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

Mad_maxx

Faugheen wrote: »

Why?

Why have you such an issue with referring to someone non-binary as they/them?

because its self indulgent wankery

Faugheen

Mad_maxx wrote: »

because its self indulgent wankery

You know this kind of language was used about gay people not too long ago.

The type of people who try to tell others how they feel and what they go through are the type who would argue with the wall if they thought it was a door. It's the type of thing someone would do to try and control/manipulate a partner.

You have literally never been in a situation where you feel this way. Who are you to dismiss those who have to suffer with issues around gender identity as 'self-indulgent ****'?

And before you try to make the bad-faith argument that you never called people self-indulgent ****, describing it like you have done in bold means you are labelling people as such.

Have a little bit of respect for other people and you will find this issue isn't as tedious as you want it to be.

Mad_maxx

Faugheen wrote: »

You know this kind of language was used about gay people not too long ago.

The type of people who try to tell others how they feel and what they go through are the type who would argue with the wall if they thought it was a door. It's the type of thing someone would do to try and control/manipulate a partner.

You have literally never been in a situation where you feel this way. Who are you to dismiss those who have to suffer with issues around gender identity as 'self-indulgent ****'?

And before you try to make the bad-faith argument that you never called people self-indulgent ****, describing it like you have done in bold means you are labelling people as such.

Have a little bit of respect for other people and you will find this issue isn't as tedious as you want it to be.

if the miniscule number of people who believe they need to change their sex get happiness out of doing so , best of luck to them , the conversation which has emerged this past few years however would have us believe that there are so many people unsure about their identity , that it warrants three bathrooms in a school or office etc

the whole " trans " thing is pure contrived self indulgent tripe for narcissistic tossers in the majority of cases

Faugheen

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if the miniscule number of people who believe they need to change their sex get happiness out of doing so , best of luck to them

Yeah, best of luck to the self-indulgent ****.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the conversation which has emerged this past few years however would have us believe that there are so many people unsure about their identity , that it warrants three bathrooms in a school or office etc

And the number of people could be 1 and 100. What's the problem with designating one toilet to save them being uncomfortable in school or the office?

The issue of the toilets is such a red-herring. Honestly. One toilet.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the whole " trans " thing is pure contrived self indulgent tripe for narcissistic tossers in the majority of cases

Prove it.

Potential-Monke

Thought I was reading the Gender Identity in Modern Ireland thread there for the last few pages, until I realised I was in the Unpopular Opinions thread... So now I still have a few pages of the same back and forth shyte to go through on the Identity thread... Great!

Overheal

Mad_maxx wrote: »

if the miniscule number of people who believe they need to change their sex get happiness out of doing so , best of luck to them , the conversation which has emerged this past few years however would have us believe that there are so many people unsure about their identity , that it warrants three bathrooms in a school or office etc

the whole " trans " thing is pure contrived self indulgent tripe for narcissistic tossers in the majority of cases

The only reason there is bathroom hysteria is because of transphobia. US Republicans made a national crisis out of men pretending to be women to kidnap or ogle children in public restrooms - it was a total bogeyman. National media hyped it and so it carried overseas and here we are.

John Doe1

All these Twitter SJWs who get riled up by every little thing are some of the most closed minded people you can meet and as a group seem to be more mentally unstable than others.

Any other century in the history of mankind and these people would be in the lunatic asylum but we have to put up with them these days

Esho

Any public servant who fails to discipline someone they are responsible for should lose their job. Likewise any public servant's manager who fails to back up a subordinate who wants to take action, because theiyte afraid of being called a racist.

Esho

paw patrol wrote: »

yes and it's point I as a parent don't agree with. They* ARE pushing it and it's all LGBT from Cartoon Network and more...I'm not listing them cos I'd have to look them up , I don't keep a note pad to hand of things that I disagree with.

Why? Why can't stuff happen organically in a childs life, who are these corporates to decide to introduce these concepts to the child? Who are they to decide to normalise concepts with children that aren't theirs?

Sure I could ban this stuff from my house but I don't believe in keeping my kids locked up (physically ,mentally or spiritually) so they will be exposed to it when out and about. But lego isn't the appropriate delivery vehicle nor is Cartoon Network.

I have 3 kids , the eldest is 19 and he is aware of LGBT (of course!) so it's not like I never told him - I did when he was a young teen along with the rest of the sex stuff. The younger 2 would be aware of gay people but not au fait with the mechanics of it all and not the twitter politics of LGBT or pronouns or the rest of that gash. That can wait till they are age appropriate. For the moment that should do lego for the sake of lego.

You can disagree and that's fine , we don't parent the same kids.

* who are they? well isn't that the question cos if you knew that you'd know what was really at play.
A concern for human rights...noble until these you realise same corporates don't sell the LGBT in other parts of the world like China or middle east. odd that.

Btw separate gay people from LGBT and we could reach and agreement.
But pronouns and the rest of the letters after B....nah fcuk that.

So happy we're out of the bad old days where any effem boy got regular beatings and bullying.
I'm really happy when I see same sex people holding hands, or a guy in a beard and a dress.
Fair fex to them, that they can be themselves.

BUT the whole trans thing, where young teenagrers - who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground- are facilited to life changing decisions.
Half the girls in my kids class are now bi, fluid or whatever. Insta-bi, insta-les
You don't get this mental sewerage in the non English speaking world.

Potential-Monke

Esho wrote: »

Any public servant who fails to discipline someone they are responsible for should lose their job. Likewise any public servant's manager who fails to back up a subordinate who wants to take action, because theiyte afraid of being called a racist.

Why just public servants? I've been in quite a few private sector jobs where the people responsible were not doing what they should either.

Wanderer78

Potential-Monke wrote:

Why just public servants? I've been in quite a few private sector jobs where the people responsible were not doing what they should either.

Public sector bad, private sector good!

ThunbergsAreGo

The Twitter pro abortion people are some of the worst winners in history. Still dividing the country in to pro anti abortion /life and demonising the "wrong" side.

Their divisive abuse of "the other side" emboldened by politicians and the media only further divides the country on an issue that is settled.

The media bias and narrative during that referendum was a disgrace (and I voted change)

Wanderer78

ThunbergsAreGo wrote:

Their divisive abuse of "the other side" emboldened by politicians and the media only further divides the country on an issue that is settled.

.... Are many truly still thinking about this?

Necro

Please refer any further discussion on Gender Identity to the dedicated thread

paw patrol

Brian? wrote: »

Let’s be clear, is it the T you really have a problem with?

I can't answer this as per the mods instructions.

Faugheen

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Their divisive abuse of "the other side" emboldened by politicians and the media only further divides the country on an issue that is settled.

The media bias and narrative during that referendum was a disgrace (and I voted change)

Divisive abuse? All I heard was the no side being asked for alternatives and they couldn’t offer one.

All I saw was women being encouraged to carry to term regardless of their situation or circumstances and those asking for that being called out - with no alternative offered to the 8th being repealed.

‘Pro-abortion’ was the most divisive term used in that referendum campaign, and it wasn’t the yes side that were saying it.

Mad_maxx

Faugheen wrote: »

Divisive abuse? All I heard was the no side being asked for alternatives and they couldn’t offer one.

All I saw was women being encouraged to carry to term regardless of their situation or circumstances and those asking for that being called out - with no alternative offered to the 8th being repealed.

‘Pro-abortion’ was the most divisive term used in that referendum campaign, and it wasn’t the yes side that were saying it.

Why are the " repeal " crowd still holding twitter trials for those who weren't " pro choice " enough three years on ?

Are they such unambitious losers, they need to recycle their old wins ?

ThunbergsAreGo

Faugheen wrote: »

Divisive abuse? All I heard was the no side being asked for alternatives and they couldn’t offer one.

All I saw was women being encouraged to carry to term regardless of their situation or circumstances and those asking for that being called out - with no alternative offered to the 8th being repealed.

‘Pro-abortion’ was the most divisive term used in that referendum campaign, and it wasn’t the yes side that were saying it.

Just type James Geoghan into Twitter

It still seems to be an issue for one side, I had hoped it was settled

Faugheen

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Just type James Geoghan into Twitter

It still seems to be an issue for one side, I had hoped it was settled

Is it ****e. The politicizing that was made out that horrific case where a couple had a termination after being told incorrectly that their child at a FFA was disgraceful. Again, that wasn’t coming from pro-repeal.

And James Geoghegan has been making out the 8th repeal to be this great achievement, when fact is he was a founding member of a party that was set up solely to keep the 8th. He deserves to be held to task on that especially if he’s running for a position where he has potential influence on abortion laws here.

It’s like some people don’t want questions asked of potential public representatives on issues they agree with.

ThunbergsAreGo

Faugheen wrote: »

Is it ****e. The politicizing that was made out that horrific case where a couple had a termination after being told incorrectly that their child at a FFA was disgraceful. Again, that wasn’t coming from pro-repeal.

And James Geoghegan has been making out the 8th repeal to be this great achievement, when fact is he was a founding member of a party that was set up solely to keep the 8th. He deserves to be held to task on that especially if he’s running for a position where he has potential influence on abortion laws here.

It’s like some people don’t want questions asked of potential public representatives on issues they agree with.

Renua allowed members a free vote on abortion when it was set up

paw patrol

Faugheen wrote: »

Divisive abuse? All I heard was the no side being asked for alternatives and they couldn’t offer one.

All I saw was women being encouraged to carry to term regardless of their situation or circumstances and those asking for that being called out - with no alternative offered to the 8th being repealed.

‘Pro-abortion’ was the most divisive term used in that referendum campaign, and it wasn’t the yes side that were saying it.

regardless of Circumstance - I like how you word that as if all these women were in terrible situations...shoehorning all women into one category.

The terrible circumstance argument was only a ploy, when most abortions are by women who aren't in those circumstance.
Those women were used by the pro abortion lobby to get their foot in the door using emotionally difficult arguments. To pull the heartstrings of the fence sitters.
In the UK in 2019 (England and Wales) 98% of abortions were in CAT C.
which is the catch all category.

cos it ignores
Cat A - risk to life of the mother
Cat B - risk of grave permanent injury (physical or mental)
Cat D - Risk of injury to women's existing children
Cat E - Handicap or deformity of the unborn
Cat F - save the life of the pregnant woman
Cat G - To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.


But what of cat C, it says

That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk,
greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

which I'm sure has genuine cases but it's the catch all.
But all the terrible cases as argued by the repeal crew would be accounted for in the other categories.

So all the arguments of the Repeal the 8th account for 2% of abortions in england and wales.
Sure it's not ireland but it's reasonable to assume our stats wouldn't be a million miles away.

For most it's a choice - you can dress it up anyway you want but it boils down to sexual irresponsibility - and the misguided opinion sex without any consequences is a basic right.

Of course the terrible circumstances exist, there is no denying this.
But as the UK stats show ...only 2% are ticking that category.

the abortion battle is over - but spare me the lies.

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

regardless of Circumstance - I like how you word that as if all these women were om terrible situations...shoehorning all women into one category.

The terrible circumstance argument was only a ploy, when most abortions are by women who aren't in those circumstance.
Those women were used by the pro abortion lobby to get their foot in the door using emotionally difficult arguments/. To pull the heartstrings of the fence sitters.
In the UK in 2019 (england and wales) 98% of abortions were in CAT C.
which is the catch all category.

cos it ignores
Cat A - risk to life of the mother
Cat B - risk of grave permanent injury (physical or mental)
Cat D - Risk of injury to women's existing children
Cat E - Handicap or deformity of the unborn
Cat F - save the life of the pregnant woman
Cat G - To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.


But what of cat C, it says



which I'm sure has genuine cases but it's the catch all. But all the terrible cases as argued by the repeal crew would be accounted for in the other categories.

So all the arguments of the Repeal the 8th account for 2% of abortions in england and wales.
Sure it's not ireland but it's reasonable to assume our stats wouldn't be a million miles away.

For most it's a choice - you can dress it up anyway you want but it boils down to sexual irresponsibility - and the misguided opinion sex without any consequences is a basic right.

Of course the terrible circumstances exist, there is no denying this.
But as the UK stats show ...only 2% are ticking that category.

the abortion battle is over - spare me the lies.

and of course it all boils down to "they are sluts so they deserve whatever happens to them". 'Twas ever thus.

paw patrol

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and of course it all boils down to "they are sluts so they deserve whatever happens to them". 'Twas ever thus.

if take was your takeaway from my post , I can't help you.

you confuse me as a poster. while we disagree on many topics on boards some of our posts are well written and provoke thought esp if I'm considering a response but some are utter gash and indicate you are a simpleton. I don't think you are actually a simpleton just in case you (or the mods) get upset.

sadly this post is in the latter category.

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

if take was your takeaway from my post , I can't help you.

you confuse me as a poster. while we disagree on many topics on boards some of our posts are well written and provoke thought esp if I'm considering a response but some are utter gash and indicate you are a simpleton. I don't think you are actually a simpleton just in case you (or the mods) get upset.

sadly this post is in the latter category.

I tailor the quality of my posts to match the quality of the posts I respond to.

paw patrol

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I tailor the quality of my posts to match the quality of the posts I respond to.

:pac::pac:
That was a great come back . I did genuinely laugh.

But be your own person , don't let others like me drag you to our level

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and of course it all boils down to "they are sluts so they deserve whatever happens to them". 'Twas ever thus.

Thats not what they said.

It takes both a male and female to become pregnant. An unplanned and unwanted pregnancy as a result of unprotected consensual sex, is sexual irresponsibility.
What else is it?

Apportioning responsibility (or blame) is another matter.

ohnonotgmail

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Thats not what they said.

It takes both a male and female to become pregnant. An unplanned and unwanted pregnancy as a result of unprotected consensual sex, is sexual irresponsibility.
What else is it?

Apportioning responsibility (or blame) is another matter.

so what? people are irresponsible all the time. what good will it do to either the mother or the child by forcing the mother to carry the child to term? what is the problem with allowing the woman to make medical decisions for herself? why you do you think you are better placed to make that decision for her? it is attitudes like yours that led to the mother and baby homes and the magdelene laundries.

paw patrol

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Thats not what they said.

It takes both a male and female to become pregnant. An unplanned and unwanted pregnancy as a result of unprotected consensual sex, is sexual irresponsibility.
What else is it?

Apportioning responsibility (or blame) is another matter.

you get it -
I pains me the number of posters who reply to something that was never said.

cms88

paw patrol wrote: »

you get it -
I pains me the number of posters who reply to something that was never said.

And the same posters will get the hump if the same is done to them...

Esho

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Public sector bad, private sector good!

Because I've seen it in the public sector, not private.
But private sector too, dammit.