1. “Raising awareness” vs actually raising funds for research/cures/treatment/whatever is a waste of time, given that most of the causes for which raising awareness happens are already fairly prominent in the public consciousness. Changing a profile picture/posting the colour if your bra does nothing but draw attention to yourself.
2. Obesity is not an illness, and is caused in the vast majority of cases due to laziness and a lack of education and care.
3. Parents and doctors are too quick to label children – ADHD, Aspergers, dyslexia, dyscalculia, gluten-intolerant, lactose-intolerant – it seems all children must now have a label of some sort, and things aren’t allowed to be put down to being a fussy eater/being boisterous/just not much natural talent for maths/whatever. I’m not saying these conditions don’t exist, but they just seem to be over-diagnosed in a lot of cases, particularly parents diagnosing their own children without input from a medical professional.
Marriage should of been kept between a man and a woman.
Religion is basically a fairy tale
Death penalty is evil
I'm curious about your first 2
Usually the reason against same sex marriage is down to some sort of religious reasoning. (I say reasoning but in reality I mean religious indoctrination) so what reason do you have for 1 when you are not religious?
1. I think the legal driving age should be raised to 21 and that there should be no acceptable safe drink driving limit, basically no alcohol and driving allowed.
2. I think there should be instances were compulsory sterlization is enforced in cases of severe drink/drug abusers, also child abusers, etc
3. Regarding addiction, I don't believe in it, I understand the science of neural pathways etc, but I believe it's weakness, an excuse, and shouldn't be acceptable in court to justify any action, because it's a choice. Also I have little sympathy for people who continually kill themselves via alcohol/drugs, I think they're selfish and a plaugue in society.
maybe a tad unpopular but they are what they are.
I used to think this as a young teen until I ended up passing my test at 19.
I used to think this as a young teen until I ended up passing my test at 19.
I passed mine at 22, I know a lot of people object to raising the limit, the reality is it would save a lot of lives, not just the reckless drivers, but the innocent ones they maim... I'm sure some would disagree, but unless you've worked in RTA response and witnessed the carnage, time and time again, or lost people to such circumstances, then well, it's harder to appreciate.
I passed mine at 22, I know a lot of people object to raising the limit, the reality is it would save a lot of lives, not just the reckless drivers, but the innocent ones they maim... I'm sure some would disagree, but unless you've worked in RTA response and witnessed the carnage, time and time again, or lost people to such circumstances, then well, it's harder to appreciate.
I have just passed my test last week at the age of 26, and whilst I agree a higher age limit would help, there are a lot of other factors at play.
Re-testing all drivers every 5 years would go a long way to make people more aware of their driving habits on an ongoing basis, rather than passing their test and driving as badly as they can get away with.
Much stricter policing of the roads and harsher punishments for lawbreakers and dangerous drivers would be a big deterrent.
However, I also think a lot of problems come from the sheer volume of traffic on today's roads. More cars = more chance of things going wrong sadly.
I have just passed my test last week at the age of 26, and whilst I agree a higher age limit would help, there are a lot of other factors at play.
Re-testing all drivers every 5 years would go a long way to make people more aware of their driving habits on an ongoing basis, rather than passing their test and driving as badly as they can get away with.
Much stricter policing of the roads and harsher punishments for lawbreakers and dangerous drivers would be a big deterrent.
However, I also think a lot of problems come from the sheer volume of traffic on today's roads. More cars = more chance of things going wrong sadly.
But despite that, and the higher volume, road casualties continue to fall.
What i would support is a rule similar to that for motorbikes - after you pass, you are restricted to the power and size of engine you can drive until you have had 2 years of driving experience.
But despite that, and the higher volume, road casualties continue to fall.
What i would support is a rule similar to that for motorbikes - after you pass, you are restricted to the power and size of engine you can drive until you have had 2 years of driving experience.
True, although that could also be due to improvements in car safety measures (airbags/seatbelts) and medical intervention as well as drivers being safer.
I don't think restricting engine size/power will do much. Insurance quotes tend to be much higher for inexperienced/young drivers and put most off driving powerful vehicles anyway - I see no reason for additional legislation.
1. I thInk paedophilia is a complicated subject. While it is natural to want to protect children, we need a more intelligent solution, not an emotional, knee-jerk reaction.
2. A softer attitude to paedophlia, would be better for children. Creating a world were paedos feel they have to hide in the shadows makes it easier for them to operate. If they felt comfortable enough to 'come out' would at least mean you'd know who to keep your children away from.
I work with offenders. which include sex offenders such as rapist and peados and I do agree with you. I Often avoid the questions on here, as many people pile in with their ignorant remarks and then gang up and try to get those with sensible, informed opinions often made by those that work within a field or are educated in it to fall into their bating trap. I was once asked " is you a nonce then yourself" when I defended someone that said something about sex offenders. A lot of people here have a typical sun readers mentality, hence why there is little sensible debates on here.
The main issue with sex offenders is to minimize or hopefully prevent any attacks and for the victim to get better and move on as best they can with their lives.
I work with offenders. which include sex offenders such as rapist and peados and I do agree with you. I Often avoid the questions on here, as many people pile in with their ignorant remarks and then gang up and try to get those with sensible, informed opinions often made by those that work within a field or are educated in it to fall into their bating trap. I was once asked " is you a nonce then yourself" when I defended someone that said something about sex offenders. A lot of people here have a typical sun readers mentality, hence why there is little sensible debates on here.
The main issue with sex offenders is to minimize or hopefully prevent any attacks and for the victim to get better and move on as best they can with their lives.
It's all very well cocking a snoot at people and declaring them as having "Sun Reader Mentality", but there is a reason why paedophiles are shunned and hated by society as a rule, and that is because their perversion goes completely against the natural instinct to look out for and protect small kiddies. There should never be a culture which looks to coax them out by telling them that their behaviour is normal and accepted.
It's all very well cocking a snoot at people and declaring them as having "Sun Reader Mentality", but there is a reason why paedophiles are shunned and hated by society as a rule, and that is because their perversion goes completely against the natural instinct to look out for and protect small kiddies. There should never be a culture which looks to coax them out by telling them that their behaviour is normal and accepted.
I don't think the poster was saying that their behaviour was normal and accepted but that if you offer treatment and have some sort of ungoing psychiatrist/patient relationship with the paedophile who hasn't offended then rather than pretending these people don't exist then you might be better able to treat them, lessening the threat to society as a whole.
I'm unsure myself what the best approach is but I don't think it boils down to a black and white situation where paedophiles are either driven into hiding for fear of reprisals or they are told that their behaviour is completely normal and acceptable. I'm sure there are other possibilities - such as saying this behaviour is unacceptable but if you haven't committed an offence then you can get treatment and therapy to fight your desires.
Coaxing them out is the very thing they should do. Otherwise society kids itself on that that kind of thing only happens elsewhere to other people.
However, I also think a lot of problems come from the sheer volume of traffic on today's roads. More cars = more chance of things going wrong sadly.
Let's face it, it doesn't take an Einstein to work that out. We are not talking about rocket science here. It's mostly due to improvements in car safety IMO, that the number of deaths/year on the roads has fallen. Thankfully. It's still five a day though and most of the time it is hardly noticed, let alone makes national news, yet if five people die in a train crash, it will certainly make national news and there could be investigations going on for years. Classic man bites dog isn't newsworthy, but man bites dog is newsworthy syndrome.
What is alarming is that if we have one of the best road safety records in the world, what it must be like in most other countries.
The problem with raising the driving age would be how do people in their late teens get to work or college? I say that as someone who grew up in a village which now has no bus or train service at all. For that reason I am in favour of raising the starting and leaving age of school.
1. “Raising awareness” vs actually raising funds for research/cures/treatment/whatever is a waste of time, given that most of the causes for which raising awareness happens are already fairly prominent in the public consciousness. Changing a profile picture/posting the colour if your bra does nothing but draw attention to yourself.
2. Obesity is not an illness, and is caused in the vast majority of cases due to laziness and a lack of education and care.
3. Parents and doctors are too quick to label children – ADHD, Aspergers, dyslexia, dyscalculia, gluten-intolerant, lactose-intolerant – it seems all children must now have a label of some sort, and things aren’t allowed to be put down to being a fussy eater/being boisterous/just not much natural talent for maths/whatever. I’m not saying these conditions don’t exist, but they just seem to be over-diagnosed in a lot of cases, particularly parents diagnosing their own children without input from a medical professional.
My unpopular opinion is that ADHD. Autism etc are not labels they are clinical diagnosis.
No one ever talks about being labelled asthmatic.
My unpopular opinion is that ADHD. Autism etc are not labels they are clinical diagnosis.
No one ever talks about being labelled asthmatic.
I agree - they are clinical diagnoses, and I would in no way doubt their existence. However in my experience I have seen parents use the diagnoses as labels, even to the point where they don't have a diagnosis, but still label their children anyway, and as an excuse for their children's bad behaviour, or less-than-stellar academic performance, or just poor parenting. That's what annoys me - the wrongful use of a medical condition as an excuse, as if by labeling their child absolves both child & parent of responsibility for their behaviour.
1) planning a wedding is not stressful at all
2) having kids before getting married is peculiar
3) a celebrity dying is sad, but doesn't warrant grief porn and FB updates pretending you know them
It's all very well cocking a snoot at people and declaring them as having "Sun Reader Mentality", but there is a reason why paedophiles are shunned and hated by society as a rule, and that is because their perversion goes completely against the natural instinct to look out for and protect small kiddies. There should never be a culture which looks to coax them out by telling them that their behaviour is normal and accepted.
Well that is a whole other thread that would be closed by page 2.
Their behaviour is "Normal" as in as much that children are who they find themselves attracted to. It is however, VERY MUCH not accepted within society.
Then we really start opening up that can of worms when we use words like "Normal", "Acceptable" and "natural instinct". I'm gay but some thing that is not 'normal', but of cause that depends on what someone decides to call 'normal'. It is very much a "natural instinct" and generally 'accepted' but not by all.
We get into a very dangerous area where either only Heterosexuality is deemed normal, natural instinct and totally accepted by society or only what society in general decides is acceptable.
Whilst it's very emotive, it is that very emotiveness that means it will never get discussed properly as all discussion is ruined by people screaming that they think that all paedophiles should be (Add some nasty hideous revenge act here) and worse that they think they can post any amount of nastiness just for this one subject that transcends all others in their minds. All rational argument goes out of the window.
Comments
2) same as 1)
3) same as 1)
2. Obesity is not an illness, and is caused in the vast majority of cases due to laziness and a lack of education and care.
3. Parents and doctors are too quick to label children – ADHD, Aspergers, dyslexia, dyscalculia, gluten-intolerant, lactose-intolerant – it seems all children must now have a label of some sort, and things aren’t allowed to be put down to being a fussy eater/being boisterous/just not much natural talent for maths/whatever. I’m not saying these conditions don’t exist, but they just seem to be over-diagnosed in a lot of cases, particularly parents diagnosing their own children without input from a medical professional.
Religion is basically a fairy tale
Death penalty is evil
I'm curious about your first 2
Usually the reason against same sex marriage is down to some sort of religious reasoning. (I say reasoning but in reality I mean religious indoctrination) so what reason do you have for 1 when you are not religious?
I used to think this as a young teen until I ended up passing my test at 19.
I passed mine at 22, I know a lot of people object to raising the limit, the reality is it would save a lot of lives, not just the reckless drivers, but the innocent ones they maim... I'm sure some would disagree, but unless you've worked in RTA response and witnessed the carnage, time and time again, or lost people to such circumstances, then well, it's harder to appreciate.
I have just passed my test last week at the age of 26, and whilst I agree a higher age limit would help, there are a lot of other factors at play.
Re-testing all drivers every 5 years would go a long way to make people more aware of their driving habits on an ongoing basis, rather than passing their test and driving as badly as they can get away with.
Much stricter policing of the roads and harsher punishments for lawbreakers and dangerous drivers would be a big deterrent.
However, I also think a lot of problems come from the sheer volume of traffic on today's roads. More cars = more chance of things going wrong sadly.
But despite that, and the higher volume, road casualties continue to fall.
What i would support is a rule similar to that for motorbikes - after you pass, you are restricted to the power and size of engine you can drive until you have had 2 years of driving experience.
True, although that could also be due to improvements in car safety measures (airbags/seatbelts) and medical intervention as well as drivers being safer.
I don't think restricting engine size/power will do much. Insurance quotes tend to be much higher for inexperienced/young drivers and put most off driving powerful vehicles anyway - I see no reason for additional legislation.
I work with offenders. which include sex offenders such as rapist and peados and I do agree with you. I Often avoid the questions on here, as many people pile in with their ignorant remarks and then gang up and try to get those with sensible, informed opinions often made by those that work within a field or are educated in it to fall into their bating trap. I was once asked " is you a nonce then yourself" when I defended someone that said something about sex offenders. A lot of people here have a typical sun readers mentality, hence why there is little sensible debates on here.
The main issue with sex offenders is to minimize or hopefully prevent any attacks and for the victim to get better and move on as best they can with their lives.
It's all very well cocking a snoot at people and declaring them as having "Sun Reader Mentality", but there is a reason why paedophiles are shunned and hated by society as a rule, and that is because their perversion goes completely against the natural instinct to look out for and protect small kiddies. There should never be a culture which looks to coax them out by telling them that their behaviour is normal and accepted.
I don't think the poster was saying that their behaviour was normal and accepted but that if you offer treatment and have some sort of ungoing psychiatrist/patient relationship with the paedophile who hasn't offended then rather than pretending these people don't exist then you might be better able to treat them, lessening the threat to society as a whole.
I'm unsure myself what the best approach is but I don't think it boils down to a black and white situation where paedophiles are either driven into hiding for fear of reprisals or they are told that their behaviour is completely normal and acceptable. I'm sure there are other possibilities - such as saying this behaviour is unacceptable but if you haven't committed an offence then you can get treatment and therapy to fight your desires.
Coaxing them out is the very thing they should do. Otherwise society kids itself on that that kind of thing only happens elsewhere to other people.
Let's face it, it doesn't take an Einstein to work that out. We are not talking about rocket science here. It's mostly due to improvements in car safety IMO, that the number of deaths/year on the roads has fallen. Thankfully. It's still five a day though and most of the time it is hardly noticed, let alone makes national news, yet if five people die in a train crash, it will certainly make national news and there could be investigations going on for years. Classic man bites dog isn't newsworthy, but man bites dog is newsworthy syndrome.
What is alarming is that if we have one of the best road safety records in the world, what it must be like in most other countries.
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296
No one ever talks about being labelled asthmatic.
I agree - they are clinical diagnoses, and I would in no way doubt their existence. However in my experience I have seen parents use the diagnoses as labels, even to the point where they don't have a diagnosis, but still label their children anyway, and as an excuse for their children's bad behaviour, or less-than-stellar academic performance, or just poor parenting. That's what annoys me - the wrongful use of a medical condition as an excuse, as if by labeling their child absolves both child & parent of responsibility for their behaviour.
Childless people are not selfish; they are keeping the population rate down.
Euthanasia should never be legalised.
Grease is a really, really, really, REALLY bad film
Scientology is no worse or better than any other religion/cult
Wrestling may be scripted but it requires more athleticism and effort than 99% actual sports
I liked Tony Blair
There is no way JFK was shot by a lone gunman (not actually sure if that's the popular view or the unpopular one)
(Yes, I know that's 6 but I was on a roll
I don't think inter-racial integration works in our communities in the UK
I think Kate Middleton dresses like an old Grannie
2 Good and evil does not exist.
3 Sports are incredibly dull.
2) having kids before getting married is peculiar
3) a celebrity dying is sad, but doesn't warrant grief porn and FB updates pretending you know them
Well that is a whole other thread that would be closed by page 2.
Their behaviour is "Normal" as in as much that children are who they find themselves attracted to. It is however, VERY MUCH not accepted within society.
Then we really start opening up that can of worms when we use words like "Normal", "Acceptable" and "natural instinct". I'm gay but some thing that is not 'normal', but of cause that depends on what someone decides to call 'normal'. It is very much a "natural instinct" and generally 'accepted' but not by all.
We get into a very dangerous area where either only Heterosexuality is deemed normal, natural instinct and totally accepted by society or only what society in general decides is acceptable.
Whilst it's very emotive, it is that very emotiveness that means it will never get discussed properly as all discussion is ruined by people screaming that they think that all paedophiles should be (Add some nasty hideous revenge act here) and worse that they think they can post any amount of nastiness just for this one subject that transcends all others in their minds. All rational argument goes out of the window.
2. We're due another plague.
3. Tim Burton is an appalling director.
4. Population control is desperately needed.
5. All wildlife habitat needs to be protected at all costs (see no. 4).