Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[urban.spaceman]

Never really had an issue with Liverpool before, except for the 2 penalties they got against us in 2015. But after Mane's dive in October, and especially after watching and remembering all our celebrations from 4 years ago the other day, I couldn't be ****ing happier that they're about to win the league for the first time in 30 years but their fans will miss absolutely all of it. No trophy lift, no lap of honour, no trophy parade or celebration in the city centre. Their players won't even be able to kiss the ****ing trophy or have their medals put around their necks.

 

It will always be 2019-20* Champions**. 

 

****ing brilliant.

 

And it's not because I'm bitter.

 

They're just cvnts.

[Fox92]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Never really had an issue with Liverpool before, except for the 2 penalties they got against us in 2015. But after Mane's dive in October, and especially after watching and remembering all our celebrations from 4 years ago the other day, I couldn't be ****ing happier that they're about to win the league for the first time in 30 years but their fans will miss absolutely all of it. No trophy lift, no lap of honour, no trophy parade or celebration in the city centre. Their players won't even be able to kiss the ****ing trophy or have their medals put around their necks.

 

It will always be 2019-20* Champions**. 

 

****ing brilliant.

 

And it's not because I'm bitter.

 

They're just cvnts.

It will but they probably won't care. In 50 years the honour will be on the board, end of.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

It will but they probably won't care. In 50 years the honour will be on the board, end of.

The fans of today will care though, because everyone will keep reminding them, especially me.

[Bilo]

The age of a voter is much less of an indicator of their fitness to participate in the democratic process than their intelligence. 

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Bilo said:

The age of a voter is much less of an indicator of their fitness to participate in the democratic process than their intelligence. 

My unpopular one is it should be raised, possibly to 21, maybe even to 25.

 

There was a fantastic piece in The Times a couple of weeks ago written by David Aaronavitch based on the fact that all the old have been young, but none of the young have been old and pretty much all the significant events in your life will happen after the age of 25, most of us probably don't even grow up until later than that.

[leicsmac]

People (like the current crop of lockdown protestors) who go on about "give me freedom or give me death!" often have a very tenuous grasp of the former and still less experience/knowledge of the latter - or they wouldn't say it.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

55 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Never really had an issue with Liverpool before, except for the 2 penalties they got against us in 2015. But after Mane's dive in October, and especially after watching and remembering all our celebrations from 4 years ago the other day, I couldn't be ****ing happier that they're about to win the league for the first time in 30 years but their fans will miss absolutely all of it. No trophy lift, no lap of honour, no trophy parade or celebration in the city centre. Their players won't even be able to kiss the ****ing trophy or have their medals put around their necks.

 

It will always be 2019-20* Champions**. 

 

****ing brilliant.

 

And it's not because I'm bitter.

 

They're just cvnts.

If only they could have a trophy presentation that went something like this.

 

 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

My unpopular one is it should be raised, possibly to 21, maybe even to 25.

 

There was a fantastic piece in The Times a couple of weeks ago written by David Aaronavitch based on the fact that all the old have been young, but none of the young have been old and pretty much all the significant events in your life will happen after the age of 25, most of us probably don't even grow up until later than that.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you about the age of voting.

 

Although I kind of get where you're coming from given all the research in recent years showing we finish puberty and our brains mature (especially men's brains) a lot later the previously thought and not until our mid-20s, I think there's too much historic impetus about 18 being the age of maturity to raise that, even if science suggests we should.

 

The one thing I think though - and I especially think as a parent of older children and it only being a couple of years ago they were 16 or 17 - is that the age of consent should absolutely be raised up to 18 at the very least, if not well into the 20s.

 

The problem with the age of consent in general is though that there should really be 2 ages of consent and it's more about age discrepancy.

 

There was that really quite disgusting movement by Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Satre, Derrida etc. and all those other trendy French philosophers in the late 70s to get the age of consent scrapped and to free paedophiles convicted of statutory rape from prison which feels even more immoral to me nowadays and you could tell none of them had children who'd been that age.

 

There's nothing wrong with two 15 year olds or a 15 and 16 year old born 3 months apart both trying to sex for the first time, that's perfectly natural. But the age of consent wasn't designed for that, it was designed to protect minors from being taken advantage of by fully mature adults for their own sexual gratification.

 

But if someone in their 30s is having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, that's just straight forward taking advantage of a minor and child abuse as far as I can see and if someone did that to one of my kids when they were that age I'd want them to rot in prison.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you about the age of voting.

 

Although I kind of get where you're coming from given all the research in recent years showing we finish puberty and our brains mature (especially men's brains) a lot later the previously thought and not until our mid-20s, I think there's too much historic impetus about 18 being the age of maturity to raise that, even if science suggests we should.

 

The one thing I think though - and I especially think as a parent of older children and it only being a couple of years ago they were 16 or 17 - is that the age of consent should absolutely be raised up to 18 at the very least, if not well into the 20s.

 

The problem with the age of consent in general is though that there should really be 2 ages of consent and it's more about age discrepancy.

 

There was that really quite disgusting movement by Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Satre, Derrida etc. and all those other trendy French philosophers in the late 70s to get the age of consent scrapped and to free paedophiles convicted of statutory rape from prison which feels even more immoral to me nowadays and you could tell none of them had children who'd been that age.

 

There's nothing wrong with two 15 year olds or a 15 and 16 year old born 3 months apart both trying to sex for the first time, that's perfectly natural. But the age of consent wasn't designed for that, it was designed to protect minors from being taken advantage of by fully mature adults for their own sexual gratification.

 

But if someone in their 30s is having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, that's just straight forward taking advantage of a minor and child abuse as far as I can see and if someone did that to one of my kids when they were that age I'd want them to rot in prison.

I believe someone once said divide by 2 and add 7.

 

Use that and the standard 16 age of consent together IMO.

 

Edit: though once the younger person  involved is past a certain age (25-30?) it doesn't make much sense so drop it after that?

Edited 15 May 2020 by leicsmac

[Bilo]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

My unpopular one is it should be raised, possibly to 21, maybe even to 25.

 

There was a fantastic piece in The Times a couple of weeks ago written by David Aaronavitch based on the fact that all the old have been young, but none of the young have been old and pretty much all the significant events in your life will happen after the age of 25, most of us probably don't even grow up until later than that.

21 is daft, but 25 is insanity. I've known colleagues graduate from university, train as teachers and rise to middle management by that age while getting married and buying a home.

 

All of this without a democratic voice is nonsense and, by a bizarre coincidence, more or less exclusively touted by those whose politics are unpopular with the under-30s. 

 

The flipside of the 'young have never been old' argument is the fact that the young will be affected by a government's decision for far longer than the old, and having their destiny and conditions of their country decided by those who'll be long gone by the time the young retire is illogical in the extreme. 

 

What I wouldn't mind seeing is stricter qualifications for those wishing to stand for election - there are some seriously useless people in worryingly high positions of power which they could never hope to replicate outside of politics.

 

I'd also like to see politics education in schools beefed up and made less woolly than implicit British Values within the curriculum or citizenship lessons, which have largely fallen by the wayside in academies anyway. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Bilo said:

21 is daft, but 25 is insanity. I've known colleagues graduate from university, train as teachers and rise to middle management by that age while getting married and buying a home.

 

All of this without a democratic voice is nonsense and, by a bizarre coincidence, more or less exclusively touted by those whose politics are unpopular with the under-30s. 

 

The flipside of the 'young have never been old' argument is the fact that the young will be affected by a government's decision for far longer than the old, and having their destiny and conditions of their country decided by those who'll be long gone by the time the young retire is illogical in the extreme. 

 

What I wouldn't mind seeing is stricter qualifications for those wishing to stand for election - there are some seriously useless people in worryingly high positions of power which they could never hope to replicate outside of politics.

 

I'd also like to see politics education in schools beefed up and made less woolly than implicit British Values within the curriculum or citizenship lessons, which have largely fallen by the wayside in academies anyway. 

To add to this the older you become the more likely you are to become out of touch with the issues concerning the newer generations so your experience doesn't necessarily always trump a younger person's.  For an extreme example if you grew up in a generation where most people were in their own homes and paying a mortgage by their 30s, your experience and priorities may not necessarily apply to a generation who consider that a sign of early success in life.

[urban.spaceman]

52 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

If only they could have a trophy presentation that went something like this.

 

 

As long as they use the end bit of that scene:

 

 

"What awful people" 

[Sampson]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I believe someone once said divide by 2 and add 7.

 

Use that and the standard 16 age of consent together IMO.

 

Edit: though once the younger person  involved is past a certain age (25-30?) it doesn't make much sense so drop it after that?

Yeah that sounds more reasonable to me.

 

I've heard the "divide by 2 and add 7" thing before and to me it definitely makes a lot more sense than a blanket age of 16  Though I'd agree once you reach 25 I think both people would be considered fully mature regardless and at that point it becomes kind of redundant.

[Bilo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

To add to this the older you become the more likely you are to become out of touch with the issues concerning the newer generations so your experience doesn't necessarily always trump a younger person's.  For an extreme example if you grew up in a generation where most people were in their own homes and paying a mortgage by their 30s, your experience and priorities may not necessarily apply to a generation who consider that a sign of early success in life.

It might be a tired stereotype, but the Boomer experience is massively out of touch with that of their children. Free university education and far less emphasis on qualifications even if you didn't go, much greater ease of getting on the property ladder, lower cost of living in real terms and greater availability of jobs.

[ScouseFox]

a big tory wanting to stop young people voting for his own benefit. shocker. 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

It will but they probably won't care. In 50 years the honour will be on the board, end of.

"CHAMPIONS WITH AN ASTERIX, WE'LL NEVER SING THAT"

[Corky]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

The fans of today will care though, because everyone will keep reminding them, especially me.

And those fans of mine and Fox92's age who decided to follow Liverpool instead of Lester Shitty, giving us mocking grief for supporting a crap team, will finally get to see their team win the league.

 

Just four years after our tinpot mob managed it. Glorious.

[Gordon the Great]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you about the age of voting.

 

Although I kind of get where you're coming from given all the research in recent years showing we finish puberty and our brains mature (especially men's brains) a lot later the previously thought and not until our mid-20s, I think there's too much historic impetus about 18 being the age of maturity to raise that, even if science suggests we should.

 

The one thing I think though - and I especially think as a parent of older children and it only being a couple of years ago they were 16 or 17 - is that the age of consent should absolutely be raised up to 18 at the very least, if not well into the 20s.

 

The problem with the age of consent in general is though that there should really be 2 ages of consent and it's more about age discrepancy.

 

There was that really quite disgusting movement by Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Satre, Derrida etc. and all those other trendy French philosophers in the late 70s to get the age of consent scrapped and to free paedophiles convicted of statutory rape from prison which feels even more immoral to me nowadays and you could tell none of them had children who'd been that age.

 

There's nothing wrong with two 15 year olds or a 15 and 16 year old born 3 months apart both trying to sex for the first time, that's perfectly natural. But the age of consent wasn't designed for that, it was designed to protect minors from being taken advantage of by fully mature adults for their own sexual gratification.

 

But if someone in their 30s is having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, that's just straight forward taking advantage of a minor and child abuse as far as I can see and if someone did that to one of my kids when they were that age I'd want them to rot in prison.

Thought this thread was about "unpopular opinions you hold" .As far as I can see your opinion is about as popular as it gets, castration or just a swift lynching sounds about right to me!

 

[Sampson]

7 minutes ago, Gordon the Great said:

Thought this thread was about "unpopular opinions you hold" .As far as I can see your opinion is about as popular as it gets, castration or just a swift lynching sounds about right to me!

 

Yeah. It was a response to another post. It wasn't really meant to be an unpopular opinion.

 

It's more that the age of consent as a single blanket age is a bit outdated now and it needs to be reworked to be raised to protect people in their late adolescence, while also not punishing 2 people in adolescence having consensual sex together.

 

The exact maths behind it I'm not sure. The only thing I know is a blanket age of 16 is too low for its intended purpose to protect minors and those in adolescence being taken advantage of by fully mature adults.

 

Again. I doubt any of that is unpopular, it was more just a general follow-on from another post.

Edited 15 May 2020 by Sampson

[Gordon the Great]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Yeah. It was a response to another post. It wasn't really meant to be an unpopular opinion.

 

It's more that the age of consent as a single blanket age is a bit outdated now and it needs to be reworked to be raised to protect people in their late adolescence, while also not punishing 2 people in adolescence having consensual sex together.

 

The exact maths behind it I'm not sure. The only thing I know is a blanket age of 16 is too low for its intended purpose to protect minors and those in adolescence being taken advantage of by fully mature adults.

 

Again. I doubt any of that is unpopular, it was more just a general follow-on from another post.

Up to the age of 23 you have a statutory  defence against being charged with sex with a minor if you can show that you believed that person to be over the age of consent and the consent was given.....unless the law has changed in the last few years.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

After Life is boring as sin.

[LiberalFox]

social conservatives wanting to redefine the age of majority to over 25 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I believe someone once said divide by 2 and add 7.

 

Use that and the standard 16 age of consent together IMO.

 

Edit: though once the younger person  involved is past a certain age (25-30?) it doesn't make much sense so drop it after that?

 

Disappointed at that edit, Mac.

 

I was looking forward to my new 37-year-old girlfriend when I hit 60, never mind the 47-year-old once I'm 80.

[StanSP]

4 hours ago, Fox92 said:

It will but they probably won't care. In 50 years the honour will be on the board, end of.

There's a Liverpool fan on another forum I'm on who is angry they've waited 30 years and now can't celebrate properly if they win, so instead of taking the win after 3 decades, he'd rather the season gets voided and have no title win  

[Heathrow fox]

I don’t blame him tbf.Bit of a gamble but you would have them in pole position to win next time,whenever that will be.It would be one hell of a self sacrifice football wise.Though the media spaff fest would last 50 years minimum😫 However I do feel a great deal of sympathy for all the clubs whose seasons have now either gone up in smoke,or have been marred.Even Liverpool begrudgingly.