Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[kingcarr21]

So i started on Mounjaro on Saturday.

 

Now i will openly admit i am incredibly lazy. I have worked from home for years and have simply fell into a rut. I've tried to start diets and exercise, i stick to it for a few weeks but then you miss a day here and there and eventually fall back into bad habits. I simply do not have the discipline to stick to it. I was always hungry and i could only go so far living off fruit which simply wasn't filling me up. Chocolate is my biggest issue.

 

In my mind i believe i can lose weight easily. I am 113kg (over 17 stone) and have seen close family on the jab lose a lot of weight. However, they have simply starved themselves on this jab which in my mind cant possibly be sustainable. You come off the jab and you haven't changed your mindset to food. 

 

So i have joined up to a fitness coach (who are aware i am on the jab) and their app has taught me to count my calories properly and has given me a better understanding of the types of food i should eat to get the necessary food stuffs, protein, fibre etc. I now have a food plan which puts me in a calorie deficit. If i can stick to it then i will lose weight but not at the alarming rate people have lost weight just starving themselves.

 

I keep telling myself its a long journey and i do not need to lose weight rapidly like people i know. For me though i want to do this journey whilst also changing my eating habits. To give me the best chance of maintaining my weight when  i do come off the jab. 

 

Ill admit though i have woken up this morning and i really do not feel like eating. So i fear hitting my daily calories will be a struggle. So i will see how i get on this week and if i continue to struggle then i may delay my second dose of the jab. I want to find a happy medium.

 

The main thing for me was to curb my snacking habits. Which the jab has done.

 

I can appreciate where people are coming from about it being a 'cheat' way to lose weight. But if this helps me change my mindset and be disciplined then im all for it

 

 

[Kopic]

5 hours ago, kingcarr21 said:

So i started on Mounjaro on Saturday.

 

Now i will openly admit i am incredibly lazy. I have worked from home for years and have simply fell into a rut. I've tried to start diets and exercise, i stick to it for a few weeks but then you miss a day here and there and eventually fall back into bad habits. I simply do not have the discipline to stick to it. I was always hungry and i could only go so far living off fruit which simply wasn't filling me up. Chocolate is my biggest issue.

 

In my mind i believe i can lose weight easily. I am 113kg (over 17 stone) and have seen close family on the jab lose a lot of weight. However, they have simply starved themselves on this jab which in my mind cant possibly be sustainable. You come off the jab and you haven't changed your mindset to food. 

 

So i have joined up to a fitness coach (who are aware i am on the jab) and their app has taught me to count my calories properly and has given me a better understanding of the types of food i should eat to get the necessary food stuffs, protein, fibre etc. I now have a food plan which puts me in a calorie deficit. If i can stick to it then i will lose weight but not at the alarming rate people have lost weight just starving themselves.

 

I keep telling myself its a long journey and i do not need to lose weight rapidly like people i know. For me though i want to do this journey whilst also changing my eating habits. To give me the best chance of maintaining my weight when  i do come off the jab. 

 

Ill admit though i have woken up this morning and i really do not feel like eating. So i fear hitting my daily calories will be a struggle. So i will see how i get on this week and if i continue to struggle then i may delay my second dose of the jab. I want to find a happy medium.

 

The main thing for me was to curb my snacking habits. Which the jab has done.

 

I can appreciate where people are coming from about it being a 'cheat' way to lose weight. But if this helps me change my mindset and be disciplined then im all for it

 

 

Eating will be difficult for the first few weeks but it gets easier. In terms of delaying your second dose, that is fine when you're on the starter dose but if you increase strength you can't skip them. Also don't do what I did and just go up strengths every 4 weeks just because you can, stay on the lower ones for as long as they work for you. You will find your body gets used to it and your appetite comes back, then consider moving up the strength. I just went all out every 4 weeks, now I've been on the highest for a few months and it's working less and less. Good luck to you, it's genuinely changed my life.

[kingcarr21]

3 hours ago, Kopic said:

Eating will be difficult for the first few weeks but it gets easier. In terms of delaying your second dose, that is fine when you're on the starter dose but if you increase strength you can't skip them. Also don't do what I did and just go up strengths every 4 weeks just because you can, stay on the lower ones for as long as they work for you. You will find your body gets used to it and your appetite comes back, then consider moving up the strength. I just went all out every 4 weeks, now I've been on the highest for a few months and it's working less and less. Good luck to you, it's genuinely changed my life.

Thanks for the advice. I will stick to the dosage i am on for now. I am only 2 days in so i will see how i feel after week 1. Im looking forward to seeing how it goes

[BenTheFox]

On 17/07/2025 at 16:29, Muzzy_no7 said:

This probably fits on here:

 

16 and 17 year olds should not be able to vote in a General Election. 

I'm on the fence with this one, even though it would most likely benefit the type of politics that I broadly support. It's often mentioned how 16 and 17 year-olds can be susceptible to misinformation and manipulated into voting for policies without understanding them. I think there's some truth to this. However, older generations are certainly susceptible to misinformation on social media, added to the fact they will have experienced a decline in cognitive function. Even then, I'd never support the idea of a maximum voting age.

 

Looking back I don't think I would have trusted myself to vote at 16/17, which is actually quite funny because I am actually considerably more left wing at the age of 31 than I was then. 

 

For me, the voter reform that I'd much rather see is a switch to a proportional representation system rather than first past the post. Make people's count equally and ensure a system where people are voting for policies they want rather tactically against policies they don't want. 

Edited 21 July 2025 by BenTheFox

[BenTheFox]

It's not undemocratic to have another vote on EU membership. 

 

The British electorate have now had the opportunity to see what not being the European Union actually looks like. Additionally, the make-up of the electorate has changed drastically in the space of nine years. These are the reasons why we have a general election every 4/5 years. 

 

I was never in favour of a second referendum before we had officially left the EU. I would have considered that undemocratic. However, there comes a point where a democratic mandate wears off. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for these discussions to resurface coming up to 10 years after the vote. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, BenTheFox said:

It's not undemocratic to have another vote on EU membership. 

 

The British electorate have now had the opportunity to see what not being the European Union actually looks like. Additionally, the make-up of the electorate has changed drastically in the space of nine years. These are the reasons why we have a general election every 4/5 years. 

 

I was never in favour of a second referendum before we had officially left the EU. I would have considered that undemocratic. However, there comes a point where a democratic mandate wears off. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for these discussions to resurface coming up to 10 years after the vote. 

Surely we would need to know the terms before a vote. Ie we would probably have to accept the euro this time round.

[Trav Le Bleu]

49 minutes ago, kenny said:

Surely we would need to know the terms before a vote. Ie we would probably have to accept the euro this time round.

It would save on banks making a killing every time we visit Europe.

[AyewJoking]

23 hours ago, Kopic said:

Eating will be difficult for the first few weeks but it gets easier. In terms of delaying your second dose, that is fine when you're on the starter dose but if you increase strength you can't skip them. Also don't do what I did and just go up strengths every 4 weeks just because you can, stay on the lower ones for as long as they work for you. You will find your body gets used to it and your appetite comes back, then consider moving up the strength. I just went all out every 4 weeks, now I've been on the highest for a few months and it's working less and less. Good luck to you, it's genuinely changed my life.

in what ways if you dont mind me asking?

[bovril]

3 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

It's not undemocratic to have another vote on EU membership. 

 

The British electorate have now had the opportunity to see what not being the European Union actually looks like. Additionally, the make-up of the electorate has changed drastically in the space of nine years. These are the reasons why we have a general election every 4/5 years. 

 

I was never in favour of a second referendum before we had officially left the EU. I would have considered that undemocratic. However, there comes a point where a democratic mandate wears off. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for these discussions to resurface coming up to 10 years after the vote. 

Hopefully EU citizens would be able to vote on it this time considering it effects them so much. We stripped them of their right to work and live freely in the UK without even allowing them to have a say. Not really the actions of a 'tolerant' country which is what I constantly get told we are.

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 21/07/2025 at 09:16, kingcarr21 said:

So i started on Mounjaro on Saturday.

. 

I've heard there can be lethal side effects.

 

What? You've never heard about killer mounjaro?

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

It's not undemocratic to have another vote on EU membership. 

 

The British electorate have now had the opportunity to see what not being the European Union actually looks like. Additionally, the make-up of the electorate has changed drastically in the space of nine years. These are the reasons why we have a general election every 4/5 years. 

 

I was never in favour of a second referendum before we had officially left the EU. I would have considered that undemocratic. However, there comes a point where a democratic mandate wears off. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for these discussions to resurface coming up to 10 years after the vote. 

 

It wouldn't be undemocratic, partly for the reasons you state. But I'm not sure how practical it would be.

 

In theory, we'd have to go through a candidacy/qualification process lasting many years. Though, if the terms were right for the EU, I suspect they might agree an accelerated process for the UK, given that we'd add economic and political weight to the EU - and would be significant net contributors to EU funds.....though this would probably reawaken hostility to membership in the UK (imagine what the media would say about billions being removed from UK public spending to be handed over to the EU ).

 

There is also the little complication that each of the 27 EU member states would have a veto on our membership. In theory, any 1 nation could block UK re-entry or demand terms of benefit to their nation: e.g. Spain could demand the handover of Gibraltar. In practice, I suspect that a deal could be done, provided that it was on terms generous to the EU - and perhaps with a few add-ons for individual nations to ensure their alignment with the EU27 position.

 

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Surely we would need to know the terms before a vote. Ie we would probably have to accept the euro this time round.

 

Well, we didn't have a clue about the terms before the 2016 vote. 

It took 3.5 years of negotiations after the referendum before we knew the terms of departure and 4.5 years before we had a rough idea of the terms of the future relationship - though that is still being implemented and renegotiated now.

 

You're right that under EU law, new members admitted after 1992 have to seek to qualify to join the Euro. Though several existing post-1992 EU members (e.g. Sweden, Poland) have yet to qualify or adopt the Euro. As things stand, we'd fail at least some criteria for adoption of the Euro, I think: certainly debt/GDP ratio, possibly public sector deficit, inflation rate and exchange rate stability? Though that might allow the Euro issue to be effectively put on the back burner.....and I'm not sure that even nations like France or Germany would meet all those criteria now.

 

What is certain is that we wouldn't have membership terms as generous as we had before we left. I don't imagine we'd have the opt-outs and budget rebates we had negotiated before we left. So, any campaign to re-join the EU would have to convince the voting public that EU membership would be sufficiently beneficial for it to be worth us being net contributors to EU funds (though that is determined by set economic criteria on income per capita, size of economy etc.) and to accept poorer terms than we had before....

 

Easy to see why the Govt is in no hurry to try to reopen this can of worms. I wonder if even the Lib Dems would do so, if they were in power rather than in power-free opposition where they can use the issue to win Europhile votes without having to face the political realities? ......and that's coming from someone who voted Remain and would like to be still in the EU in an ideal world. 

[bovril]

Euro and especially Schengen would be great imo. 

[kenny]

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

Euro and especially Schengen would be great imo. 

No vat on school fees either.

[bovril]

11 minutes ago, kenny said:

No vat on school fees either.

No VAT on private school fees, lower immigration, less woke politics. Rejoin the EU as the sensible, conservative choice! 

[Kopic]

2 hours ago, Royston. said:

in what ways if you dont mind me asking?

Mostly my mental health and confidence. Always been extremely shy and a recluse because I hated the way I looked. Would wear a jumper in the middle of summer (if I went out at all) to try and hide the way I looked, even though it made me look worse and made me look like a ****ing weirdo. I've still got a way to go but feel much much happier, way more confident etc. Feel like I can finally enjoy life and not worry about what others think of me.

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Euro and especially Schengen would be great imo. 

Immigration is already a contentious issue and accession to Schengen scheme would add fuel to the fire.

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It wouldn't be undemocratic, partly for the reasons you state. But I'm not sure how practical it would be.

 

In theory, we'd have to go through a candidacy/qualification process lasting many years. Though, if the terms were right for the EU, I suspect they might agree an accelerated process for the UK, given that we'd add economic and political weight to the EU - and would be significant net contributors to EU funds.....though this would probably reawaken hostility to membership in the UK (imagine what the media would say about billions being removed from UK public spending to be handed over to the EU ).

 

There is also the little complication that each of the 27 EU member states would have a veto on our membership. In theory, any 1 nation could block UK re-entry or demand terms of benefit to their nation: e.g. Spain could demand the handover of Gibraltar. In practice, I suspect that a deal could be done, provided that it was on terms generous to the EU - and perhaps with a few add-ons for individual nations to ensure their alignment with the EU27 position.

 

 

Well, we didn't have a clue about the terms before the 2016 vote. 

It took 3.5 years of negotiations after the referendum before we knew the terms of departure and 4.5 years before we had a rough idea of the terms of the future relationship - though that is still being implemented and renegotiated now.

 

You're right that under EU law, new members admitted after 1992 have to seek to qualify to join the Euro. Though several existing post-1992 EU members (e.g. Sweden, Poland) have yet to qualify or adopt the Euro. As things stand, we'd fail at least some criteria for adoption of the Euro, I think: certainly debt/GDP ratio, possibly public sector deficit, inflation rate and exchange rate stability? Though that might allow the Euro issue to be effectively put on the back burner.....and I'm not sure that even nations like France or Germany would meet all those criteria now.

 

What is certain is that we wouldn't have membership terms as generous as we had before we left. I don't imagine we'd have the opt-outs and budget rebates we had negotiated before we left. So, any campaign to re-join the EU would have to convince the voting public that EU membership would be sufficiently beneficial for it to be worth us being net contributors to EU funds (though that is determined by set economic criteria on income per capita, size of economy etc.) and to accept poorer terms than we had before....

 

Easy to see why the Govt is in no hurry to try to reopen this can of worms. I wonder if even the Lib Dems would do so, if they were in power rather than in power-free opposition where they can use the issue to win Europhile votes without having to face the political realities? ......and that's coming from someone who voted Remain and would like to be still in the EU in an ideal world. 

Oh yeah, I fully agree with this. It is mainly in response to comments such 'we voted, you lost, get over it. After joining the EEC in the 70s euroskeptics continued to make the argument for leaving for decades right up until 2016, which is fine, they were very much entitled to do so. It is pretty mind-blowing looking back that the only options were in or out with several possibilities then seemingly being let up in the air. What's even more insane is that Jacob Rees-Mogg of all people before the referendum literally advocated for a second vote where we'd vote on the specifics of a Brexit deal. Even Nigel Farage initially campaigned on a Norway style Brexit, which is far softer than what we ended up with. Boris Johnson literally prorogued Parliament illegally to try and force his Brexit deal through. Remainers were often criticised for trying to thwart Brexit, but the Brexiteers were constantly moving the goalposts. 

[bovril]

34 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Immigration is already a contentious issue and accession to Schengen scheme would add fuel to the fire.

well we'd be the south West border of fortress Europe I suppose. So it'd be contentious in Europe to let us in, considering we can't even stop dinghies turning up on our shores

[Lambert09]

It was necessary for Trump to be elected for the second time in order to restore world balance. Not because anything he does is right or needed but because the disease that’s taken over peoples brains needs to witness his downfall to realise they need to change course. 
 

without him winning and proving how awful he is and the platform that he runs on, his party would forever be calling for the same things. We have to take the pain he inflicts on the world in order to get to a point where nobody lets a movement like this  gain momentum again… 

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

It was necessary for Trump to be elected for the second time in order to restore world balance. Not because anything he does is right or needed but because the disease that’s taken over peoples brains needs to witness his downfall to realise they need to change course. 
 

without him winning and proving how awful he is and the platform that he runs on, his party would forever be calling for the same things. We have to take the pain he inflicts on the world in order to get to a point where nobody lets a movement like this  gain momentum again… 

It's a theory I've heard before and one that does frankly make some sense - goodness knows the ideology needs to be neutralised somehow and history shows it's often taken some pretty dark times to do so.  

 

That being said, there's no guarantee that a. it will work and b. if it does, we won't be here in a few decades needing the same horrible things to happen again. 

[Lambert09]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's a theory I've heard before and one that does frankly make some sense - goodness knows the ideology needs to be neutralised somehow and history shows it's often taken some pretty dark times to do so.  

 

That being said, there's no guarantee that a. it will work and b. if it does, we won't be here in a few decades needing the same horrible things to happen again. 

Hopefully not in our lifetimes. But with the social manipulation possible with digital media, I guess the learning can get undone very quickly now 

[CornwallFox]

On 22/07/2025 at 13:22, kenny said:

Surely we would need to know the terms before a vote. Ie we would probably have to accept the euro this time round.

Much easier not to know beforehand. That way if rejoin wins, rejoiners can always claim we didn't rejoin properly if the outcome doesn't go well. 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

It was necessary for Trump to be elected for the second time in order to restore world balance. Not because anything he does is right or needed but because the disease that’s taken over peoples brains needs to witness his downfall to realise they need to change course. 
 

without him winning and proving how awful he is and the platform that he runs on, his party would forever be calling for the same things. We have to take the pain he inflicts on the world in order to get to a point where nobody lets a movement like this  gain momentum again… 

Cretins like trump and farage are the tip of the iceberg. They’ve used low level tools like Twitter and Facebook to manipulate their sheeple. When those tools get far more sophisticated and permeate every part of daily life, we’ll get dystopia and look back on these relatively moderate leaders wistfully 

[ajthefox]

3 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

It was necessary for Trump to be elected for the second time in order to restore world balance. Not because anything he does is right or needed but because the disease that’s taken over peoples brains needs to witness his downfall to realise they need to change course. 
 

without him winning and proving how awful he is and the platform that he runs on, his party would forever be calling for the same things. We have to take the pain he inflicts on the world in order to get to a point where nobody lets a movement like this  gain momentum again… 

I get your point and agree there is some merit to that sort of argument but I disagree and don't get the point highlighted at all.

 

To how many people is Trump actually worse now than he was before he was elected? He has proved he cares for no-one beyond himself and certainly not democracy, he did that 5 years ago. Who is seeing what has happened since his election and only now having some sort of realisation that he is bad for all sorts of reasons?

 

[Torquay Gunner]

5 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

I get your point and agree there is some merit to that sort of argument but I disagree and don't get the point highlighted at all.

 

To how many people is Trump actually worse now than he was before he was elected? He has proved he cares for no-one beyond himself and certainly not democracy, he did that 5 years ago. Who is seeing what has happened since his election and only now having some sort of realisation that he is bad for all sorts of reasons?

 

Have to hand it to Trump, second time around he has surrounded himself with a truly despicable bunch of A-holes.  Miller, Hegseth, Gabbard, Kennedy Jr, Noem, are just some of the gallery of the grotesque.