Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
bovril

Unpopular Opinions You Hold

By bovril, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

You seem obsessed with this notion that certain posters (including myself) post in order to get a reaction from other posters, when in fact people are mostly just saying what they think. Of course you want some kind of reaction, it's a forum to discuss things, but I know in my case certainly, I'm not posting to push people buttons. People are allowed to disagree, to argue, to put across their point of view, as long as they don't troll or throw personal insults (which you could say fif has done by calling you strange, but also you do every time you accuse someone of being an aggressive poster). I've often seen you disappear when challenged on your view or if someone questions you, and that not what a forum is for, if you stop replying there is no forum. When people challenge your view or question you they are interested to see how you got to the view you did, running away doesn't give them that

 

You also seem obsessed with Webbo quiting and have at times speculated on the reason being certain posters pushing him away. That's pure rumour and find it disrespectful to Webbo as you have no idea what occurred in his private life that may have made him want to take time away from here. Webbo seemed a decent guy, but could also be a massive troll and he knew it, I don't get why you're so hung up on him quitting. Just let him be, hopefully he'll be back, but if not then so be it.

 

All in all though Wymesy, it's just the internet, don't take it too seriously. The only reason I've replied to your post is because you've had a go me directly 4 or 5 times now, otherwise I'd just ignore it as it's not worth wasting time on. You keep posting how you want to post, and so will I and FIF and everyone else, just understand if you make controversial remarks, such as you have regarding homosexuality in the past, people will challenge you on them.

Thanks for responding.

 

First of all, regarding Webbo - had a feeling that he had been put off this forum by some people questioning him about his decisions as a moderator and felt certain poster's attitudes regarding his 'power' had appeared quite harsh towards him and had wondered if he decided to step down as mod due to this reason.

However, obviously you may well be correct in that his decision to take a break from this site may have been/still is due to his personal situation - if this is the case, I apologise for the above assumption and like others have said really hope things are ok for him now.

-

The last sentence that you mentioned is related to a comment (which appears quite well-documented, unfortunately - particularly with quite a few still remembering now that controversial view..) that I hugely regret posting and feel that in my 8 years on this forum - that's one of my worse mistakes made on here; I still feel embarrassing posting such a view on a public forum and hope it doesn't tarnish my reputation on here (which unfortunately it may have now  with FIF etc still mentioning it towards me) and that was the stage where I knew I have to be very careful from then on regarding such a sensitive topic.

 

I even mentioned that comment to Mark, after messaging him about something else recently, in how that is one of the embarrassing mistakes I made on this forum and strongly apologised to him in case some guest reads that particular comment and complains to the forum about it.

-

Starting to think I should personally limit the number of posts I make, particularly in General Chat threads - which appear to have more 'sensitive' threads - take a step back from it and just read others' points of views relating to certain topics.

 

Don't want to annoy others in case I potentially post something that posters may disagree with and refer to that comment above which I certainly shot myself with the foot with..

 

Have noticed that there's been more arguing on here (more largely on the main LCFC forum side) and arguments over nothing, which can ruin reading some threads - but, nevertheless still enjoy reading different people's views on topics and how they react and discuss to each other about it.

Edited by Wymeswold fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heathrow fox

Heathrow fox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, StanSP said:

is a player dying suddenly in a plane crash on the way to moving to his new club not an exceptional circumstance!?

Yes of course it warrants a sombre  one minute silence,It’s an exceptional circumstance.It’s the modern competition of who can grieve the most about someone they’ve never met that gets on my nerves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Thanks for responding.

 

First of all, regarding Webbo - had a feeling that he had been put off this forum by some people questioning him about his decisions as a moderator and felt certain poster's attitudes regarding his 'power' had appeared quite harsh towards him and had wondered if he decided to step down as mod due to this reason.

However, obviously you may well be correct in that his decision to take a break from this site may have been/still is due to his personal situation - if this is the case, I apologise for the above assumption and like others have said really hope things are ok for him now.

-

The last sentence that you mentioned is related to a comment (which appears quite well-documented, unfortunately - particularly with quite a few still remembering now that controversial view..) that I hugely regret posting and feel that in my 8 years on this forum - that's one of my worse mistakes made on here; I still feel embarrassing posting such a view on a public forum and hope it doesn't tarnish my reputation on here (which unfortunately it may have now  with FIF etc still mentioning it towards me) and that was the stage where I knew I have to be very careful from then on regarding such a sensitive topic.

 

I even mentioned that comment to Mark, after messaging him about something else recently, in how that is one of the embarrassing mistakes I made on this forum and strongly apologised to him in case some guest reads that particular comment and complains to the forum about it.

-

Starting to think I should personally limit the number of posts I make, particularly in General Chat threads - which appear to have more 'sensitive' threads - take a step back from it and just read others' points of views relating to certain topics.

 

Don't want to annoy others in case I potentially post something that posters may disagree with and refer to that comment above which I certainly shot myself with the foot with..

 

Have noticed that there's been more arguing on here (more largely on the main LCFC forum side) and arguments over nothing, which can ruin reading some threads - but, nevertheless still enjoy reading different people's views on topics and how they react and discuss to each other about it.

Just chill out and enjoy it wymes, don’t take things so serious in this virtual place. It’s just a bunch of faceless people armed with a keyboard. 

I didn’t see your offensive post but there isn’t a person in here who hasn’t made errors in judgment. You’ve apologised so move on, even if they cant.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Klopp is the guy organising the really bad daytime entertainment in the all inclusive hotel... "are you ready to have so much fun today guys?"

“Are you ready to make a good time?”

 

Agadoo distantly blaring out during aquarobics

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Tuna said:

New Marvel blockbuster.

Orphaned as a child and raised by people who hate spending money, are never wrong, and demand a creamy head on their beer, he became.... Huddersfield Man. 

Edited by bovril
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 08/02/2019 at 17:22, Sampson said:

1) Anyone over the age of 14 who still claims to be a Socialist has never actually considered how a Socialist society would work.

 

2) I'd like to hear ozleicester's description of how his Socialist society and government is actually set out.

 

3) Most people who claim to be socialists would instantly regret it the moment they have to work longer hours for less money and then when they just want to go home and relax by watching tv or play computer games they can't, because they don't own their tv and computer and it's not their alloted time to us it.

 

4) Socialism is and always has been a middle-class movement from people who want to be the ones making the decisions and who (as ozleicester demonstrated) talk down to the intelligence of the working-classes to try and get them to follow them.

1) Pointless and childish comment that shows no thought. i could equally respond with, anyone who has reached the age of thirty and hasnt realised that capitalism is failing, cruel and unfair and isnt capable of thinking for themselves. 

 

2) I wont write an entire essay on it, but in simple terms, it is the means of production are owned by the people and are operated for the benefit of the people. Just because your daddy owned a piece of land that a mine sits on doesnt mean that you should have a billion pounds in the bank while others are starving on the streets. Have a look at the failing capitalist structure and write one that works.

 

3) Currently many people either have no work or are working 2 part time jobs on dodgy contracts and dont have time to see their kids or a doctor, let alone play games.

There is no reason to assume anyone (excluding the very rich) would have to work more for less.. except that the lies and misinformation spread by capitalists to ensure they maintain there elite lifestyle. I doubt that ANYONE on this forum would be worse off if we reduced the amount the billionaires could have and used it to support ALL people.

 

4) lol Imagine that, the lower classes making decisions, oh the horror!  We the lower and middle classes couldnt possibly understand how to run things better than the highly educated pig fvcking elite upper classes. I think you would do well to reread your last sentence to see who is talking down.

 

Just as an FYI

 

If you are a millionaire and you laid all of your 1 pound coins end to end you could get from the KIng Power to the City Centre Loughborough

 

If you are a BILLIONAIRE and you laid all your 1 pound coins end to end you could get from the King Power to Sydney Australia

 

Is this a balanced society?

 

Related image  Related image

Edited by ozleicester
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

1) Pointless and childish comment that shows no thought. i could equally respond with, anyone who has reached the age of thirty and hasnt realised that capitalism is failing, cruel and unfair and isnt capable of thinking for themselves. 

 

2) I wont write an entire essay on it, but in simple terms, it is the means of production are owned by the people and are operated for the benefit of the people. Just because your daddy owned a piece of land that a mine sits on doesnt mean that you should have a billion pounds in the bank while others are starving on the streets. Have a look at the failing capitalist structure and write one that works.

 

3) Currently many people either have no work or are working 2 part time jobs on dodgy contracts and dont have time to see their kids or a doctor, let alone play games.

There is no reason to assume anyone (excluding the very rich) would have to work more for less.. except that the lies and misinformation spread by capitalists to ensure they maintain there elite lifestyle. I doubt that ANYONE on this forum would be worse off if we reduced the amount the billionaires could have and used it to support ALL people.

 

4) lol Imagine that, the lower classes making decisions, oh the horror!  We the lower and middle classes couldnt possibly understand how to run things better than the highly educated pig fvcking elite upper classes. I think you would do well to reread your last sentence to see who is talking down.

 

Just as an FYI

 

If you are a millionaire and you laid all of your 1 pound coins end to end you could get from the KIng Power to the City Centre Loughborough

 

If you are a BILLIONAIRE and you laid all your 1 pound coins end to end you could get from the King Power to Sydney Australia

 

Is this a balanced society?

 

Related image  Related image

But how does your society look? "The means of production" meant factories when most people worked in factories in the early 19th century. Nowadays, most people work in service jobs in offices, retail, transport etc. and aren't "producing" physical items, but instead are producing services - so what does that even mean in 2019? What are people owning? And how are they owning this? Through the state or collectives or syndicates? Surely if I'm stupid or scared for not believing in Socialism, I have to actually know what you mean by Socialism? And surely you've thought through how tgis society would work if it's a deeply held belief of yours?

 

I will hazard a guess you don't have children because if you want to forcefully take people's property away from the moment they die rather than allowing them to pass them on to their children then I can guarantee you'd greatly lower production levels in a country. There's no bigger motivation for a person to work hard than to make a better life for their children (Well apart from fear) then they themselves had. And why does this need to be done by force? And if not how would you handle this transaction peacefully? Why shouldn't people have the individual choice of what happens to their property when they die? And who enforces it if they don't? The state? 

 

As for parts 3 or 4 - how does Socialism solve that? Because all real world evidence suggests that Capitalism has pulled billions of people out of poverty abd allowed people to work less hours whereas Socialism doesn't and how does it work that public ownership of the means of production doesn't cause wealth inequality or that the people of the 4 or 5 Socialist countries which exist (I.e. North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Zimbabwe) that there isn't great wealth inequality. 

 

Dodgy contracts and having to work 2 jobs are issues in societies in general we have to help but I don't really see what that anything to do with who owns the means of production or not or why you think Socialism suddenly solves that.

 

Why does wealth inequality matter in the slightest or some fact about pound coins matter? If the poor people have better lives? Why does it matter how rich the rich people are?

 

How are we going to reduce the number of billionaires and redistribute their wealth without causing serious inflation? Through force? What does that even have to do with "owning the means of production"?

 

I'm just curious, because I want to know why I'm stupid and scared because I can't see how you can create a society driven by an Economy of public ownership without it being built on the sword and oppressive and/or lead to massive inflation and poverty. And it's fine to criticise Capitalism, there's plenty of issues with it, but if you're advocating overhauling the entire system rather than working on the issues within Capitalism, then you have to offer how the alternative overhauled system works else I don't know what I'm being stupid for and scared of.

 

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But how does your society look? "The means of production" meant factories when most people worked in factories in the early 19th century. Nowadays, most people work in service jobs in offices, retail, transport etc. and aren't "producing" physical items, but instead are producing services - so what does that even mean in 2019? What are people owning? And how are they owning this? Through the state or collectives or syndicates? Surely if I'm stupid or scared for not believing in Socialism, I have to actually know what you mean by Socialism? And surely you've thought through how tgis society would work if it's a deeply held belief of yours?

 

I will hazard a guess you don't have children because if you want to forcefully take people's property away from the moment they die rather than allowing them to pass them on to their children then I can guarantee you'd greatly lower production levels in a country. There's no bigger motivation for a person to work hard than to make a better life for their children (Well apart from fear) then they themselves had. And why does this need to be done by force? And if not how would you handle this transaction peacefully? Why shouldn't people have the individual choice of what happens to their property when they die? And who enforces it if they don't? The state? 

 

As for parts 3 or 4 - how does Socialism solve that? Because all real world evidence suggests that Capitalism has pulled billions of people out of poverty abd allowed people to work less hours whereas Socialism doesn't and how does it work that public ownership of the means of production doesn't cause wealth inequality or that the people of the 4 or 5 Socialist countries which exist (I.e. North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Zimbabwe) that there isn't great wealth inequality. 

 

Dodgy contracts and having to work 2 jobs are issues in societies in general we have to help but I don't really see what that anything to do with who owns the means of production or not or why you think Socialism suddenly solves that.

 

Why does wealth inequality matter in the slightest or some fact about pound coins matter? If the poor people have better lives? Why does it matter how rich the rich people are?

 

How are we going to reduce the number of billionaires and redistribute their wealth without causing serious inflation? Through force? What does that even have to do with "owning the means of production"?

 

I'm just curious, because I want to know why I'm stupid and scared because I can't see how you can create a society driven by an Economy of public ownership without it being built on the sword and oppressive and/or lead to massive inflation and poverty. And it's fine to criticise Capitalism, there's plenty of issues with it, but if you're advocating overhauling the entire system rather than working on the issues within Capitalism, then you have to offer how the alternative overhauled system works else I don't know what I'm being stupid for and scared of.

 

You have access to the internet, im not going to provide an irrelevant stranger on the internet with the homework they request. Google socialism, youll get rough idea.

 

Your guess is based on your own greed and again is irrelevant. Many people will work hard based on the good for th community instead of personal greed. And your 'fear' of force is in your mind. not mine.

 

You actually have a point about capitalism having some success of bringig people up.... that has changed now of course and ghas gone beyond what it should be, we find it nearly impossible to prove the benefits of socialism as most of the societies where it has been attempted have been destroyed by capitalist interference.

 

"Why does it matter how rich the rich people are?" 

 

I give up, this discussion is pointless, when people are starving and suffering and you dont care that others literally have more money than they can ever spend is exactly why capitalism is failing.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

You have access to the internet, im not going to provide an irrelevant stranger on the internet with the homework they request. Google socialism, youll get rough idea.

 

Your guess is based on your own greed and again is irrelevant. Many people will work hard based on the good for th community instead of personal greed. And your 'fear' of force is in your mind. not mine.

 

You actually have a point about capitalism having some success of bringig people up.... that has changed now of course and ghas gone beyond what it should be, we find it nearly impossible to prove the benefits of socialism as most of the societies where it has been attempted have been destroyed by capitalist interference.

 

"Why does it matter how rich the rich people are?" 

 

I give up, this discussion is pointless, when people are starving and suffering and you dont care that others literally have more money than they can ever spend is exactly why capitalism is failing.

 

 

I know what Socialism is. I was asking what you're idea of how it should be implemented was, seeing as it's a very macroeconomic concept built on 19th century ideals and came out of a 19th century Economic climate which doesnt explain implementation in the 21st Century and you were the one saying anyone who isn't a Socialist is stupid and scared, so I just wanted to know how you think it should work in the real world. But I see you don't want to answer that which is fine.

 

Ok. So I'm stupid, scared and greedy because I wanted a better life for my children? And want to leave my property and objects to my children when I die? Property and objects I worked many 80+ hour weeks for over many decades, solely to help provide for my family? Is there anything else you want to accuse me of?

 

Of course I care about people suffering. That's why I don't want economies where more people are poor, mass poverty or hyper-inflation happens as often happens in Socialist societies. I just don't understand why public ownership solves that and why that means the whole system has to be overthrown rather than worked inm. It's hard to argue that a lot more wealth gets created in Capitalist societies than in Socialist ones - if you want to redistribute that more and try to balance that without reducing wealth creation and/or causing inflation, fair enough, but that's a difficult but doable task. But I just don't see where that leads to overhauling the whole system rather than trying to make changes within the system.

 

There are millions of people starving and suffering in Socialist countries like Venezuela, North Korea and Zimbabwe too - why do you not care about them or want to overhaul their system or are you happy to write all the pain and suffering in those countries to just beung down to "capitalist interference" rather than corrupt leaders,  ecobomic stagnation or hyper-inflation? But you want to overhaul the whole system in Capitalist countries like Germany, the UK, Singapore and Sweden because there are people suffering and starving there (which there are)?

 

You really think Socialist societies have only been destroyed by "capitalist interference"? You really think hyper-inflation only happens in Socialist countries because of Capitalist interference? You really think the uprisings in the USSR, Maoist China or Cambodia only happened because of Capitalist interference and not the mass poverty and Economic stagnation amongst the general population? If people have to suffer in a transition period between Capitalism and Socialim say, as would undoubtably happen, how many people is small enough for this to be ok? And how do you reduce this?

 

If it's just my fear of force, thrn explain how you do it peacefully? How do you stop this "capitalist interference" you talk of? What do you do to people who prefer capitalism and don't want to give up their private property they worked hard for even if they aren't rich "pigs" but just someone on minimum wage who worked long 80+ hour weeks to save up to buy a car or a flat - how do you take that private property off them non-forcefully just because they have different political beliefs to you?

 

I'm not disagreeing with you that there's issues with Capitalism. And if you think this means we have to overhaul it's fundamental ideas of private ownership and enterprise rather than work on ideas within those systems then that's fine, that's your opinion. But I don't understand why you think people are just stupid, scared or greedy for thinking that an Economy driven by public ownership would lead to more suffering and poverty than currently exists in Economies driven by private Economies and/or the transition period between the two would lead to so much pain and suffering for so little gain on the other side that it would not be worth it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Girls, perhaps open a Scoialism v Capitalism thread.

 

Your posts are too long for here.

 

13 hours ago, Stadt said:

That’s niche lol 

Nah he wrote beyond good and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Some of their stuff may be over-rated, but The Big Lebowski is the single greatest film ever made. 

Loved the quirkiness of Raising Arizona and the suspense of Millers Crossing and the humour of Lebowski...but no, it actually isn't the greatest film ever made is it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...