Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Your most controversial view? watch

    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Seriously? With the ozone depletion still going on (albeit much slower), it is likely to become a significant risk in the future.
    It could be the case. But right now, with people spending most of their time indoors and wearing clothes, it isn't a significant enough risk factor.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightonDunkley)
    1) The burqa should be completely banned

    2) Immediate deportation of illegal immigrants

    3) All rapists should be castrated

    Personally I have no idea why any of these would be considered controversial but apparently they are
    Why the burka?? You mean what nun's wear too right??
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maid Marian)
    I'd rather live in the olden days.
    Why would you want to live in a time where women were not respected? Do you really love Robin Hood that much?

    (Original post by Asklepios)
    It could be the case. But right now, with people spending most of their time indoors and wearing clothes, it isn't a significant enough risk factor.
    Seriously? Most people do not live in Northern Europe.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    And you are a medicine student? :eek:

    P.S. I fail to see how an abnormality or a deviation from the norm is necessarily a disorder.
    Yes, I am.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Why would you want to live in a time where women were not respected? Do you really love Robin Hood that much?



    Seriously? Most people do not live in Northern Europe.
    This is the case worldwide and not just in Europe.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    Basically, 'this data doesn't show me what I want it to show so therefore I'll just attack it and the poster'. Great logic but I have come to expect that from people who cant actually debate. Also, don't use the 'even a year 7 student could tell you that line when you're not far off being one yourself buddy.

    None of that is raw data. I asked for raw data. Try again. Also its hilarious how you've linked .gov websites as if they'd never tell any lies isn't it? You mean like the lovely ONS that definitely does not manipulate statistics? Laughable. You are an incredibly naive person.
    You are trying to argue that global temperatures are dropping. Finding a time series of one point on the planet where that trend is true does not prove it's true for the entire world. I could find much more extreme examples of places in the world where temperatures are falling. That's not a surprise, it's a product of the incredibly complex climate system. It's also completely irrelevant. Global temperatures are rising as proven by satellites.

    I don't understand why you're attacking me for giving data from a government website when your time series comes from the BOM. And the URL of the BOM is... www.gov.au. So if my data is wrong because it's from a government website then so is yours. Beside, the argument that it's wrong because it's from the government is just insane. That's not an argument. You can't invalidate data just because it comes from a scientific body partially funded by the government. That's not a reason. You can use that argument to invalidate absolutely any data set you don't like.

    Do you want raw data? Is CRUTEM4 good enough for you?

    For someone with a BSc, you clearly don't understand the first thing about science. You are unable to argue scientifically. Your only arguments that you've brought forward are either cherry picked, or political. A data set does not become wrong just because it comes from a certain source. Not only do you have to prove a conflict of interest (which there isn't one, climate change is extremely inconvenient for governments worldwide, I have no idea why conspiracy nuts like you have convinced yourselves that it's somehow helpful. Governments are constantly downplaying scientific observations on climate change. The US government has been exposed to have put gagging orders on scientists from NASA for revealing information that showed climate change was more extreme than expected. This agenda you are talking about does not exist.) but you have to actually bring some objective evidence as to how the data is flawed, which you can't find. You haven't got an iota of evidence that the data sets have been tampered with. You are fabricating a conspiracy that does not exist.

    What you are saying is that you, on the basis of your pathetic research, know better than the global scientific community who have dedicated their lives to researching this. That's not only ridiculously arrogant but it's ignorant too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    This is the case worldwide and not just in Europe.
    You obviously are unaware of the southern hemisphere and the lifestyle over there.
    It's not grey and cold everywhere, you know.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    You obviously are unaware of the southern hemisphere and the lifestyle over there.
    It's not grey and cold everywhere, you know.
    Yeah they probably spend more time outdoors than us. But I'm talking in comparison to prehistoric times. People live indoors and most people work indoors.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Yeah they probably spend more time outdoors than us. But I'm talking in comparison to prehistoric times. People live indoors and most people work indoors.
    Do you need to go that far? Farmers would love to work in offices and with lots of clothes on them.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Paedophiles are OK, I've not got a problem with them.

    I do have a problem when they act on it.

    Same with basically any other form of fetish where the other party cannot consent (necrophilia, bestiality, etc.).
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    Do you need to go that far? Farmers would love to work in offices and with lots of clothes on them.
    They work outside and will wear at the very least a tshirt and trousers, and maybe a sun hat. They will also wear sun cream. We don't roam around naked anymore.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Well I agree with this completely.

    Have you noticed the hypocrisy that when people go on about the need to cut education, health, welfare spending, infrastructure investment etc, they usually talk about how they are suggesting it "for the sake of our children" but start to talk to them about taking tougher environmental measures and they suddenly couldn't care less about their children.

    I think with the environment some people just take the issue that if they don't want to believe in climate change etc, then it doesn't exist, the scientific consensus that it does is irrelevant, they must just all be wrong and its a global conspiracy to make us protect the environment when we don't have to!

    Also there's a general correlation between denying climate change/deny the risks to the environment and ranting about immigrants/poor people. It's invariably the same types of people!
    Anti-environmentalism is almost exclusively a trait of the right wing. Not all right wingers fit that description, a lot (probably most) acknowledge that environment issues matter, and it's unfair to generalise.

    But almost all climate change deniers et al are right wing - tougher environmental laws conflicts with their "nothing can't be solved by leaving it to the market" ideology, because it requires government interference in the economy. Their opposition to environmentalism is based on ideology, not science. UKIP policy includes climate change denial.

    General apathy and lack of knowledge are far more widespread, and I think that's the problem with our current political establishment, rather than explicit anti-environmentalism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    Why do you trust governments regarding global warming, but you trust them regarding what happened in 9/11? Surely if governments lie to us, we might as well believe that attacks on 9/11 was staged by the US government and that terrorists are funded by the CIA- surely that explains the increased surveillance of ordinary citizens?

    Or we could say the government is deliberately lowering the statistics for the unemployment rate to make the economy seem better to gain support for the general election?
    I don't trust governments at all.


    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You are trying to argue that global temperatures are dropping. Finding a time series of one point on the planet where that trend is true does not prove it's true for the entire world. I could find much more extreme examples of places in the world where temperatures are falling. That's not a surprise, it's a product of the incredibly complex climate system. It's also completely irrelevant. Global temperatures are rising as proven by satellites.
    Its irrelevant to you because it doesn't suit your argument. This attitude of yours we've already established. The simple truth is you are intolerant of anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint which shows an extreme immaturity and naivety.

    I don't understand why you're attacking me for giving data from a government website when your time series comes from the BOM. And the URL of the BOM is... www.gov.au. So if my data is wrong because it's from a government website then so is yours. Beside, the argument that it's wrong because it's from the government is just insane. That's not an argument. You can't invalidate data just because it comes from a scientific body partially funded by the government. That's not a reason. You can use that argument to invalidate absolutely any data set you don't like.
    I did not say 'its wrong because it comes from the government' at all. More conjecture from you yet again. All you do is personally attack anyone that disagrees with you. What I implied was, that anything taken from the government in regards to a source, due to manipulation of statistics should be taken with a pinch of salt.

    For someone with a BSc, you clearly don't understand the first thing about science. You are unable to argue scientifically. Your only arguments that you've brought forward are either cherry picked, or political. A data set does not become wrong just because it comes from a certain source. Not only do you have to prove a conflict of interest (which there isn't one, climate change is extremely inconvenient for governments worldwide, I have no idea why conspiracy nuts like you have convinced yourselves that it's somehow helpful. Governments are constantly downplaying scientific observations on climate change. The US government has been exposed to have put gagging orders on scientists from NASA for revealing information that showed climate change was more extreme than expected. This agenda you are talking about does not exist.) but you have to actually bring some objective evidence as to how the data is flawed, which you can't find. You haven't got an iota of evidence that the data sets have been tampered with. You are fabricating a conspiracy that does not exist.
    Here we go just more attacks again because I agree with the minority opinion as oppose to what you believe. Hitler would be proud of your intolerance.

    What you are saying is that you, on the basis of your pathetic research, know better than the global scientific community who have dedicated their lives to researching this. That's not only ridiculously arrogant but it's ignorant too.
    Please do not tell me what I am saying. I know fully well what I'm saying. I'm saying I agree with the minority consensus as opposed to the majority. You see things the other way. Difference is, I did not attack you for your opinion. You decided to jump down my throat on this thread because you are intolerant of anyone that shows different views to you. In fact, I have been playing devils advocate all along. I just wanted to expose you for the self loathing hypocrite that launches continuous personal attacks against those who disagree all along. People can now see you for what you are. I knew from the moment I posted that opinion you'd be all over it as you just cant help yourself.

    You continuously float around the forum as if you are an expert on climatology when in fact you are not. Anyone who opposes it and your political views, of whom you align with the Green Party, is equally valid in doing so. You are not in any way superior at all.

    I'm done. You're a jumped up little brat that suffers from a superiority complex and its quite bewildering how you think you have the answers and that you're Gods gift. You really need to withdraw your head from your own arse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Anti-environmentalism is almost exclusively a trait of the right wing. Not all right wingers fit that description, a lot (probably most) acknowledge that environment issues matter, and it's unfair to generalise.

    But almost all climate change deniers et al are right wing - tougher environmental laws conflicts with their "nothing can't be solved by leaving it to the market" ideology, because it requires government interference in the economy. Their opposition to environmentalism is based on ideology, not science. UKIP policy includes climate change denial.

    General apathy and lack of knowledge are far more widespread, and I think that's the problem with our current political establishment, rather than explicit anti-environmentalism.
    Sir, what do you think of this hypothesis raised in one of my Geography lessons a couple of weeks ago?
    [Borrowed from an earlier thread]

    "Oceans store an immense amount of heat energy, and consequently play a crucial role in the regulation of the global climate.
    When water is heated, it expands. A gulf stream of warm water is carried to Britain from Labrador in Canada, which keeps the winter temperatures in London at 5 C, compared to -15 C in Labrador. It has been suggested that during a glacial period, the formation of the North Atlantic Deep Water is much reduced or even totally shut down.

    A temperature rise in the North Pole by 3-4 C would melt the ice, and release freshwater into the sea near Svalbard, where the Gulf Stream cools. The freshwater would reduce salinity (the return stream is dependent on this), which in turn effects buoyancy. This may cause cooler winters if the Gulf Stream breaks down, as it is meant to redistribute heat from the tropics to temperate regions.'


    [I may have not written it down completely accurately]
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Hey guys,

    As the title says, what is the view you hold deemed most "controversial" in this society we live in today in Britain?
    Africa and the Middle East should be under western rule.

    The Muslim faith should no longer be allowed to grow in the UK.

    Eugenics is something we should practice albeit a more moderate and liberal version (genetic engineering at birth, financial incentives for certain people not to breed).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    I don't trust governments at all.
    So if the government said that you shouldn't go to eastern Syria, you'd ignore it? In my opinion, while the UK government has been flawed (Iraq War, paedophile coverup in Westminster etc), it's still worth trusting most of the time.

    In your opinion. is the idea of government inherently bad, or is it the form of governments today which you dislike?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    I don't trust governments at all.

    Its irrelevant to you because it doesn't suit your argument. This attitude of yours we've already established. The simple truth is you are intolerant of anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint which shows an extreme immaturity and naivety.

    I did not say 'its wrong because it comes from the government' at all. More conjecture from you yet again. All you do is personally attack anyone that disagrees with you. What I implied was, that anything taken from the government in regards to a source, due to manipulation of statistics should be taken with a pinch of salt.

    Here we go just more attacks again because I agree with the minority opinion as oppose to what you believe. Hitler would be proud of your intolerance.

    Please do not tell me what I am saying. I know fully well what I'm saying. I'm saying I agree with the minority consensus as opposed to the majority. You see things the other way. Difference is, I did not attack you for your opinion. You decided to jump down my throat on this thread because you are intolerant of anyone that shows different views to you. In fact, I have been playing devils advocate all along. I just wanted to expose you for the self loathing hypocrite that launches continuous personal attacks against those who disagree all along. People can now see you for what you are. I knew from the moment I posted that opinion you'd be all over it as you just cant help yourself.

    You continuously float around the forum as if you are an expert on climatology when in fact you are not. Anyone who opposes it and your political views, of whom you align with the Green Party, is equally valid in doing so. You are not in any way superior at all.

    I'm done. You're a jumped up little brat that suffers from a superiority complex and its quite bewildering how you think you have the answers and that you're Gods gift. You really need to withdraw your head from your own arse.
    Again, you're just straight making things up! You don't understand how the climate works so you are deciding that it's relevant because that's what you want to believe. That's not how it works! If you read even the most basic book on climate change then you'd realise that we wouldn't expect all parts of the world to be warming. If every single part of the planet was warming then our models would be wrong. The fact that there exist places that are cooling is not surprising at all. You are the one deciding that it disproves ACC when it absolutely doesn't.

    Of course it should be "taken with a pinch of salt". The scientific community is by definition skeptical. I don't know what crappy scientists you must have worked with but you seem to be under this belief that the whole scientific community is this massive AGW circlejerk which it simply isn't. Scientists are not idiots, 97% of the world's climatological community aren't going to dedicate themselves to something they blatantly know is a lie. Climatological data is put under more scrutiny than virtually any other data set on the planet and the fact that there's so much consensus despite this incredibly amount of scrutiny shows how strong a theory it is.

    I'm not an expert on climatology, I never claimed to be. But I am saying the exact same things as experts on climatology are saying. If you disagree with me, then you are disagreeing with the climatological community who know a heck of a lot more than you do. And whilst I'm obviously not a climatologist, I at least understand the basics of climatology since I've done my research. You haven't. You have proven on multiple occasions that not only do you not have the most basic understanding of climatology, but you don't even seem to understand the scientific method. You are fabricating data and refusing to accept anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. You've still failed to give me any evidence that disproves the prevailing scientific opinion, the only thing you've done is repeatedly insulted me with petty little jabs and telling me that all of my data is wrong because scientists are money-lusting demons who will say anything their beloved government tells them to say. You are incredibly deluded, and the fact that you claim to have a degree in a STEM subject just makes that all the more depressing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    So if the government said that you shouldn't go to eastern Syria, you'd ignore it? In my opinion, while the UK government has been flawed (Iraq War, paedophile coverup in Westminster etc), it's still worth trusting most of the time.
    Whilst this is true, it is also the same for the media. When I say I don't trust them, I mean wholesomely.

    or is it the form of governments today which you dislike?
    This.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    They work outside and will wear at the very least a tshirt and trousers, and maybe a sun hat. 1.They will also wear sun cream. 2.We don't roam around naked anymore.
    1. How much cream do you think they use in proportion to the time they spend outdoors. And one should question the effectiveness of the creams they most likely buy. And I would not expect farmers to be overly rational regarding the use of cream. You also gotta think of those who also work there but can't afford the cream. And there will be tons of those.

    2. My, you are bit extreme, aren't you? You need not to think of nakedness or winter-level clothing. Our discussion focuses on the continuum between both. And that's where skin cancer would most easily hit. Because it can.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    An ignorant democracy isn't a democracy
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.