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
- 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
- Newspapers-Question 2 OCR - URGENTLY NEED HELP
- I do not like Halle Bailey's boyfriend
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- 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?
- Super racist author on my personal statement
Your most controversial view?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RFowler
The environment should be at least as important as the economy.
Don't know how controversial that is in terms of wider public opinion. But the political establishment doesn't take environmental protection very seriously when there is money to be made from damaging activities, and there is no sign of that changing.
Don't know how controversial that is in terms of wider public opinion. But the political establishment doesn't take environmental protection very seriously when there is money to be made from damaging activities, and there is no sign of that changing.
#GreenParty
Original post by OU Student
People who go on to higher education generally earn more. Given that, why shouldn't they pay for their education?
To encourage more people (especially from poorer backgrounds) to enter higher education. A more educated population is a better one.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Asklepios
To encourage more people (especially from poorer backgrounds) to enter higher education. A more educated population is a better one.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
But we don't need everyone entering uni and coming out with a degree. And uni isn't for everyone.
Original post by TheTruthTeller
What do you base that view on?
It's a disorder of reproduction, specifically sexual attraction. It is clearly not a choice, and many studies have implicated a genetic component. Some would argue that a certain proportion of the population being gay actually confers overall reproductive benefit (something to do with demographic stability I'm not quite sure), but other diseases may also be beneficial in some aspects - CF and cholera, Sickle-cell and malaria.
However, what is important is that gay people should still have rights and be treated with respect. Like we don't make fun of the physically disabled.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Adipoptosis
The risks of smoking have been demonstrated time and time again in scientific literature. Its beyond reasonable doubt just how harmful smoking can be.
I couldn't agree more - unfortunately, most people don't read the relevant 'scientific literature' to form their opinions but instead take it from newspapers with a vested interest to entice people's interest and populist politicians who seize on anti-smoking as a way of coming up with policy ideas that will make them seem even a little bit useful and engender them to a public that is more anti smoking than it is not. It doesn't help that doctors make a great deal of money from performance targets which include getting people to quit smoking, and they therefore also have a vested interest to push the case that it is death in a tube more than anyone.
If you looked for yourself at the 'scientific literature', you would see that while smoking carries risks of a wide range of illnesses, the risks for each of these illnesses actually occurring in lifetime smokers is slim. The chances of a lifetime male smoker getting lung cancer, for example, are 1.5/10.
Combine the endless list of positive health implications associated with smoking (which curiously no one ever talks about outside of the 'scientific literature') and the small luxury it is for many people and I think it is reasonable to conclude that such risks have been over hyped by a triad of actors each nursing their individual vested interests.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by bittr n swt
Rather not say as I'll get in trouble knowing the mods.
Just say what it is.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by OU Student
But we don't need everyone entering uni and coming out with a degree. And uni isn't for everyone.
Everyone surely needs to have the opportunity should they wish, no?
Original post by Birkenhead
I couldn't agree more - unfortunately, most people don't read the relevant 'scientific literature' to form their opinions but instead take it from newspapers with a vested interest to entice people's interest and politicians who seize on anti-smoking as a way of coming up with policy ideas that will make them seem even a little bit useful. It doesn't help that doctors make a great deal of money from performance targets which include getting people to quit smoking, and they therefore also have a vested interest to push the case that it is death in a tube more than anyone.
If you looked for yourself at the 'scientific literature', you would see that while smoking carries risks of a wide range of illnesses, the risks for each of these illnesses actually occurring in lifetime smokers is slim. The chances of a lifetime male smoker getting lung cancer, for example, are 1.5/10.
Combine the endless list of positive health implications associated with smoking (which curiously no one ever talks about outside of the 'scientific literature') and the small luxury it is for many people and I think it is reasonable to conclude that such risks have been over hyped by a triad of actors each nursing their individual vested interests.
If you looked for yourself at the 'scientific literature', you would see that while smoking carries risks of a wide range of illnesses, the risks for each of these illnesses actually occurring in lifetime smokers is slim. The chances of a lifetime male smoker getting lung cancer, for example, are 1.5/10.
Combine the endless list of positive health implications associated with smoking (which curiously no one ever talks about outside of the 'scientific literature') and the small luxury it is for many people and I think it is reasonable to conclude that such risks have been over hyped by a triad of actors each nursing their individual vested interests.
But a 15% chance of getting a disease which is incurable and almost always deadly is a huge risk.
When doctors tell people to stop smoking its not to meet some target, i promise you. Its because we are exposed to the massive morbidity and mortality which smoking leads to, we see it everyday and to us it is a preventable problem.
The only positive health implication is on mental health - stress relief (that I know of). I would argue there are healthier ways to achieve stress relief. I would concede that for people who are already heavily addicted its difficult to do something about it but we should try as hard as possible to stop people from starting.
Also regarding performance targets, some insight...this is how they work:
One day you walk in to your GP practice and your manager hands you a piece of paper saying, unless we hit this target of getting the number of smokers down, we'll lose 20% of our funding and we'll have to fire two doctors.
NOT... Get that number unto 20% and we'll give you a handsome cash bonus.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by OU Student
But we don't need everyone entering uni and coming out with a degree. And uni isn't for everyone.
Opportunity for places should be given based on ability and intelligence, not economic background.
Original post by lostwanderer
Higher education should be free
I don't see what's so bad about the current system we use. It's not as if you're going to be in crippling debt that will make you homeless when you leave uni.
Original post by Adipoptosis
When doctors tell people to stop smoking its not to meet some target, i promise you. Its because we are exposed to the massive morbidity and mortality which smoking leads to, we see it everyday and to us it is a preventable problem.
When doctors tell people to stop smoking its not to meet some target, i promise you. Its because we are exposed to the massive morbidity and mortality which smoking leads to, we see it everyday and to us it is a preventable problem.
Exactly. My dad was told to stop smoking - because at the time, that's what the doctors believed made him ill.
Original post by OU Student
People who go on to higher education generally earn more. Given that, why shouldn't they pay for their education?
I think you're completely missing the point of higher education. You are viewing higher education as a kind of financial investment and it's precisely this view which is resulting in the system being so messed up. Investing in a good education system isn't about the economy, it's about development. We are an intelligent species and live in an intellectual society - access to quality education should be a basic right, not an investment. That is precisely the reason why the most socially progressive societies on the planet, such as Scandinavia and many European countries, have made higher education free. Viewing education as a financial investment is backwards.
Original post by OU Student
But we don't need everyone entering uni and coming out with a degree. And uni isn't for everyone.
One way we could resolve this would be to increase the difficulty of university courses across the country, uniformly, so that people are deterred from entering in the first place.
1) That measures should be taken to severely restrict the sale of cigarettes and alcohol in this country.
2) There is no 'war' on drugs.
3) We should reintroduce the death penalty.
These are 3 of mine.
2) There is no 'war' on drugs.
3) We should reintroduce the death penalty.
These are 3 of mine.
Probably that we have a social responsibility to be concerned for the welfare of everyone else and that we have the responsibility to ensure the welfare of generations that have yet to come, as well as respecting the intrinsic value of nature. I think social development and environmental preservation are much more important than the economy and that people should be directly prevented from exploitation of any kind, be it environmental or social.
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
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
Not everybody deserves to vote.
The monarchy should be abolished (although I concede it has economic benefits in terms of tourism etc).
The monarchy should be abolished (although I concede it has economic benefits in terms of tourism etc).
Original post by Birkenhead
I couldn't agree more - unfortunately, most people don't read the relevant 'scientific literature' to form their opinions but instead take it from newspapers with a vested interest to entice people's interest and populist politicians who seize on anti-smoking as a way of coming up with policy ideas that will make them seem even a little bit useful and engender them to a public that is more anti smoking than it is not. It doesn't help that doctors make a great deal of money from performance targets which include getting people to quit smoking, and they therefore also have a vested interest to push the case that it is death in a tube more than anyone.
If you looked for yourself at the 'scientific literature', you would see that while smoking carries risks of a wide range of illnesses, the risks for each of these illnesses actually occurring in lifetime smokers is slim. The chances of a lifetime male smoker getting lung cancer, for example, are 1.5/10.
Combine the endless list of positive health implications associated with smoking (which curiously no one ever talks about outside of the 'scientific literature') and the small luxury it is for many people and I think it is reasonable to conclude that such risks have been over hyped by a triad of actors each nursing their individual vested interests.
If you looked for yourself at the 'scientific literature', you would see that while smoking carries risks of a wide range of illnesses, the risks for each of these illnesses actually occurring in lifetime smokers is slim. The chances of a lifetime male smoker getting lung cancer, for example, are 1.5/10.
Combine the endless list of positive health implications associated with smoking (which curiously no one ever talks about outside of the 'scientific literature') and the small luxury it is for many people and I think it is reasonable to conclude that such risks have been over hyped by a triad of actors each nursing their individual vested interests.
That's all well and good. But not smoking is better than smoking.
Or are you going to tell me otherwise?
Related discussions
- Anyone heard from Oxford yet?
- A level History NEA Coursework
- Interview tutoring
- Law interview Prep Help!
- EPQ rewording/rephrasing
- 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
- Newspapers-Question 2 OCR - URGENTLY NEED HELP
- I do not like Halle Bailey's boyfriend
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- 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?
- Super racist author on my personal statement
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 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 3 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
