What are your unpopular opinions?

[jimPH]

What unpopular opinions do you have?

For me, I'm fed up of a minute's silence everytime we get an act of terror. No one really cares much about people they've never met.

People who work for charity's tend to be smug self satisfied tree hugging toss pots and are in it to make themselves feel better

Everyone is a bigot, it's just a scale

iPhones are overpriced and rubbish

[jimPH]

Antony Moxey said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

I'm sure the hysterical dog owners think their animal is more important that humans.

Mine is. Other than my family there literally are no other humans on the planet that I consider to be more important than my dog. Why should I consider that they are?

I love all animals, dogs, cats, had a really superb budgie that adored me. But as much as I love those pets, faced with the prospect of choosing a human life over any animal I loved, I'm sorry, but the animal would get it. No question.

Edit: except vloggers. And Corbyn. And eco warrior types (especially the white ones with dreadlocks)

Edited by jimPH on Monday 22 January 20:37

Edited by jimPH on Monday 22 January 20:39

[jimPH]

Your not doing it right:

The Meganes have got away with it. (Name undisclosed for libel reasons)

Some blame should be shouldered by the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough

The wall between US and Mexico is a good idea

[jimPH]

Harvey Weinstein did what 90% of blokes would have liked to have done. His biggest downfall was being ugly.

[jimPH]

singlecoil said:

StevieBee said:

grumbledoak said:

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. The evolutionary outcome of this is an abundance of super-smart people that recognise the abstract notion of politics, borders and the like, removing such hindrances to human progression.

These theories suggest that a critical mass will be arrived at where the entire human species will work together as a single mass and not as individuals or individual groups. At this point, the rise in scientific endeavour and discovery will become exponential and unlimited to levels that we are unable to currently comprehend.

Obviously only a theory and one that's unlikely to be proven any time soon......but I rather like the idea.

Just another re-hash of Marx. In case you didn't learn anything from previous attempts, the Socialists will say anything to gain power, and it never turns out how they promised. There will be no point at which we all become "one glorious whole" as beings, no matter how homogenous our skin colour gets. And if - or when - a one world political structure is forced upon us it is likely to be hell on earth with no escape, much as the USSR was for decades, only spherical.

I'll have to try and find a reference to the theory.

As I recall, the concept is nothing to do with an evening out of skin colour but the rapid rise in cognitive excellence and genetic strength that mixed-race offspring tend to attain. People get smarter to levels and in numbers that mean a political structure is not required because individuals accumulate the ability to self govern.

So earth becomes one country - other worlds become the new countries - humans begin to breed with aliens -and on it goes.

But its only a theory and not mine but one that seems to have a smattering of logic IMO.

But it's based on a theory that isn't necessarily correct. One could only expect mixed race offspring to do better if they were the product of two populations too small to be sufficiently diverse. But all the races have large populations so there is plenty of genetic diversity within each one.

It doesn't quite work like that either due to dominance. For instance, my wife is black, 1st generation Nigerian, both our daughters are white with blue eyes. To the point where people ask who/where's the mother.

My cousin's father is half cast, but she is also white, you wouldn't be able to tell, she doesn't even tan that well.

Obviously, for the most part, children take characteristics from both, but depending on who they end up with, the genes tend to get rediluted. For instance, a half cast friend from uni married a white girl, so their children are dominantly white, though one has dark eyes and hair, the other is blonde.

I doubt we'd all end up the same colour.

[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.

[jimPH]

RacerMDR said:

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.

Seeing as the girls you sleep with probably don't like you either. Ask them not to shave, it might be closer to your preference.

[jimPH]

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

singlecoil said:

StevieBee said:

grumbledoak said:

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. The evolutionary outcome of this is an abundance of super-smart people that recognise the abstract notion of politics, borders and the like, removing such hindrances to human progression.

These theories suggest that a critical mass will be arrived at where the entire human species will work together as a single mass and not as individuals or individual groups. At this point, the rise in scientific endeavour and discovery will become exponential and unlimited to levels that we are unable to currently comprehend.

Obviously only a theory and one that's unlikely to be proven any time soon......but I rather like the idea.

Just another re-hash of Marx. In case you didn't learn anything from previous attempts, the Socialists will say anything to gain power, and it never turns out how they promised. There will be no point at which we all become "one glorious whole" as beings, no matter how homogenous our skin colour gets. And if - or when - a one world political structure is forced upon us it is likely to be hell on earth with no escape, much as the USSR was for decades, only spherical.

I'll have to try and find a reference to the theory.

As I recall, the concept is nothing to do with an evening out of skin colour but the rapid rise in cognitive excellence and genetic strength that mixed-race offspring tend to attain. People get smarter to levels and in numbers that mean a political structure is not required because individuals accumulate the ability to self govern.

So earth becomes one country - other worlds become the new countries - humans begin to breed with aliens -and on it goes.

But its only a theory and not mine but one that seems to have a smattering of logic IMO.

But it's based on a theory that isn't necessarily correct. One could only expect mixed race offspring to do better if they were the product of two populations too small to be sufficiently diverse. But all the races have large populations so there is plenty of genetic diversity within each one.

It doesn't quite work like that either due to dominance. For instance, my wife is black, 1st generation Nigerian, both our daughters are white with blue eyes. To the point where people ask who/where's the mother.

My cousin's father is half cast, but she is also white, you wouldn't be able to tell, she doesn't even tan that well.

Obviously, for the most part, children take characteristics from both, but depending on who they end up with, the genes tend to get rediluted. For instance, a half cast friend from uni married a white girl, so their children are dominantly white, though one has dark eyes and hair, the other is blonde.

I doubt we'd all end up the same colour.

Your wife is black and you use the term half cast? My unpopular opinion is is violence is often the quickest and surest way to educate.

I'm hardly PC but if you used this term around my kids I'd give you 5 seconds to correct yourself then probably knock your teeth out anyway, yes I am a badass.

My wife uses it. Infact everyone here (Africa) uses it. What do I know being an oyibo.

Edited by jimPH on Wednesday 24th January 17:37

[jimPH]

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

My wife uses it. Infact everyone here (Africa) uses it. What do I know being an oyibo.

Edited by jimPH on Wednesday 24th January 17:37

Well I guess that's fair enough in Africa and as the next poster says context is everything. I've used the term half caste years ago, a black friend of mine asked me not to and explained why. Personally, and this is me I do believe it has undertones/overtones? of superiority and a derogatory sub text and I'd react to anyone using it around my children in the UK.

Because you're probably British and over sensitive as it's your friend and only thinks of it as a term used by white people, you've took one person's view and thought it universal, which is idiotic. Everyone outside of the UK I know uses it. In fact they use other terms like "half breed" which, I don't use. One term I've never liked is coloured. I've never heard any black person use that. However I'm an "oyibo" and I get called it daily, but you won't know about that if you haven't left the UK.

What do YOU call a child who's half black/white! Let me tell you this, African people sure as hell don't think they're black!

Let me know when you you're ready to punch me in the face, there's a que.

[jimPH]

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

My wife uses it. Infact everyone here (Africa) uses it. What do I know being an oyibo.

Edited by jimPH on Wednesday 24th January 17:37

Well I guess that's fair enough in Africa and as the next poster says context is everything. I've used the term half caste years ago, a black friend of mine asked me not to and explained why. Personally, and this is me I do believe it has undertones/overtones? of superiority and a derogatory sub text and I'd react to anyone using it around my children in the UK.

Because you're probably British and over sensitive as it's your friend and only thinks of it as a term used by white people, you've took one person's view and thought it universal, which is idiotic. Everyone outside of the UK I know uses it. In fact they use other terms like "half breed" which, I don't use. One term I've never liked is coloured. I've never heard any black person use that. However I'm an "oyibo" and I get called it daily, but you won't know about that if you haven't left the UK.

What do YOU call a child who's half black/white! Let me tell you this, African people sure as hell don't think they're black!

Let me know when you you're ready to punch me in the face, there's a que.

Do you mean queue lol cheap shot I'm totally dyslexic myself.

Try this, a thing called google, I didn't need it in this case but you clearly do, half caste is derogatory in no uncertain terms.

You would call the child mixed race, do you really not know this? I've traveled extensively in Africa although mainly in the east and have visited 52 countries last count

Oh and I'm Irish and oversensitive.

Mixed race! Lol. Typical nationalistic bigotry. Be sure to let the rest of the world know, or do you only get offended by white people.

[jimPH]

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

Jaroon said:

jimPH said:

My wife uses it. Infact everyone here (Africa) uses it. What do I know being an oyibo.

Edited by jimPH on Wednesday 24th January 17:37

Well I guess that's fair enough in Africa and as the next poster says context is everything. I've used the term half caste years ago, a black friend of mine asked me not to and explained why. Personally, and this is me I do believe it has undertones/overtones? of superiority and a derogatory sub text and I'd react to anyone using it around my children in the UK.

Because you're probably British and over sensitive as it's your friend and only thinks of it as a term used by white people, you've took one person's view and thought it universal, which is idiotic. Everyone outside of the UK I know uses it. In fact they use other terms like "half breed" which, I don't use. One term I've never liked is coloured. I've never heard any black person use that. However I'm an "oyibo" and I get called it daily, but you won't know about that if you haven't left the UK.

What do YOU call a child who's half black/white! Let me tell you this, African people sure as hell don't think they're black!

Let me know when you you're ready to punch me in the face, there's a que.

Do you mean queue lol cheap shot I'm totally dyslexic myself.

Try this, a thing called google, I didn't need it in this case but you clearly do, half caste is derogatory in no uncertain terms.

You would call the child mixed race, do you really not know this? I've traveled extensively in Africa although mainly in the east and have visited 52 countries last count

Oh and I'm Irish and oversensitive.

Be sure to leave the hotel on your next visit.

[jimPH]

The Moose said:

jimPH said:

My wife uses it. Infact everyone here (Africa) uses it. What do I know being an oyibo.

Edited by jimPH on Wednesday 24th January 17:37

I'm not sure what else you would call it?

Mixed race could be anything...

To be honest, I've never given it a second thought, I've heard all sorts from all types, just use what you're comfortable saying. I certainly wouldn't fight anyone over it. Maybe I should look things up on the internet, next time I describe my own children.

[jimPH]

captain_cynic said:

jimPH said:

What do YOU call a child who's half black/white! Let me tell you this, African people sure as hell don't think they're black!

A mulatto. Like most normal people.

Half-caste is an archaic term that is inaccurate. It dates back to a time where racism was institutionalised (I.E. pre 1950's America). Mulatto is specific, a person who is of mixed white and black parentage. Also accepted when describing the demographics of a country where a significant part of the population are mulatto.

I identify people the way they want, I.E. if they said they're half Thai, I'll say they're half Thai... usually I'll call them by their name though.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 25th January 09:56

I haven't heard that one before. Sounds like a coffee crossed with a red neck hair do.

[jimPH]

captain_cynic said:

Frank7 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Wheeled luggage is an instrument of the powers of darkness and its users should be put up against a wall and shot

This HAS to be the wind-up of the day, do you really prefer to carry 23 kg through an airport by the handle? Of course you do, right.

Most certainly not. If you're carrying 23 KG (limit for many carriers is 20KG now) you've overpacked. Leave the kitchen sink at home.

As someone who doesn't overpack, wheeled cases are the bane of the traveller and the instrument of destruction wielded by the slow and obstructionable.

My backpack carry on weights between 4 and 6 kilos... however I am deigned to get stuck behind meandering morons who insist on packing 18 KG inside a carry on and then wheeling it around an airport at the speed of smell. If I have luggage in the hold, that weighed a whopping 16KG last time I went through an airport and 3KG of that was the finest Colombian coffee money can buy. I pick it up, sling it on my back and proceed at a respectable pace through the customs and immigration line whist the legion of the selfishly slow mouth "maniac" under their breaths as I power past those fools with their rolling luggage, stuck in the carpet and busting at the seams.

Point in short, rolling luggage is crap, it's slow, heavy (4KG just for an empty case, my 75L backpack weighs less than 1) gets caught on any imperfections in the carpet and creates havoc for it's users and those just trying to get past.

Try leaving home for a few months at a time, you'll soon pack to your max allowance.

Personally i detest backpackers. They usually whack people in the grid with flailing straps as they waltz down the aisle, or swing it into some old granny as they take it off their back.

[jimPH]

captain_cynic said:

jimPH said:

Try leaving home for a few months at a time, you'll soon pack to your max allowance.

You're doing it wrong.

I lived on and off in Thailand for a while before moving to the Phils... I packed even less then because it was cheaper and easier just to keep clothes and sundries in both Australia and Thailand.

If you live somewhere else for a few months a year, you should pack less as you'll be doing more washing or buying things locally. I know a few northerners who work in the south, they live here Monday to Friday and fly home every weekend with only carry on luggage. It doesn't make sense to cart their entire wardrobe or home with them.

If I'm going to be travelling around for a few months, the last thing I want is to pack 30 KG worth of crap when 15 will do.

The only time I've ever reached the limit was when I moved from Australia to the UK, limit was 40KG, I managed 39.9 KG not including hand luggage (incl a suit bag that had all of my heavy coats, I felt really bad when I handed that to the Singapore Air hostess on board).

Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 26th January 09:51

You've only been to places where it's safe to walk around. i cant leave the camp without an armed escort. In some instances you need to take everything you need. Though granted, is not possible. I do go out and about, but try to limit that for essential stuff like alcohol.

Edited by jimPH on Friday 26th January 10:36

[jimPH]

captain_cynic said:

jimPH said:

You've only been to places where it's safe to walk around. i cant leave the camp without an armed escort. In some instances you need to take everything you need. Though granted, is not possible. I do go out and about, but try to limit that for essential stuff like alcohol.

When you make an assumption...

I've worked in northern Iraq (its where I made most of my money prior to the GFC). There I packed even less because everything I needed was provided by my employer and only had to take personal effects like a laptop or any other toys I wanted. When you're in a potential war zone, 30 KG of luggage is a huge liability. I was told not to bring anything I wouldn't want to abandon because during an emergency evacuation, there is no overhead luggage compartment.

Sorry, but you're really grasping at straws here.

The only time where I think a limit would be an issue is if I went to the Australian Antarctic research station for work. Its an 18 month position where resupply by sea or air is impossible for at least 6 months of that.

Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 26th January 10:50

Not sure what you have in mind for your luggage limit, but if im going away for a while my limit is mostly food, cereal, naans, flat bread, nuts, double choca mocha, dried fruit, protein, vitamins, etc

I'd be only too happy to leave it all if i had to evacuate. But i'd still make use of my luggage limit. Guess were all different, but i see no point suffering the local produce when i can bring my own, i even expense it, so makes no sense not to.

Each to their own. Guess you can waltz through arrivals easier, then suffer for a few months wishing you brought more of the food you like.

[jimPH]

captain_cynic said:

Shakermaker said:

captain_cynic said:

If you need to bring cereals and breads from home, holidaying is not for you. Going to another country is about experiencing new things, not miserly sitting about making UK branded protein shakes.

You are assuming these people are going on holiday. There are other reasons that people use air travel and pack lots of things

Well going back through the conversation, that's a safe bet as we're talking about baggage on aircraft.

There's no tourism here! Lawless could describe it. You're a brave man tasting the local food. Be my guest.

[jimPH]

Lady Diana wasn't very pretty and was a bit of an old slapper.

[jimPH]

aaron_2000 said:

Tango Orange said:

I have an unpopular opinion..

F**k help for heroes, those f**kers knew exactly what they were f**king getting themselves into. They did it because they were being paid. It’s a job.

‘Oh, I didn’t realise they’d be shooting at me and that’

F**k off.

I'd guarantee those "fkers" are many times the man you are

Yep, the guys took the kings shilling, they knew what they were getting themselves in for.

However, we still need to look after our wounded. Im not too sure i'd call them all heroes, but they're still our men and we look after them.

However, the charity H4H need to be burnt at the stake, then buried.

[jimPH]

The Selfish Gene said:

Speed addicted said:

You think that London is the best place to live if you can afford the high life? Have you ever been anywhere else?
My wife worked there for 2.5 years, 4 or 5 days a week. Her workmates were baffled that I didn't move down (working offshore meant I could have easily) to live in her Kensington flat.
It's an expensive stinking hole full of angry aggressive people, the only vague benefit is a variety of places to eat.
I'm far happier in open spaces with clean air and room to move, like Norway or Iceland for instance.

thanks for the Info

yeah I've been to a few other places.....................like them all, but the London, and the UK specifically is the best bang for buck for what I do for a living.

Cleaner?