Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's very difficult to not fall into apathetic cynicism about it all, yes.

 

But it's also necessary. Do what we can, until we cannot. 

• Write to MP - check
• Forgo some holidays/materialistic things to make domestic environmental improvements - check
• Make ethical choices wherever possible - check
• Get family life on an ethical footing and mindset - check

Clearly not enough, but I am sure it will feel good to list these things whilst fighting 45 degree heat Celsius ) during the end days 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

• Write to MP - check
• Forgo some holidays/materialistic things to make domestic environmental improvements - check
• Make ethical choices wherever possible - check
• Get family life on an ethical footing and mindset - check

Clearly not enough, but I am sure it will feel good to list these things whilst fighting 45 degree heat Celsius ) during the end days 

For what my words are worth, should the worst happen, it won't have been for your lack of trying. 

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Torquay Gunner said:

UK a long way off from Trump’s 5% of GDP demand. 

Not if you work on the principle that the military need roads, education and hospitals. Then welfare once retired.

 

It would be very easy to get the GDP figure above 5% which I think is what Labour are planning.

 

Or according to Farage, they will just shrink the economy until the current spending levels are 5% of GDP.....

[leicsmac]

It's rather funny that some people think that military spending is the most fundamentally vital aspect of government spending viz. the maintenence of a stable society where everything else can happen.

 

It's about as obviously untrue as the Earth being flat. 

[the fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's rather funny that some people think that military spending is the most fundamentally vital aspect of government spending viz. the maintenence of a stable society where everything else can happen.

 

It's about as obviously untrue as the Earth being flat. 

 

I wish it wasn't the case but it is. a country is only as safe as its military arsenal allows it to be. For nuclear capability holds the highest ditterents power, a huge pile of rockets/drones is the next best thing. And it's not even to win the war at this point but to make a war not worth the financial loss (the war this month alone was an example).

 

What is a prosperous, stable society? Will it be a country that provides its citizens:

 

• Housing as a guaranteed human right

• free education and health-care for everyone 

• giving the public the voting right to overrule the decisions of its ruling power

• giving farmers land, equipment, seeds, livestock and more for free 

• no electricity bill

• affordable fuel prices 

• a state-owned bank that provides access to interest-free loans

• financial support for families and new mothers 

 

It sounds like a wet dream living under those conditions, doesn't it ?

 

Well, that was actually Libya under Gaddafi and look what they did to him and his country. Did giving up his weapons help him much when the warmongers came for him? They made an example of him because he wanted to move away from petrodollar and operate a state-owned bank. He wasn't a military threat, he was an ideological one. People should not EVER, and under no condition dream of living under those conditions or else....

 

This is not a defence of Gaddafi or his policies, but a proof that even when the conditions are optimal, the average person will not be allowed to have all those things and any leader doing what's best for his people will have a televised horrific end. I am not delusional and I do realise that Libya had a great window to capitalise on the rise of oil prices and took it. it is not a replicable model for the majority of countries but still. 

 

Does this constitutes putting the cart before the horse? This is the world we live in I guess 

 

 

 

Edited 27 June 2025 by the fox

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, the fox said:

 

I wish it wasn't the case but it is. a country is only as safe as its military arsenal allows it to be. For nuclear capability holds the highest ditterents power, a huge pile of rockets/drones is the next best thing. And it's not even to win the war at this point but to make a war not worth the financial loss (the war alone this month alone was an example).

 

What is a prosperous, stable society? Will it be a country that provides its citizens:

 

• Housing as a guaranteed human right

• free education and health-care for everyone 

• giving the public the voting right to overrule the decisions of its ruling power

• giving farmers land, equipment, seeds, livestock and more for free 

• no electricity bill

• affordable fuel prices 

• a state-owned bank that provides access to interest-free loans

• financial support for families and new mothers 

 

It sounds like a wet dream living under those conditions, doesn't it ?

 

Well, that was actually Libya under Gaddafi and look what they did to him and his country. Did giving up his weapons help him much when the warmongers came for him? They made an example of him because he wanted to move away from petrodollar and operate a state-owned bank. He wasn't a military threat, he was an ideological one. People should not EVER, and under no condition dream of living under those conditions or else....

 

This is not a defence of Gaddafi or his policies, but a proof that even when the conditions are optimal, the average person will not be allowed to have all those things and any leader doing what's best for his people will have a televised horrific end. I am not delusional and I do realise that Libya had a great window to capitalise on the rise of oil prices and took it. it is not a replicable model for the majority of countries but still. 

 

Does this constitutes putting the cart before the horse? This is the world we live in a guess 

 

 

 

In the world we live in, it is an important factor, but my point is that it is far from the most important one. 

 

The most important level of government decision making is the decisions that, at a basic understanding, ensure the ground remains capable of growing those crops in the first place, and the water that arrives is both timely and potable. The most basic aspect of the hierarchy of needs. 

 

Every other issue is secondary in comparison, and yet so many people - both involved in the governmental sphere and otherwise - downplay it, probably because they (mistakenly) take it for granted. 

Edited 27 June 2025 by leicsmac

[the fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

In the world we live in, it is an important factor, but my point is that it is far from the most important one. 

 

The most important level of government decision making is the decisions that, at a basic understanding, ensure the ground remains capable of growing those crops in the first place, and the water that arrives is both timely and potable. The most basic aspect of the hierarchy of needs. 

 

Every other issue is secondary in comparison, and yet so many people - both involved in the governmental sphere and otherwise - downplay it, probably because they (mistakenly) take it for granted. 

 

You can add honey to the water, it still wont matter if you can't protect the cup. What good is a fertile land if the people are not benefitting from it?

 

It's the land's purpose to sustain us not the other way around which I suspect is where we differ. I prioritise our race over the environment and me advocating for environmentally friendly policies (like I did here many time) is mainly for the good of the humans race, not the environment (it is good they go hand in hand). I will advocate for a gradual transition from fossil fuel to clean energy as long as it's done in a manner that will not cripple the economy (which I do).

 

I despise the dealings of the people heading the military industrial complex but that doesn’t mean I don't see the neccesity of military spending. I loath big farma but that doesn’t mean I become anti-medicine. 

 

Is there a powerful country with a weak military? No. Is there a powerful country with bad environmental policies? Yes. And you know what the saddest thing about that? Countries obtain power so they can usurp the riches of the weaker Countries and hinder environmental policies. 

 

It's not a vacuum. We have to account for human nature and the deep-seated hunger of some people who would do anything for more money/power/influence and care less for what others will face.

 

Like the example I gave for Libya, you can not have something that you can not protect.

Edited 27 June 2025 by the fox

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, the fox said:

 

You can add honey to the water, it still wont matter if you can't protect the cup. What good is a fertile land if the people are not benefitting from it?

 

It's the land's purpose to sustain us not the other way around which I suspect is where we differ. I prioritise our race over the environment and me advocating for environmentally friendly policies (like I did here many time) is mainly for the good of the humans race, not the environment (it is good they go hand in hand). I will advocate for a gradual transition from fossil fuel to clean energy as long as it's done in a manner that will not cripple the economy (which I do).

 

I despise the dealings of the people heading the military industrial complex but that doesn’t mean I don't see the neccesity of military spending. I loath big farma but that doesn’t mean I become anti-medicine. 

 

Is there a powerful country with a weak military? No. Is there a powerful country with bad environmental policies? Yes. And you know what the saddest thing about that? Countries obtain power so they can usurp the riches of the weaker Countries and hinder environmental policies. 

 

It's not a vacuum. We have to account for human nature and the deep-seated hunger of some people who would do anything for more money/power/influence and care less for what others will face.

 

Like the example I gave for Libya, you can not have something that you can not protect.

I can see the argument you make here but I'm sticking to my guns (hur hur) regarding importance on this one for a pretty simple reason: it remains possible (though very unlikely, for all the reasons you state) for a state/tribe/group to survive while without means to defend themselves from other humans, it is utterly impossible for them to do so if the place they inhabit cannot source basic food and water needs. That distinction may be small, but it is critical, I think. 

 

The only reason those nations with strong militaries and ignorant environmental policies haven't felt the weight of that decision making yet is because such consequences are often slow moving in human terms. But that doesn't mean that they aren't coming, and it doesn't mean they cannot or will not be devastating. 

 

I guess we do differ in terms of this matter because I've seen no logical reason to place our species on some pedestal and so be deserving of special favours from all other life - as far as I'm concerned, this Earth can and will destroy us if we don't do the right things, the same as a great many other species that came before us. If people think differently, then that's their prerogative, but speaking personally I think fossil records are full of species that thought they were "special"... right up to the point our natural world disabused them, often very nastily, of that notion. 

 

Don't get me wrong, there's a whole bunch of other things that have to be done right as well and you're absolutely right to suggest, given history, that groups of humans being able to defend themselves and to deal with those who abuse power is vital to their survival. However, I think it remains a reasonably obvious fact that it isn't the most key element to human survival, and therefore the one most worthy of focus. 

[Dahnsouff]

41 minutes ago, the fox said:

 

You can add honey to the water, it still wont matter if you can't protect the cup. What good is a fertile land if the people are not benefitting from it?

 

It's the land's purpose to sustain us not the other way around which I suspect is where we differ. I prioritise our race over the environment and me advocating for environmentally friendly policies (like I did here many time) is mainly for the good of the humans race, not the environment (it is good they go hand in hand). I will advocate for a gradual transition from fossil fuel to clean energy as long as it's done in a manner that will not cripple the economy (which I do).

 

I despise the dealings of the people heading the military industrial complex but that doesn’t mean I don't see the neccesity of military spending. I loath big farma but that doesn’t mean I become anti-medicine. 

 

Is there a powerful country with a weak military? No. Is there a powerful country with bad environmental policies? Yes. And you know what the saddest thing about that? Countries obtain power so they can usurp the riches of the weaker Countries and hinder environmental policies. 

 

It's not a vacuum. We have to account for human nature and the deep-seated hunger of some people who would do anything for more money/power/influence and care less for what others will face.

 

Like the example I gave for Libya, you can not have something that you can not protect.

Not so sure, as there is no purpose in the land, nor in us beyond what we ourselves decide, that in itself being somewhat of a vain conceit, so stating a preference is irrelevant.
 

Better to use our self importance to pursue a path that benefits the all, land and all upon it, rather than to squabble like children in the belief our import would somehow render us immune from the consequences of our own actions.

 

Understand the argument that we defend to continue, but are we not seeking to protect those who fail to protect us, instead of seeking to alleviate the consequences? (They failed to protect us from)

 

[leicsmac]

I will add at this point that it's a fascinating topic for discussion. 

[Blarmy]

2 hours ago, the fox said:

 

You can add honey to the water, it still wont matter if you can't protect the cup. What good is a fertile land if the people are not benefitting from it?

 

It's the land's purpose to sustain us not the other way around which I suspect is where we differ. I prioritise our race over the environment and me advocating for environmentally friendly policies (like I did here many time) is mainly for the good of the humans race, not the environment (it is good they go hand in hand). I will advocate for a gradual transition from fossil fuel to clean energy as long as it's done in a manner that will not cripple the economy (which I do).

 

I despise the dealings of the people heading the military industrial complex but that doesn’t mean I don't see the neccesity of military spending. I loath big farma but that doesn’t mean I become anti-medicine. 

 

Is there a powerful country with a weak military? No. Is there a powerful country with bad environmental policies? Yes. And you know what the saddest thing about that? Countries obtain power so they can usurp the riches of the weaker Countries and hinder environmental policies. 

 

It's not a vacuum. We have to account for human nature and the deep-seated hunger of some people who would do anything for more money/power/influence and care less for what others will face.

 

Like the example I gave for Libya, you can not have something that you can not protect.

Interesting take.I personally view the human race as a virus.

[the fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can see the argument you make here but I'm sticking to my guns (hur hur) regarding importance on this one for a pretty simple reason: it remains possible (though very unlikely, for all the reasons you state) for a state/tribe/group to survive while without means to defend themselves from other humans, it is utterly impossible for them to do so if the place they inhabit cannot source basic food and water needs. That distinction may be small, but it is critical, I think. 

 

There is not one example throughout human history to substantiate such a claim and overwhelming amount of evidence to back the exact opposite. But I agree that it is impossible to inhabit a land that lacks basic resources so it's either find a new land or take other's by force. (Which was my claim all along).

 

The consequences of the abuse that the environment takes is something I totally agree with and I do hope that there will be a change towards more conscious efforts to obtain sustainability.

 

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

guess we do differ in terms of this matter because I've seen no logical reason to place our species on some pedestal and so be deserving of special favours from all other life - as far as I'm concerned, this Earth can and will destroy us if we don't do the right things, the same as a great many other species that came before us. If people think differently, then that's their prerogative, but speaking personally I think fossil records are full of species that thought they were "special"... right up to the point our natural world disabused them, often very nastily, of that notion

It is not about a special favour it is about the ability of humans to change the environmental nature to such a fine degree that no other creature can even compare (for better or worse). No other specie throughout known history that inhabited earth is compared to the overall intellectual prowess, consciousness or the creativity of humans. 

 

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not so sure, as there is no purpose in the land, nor in us beyond what we ourselves decide, that in itself being somewhat of a vain conceit, so stating a preference is irrelevant.

By that logic, is that level of self-consciousness not evidence enough to highlight the difference between humans and every other creature living on this earth? I strongly disagree with the sentiment that humans are just another creature roaming the earth and having this kind of discussion, on this kind of forum, using this kind of technology is a testament to the argument I put forth.

 

1 hour ago, Blarmy said:

Interesting take.I personally view the human race as a virus.

I maybe an optimist regarding the human race but I do not think this level of disregard is healthy nor constructive regarding the betterment of not only the human race, but also the environment and other species. It boarders on nihilism and at that point why care about anything? Why discuss such a topic? All other species are preoccupied with survival and reproduction and having an Internet discussion, expanding time and energy isn't exactly a telltale sign of rudimentary intelligence or feral behaviour.(despite some people around the world deciding to act worse than wild animals towards each other)

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, the fox said:

There is not one example throughout human history to substantiate such a claim and overwhelming amount of evidence to back the exact opposite. But I agree that it is impossible to inhabit a land that lacks basic resources so it's either find a new land or take other's by force. (Which was my claim all along).

 

The consequences of the abuse that the environment takes is something I totally agree with and I do hope that there will be a change towards more conscious efforts to obtain sustainability.

 

Agreed. That, however, doesn't discount the possibility. A coin landing on its edge is possible, though there are precious few examples of it. 

 

It is indeed impossible to inhabit a land with those basic resources, and I view that as more of a concern that what humans do to each other not because it's more threatening right now, but because the threat it represents is both absolute (in a way humans are not at the moment) and, given incorrect action by our species, inevitable.

 

14 minutes ago, the fox said:

It is not about a special favour it is about the ability of humans to change the environmental nature to such a fine degree that no other creature can even compare (for better or worse). No other specie throughout known history that inhabited earth is compared to the overall intellectual prowess, consciousness or the creativity of humans. 

 

I don't disagree about the way humans have changed the world around them - both for good and for bad. However, I do still think that the consequences of nature are far more powerful than we are and we really only have existed as a civilisation in a (relative) blink of an eye in the Earth's timeline. I think it would be very easy to think we're all that, and then for that conceit to come crashing down around our heads fatally.

[Tommy G]

Looks like the Ukrainian flag has gone out of fashion this year at Glastonbury 

[the fox]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Agreed. That, however, doesn't discount the possibility. A coin landing on its edge is possible, though there are precious few examples of it. 

 

It is indeed impossible to inhabit a land with those basic resources, and I view that as more of a concern that what humans do to each other not because it's more threatening right now, but because the threat it represents is both absolute (in a way humans are not at the moment) and, given incorrect action by our species, inevitable.

 

I don't disagree about the way humans have changed the world around them - both for good and for bad. However, I do still think that the consequences of nature are far more powerful than we are and we really only have existed as a civilisation in a (relative) blink of an eye in the Earth's timeline. I think it would be very easy to think we're all that, and then for that conceit to come crashing down around our heads fatally.

But there are observable instances when a coin landed on its edge. If we want to calculate the probability of something happening we use a model that takes into account past events but 0 will always net 0.  We can try a hypothetical scenario but when the evidence is overwhelming against such a scenario, it will only serve to flirt with delusion.

 

To take everything we have for granted and not fear the consequences of our actions can pretty much lead us to ruin. And to not think to provide for the next generation a better place than we have is selfish. We both believe that humans need to shoulder the responsibility and as much as I believe in the capability of people for good, I dread the selfishness of some. Me advocating for military spending to preserve peace is out of concern of what people with intentions to gain more despite the suffering that they may inflict does not bring me joy. 

 

I want to believe that the weak can prosper without being decimated by the ones who hold power, I truly do. but everyday that passes, every time I see a person demoralised by the actions of others who hold power over him, every tragedy that I witness, every senseless war that devours the young and the old, the healthy and the ill overpowers that emotion. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

10 hours ago, the fox said:

…

 

By that logic, is that level of self-consciousness not evidence enough to highlight the difference between humans and every other creature living on this earth? I strongly disagree with the sentiment that humans are just another creature roaming the earth and having this kind of discussion, on this kind of forum, using this kind of technology is a testament to the argument I put forth.

 

…

Yes, agree as a species have an incomparable capability to forcefully influence our environment more so than any other species on this planet.
Although if we consider this in a purely evolutionary sense for a moment, there is no doubt we are just another species, and any higher purpose or superiority we assign ourselves is exactly that, self defined and means little beyond the observations, boundaries, tools and records we ourselves make.

Our import on the planet should be defined as, as this self proclaimed power, how we perform as custodians of the planet and those within it, not who we manipulate for our own ends. 
Despite the potential negative tone of my posts, I am painfully positive and believe we are quite capable of saving ourselves, this planet and all upon it and doing so as ants not lone carnivores.

 

[the fox]

5 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes, agree as a species have an incomparable capability to forcefully influence our environment more so than any other species on this planet.
Although if we consider this in a purely evolutionary sense for a moment, there is no doubt we are just another species, and any higher purpose or superiority we assign ourselves is exactly that, self defined and means little beyond the observations, boundaries, tools and records we ourselves make.

Our import on the planet should be defined as, as this self proclaimed power, how we perform as custodians of the planet and those within it, not who we manipulate for our own ends. 
Despite the potential negative tone of my posts, I am painfully positive and believe we are quite capable of saving ourselves, this planet and all upon it and doing so as ants not lone carnivores.

 

When it comes to human behaviour under the evolution paradigm, the field of evolutionary psychology has come under fire for attempting to rationalise behavioral patterns that go against the vast majority (if not all) the evolutionary models. You can explain why people help their kin to their own self detriment (the theory of kin selection) but people help strangers all the time,  lowering their own chances of survival and reproduction (which is the core tenant of the evolution theory). A person can try and explain why people help each other as a means to be helped in the future (the theory of reciprocal altruism) but many people help others anonymously with no plan to receive any compensation for their actions. We have hospitals that expend resources on individuals with undesirable genetical traits and actively cheer on people passing down what evolutionary models classify as detrimental genes. All those go against the argument for a world view under the evolutionary paradigm.

 

 

We either are or are not. Humans can't be expected to conform to a world view that equals their value to any other creature (based on one of the many evolutionary models) yet have a moral code of a superior specie. that goes against the theory of evolution.

 

I do agree that the way for humans is unity but the stark difference between many ideologies does not allow it, and that's simply human nature.

[leicsmac]

16 hours ago, the fox said:

But there are observable instances when a coin landed on its edge. If we want to calculate the probability of something happening we use a model that takes into account past events but 0 will always net 0.  We can try a hypothetical scenario but when the evidence is overwhelming against such a scenario, it will only serve to flirt with delusion.

 

To take everything we have for granted and not fear the consequences of our actions can pretty much lead us to ruin. And to not think to provide for the next generation a better place than we have is selfish. We both believe that humans need to shoulder the responsibility and as much as I believe in the capability of people for good, I dread the selfishness of some. Me advocating for military spending to preserve peace is out of concern of what people with intentions to gain more despite the suffering that they may inflict does not bring me joy. 

 

I want to believe that the weak can prosper without being decimated by the ones who hold power, I truly do. but everyday that passes, every time I see a person demoralised by the actions of others who hold power over him, every tragedy that I witness, every senseless war that devours the young and the old, the healthy and the ill overpowers that emotion. 

 

Erudite. 

 

The only thing I'll add wrt the last paragraph is that though the way you describe human activity there is accurate, the cold comfort is that such a way of acting is inimical to the survival of civilisation and our species, and those who do it will "get theirs" in the end, just as a matter of evolutionary history. it's just unfortunate that a lot of our and other species will be along for the ride too. 

[MattFox]

Steve Cooper managing Forest and being a Forest icon (He genuinely is…) was a valid reason for not wanting him at Leicester 

 

Football is all about rivalry and not wanting someone who’s revered by your rivals is not an unreasonable point

[bmt]

5 hours ago, MattFox said:

Steve Cooper managing Forest and being a Forest icon (He genuinely is…) was a valid reason for not wanting him at Leicester 

 

Football is all about rivalry and not wanting someone who’s revered by your rivals is not an unreasonable point

He was also shit 

[bmt]

Lisa Nandy is a turncoat. This labour party is more embarrassing than trump

[Silebyfox_89]

Lotus biscoff flavoured products. 

Don't understand the popularity of burnt caramel tasting biscuit.

No thanks.

[The Bear]

Biscoff is alright but it gets a bit icky and strong after a couple. 

[Raj]

Bands at Glastonbury.

Play your songs, get your publicity and sell your records.

Fevk off with your political shit

[Nalis]

7 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Biscoff is alright but it gets a bit icky and strong after a couple. 

I've had the ice cream and chocolate versions.

 

The flavour is nice but they are so rich. Fine in small doses.