Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

There should be more cycle lanes, to ease the build-up in traffic that get stuck behind them on busy roads.

And cyclists should be made to use the ones that already exist. Why are they allowed to cycle on the road next to a cycle path designed specifically for their usage?

[Fox92]

11 hours ago, Corky said:

And cyclists should be made to use the ones that already exist. Why are they allowed to cycle on the road next to a cycle path designed specifically for their usage?

Last Sunday I was out walking. Small path next to a road. Two cyclists come straight down the path towards me  

[Wymsey]

14 hours ago, Corky said:

And cyclists should be made to use the ones that already exist. Why are they allowed to cycle on the road next to a cycle path designed specifically for their usage?

Absolutely.

They're there for a reason, so they can casually take their time whilst riding and preventing potential accidents with vehicle drivers being stuck behind them on certain roads.

[Sampson]

Fair enough cycling places instead of driving but cyclists are hands down the worst, most arrogant vehicle/pedestrians on the road.

 

See a cyclist approaching a red light and 90% of the 

 time you can guarantee they'll just go straight through even if it's a pedestrian crossing/a zebra crossing where pedestrians are crossing.

 

We used to have a blind traffic lighted crossroads when I used to live and you had to slam your breaks on so often because of cyclists just ignoring the red lights and going straight through the crossroads blind while cars are coming at 90 degrees to them.

 

Cyclists who cycle on pavements are just as bad to pedestrians. I'd hate to imagine how bad it is for blind people trying to walk on the pavement with willy puller cyclists all about.

 

I think people would appreciate cyclists more of they didn't have such an arrogant disregard of absolutely everyone else around them on the roads or as pedestrians.

Edited 21 June 2020 by Sampson

[jonthefox]

KFC is disgusting. 

[The Bear]

8 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

KFC is disgusting. 

If you don't like fried chicken, I guess so. Otherwise it's nice. 

[Parafox]

People who type "breaks" when referring to the method of slowing a vehicle or other mechanical device.

 

It's BRAKES!

 

I'm off to Pedantry Central. 

2 hours ago, The Bear said:

If you don't like fried chicken, I guess so. Otherwise it's nice. 

No, it's really not. My local chippy does southern fried chicken and it's consistently better than the watery, soggy, tiny chicken breasts KFC serve up. Plus their fries are always lukewarm and limp. It's horrible. I complained to customer services and they apologised and offered me a free meal. Bollocks to that. Why would I want to have a shit meal, free or not?

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

No, it's really not. My local chippy does southern fried chicken and it's consistently better than the watery, soggy, tiny chicken breasts KFC serve up. Plus their fries are always lukewarm and limp. It's horrible. I complained to customer services and they apologised and offered me a free meal. Bollocks to that. Why would I want to have a shit meal, free or not?

Wow, god forbid a company tries to retain the custom of someone who's paid for a meal before and wasn't satisfied. So much for good customer service, eh?

 

 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

Fair enough cycling places instead of driving but cyclists are hands down the worst, most arrogant vehicle/pedestrians on the road.

 

See a cyclist approaching a red light and 90% of the 

 time you can guarantee they'll just go straight through even if it's a pedestrian crossing/a zebra crossing where pedestrians are crossing.

 

We used to have a blind traffic lighted crossroads when I used to live and you had to slam your breaks on so often because of cyclists just ignoring the red lights and going straight through the crossroads blind while cars are coming at 90 degrees to them.

 

Cyclists who cycle on pavements are just as bad to pedestrians. I'd hate to imagine how bad it is for blind people trying to walk on the pavement with willy puller cyclists all about.

 

I think people would appreciate cyclists more of they didn't have such an arrogant disregard of absolutely everyone else around them on the roads or as pedestrians.

I think you’re being a little unfair singling out cyclists, it seems the majority of people have an arrogant disregard of absolutely everyone else around them, cyclists, pedestrians, drivers are all as bad as each other, there are a huge amount of selfish, thick as pig 💩 people around, I despair at the state of our country.

[Ian Nacho]

The victims of the attacks in Reading are far superior people, who add more to society than George Floyd, who was a criminal. Sums up everything wrong with the world that there has been public outrage for the killing of one criminal but nothing for the three innocent victims in Reading. 

[David Guiza]

2 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

The victims of the attacks in Reading are far superior people, who add more to society than George Floyd, who was a criminal. Sums up everything wrong with the world that there has been public outrage for the killing of one criminal but nothing for the three innocent victims in Reading. 

Are you auditioning for the vacant role of Katie Hopkins?

 

Why are you weighing up the worth of murder victims against each other?

 

Firstly, if you are a believer in fundamental human rights then you would respect the notion that no human life is worth more than another, regardless of their past. Secondly, the protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd are about systematic racism, police brutality, equality etc, his killing was just another senseless loss of life in a long line of awful events. The protests are not for any single man, woman, or child, but for everyone.

 

Congrats anyway, I gave you a slice of that attention that you were clearly so desperately craving for your post.  

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Are you auditioning for the vacant role of Katie Hopkins?

 

Why are you weighing up the worth of murder victims against each other?

 

Firstly, if you are a believer in fundamental human rights then you would respect the notion that no human life is worth more than another, regardless of their past. Secondly, the protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd are about systematic racism, police brutality, equality etc, his killing was just another senseless loss of life in a long line of awful events. The protests are not for any single man, woman, or child, but for everyone.

 

Congrats anyway, I gave you a slice of that attention that you were clearly so desperately craving for your post.  

Of course some lives are worth more than others. Even if it’s personal connection, you wouldn’t get upset by everyone who dies like you would your parents for example.

I think it’s ok to value someone based on the contributions they make.

[David Guiza]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Of course some lives are worth more than others. Even if it’s personal connection, you wouldn’t get upset by everyone who dies like you would your parents for example.

I think it’s ok to value someone based on the contributions they make.

Respectfully disagree. I certainly believe that one could propose that X person is better than Y person as a result of giving more back to society etc, but I don't think one can say X person's life is more important than Y as that opens the door to a myriad of issues both ethically and philosophically. I also accept that someones life can mean way more than somebody else's subjectively, but I don't think that matters objectively. 

 

It's part of the reason that I'm against the death penalty, because it's so 'final'. I don't think a state can proclaim that human life is sacrosanct if they are willing to end somebody's life as a punishment. For that reason, among others, I don't think we can say that X person's life is worth more than the life of Y. I've also never understood any religious people who believe in the death penalty or proclaim that somebody is 'better' than another, because any religious scripture that I've read generally states that we are all equal and worthy. 

 

Suicide was illegal as recently as 50/60 years ago because the state believed that all life was precious and nobody had the right to give that up themselves though they did think that the state could do so which is a whole different issue altogether . 

 

There is also so much complexity to human life and action. The reason as to why we do things and how we end up in certain situations comes about as a result of millions of possibilities that lead to said event. Sure some people are out and out 'bad', but many just do bad things as a result of circumstance and bad fortune. An argument could also be made that many people only do good things for selfish reasons. If we accept that both of those points are true, then is it fair to say that X person has a better right to life than Y, simply because one did a 'bad' thing and the other did a 'good' thing? 

 

That's not to mention the concept of free will and questioning if human beings can be held responsible for their actions at all .

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Respectfully disagree. I certainly believe that one could propose that X person is better than Y person as a result of giving more back to society etc, but I don't think one can say X person's life is more important than Y as that opens the door to a myriad of issues both ethically and philosophically. I also accept that someones life can mean way more than somebody else's subjectively, but I don't think that matters objectively. 

Respectfully disagree. It's a basic concept that some humans are more important than other humans. There's no shame in it or huge philosophical debate to be had about it. When the titanic was sinking who filled the lifeboats first? Women and children. If there was a catastrophic world wide event today, women and children would get priority simply on the basis of human survival. A geeza with the knowledge of a library is more important than a geeza that's only ever read the sun. A young person needing treatment takes precedence over an old person... 

 

Millions of ways we are unequal. Nothing bad about it, just the way the world works. 

[Dahnsouff]

Cool. We had the evolution versus religion discussion,  now onto some ethics discussions - this place is great  

Might as well have a go - in my opinion, this is an area fraught with intangibles.

Whys is Hitler worth the same as that guy who saved a crowd of people from a gunman?

A basic inalienable human right to exist is an answer I guess, if a little blunt.

What about the rights of all those killed? "aw sorry but you know, it is the ethical right thing to do"

This righteous statements are incredibly praiseworthy and easy to make from a safe distance.

Plus they sell well on social media.

 

[z-layrex]

16 hours ago, Parafox said:

People who type "breaks" when referring to the method of slowing a vehicle or other mechanical device.

 

It's BRAKES!

 

I'm off to Pedantry Central. 

No, it's really not. My local chippy does southern fried chicken and it's consistently better than the watery, soggy, tiny chicken breasts KFC serve up. Plus their fries are always lukewarm and limp. It's horrible. I complained to customer services and they apologised and offered me a free meal. Bollocks to that. Why would I want to have a shit meal, free or not?

Even the food in those fake chicken shops you always see in the shit parts of town centres is usually better than KFC.

[The Bear]

16 hours ago, Parafox said:

I'm off to Pedantry Central. 

No, it's really not. My local chippy does southern fried chicken and it's consistently better than the watery, soggy, tiny chicken breasts KFC serve up. Plus their fries are always lukewarm and limp. It's horrible. I complained to customer services and they apologised and offered me a free meal. Bollocks to that. Why would I want to have a shit meal, free or not?

Yeah well, that's just like, your opinion man. 

 

The chicken tastes just the same as any other chicken to me. And I've had it from supermarkets and high-street chicken shops. Except the KFC coating is much nicer. 

 

And the fries are great now. They actually taste closer to proper chips instead of the thin, hard, salty sticks you get from McDonalds. KFC don't put salt on their fries. 

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Respectfully disagree. It's a basic concept that some humans are more important than other humans. There's no shame in it or huge philosophical debate to be had about it. When the titanic was sinking who filled the lifeboats first? Women and children. If there was a catastrophic world wide event today, women and children would get priority simply on the basis of human survival. A geeza with the knowledge of a library is more important than a geeza that's only ever read the sun. A young person needing treatment takes precedence over an old person... 

 

Millions of ways we are unequal. Nothing bad about it, just the way the world works. 

I agree that there are countless instances where decisions have to be made and there is a clear pecking order for human life (much like the Trolley Problem scenario), but my point was more around ethics and philosophy than day to day life. The OP said that 'the victims of the attacks in Reading were far superior people who added more to society than George Floyd, who was a criminal' (well I had to edit the original post, which made no sense) which, to me, suggested that the fact Floyd had past convictions meant that he shouldn't be mourned in the way that the victims of the Reading attacks should be, in spite of the fact that the second victim had only been named a number of hours previously. I find that notion senseless as, to me, Floyd's life was no more or less important than those tragic victims of Saturday. All three victims had a right to life and had that unjustly taken away from them. Perhaps I could have phrased my response better, but that's effectively my point.

 

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Cool. We had the evolution versus religion discussion,  now onto some ethics discussions - this place is great  

Might as well have a go - in my opinion, this is an area fraught with intangibles.

Whys is Hitler worth the same as that guy who saved a crowd of people from a gunman?

A basic inalienable human right to exist is an answer I guess, if a little blunt.

What about the rights of all those killed? "aw sorry but you know, it is the ethical right thing to do"

This righteous statements are incredibly praiseworthy and easy to make from a safe distance.

Plus they sell well on social media.

 

Appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not saying that a ruthless killer shouldn't be stopped on the basis that their life is sacrosanct. As with the aforementioned Trolley Problem scenario, If the life of somebody can be taken to save the lives of others then It's a worthwhile decision. In terms of somebody like Hitler, as with Bin Laden, I would have preferred that, if safe and possible, they were taken alive. That is more down to being a believer that you can extract far more from a person alive then dead. Killing them is nothing more than retaliation. 

 

I don't think, as a society, we can proclaim what is right and wrong if we take a human's life away because we deem them not worthy, but then punish others for taking life away. To me there is a world of difference between an instinctive reaction to kill in order to save lives, than to kill for punishment. 

 

Ethics and morality are complex and full of what ifs and hypocritical elements though. I am a firm believer in the right to abortions and one could argue that said belief is contrary what I've said above, but I'm as fickle and hypocritical as anybody the next guy.

[leicsmac]

Unless he presented a capital threat to police at the time he died (which he of course did not), who George Floyd was and what he did previous to the incident involved is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand and a distraction from it.

 

This is about institutionalised police malpractice towards people of colour in the US which he was a victim of, and nothing other than the way he died has anything to do with addressing that very large problem.

Edited 22 June 2020 by leicsmac

[Mickyblueeyes]

2 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

The victims of the attacks in Reading are far superior people, who add more to society than George Floyd, who was a criminal. Sums up everything wrong with the world that there has been public outrage for the killing of one criminal but nothing for the three innocent victims in Reading. 

Who would the outrage be aimed against ? In the Floyd scenario, it was a white cop against a black victim - the BLM movement are protesting against what they believe is underlying racism from one group to another (whether that is right or wrong is another matter). 

 

In Reading, its a guy suffering from Mental Health issues who has, without prejudice, set out to harm as many people as possible, without discrimination. 

 

I dont agree with classing one persons life higher in rank to another but genuinely trying to understand who the outrage would be aimed against given the person who has carried out these attacks. 

 

[The Bear]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Unless he presented a capital threat to police at the time he died (which he of course did not), who George Floyd was and what he did previous to the incident involved is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand and a distraction from it.

 

This is about institutionalised police malpractice towards people of colour in the US which he was a victim of, and nothing other than the way he died has anything to do with addressing that very large problem.

I 100% agree. But you can't deny it alters some people's perceptions. 

 

If say Pol Pot is murdered, compared to the Dalai Lama, some people will have stronger feelings about the latter. An extreme example for sure, but some people like to dig into a person's character and base that on how badly they feel. Human nature I guess. 

Edited 22 June 2020 by The Bear

[UniFox21]

On 20/06/2020 at 21:52, Corky said:

And cyclists should be made to use the ones that already exist. Why are they allowed to cycle on the road next to a cycle path designed specifically for their usage?

There are a fair few near me which I won't use if I'm cycling given the council felt the need to put them over huge numbers of drains, which if I don't swerve into the road for I'm flying over the front wheel when my tyre hits it. Also feel weirdly safer on the road on occasions where the cycle lane is attached to a path, given the number of times I've been cycling along to have a person/mobility scooter/dog  jump in the way and having to slam the brakes on 

[Ollie93]

On 20/06/2020 at 21:52, Corky said:

And cyclists should be made to use the ones that already exist. Why are they allowed to cycle on the road next to a cycle path designed specifically for their usage?

Because most of the cycle lands need resurfacing, run over gullies or aren't wide enough. I feel safer riding slightly on the road so idiot drivers dont try and squeeze past.

[The Bear]

I always think cyclists should invest in a head mounted camera, same as a driver should have a dash cam. 

 

Then if you go arse over tit on a cycle path because of shoddy surfaces you have evidence, plus photos you can take afterwards to claim off the council. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I 100% agree. But you can't deny it alters some people's perceptions. 

 

If say Pol Pot is murdered, compared to the Dalai Lama, some people will have stronger feelings about the latter. An extreme example for sure, but some people like to dig into a person's character and base that on how badly they feel. Human nature I guess. 

That's true enough, it doesn't stop the argument in question regarding George Floyd specifically being logically fallacious and based on either ignorance or malice, though.

 

It's a dark irony that IMO there is also some overlap between folks who will prize feelings over facts in this case and those who proudly state that "facts don't care about your feelings " in others.