Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Dunge]

55 minutes ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

Really? hhhmmmm - It's a proper shitshow at the moment and set to continue 

 

 

Frankly, even if your foe crashes the economy now, she outlasted a lettuce in doing so.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

Really? hhhmmmm - It's a proper shitshow at the moment and set to continue 

 

 

Yeh imo, that day was pure panic stations, it was like being trolled by a YouTube influencer who was running a campaign like - 'WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I BECAME UK CHANCELLOR FOR A DAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS'

I was away that day and then got summoned back in over the weekend because of that pair of clowns, I amongst others thought what was announced was a joke. I still remember Kwasi's face during that 'fiscal event', and maybe it was all a big ploy on how much the British public will accept

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh imo, that day was pure panic stations, it was like being trolled by a YouTube influencer who was running a campaign like - 'WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I BECAME UK CHANCELLOR FOR A DAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS'

I was away that day and then got summoned back in over the weekend because of that pair of clowns, I amongst others thought what was announced was a joke. I still remember Kwasi's face during that 'fiscal event', and maybe it was all a big ploy on how much the British public will accept

It was the end game of the Americanisation of European Politics - dreaming of a Libertarian utopia in Europe. Thankfully the British public and markets saw through it (at least for now).

[Fox1norfolk]

On 23/03/2025 at 13:28, Bilo said:

It sounds like a great idea—cut taxes for millions, help people keep more of their hard-earned money, and ease the cost-of-living squeeze. But there are some major pitfalls no one has yet mentioned. 

 

For starters, it would take tens of billions out of government revenues, and income tax funds the NHS, schools, and infrastructure. Where does that money come from? More borrowing? Cuts to vital services? Then there’s the fact that it wouldn’t actually help the lowest earners. If you make under £12,570, you already don’t pay income tax, so you’d see no benefit at all. Meanwhile, someone on £40k+ would get a hefty tax cut. If the goal is to help those struggling, increasing tax credits or benefits would be a much more effective way to do it.

 

There’s also the risk that putting more money into people’s pockets could push up inflation, which might mean the Bank of England keeping interest rates higher for longer, cancelling out any benefit. Pensioners wouldn’t see much of a gain either, but they’d definitely feel the effects of any cuts to public services if the government had to plug the funding gap. On top of that, because Scotland has different income tax bands, raising the personal allowance could disproportionately benefit Scottish taxpayers, causing political tensions.

 

Rather than a blanket rise, the government could unfreeze the allowance and let it rise with inflation, cut National Insurance so all workers benefit (including the lowest-paid), or strengthen tax credits and benefits to directly support those who need it most. A personal allowance increase sounds nice in theory, but in practice, it’s an expensive, untargeted move that doesn’t actually help the people who need it most. 

 

As a pensioner I’m fortunate to also have an annuity, but not massive one. The triple lock increases the state pension by 4%, but people like me don’t benefit as the increase in the state pension is deducted as extra tax off my annuity.payment

[Otis]

11 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

As a pensioner I’m fortunate to also have an annuity, but not massive one. The triple lock increases the state pension by 4%, but people like me don’t benefit as the increase in the state pension is deducted as extra tax off my annuity.payment

Only 20% of any increase. 

So you do benefit. 

[bovril]

You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Everton and their fanbase

[UniFox21]

7 hours ago, bovril said:

You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Everton and their fanbase

I really hate "the fan base deserves", "the club deserves" statements

[Zear0]

27 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

I really hate "the fan base deserves", "the club deserves" statements

"The club deserves relegating" seems quite appropriate atm... 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

"The club deserves relegating" seems quite appropriate atm... 

We deserve no such thing. We totally earned this relegation through our lack of graft and testicular fortitude.

[FoyleFox]

9 hours ago, bovril said:

You do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Everton and their fanbase

Wrong thread, should be in the absolutely spot on thread.

[leicsmac]

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

Edited 12 April by leicsmac

[DennisNedry]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

How do you think they will they have it harder? 

[bovril]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

I just got back from an NCT course and am a bit annoyed I missed a fun day out in Brighton, so maybe you're right 

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

I know it’s unpopular opinions, but that’s a bit much dude.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

How do you think they will they have it harder? 

Massive resource scarcity issues driven by a multitude of factors, among them increased consumption at various social levels and lowered biodiversity caused by that overconsumption and other human activity.

 

Increased inequality driven by the above and other factors which will mean a lot of people born at this time will not be able to enjoy the same quality of life as those who came before them.

 

Increased incidents of warfare, disease and the other members of the Four Horsemen as people choose the path of least resistance and go ever more tribal.

 

Increased age disparity and resultant issues there as population growth slows and there's no good way to solve that issue.

 

That's off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list.

 

I really hope we can avoid the above, and I think we can, but personally I wouldn't want to add another human to the highly likely potential shitshow they may have to face.

 

18 minutes ago, bovril said:

I just got back from an NCT course and am a bit annoyed I missed a fun day out in Brighton, so maybe you're right 

Tbf I had read one too many "go forth and multiply" screeds around the time the second Brighton penalty was awarded, so perhaps my language was a bit harsh.

 

16 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I know it’s unpopular opinions, but that’s a bit much dude.

See above, but the usual "I really really hope I'm wrong" disclaimer applies.

 

And given human desires, I know it's a pretty damn unpopular opinion.

Edited 12 April by leicsmac

[bovril]

Counterpoint: have sex

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, bovril said:

Counterpoint: have safe sex

Agreed.

[Zear0]

30 minutes ago, bovril said:

Counterpoint: have sex

What's that? 

[Nalis]

We need people to have more kids to fund my state pension when I'm old thanks to the disastrous pyramid scheme its built on. I'm aware I'm a selfish bastard.

[bovril]

I hate the idea that it's selfish or irresponsible to have children. Depressing nihilist nonsense.

 

At the same time if it's not for you, or if course if someone can't, there are many many ways to have a fulfilling life without children.

 

Each to their own.

[leicsmac]

I don't think it's nihilist to think that consistent population growth will inevitably result in exactly the kind of outcome that nihilists would enjoy (to say nothing of the challenges to quality of life that lie ahead for children born today), but at the same time, yeah, each to their own, I was probably too harsh yesterday and as long as we get to a place where some kind of equilibrium is reached (which does seem to mostly happen organically in developed nations) then everything may well be fine.

 

Hopefully.

Edited 13 April by leicsmac

[Parafox]

On 12/04/2025 at 16:25, leicsmac said:

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

 

I disagree here. Sure there are some that don't give ANY thought to the issues facing the world. Loads of people in our 1st world "make babies" simply by "shagging for fun". The father then ****s off so mum goes for another partner, gets pregnant gives birth, dad ****s off and so it goes on even if dad stays around, the irresponsible "shagging for fun" goes on.

 

You only need to look at the demographic of those that fit this cycle. We know it happens and the billions spent on benefits shows it.

 

However in so many less educated and more poverty ridden parts of the world, survival of a family depends on multiple offspring as so many that are born are at risk of death so, as history itself and nature proves, the more offspring one has the greater the chance of at least one surviving.

 

You can't really suggest that people I've referenced in my last paragraph have a great, if any, understanding of the world as we do in the developed world.

[Sly]

10 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

I disagree here. Sure there are some that don't give ANY thought to the issues facing the world. Loads of people in our 1st world "make babies" simply by "shagging for fun". The father then ****s off so mum goes for another partner, gets pregnant gives birth, dad ****s off and so it goes on even if dad stays around, the irresponsible "shagging for fun" goes on.

 

You only need to look at the demographic of those that fit this cycle. We know it happens and the billions spent on benefits shows it.

 

However in so many less educated and more poverty ridden parts of the world, survival of a family depends on multiple offspring as so many that are born are at risk of death so, as history itself and nature proves, the more offspring one has the greater the chance of at least one surviving.

 

You can't really suggest that people I've referenced in my last paragraph have a great, if any, understanding of the world as we do in the developed world.

This is always an interesting debate.

 

Ultimately, some have even seen this as a way of earning money, rightly or wrongly.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

I disagree here. Sure there are some that don't give ANY thought to the issues facing the world. Loads of people in our 1st world "make babies" simply by "shagging for fun". The father then ****s off so mum goes for another partner, gets pregnant gives birth, dad ****s off and so it goes on even if dad stays around, the irresponsible "shagging for fun" goes on.

 

You only need to look at the demographic of those that fit this cycle. We know it happens and the billions spent on benefits shows it.

 

However in so many less educated and more poverty ridden parts of the world, survival of a family depends on multiple offspring as so many that are born are at risk of death so, as history itself and nature proves, the more offspring one has the greater the chance of at least one surviving.

 

You can't really suggest that people I've referenced in my last paragraph have a great, if any, understanding of the world as we do in the developed world.

Yeah, you're absolutely right on pretty much all of that, particularly the part about not understanding the consequences.

 

History shows that birth rates tend to lower themselves organically as a country develops anyway, which is another good reason for developing nations to be given as much help to assist that development as is possible.

 

The above all being said, I do fear that the problems facing any kid brought into the world in 2025 during their lives may be rather bigger than any us lot may have had to face.

 

 

[123]

On 12/04/2025 at 16:25, leicsmac said:

Unless you really know what you're doing, bringing a child into the world that our species is heading into in the next few decades, in the UK or anywhere else, is an act of near-criminal irresponsibility.

 

They will have it harder in their lifetimes than any generation in the last century, and possibly harder than before that.

Near- criminal irresponsibility?

 

Seek help mate.