Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Nalis]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

The last two pages have been brought to you by Brexit

I cant believe I'm biting but are we honesty saying we cant comment on such various cuisines from across the world? Are we saying its wrong for someone to prefer, say, Mexican food to Persian food?

 

Maybe we are all racist white privileged folk (despite some being brought up in poverty) by stating Tunisian Benaloune isnt good enough to pay for Leicester?

Edited 6 January 2019 by Nalis

[ozleicester]

3 hours ago, Nalis said:

I cant believe I'm biting but are we honesty saying we cant comment on such various cuisines from across the world? Are we saying its wrong for someone to prefer, say, Mexican food to Persian food?

 

Maybe we are all racist white privileged folk (despite some being brought up in poverty) by stating Tunisian Benaloune isnt good enough to pay for Leicester?

Food?..........If thats all you noticed from the pages... then... meh, whatever

[RoboFox]

The whole Rachel Riley thing is a bit creepy.

[Countryfox]

 

Well done Newport !  ..  the whole place must be on a high today.  You won’t win the cup but you’ve had a real, well deserved, high  ...   then again we wouldn’t have won it either.   Time to move on and enjoy the second half of the season ...   I’m looking forward to seeing how our young transitioning team develops ...   get to it Clod !     

[SpacedX]

18 hours ago, RoboFox said:

The whole Rachel Riley thing is a bit creepy.

It's cringingly embarrassing too and about as funny as saying "yes Nndidi" two years after he signed. 

[Danno]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

It's cringingly embarrassing too and about as funny as saying "yes Nndidi" two years after he signed. 

Or ‘Ian Nacho’

[TiffToff88]

42 minutes ago, DanNDH88 said:

Or ‘Ian Nacho’

Or 'Puel Out' when we're 7th in the league 

Edited 7 January 2019 by TiffToff88

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, DanNDH88 said:

Or ‘Ian Nacho’

@Ian Nacho

[the fox]

"Is Psychopathy an advantage in fighting sports?" was a great question I happened to read. and I have to agree. 

 

The advantages it gives are many compared to the disadvantages. Whilst a psychopathic fighter (or a fighter who show psychopathic tendencies) can not get the extra boost of emotions a normal persona can, the Ruthlessness, the added ill intent and killer instincts will drive him forward.

[The Blur]

2 hours ago, the fox said:

"Is Psychopathy an advantage in fighting sports?" was a great question I happened to read. and I have to agree. 

 

The advantages it gives are many compared to the disadvantages. Whilst a psychopathic fighter (or a fighter who show psychopathic tendencies) can not get the extra boost of emotions a normal persona can, the Ruthlessness, the added ill intent and killer instincts will drive him forward.

 

I do not think that your view would be an unpopular opinion and do expect there would be numerous others who agree with you as well.   However I have read that psychopaths behaviour can be unpredictable and uncontrolled compared to their sociopath counterparts so lack of tactical nous can be a disadvantage as well?  

[Tuna]

Josh Widdicombe is painfully unfunny.

 

 

[the fox]

2 hours ago, The Blur said:

 

I do not think that your view would be an unpopular opinion and do expect there would be numerous others who agree with you as well.   However I have read that psychopaths behaviour can be unpredictable and uncontrolled compared to their sociopath counterparts so lack of tactical nous can be a disadvantage as well?  

Wait, isn't it the other way around? Sociopaths tend to be more impulsive do to their frontal lobe issues which make theme emotionally unstable (at least more unstable then a Psycho) while psychopaths share the lack of empathy and frontal lobe issues with Sociopaths but are far less impulsive (obviously there are exception s)

 

 

That is where the main difference comes into play. psychos tend to have very high conscientiousness and tend to be calm in high stress situations (the CEOs, the Politicians, world champions...etc) whilst Sociopaths tend to get easily triggered and can't help but flip out in the heat of the moment. A Sociopath will smash a person's car window if he gets overtaken in the road. A psycho will follow said person's car to where the person lives, and after knowing the address, he will leave and go home, take a bath, watch the news,  water his plastic plants and then pay the car owner's house a visit. (Those are just over-the-top examples BTW).

 

 

Just ask yourself, who would you rather have as a Soldier if you want coldblooded killers, a Sociopath or a Psychopath? Exactly! Psychos are much more adapt to high-pressure situations.

 

Some People have the misconception that the word "psycho" is just meant to address criminals, impulsive people and killers but if you look at most successful actors, athletes, politicians...etc Psychotic tendencies are obvious. You got to be one crazy sod to greenlight the killing of thousands and thousands of civilians for no valid reason or doing what ever it takes to get the job no matter how many people you throw under the bus.

 

 

A downside of a Psycho would be their manipulative behavior. It will garner quick success but in the long run, it will generally backfire depending on how smart and how much a Psycho can control himself. "Difficult to work with" is a common word to describe most Psychos (difficult to work with isn't just saved for Psychos). It now becomes "I will put up with you until I can replace you" "I can't trust you" which in return, will demand a higher output form the psycho. But hey, you can't complain about the mud if you're wrestling pigs.

 

Want to see a famous psycho/sociopath? Go watch oj Simpson trying the gloves on in the court. The lack of empathy is just amazing. 

 

 

 

Edit: the post is just what I know/think, a person who's qualified is welcomed to jump in and talk about the subject.

Edited 7 January 2019 by the fox

[leicsmac]

Interesting discussion.

 

I'd add my two pennyworth and say that the success of such sociopaths/psychopaths/whatever in the world today is pretty self-evident (look at a lot of the major world leaders) as ruthlessness seems to be a highly prized quality in particular, however as @the fox touches on it tends to all fall apart long term because such folks tend to (mostly) be entirely guided by self-interest and gratification which tends to end up coming to the fore and people then turn on them.

 

It also stands to reason as a result that such folks often don't look beyond the end of their own lives (they're not really interested in legacy unless it's the kind forged very much in their own image) and that isn't a good thing for human future in general IMO - you need visionaries, not reactionaries.

[Finnegan]

There's no difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. It's purely semantics and it depends on which scholar you happen to be reading at the time. Some prefer to say sociopath, some prefer to say psychopath. 

 

It's just the evolution of terminology, like shell shock to battle fatigue to PTSD. 

 

To say "the psychopath brain works like this and the sociopath brain works like that" is a load of rubbish. 

 

 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

There's no difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. It's purely semantics and it depends on which scholar you happen to be reading at the time. Some prefer to say sociopath, some prefer to say psychopath. 

 

It's just the evolution of terminology, like shell shock to battle fatigue to PTSD. 

 

To say "the psychopath brain works like this and the sociopath brain works like that" is a load of rubbish. 

 

 

 

Whilst accepting that you know best, Finners, other experts disagree:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Whilst accepting that you know best, Finners, other experts disagree:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths

 

And I can go and produce a bunch of literature that states the opposite, which is my point, the two terms are used extensively interchangeably and it largely comes down to the scholar whose work you're reading. 

 

I appreciate nobody likes a know it all, especially one that's disagreeing with them twice in one morning, so I accept you're going to want to try and make me out to be full of shit. Googling "sociopathy psychopathy different" and posting the first psychology today article you find without reading it is one way of doing that I guess. But pretty much my entire bookshelf at home is full of books on psychopathy/sociopathy, it's a weird hobby of mine. 

 

I would never claim that this makes me any kind of expert but I have read enough to know the two terms are pretty much synonyms and are widely misunderstood and over used by most people who don't share the same level of interest. 

 

Robert Hare summed it up best (he IS an expert, by the way) he observed that scholars who like to believe in nurture tend to lean towards the use of "sociopath" and those that like to see it as more nature and predetermined lean towards "psychopath."

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on Finland. 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

And I can go and produce a bunch of literature that states the opposite, which is my point, the two terms are used extensively interchangeably and it largely comes down to the scholar whose work you're reading. 

 

I appreciate nobody likes a know it all, especially one that's disagreeing with them twice in one morning, so I accept you're going to want to try and make me out to be full of shit. Googling "sociopathy psychopathy different" and posting the first psychology today article you find without reading it is one way of doing that I guess. But pretty much my entire bookshelf at home is full of books on psychopathy/sociopathy, it's a weird hobby of mine. 

 

I would never claim that this makes me any kind of expert but I have read enough to know the two terms are pretty much synonyms and are widely misunderstood and over used by most people who don't share the same level of interest. 

 

Robert Hare summed it up best (he IS an expert, by the way) he observed that scholars who like to believe in nurture tend to lean towards the use of "sociopath" and those that like to see it as more nature and predetermined lean towards "psychopath."

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm with you on Finland. 

 

Is there a term for someone who is over-sensitive to gentle, tongue-in-cheek humour?

 

I really don't care that you or anyone disagrees with me, Finners - I wouldn't come on a discussion forum if I wanted to be in an echo chamber.

Edited 8 January 2019 by Buce

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Is there a term for someone who is over-sensitive to gentle, tongue-in-cheek humour?

 

I really don't care that you or anyone disagrees with me, Finners - I wouldn't come on a discussion forum if I wanted to be in an echo chamber.

 

Not gonna lie, nothing about your post struck me as tongue in cheek to be fair. Maybe that's on me. Idk? 

[Wymsey]

Kim Jong-un is lucky to have such a stunning-looking wife..

Edited 8 January 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Kim Jong-un is lucky to have such a stunning-looking wife..

Not sure about stunning, but she's cute. 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Kim Jong-un is lucky to have such a stunning-looking wife..

 

Might have a bit more to do with power and wealth than luck, I suspect....

 

But maybe you are the lucky one? Lucky that you were not in North Korea and he didn't take a fancy to you?

Would you have escaped across the demilitarized zone? Into Russia? China? Or would you have succumbed to his charms/wealth/power?

 

I'm now imagining your face exactly as per your avatar! 

 

p.s. I agree with Bovril: cute rather than stunning. I'd be looking to warm her slippers and make her favourite drink.....though I suspect the roles are reversed in their household. Can't imagine him playing the flamboyant gentleman.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not gonna lie, nothing about your post struck me as tongue in cheek to be fair. Maybe that's on me. Idk? 

 

Yep. 

 

I think sometimes you forget that not everybody sees life in terms of perpetual angry conflict as you appear to. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Kim Jong-un is lucky to have such a stunning-looking wife..

 

That’s pretty shallow, Wymes, and very naive. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That’s pretty shallow, Wymes, and very naive. 

 

That's pretty harsh, Buce, and a little over-serious. 

[Finnegan]

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yep. 

 

I think sometimes you forget that not everybody sees life in terms of perpetual angry conflict as you appear to. 

 

you'd be so surprised if you ever actually met me. 

 

But then that's sort of the point. With no non verbal communication it's quite difficult to fully convey mood. Take your post above, it was a one liner and a url. There's not really anything in there to indicate you weren't being very serious. It was obvious to you but not necessarily to me. 

 

I love a good rant on here and I get why I probably come across as angry and bitter but I've usually got a grin on my face. Getting worked up and having a rant is quite energising really, gives me a bit of a lift. I'm always having a bit of a rant in my office but it's usually more me doing a "bit" than actually being upset. I'm like an unfunny ALDI Rhod Gilbert, maybe it's a Carmarthen thing. 

 

I can't remember ever actually being legitimately upset by much on here tbf. 

 

I think that's why I was so bemused by how calling FIF a cvnt blew up so much. To me it was just a bit of nothing but your man took it quite personally.

 

He hopefully wouldn't if he was sat next to me and saw the grin on my mug. 

Edited 8 January 2019 by Finnegan