What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
Buggles said:
A lot of dog owners - not all - are utter 
s.
I took my little girl to the park the other day, as we walked past a house with an open front door, a Labrador shot out and ran at her. The owner of said dog, came running over shouting, 'oh, she's alright, she just loves kids'. Well guess what, my child is now fking terrified of dogs, because they come bounding over and are bigger than she is. It isn't the first time something similar has happened. I'd be terrified if something four-legged and tall enough to tower over me came running at me, too.
On arrival at the park, I notice that some dozy has a dog inside it. Despite the sign on the gate saying 'no dogs'. My little girl, is gripping my arm, won't let me put her down and won't take her eyes off the dog. What does said dog owner say? 'Do you want me to bring the dog over so she can say hello?' No, not fking really. I'd like you to fk it off out of the park.
The rugby field near me, has a big sign saying 'no dogs on the playing fields'. What do I see? Dog owners scraping up st with plastic bags and dogs running everywhere. A couple of days later and people are playing rugby here, being tackled to the stty ground.
What the fk is wrong with people and why do they think their fking dog is so special that they ignore basic sensibilities. s.
What is your plan to reassure your daughter and tackle her fear of dogs? It could be a problem in the long term if not tackled early. It would be good to find a way for her to have a positive experience with a friendly and placid pooch somewhere IMO. s. I took my little girl to the park the other day, as we walked past a house with an open front door, a Labrador shot out and ran at her. The owner of said dog, came running over shouting, 'oh, she's alright, she just loves kids'. Well guess what, my child is now f
king terrified of dogs, because they come bounding over and are bigger than she is. It isn't the first time something similar has happened. I'd be terrified if something four-legged and tall enough to tower over me came running at me, too. On arrival at the park, I notice that some dozy
has a dog inside it. Despite the sign on the gate saying 'no dogs'. My little girl, is gripping my arm, won't let me put her down and won't take her eyes off the dog. What does said dog owner say? 'Do you want me to bring the dog over so she can say hello?' No, not fking really. I'd like you to fk it off out of the park. The rugby field near me, has a big sign saying 'no dogs on the playing fields'. What do I see? Dog owners scraping up s
t with plastic bags and dogs running everywhere. A couple of days later and people are playing rugby here, being tackled to the stty ground. What the f
k is wrong with people and why do they think their fking dog is so special that they ignore basic sensibilities. s. 
Buggles said:
toppstuff said:
What is your plan to reassure your daughter and tackle her fear of dogs? It could be a problem in the long term if not tackled early. It would be good to find a way for her to have a positive experience with a friendly and placid pooch somewhere IMO.
I'm not sure, but I am aware that I need one. Some friends of ours have a dog (Ron) who is very calm and friendly. I think I'll probably try and engineer a situation where she can get used to him and realise dogs are ok. Owner: 'oh he's so cute, let him up on the sofa'
Dug 'Good, now I am level with this other animal in the hierarchy'
Owner 'oh, put him on the lead and stand still while this other dug passes'
Dug 'DANGER - owner is afraid of this other dug, will display aggression to protect owner...'
Etc.
Dugs are dugs, not furry people.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I would be very surprised if rentals didn't come down if the wages were lower and there was no government subsidy. Government subsidy directly puts money into the rental market where's parental subsidy reduces rental demand. I was on a fairly low wages in my early 20s and stayed with my parents while I saved up for a deposit to buy a flat so don't really see a problem with others doing the same. anonymous said:
[redacted]
While I agree with you on one level I think the coffee shop example provides a useful alternative way of looking at it.If prices in coffee shops went up to economic levels then many more people would have coffee at home or go without, so we could say the shops only exist because of subsidised workers. But some would say it's better that these people are working and earning most of their cost of existence with the government chipping in, than them being unemployed and the government having to bear all the cost.
CSLM3CSL said:
In my opinion the minimum wage is a terrible idea. How can you expect to recruit the highest calibre staff in care homes etc when you can earn a similar amount working in a quiet coffee shop?
Wales is half way to having this solved. They have ‘Social Care Wales’, where everyone in the care sector needs to register with them within 6 months of employment, before commencing a relevant QCF3. Qualification naturally leads to higher wages.The next step would be enforcing a %/£ increase from minimum wage for qualified staff.
Get old people to work in coffee shops... Double solve.
Coffee is shot anyway, when did the UK become so fking dependent on coffee to function, its fking ridiculous.
And while we're on the subject it seems to me that the rise in coffee "shops" is correlated to the use of "can I get" as a means of asking for something... I. E "Can I get a double shot, skinny Machiatto with almond milk". fking s.
Coffee is shot anyway, when did the UK become so f
king dependent on coffee to function, its fking ridiculous. And while we're on the subject it seems to me that the rise in coffee "shops" is correlated to the use of "can I get" as a means of asking for something... I. E "Can I get a double shot, skinny Machiatto with almond milk". f
king s. anonymous said:
[redacted]
I thought, and I am happy to be corrected - that there had been talk of doing something similar - reducing the tax bill for companies where they pay a minimum proportion of their staff above a certain wage? No doubt it got shot down but there was merit in the idea I thought. People earning more pay more in tax but do so through spending and take less in direct benefit, surely? anonymous said:
[redacted]
So, let's extrapolate for a moment.In industries where roles and their associated network/expertise/experience varies so widely, like banking or finance, we should be pressuring companies to limit remuneration for those who earn them the most?
So if one company does this (out of misguided goodwill, presumably), they fail because top-end talent (which often dictates success) goes to the competition.
If a whole country implements this, then the best talent simply migrates to another market where wages aren't capped, meaning that the economy takes a huge hit because high revenue companies suddenly start to shrink.
Which of those scenarios do you think is remotely workable or desirable?
I have vague lefty leanings on some issues, but that's a proposal completely devoid of basic economic understanding.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff