Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

cnocbui

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so they have to seek permission before having children? it is not really clear what you are proposing.



appropriate according to who, the government?
and if they don't do it appropriately they are not allowed to have more? that does sound a lot like the government gets to decide who can procreate.

Only highly intelligent, tall people in perfect health, with blonde hair and blue eyes should be allowed to reproduce, jawohl?

ohnonotgmail

cnocbui wrote: »

Only highly intelligent, tall people in perfect health, with blonde hair and blue eyes should be allowed to reproduce, jawohl?

it seems that way. Unfortunately for me I only meet 3 out of 5 of that criteria.

randd1

cnocbui wrote: »

How do you show those things in advance? I presume we'd need forced abortions for those who didn't get the nod beforehand or forced removal of the babies just after birth so the state can better care for them, which has been proven to be so successful and optimal in every country where state intervention in child rearing has taken place?

RE the bit in bold. Did you even hear of contraception? Effective contraception would prevent the rest of your opinion.

cnocbui wrote: »

How many thousands of public servants do you imagine would need to be employed to administer and enforce such a scheme and have you costed it it? How much?

None. Or rather, no more than we already have for large number of children that are not being cared for/neglected/abused.

cnocbui wrote: »

In the past, Aboriginal babies in Australia were taken from their parents to be reared by superior parenting white people. That worked out well. In Greenland, Innuit babies and children were removed from their familes and taken to Denmark to be raised with superior white european parents. That also worked out well.

I never said we should be removing children to be raised by perceived superior people. You're the one that brought that up. Shows your thinking and how spectacularly you missed the point really.

I'm saying if necessary remove children from neglectful/abusive parents (as we do already by the way), and prevent them same parents, via contraception, from having more children they can't/won't take care of.

cnocbui wrote: »

I am not surprised an Irish person is putting forward such an idea, you've got good form there. the rest of the world is mighty impressed.

Don't see why they would to be honest. A lot of the rest of the world have a far bloodier history than us Irish.

cnocbui wrote: »

The actual histories and consequences for children where state interventions and controls on fertility and nurturing were implimentad, read like horror stories.

Implemented.

Nurturing, yeah, the state should be nowhere near it. The state cannot be a parent, it never will. And I never advocated it should be.

As for the state controlling fertility, if the control of fertility means less children grow up neglected/abused, then why not? Some people are clearly not cut out for parenting.

cnocbui wrote: »

Your idea is incredibly stupid and shows a thorough lack of awareness for the history of such meddling.

I am perfectly aware of the history of such things. Nor is it stupid to discuss them. And as been pointed out to you, no-one is saying you can't children, just that you have the capability to fully take care of them before you have them. And if not, you don't have them.

No-one would willingly give a child over one or a couple of chronic heroine addicts or someone who refuses to look after their child or someone who abusses their child, for obvious reasons. What harm would be there in having them take contraception in the first place?

cnocbui wrote: »

I am aware of the thread title, and you sure hit one right out of the park, but the title does not suggest people shouldnt respond.

No-one said you shouldn't respond.

randd1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so they have to seek permission before having children? it is not really clear what you are proposing.

Yeah. Kind of. Instead of having children when you're not ready, or not capable, you're on contraception until you do. Then when you've though it out, and have a plan in place to have and rear children, properly, then you can.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

appropriate according to who, the government?
and if they don't do it appropriately they are not allowed to have more? that does sound a lot like the government gets to decide who can procreate.

There are plenty of people out there that shouldn't have children. I'd imagine you know some. There are plenty of children who grow up with horrible lives due to being the children that shouldn't have children having them.

So yeah, make sure people can take care of themselves and their children before they have them. And if you can't, then you don't get the privilege.

ohnonotgmail

randd1 wrote: »

Yeah. Kind of. Instead of having children when you're not ready, or not capable, you're on contraception until you do. Then when you've though it out, and have a plan in place to have and rear children, properly, then you can.



There are plenty of people out there that shouldn't have children. I'd imagine you know some. There are plenty of children who grow up with horrible lives due to being the children that shouldn't have children having them.

So yeah, make sure people can take care of themselves and their children before they have them. And if you can't, then you don't get the privilege.

so now you want forced contraception? is it only the woman who are forced to use contraception or are you going to make it compulsory for men to wear condoms?

randd1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so now you want forced contraception? is it only the woman who are forced to use contraception or are you going to make it compulsory for men to wear condoms?

I'd be thinking more along the lines of developing the male pill in conjunction with the female pill.

ohnonotgmail

randd1 wrote: »

I'd be thinking more along the lines of developing the male pill in conjunction with the female pill.

no contraception is 100% effective even when taken properly. should we force women to get abortions if the contraception fails? what happens to those who cannot take the contraception for medical reasons?

osarusan

randd1 wrote: »

A government programme should be formed with the main purpose of implementing order on the human population, starting with a standard pregnancy control programme that limits reproduction until a licence is granted to the couple, with people who don't take appropriate care of their first child not eligible to receive a licence for any more children.

What happens to those who have children without getting their licence?


Or is everybody (from the age of 18, say) receiving mandatory contraceptive doses until they prove themselves capable of having a child?

Thelonious Monk

We should be reducing populations and consumption and slowing down economies worldwide, or the planet is finished. It's unpopular but really the only solution.

randd1

osarusan wrote: »

What happens to those who have children without getting their licence?


Or is everybody (from the age of 18, say) receiving mandatory contraceptive doses until they prove themselves capable of having a child?

Option B. And I’d go with age 16.

randd1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no contraception is 100% effective even when taken properly. should we force women to get abortions if the contraception fails? what happens to those who cannot take the contraception for medical reasons?

Well, if both men and women have chemical contraceptives (ie the male and female pill), there’s a good chance that they won’t reproduce, even if one of them cannot take it for medical reasons.

And no, there would be no forced abortions. It’s not a eugenics programme. Or a class based, or race based or whatever programme, but rather a programme designed to make sure people understand the responsibility of, and are capable of, raising children before they actually have them.

Antares35

randd1 wrote: »

I'd be thinking more along the lines of developing the male pill in conjunction with the female pill.

The pill is a synthetic hormone that can seriously affect some people. I go psychotic (more so than usual ) on any form of it. I can't imagine being on it for a couple of decades. Also, condoms? I'm five months pregnant on the 2 percent. And we had our full faculties available to us when we used it. What hope would someone who is strung out have of even being able to open the box.

What would be the criteria for having a kid license? Would it be financial stability etc?

Antares35

Not as exciting as mandatory contraception, but my unpopular opinion is that any "virtual" celebration or event is a complete waste of time and minus fun.

randd1

Antares35 wrote: »

The pill is a synthetic hormone that can seriously affect some people. I go psychotic (more so than usual ) on any form of it. I can't imagine being on it for a couple of decades. Also, condoms? I'm five months pregnant on the 2 percent. And we had our full faculties available to us when we used it. What hope would someone who is strung out have of even being able to open the box.

What would be the criteria for having a kid license? Would it be financial stability etc?

A more general mix of mental, financial and lifestyle stability, with a clear understanding to the responsibilities of raising a child.

For example, a lad who inherited millions who is a heroine abuser that spends all day throwing faeces at people as they pass on the street because his brain is badly messed up that he sometimes think he's a monkey probably wouldn't get the go ahead.

Antares35

randd1 wrote: »

A more general mix of mental, financial and lifestyle stability, with a clear understanding to the responsibilities of raising a child.

For example, a lad who inherited millions who is a heroine abuser that spends all day throwing faeces at people as they pass on the street because his brain is badly messed up that he sometimes think he's a monkey probably wouldn't get the go ahead.

Well there's a load of people ruled out!

McGinniesta

I'd bang Davina McCall. There, I said it.

castletownman

Rachael Blackmore is a credit to her sport, not only because she is competing at the highest level against male rivals, but also because she is never drawn into a gender debate in any interview. She keeps her head down and works hard- she lets her talent do the talking. No "women don't get equal opportunity in my sport" spiel from her.

A few protagonists in female sport could follow her example.

ingalway

castletownman wrote: »

Rachael Blackmore is a credit to her sport, not only because she is competing at the highest level against male rivals, but also because she is never drawn into a gender debate in any interview. She keeps her head down and works hard- she lets her talent do the talking. No "women don't get equal opportunity in my sport" spiel from her.

A few protagonists in female sport could follow her example.

Rachael Blackmore is an absolute superstar for sure but there are many cases where women should and must speak up about the 'gender debate' as they have no chance of competing fairly or safely.

How about Tamika Brents the female wrestler who had her skull broken by trans fighter Fallon Fox, should she keep her broken head down and work harder to defeat a trans identified male?

After the fight Brents said:

“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch."

Fox stated that she enjoyed breaking her skull in the ring as Brents is a "TERF" - a derogatory slur used by trans rights activisits against women who are critical of gender identity and wish to keep single sex based rights, spaces and sports.

https://twitter.com/dotatomos/status/1273238910957576194?lang=en

Antares35

I'm not sure how I feel about "throuples". I'm also not sure how I feel about throuples becoming parents.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm not sure how I feel about "throuples". I'm also not sure how I feel about throuples becoming parents.

Throuples are a no from me. Another first world problem. I’ll reserve judgement on the kids element. A happy home is more important for kids than anything else.

85603

We should join the list of countries banning the burqa/face veil.

quintana76

85603 wrote: »

We should join the list of countries banning the burqa/face veil.

Some chance!! We will be the last to do it and only then when there is some international pressure.
Do you really think any of our politicians have the balls or even care about something like that.
On the rare occasion it is pointed out to them they just virtue signal and evade the issue.

In fact because the burka is now banned in Denmark the Somalis are now all coming to Ireland for the soft touch.
This country is lost.

Rodin

quintana76 wrote: »

Some chance!! We will be the last to do it and only then when there is some international pressure.
Do you really think any of our politicians have the balls or even care about something like that.
On the rare occasion it is pointed out to them they just virtue signal and evade the issue.

In fact because the burka is now banned in Denmark the Somalis are now all coming to Ireland for the soft touch.
This country is lost.

In an era of Covid facemasks there's no chance of a faceveil being banned here. Never was really though. We're too Liberal.

Ash.J.Williams

85603 wrote: »

We should join the list of countries banning the burqa/face veil.

I would have agreed years ago but it hasn’t caused us any issues has it ?

quintana76

Rodin wrote: »

In an era of Covid facemasks there's no chance of a faceveil being banned here. Never was really though. We're too Liberal.

....or too afraid or too indifferent to take a stand.

Ash.J.Williams

quintana76 wrote: »

....or too afraid or too indifferent to take a stand.

Take a stand against ?

Rodin

quintana76 wrote: »

....or too afraid or too indifferent to take a stand.

Democracy is unfortunately decided by the majority.
Very few conservatives in Ireland

Ash.J.Williams

Rodin wrote: »

Democracy is unfortunately decided by the majority.
Very few conservatives in Ireland

You’d prefer the minority to decide?

Rodin

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You’d prefer the minority to decide?

I like the idea of a technocracy.

cnocbui

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I would have agreed years ago but it hasn’t caused us any issues has it ?

It causes offence, which is an issue. When in Rome...