What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)

[singlecoil]

milu said:

Some one mentioned population increase. I'm always banging on about this yet its seldom mentioned elsewhere.

If the world population was a overweight person...and getting bigger,would we look for ways of affording more food,getting bigger cloths or even buying stronger furniture etc? No,we would say how about stopping the growth and maybe even reducing the size.

So why not a discussion on over population?

The reason is called the Hardinian Taboo. Named after the American economist Garrett Hardin. It's all bound up with political correctness.

[DoubleD]

db said:

Wars? We need more of them. Bigger and more violent than before.

So would you be ok if the war directly affected you? If all of your family were killed? Your house blown up?

Or do you just think that these wars should be fought 1000s of miles away?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I have no idea why it's uncomfortable for left wing politicians, or why they are attacked, for sending their kids to private school or for using private healthcare. I don't see any problem in saying "I don't believe in a two tier system, but since we have one at the moment, naturally I want my family to be in the top tier."

I don't see why that's hypocritical. No different to being in favour of reducing car usage by having better public transport, but owning a car because the public transport where you live is crap.

It's quite reasonable to want and believe in change, but to live your life currently in accordance with how things are at the moment.

[ElectricSoup]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Tragically it appears we've just elected a government which will have this approach.

[Randy Winkman]

singlecoil said:

milu said:

Some one mentioned population increase. I'm always banging on about this yet its seldom mentioned elsewhere.

If the world population was a overweight person...and getting bigger,would we look for ways of affording more food,getting bigger cloths or even buying stronger furniture etc? No,we would say how about stopping the growth and maybe even reducing the size.

So why not a discussion on over population?

The reason is called the Hardinian Taboo. Named after the American economist Garrett Hardin. It's all bound up with political correctness.

I think it does get talked about a fair bit on PH and elsewhere.

Chris Packham presented a TV programme about world population this week. Not watched it yet though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dl6q/hor...

[Dr Jekyll]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I have no idea why it's uncomfortable for left wing politicians, or why they are attacked, for sending their kids to private school or for using private healthcare. I don't see any problem in saying "I don't believe in a two tier system, but since we have one at the moment, naturally I want my family to be in the top tier."

I don't see why that's hypocritical. No different to being in favour of reducing car usage by having better public transport, but owning a car because the public transport where you live is crap.

It's quite reasonable to want and believe in change, but to live your life currently in accordance with how things are at the moment.

If the private or selective school is 'top tier' for them, why isn't it for everyone else? It's the private schools, selective schools, private healthcare they want to abolish. If private schools are crap why use them for their own children? If they are better than state schools that's hardly a reason for abolishing them.

It's like saying 'I want everyone else forced to use public transport against their will so that the roads are clearer for me and my car.'

[db]

DoubleD said:

db said:

Wars? We need more of them. Bigger and more violent than before.

So would you be ok if the war directly affected you? If all of your family were killed? Your house blown up?

Or do you just think that these wars should be fought 1000s of miles away?

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

So no, it really doesn't matter where the war starts. Chances are it will start 1,000s of miles away from here (wherever here is for you) but here or there makes little difference.

[Baldchap]

Dr Jekyll said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I have no idea why it's uncomfortable for left wing politicians, or why they are attacked, for sending their kids to private school or for using private healthcare. I don't see any problem in saying "I don't believe in a two tier system, but since we have one at the moment, naturally I want my family to be in the top tier."

I don't see why that's hypocritical. No different to being in favour of reducing car usage by having better public transport, but owning a car because the public transport where you live is crap.

It's quite reasonable to want and believe in change, but to live your life currently in accordance with how things are at the moment.

If the private or selective school is 'top tier' for them, why isn't it for everyone else? It's the private schools, selective schools, private healthcare they want to abolish. If private schools are crap why use them for their own children? If they are better than state schools that's hardly a reason for abolishing them.

It's like saying 'I want everyone else forced to use public transport against their will so that the roads are clearer for me and my car.'

I want everyone else forced to use public transport against their will so that the roads are clearer for me and my car.

Anyone who doesn't is lying.

[paulguitar]

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

So no, it really doesn't matter where the war starts. Chances are it will start 1,000s of miles away from here (wherever here is for you) but here or there makes little difference.

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

[Dr Jekyll]

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

Perhaps your nieces and nephews will be the ones to find a way of using resources more efficiently, or just find more resources, or find a way of turning something that is currently useless gunge into a resource.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dr Jekyll said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I have no idea why it's uncomfortable for left wing politicians, or why they are attacked, for sending their kids to private school or for using private healthcare. I don't see any problem in saying "I don't believe in a two tier system, but since we have one at the moment, naturally I want my family to be in the top tier."

I don't see why that's hypocritical. No different to being in favour of reducing car usage by having better public transport, but owning a car because the public transport where you live is crap.

It's quite reasonable to want and believe in change, but to live your life currently in accordance with how things are at the moment.

If the private or selective school is 'top tier' for them, why isn't it for everyone else? It's the private schools, selective schools, private healthcare they want to abolish. If private schools are crap why use them for their own children? If they are better than state schools that's hardly a reason for abolishing them.

It's like saying 'I want everyone else forced to use public transport against their will so that the roads are clearer for me and my car.'

They are not saying private schools aren't better than state schools, or private hospitals aren't better than the NHS (for some things, not all). They are saying that the existence of private schools and hospitals suck in the best teachers and doctors, and make the state alternative worse. So a single tier system will improve the lot of most people.

Now that may not be true, but that's the argument.

[db]

paulguitar said:

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

So no, it really doesn't matter where the war starts. Chances are it will start 1,000s of miles away from here (wherever here is for you) but here or there makes little difference.

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

So, maybe you could make your point clearer/ What is the benefit to humankind and our planet when we allow even more people to use the finite resources on this planet?
For, you know, the latest isheeple product.
The current "in" clothing.
etc

[db]

Dr Jekyll said:

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

Perhaps your nieces and nephews will be the ones to find a way of using resources more efficiently, or just find more resources, or find a way of turning something that is currently useless gunge into a resource.

And perhaps they wont. And still the population increases creating a further drain on finite resources.
We can't continue in the hope that "perhaps" someone might find a solution to increased drain on finite resources.

[paulguitar]

db said:

paulguitar said:

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

So no, it really doesn't matter where the war starts. Chances are it will start 1,000s of miles away from here (wherever here is for you) but here or there makes little difference.

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

So, maybe you could make your point clearer/ What is the benefit to humankind and our planet when we allow even more people to use the finite resources on this planet?
For, you know, the latest isheeple product.
The current "in" clothing.
etc

I am not making a point, I am asking a question, which is:

paulguitar said:

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

[TwyRob]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I have no idea why it's uncomfortable for left wing politicians, or why they are attacked, for sending their kids to private school or for using private healthcare. I don't see any problem in saying "I don't believe in a two tier system, but since we have one at the moment, naturally I want my family to be in the top tier."

I don't see why that's hypocritical. No different to being in favour of reducing car usage by having better public transport, but owning a car because the public transport where you live is crap.

It's quite reasonable to want and believe in change, but to live your life currently in accordance with how things are at the moment.

If the private or selective school is 'top tier' for them, why isn't it for everyone else? It's the private schools, selective schools, private healthcare they want to abolish. If private schools are crap why use them for their own children? If they are better than state schools that's hardly a reason for abolishing them.

It's like saying 'I want everyone else forced to use public transport against their will so that the roads are clearer for me and my car.'

They are not saying private schools aren't better than state schools, or private hospitals aren't better than the NHS (for some things, not all). They are saying that the existence of private schools and hospitals suck in the best teachers and doctors, and make the state alternative worse. So a single tier system will improve the lot of most people.

Now that may not be true, but that's the argument.

One inaccuracy of it is definitely that the best teachers work in private schools. There are good and bad teachers in both sectors.

In private schools pay is not quite the same between schools and can be lower for some people doing the same job and lower than their state school counterparts at times. Also, demands involving evening and weekend working can be higher. Added to that, qualification requirements are a bit less consistent between schools. Respect for the role seems high. Parents seem to adore them, as long as they get their money's worth.

In state schools there is a lot more pay parity within and between schools due to national pay scales adopted by almost all academies and all other state schools. Qualification requirements are also much clearer and consistent between schools and weekend/evening working is rarer. Respect for the role is low, they are hated by lots of people.

Different people are suited to working in each type of system. The best teachers tend to be those who promote the greatest progress for pupils compared to their starting points and their situations. These good teachers could work in either type of setting.

[db]

paulguitar said:

db said:

paulguitar said:

db said:

At some point in my life, I'm going to die anyway.
My folks are old and won't be around for that much longer. My nieces and nephews will soon be old enough to reproduce, which will only increase the demand on earth's finite resources.

So no, it really doesn't matter where the war starts. Chances are it will start 1,000s of miles away from here (wherever here is for you) but here or there makes little difference.

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

So, maybe you could make your point clearer/ What is the benefit to humankind and our planet when we allow even more people to use the finite resources on this planet?
For, you know, the latest isheeple product.
The current "in" clothing.
etc

I am not making a point, I am asking a question, which is:

paulguitar said:

So to be clear, do you care or not if your nieces and nephews are killed in the war you would like to happen?

I am voicing an unpopular opinion. Why are you defending endless over population and drain on finite resources?
My family are irrelevant to you, what they do to the planet is very relevant to you and your family.

[paulguitar]

db said:

I am voicing an unpopular opinion. Why are you defending endless over population and drain on finite resources?
My family are irrelevant to you, what they do to the planet is very relevant to you and your family.

I am not defending anything. I have asked the same question, twice, which you have still failed to answer.

[ging84]

db said:

I am voicing an unpopular opinion. Why are you defending endless over population and drain on finite resources?
My family are irrelevant to you, what they do to the planet is very relevant to you and your family.

Can you give me an example of a finite resource?
Something we truly cannot make more of using different techniques, or could not reuse / recycle sustainably if the demand / value was high enough ?

[anonymous-user]

ging84 said:

Can you give me an example of a finite resource?
Something we truly cannot make more of using different techniques, or could not reuse / recycle sustainably if the demand / value was high enough ?

Land.

[DoubleD]

paulguitar said:

db said:

I am voicing an unpopular opinion. Why are you defending endless over population and drain on finite resources?
My family are irrelevant to you, what they do to the planet is very relevant to you and your family.

I am not defending anything. I have asked the same question, twice, which you have still failed to answer.

It doesn't look like he is willing to answer your question, which is no surprise.