What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
Voldemort said:
singlecoil said:
And an awful lot of s
t too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.
You expect the entire output of the BBC to match your tastes? That's some vanity, there.t too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.Netflix is good too, as paying a subscription looses the ads.
singlecoil said:
And an awful lot of st too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.
Not everything is going to be to your tastes (although, yes, they do produce some st too. And some of that st is seriously expensive.t). However you'd never have had anything like QI produced by the commercial networks at the time... Top gear would have been axed at season 1, advertisers would never have permitted Seasons 4-20, the moment Clarkson started railing against Vauxhall or French cars the advertisers would have gone mental and got him neutered. The BBC (and Netflix/Amazon) don't have that to worry about.However, I'm not going to pretend the Beeb doesn't have issues, although I believe it's going to work through those in time.
Rostfritt said:
Westblue said:
Is London REALLY the capital of England? When British people are in the minority there How can that be?
Yes it is. British people are not the minority there. Even if for whatever reason you remove the number of not British people there, it would still be more than anywhere else in Britain.Why does the capital have to have the most people anyway? Canberra, Wellington, Bern, Washington DC, Edinburgh to name a few all are not the biggest cities in their country, but are still the capital.
But then historically, the government of most countries was formed in the largest city - and that will grow from there over many years, and it will have been the largest city because it was the easiest to defend, or the best place to get natural resources, or more likely, the best combination of those benefits.
captain_cynic said:
Not everything is going to be to your tastes (although, yes, they do produce some st). However you'd never have had anything like QI produced by the commercial networks at the time... Top gear would have been axed at season 1, advertisers would never have permitted Seasons 4-20, the moment Clarkson started railing against Vauxhall or French cars the advertisers would have gone mental and got him neutered. The BBC (and Netflix/Amazon) don't have that to worry about.
However, I'm not going to pretend the Beeb doesn't have issues, although I believe it's going to work through those in time.
You wouldn't have known any difference.t). However you'd never have had anything like QI produced by the commercial networks at the time... Top gear would have been axed at season 1, advertisers would never have permitted Seasons 4-20, the moment Clarkson started railing against Vauxhall or French cars the advertisers would have gone mental and got him neutered. The BBC (and Netflix/Amazon) don't have that to worry about.However, I'm not going to pretend the Beeb doesn't have issues, although I believe it's going to work through those in time.
Something would have replaced TG and QI is crap,how Fry ever got where he is,I don't know.
I suspect the issue isn't commercial or not, but advertising or subscription.
If the channel needs advertising it needs to dissuade people from switching off, a show that a million people keep watching in the hope something interesting happens is preferable to one that 50,000 people are hooked by and everyone else ignores.
If it's subscription then it needs to dissuade people from cancelling when they see their bank statement and wonder what to cut down on. People in that situation don't tot up how many hours they had the TV on for, they try to think whether there were any shows they really would not like to miss. So you might still need a million viewers, but if they are watching as sets of 50,000 hooked viewers at a time it doesn't matter if they don't all turn on at once.
If the channel needs advertising it needs to dissuade people from switching off, a show that a million people keep watching in the hope something interesting happens is preferable to one that 50,000 people are hooked by and everyone else ignores.
If it's subscription then it needs to dissuade people from cancelling when they see their bank statement and wonder what to cut down on. People in that situation don't tot up how many hours they had the TV on for, they try to think whether there were any shows they really would not like to miss. So you might still need a million viewers, but if they are watching as sets of 50,000 hooked viewers at a time it doesn't matter if they don't all turn on at once.
FredClogs said:
captain_cynic said:
Blown2CV said:
bristolracer said:
Blown2CV said:
i have nothing against people who are gay, it's totally fine with me. If my kids ended up being, then that's fine too.
However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
I thinks its fair to say that may well be an unpopular opinion.............However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
Evolution or more accurately, natural selection, which you are referencing works on the macro level, it's to do with the behaviour of the species, not the behaviour of the individual. Using individual behaviours to predict the fate of a species demonstrates you don't understand the science.
Are you honestly trying to say that gay people are causing the entire species to stop procreating? Because given that the human population is growing, that seems horribly flawed.
You are of course, entitled to your own opinion on homosexuals... but you're not entitled to your own facts.
There are several observed instances in the "natural" world of species with the ability to change gender or sexual behaviour in response to localised environmental or "social" needs, perhaps even consciously as far as I understand it in the case of some of those funny fish like octupus things. They also change the colour of their skin, that could really f
k with some of the little hitlers on here.. Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
Funkycoldribena said:
You wouldn't have known any difference.
Something would have replaced TG and QI is crap,how Fry ever got where he is,I don't know.
No, TG or QI never would have existed. They would have been replaced with versions of Big Brother or whatever reality crap is about. Something would have replaced TG and QI is crap,how Fry ever got where he is,I don't know.
However Fry got where he is by being intelligent and funny, so I'm not surprised that you don't know.
IJB1959 said:
FredClogs said:
captain_cynic said:
Blown2CV said:
bristolracer said:
Blown2CV said:
i have nothing against people who are gay, it's totally fine with me. If my kids ended up being, then that's fine too.
However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
I thinks its fair to say that may well be an unpopular opinion.............However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
Evolution or more accurately, natural selection, which you are referencing works on the macro level, it's to do with the behaviour of the species, not the behaviour of the individual. Using individual behaviours to predict the fate of a species demonstrates you don't understand the science.
Are you honestly trying to say that gay people are causing the entire species to stop procreating? Because given that the human population is growing, that seems horribly flawed.
You are of course, entitled to your own opinion on homosexuals... but you're not entitled to your own facts.
There are several observed instances in the "natural" world of species with the ability to change gender or sexual behaviour in response to localised environmental or "social" needs, perhaps even consciously as far as I understand it in the case of some of those funny fish like octupus things. They also change the colour of their skin, that could really f
k with some of the little hitlers on here.. Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
Swap out LBGT in your diatribe for ‘black people’ and maybe you’ll realise what a small minded, bigotted moron you sound like.
Mr Gearchange said:
IJB1959 said:
FredClogs said:
captain_cynic said:
Blown2CV said:
bristolracer said:
Blown2CV said:
i have nothing against people who are gay, it's totally fine with me. If my kids ended up being, then that's fine too.
However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
I thinks its fair to say that may well be an unpopular opinion.............However, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it stops the breeding line, it is technically a disease (as extremely unfashionable as it is to say openly... unfortunately i can't think of another word but i am very much not using it as an attacking term), in the same way that anything that stops procreation or causes it to fail is.
Evolution or more accurately, natural selection, which you are referencing works on the macro level, it's to do with the behaviour of the species, not the behaviour of the individual. Using individual behaviours to predict the fate of a species demonstrates you don't understand the science.
Are you honestly trying to say that gay people are causing the entire species to stop procreating? Because given that the human population is growing, that seems horribly flawed.
You are of course, entitled to your own opinion on homosexuals... but you're not entitled to your own facts.
There are several observed instances in the "natural" world of species with the ability to change gender or sexual behaviour in response to localised environmental or "social" needs, perhaps even consciously as far as I understand it in the case of some of those funny fish like octupus things. They also change the colour of their skin, that could really f
k with some of the little hitlers on here.. Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
Swap out LBGT in your diatribe for ‘black people’ and maybe you’ll realise what a small minded, bigotted moron you sound like.
IJB1959 said:
Growing up through the sixties and beyond all this LGBT stuff has now grown way out of hand. On the Anglian news last night there were police walking around with LGBT epaulets on, and a LGBT coloured police patrol car in support of them. Also before the 9pm watershed the small kids endured 2 men and 2 women kissing on mainstream TV. They even now tell the kids in our local school that homosexual behaviour should be encouraged and celebrated.
Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
Well said.Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
I make no criticism whatsoever of those who were born with an unusual makeup (for want of a better term) but to have children being told that homosexual behaviour is to be encouraged and celebrated, well that's just appalling.
Nobody should feel in any way ashamed of their sexual or gender orientation, but nor should they herald it as something to be proud of. I don't go around proclaiming my heterosexual status. We should accept what we are, behave with consideration and tolerance towards each other, and keep quiet about it.
p1esk said:
IJB1959 said:
Growing up through the sixties and beyond all this LGBT stuff has now grown way out of hand. On the Anglian news last night there were police walking around with LGBT epaulets on, and a LGBT coloured police patrol car in support of them. Also before the 9pm watershed the small kids endured 2 men and 2 women kissing on mainstream TV. They even now tell the kids in our local school that homosexual behaviour should be encouraged and celebrated.
Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
Well said.Nothing against LBGT's if that's your thing, but to have this constantly rammed down our thoughts as being 'perfectly normal' especially to small children is just utterly wrong.
I make no criticism whatsoever of those who were born with an unusual makeup (for want of a better term) but to have children being told that homosexual behaviour is to be encouraged and celebrated, well that's just appalling.
Nobody should feel in any way ashamed of their sexual or gender orientation, but nor should they herald it as something to be proud of. I don't go around proclaiming my heterosexual status. We should accept what we are, behave with consideration and tolerance towards each other, and keep quiet about it.
Because in the not so distant past black people couldnt rely on the support of the police, they would look the other way when things happened to them and people would be up in arms about them kissing on TV and the like - thankfully that abhorrent views is confined to the past.
You however seem to think that the police showing support for LGBT people and showing them on TV kissing is degrading our moral fabric and ‘rammming it down our throats’. Your views belong in the early part of last century and you will find yourself fully on the wrong side of history.
My kids know that some people are gay and it’s not weird of threatening to them as it seems to be for you, seeing gay people doesn’t ‘influence them’. Id be much more worried about them running into someone with such moronic views as yourself than anyone from the LBGT community.
Your world view is weird - I feel sorry for you.
You however seem to think that the police showing support for LGBT people and showing them on TV kissing is degrading our moral fabric and ‘rammming it down our throats’. Your views belong in the early part of last century and you will find yourself fully on the wrong side of history.
My kids know that some people are gay and it’s not weird of threatening to them as it seems to be for you, seeing gay people doesn’t ‘influence them’. Id be much more worried about them running into someone with such moronic views as yourself than anyone from the LBGT community.
Your world view is weird - I feel sorry for you.
IJB1959 said:
Also before the 9pm watershed the small kids endured 2 men and 2 women kissing on mainstream TV. They even now tell the kids in our local school that homosexual behaviour should be encouraged and celebrated.
I will concede I tire with LGBT propaganda at times but you're on a whole new level 
Homosexuality is legal, you know.
Mr Gearchange said:
Because in the not so distant past black people couldnt rely on the support of the police, they would look the other way when things happened to them and people would be up in arms about them kissing on TV and the like - thankfully that abhorrent views is confined to the past.
You however seem to think that the police showing support for LGBT people and showing them on TV kissing is degrading our moral fabric and ‘rammming it down our throats’. Your views belong in the early part of last century and you will find yourself fully on the wrong side of history.
My kids know that some people are gay and it’s not weird of threatening to them as it seems to be for you, seeing gay people doesn’t ‘influence them’. Id be much more worried about them running into someone with such moronic views as yourself than anyone from the LBGT community.
Your world view is weird - I feel sorry for you.
You keep harping on about black people and their struggle for equality....different subject completely. Should LBGT (and black people as you put it) be treated equally in law?...yes of course. Nice to know that you consider your views as 'trendy 2018' much like the Labour left Momentum camp do, but we all do not share your opinion where undue influence on A child's sexuality is concerned. Paedophiles do that sort of thing.You however seem to think that the police showing support for LGBT people and showing them on TV kissing is degrading our moral fabric and ‘rammming it down our throats’. Your views belong in the early part of last century and you will find yourself fully on the wrong side of history.
My kids know that some people are gay and it’s not weird of threatening to them as it seems to be for you, seeing gay people doesn’t ‘influence them’. Id be much more worried about them running into someone with such moronic views as yourself than anyone from the LBGT community.
Your world view is weird - I feel sorry for you.
Edited by IJB1959 on Tuesday 20th February 13:51
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff