You did not.

Thread - post number - or be silent.

ohnonotgmail

keffiyeh wrote: »

Posted it two days ago.

can you link to the post?

marieholmfan

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

They're foreigners and we haven't done anything about ISIS full stop and we aren't going to. Ye have your society and we have ours. I certainly don't want to live in an American style society.

keffiyeh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you link to the post?

Someone talking to you?

If you think I'm trawling through posts to please dumbass trolls you have another thing coming.

I posted two links. A page defining it and even a story from the last few days where it happened on a company's Twitter account and caused a bit of internet drama. Missed the post? Your problem.

ohnonotgmail

keffiyeh wrote: »

Someone talking to you?

If you think I'm trawling through posts to please dumbass trolls you have another thing coming.

I posted two links. A page defining it and even a story from the last few days where it happened on a company's Twitter account and caused a bit of internet drama. Missed the post? Your problem.

you haven't posted on this thread for two weeks until today. Perhaps you have your accounts mixed up?

keffiyeh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you only made the allegation a day ago yet you claim that you posted links 2 days ago. I really do think you have your accounts mixed up.

Then that would require a separate account posting the exact same links, and yet you managed to miss both?

Or, I just don't give a **** how long it was and I'm not a sad act tracking people's posts.

Think before you troll.

freshpopcorn

Mod Note Stop with the bickering and keep thing on topic.

Kivaro

And that's a publicly acceptable opinion.

weldoninhio

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

Rumoured. There’s your first mistake. He signed on a Bosman, that’s true, but he wouldn’t have gotten a huge signing on fee.

£25k a week for how long? 2 years, with one of them in the Championship with Leeds?

That comes to £2.4m

Was that in a contract WORTH £25k a week, or a flat rate of £25k, with none of it linked to appearances, win bonuses, trophies won, staying injury free??

How much tax was paid on the £25k a week??

weldoninhio

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

Rumoured. There’s your first mistake. He signed on a Bosman, that’s true, but he wouldn’t have gotten a huge signing on fee.

£25k a week for how long? 2 years, with one of them in the Championship with Leeds?

That comes to £2.4m

Was that in a contract WORTH £25k a week, or a flat rate of £25k, with none of it linked to appearances, win bonuses, trophies won, staying injury free??

How much tax was paid on the £25k a week??

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Cyclists who thinks the world revolves around them and the shines out of their a**e and will accept zero responsibility for ANY bad cyclists behaviour.

Yet can happily parrot anti car statistics that came from the same place as they thought the sun did in response.

It's purely Pavlovian at this point.

Muggers with guns have TECHNICALLY killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. Does that mean we excuse ISIS and let them do whatever they want while we demonise muggers ??? Idiotic point of view at best.

Why do you think cyclists as a group, or individual cyclists should be taking responsibility for the behaviour of some cyclists?


Do you, as a motorist, take responsibility for the motorists who killed 3 or 4 people on the road this week?

KevinCavan

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

sbsquarepants

I don't think it's necessarily a female thing. I work and I have kids - there's no question in my mind where I'd rather spend the bulk of my time.
I work solely out of necessity, not desire!

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do you think cyclists as a group, or individual cyclists should be taking responsibility for the behaviour of some cyclists?


Do you, as a motorist, take responsibility for the motorists who killed 3 or 4 people on the road this week?

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

PlaneSpeeking

weldoninhio wrote: »

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

Hear hear!

Chris_Heilong

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Hotblack Desiato

Assigning groupthink to women (or men) on the basis of their gender is just incredibly sexist and dumb.

Maggie Thatcher was an actual mother but you didn't see much in the way of "maternal instinct" in her policies, did you?

AndrewJRenko

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Have you met Marie LePen? Or Sarah Palin? Or Lucinda from Renua? Or yer wan from the Irish Nationalist Party?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assigning groupthink to women (or men) on the basis of their gender is just incredibly sexist and dumb.

Maggie Thatcher was an actual mother but you didn't see much in the way of "maternal instinct" in her policies, did you?

There will always be outliers and exceptions to the rule.

Undividual

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Have you met Marie LePen? Or Sarah Palin? Or Lucinda from Renua? Or yer wan from the Irish Nationalist Party?

Or Justin Trudeau?

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hear hear!

So you got around to jumping on this bandwagon, but you didn't have time to answer my question about why you apply collective responsibility to cyclists?

weldoninhio wrote: »

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

They're not RTAs. They are RTCs. Collisions, not accidents. Gardai call them collisions. RSA call them collisions. Let's not let people off the hook with this accident nonsense.

But on the substantive question, your assumption would not be a sound assumption. Here's why:

First of all, cyclist deaths are a very small part of the overall road deaths - about 5%. About 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists or passengers. So you're not really going to find a credible way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those. Another 20% are pedestrians killed by motorists and about 5% are cyclists.

So even if you were to assume that ALL cyclist deaths were the fault of the cyclists (which they're not) that still leaves 95% of road deaths at the hands of motorists. The cyclist numbers aren't significant in the overall picture.

And then let's look at the cyclist deaths themselves. These cases are generally very well reported, though possibly 2-3 years in arrears. They show up in court cases and coroner's inquests. They are also included in the RSA analyses of road deaths. So the causes are well known, and by and large, it is motorists at fault.

There were a handful of cases where cyclists were at fault. I'm thinking of the drunk guy who cycled onto the M1, the club cyclist who came off into a ditch during a steep descent in Wicklow, and the guy who cycled into the back of the car that parked to ask him directions in Cork. There's probably a couple more that I've missed, but the numbers are tiny. The remaining cases show cyclists killed by motorists.

This matches the international trend where research into cyclist/motorist collisions are generally the cause of the motorist. Research in London showed up about 70% motorist fault, Adelaide was about 80% motorist fault, Vancouver was 92% motorist fault.

But isn't it strange how some people are so desperate to blame victims?

HappyAsLarE

Women cherry pick professions that suit them. No labouring, climbing cranes, working sites.

Irish Kings

I know the current Irish state authorities are the ones responsible for administering justice for victims and dealing with the criminal Irish Bishops who conspired to cover up crimes.

HappyAsLarE

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Women cherry pick professions that suit them. No labouring, climbing cranes, working sites.

And? Why is this an unacceptable opinion? I would have thought a woman climbing a crane would be more unacceptable!

Hector Bellend

There's an aussie bird that drinks in my local and she has a truly splendid arse on her.

Apparently it's unacceptable to compliment a girls arse these days.