Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Your most controversial view?

Scroll to see replies

Actually I my wife and nephew have had recent experience of serious illness, don't assume you know someone's story by knowing their politics. Also is my wife was paying tax!..oh and my wife's income support allowance was a fair wack. If we lived in social housing we would have had more disposable income then we do working!

yeah. like, for example, someone who's been ill since they were very young and hasn't had the opportunity to work.

also, disability benefits are not only not enough to live on but also very easily taken away for months at the slightest notice. your idea, I'm afraid, is ****ing moronic. it's also very selfish, that you would not want to pay for your healthcare when you're the one who actually could. it makes no logical sense.

my controversial view: private schools should be abolished as soon as possible.

also top rate of tax should be at least 65 pence to the pound.

Reply 841

VannR

Received Pronunciation, my accent, is the true voicing of the English language. Every other accent of English, be it regional or international, is a mere accent, a variation of the main theme.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 842

hamix.forllz

Original post by mackemforever

Probably that our country should issue breeding licenses, with only those deemed to be suitable as parents will legally be allowed to have a child.

So if you are not financially able to support a child, or have no concept of how to raise a healthy child, or have a criminal past, or have any kind of disease or genetic abnormality that is likely to be passed on, or meet any one of a number of other criteria that would classify you as undesirable, then you shall not be issued with a breeding license and having a child would result firstly in the child being taken off you and secondly with you being sentenced to a lengthy spell behind bars.

And yes, this post is absolutely serious.

I agree.

Reply 843

hamix.forllz

Original post by VannR

Received Pronunciation, my accent, is the true voicing of the English language. Every other accent of English, be it regional or international, is a mere accent, a variation of the main theme.

True voicing how? Accent and actual grammar/syntax arent related.

Reply 844

VannR

Original post by hamix.forllz

True voicing how? Accent and actual grammar/syntax arent related.

I should clarify. I mean the dialect, not just the accent.

Reply 845

A Rose for Epona

Original post by Musie Suzie

You'd need a new and huge alphabet then (i.e. a different symbol for all the different ways a vowel can be pronounced depending on context, rather than just the one), or to use the IPA, but people's actual pronunciation would still vary.

You can tell I'm a phonetics geek :wink:

I'm fine with varying pronunciations to a reasonable degree, but this one is pushing it:

ghoti-fish-english1.png14.4KB

Reply 846

earthworm

Original post by Guills on wheels

yeah. like, for example, someone who's been ill since they were very young and hasn't had the opportunity to work.

also, disability benefits are not only not enough to live on but also very easily taken away for months at the slightest notice. your idea, I'm afraid, is ****ing moronic. it's also very selfish, that you would not want to pay for your healthcare when you're the one who actually could. it makes no logical sense.

my controversial view: private schools should be abolished as soon ass possible.

also top rate of tax should be at least 65 pence to the pound.

Its not that moronic. There are plenty of countries where there is no free at the point of use healthcare at all. If you read my earlier post I said that kids, those who have been ill since being kids and those who were paying tax until they get too ill to work should get NHS healthcare.

What defines a private school, what about private tutors? Nurseries? Also its my money, why cant I spend. It on my kids education?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 847

Guills on wheels

Original post by earthworm

like in America, where it's bankrupted millions.

private schools are fee-paying schools, excluding nurseries and universities (obviously).

you shouldn't be able to spend it because anyone who is in a position to be able to be spending that money is doing it in such a way that they can ensure that their child will have the same position of privilege when they are older. It completely excludes the 99% of the population who can't afford that, and ensures that those at the top stay at the top. if we are to have equal opportunities from the beginning in the UK (which is key to a fairer community) then it is paramount that no child should receive a better chance at privilege when they are older simply because their parents are lucky enough to pay. it isn't fair, and stagnates a society already lacking in social mobility.

Reply 848

earthworm

True but its still my money and my kid... I think you have a very valid point about educational disadvantage and I hate that fee paying schools have charitable status and avoid tax. I just think state schools should be better, spend you 65% top rate on schools?

Reply 849

hamix.forllz

Original post by zimbo97

That is very authoritarian! Throwing people in jail because of views they have in private definitely has no place in a liberal democracy. We can all say that racism and homophobia are obnoxious and ignorant but forcing censorship on those who hold those views undermines the liberal base from which we say they are detestable.

if hypocrites want to go to jail, so be it... And liberal democracy doesn't work.... I'd say only people from groups not oppressed should publically air bigoted beliefs.

Catholic ideology has changed with common sentiments over time. When there was vehement anti-semitism it orchestrated the Inquisition, when there was the rise of Protestantism is contributed to the fighting of Lutherans...

It has? Or the current pope only has? It should at the very least apologise for all it has done....

So you would essentially be labelling the previous 2000 years as evil, jut because the people at the time were not holding 21st Century opinions.
That is ridiculous.
Also why should you punish today's Catholics for the actions of people living hundreds of years ago?

Jesus himself mentioned the sins of the father...

Why do you say Britain was as much to blame for WW1? I get how you could argue Austro-Hungary, Russia and even Serbia but Britain was desperately suing for peace right up until Germany marched threw Belgium for war against France.

Because our country dismissed a German effort to end the naval race. The causes of WWI are a LOT more complex than just "the Germans started it.." Perhaps if you project such smartness, you should realise life situations aren't black and white...

Reply 850

hamix.forllz

Original post by Reue

Anyone on JSA should have to work for 2 days a week on community improvement type projects to earn their money.

Agreed.

Reply 851

hamix.forllz

Original post by VannR

I should clarify. I mean the dialect, not just the accent.

so since all human language evolves, how can there be a true type of language?

I have many.

Original post by bittr n swt

^^Environment stuff is bull**** now, damage is done and will never be fully reversed

I have many views which are unpopular because I'm a traditional man.

The only true damage that has been done is to Humankind- nature is so much more versatile, adaptable and robust than we will ever be. The world will recover, we won't! Things can be reversed- granted, not fully reversed as long as we have any involvement- but there is not a single thing that we, as a society and species do that can't be fully revised or re-established in order to amend this damage that we've inflicted upon every thing we've laid our hands on.

Reply 854

Xin Xang

A lot of "clinically depressed" people just need to get over themselves and realise the great position they are in.

They are wealthier, healthier and safer than 80% of the world. You have so much you can do.

It would probably help if pharmaceutical companies didn't benefit from their "illnesses".

Reply 855

Mequa

Original post by All_TheCyanide

Not all of us. That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists.

A lot of my closest friends are guys. The only guys I don't like are those who treat me badly because I'm female.

I can see where you're coming from though, as it would really seem this way if you'd been listening to that Anita woman. But equally, I could then say that all <insert group of men here> are sexist because I've heard a lot of them be sexist.

I'm not sure that's an apt analogy, since in my experience a far greater proportion of feminists are man-haters than the comparable small proportion of Muslims which are terrorists.

I have a couple of friends who are feminists, but neither of them are radical nor man-hating. Man-haters usually get swiftly ejected from my life.

What particularly galls me about the man-hating feminists is their hypocrisy. They are totally intolerant of hatred of women (including the mildest expressions of disdain for women), while simultaneously espousing a generalised hatred and disdain for men. So if a man has been badly hurt by women and develops a generalised disdain for women, such feminists are happy to demonise and bully him, while exhibiting a complete lack of empathy and sympathy. Yet if a woman expresses much worse hatred and disdain for men, it's "you go girl". I've met quite a few fitting that mould.

The hypocrisy also extends to which parts of traditional gender roles they would like to keep. For example, a man in distress is still essentially told to "man up" and not be a pussy, in other words, to assume his traditionalist role, and such male distress is viewed as worthy of contempt and hostility rather than empathy and compassion. Shaming and bullying tactics are often viewed as appropriate when directed against such men. While a woman in distress is viewed as an appropriate beneficiary of empathy and compassion. This is just a recycling of old-school chivalry, and the antithesis of gender equality.

True gender equality would rip apart such gender roles, and make members of both genders equally worthy of empathy and compassion when in distress. It would condemn shaming men into traditionalist gender roles and the social expectations of men to be rugged and Teflon-like, and have no problem granting empathy and compassion to anyone regardless of gender, even when this places a greater onus on women to demonstrate compassion for men who are "weak" or vulnerable or in distress than the traditionalist model.

Yet granting empathy and compassion to males seems anathema to a lot of feminism in practice, and I have seen a number of purportedly feminist women with nothing but contempt for men who are suffering, and often no qualms in practising bullying behaviour towards them or towards anyone who disagrees with their dogma. This suggests to me that gender equality is not their true agenda, and they are followers of a toxic movement of hate.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 856

Tiger Rag

Original post by Reue

Anyone on JSA should have to work for 2 days a week on community improvement type projects to earn their money.

This is something I agree with. Did used to know someone who moaned that he was made to do this. Well, it's got to be better than sitting on your backside all day, no? :rolleyes:

Reply 857

earthworm

Hmm maybe jsa folks could all ride exercise bikes to generate electricity and reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

Reply 858

hamix.forllz

Original post by Xin Xang

expect its not that simple......and mental illness rates in the developing world are and can be just as high...

Reply 859

Ignitus7

Original post by slg60

Even without the whips? What about owning a family pet?

Horses still have metal in their mouths. Scientists have tested the strength and impact of bits in the horses' mouth, the average pull from a 13 year old boy equalled to 300kg of pressure per sq cm on the horses' mouth. A 'yank' on the bit, exerting even more pressure - say when a rider pulls a horse to the side to stop it running around a jump - causes an entire neuro chronic shock through the horses' head. If this was done to a human, it would cause temporal blindness. Horses could be running blindly at jumps and the rider doesn't even know.

Unfortunately, even the removal of the bit is bad for the horse, for the straps on the bridle press on sensitive face tissue, tearing tissue on the horses' nose.

Whenever you see a ridden horse, say in the sport of dressage, in 'collection', it is a false collection. Horses 'collect' naturally when a stallion is exerting his presence in a herd - he puffs his entire body up to make his front half appear larger and more powerful, bringing his hind legs underneath him, neck up in the air, and his head may drop vertically. When a horse is ridden, all the rider does is pull on the bit/bridle to bring his head down and in. This tears the horses' poll tissue and causes extra bone to grow. We may think we are riding horses in 'correct', 'natural' collection when our horses start to adapt this position themselves, when in reality it is just muscle memory - painful muscle memory. Pain in the poll or pain in the mouth when you stick your head up to avoid said pain, and the rider pulls on your mouth to bring it back down? A horse can only stay in true natural collection for 45 seconds - this may extend to two minutes as the horse matures and becomes stronger. An average exercise session for a horse is an hour. Tell me, the bit does not exert such pain, how is a small, fragile human able to force a horse into such a position?

When you consider just how riders are able to manipulate horses into doing things a horse would never consider doing, it makes complete sense that the only way we could coerce such a heavy, powerful creature into doing these things is through pain - pain in the most fragile part of a creatures body - the mouth.

Horses are not physiologically designed to carry humans. It is rather bizarre that this kind of thing is still allowed - just imagine people's reactions if this was done to a dog?

I could go on forever about horse riding - not to mention the pressure a rider on a horses' back exerts on its muscles - but I'll stop here to answer the family pet question.

Of course I have no problems with keeping horses - but I don't agree with stabling horses. Even before really reading into scientific research, I could never get my head around why people think its okay to confine such an animal in such a small space. Especially when a horse is designed to be constantly moving and grazing. People wonder why horses' get colic, lameness, stiffness… it's really not rocket science… I've also heard stupid things like 'well, it's cruel to leave it outside at night in the cold'. :facepalm:

My own horse has the option of going in a stable or standing outside in his field. He will always roam outside in the rain or snow rather than stand in his stable. This is because a horse's natural instinct to graze, and move, overrides the weather. Besides, he grows a winter coat, and even has the luxury of wearing rugs. Horses, believe it or not, are adapted to living outside. :eek:

They have to keep moving to keep their digestive system going, or else they develop illnesses.

If a tiger was kept in a cage at a zoo the same proportion as a horse to its stable, the amount of complaints would rocket. Why is it okay for horses?

Of course, there are people that ride and really do love their horses, as opposed to those that use them for sport and materialist gain.

I do try and be open minded about it. But personally I struggle to ride horses now :s-smilie: