This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Anyone heard from Oxford yet?
- A level History NEA Coursework
- Interview tutoring
- Law interview Prep Help!
- EPQ rewording/rephrasing
- Channel 4 show Naked Education
- British Youtubers are DYING/DEAD/DECEASED! 💀
- Controversial views in Cambridge interview?
- "Should I reapply to Oxford?" A reapplicant's opinion
- Who should get the room
- I do not like Halle Bailey's boyfriend
- Newspapers-Question 2 OCR - URGENTLY NEED HELP
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- IRP French help urgent!!
- An Inspector Calls: Gerald Essay of Relationship
- International Women's Day 2024 - Tell us about someone who inspires you
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Thoughts on Abortion?
Your most controversial view?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Frostyjoe
I am ashamed of this but I get really angry and upset inside when English people say that I am Irish or from Ireland.
I try and say nothing most of the time to avoid any problems..
It probably sounds petty but if you lived here you'd understand that NI is quite different to ROI.
I try and say nothing most of the time to avoid any problems..
It probably sounds petty but if you lived here you'd understand that NI is quite different to ROI.
It's an extremely complicated situation - no need to be ashamed. I'm guessing (not assuming) you're from a Protestant family. One of my friends was born outside the island of Ireland into a Catholic family from Newcastle (Co Down) and he also feels quite strongly about his nationality. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is unique in the world, and that's why people don't 'get' it. Small incorrect assumptions, like calling NI part of ROI, ROI part of UK, everyone from NI being British/Irish will prevail unfortunately.
The best thing I think someone from NI can do to educate someone from outside NI on the situation is to politely educate them. If they get defensive that's their problem.
Original post by rockrunride
It's an extremely complicated situation - no need to be ashamed. I'm guessing (not assuming) you're from a Protestant family. One of my friends was born outside the island of Ireland into a Catholic family from Newcastle (Co Down) and he also feels quite strongly about his nationality. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is unique in the world, and that's why people don't 'get' it. Small incorrect assumptions, like calling NI part of ROI, ROI part of UK, everyone from NI being British/Irish will prevail unfortunately.
The best thing I think someone from NI can do to educate someone from outside NI on the situation is to politely educate them. If they get defensive that's their problem.
The best thing I think someone from NI can do to educate someone from outside NI on the situation is to politely educate them. If they get defensive that's their problem.
No i'm not I just don't see any connection to ROI,i've no family from there and my granda is a protestant. Also I feel like i'm more northern irish than anything else.
We have our own destinctive dialect and culture here so I don't see why its hard to grasp that. I mean obviously we are from the island of Ireland but I think English people should understand that we are living in a seperate country with different laws and customs to the rest of the Island.
It can get slightly irritating when they say we have lovely "Irish accents" which may be correct in a way BUT the dialect we have in Northern Ireland is really different to ROI.
Sorry for the rant I was in England in the weekend and got a little fed up of people telling me about their relatives in Cork which is 300 miles away.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by wsxcde
This isnt true honestly, I dont know what the statistic is that 2 out of 100 people using condoms will get pregnant but I am pretty sure it covers condoms not applied correctly, condoms which tear etc and bad quality ones at that which didnt use spermicide etc. I have had sex with someone with no condoms, no pill, for over a year, just pulling out to ejaculate and they never got pregnant. There are other things you can do to reduce risk of pregnancy for example if a man just regularly has a hot bath he can become waay less fertile. But the idea that having sex once a week with a condom leading most likely to a pregnancy within a year is really completely wrong, it almost certainly wouldnt.
The figure is widely available on various sex education sites, and it appears to be based on research by the centre for disease control. However, the centre themselves have a page which sets it even lower at only 82% effective. This is the figure normally quoted as the overall effectiveness (including all users), it only ever becomes 98% when used correctly.
But hey, who needs research based evidence when you can just pull out and have a bath!
This attitude is what causes the damaging misconceptions to carry on... It never happened to me so it must all be lies! Like when you hear someone saying they think smoking can't cause any harm because their aunt smoked for years and never got cancer.
Xxx
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Asklepios
disease doesn't necessarily have to affect quality of life or life expectancy. The simple definition is "atypical biological functioning."
Homosexuality used to be in DSM, and it was removed for political reasons not medical ones.
Homosexuality used to be in DSM, and it was removed for political reasons not medical ones.
So are blue eyes pathological because they're less common than brown eyes and therefore "abnormal"?
Original post by Blazar
So are blue eyes pathological because they're less common than brown eyes and therefore "abnormal"?
That's just normal variation. Blue eyes pretty much work the same as brown eyes with respect to function of the iris.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are functional opposites.
Original post by Asklepios
disease doesn't necessarily have to affect quality of life or life expectancy. The simple definition is "atypical biological functioning."
Homosexuality used to be in DSM, and it was removed for political reasons not medical ones.
Homosexuality used to be in DSM, and it was removed for political reasons not medical ones.
I would argue that sexual attraction to the same sex is not "atypical biological functioning". The idea that suntan types of sex between two consenting adults is 'wrong' or 'weird' is a cultural/religious construct.
Many people experience same sex attraction to some extent during puberty, even if there sexuality then settles on only the other sex. In the last lot of research, just under 20% of women in the UK admitted to having had some form of sexual experience with another women.
There are more gay people than there are Ginger people, I don't think the hire follicles of Ginger people are "atypical biological functioning".
Original post by Blazar
What? 
It asked for controversial.....
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Andy98
I'm asking you to provide justification. The thread doesn't state that your controversial "opinion" will remain unchallenged.
Original post by Blazar
I'm asking you to provide justification. The thread doesn't state that your controversial "opinion" will remain unchallenged.
Ahhhh, well you see - most people have a dating pool of about 50% of people (minus all the married, homosexual, etc), whereas bisexuals have the whole population to play with (this is imagining no one gets rejected but yeah)
Capitalism doesn't work. Neither does communism or any system which we currently use. We need to evolve from the idea that money and profit is the end game goal which suits everyone - it clearly doesn't. We live on a planet where despite the 8billion population there is enough resources still left for everyone to lead a decent standard of life. It's shameful that we act in the way we do with regard wealth distribution and equality. Our primary focus needs to be management and allocation of resources.
We live in an age of technology where the vast majority of jobs could and should be done by machines. The current system is nothing more than a sophisticated form of slavery designed to benefit a handful of people.
Wars are engineered for profit alone with no thought to the destruction on the environment or the misery it inflicts on other humans.
Religion is the biggest evil our planet has ever devised and the greatest con.
Do your worst.
We live in an age of technology where the vast majority of jobs could and should be done by machines. The current system is nothing more than a sophisticated form of slavery designed to benefit a handful of people.
Wars are engineered for profit alone with no thought to the destruction on the environment or the misery it inflicts on other humans.
Religion is the biggest evil our planet has ever devised and the greatest con.
Do your worst.
Original post by Andy98
Ahhhh, well you see - most people have a dating pool of about 50% of people (minus all the married, homosexual, etc), whereas bisexuals have the whole population to play with (this is imagining no one gets rejected but yeah)
The word "greedy" implies that bisexuals choose to be attracted to more than one gender, which just isn't true. Also, bisexuals often have preferences, so they could be 80% attracted to men and 20% attracted to women, etc. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, bisexuals aren't attracted to everyone they see - in fact, I've found that bi people tend to be more selective with regards to who they find attractive. So yeah, we're not "greedy", we just see gender in a different way.
- Young women in modern Britain have an entitlement complex. They reckon that the world owes them something, like conversation, time, sex, attention, etc. and yep, i mention women, and not to be sexist, but because imho it's an observation/fact.
- Black immigrants from the Caribbean/Africa, and from India, to the UK by and large contribute more positively than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. The latter only look to sponge, and change UK society. Accept things as they are here, or get the **** out.
- People who complain about capitalism should be forcibly denied computers, mass produced clothes, cars, well...anything that results from capitalism.
- England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should be barred from some international competitions, as it's a disgrace we invented many current global sports as the UK and do **** in them. Looking at you England one day cricket team....and maybe England football team...
- America should pay native tribes $50 billion USD per year, to compensate them for their genocide. Blacks no, since genocide was never a goal.
- Black immigrants from the Caribbean/Africa, and from India, to the UK by and large contribute more positively than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. The latter only look to sponge, and change UK society. Accept things as they are here, or get the **** out.
- People who complain about capitalism should be forcibly denied computers, mass produced clothes, cars, well...anything that results from capitalism.
- England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should be barred from some international competitions, as it's a disgrace we invented many current global sports as the UK and do **** in them. Looking at you England one day cricket team....and maybe England football team...
- America should pay native tribes $50 billion USD per year, to compensate them for their genocide. Blacks no, since genocide was never a goal.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by wsxcde
blue eyes would be pathologised if they were rarer. People pathologise difference all the time. Personally I would pathologise neurotypical people quite heavily.
Expect pathology isn't measured by uniqueness or rarity....and if you're Asperger's, then it's showing by your petty vengeance lolol.
Original post by Asklepios
This guy could be your doctor in 3 or 4 years
Original post by wsxcde
plenty of rare things are or would be considered a disorder, e.g. if 99.9999% of people were midgets then there'd be a pathological label for the body type of what we consider regular people today. If 99.9999% of people were bipolar then in that world people who we would today consider normal would be diagnosed with some kind of emotional disorder and be seen as a robot for not having extreme fluctuating moods like normal. Even homosexuality was only removed as a pathological mental disorder by psychiatrists in the 1970s. And the reason why I'd pathologise people is well I mean it's kind of obvious, people are really so stupid and neurotic in their own ways.
People will pathologise difference all the time, people arent very openminded and are pretty egotistical.
People will pathologise difference all the time, people arent very openminded and are pretty egotistical.
But that's not the only criteria for pathologising something. If you're brainy and learned you should know that. And yes people aren't accepting most of the time, but then you clearly don't get the basis of medical diagnosis, or others' opinions lol.
Original post by dyslexicvegie
I would argue that sexual attraction to the same sex is not "atypical biological functioning". The idea that suntan types of sex between two consenting adults is 'wrong' or 'weird' is a cultural/religious construct.
Many people experience same sex attraction to some extent during puberty, even if there sexuality then settles on only the other sex. In the last lot of research, just under 20% of women in the UK admitted to having had some form of sexual experience with another women.
There are more gay people than there are Ginger people, I don't think the hire follicles of Ginger people are "atypical biological functioning".
Many people experience same sex attraction to some extent during puberty, even if there sexuality then settles on only the other sex. In the last lot of research, just under 20% of women in the UK admitted to having had some form of sexual experience with another women.
There are more gay people than there are Ginger people, I don't think the hire follicles of Ginger people are "atypical biological functioning".
OK, so people who are born sterile are ill? Do you even know how illness is defined? Seems you and this other guy don't get this basic point, and I'm not even a doctor lolol.
Original post by wsxcde
no it's true plenty of not necessarily bad things have been and are pathologised by people regularly, unless you are claiming yourself that things like homosexuality are in fact a mental illness
Not bothered, dude.....have been? yep, by people of a different culture, era, level of technology..
but for somebody with Asperger's perhaps your lack of understanding is showing, and you shouldn't be allowed to post in threads like this. that is MY "unpopular" opinion!
Original post by miguapa
OK, so people who are born sterile are ill? Do you even know how illness is defined? Seems you and this other guy don't get this basic point, and I'm not even a doctor lolol.
Did not mention sterile people, we where having a debate about whether gay people are ill and he used the term about bodily functioning. I was on about how being gay is not an abnormality or anything undesirable, its just how some people are.
If you want to start a discussion about the legal/ ethical/ biological definition of illness . I can do that.
Original post by dyslexicvegie
Did not mention sterile people, we where having a debate about whether gay people are ill and he used the term about bodily functioning. I was on about how being gay is not an abnormality or anything undesirable, its just how some people are.
If you want to start a discussion about the legal/ ethical/ biological definition of illness . I can do that.
If you want to start a discussion about the legal/ ethical/ biological definition of illness . I can do that.
lolol...so i cannot make analogies, or bring in extra points into this discussion. Tell me where it's stated either here or anywhere that I cannot comment on stuff? because you're the dude? as a dyslexix person, then i strongly doubt that.
It's not more moral to spend a tonne on public services like the NHS, pensions etc. if we just can't afford it. It only causes problems down the line when we have to start paying up and it shows serious weak-mindedness to ignore this.
Related discussions
- Anyone heard from Oxford yet?
- A level History NEA Coursework
- Interview tutoring
- Law interview Prep Help!
- EPQ rewording/rephrasing
- Channel 4 show Naked Education
- British Youtubers are DYING/DEAD/DECEASED! 💀
- Controversial views in Cambridge interview?
- "Should I reapply to Oxford?" A reapplicant's opinion
- Who should get the room
- I do not like Halle Bailey's boyfriend
- Newspapers-Question 2 OCR - URGENTLY NEED HELP
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- IRP French help urgent!!
- An Inspector Calls: Gerald Essay of Relationship
- International Women's Day 2024 - Tell us about someone who inspires you
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Thoughts on Abortion?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 2 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
