Jump to content
bovril

Unpopular Opinions You Hold

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly unpopular opinion related to above:

 

I don't believe Donald Trump to be all that dangerous politically.

 

Some of the people around him and enabled by him are.

Politics is a joke, Con/Lab, Repub/Demo

 

Different sides of the same coin

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly unpopular opinion related to above:

 

I don't believe Donald Trump to be all that dangerous politically.

 

Some of the people around him and enabled by him are.

anyone that stupid is pretty dangerous tbh 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Ronaldo > Messi

To add my own unpopular opinion to this:

 

Neither of them are as great as Brazil's Ronaldo or Zidane (in recent times) due to neither of them inspiring their team to victory on the biggest stage of all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

To add my own unpopular opinion to this:

 

Neither of them are as great as Brazil's Ronaldo or Zidane (in recent times) due to neither of them inspiring their team to victory on the biggest stage of all.

 

Nor as good as Kanté.

 

Unpopular opinion: Everybody's DNA should be added to a national/international database on the day they are born.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Nor as good as Kanté.

 

Unpopular opinion: Everybody's DNA should be added to a national/international database on the day they are born.

 

Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Nor as good as Kanté.

 

Unpopular opinion: Everybody's DNA should be added to a national/international database on the day they are born.

 

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Why?

As strange as this may sound i have often thought this would be a great idea. Dont you think crimes would be solved faster when DNA was found at a crime as the person could be immediatly pinpointed and arrested? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

 

As strange as this may sound i have often thought this would be a great idea. Dont you think crimes would be solved faster when DNA was found at a crime as the person could be immediatly pinpointed and arrested? 

It's also a bit 1984, isn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 09:27, 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.

 

It's such a complex issue that its almost impossible to prove Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty just as it could be shown its pushed billions into poverty, I see benefits of both capitalism and socialism but if its just an argument for capitalism then you can't view it through your own personal views as it wall always be unbalanced, I remember a Chomsky quote...which of course is skewed in itself given his political leanings but the basis of it are valid. 'The living standards of slaves in the US increased over time. Is that an argument for slavery? If not, it's not an argument for capitalism

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie the Fox said:

 

As strange as this may sound i have often thought this would be a great idea. Dont you think crimes would be solved faster when DNA was found at a crime as the person could be immediatly pinpointed and arrested? 

 

It sounds a great idea if you can guarantee that the govt of each nation will remain just and benign.

 

Not such a good idea, for example, if you cannot guarantee that there will never be another Hitler. What if someone took power who believed in Aryan supremacy and wanted to identify anyone with Jewish DNA so as to exterminate them?

On an individual level, plenty of regimes (including western regimes) have targeted political opponents for harassment and worse - universal DNA matching would aid that process, particularly if dissidents had gone undercover to avoid detection.

 

On a practical level, I think it currently takes weeks to match DNA. Maybe, with technological advances, it will become instant in the future - but that would currently allow criminals to escape before a DNA match could be done.

I've given my DNA twice, once for checking on a hereditary medical condition and once to Ancestry for matching to distant relations. Both times the process took at least 2 months.

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's also a bit 1984, isn't it? 

 

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It sounds a great idea if you can guarantee that the govt of each nation will remain just and benign.

 

Not such a good idea, for example, if you cannot guarantee that there will never be another Hitler. What if someone took power who believed in Aryan supremacy and wanted to identify anyone with Jewish DNA so as to exterminate them?

On an individual level, plenty of regimes (including western regimes) have targeted political opponents for harassment and worse - universal DNA matching would aid that process, particularly if dissidents had gone undercover to avoid detection.

 

On a practical level, I think it currently takes weeks to match DNA. Maybe, with technological advances, it will become instant in the future - but that would currently allow criminals to escape before a DNA match could be done.

I've given my DNA twice, once for checking on a hereditary medical condition and once to Ancestry for matching to distant relations. Both times the process took at least 2 months.

 

Ok maybe i didn't think it through too well.. It sounded good in my head though :) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Why?

Why did we start registering our names at birth? Why do we have a national insurance number? why does our bank need so many personal details about us? ...

 

I believe in a country where we vote for our fellow citizens, I believe in a country that helps the  people with health and education, I believe that our countries ARE benign and will continue to be.

 

DNA database from birth will help with both catching criminals and preventing crime, as well as proving who we are and who we are related to. I think those are good things. People fear progress and new technology (and there potential uses) far too much.

 

1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

It's also a bit 1984, isn't it? 

No more than satelites and satelite TV are rather Arthur C Clarke. Certainly no worse than the CCTV that is everywhere in England these days.

 

 

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

The current rampant and excessive capitalism is a disaster. Shameful greedy scum being allowed to destroy lives and the planet for $$

 

Agreed. Socialist capitalism is required. or Capitalist socialism.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It sounds a great idea if you can guarantee that the govt of each nation will remain just and benign.

 

Not such a good idea, for example, if you cannot guarantee that there will never be another Hitler. What if someone took power who believed in Aryan supremacy and wanted to identify anyone with Jewish DNA so as to exterminate them?

On an individual level, plenty of regimes (including western regimes) have targeted political opponents for harassment and worse - universal DNA matching would aid that process, particularly if dissidents had gone undercover to avoid detection.

 

On a practical level, I think it currently takes weeks to match DNA. Maybe, with technological advances, it will become instant in the future - but that would currently allow criminals to escape before a DNA match could be done.

I've given my DNA twice, once for checking on a hereditary medical condition and once to Ancestry for matching to distant relations. Both times the process took at least 2 months.

 

If you go ahead with the thought that your own chosen government isn't benign then you are already on the road to hell. Perhaps we should all be unidentifiable just in case?

 

If you are worried to implement positive changes due to progress and new technology because of the potential negatives - you'll never progress and are more likely to be swallowed up by a nation which has implemented progress.

 

The phrase "someone took power" makes it sound as though this is easily done without the collaboration of the populace. Do you think that hitler and the Nazis would have killed many more people than they did if they had a DNA database?  They didn't even manage to kill all of those that they identified as Jews. It was a task that as hard as they tried they couldn't complete. Anyway if "someone took power" the UK who wanted to kill a section of the public I don't think the database makes that much difference.

 

I think your practical arguments are too weak to bother with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

If you go ahead with the thought that your own chosen government isn't benign then you are already on the road to hell. Perhaps we should all be unidentifiable just in case?

 

If you are worried to implement positive changes due to progress and new technology because of the potential negatives - you'll never progress and are more likely to be swallowed up by a nation which has implemented progress.

 

The phrase "someone took power" makes it sound as though this is easily done without the collaboration of the populace. Do you think that hitler and the Nazis would have killed many more people than they did if they had a DNA database?  They didn't even manage to kill all of those that they identified as Jews. It was a task that as hard as they tried they couldn't complete. Anyway if "someone took power" the UK who wanted to kill a section of the public I don't think the database makes that much difference.

 

I think your practical arguments are too weak to bother with. 

 

I didn't say that my "own chosen government isn't benign". I referred to whether "you can guarantee that the govt of each nation will remain just and benign", so you have distorted what I said.

Down through global history, many govts have not been benign, which is a reason for caution. Not the extremes of making everyone unidentifiable, but drawing the line before the end of the sliding scale of official control over personal data.

 

I'm not opposed to progress or new technology, but if the negatives outweigh the positives or are too high-risk, I don't view that as either "positive" or "progress". A case-by-case assessment is needed. In this case, I disagree with you.

The USSR and the Stasi arguably made greater "progress" at controlling personal data than the West did, yet they didn't swallow up western nations that did not implement such "progress".

 

I see no logic in your claim that "someone took power" makes it sound easily done without popular collaboration. Macron and May took power after winning national or party elections. Hitler took power after years building a popular movement to exploit grievances and instability, doing well in elections and getting the collaboration of both the populace and other politicians. Some dictators take power against the will of the people but with the collaboration of the military (Pinochet). There are many routes to power, some easy and some hard, some involving the collaboration of the populace, others not. I've no idea whether Hitler would have killed more with a DNA database, but the risk that a future malign regime might is enough for me - and access to such data potentially makes control and identification easier - or why did the Stasi bother keeping any records? You clearly disagree.

 

The practical obstacles to quick DNA identification might be eliminated over time. I was just sharing personal experience of getting DNA checks done (2+ months). Even if instant DNA checks become possible, I'd be opposed for the reasons above.

 

Some might say that your arguments here are too weak to bother with (I've appreciated some of your other posts). But I've bothered with them because that's the sort of nice, polite bloke I am. 

 

Anyway, you've achieved the stated aim of the thread as far as I'm concerned. Your opinion is very unpopular with me. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marmite said:

The majority of vegans look thin and unwell and it annoys me how they still want to replicate food that they are against. 

How many do you actually know?  I'm guessing not a lot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

How many do you actually know?  I'm guessing not a lot. 

I attend running events where there is actually a group of runners who wear vests with the logo 'Vegan Runners' the majority tend to look thin and pasty. I also work with a vegan and he looks the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Marmite said:

The majority of vegans look thin and unwell and it annoys me how they still want to replicate food that they are against. 

Funny enough my mums BFF is a Vegan and is as fat as fook, always on a permanent diet. She is also the 1st to point out how killing animals is bad, but wares leather shoes. 

 

 

Edited by Suzie the Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marmite said:

The majority of vegans look thin and unwell and it annoys me how they still want to replicate food that they are against. 

 

1 hour ago, Marmite said:

I attend running events where there is actually a group of runners who wear vests with the logo 'Vegan Runners' the majority tend to look thin and pasty. I also work with a vegan and he looks the same. 

 

It's absolutely nothing to do with being vegan and everything to do with poor nutrition. A lot of vegans just remove meat and dairy from their diet without replacing the lost nutrients by adjusting their diet accordingly.

 

These are a vegan bodybuilders:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Jehina-Malik-02.jpg

1 hour ago, Marmite said:

https://veggies.co.uk/tag/vegan-meat-feast-pizza/

 

It just dont make sense, there against meat but want to buy something that replicates a meat feast pizza ?

 

Products that replicate meat are intended to encourage people who enjoy meat, but are conflicted by their ethics, to become vegan.

Edited by Buce
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Funny enough my mums BFF is a Vegan and is as fat as fook, always on a permanent diet. She is also the 1st to point out how killing animals is bad, but wares leather shoes. 

 

 

I imagine she eats loads of carbs, probably pasta. It's quite easy to do when you're a veggie/vegan and aren't that experienced in the kitchen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2019 at 12:59, FIF said:

Why did we start registering our names at birth? Why do we have a national insurance number? why does our bank need so many personal details about us? ...

 

I believe in a country where we vote for our fellow citizens, I believe in a country that helps the  people with health and education, I believe that our countries ARE benign and will continue to be.

 

DNA database from birth will help with both catching criminals and preventing crime, as well as proving who we are and who we are related to. I think those are good things. People fear progress and new technology (and there potential uses) far too much.

 

No more than satelites and satelite TV are rather Arthur C Clarke. Certainly no worse than the CCTV that is everywhere in England these days.

 

 

 

Agreed. Socialist capitalism is required. or Capitalist socialism.

 

If you go ahead with the thought that your own chosen government isn't benign then you are already on the road to hell. Perhaps we should all be unidentifiable just in case?

 

If you are worried to implement positive changes due to progress and new technology because of the potential negatives - you'll never progress and are more likely to be swallowed up by a nation which has implemented progress.

 

The phrase "someone took power" makes it sound as though this is easily done without the collaboration of the populace. Do you think that hitler and the Nazis would have killed many more people than they did if they had a DNA database?  They didn't even manage to kill all of those that they identified as Jews. It was a task that as hard as they tried they couldn't complete. Anyway if "someone took power" the UK who wanted to kill a section of the public I don't think the database makes that much difference.

 

I think your practical arguments are too weak to bother with. 

I didn't read all of this, but it's absolutely the kind of extreme far left bat shit crazy thinking we should all be worried about.

 

Please don't get into politics.

Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...