Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Withengar)
    Coffee tastes horrible.
    Maybe so but then you drink cappucinno/moccha/latte/esperesso which has the same effect and tastes nice.

    (Original post by Withengar)

    Alcohol tastes horrible.
    (Some) alcohol isn't most appealling on the palette but people drink to get drunk and once you're semi-drunk it is manageable

    (Original post by Withengar)

    Clubs and clubbing are not fun at all.
    No but it sure is a good stress reliever

    (Original post by Withengar)

    Betting and gambling are indicative of low intelligence.
    Whoa. whoa, whoa. So people who gamble have a low IQ? Then why do you get people in bookmakers and casinos from a broad demographic spectrum. And believe me it takes a certain naunce to outwit a gambling machine.

    (Original post by Withengar)

    Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are not as fun or as useful as they're made out to be.
    Facebook also.


    (Original post by Withengar)

    Politicians should not be able or allowed to present biased opinions as fact.
    What is fact these days? It's all cloak and dagger/propaganda etc. How does one present "fact" when the whole point of politics is to argue for one side or the other, hence a bit of bias at least willl be present

    (Original post by Withengar)

    Organized religion should be abolished.

    There should be a "obesity tax" or "fat tax" in countries with the highest rates of obesity.

    High school subjects and courses should be both more customizable and more difficult.

    The wealthy should pay significantly higher tax then they do now.
    Can't disagree with the above points

    (Original post by Withengar)

    All countries, starting with the most wealthy, should start paying their citizens basic income, akin to what's being proposed in Switzerland.
    [/quote]

    So you mean basic income as in a minimum/working wage (which we already have), or redistribution of wealth amongst citizens where money is given for nothing? Because the most wealthy countries often have high immigrant populations, do you agree they should benefit from that system despite not being in the country all their lives?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    ISIS is Islamic.
    I should be allowed to say whatever I want to anyone I want
    I would pay you too see you say it to a grown fully abled muslim man
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    My point was that if freedom of religion conflicted with other individual liberties, which side am I meant to take? I used a poor example because the ability to buy a cake wherever you want is hardly a human right; if we take the example of churches not allowing gay couples to marry then that is a direct attack on civil liberty which I cannot support even though I generally support freedom of religion and association.
    this can all easily be disproved though
    who owns the privately owned cake making business? a private individual, not the governmnent. therefore, the individual can deal with whoever they want to and whoever they see as being in their interests to serve. the gay couple have no legal stake or ownership relating to that business, so they have no rights or grounds relating to sales. that's objective. for example, if a muslim couple came into my house (private property, just like a business) and said "let us come in here" and I say "no", am I really denying them of a liberty? what liberty is that? to violate somebody else's liberty?

    and in terms of churches, churches 1) are privately owned, and 2) are religious institutions' buildings - religions like christianity have homophobia codified into the religion's text itself - that's literally true. so if a gay couple came in and wanted to marry there, then obviously, there is an argument that it denies that religion's community of their religious freedom. I don't endorse religions at all because I think this kind of social intolerance is a product of them, but it is stupid for a gay couple to expect anything less. religions are usually homophobic so why would they feel that a church would deal with them like straight couples?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackf1998)
    Feminism is women's supremacy rather than equality- in most cases men have it worse.

    The death penalty should be brought back.

    Our age group is being ****ed over by the government
    Its because people our age are too stupid to vote. So we should blame ourselves rather than them.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Girls look better in lingerie than naked.
    A thousand yes's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    3rd wave feminism is terrible and doesn't really help anyone.
    Black lives matter is really an American domestic terrorist group.
    Trump should be POTUS
    Build the wall
    Make America great again.
    Boring troll. weve seen all this enough times from sad trolls. The black lives thing is new though. But just as stupid
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh boy, somebody went through their first year of law at uni, hm? I'm so sorry to hear that
    I'm not even at uni. I'm sorry you can't tolerate people having opinions other than yours.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sajjjid)
    Its because people our age are too stupid to vote. So we should blame ourselves rather than them.

    How dare you insult our generation of young people as they're not stupid, and are in fact more aware on how politics is really run.
    It is not just a case of voting, as you will need fairer candidates to vote for
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    I'm not even at uni. I'm sorry you can't tolerate people having opinions other than yours.
    I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I am saying that it is from a first year law text book though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Pop music is ****! and most rock for that matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    How dare you insult our generation of young people as they're not stupid, and are in fact more aware on how politics is really run.
    It is not just a case of voting, as you will need fairer candidates to vote for
    lmao are you trolling me? Im a young person as well :lol: but what I said is right. If people our age actually started caring more about politics, politicians will know to get more votes, they need to aim at securing them from young people. And to do that, they would make policies which benefit us.
    And yeah I understand that. So when im older and run for Prime Minster, you better vote me in.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    and in terms of churches, churches 1) are privately owned, and 2) are religious institutions' buildings - religions like christianity have homophobia codified into the religion's text itself - that's literally true. so if a gay couple came in and wanted to marry there, then obviously, there is an argument that it denies that religion's community of their religious freedom. I don't endorse religions at all because I think this kind of social intolerance is a product of them, but it is stupid for a gay couple to expect anything less. religions are usually homophobic so why would they feel that a church would deal with them like straight couples?
    It's less of an issue because gay couples could go and get married in secular services nowadays but if we pretend that churches were the only places where people can get married, would you support the church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sajjjid)
    Boring troll. weve seen all this enough times from sad trolls. The black lives thing is new though. But just as stupid
    How am I trolling?
    BLM dies match the description of a domestic terrorist organisation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    It's less of an issue because gay couples could go and get married in secular services nowadays but if we pretend that churches were the only places where people can get married, would you support the church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple?
    not really - if the government said that the only places where you could get married were churches though I'd advocate a repeal of that rule more than the mandating of literally all churches having to marry people whom their (intolerant) religion specifically doesn't accept. if we're pretending that only churches are places where you can get married then marriage isn't something you'd want anyway, surely? why would a gay couple desire a discriminatory institution like marriage with such a context?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    How am I trolling?
    BLM dies match the description of a domestic terrorist organisation.
    So do the many, many white militias in the US. why arent you calling them out. Youre one of those people that have to talk the most rubbish online because you know you wouldnt be able to do it in person. It gives you a sense of fake power right? Makes you feel less weaker?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eden3)
    I think Emma Watson is average-looking at best.
    I'd aver that she's very much above-average by any reasonable aesthetic standard (and that to suggest otherwise is a reactionary opinion rather than an educated or impartial one), but no more so than the best-looking 5% of girls in my old sixth-form; certainly, the notion that she could even hold a candle to such radiant, singular paragons of beauty as Audrey Hepburn (obviously), Uma Thurman (esp. circa Pulp Fiction), young Sharon Stone, Lisa Bonet or even Krysten Ritter is arrant nonsense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I am saying that it is from a first year law text book though.
    Quite possibly, but it's also the definition from the Theft Act, more or less:

    (Original post by Theft Act 1968)
    A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    not really - if the government said that the only places where you could get married were churches though I'd advocate a repeal of that rule more than the mandating of literally all churches having to marry people whom their (intolerant) religion specifically doesn't accept. if we're pretending that only churches are places where you can get married then marriage isn't something you'd want anyway, surely? why would a gay couple desire a discriminatory institution like marriage with such a context?
    I'm deliberately ignoring the semantics. The point I'm getting to is whether freedom of religion is more or less important than civil liberties and in my view, civil liberties take precedent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    I'd aver that she's very much above-average by any reasonable aesthetic standard (and that to suggest otherwise is a reactionary opinion rather than an educated or impartial one), but no more so than the best-looking 5% of girls in my old sixth-form; certainly, the notion that she could even hold a candle to such radiant, singular paragons of beauty as Audrey Hepburn (obviously), Uma Thurman (esp. circa Pulp Fiction), young Sharon Stone, Lisa Bonet or even Krysten Ritter is arrant nonsense.
    kk
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think I have more than a few unpopular opinions (at least to a large number of people, probably from the group's that the opinions apply to!)

    - 90% of modern music is trash.

    - The culture of caring what is happening in the 'celebrity world' is utterly pathetic (i.e. I don't understand why anyone would give a crap about who is marrying who or who said what, most 'celebrities' are famous just for being famous and have achieved nothing, whilst there are countless incredible people who receive no where near as much accreditation from the public).

    - Religious people are either highly indoctrinated (most likely) or are incredibly thick. It's one thing to think that a deity-like being could have created the universe, but an entirely different beast to believe religious scripture word-for-word. Religion has been a constant detriment to humanity and the sooner we're rid of it, the better. Denying science is denying blatant fact, it doesn't require belief because it's just observation based on the evidence around us.

    - Brexiteers are delusional (probably because they've been misled by the likes of Gove, Johnson and Farage) and aren't to speed with modern times. Britain doesn't have an empire anymore, both Britain and Europe are much better off together. To deny that the economy would shrink is just denying what is self-evident, 9/10 economists disagree with you and they're far more qualified than you to make that judgement so we should listen. Whilst I acknowledge that it is harder to control immigration within the EU, leaving will not solve this issue. We will likely remain in the single-market because parliament will vote to keep us in it, so we will be forced to have free movement anyway. And if we don't stay in the single market, we will be significantly poorer. Goodbye NHS. Again, I acknowledge that the EU does have a democratic deficit, but that's because it doesn't have a population that's invested in making the EU better. If people treated the EU like a national election, parties would be forced to be more responsive to the people.

    - I think a far easier way to deal with life-term prisoners would be to just exile them to a random island somewhere in the Atlantic. It would cost us significantly less and we've removed an evil murderer from our society. They'll be free to live lawlessly together. We should provide basic shelter and a means to feed themselves, but little more. I think it would serve as a much bigger deterrent to commit crimes. I would also be in favour of capital punishment for severe acts of terrorism, but only when it can be proved beyond doubt that they committed the crime (i.e. them confessing or camera footage of the event).

    And to answer the previous discussions, Emma Watson is probably anywhere from average-slightly above average, and Rhianna is also average.

    Oh and yes, people do get offended far too easily today. Adults who can't deal with name-calling are a little sad, but of course genuine insightments of hatred should be banned.

    *prepares for a barrage of hate*
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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