Invisapeeps 2.0

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

Unpopular Opinion Thursday!

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

Cactus, I know it seems circular and I'm trying to articulate it.

I may think Pot shoudl be legal but If I know I might be tested I think it would be dumb to risk it, and that's poor judgement. Ok heck, even if pot were legal I would frown on someone getting help from my tax dollars if they're using their money to buy it, or beer, or whiskey, or vycodin, or whatever....
(I mean for non medical reasons as well....)

I also think you (general you) have no business buying recreational drugs legal or otherwise if you claim you can't feed your kids or dependants. Give up the weed and you might not need the food stamps.
I have a big problem with people on public assistance having the money for partyables (is that a word? lol) when I work, pay my own rent and grocery bill and I rarely have the extra money.

it's a loaded issue for me.

-- Edited by Mary Zombie on Thursday 26th of July 2012 03:44:00 PM

-- Edited by Mary Zombie on Thursday 26th of July 2012 04:09:17 PM

Aardvark · But my mom says I'm cool!

My opinion is - I support the Second Amendment. I know many people want to repeal it, but I feel that once the Bill of Rights is breached, what is the next one to be taken away?

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

Agree but not sure whys that unpoplar.

Mines, I think pop cultcher in genral is a pile of horse ****.

EmmDee · Guru

My unpopular opinion is that I am not up in arms over Chick Fil A and I have no desire to boycott them. When I crave their product, I will go there.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

Them's some good eatin.

tigerlily · Guru

My unpopular opinion - I think as a society, we should let people suffer the consequences of their actions more often than we do.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

Maybe I dont git this thread - how's that unpopular?

tigerlily · Guru

I think it depends on where you live and who you've been interacting with. And what you read - I've seen a lot of opposing views to everything stated here but i dont know which way the national majority leans for any of them.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

My wife looks like a cow when shes on all 4's but that just turns me on even more. pretty sure that opinions not populr anywheres but here.

EmmDee · Guru

LOL, I love that it is popular here though.

Cactus · Senior Member

Farmer Guy wrote:
Maybe I dont git this thread - how's that unpopular?

I have noticed that statements and opinions on the internet are often framed as though they were much more unpopular, controversial, or rare than they are. It's a thing.
There are various reasons for it-I think threads like this are kind of like, This is my opinion, but I don't want to argue about it.

FRAED · Guru

I don't give a rat's hairy a$$ about Joe Paterno's statue being taken down (this is VERY unpopular here in Pennsylvania).
Athletes & coaches are not heroes (a word used in reference to "JoePa" way too much). They do not deserve statues.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

Cactus wrote:
Farmer Guy wrote:
Maybe I dont git this thread - how's that unpopular?
I have noticed that statements and opinions on the internet are often framed as though they were much more unpopular, controversial, or rare than they are. It's a thing.
There are various reasons for it-I think threads like this are kind of like, This is my opinion, but I don't want to argue about it.

That makes more sense, I laugh whenever I see white kids tryin to rap but I dont wanna argue about it etiehr.

EmmDee · Guru

I would agree with the sentiment that for myself I will post opinions that I am not willing to fight for in a heated discussion. Many of mine would come from threads on other boards that I choose to stay out because I am against the vocal majority on them.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

I think suicide should be more socially accepted. I think it would be handled better if there wasn't so much shame attached to it.

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

one of mine:

I'm for drug testing for welfare recipients

kapper · I am always right, unless I am wrong.

I think this would only be unpopular to those who are on welfare and doing drugs.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Question for Mary:

Three young kids are in the custody of their grandmother. She recieves benefits for them none for herself. If she smoked a joint today do you think her grandkids should be denied their foodstamps?

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

dqm either wrote:
Question for Mary:

Three young kids are in the custody of their grandmother. She recieves benefits for them none for herself. If she smoked a joint today do you think her grandkids should be denied their foodstamps?

If she smokes it knowing she has to get tested before getting the benefits, then yes. Not because I'm anti Pot....But that would show very poor judgement to do something that you know might affect your grand kids being able to eat. I would also question should she have custody if she would be willing to take a risk like that. JMO

That said, I would have no issue with weed being legal here. I don't have a problem with someone smoking a joint to relax as long as they're taking care of their business. I know alot of hard working and successful people that partake to unwind I've been known to partake when it's offered from a friend once in a blue moon, so not anti weed at all but....

If you don't have money to live and or need to get assistance to eat , then you have no business spening any amount buying weed. Again, JMO

Too Sensitive · Senior Member

I think people should follow courtesy " rules" of the country they are in.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Wait, what I meant was; the benefits are not for her. They're for the kids.

If she can afford her own food and her own pot should her grandkids get their foodstamps denied next month on the first because grandma smoked today on the 26th?

Just to be clear, grandma owns her own home and pays her own bills.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

Shuld the kids food be at the mersy of Grammas toke, is how I read the question. Id say yes, that and also custody. The now n then trek to the barn is one thing, doing drugs near kinfolks just wrong.

Cactus · Senior Member

Mary Zombie wrote:
dqm either wrote:
Question for Mary:

Three young kids are in the custody of their grandmother. She recieves benefits for them none for herself. If she smoked a joint today do you think her grandkids should be denied their foodstamps?

If she smokes it knowing she has to get tested before getting the benefits, then yes.   Not because I'm anti Pot....But that would show very poor judgement to do something that you know might affect your grand kids being able to eat.   I would also question should she have custody if she would be willing to take a risk like that.   JMO
That said, I would have no issue with weed being legal here. I don't have a problem with someone smoking a joint to relax as long as they're taking care of their business.   I know alot of hard working and successful people that partake to unwind  I've been known to partake when it's offered from a friend once in a blue moon, so not anti weed at all but....
If you don't have money to live and or need to get assistance to eat , then you have no business spening any amount buying weed.  Again, JMO

Well this kind of sounds like you're saying the rule should exist in order for her to follow it? That is, you have no problem with her smoking pot per se but she should be able to demonstrate her compliance with a rule that serves no other purpose?

Now if I understand the purpose of these threads it is that we are not supposed to question or challenge people's opinions so I guess I should back off in any case.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

LOL Farmer I didn't say she was smoking WITH the kids!

Of course if the kids tested positive they shouldn't get food stamps. Everyone knows kids shouldn't smoke.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Sorry, I didn't see any rule that said we couldn't question each other. I invite questions to anything I post.
I don't see the point in putting it up for public consumption if it's private and inviolate.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

I think I got er down, nobodys sposed to git on me fer boffin Charlotte an her litter an likin it even tho in high society thats considered "wrong." On the unpoplar thread its cool, right ardverk?

Cactus · Senior Member

dqm either wrote:
Sorry, I didn't see any rule that said we couldn't question each other. I invite questions to anything I post.
I don't see the point in putting it up for public consumption if it's private and inviolate.

It's not a rule, it was just my impression of the purpose of the threads. I don't think anyone should feel prevented from responding how they want to...

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

I don't mind questions, BTW.

I'm always shouting from the roof tops that we should be able to discuss whatever the heck we want to and have disagreements without being monitored so I will take my lumps!

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Mary, grandma didn't apply for the benefits. The kids already had benefits when they were placed in her care.

Cactus · Senior Member

Mary Zombie wrote:
See, I feel It would be a little naive to think Gramma is not benefitting from the kids food stamps. She's eating the food too, I'm sure.
Like it or not, Weed is still an illegal drug and if the state says you cannot have it in your system to get the benefits then if we need the help to feed our kids then, suck it up. It doesnt matter if it's pot, gummy bears or marshsallow peeps to me. If I know that whatever the contraband product is will prevent me from getting the help I need then I would suck it up ,

But see for me , it segways into the whole why are you buying weed/beer/cigaraettes/zombie meat ...whatever, if you can't feed your kids?...those things aren't that cheap. The 25 bucks you spent on a small bag of weed might have bought a few meals for the kids....
and so on, and so on......
So I suppose My issue with it comes down to judgement. and perhaps Gramma wouldn't be applying for the benefits had she not been buying weed in the first place?
I realize this is not a popular opinion in all circles, but I doubt I'm completely alone in my thoughts

Respectfully :)

-- Edited by Mary Zombie on Thursday 26th of July 2012 03:09:30 PM

But you are the one who is saying people shouldn't be able to have it in their system without losing benefits, that's why I am asking what your reason for that is.

It seems like you're saying "This should be the rule" and when asked why, you're saying "Because they should be able to obey the rules whatever they may be"-it's a bit circular.

Do you think pot smoking granny should lose benefits because weed is illegal? because it's harmful? because it's a waste of money? That's what I mean.

I also mean this respectfully and hope I am not coming across otherwise.

Cactus · Senior Member

Mary Zombie wrote:
I don't mind questions, BTW.

I'm always shouting from the roof tops that we should be able to discuss whatever the heck we want to and have disagreements without being monitored so I will take my lumps!

I really appreciate this.

EmmDee · Guru

To me it would make a difference if the food stamps are given based on Grandma's income or if they kind of come with the kids because in a foster care like situation or something. I honestly have no idea the requirements for food stamps so I can't comment.

I don't necessarily think it is bad to ask to understand someone's unpopular opinion. I kind of think of this as a safe thread to express UO's without getting flamed. Discussion does not equal being flamed. JMO.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

So foster parents should be able to smoke pot and still recieve foodstamps for their kids but bio parents shouldn't?

Mary Zombie · Your brains...they're delicious.

For me it doesn't matter if it's the bio or a foster parent. if you can afford weed, you must not need the assistance that much.

EmmDee · Guru

I don't know, I haven't ever thought it all the way through honestly.

Evil Stepmother · Guru

I agree with Mary Zombie. I think all recipients of public assistance should be drug tested.

I also think they should be on mandatory birth control until they stop accepting assistance.

Cactus · Senior Member

Weed doesn't really cost that much and how do you know she's even buying it herself? What if it's a gift?

Buying a bag of weed now and then doesn't equal being able to feed and clothe three young kids.

Should people on welfare spend on nothing but the absolute bare essentials (and by whose standard?) or is there a particular reason to target weed over other things like, for example, coffee or sugar?

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Mary Zombie wrote:
For me it doesn't matter if it's the bio or a foster parent. if you can afford weed, you must not need the assistance that much.

But who is the -you-? I agree that if grandma is buying weed she doesn't need the assistance. But it's not grandma's assistance. She's just the one who recieves and administers it to people who can't read, drive or cook. Should they be denied assistance because their grandma bought weed with her own money? Yes, I do get that grandma is eating the food purchased and cooked with their foodstamps but she's using her electricity, water, house, dishes, time whatever. If they had to pay her for everything she did a meal or two a day is a good deal on their part. And you don't have to repeat everything again if the answer is yes. I just wanted to be clear that grandma is solvent and can afford her own weed. She does not want or need foodstamps for herself.

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

Evil Stepmother wrote:
I agree with Mary Zombie. I think all recipients of public assistance should be drug tested.

I also think they should be on mandatory birth control until they stop accepting assistance.

I guess my disconnect is that most of the people I know who recieve foodstamps get them for a child or children they took in. An aunt that wants children of her own shouldn't be told to go on birth control because she is caring for her nephew until the mother gets out of jail. It costs more to put the kids in foster care than it does to have them with relatives.

Cactus · Senior Member

What if Grandma lives very frugally overall? People would cut her off for this one item on her budget?

dqm either · Don't Quote Me

This is leftover from last week's discussion. I was going to post it there but the thread is closed....

Anywho, last week I posted my unpopular opinion about a controvesy in our small area. People were taking free kittens and feeding them to snakes. Then a group organized and got everyone to ask for a "rehoming fee" for any kitten. That didn't stop the snake people. So then the kitty people started a list of the known snake people and circulated it. One of the snake people gave up trying for kittens among our group and went on craig's list in the next largest area. The kitty lovers tracked him down there too and told everyone not to give him kitties. His response off of craig's list:

don't understand how you can say the animals you are rehoming, adopting out for a fee , or asking for money can't be feed to my snakes. Anyone who is selling their animals have no say in what I do to that animal. I will not look for free animals because if I purchase an animal then I am free to do with them as I please. I let the free animals go to people who wants an animal/pet to care for.
Geesh, money don't grow on trees and I'm free to do what I want if I give you money. Don't think you will be able to check on that animal after you have sold them. I will file harrasment charges on you if you come after me.
Just saying.

-- Edited by dqm either on Monday 30th of July 2012 11:30:16 PM

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

I reckon hes got a point, if he buys the cats all legal and people come after him, thats wrong no matter what.

Purple Girl · Member

I thought the purpose of this thread was simply to express your opinion, not to have to defend it.

Farmer Guy · Me and the sheep are tight.

My opinions the guys got a point, Im sposed to defend that too?

tigerlily · Guru

Hmm...if the point of this thread is to state opinions only - we can just do spin-off threads for discussion of whichever topic someone is interested in discussing?

Would that work to keep people posting on this thread, but also give the others an opportunity to discuss things at length?

(just an idea - feel free to ignore it :) )

Cactus · Senior Member

Purple Girl wrote:
I thought the purpose of this thread was simply to express your opinion, not to have to defend it.

I said something similar, then certain participants said they didn't mind discussing it, so we discussed it. Do you think it should not be allowed? People don't have to respond if they don't want to-nobody HAS to defend their opinion- but I don't really think others should feel muzzled. Then it becomes a case of some people's opinions being more allowed than others. And honestly, most of the "unpopular" opinions posted on these threads are no more unpopular than their counteropinions.

Cactus · Senior Member

dqm either wrote:
This is leftover from last week's discussion. I was going to post it there but the thread is closed....

Anywho, last week I posted my unpopular opinion about a controvesy in our small area. People were taking free kittens and feeding them to snakes. Then a group organized and got everyone to ask for a "rehoming fee" for any kitten. That didn't stop the snake people. So then the kitty people started a list of the known snake people and circulated it. One of the snake people gave up trying for kittens among our group and went on craig's list in the next largest area. The kitty lovers tracked him down there too and told everyone not to give him kitties. His response off of craig's list:

don't understand how you can say the animals you are rehoming, adopting out for a fee , or asking for money can't be feed to my snakes. Anyone who is selling their animals have no say in what I do to that animal. I will not look for free animals because if I purchase an animal then I am free to do with them as I please. I let the free animals go to people who wants an animal/pet to care for.
Geesh, money don't grow on trees and I'm free to do what I want if I give you money. Don't think you will be able to check on that animal after you have sold them. I will file harrasment charges on you if you come after me.
Just saying.

-- Edited by dqm either on Monday 30th of July 2012 11:30:16 PM

What does he say if people ask him what he will do with the kittens? What if the ad specifically says the kitten should only go to a good home? I don't think he should lie or misrepresent his intentions to the people with the kittens.

Evil Stepmother · Guru

This is why many people recommend asking at least a nominal fee of $20-50 for puppies and kittens. It is unlikely that someone would feed a $20 kitten to a snake or take a $50 puppy to a makeup testing lab.

Cactus · Senior Member

Evil Stepmother wrote:
This is why many people recommend asking at least a nominal fee of $20-50 for puppies and kittens. It is unlikely that someone would feed a $20 kitten to a snake or take a $50 puppy to a makeup testing lab.

I agree with this. Unless the animal is going to someone you really know, I do think it's a good idea to charge more, rather than putting such a cheap value on its life.

And obviously, if these kittens and puppies are the offspring of the sellers' own pets, that is their mistake. They should not allow their animals to breed like that.