Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[AKCJ]

On 03/03/2019 at 18:43, Charl91 said:

Another controversial opinion.

 

Demarai Gray is better than James Maddison.

****ing hell  

[Countryfox]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Have to say I was initially against letting her back in but fair's fair it's hard to argue with any of that.

 

Well i said let her back ...   then I changed my mind ...   then I changed it back again ...  

 

Oh what a tiz ...   

Edited 5 March 2019 by Countryfox

[Dr The Singh]

22 hours ago, Suzie the Fox said:

My Nuts on pancakes is wrong. 

Didn't know you had any?

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Countryfox said:

 

Well i said let her back ...   then I changed my mind ...   then I changed it back again ...  

 

Oh what a tiz ...   

Stop acting like my wife, btw my opinion of her is magnificent

[Izzy]

Spurs will fvck up the league again and finish fifth. Everyone will laugh and merrily take the piss...

 

...but they'll win the Champions League

[Nalis]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Spurs will fvck up the league again and finish fifth. Everyone will laugh and merrily take the piss...

 

...but they'll win the Champions League

Dont think I could cope with that, would rather they finished comfortably 3rd and get knocked out of the champions league quarter finals.

[murphy]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Spurs will fvck up the league again and finish fifth. Everyone will laugh and merrily take the piss...

 

...but they'll win the Champions League

You know you're not in the joke thread don't you?

[ALC Fox]

13 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Why though? 

 

She's a British citizen, she's born and raised here, she's from Beffnul Green, she's as British as eels, pie and mash. 

 

If she was disillusioned by life here, that's partly on us. If she was radicalised here, that's partly on us. She's our problem, our responsibility. We should absolutely take her back and deal with the consequences. 

 

Doesn't mean she should be walking the streets, spitting on war memorials, booing veterans, claiming a full basket of benefits and sponging off the state as per every Daily Mail reader's disproportionately silly fears. 

 

She should be detained on her return and duly prosecuted and incarcerated in the UK for membership of a banned terrorist organisation. Revoking her citizenship is just revoking ourselves of any responsibility, we helped create the mess in the middle East, we should at very least do our part by picking up our rubbish.

 

If Donald Trump has only said one sensible thing in the last year, its that ourselves, Germany, etc should take back our ISIS fighters and deal with them accordingly. 

 

But it would be a ****ing crying shame if we chucked her in a cell and abandoned her to rot and grow increasingly bitter, mind. We should make every attempt to de-radicalise her. She's a bloody child. 

 

She was a minor when she was seduced by a religious cult, married off to some dirty ****, subjected to statutory rape and squeezed out a couple of kids for the cause. 

 

If this was a pretty, little, well spoken  white girl (with a tidy publicist) instead of a slightly thick, unfortunate looking brown girl from the world's most easily targeted ethnic group then social media would be up in arms trying to #SaveBegum. 

 

Instead, social media is in hysterics turning her in to the next Bin Laden. How is it not ****ing tragically sad that this little girl has been brainwashed? 

 

I mean, aye, maybe she's a complete and total psychopath and there's no way back for her, maybe we'd be best dumping her in a prison for life and forgetting about her, maybe that's how it'd eventually end up but should we not at least try first? 

 

I said it before, I think in another thread, but I really fail to see how abandoning all hope of reclaiming Shamima Begum actually helps us in the war on terror at all. 

 

Nobody is saying you have to like her and only an idiot would want you to let her off the hook and walk free but the feverent mob wanting her to be lost forever because of decisions she made at 15? Get in the bin. 

[Stadt]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Spurs will fvck up the league again and finish fifth. Everyone will laugh and merrily take the piss...

 

...but they'll win the Champions League

It crossed my mind earlier tbh, it's not completely unrealistic. I think the only side they've got no chance against is Atleti. Hard to look past Atletico as the only team to have knocked them out of the Champions League under Simeone are Real.

Edited 6 March 2019 by Stadt

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

Spurs will fvck up the league again and finish fifth. Everyone will laugh and merrily take the piss...

 

...but they'll win the Champions League

If this happens you deserve hate mail forever.

[ozleicester]

There should be an upper age limit to voting, as well as a (U18) lower.

 

I propose 75*... life expectancy is 80, so there is a fair chance you arent going to experience the outcome of your vote and... you are going to damage the future for those that will.

 

*60 if you are a RWNJ

[PloTok]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

There should be an upper age limit to voting, as well as a (U18) lower.

It's not an opinion I've heard before so I guess it might be unpopular in that respect but I reckon it's an idea that could gain traction!

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

There should be an upper age limit to voting, as well as a (U18) lower.

 

I propose 75*... life expectancy is 80, so there is a fair chance you arent going to experience the outcome of your vote and... you are going to damage the future for those that will.

 

*60 if you are a RWNJ

You've just taken the vote off David Attenborough.

 

What about people with terminal cancer in their 30's, are you taking the vote off them as well?

[Finnegan]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

You've just taken the vote off David Attenborough.

 

What about people with terminal cancer in their 30's, are you taking the vote off them as well?

 

Depends, are they Woke? 

[Alf Bentley]

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

You've just taken the vote off David Attenborough.

 

What about people with terminal cancer in their 30's, are you taking the vote off them as well?

 

There are about 15 MPs aged over 75, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority,_2017–present

MPs unable to vote would include Ken Clarke, Denis Skinner & Frank Field....

 

Corbyn would be banned from voting in 5 years time, so he could be PM but banned from voting... 

 

I can sort of see some logic to Oz's suggestion, but it's a complete non-starter, really - so that rare thing, an unpopular opinion in the unpopular opinions thread?

Maybe more of a case for saying to older people that they should bear in mind young people's future.....though many do, I'm sure.

 

Better case for reducing voting age to 16, I think.

 

Decent point about people with terminal illnesses, too.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

You've just taken the vote off David Attenborough.

 

What about people with terminal cancer in their 30's, are you taking the vote off them as well?

 

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There are about 15 MPs aged over 75, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority,_2017–present

MPs unable to vote would include Ken Clarke, Denis Skinner & Frank Field....

 

Corbyn would be banned from voting in 5 years time, so he could be PM but banned from voting... 

 

I can sort of see some logic to Oz's suggestion, but it's a complete non-starter, really - so that rare thing, an unpopular opinion in the unpopular opinions thread?

Maybe more of a case for saying to older people that they should bear in mind young people's future.....though many do, I'm sure.

 

Better case for reducing voting age to 16, I think.

 

Decent point about people with terminal illnesses, too.

 

What about those in cognitive decline?

 

My missus works with people who don't know what day it is, yet there is no barrier to them voting.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

What about those in cognitive decline?

 

My missus works with people who don't know what day it is, yet there is no barrier to them voting.

 

Good point. Presumably the same applies to people who had a mental disability from the outset, or a temporary mental illness - or who simply have an exceptionally low IQ?

 

As many people as possible should be able to vote, I think. God knows there are enough idiots out there who are supposedly sane, without any disability, not old and not in cognitive decline! 

 

This seems to sum up who's not allowed to vote: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

There are about 15 MPs aged over 75, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority,_2017–present

MPs unable to vote would include Ken Clarke, Denis Skinner & Frank Field....

 

Corbyn would be banned from voting in 5 years time, so he could be PM but banned from voting... 

 

I can sort of see some logic to Oz's suggestion, but it's a complete non-starter, really - so that rare thing, an unpopular opinion in the unpopular opinions thread?

Maybe more of a case for saying to older people that they should bear in mind young people's future.....though many do, I'm sure.

 

Better case for reducing voting age to 16, I think.

 

Decent point about people with terminal illnesses, too.

It's where the point ends for me, no one knows when someone is going to die, under the plans set out by Oz some of our elderly are barred from voting for the last thirty years of their life and most of them are probably still taxpayers at the time. If you take it off the elderly as it's not their future you take it off anyone who is going to die soon.

 

I don't think any older person would seriously vote to damage the future for the young, they just have a different idea of what a better future looks like.

 

I have no problem with votes at 16 either providing we set that age as the age of adulthood, so they can do anything, go to a war zone, drink in pubs etc  - I always find it a bit absurd that people like Caroline Lucas campaign for votes at 16 but then vote to raise things like the smoking age to 21. Either you believe they are responsible enough to do things and make decisions at that age or you don't. 

 

I mean if not, why not votes at 14? 12 even? They have an even bigger stake in the future.

 

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

What about those in cognitive decline?

 

My missus works with people who don't know what day it is, yet there is no barrier to them voting.

To be honest some of the people I've worked with have no idea what day it is either, you just have to let them vote, too much of a slippery slope to start banning or blocking people in a democracy. 

 

Nice to have you back. Hope all is well.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Good point. Presumably the same applies to people who had a mental disability from the outset, or a temporary mental illness - or who simply have an exceptionally low IQ?

 

As many people as possible should be able to vote, I think. God knows there are enough idiots out there who are supposedly sane, without any disability, not old and not in cognitive decline! 

 

This seems to sum up who's not allowed to vote: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

Interesting that Irish citizens can vote in a British election. I didn't know that.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

It's where the point ends for me, no one knows when someone is going to die, under the plans set out by Oz some of our elderly are barred from voting for the last thirty years of their life and most of them are probably still taxpayers at the time. If you take it off the elderly as it's not their future you take it off anyone who is going to die soon.

 

I don't think any older person would seriously vote to damage the future for the young, they just have a different idea of what a better future looks like.

 

I have no problem with votes at 16 either providing we set that age as the age of adulthood, so they can do anything, go to a war zone, drink in pubs etc  - I always find it a bit absurd that people like Caroline Lucas campaign for votes at 16 but then vote to raise things like the smoking age to 21. Either you believe they are responsible enough to do things and make decisions at that age or you don't. 

 

I mean if not, why not votes at 14? 12 even? They have an even bigger stake in the future.

 

To be honest some of the people I've worked with have no idea what day it is either, you just have to let them vote, too much of a slippery slope to start banning or blocking people in a democracy. 

 

Nice to have you back. Hope all is well.

1

 

Thanks, mate.

 

Yeah, I'm good, thanks, I just needed to devote my time elsewhere for a while.

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Thanks, mate.

 

Yeah, I'm good, thanks, I just needed to devote my time elsewhere for a while.

 

The things I could have achieved if I'd devoted all my foxestalk time elsewhere. 

 

 

Can't fault you. 

[String fellow]

I thought that the main -isms were now verboten i.e. racism, sexism, ageism, disability-ism, etc. Sadly, it seems that ageism is okay in some quarters. How can it make any sense to deny older people (with a lifetime of wisdom, knowledge and experience) the vote and give it instead to know-almost-nothing 16-year-olds? Isn't it really just a ploy by the left to disenfranchise as many people as possible, because of their tendency to become more conservative with increasing age? 

Edited 6 March 2019 by String fellow

[PloTok]

Well, @ozleicester did post their opinion in the UNpopular thread! Seems like people are taking them to task on that when it looks to me like they've got it bang on - it seems to be unpopular!

 

Maybe it's not a matter of age. Maybe it ought to be a matter of formal education, O levels etc? Or IQ tests at the polling booth? Or perhaps swimming certificates - you can only vote if you've passed your 25m backstroke or something. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, PloTok said:

Well, @ozleicester did post their opinion in the UNpopular thread! Seems like people are taking them to task on that when it looks to me like they've got it bang on - it seems to be unpopular!

 

Maybe it's not a matter of age. Maybe it ought to be a matter of formal education, O levels etc? Or IQ tests at the polling booth? Or perhaps swimming certificates - you can only vote if you've passed your 25m backstroke or something. 

 

Or just the people who agree with ....

 

I think it's a false idea that the older voter vote only for self interest and not thinking about their friends, children, grandchildren etc...

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Thanks, mate.

 

Yeah, I'm good, thanks, I just needed to devote my time elsewhere for a while.

Great to see you back. you've been missed.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The things I could have achieved if I'd devoted all my foxestalk time elsewhere. 

 

 

Can't fault you. 

And the world would have been a better place. Well FT anyway.

[Nick]

On 05/03/2019 at 10:43, Finnegan said:

 

Why though? 

 

She's a British citizen, she's born and raised here, she's from Beffnul Green, she's as British as eels, pie and mash. 

 

If she was disillusioned by life here, that's partly on us. If she was radicalised here, that's partly on us. She's our problem, our responsibility. We should absolutely take her back and deal with the consequences. 

 

Doesn't mean she should be walking the streets, spitting on war memorials, booing veterans, claiming a full basket of benefits and sponging off the state as per every Daily Mail reader's disproportionately silly fears. 

 

She should be detained on her return and duly prosecuted and incarcerated in the UK for membership of a banned terrorist organisation. Revoking her citizenship is just revoking ourselves of any responsibility, we helped create the mess in the middle East, we should at very least do our part by picking up our rubbish.

 

If Donald Trump has only said one sensible thing in the last year, its that ourselves, Germany, etc should take back our ISIS fighters and deal with them accordingly. 

 

But it would be a ****ing crying shame if we chucked her in a cell and abandoned her to rot and grow increasingly bitter, mind. We should make every attempt to de-radicalise her. She's a bloody child. 

 

She was a minor when she was seduced by a religious cult, married off to some dirty ****, subjected to statutory rape and squeezed out a couple of kids for the cause. 

 

If this was a pretty, little, well spoken  white girl (with a tidy publicist) instead of a slightly thick, unfortunate looking brown girl from the world's most easily targeted ethnic group then social media would be up in arms trying to #SaveBegum. 

 

Instead, social media is in hysterics turning her in to the next Bin Laden. How is it not ****ing tragically sad that this little girl has been brainwashed? 

 

I mean, aye, maybe she's a complete and total psychopath and there's no way back for her, maybe we'd be best dumping her in a prison for life and forgetting about her, maybe that's how it'd eventually end up but should we not at least try first? 

 

I said it before, I think in another thread, but I really fail to see how abandoning all hope of reclaiming Shamima Begum actually helps us in the war on terror at all. 

 

Nobody is saying you have to like her and only an idiot would want you to let her off the hook and walk free but the feverent mob wanting her to be lost forever because of decisions she made at 15? Get in the bin.