What are your unpopular opinions?

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

Crossflow Kid said:

Those who buy under "Affordable Housing Schemes" do not make good neighbours.

How do you know how they are financing their house?

Where we are it's very simple.
The private properties have glazed, primary-colour painted front doors, driveways and garages.
The Affordable Housing has (cheaper) solid white front doors, and they get to park their stty £500 eBay specials all over the street.
The general level of maintenance to the front gardens is also a big indicator.
The AH in our area and the residents therein is the single biggest factor in us wanting to move before the end of 2018.

[Kermit power]

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

I'd agree with that, with the possible exception of nail varnish.

When I was a student, I used to work in hotels in the evening and weekends, and used to see no end of prospective brides coming to look at the place as a potential venue for the wedding breakfast. Plenty of fit young women in jeans and T-shirts who would then come back a few months later in a wedding dress, dreadfully over-complicated hair and makeup applied with a trowel, and I'd just wonder what on earth they were thinking!

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

OldGermanHeaps said:

I really enjoyed my mk1 and mk2 vectra sri. I cant see what wad so bad about them compared to the similarly priced alternatives.

A mate many years ago had a Mk1 as his company wheels, not an SRi mind, if it happened to make any difference. It was one of the most understeery things I've ever traveled in.

[captain_cynic]

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

Honestly, I don't think that is an unpopular opinion or even remotely controversial. Most people prefer women without makeup that must have been applied with a bricklayer's trowel.

[singlecoil]

captain_cynic said:

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

Honestly, I don't think that is an unpopular opinion or even remotely controversial. Most people prefer women without makeup that must have been applied with a bricklayer's trowel.

If it is a popular opinion one would wonder why so many women continue to do it.

[RacerMDR]

captain_cynic said:

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

Honestly, I don't think that is an unpopular opinion or even remotely controversial. Most people prefer women without makeup that must have been applied with a bricklayer's trowel.

I genuinely don't understand why they do it. I mean, as a general rule, you don't see chaps covering their faces in it. I don't mean a little eye makeup etc (although I prefer without)

It's the orange stuff they put over their whole face - you can always see the line.

Red Lipstick is allowed for certain occasion, but it's private and should be removed before leaving the house

[captain_cynic]

singlecoil said:

captain_cynic said:

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

Honestly, I don't think that is an unpopular opinion or even remotely controversial. Most people prefer women without makeup that must have been applied with a bricklayer's trowel.

If it is a popular opinion one would wonder why so many women continue to do it.

If I knew how the female mind worked I would be a very rich man.

I just don't think its an unpopular opinion (and very much agree with you on it).

[Antony Moxey]

RacerMDR said:

captain_cynic said:

singlecoil said:

The more makeup a woman wears the less attractive I find her. I particularly dislike lipstick.

Honestly, I don't think that is an unpopular opinion or even remotely controversial. Most people prefer women without makeup that must have been applied with a bricklayer's trowel.

I genuinely don't understand why they do it. I mean, as a general rule, you don't see chaps covering their faces in it. I don't mean a little eye makeup etc (although I prefer without)

It's the orange stuff they put over their whole face - you can always see the line.

Red Lipstick is allowed for certain occasion, but it's private and should be removed before leaving the house

Because Facebook: OMG, you look gawjuss hun; stunning hunni; so beautiful, etc etc etc. Women posting about women being (wrongly) attractive.

[RacerMDR]

I have a pal (it really wasn't me) that used to put on his 'internet dating profile thingy'

"No Duck Faces."

I thought that was brilliant,.

[Integroo]

RacerMDR said:

ha ha - yeah - I completely don't agree with any of that Integroo. Why should I, in your example, on 240k a year, have to pay a much higher %? Why is it my fault that the 24k a year person doesn't earn 240k? Surely it gives them more inspiration to work harder at education, and make better choices in order to get up to the 240k?

granted taking out things like Police, Firepeople, Nurses etc - they should all earn 100k+ minimum - and shouldn't be taxed at all.

What is it with people assuming that high earnings equal hard work, and low earnings equal lazy and feckless?

Police officers should earn 100k and not be taxed? Then everyone would want to be police officers. What makes a police officer more deserving than the person who does back breaking ten hour days picking berries that you put on your quinoa every morning? Or should he work harder and earn 240k too?

[kingston12]

Integroo said:

What is it with people assuming that high earnings equal hard work, and low earnings equal lazy and feckless?

That is the default PH view - if you earn less than six figures it's because you aren't working hard enough. It is true in a lot of cases, of course, but not the vast majority.

That said I definitely agree with the view that income tax should be a flat percentage. If everyone paid 25%, the £240k earner would be contributing £60k to the exchequer, the £24k earner would be contributing £6k.

[DurianIceCream]

Antony Moxey said:

I thought the thread was about unpopular opinions - mine is that I consider my dog more important to me than i do most humans. If that makes me a fool, well, so what, I won't lose sleep over it.

Have I mentioned your dog will be dead in a few years and nobody will care?

Most people are more concerned with things they know which are part of their lives. My capuccino in front of me is more important to me than the OAP eating a yoghurt at the next table.

If the roof started to collapse and I could save my capuccino from being ruined by falling debris or I could save the yoghurt eating OAP from death by falling ceiling, I'd save the OAP. I wouldn't even think about it.

I'm surprised that anyone would choose the death of the child of their friend over the death of their dog. You best keep your feelings to yourself in the real world, you may find yourself lacking in friends.

[singlecoil]

DurianIceCream said:

I'm surprised that anyone would choose the death of the child of their friend over the death of their dog. You best keep your feelings to yourself in the real world, you may find yourself lacking in friends.

But his dog will still like him.

[RacerMDR]

Integroo said:

What is it with people assuming that high earnings equal hard work, and low earnings equal lazy and feckless?

Police officers should earn 100k and not be taxed? Then everyone would want to be police officers. What makes a police officer more deserving than the person who does back breaking ten hour days picking berries that you put on your quinoa every morning? Or should he work harder and earn 240k too?

I didn't say that, if you're referring to me?

Hard work, smarter work, whatever way you want to say it. Some people (very few in my experience) are given a leg up to a good salary. I don't mean a nurse doing a 12 hour shift isn't working hard. I mean, if that same nurse had wanted to earn six figure salary she probably should have chosen something that wasn't nursing........... as it's no secret that the services don't get six figure salary. (They should in my opinion). Yes everyone would want to be a policeman, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to have a highly skilled, highly educated police force?

I think anyone in any service is more deserving than the back breaking berry pickers. They are putting themselves in harms way, and dealing with the dregs of society. fk me they'd have to pay me 200k to be a policeman. I think they do an amazing job - and should absolutely get paid for it. Same as Armed Services, fireman, nurses.

Unfortunately they don't directly increase anyone else wealth, and thus don't command that salary , hence me saying they shouldn't be taxed to make up in some way.

I specifically chose what I do now, to make money. I knew I wouldn't enjoy it - but I actively made that decision. Chose the subjects, worked hard as fk, gave up loads of things other people don't in order to do it.

I would much rather have been a fireman, or a geologist or a helicopter instructor or a fking zoo keeper. Pretty much anything.

I didn't for the reasons above. That's what I mean by Harder/Smarter

[TameRacingDriver]

kingston12 said:

Integroo said:

What is it with people assuming that high earnings equal hard work, and low earnings equal lazy and feckless?

That is the default PH view - if you earn less than six figures it's because you aren't working hard enough. It is true in a lot of cases, of course, but not the vast majority.

Yep, I see this phrase used time and time again on here, and it's fking annoying - probably one of the only thing that really gets my goat that I read on here in fact. For the vast majority of people in this country, or in any country, working harder does not result in more money.

It *might* improve your prospects of getting more money, but the phrase implies that a 6-figure salary is within reach for anyone and everyone, as long as they "work hard enough". Well it is utter bks, otherwise everyone would be doing it.

I also resent the idea that earning a bigger salary makes someone a better person, as often seems to be implied. In a large number of cases, I'd say quite the opposite, quite a lot of well off people appear to be s. That's not to say that you don't get low paid s, but the law of averages kick in, and there's a MUCH bigger pool to choose from.

[anonymous-user]

DurianIceCream said:

I'm surprised that anyone would choose the death of the child of their friend over the death of their dog. You best keep your feelings to yourself in the real world, you may find yourself lacking in friends.

You wouldn't be surprised if you met my mates kids.

[OldGermanHeaps]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

A mate many years ago had a Mk1 as his company wheels, not an SRi mind, if it happened to make any difference. It was one of the most understeery things I've ever traveled in.

Aye i has a shot of an ls and it was a very different animal. When i had to buy a pair of rear shocks the sri ones were more than double the price of the non sri ones, makes sense.

[jimPH]

RacerMDR said:

Antony Moxey said:

I thought the thread was about unpopular opinions - mine is that I consider my dog more important to me than i do most humans. If that makes me a fool, well, so what, I won't lose sleep over it.

I've not met a human yet that I liked more than most dogs. So I'm with you.

I haven't met a dog i'd like to sleep with. I guess you have then.

[Alex]

Integroo said:

So, those with the broadest shoulders beyond basic living expenses, should bear the biggest burden to support our society.

No they shouldn't.

Integroo said:

Plus, progressive taxes serve a function in promoting income equality, amongst other things. They are distributive of wealth, which is a good thing.

No it isn't.

[RacerMDR]

jimPH said:

I haven't met a dog i'd like to sleep with. I guess you have then.

You don't have to like someone to sleep with them do you? st - I've been doing it wrong.