Jump to content
Melbourne Football
xXJawsaXx

Unpopular Opinions That You Have.

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, cadete said:

Unpopular Opinion: Its our Anthem and I will always pay our National Anthem respect but compared to some other nations the tune is not that great... for example if we could do a swap with the French then I would take it and I think people would get into a lot more.

I feel the same way about the Geelong Song, its our song and I love it... but I know if we had the tune of the Tigers or Blues songs then I know people would get into the singing of the song a little bit more. I take solace that the Geelong Jumper with the Hoops is one of the better ones in the League.

La Marseillaise dates from 1792. I wonder whether there are complaints today about its relevance to various sections of the French population?

35 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Can add So Happy Together to that as well 

The problem about SHT is that it sounds stupid when we're not happy together - as is the current situation with the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Can add So Happy Together to that as well 

23 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

La Marseillaise dates from 1792. I wonder whether there are complaints today about its relevance to various sections of the French population?

The problem about SHT is that it sounds stupid when we're not happy together - as is the current situation with the club.

I was going to say the same thing, another one of the few token gestures that has fallen short about SHT.

Also alongside the French Anthem, a lot of people in the UK dont believe in God or the Monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

La Marseillaise dates from 1792. I wonder whether there are complaints today about its relevance to various sections of the French population?

The problem about SHT is that it sounds stupid when we're not happy together - as is the current situation with the club.

Thing is even when we would be happy and in great spirit the terrace and the select few in the crowd singing it still doesn't sound loud at all. It's just a difficult song to sing at the best of times, isn't catchy or popular by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing personal to anyone involved in the choice but the fact it hasn't caught on at all is enough to know.

Edited by n i k o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cadete said:

I was going to say the same thing, another one of the few token gestures that has fallen short about SHT.

Also alongside the French Anthem, a lot of people in the UK dont believe in God or the Monarchy.

@cadete I was born in England and grew up with "God Save the Queen," but I have to say I think many people thought of it as a sort of ritual - a bit like saying grace before a meal - rather than a joyful expression of Englishness. IMO the latter was fulfilled by "Land of Hope and Glory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cadete said:

I was going to say the same thing, another one of the few token gestures that has fallen short about SHT.

Also alongside the French Anthem, a lot of people in the UK dont believe in God or the Monarchy.

Shall we agree that the lyrics were not written by a pacifist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jw1739 said:

@cadete I was born in England and grew up with "God Save the Queen," but I have to say I think many people thought of it as a sort of ritual - a bit like saying grace before a meal - rather than a joyful expression of Englishness. IMO the latter was fulfilled by "Land of Hope and Glory."

I get your point in that I am a Staunch Republican but I would still give a Monarch the respect of calling their by the proper title and would performing any customary ceremonial gestures despite my belief no person should be above any other just because of heredity reasons. 

I just think its a joke that the Monarchy still exist in today's modern world, that these people are granted such privilege due to once upon a time a distant relative being the most fierce and best warrior in a tribe in a German Forest. The amount of everyday people who also have better claims to the English Throne also makes the whole situation even more of a farce in my mind.

Edited by cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cadete said:

I get your point in that I am a Staunch Republican but I would still give a Monarch the respect of calling their by the proper title and would performing any customary ceremonial gestures despite my belief no person should be above any other just because of heredity reasons. 

I just think its a joke that the Monarchy still exist in today's modern world, that these people are granted such privilege due to once upon a time a distant relative being the most fierce and best warrior in a tribe in a German Forest. The amount of everyday people who also have better claims to the English Throne also makes the whole situation even more of a farce in my mind.

Perhaps people questioning the relevance of national anthems are actually questioning whether patriotism is still relevant in today's world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Perhaps people questioning the relevance of national anthems are actually questioning whether patriotism is still relevant in today's world?

Them's fighting words.

I go back to Orwell's definition that patriotism is that you are willing to defend your way of life but will not impose it on others. Nationalism is imposing your way of life on others through any means including force.

I was chatting to my brother about Brexit and one of the things that irk people is when a European court overrides the British parliament. This is effectively imposing a social standard on a society that is not ready to accept it. Thus a patriot would tell the EU to get stuffed. A closer example would be gay marriage which was technically legal until Howard passed legislation banning it (with teh ALP supporting it). A lot of angry argy bargy happened until a plebiscite stated that the public at large supported it. It took a lot of years and a lot of consternation but social change happened intrinsically  within Australian society.

But I digress. The thing about anthems is that musically they can be representative or inspiring or occasionally both. Lyrically the same applies. Musically "Advance Australia Fair" is not an anthem that is likely to cause you to invade New Zealand, rather like a nice cup of tea late in the afternoon. Lyrically it can be aspirational but it makes little reference to history - Demosthene would not approve.

I don't have a hang up about history because I read a lot of it. I fully accept that if I were to go back in time generation by generation for a thousand year or more, I would be a descendant of complete arseholes, murderers, rapists, etc. A friend of mine who did trace his family back for a couple of hundred years realised that the family fortune originated by a minor noble exploiting the Irish potato famine. His forebear was responsible for the death of heaps of families either through starvation or the noose. His behaviour was so extreme that even the crown was taken aback and was sent to die in gaol (but kept the money). Also I am atheist which means that I don't believe in Saints. My forebears weren't saints nor were anyone elses.

So when nationalists get outraged about criticism of the anthem (anywhere, anytime) I don't bat an eyelid. And when people idolize indigenous cultures I don't bat an eyelid either. For me anthems are required as a simple basic point of convergence between living in Melbourne and with some one who lives in Meekatharrra. It should be aspirational as well as have a reflection on our history. Musically it is difficult to do but I am sure that lyrically we can do so.

Finally, Advance Australia Fair did not become Australia's anthem until April 1984, that is, 35 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 11:24 PM, NewConvert said:

Them's fighting words.

I go back to Orwell's definition that patriotism is that you are willing to defend your way of life but will not impose it on others. Nationalism is imposing your way of life on others through any means including force.

I was chatting to my brother about Brexit and one of the things that irk people is when a European court overrides the British parliament. This is effectively imposing a social standard on a society that is not ready to accept it. Thus a patriot would tell the EU to get stuffed. A closer example would be gay marriage which was technically legal until Howard passed legislation banning it (with teh ALP supporting it). A lot of angry argy bargy happened until a plebiscite stated that the public at large supported it. It took a lot of years and a lot of consternation but social change happened intrinsically  within Australian society.

But I digress. The thing about anthems is that musically they can be representative or inspiring or occasionally both. Lyrically the same applies. Musically "Advance Australia Fair" is not an anthem that is likely to cause you to invade New Zealand, rather like a nice cup of tea late in the afternoon. Lyrically it can be aspirational but it makes little reference to history - Demosthene would not approve.

I don't have a hang up about history because I read a lot of it. I fully accept that if I were to go back in time generation by generation for a thousand year or more, I would be a descendant of complete arseholes, murderers, rapists, etc. A friend of mine who did trace his family back for a couple of hundred years realised that the family fortune originated by a minor noble exploiting the Irish potato famine. His forebear was responsible for the death of heaps of families either through starvation or the noose. His behaviour was so extreme that even the crown was taken aback and was sent to die in gaol (but kept the money). Also I am atheist which means that I don't believe in Saints. My forebears weren't saints nor were anyone elses.

So when nationalists get outraged about criticism of the anthem (anywhere, anytime) I don't bat an eyelid. And when people idolize indigenous cultures I don't bat an eyelid either. For me anthems are required as a simple basic point of convergence between living in Melbourne and with some one who lives in Meekatharrra. It should be aspirational as well as have a reflection on our history. Musically it is difficult to do but I am sure that lyrically we can do so.

Finally, Advance Australia Fair did not become Australia's anthem until April 1984, that is, 35 years ago.

And many voted for "Waltzing Matilda"... and some even voted to keep "God Save The Queen". 

Edited by cadete
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jury system has serious problems.

ive lived long enough to hear of so many high profile wrongful convictions on flimsy evidence it gets me worried. On top of that I know so many otherwise good people who openly boast about how they managed to get out of jury duty, presumably leaving it to the unemployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

The jury system has serious problems.

ive lived long enough to hear of so many high profile wrongful convictions on flimsy evidence it gets me worried. On top of that I know so many otherwise good people who openly boast about how they managed to get out of jury duty, presumably leaving it to the unemployed.

Love the jury system - warts and all.

Spend time in countries that have trial by judge alone and tell me that there are no wrongful convictions. Or that judges can't be bought. Or that judges can't be fooled. 

I have worked with five people who went on jury duty and three were selected for criminal trials (all high profile). I have no doubt that those juries did their duty properly. 

TTIM - the way politicians keep hobbling the juries. The jury system should be expanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Love the jury system - warts and all.

Spend time in countries that have trial by judge alone and tell me that there are no wrongful convictions. Or that judges can't be bought. Or that judges can't be fooled. 

I have worked with five people who went on jury duty and three were selected for criminal trials (all high profile). I have no doubt that those juries did their duty properly. 

TTIM - the way politicians keep hobbling the juries. The jury system should be expanded.

I'm strongly with @NewConvert on this, and the principle that guilt (or otherwise) should be determined by 12 ordinary people "beyond reasonable doubt." I think that this is more important than ever as, IMO, we are seeing an orchestrated effort (I know not by whom) to bring down anyone who is or has been in the public eye.

The legal profession can stick to matters of law, not matters of guilt or otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, in my experience, at least 85% of the population lack the intellectual capacity to be trusted to analyse and interpret the facts to then be able to decide someone's future.

Should be a cutoff based on IQ.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Should be a cutoff based on IQ.

Can be said for almost anything done these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tesla said:

The problem is, in my experience, at least 85% of the population lack the intellectual capacity to be trusted to analyse and interpret the facts to then be able to decide someone's future.

Should be a cutoff based on IQ.

Some of the most “intelligent” are the worst though.  No wisdom.

Full of pre-conceived ideas and lack of understanding of real world situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tesla said:

The problem is, in my experience, at least 85% of the population lack the intellectual capacity to be trusted to analyse and interpret the facts to then be able to decide someone's future.

Should be a cutoff based on IQ.

Being called to jury duty does not mean that you will be selected. The lawyers have can reject the candidates. So there is a floor.

Also complexity is in the delivery. That is where barristers earn their money - they attempt to confuse. BUT if something is that complex (which in trials is not normally) then jurors can ask. One of my examples (a highly intelligent bloke) though he was being bamboozled so he asked the judge to ask teh questions on his behalf (standard procedure) a $3k/hour barrister shat himself which earned him a rebuke from the judge. In the end it was all obfuscation which the other jurors duly noted.

2 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Some of the most “intelligent” are the worst though.  No wisdom.

Full of pre-conceived ideas and lack of understanding of real world situations.

Last year I was given a highly recommended contractor. He couldn't use a screwdriver. Sent him home, have never used him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tesla said:

The problem is, in my experience, at least 85% of the population lack the intellectual capacity to be trusted to analyse and interpret the facts to then be able to decide someone's future.

Should be a cutoff based on IQ.

That's a bold statement. The whole point of the process is to have 12 ordinary people listen to the evidence presented and make a decision beyond reasonable doubt. I think most people are quite capable of doing that. My one experience (Queensland, grievous bodily harm case) was that the jurors took their responsibility very seriously indeed, asked very pertinent questions, and that the judge summed up and advised us very fairly.

I doubt that there is any evidence to suggest that juries comprised only of people in the top 15% of IQ test results produce verdicts any more reliable than the present system. My experience is that some of these people are so far removed from being capable of relating to other people that I wouldn't want them near a jury.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UOTYH: The "sex worker community" are a bunch of fools if they don't realise that their "work" is intrinsically less safe than most other occupations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

UOTYH: The "sex worker community" are a bunch of fools if they don't realise that their "work" is intrinsically less safe than most other occupations.

I mean what other jobs gets so close that you end up inside one another.... maybe GP/Surgeon? Add to the fact that majority of 'customers' are on the lower end of society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, haz said:

I mean what other jobs gets so close that you end up inside one another.... maybe GP/Surgeon? Add to the fact that majority of 'customers' are on the lower end of society. 

Not sure about that. Over my lifetime there have been some big aristocrats caught on this matters beginning with the Profumo affair. Although they do tend to keep it hushed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Not sure about that. Over my lifetime there have been some big aristocrats caught on this matters beginning with the Profumo affair. Although they do tend to keep it hushed up.

Majority*

12 hours ago, haz said:

I mean what other jobs gets so close that you end up inside one another.... maybe GP/Surgeon? Add to the fact that majority of 'customers' are on the lower end of society. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto some of the latest Jeffrey Epstein "victims"......If I was working in a restaurant and some woman came up to me and told me some rich guy likes pretty girls to massage him and will pay hundreds of dollars.......You're not a fucking masseuse, why would you go massage someone? Doesn't sound like a sketchy situation. If someone came up to me and said they'd pay me hundreds of dollars to look at their turd cutter, I'd probably decline because I'm not a proctologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UOTYH: The bouncer should not be allowed in cricket. Do we have to wait until someone else gets killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

UOTYH: The bouncer should not be allowed in cricket. Do we have to wait until someone else gets killed?

Totally agree. And whilst we're at it all football players should be required to wear padding and helmets like they do in the NFL to minimise the risk of anyone being hurt. 
Of course we're far, far, far more likely to die crossing the road, driving to work or having a heart attack whilst watching porn, but you never can be too careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bt50 said:

Totally agree. And whilst we're at it all football players should be required to wear padding and helmets like they do in the NFL to minimise the risk of anyone being hurt. 
Of course we're far, far, far more likely to die crossing the road, driving to work or having a heart attack whilst watching porn, but you never can be too careful.

I have forseen my future

shocked oh my god GIF

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jw1739 said:

UOTYH: The bouncer should not be allowed in cricket. Do we have to wait until someone else gets killed?

Most sports have a high risk of serious accidents due to physical contact from others(rugby, AFL, NFL ext) or from an object moving at a first pace (cricket, cars in motor racing, squash ball even) compared to say your usual 9 to 5 job working at an office in a call centre. Theirs obviously varying risks in each spots, but you'd like to think most sportsmen know what risk is in the sport they are performing in before they decide to try and make it a career and participate at the elite level in it.

All you can do at the end of the day is minimise the risk as much as possible which i think cricket has slowly done over time. Watching older games where players wouldn't even wear helmets when batting when I was younger, I just couldn't believe it! After the steve smith incident maybe you could argue that players should have to wear neck guards now? Wearing pads, arm guards, a box and helmet is definitely reducing the risk now, but you're never going to make the risk of being injured by a leather ball being bowled at 150km/h 0%.

The bouncer has been a ball bowled 1000's of times now and I think their is no reason whatsoever it should be banned or minimised as a knee jerk reaction to a couple of freak occurrences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UOTYH...Unpopular or popular? I don't know. I'm not surprised that the Goodes film "The Australian Dream" is a comparative failure at the Box Office. I think people are sick to death of the continual harping on the various heritage and ethnic groups in our Australian population. The ABC and SBS in particular. I just think that this continual labelling of various "groups" is largely unproductive, and backfires because it just tends to emphasise the very perceptions of difference that we're supposed to be eliminating.

I don't know a lot about AFL, but I do know that Adam Goodes was a bloody good footballer. And that's all I need to know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jw1739 said:

UOTYH...Unpopular or popular? I don't know. I'm not surprised that the Goodes film "The Australian Dream" is a comparative failure at the Box Office. I think people are sick to death of the continual harping on the various heritage and ethnic groups in our Australian population. The ABC and SBS in particular. I just think that this continual labelling of various "groups" is largely unproductive, and backfires because it just tends to emphasise the very perceptions of difference that we're supposed to be eliminating.

I don't know a lot about AFL, but I do know that Adam Goodes was a bloody good footballer. And that's all I need to know.

I don't think that your contention holds. First, the last time a documentary was popular in Australian cinemas was way back in the late 80s - and that includes foreign and locally made. Secondly, Australian movies have continually bombed in the cinemas ever since the super hero of Marvel became big. This is not unusual - world wide audiences for non-action films have shrunk - drastically. I am not sure where cinema goes from here.

So the contention that because the movie did not do well in the cinemas is an indication of people being sick of labelling does not hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...