What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
On the dogs vs. humans topic (Anthony Moxey et al) I'd be interested to herar your view on this thought experiment:
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
Fastchas said:
Most of what the human race has invented or discovered was the easy pickings, the apples hanging lowest from the tree.
We will never really invent anything major to benefit the human race regarding space travel, time travel or anti-gravity. Everything from now on will be on the back of what we've already discovered, just little advances.
That’s what they said in 1954We will never really invent anything major to benefit the human race regarding space travel, time travel or anti-gravity. Everything from now on will be on the back of what we've already discovered, just little advances.
StevieBee said:
Linked to a post someone made a few pages back regarding the Hybrid Vigour being the beneficial outcome of inter-racial breeding, there are several theories that the breeding across races will become increasingly profound to a point where there will be a common skin colour.
"Take a pinch of white man Wrap him up in black skin
Add a touch of blue blood
And a little bitty bit of red Indian boy
Oh like a Curly Latin kinkies
Oh Lordy, Lordy, mixed with yellow
ees, yeahYou know you lump it all together
And you got a recipe for a get along scene
Oh what a beautiful dream"
DRFC1879 said:
On the dogs vs. humans topic (Anthony Moxey et al) I'd be interested to herar your view on this thought experiment:
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
As written, it sounds to me like the dog has a much higher risk of falling in the next few seconds. Is that intentional?You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
DRFC1879 said:
On the dogs vs. humans topic (Anthony Moxey et al) I'd be interested to herar your view on this thought experiment:
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
Its much harder to replace a good hound than it is for a mate to knock out another kid. You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
So Dog for me every time.
amusingduck said:
DRFC1879 said:
On the dogs vs. humans topic (Anthony Moxey et al) I'd be interested to herar your view on this thought experiment:
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
As written, it sounds to me like the dog has a much higher risk of falling in the next few seconds. Is that intentional?You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
Spoken as a dog owner that knows ours can easily get up steep banks and cliffs that I have zero chance of climbing without outside assistance, eg a secured rope being one possibility.
amusingduck said:
As written, it sounds to me like the dog has a much higher risk of falling in the next few seconds. Is that intentional?
No, not intentional just not particularly well-written I suppose! They both run the risk of losing grip and falling imminently.FWIW I expect some people would write that they'd save the dog to stick to their guns in the argument but would save the child in reality. Which opens up a whole other debate about the polarity of online opinion and why people behave the way they do on the internet but I'm not going there!
Integroo said:
Jaroon said:
Bright Halo said:
The NHS is a fantastic thing and the envy of the world. Aniran Bevan was a visionary genius!
With increasing and longer lived population combined with scientific discoveries producing more and more expensive advanced treatments society cannot possibly continue to afford it.
The only way forward is for it to be means tested. Those who can afford to pay should. Changing world, changing rules.
With respect prevailing benefits/self entitled culture including the NHS is the bane of modern UK society. The obese, smokers, alcohol/drug abusers should pay for treatment and review their lifestyle choices. Hard workers are not working hard to prop up professional doleites, multi child families that can not afford their off spring without state hand outs and other Daily Mail type wailing that I have some sympathy with. Privatize the NHS.With increasing and longer lived population combined with scientific discoveries producing more and more expensive advanced treatments society cannot possibly continue to afford it.
The only way forward is for it to be means tested. Those who can afford to pay should. Changing world, changing rules.
The Daily Mail is no worse than any other fear mongering rag.
Oh, and hard-working, working class (or middle class) families who have the misfortune of breaking a leg, or getting a life threatening disease, or whatever, should become bankrupt for their misfortune.
You are wrongly equating hard work to wealth.
Working/middle class families need not be bankrupt by a health problem if they paid some sort of insurance, nationally...oh.
EDIT; Point not taken actually, I never mentioned wealth, that was you. For Hard workers you can read tax payer vs. non tax payer or person who costs the tax payer a disproportionate amount through their life style choices. The fact other virtue signalers have agreed with you about a point I didn't make suggests the number of potential audience members on Question Time is higher than I previously feared. Me being too polite again.
Edited by Jaroon on Tuesday 23 January 14:31
TameRacingDriver said:
Integroo said:
You are wrongly equating hard work to wealth.
Which is something that is rife on pistonheads. I wish I had a pound for every time someone offered the solution to not being able to afford something, as "work harder". If only it were that simple...In fact, possibly one for this thread: "Working harder is no guarantee of success or make you richer".
Edited by TameRacingDriver on Tuesday 23 January 11:19
Sure, working harder is more likely to yield more wealth, but "just work harder" is a bulls
t reasoning people use. Unpopular opinion of my own, kids are vile creatures and people who choose to have them are weird.
I like dogs though
DRFC1879 said:
On the dogs vs. humans topic (Anthony Moxey et al) I'd be interested to herar your view on this thought experiment:
You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
The friend's wife?You're walking along a cliff top with your dog, a friend and his six-year-old child. A bit of loose ground gives way and there's a landslip which leads to the friend falling half way down the cliff and breaking his leg. The dog and the child are hanging precariously. You can reach down and haul them up. The dog is scrabbling for grip, the child is looking up at you in terror. You may not have time to save both. Who or what do you reach for?
FerdiZ28 said:
Fastchas said:
Most of what the human race has invented or discovered was the easy pickings, the apples hanging lowest from the tree.
We will never really invent anything major to benefit the human race regarding space travel, time travel or anti-gravity. Everything from now on will be on the back of what we've already discovered, just little advances.
That’s what they said in 1954We will never really invent anything major to benefit the human race regarding space travel, time travel or anti-gravity. Everything from now on will be on the back of what we've already discovered, just little advances.
If so,as magnificient an achievement it was in 1969 that was an 'apple'. The real big strides will be how to get to other planets or galaxies. Something that will need a major invention or discovery other than blasts of air as propulsion.
singlecoil said:
Too Drunk to Funk said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Karma doesn't exist. You make your own luck in life. A term normally banded about by abject failures.
What utter bks. How exactly do I get the Goverment to reroute HS2 a few miles away from my Dad's house?Fastchas said:
What was so quoted in 1954? Going for the moon?
If so,as magnificient an achievement it was in 1969 that was an 'apple'. The real big strides will be how to get to other planets or galaxies. Something that will need a major invention or discovery other than blasts of air as propulsion.
You are Karl Pilkington and I claim my fiver.If so,as magnificient an achievement it was in 1969 that was an 'apple'. The real big strides will be how to get to other planets or galaxies. Something that will need a major invention or discovery other than blasts of air as propulsion.
Speed 3 said:
IJB1959 said:
The Royal Family should be exiled. They are irrelevant in the 21st century and a waste of taxpayers money which could be spent on something much more worthwhile.
You should check out Micky Flanagan's "Thinking Aloud" series, he made this exact point and I felt myself 
vigorouslyMost politicians are just self-serving and not interested in the people they represent.
Most ground-breaking innovations (be they in engineering or medicine) come not from those highly trained in their field, but from the self-trained who think 'off at a tangent' - years of 'identical training' doesn't lead to ground breaking ideas.
We'll never bring those responsible for the Grenfell Fire to justice - It will be batted around for years
Most ground-breaking innovations (be they in engineering or medicine) come not from those highly trained in their field, but from the self-trained who think 'off at a tangent' - years of 'identical training' doesn't lead to ground breaking ideas.
We'll never bring those responsible for the Grenfell Fire to justice - It will be batted around for years
DRFC1879 said:
No, not intentional just not particularly well-written I suppose! They both run the risk of losing grip and falling imminently.
FWIW I expect some people would write that they'd save the dog to stick to their guns in the argument but would save the child in reality. Which opens up a whole other debate about the polarity of online opinion and why people behave the way they do on the internet but I'm not going there!
I answered dog the first time I read it, now I think my answer would be: it depends which mate I apply the scenario to. FWIW I expect some people would write that they'd save the dog to stick to their guns in the argument but would save the child in reality. Which opens up a whole other debate about the polarity of online opinion and why people behave the way they do on the internet but I'm not going there!
Of the 5 friends I know who have produced a kid, to be brutally honest i would only save one of them over a dog, the other four not a chance.
Cats are vermin.
If you are the sort of person that allows a cat to roam around the streets, scavenging through bins and be 'enjoyed' by other cats all day only for it to return home for food, crap in a tray in your kitchen, walk about on your kitchen worktops and then settle down for a good nights kip on your pillow, you need to have a firm word with yourself.
Hateful things, as are their owners who think that this is reasonable...
If you are the sort of person that allows a cat to roam around the streets, scavenging through bins and be 'enjoyed' by other cats all day only for it to return home for food, crap in a tray in your kitchen, walk about on your kitchen worktops and then settle down for a good nights kip on your pillow, you need to have a firm word with yourself.
Hateful things, as are their owners who think that this is reasonable...
BeastieBoy73 said:
Cats are vermin.
If you are the sort of person that allows a cat to roam around the streets, scavenging through bins and be 'enjoyed' by other cats all day only for it to return home for food, crap in a tray in your kitchen, walk about on your kitchen worktops and then settle down for a good nights kip on your pillow, you need to have a firm word with yourself.
Hateful things, as are their owners who think that this is reasonable...
So..... not a cat fan then?If you are the sort of person that allows a cat to roam around the streets, scavenging through bins and be 'enjoyed' by other cats all day only for it to return home for food, crap in a tray in your kitchen, walk about on your kitchen worktops and then settle down for a good nights kip on your pillow, you need to have a firm word with yourself.
Hateful things, as are their owners who think that this is reasonable...
Ironic name given the subject matter BTW.
I however, am in total agreement!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff