PDA

View Full Version : Your Unpopular Opinions



jubeh
04-23-2011, 09:12 PM
In this thread discuss opinions that you have that could be considered unpopular. For instance, if you think racism is excusable or if you think Twilight is anything other than horse vomit.

Jak
04-23-2011, 09:14 PM
This thread seems like a hate war waiting to happen

jubeh
04-23-2011, 09:20 PM
This thread seems like a hate war waiting to happen

This reminds me if you can't back up your opinions you probably shouldn't post.

Anyway.

Modern warfare two is a giant positive feedback loop and a game played through camping ironically adored by a community that ostracizes campers.

The trigun anime was better than the manga.

Dragonball z kai is better than the old dubs. Yeah I said it.

Fenn
04-23-2011, 10:19 PM
Autotune sounds good sometimes. I just wish the people editing the music got as much credit as the so called "artists."

Verbal abuse should never be met with a negative reply, regardless of whether you feel you are justified. Either laugh or ignore it. Responding to it with anger or sadness is basically saying "I give you the power to determine my emotions."

Nerds are awesome.

CypressDahlia
04-23-2011, 10:22 PM
If I agree with you, does that mean I'm disagreeing in the context of this thread?

Do we fight after that?

Because I agree about Modern Warfare. So do 2 of my room mates, who are hardcore FPS fans.

Essentially every opinion I've ever shared on MT would go here, as they've proven to be quite unpopular, despite however rational. mmmnyesss~


Verbal abuse should never be met with a negative reply, regardless of whether you feel you are justified. Either laugh or ignore it. Responding to it with anger or sadness is basically saying "I give you the power to determine my emotions."


Hold on, isn't that the exact opposite?

jubeh
04-23-2011, 10:25 PM
Agreeing is part of the fun of the thread and yeah you have some interesting opinions.

CypressDahlia
04-23-2011, 11:08 PM
TBH, my opinions aren't interesting as you make them out to be. I just end up going on a one-man stand because I'm usually the first (and last) person in a thread to disagree. It's not like I have some kind of alien perspective on things; I just tend to be the odd one out.

Anyway, I think sex overrated, the true enemy of Feminism is women and skinny jeans are stupid. I think it's wrong for men to wear womens' clothes because it's contrary to the design and that winning against the odds is the truest indicator of mastery.

Blue_Dragon
04-24-2011, 02:37 AM
I don't like internet talk, even though everyone uses it (I'm not trying to start a fight at all. ) But when people use "brb" and "lol" and "rofl" and many even here on this site, it takes me FOREVER to figure out what the hell people are saying. Even IMO took me a long time. I always hate to ask what the hell ones means, because then I look like a dumb ass...which I am, but that's besides the point. I do have reasons for not liking them. They are as follows (and my reasons are not limited to these three, but these are the main reasons):

1) Lazy
2) Confusing
3) Unnecessary most of the time.

It's not that hard to type out the words, especially for the generation of internet people using them. You've probably been typing since you were at least in grade school, maybe even longer.

I don't mind abbreviations, like "laser" (actually, a true acronym) or things that are wide known, but most I don't like. Sorry for those of you who use them. I just don't like them.

Psy
04-24-2011, 03:01 AM
Ultimate fighting is just around as an excuse for straight guys watch men hump without being called gay. Half the time it's one guy with his arms wraped around the other grinding and rolling on the floor sweating. The same goes for wrestling. Men in skimpy outfits that are just fancy underwear and grabbing eachother by the crotch or heads between legs? Yeah that's gay.

I agree about Dragonball Z Kai.

Drinking alcohol is lame. What is the point? You WANT to get drunk off your ass? Why? It helps you relax but what does that get you? You are just more likely to fuck up now.

Smoking weed is addictive. Maybe not the way nicotine is addictive but people still become dependent upon it. I've seen plenty of people just act like they are going to have a seizure because they need a joint. Plenty of people admit that they can not go a day without it.

People who wear jeans and flip-flops are either gay or a douche. This could just be guys but it's still true.

Emos look hot/cool. It's their attitudes that fuck it up.

Outcast
04-24-2011, 05:45 AM
I believe psy just called me a douche. Heh.
I wear them because I hate wearing shoes they just protect the feet from whatever the fuck some asshole left on the ground (namely broken glass).

Regantor
04-24-2011, 07:00 AM
Drinking alcohol is lame. What is the point? You WANT to get drunk off your ass? Why? It helps you relax but what does that get you? You are just more likely to fuck up now.

Smoking weed is addictive. Maybe not the way nicotine is addictive but people still become dependent upon it. I've seen plenty of people just act like they are going to have a seizure because they need a joint. Plenty of people admit that they can not go a day without it.

Drinking is okay IMO; It's the peer presure to get totally shitfaced which sucks. People will pester you to drink if you don't... Does help with job interviews, through, anyway. XD

As for weed, yeah. My best freind in high school was totally rampant on the stuff, and his brain slowed down to turtle speeds by the end of the last term. What people ingest is none of my buisness, but does weed affect your brain? Of course it friggin does. >_>

Did people land on the moon? Why is that even a conspiracy theory? You telling me they built a whole ton of these giant rockets and shot them into space infront of thousands of people, then didn't go THEN? Once you are in space it takes less fuel to get to Mars than it does to put a rocket in orbit. Orbit is the hard bit. If another person says "but what if it was just a media hoax?" to me, I'll lay asian abrasions on them. *_*

Delphinus
04-24-2011, 09:30 AM
All of my opinions are unpopular. I've just learned to sell them well.

Arashi500
04-24-2011, 10:04 AM
I seem to be the only one who prefers soft drinks(soda) to alcohol when given the option. I also don't see the point in weed, but thats probably because it doesn't really do anything for me other than make me giggle rather than laugh.

Fenn
04-24-2011, 10:50 AM
Hold on, isn't that the exact opposite?

How? Are you saying always get angry? Because that's exactly what they want. Whether you end up kicking the crap out of them or not, they won.

Superdooperphailmachine
04-24-2011, 01:33 PM
If you kick the crap out of them they have generally lost.

CypressDahlia
04-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Fenn, two things wrong with your theory:

1.) You already lost by putting yourself under the assumption that they are control of anything. There is nothing to support the fact that they are in control. In truth, if you get angry it's because you CHOOSE to get angry. If you get upset it's because you CHOOSE to get upset. You are empowering your tormentors way too much by assuming that's what they want.

2.) By suppressing your own emotions out of FEAR of granting your opponent gratification, you are letting them control your emotions. Lying to yourself to put up a tough front before your bullies is the only way in which you could ever let them control you because you are letting them limit which emotions you can practice. Being honest with yourself and behaving in a manner that suits you (even if it entails bawling your eyes out) shows that you are in control of your own emotions.

In fact, you actually kind of put your bullies on a pedestal there by assuming you somehow have to impress them or meet a standard that they indirectly set.

Besides, it's only natural to respond to distressful situations with distress. I dunno why that's such a big deal these days. Apathy is the new cool all of a sudden? And the biggest crime is assuming there's something wrong with the way //you// think as opposed to something wrong with the way your bullies think. Don't limit yourself to conform to some twisted bully mentality. You already know they're in the wrong, so why let them write the rules?

ClockHand
04-24-2011, 02:32 PM
My life is a unpopular opinion

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BrOGWMhNVHM/TSRr9LlpR_I/AAAAAAAAAMs/g0cTggrnyxM/s1600/emo_hitler.jpg


JAJA

Delphinus
04-24-2011, 03:37 PM
Verbal abuse should never be met with a negative reply, regardless of whether you feel you are justified. Either laugh or ignore it. Responding to it with anger or sadness is basically saying "I give you the power to determine my emotions."

Never tell this to your children. It will ruin their childhood if they take your advice. I speak from personal experience.
The best way to deal with verbal abuse is to act cool and cut those motherfuckers down at the same time. The more they have a go at you with you cracking jokes at their expense the more awesome you look and the worse they look. Case in point: This one girl in my class hates me for no reason. I'm all "yeah, she wants me really" or "sorry about the divorce but I needed my freedom", she keeps having a go, everyone defends me for being awesome, she shuts up. I rule.

One of my unpopular opinions: I think people who whine need to have a pole shoved up their rear ends, no matter how justified they are. Seriously, it's just egotistic and nobody needs to hear that shit. If you have a problem, solve it instead of bitching and whining like some stupid kid.


Don't limit yourself to conform to some twisted bully mentality. You already know they're in the wrong, so why let them write the rules?
Lolwut. Most kids who get bullied deserve it for making themselves easy targets. Natural selection in practice, baby.

My attitude to potential bullies used to be the same as every other nerdy kid, but now I realise ignoring them is just as bad as going all rabid on their arses. Acting like you don't give a crap doesn't work because your typical nerdy introvert doesn't know how to effectively not care - the only way to stop bullies is to grow some balls (even if you're female ;) ) and have some self-confidence. I think the last time I was insulted my reaction was less "I am not ugly!" and more "Lol, she thinks she can insult me and get away with it. Prepare to get pwned, fool."

Fenn
04-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Fenn, two things wrong with your theory:

1.) You already lost by putting yourself under the assumption that they are control of anything. There is nothing to support the fact that they are in control. In truth, if you get angry it's because you CHOOSE to get angry. If you get upset it's because you CHOOSE to get upset. You are empowering your tormentors way too much by assuming that's what they want.

2.) By suppressing your own emotions out of FEAR of granting your opponent gratification, you are letting them control your emotions. Lying to yourself to put up a tough front before your bullies is the only way in which you could ever let them control you because you are letting them limit which emotions you can practice. Being honest with yourself and behaving in a manner that suits you (even if it entails bawling your eyes out) shows that you are in control of your own emotions.

In fact, you actually kind of put your bullies on a pedestal there by assuming you somehow have to impress them or meet a standard that they indirectly set.

Besides, it's only natural to respond to distressful situations with distress. I dunno why that's such a big deal these days. Apathy is the new cool all of a sudden? And the biggest crime is assuming there's something wrong with the way //you// think as opposed to something wrong with the way your bullies think. Don't limit yourself to conform to some twisted bully mentality. You already know they're in the wrong, so why let them write the rules?

Mostly because of the results of both. Let's say you act naturally and get very angry. They keep egging you on, and you punch them in the face. The result? Depends on the situation, but if it's in a public area you risk legal implications. Crying, if you choose that route, is less dangerous and probably a safe reaction, but it isn't going to help the matter.

In the end, I'm not suggesting stifling your reaction but reacting appropriately. I think of three things whenever verbally abused (in the following order:

1. Do they know me or the situation at hand? If no, who cares? They know nothing, and their opionion is 100% worthless. They are obviously trying to start a conflict. If yes...

2. Is the comment true? If no, then they're wrong! Let them keep making a fool of themself, or turn it into a joke. If it's not true why should I be hurt? If yes...

3. Is it a bad thing? If no, then it doesn't matter. Sometimes an insult isn't an insult at all. "Haha, you like anime you loser! Go play more Pokemon!" is an ignorant comment because there is nothing wrong with likeing anime or Pokemon. I usually calmly explain this, and if they won't let up leave them at it.

If yes...then a reaction could be justified. If someone is making fun of your brother who just died, I wouldn't criticize the victim for anything they do, crying or fighting. But my point is most insults are childish, ignorant, and downright inaccurate, and the only reason they become distressed situations is because society implies we should feel angry when verbally abused. So while your natural reaction is to be mad, does it make any logical sense to react that way?


Never tell this to your children. It will ruin their childhood if they take your advice. I speak from personal experience.
The best way to deal with verbal abuse is to act cool and cut those motherfuckers down at the same time. The more they have a go at you with you cracking jokes at their expense the more awesome you look and the worse they look. Case in point: This one girl in my class hates me for no reason. I'm all "yeah, she wants me really" or "sorry about the divorce but I needed my freedom", she keeps having a go, everyone defends me for being awesome, she shuts up. I rule.


Wait, isn't that what I was saying, just more concise? To clarify, I included "laugh" because not all bullies can be ignored. A reply is often required, even if I didn't say it outright. That's in reply to Cypress too.


If you kick the crap out of them they have generally lost.

Not after they pull you into court...

Matt
04-24-2011, 04:34 PM
I'm gonna stay away from political and religious stuff, because that will definitely start a hate war. So, those aside, my other unpopular opinions:

Most female movie stars, despite their age, are not hot. The most beautiful/cute girl I've ever seen in a movie was actually the guy's daughter in the end of Inception. Philipa, I think. Dunno the real girl's name.

Makeup rarely makes girls look better.

Football is not interesting.

Wearing your pants at your knees is not cool.

The police are not ignorant ***holes who don't understand you/your situation/your family/etc.

Linkin Park does not suck (though their new album did).

A little thing I should add here: I don't think you have to be able to justify every last one of your opinions. I mean, if you read a book and love it, but your friend hates it, does either of you have the right to say the other is wrong? Or with music. One guy hates a band, his friend loves them. Does either of them--or anyone, for that matter--have the right to dis on them? Does someone know exactly why he likes FPS games more than RPGs? Does a foot fetishist know why he has a foot fetish?

And . . .


Not after they pull you into court...

America is way too lawsuit-happy. That's actually a pretty popular opinion, though.

jubeh
04-24-2011, 04:41 PM
A little thing I should add here: I don't think you have to be able to justify every last one of your opinions. I mean, if you read a book and love it, but your friend hates it, does either of you have the right to say the other is wrong? Or with music. One guy hates a band, his friend loves them. Does either of them--or anyone, for that matter--have the right to dis on them? Does someone know exactly why he likes FPS games more than RPGs? Does a foot fetishist know why he has a foot fetish?

Yeah man it's important that you know why you dislike something and be able to share those ideas with other people. It's not about telling somebody they're wrong, it's about exposing them to your point of view, and vice-versa, and thus have discussions with real value. Not being able to do this is exactly what causes stupid arguments.

Like what looks more productive. This:

Guy A: I HATE THIS BOOK IT SUCKS
Guy B: What sucked about it?
Guy A: I'LL KILL YOU

Or this:

Guy A: I found that book kind of shallow
Guy B: I disagree. It challenges the reader to ask questions and form their own conclusions.
Guy A: That's an interesting viewpoint but etc etc

Evil_Cake
04-24-2011, 04:56 PM
i like the I'll kill u argument more

CypressDahlia
04-24-2011, 05:11 PM
I never said anything about a physical confrontation. I believe physical confrontation is the last resort. What I meant is: it's not a crime to be sentimental. If you feel upset, cry. If you feel angry, get angry. Again, why should I hide my emotions to impress my bully? But obviously you have to draw a line before you start violating laws and statutes of the local environment because that is no longer simply about yourself and directly affects other people. But that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about. We're talking about how to be in control of your own emotions.

You see, what you initially suggested was this:

"Verbal abuse should never be met with a negative reply..."

I thought that was wrong. What you're suggesting now is a choice on the victim's part to shrug it off and, as long as it's their personal choice, they are in control. That was my point. Oppositely, shrugging it off against an overpowering desire to be upset or angry is betraying yourself. But to argue that it's illogical to react in a way that our bodies are programmed to react is just wrong, Fenn. I think you're confusing logical with "socially flattering" (which is entirely subjective) as it's not always the best look to explode or cry or retaliate, but it makes sense.

Which is why I, again, ask: what the hell is up with apathy being the golden rule? It's to the point where we look down on people who demonstrate natural responses to things. It's especially "unflattering" to express sadness when being bullied because it writes you off as "weak". But, at the same time, that is a standard created by people who are //not// the victim ie. onlookers or the bullies themselves.

By "twisted bully mentality", what I meant is this: a bully will mark you weak if you get upset, despite the fact that they are clearly trying to make you upset. That's like getting mad at water for boiling even though you put it over a flame. Why the hell should someone abide by such a backwards thought process? And onlookers simply don't have the first-hand experience to make judgement calls.

--------

And Delphinus, I can't keep starting new debates with you, dude, if they're never going to see a conclusion (like the last two). And this is despite of the fact that your argument or whatever was not even relevant to the bit you quoted.

Delphinus
04-24-2011, 05:52 PM
Makeup rarely makes girls look better.
Football is not interesting.
Wearing your pants at your knees is not cool.
The police are not ignorant ***holes who don't understand you/your situation/your family/etc.
Linkin Park does not suck (though their new album did).

Love you. I agree with all of those except the first one; I think tastefully applied make-up and good clothing can make almost any female look better, but then if it weren't taboo to wear make-up for men it would probably improve their looks too.

Football pisses me off. I turned on Classic FM to help me focus while I was writing, and what comes on? Football news. Football. Defiling classical music. I opened my window for some cool air in my increasingly overheating bedroom and heard football fans chanting. In the middle of one of the most upper-class places in the entire damn country. I don't mind people watching football, but here in England it's everywhere, it's supposed to be the national obsession, so it gets pushed on you practically 24/7 in football season. Can't they keep their bloody plebeian hobbies to themselves?

The police are mostly just doing their jobs. There are a few bad eggs, sure, but the police as a whole aren't out to get you or anything. They might misunderstand, but that's an inevitable part of human interaction. None of us are perfect; all of us jump to conclusions.

Linkin Park have some good songs and some bad songs. They're not awful, they're mediocre, but their popularity means the bad points get emphasised. Satisfied people make less noise than angry people.

@Cypress: I get bored easily. If we were talking over AIM or something I'd finish these debates, but it takes way too much effort for me to write a full reply/rebuttal every time you post. In addition, we could probably continue ad infinitum with the debates, so either it goes on forever or someone gets tired of it.

Superdooperphailmachine
04-24-2011, 07:10 PM
Fenn, maybe in america you'd get sued over punching a bully. But in more sane parts of the world the person will generally limber off defeated and embarrassed.

toast
04-24-2011, 08:32 PM
that my chemical romance's old stuff is actually pretty cool (their newer stuff, I can't say anything about it). If you think they are a shitty emo band with horrible music, I seriously think you're opinion is influenced too much on the fans/ what other cool people on the internet are saying. they have some cool sounds

also, chad michael murray is not that hot, guys, and I've had that unpopular opinion since I was 6, where I would walk into my sister's room and not understand why she had 2 million pictures of him on her wall. he looks like a typical hollister model but with a softer face, there is nothing special and different about him. you can find a dude like him anywhere in the US.

silly silly humans

Kodos
04-25-2011, 03:16 AM
A little thing I should add here: I don't think you have to be able to justify every last one of your opinions. I mean, if you read a book and love it, but your friend hates it, does either of you have the right to say the other is wrong?
Depends on the book. Contrary to what many people (mostly bad writers or fans of bad writers) believe, there are certain objective standards in art. They are few, but they are there. Certain works of art are simply bad from an objective point of view. Twilight is a good example. It is not a matter of opinion that Twilight is a bad book, it is a matter of objective fact. There are certain rules of writing and storytelling that the book simply fails to adhere to.

Twilight is low-hanging fruit, but there are others.

The same is true of video games, music, and other forms of media. Most of the time these are matters of opinion, yes, but in certain cases there are objective standards which are being violated.

Furthermore while an opinion does not need justification, it does need justification if you intend to try and convince others that your opinion is worthwhile and/or if you want to have meaningful conversation.

Your example of a foot fetishist is bad because, to my knowledge, fetishists do not go around trying to persuade others to adopt their fetish. Fetishes are sexual tastes and quirks that are - while expressed outwardly - wholly internalized. The foot fetishist does not try to persuade others in the way that a fan of a work of media or art does. His 'opinion' is less an opinion and more of a (sexual/aesthetic) value.

Celestial-Fox
04-25-2011, 03:18 AM
CMM was never hot, hahaha. So true.

Most of my unpopular opinions revolve around food. Like how pickles, grilled cheese sandwiches, and pancakes go perfectly together in my head. (I have cravings weirder than a pregnant woman's.)

Renzokuken
04-25-2011, 06:15 AM
I like Tetsuya Nomura's artwork, particularly for the Dissidia games.

(he doesn't top Amano, though)

Delphinus
04-25-2011, 07:48 AM
Which is why I, again, ask: what the hell is up with apathy being the golden rule? It's to the point where we look down on people who demonstrate natural responses to things. It's especially "unflattering" to express sadness when being bullied because it writes you off as "weak". But, at the same time, that is a standard created by people who are //not// the victim ie. onlookers or the bullies themselves.

Victims don't have any power by definition; labelling them as 'weak' is only slightly inaccurate. And apathy gives you more power than emotions do.

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 01:13 PM
My point isn't whether or not victims have power, it's whether or not it's justified to label them weak when they are just responding in a manner scripted by nature. Besides, it's not up to the bully or onlookers to decide those standards for victims. The victims themselves should decide. Yet we abide by standards set indirectly by second or third parties. That is wrong, especially given something as unique to the individual as a bully and how one copes with his own emotions.

Also, I can't even imagine how you would begin to justify that second part. Elaborate.

GunZet
04-25-2011, 02:19 PM
Dragonball z kai is better than the old dubs. Yeah I said it.
No.

Fenn
04-25-2011, 03:44 PM
I never said anything about a physical confrontation. I believe physical confrontation is the last resort. What I meant is: it's not a crime to be sentimental. If you feel upset, cry. If you feel angry, get angry. Again, why should I hide my emotions to impress my bully? But obviously you have to draw a line before you start violating laws and statutes of the local environment because that is no longer simply about yourself and directly affects other people. But that's beyond the scope of what we're talking about. We're talking about how to be in control of your own emotions.

Let me pose a question: is every reaction you make to any conflict, not just verbal abuse, based solely on the first emotion you feel? Because mine certainly is not. Regardless of how I feel, I prefer to weight my options objectively and choose the logical reaction based on the situation. Once I am in a safer position, such as in my own privacy or with friends, I will open up.

Furthermore, part of my point was that it makes no sense to be angry or sad in the first place. Emotions are not wholly unconscious things. Something that makes you sad one day may make you laugh another because you understand the situation better. If you realize that there is no reason to be angry or sad, chances are you won't be angry or sad! Not always, but often.


You see, what you initially suggested was this:

"Verbal abuse should never be met with a negative reply..."

I thought that was wrong. What you're suggesting now is a choice on the victim's part to shrug it off and, as long as it's their personal choice, they are in control. That was my point. Oppositely, shrugging it off against an overpowering desire to be upset or angry is betraying yourself. But to argue that it's illogical to react in a way that our bodies are programmed to react is just wrong, Fenn. I think you're confusing logical with "socially flattering" (which is entirely subjective) as it's not always the best look to explode or cry or retaliate, but it makes sense.

Which is why I, again, ask: what the hell is up with apathy being the golden rule? It's to the point where we look down on people who demonstrate natural responses to things. It's especially "unflattering" to express sadness when being bullied because it writes you off as "weak". But, at the same time, that is a standard created by people who are //not// the victim ie. onlookers or the bullies themselves.

You are right, my initial argument was way off. I do that a lot.

My revised point, as stated above, is that the natural response is not always the appropriate one. When I get whacked in the face my immediate, natural response is to strike back, But I don't (usually); I might yell and ask why someone hit me, and it turns out it was an accident. Now, if I had just gone with my natural response, I would have harmed the person unnecessarily. You could say it was justified and fair to do, and the other person might even understand why you did that, but is it the desired result?


By "twisted bully mentality", what I meant is this: a bully will mark you weak if you get upset, despite the fact that they are clearly trying to make you upset. That's like getting mad at water for boiling even though you put it over a flame. Why the hell should someone abide by such a backwards thought process? And onlookers simply don't have the first-hand experience to make judgement calls.


Very true. However, let me pose this question: Give me one reason why, if a stranger walks up to you and calls you a fat gay retard (just an example), you should be angry or hurt by this? Because I can't think of anything.

wolfman
04-25-2011, 03:59 PM
black pudding is delicious, so is milk and coke mixed together
i dont see why people like queen, or the beetles
i like CoD and find it fun

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 04:03 PM
... Regardless of how I feel, I prefer to weight my options objectively and choose the logical reaction based on the situation.

My revised point, as stated above, is that the natural response is not always the appropriate one.

I get you, man. But see, this is where the discrepancy lies: logical does not always equal appropriate. In fact, the most logical way to behave in a situation is the way your body is programmed to behave because, in all objectivity, that is correct. It's like a computer that is programmed to do hypothetical Task A. Though Task A may not always be appropriate, it's entirely logical for the computer to do as it is programmed. But what you're saying is to gauge which response is most //appropriate// which is based on a lot of different factors (mostly societal). So I was just pointing out that it's entirely logical to respond naturally and that appropriateness is a separate standard. Otherwise, I do agree with you.


Give me one reason why, if a stranger walks up to you and calls you a fat gay retard (just an example), you should be angry or hurt by this? Because I can't think of anything.

Because it's an insult and my body and mind are hormonally programmed to respond negatively to insults. That is the most logical response and one cannot be demonized for responding that way. In terms of appropriateness, I would say it's not a big deal.

But since my argument was against your initial point, I guess we've come to terms.

Hayashida
04-25-2011, 04:07 PM
i dont see why people like queen, or the beetles
goddammit lee

Slurpee
04-25-2011, 04:08 PM
This thread is stupid. >_>

Originally Posted by wolfman
i dont see why people like queen, or the beetles

dude, HOW CAN YOU NOT LIKE THEM?

Hayashida
04-25-2011, 04:09 PM
Is that your unpopular opinion?

GunZet
04-25-2011, 04:09 PM
black pudding is delicious, so is milk and coke mixed together
i dont see why people like queen, or the beetles
i like CoD and find it fun

Blood sausage looks horrible. Yes I've knocked it before I tried it.
Milk and coke is completely horrid. I'll drink Brahmin milk before I drink that mixed.
Queen is cool. Never got into the Beetles.
CoD is fun...single player that is.

Hayashida
04-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Dammit you guys, it's BEATles not beetles.

I haven't tried black pudding before but I'm going to try it this summer when I go to the UK.

wolfman
04-25-2011, 04:14 PM
milk and coke is really nice o-o its called a brown cow and has got to be one of the most refreshing things ive drunk, you just have to get the mix right, not too much coke
i like the multiplayer, i dont like a lot of the people but i still find it fun

Delphinus
04-25-2011, 04:17 PM
My point isn't whether or not victims have power, it's whether or not it's justified to label them weak when they are just responding in a manner scripted by nature. Besides, it's not up to the bully or onlookers to decide those standards for victims. The victims themselves should decide. Yet we abide by standards set indirectly by second or third parties.
This is called 'living in society' and 'socialisation'. Rejecting society's ungrounded morals is perfectly fine, but acting in a way that's acceptable to those around you is a good way to avoid being labelled insane. Like it or not, the vote of maximum force is the only one that matters. And what has more power? The values of a whole society (and ergo most of its citizens) or the values of an individual? Just because both are equally valid, it doesn't mean that the more powerful party can't force the less powerful to conform to its will. The less powerful party obviously doesn't need to believe or internalise the values of the aggressor, but it serves it well to pretend to, even while subverting and destroying the aggressor.


Also, I can't even imagine how you would begin to justify that second part. Elaborate.
Emotions make you weak. Analysing the situation logically and choosing the best course of action will always be more effective than listening to anger, fear, sadness, or whatever. This isn't just my opinion, either:

In 2002, the Machiavellianism scale of Christie and Geis was applied by behavioral game theorists Anna Gunnthorsdottir, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith. in their search for explanations for the spread of observed behavior in experimental games, in particular individual choices which do not correspond to assumptions of material self-interest captured by the standard Nash equilibrium prediction. It was found that in a trust game, those with high MACH-IV scores tended to follow homo economicus' equilibrium strategies while those with low MACH-IV scores tended to deviate from the equilibrium, and instead made choices that reflected widely accepted moral standards and social preferences.
That is to say, the more rational and less emotional an individual is when making decisions, the more likely they are to choose the best possible solution rather than allowing mere emotions and pitiful empathy, which are after all just the products of a monkey brain, to cloud their judgement.

See also: Machiavellian Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian_intelligence)

GunZet
04-25-2011, 04:27 PM
Using your emotions correct is a skill. They can make or break you. They don't make you weak.
I wouldn't know though. I bottle everything *shrugs*.

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 04:33 PM
TBH, I don't see what's so great about the Beatles, either. lol. Or Led Zeppelin. Or Pink Floyd. Long, boring songs IMO.

Oh, and I think alcohol tastes like shit, which is actually becoming quite popular.

wolfman
04-25-2011, 04:35 PM
i really dont see the point in drinking cider, or things like smirnoff ice, it tastes JUST like fizzy apple juice or lemonade

GunZet
04-25-2011, 04:38 PM
Omg *dies cause of what Cype and Wolf said*

Fenn
04-25-2011, 05:17 PM
I get you, man. But see, this is where the discrepancy lies: logical does not always equal appropriate. In fact, the most logical way to behave in a situation is the way your body is programmed to behave because, in all objectivity, that is correct. It's like a computer that is programmed to do hypothetical Task A. Though Task A may not always be appropriate, it's entirely logical for the computer to do as it is programmed. But what you're saying is to gauge which response is most //appropriate// which is based on a lot of different factors (mostly societal). So I was just pointing out that it's entirely logical to respond naturally and that appropriateness is a separate standard. Otherwise, I do agree with you.

I can see your argument. Many times we have no choice but to follow our natural reaction, for survival or other reasons.

Your rationale is flawed though. One, I disagree that the natural response is always the most logical; I already gave an example for that. Two, a computer is only as accurate as it's programming. If task A is not the most appropriate, than the computer's logic is flawed. This is why we as humans often analyze our situation before acting, to make sure our subconscious logic is correct before proceeding.



Because it's an insult and my body and mind are hormonally programmed to respond negatively to insults. That is the most logical response and one cannot be demonized for responding that way. In terms of appropriateness, I would say it's not a big deal.

But since my argument was against your initial point, I guess we've come to terms.

Oh, I wasn't demonizing anyone who responds that way to verbal abuse! Trust me, I wasn't BLAMING them. It was more advice to them. Sure, in the end it's an "appropriate" response and a "justified" one. But if they want to move the situation in a direction that favors them, my logical course of action is in their best interest, more than if they just follow the whim of their emotion. That was more my point.

Psy
04-25-2011, 05:28 PM
I believe psy just called me a douche. Heh.
I wear them because I hate wearing shoes they just protect the feet from whatever the fuck some asshole left on the ground (namely broken glass).

To me it's a contradiction. Your legs are cold but your feet aren't? It's like seeing a girl with a heavy jacket and daisy dukes. Doesn't make sense and defeats the purpose. I have nothing against jeans and flip-flops respectively but when combined it's a complete assault on the function of clothing.

Women should NEVER put things in bras other than their boobs. They should never use their boobs as hands or pockets either. Have you ever been in a store and a woman reaches in her cleavage for her money or phone or I.D. or bank/credit card? It's gross! You have pant pockets for a reason! I and allot of others don't want your sweaty boob money. Also I'm pretty sure keeping your phone in their is going to give you breast cancer so stop it!

Guys should wear antiperspirant and deodorant whenever they are out and about regardless of them thinking they don't smell or not. I fully endorse the fear that you have a funky smell going on that no one likes or wants to be around. Once you hit 11 years old you go ask for it from mom or dad and use it everyday before school and after P.E.. It's so gross to walk down a hallway and just get a whiff of pits.

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 05:52 PM
This is called 'living in society' and 'socialisation'... And what has more power? The values of a whole society (and ergo most of its citizens) or the values of an individual?

It is a joke that you, of all people, are arguing this, considering you believe "egoism" is a perfectly fine justification for breaking widely applicable standards and laws.

But I'll bite:

Standards set by society usually apply to circumstances that are common amongst its members. Therefore, they can pool their experiences together and create one, agreeable rule. Emotions, on the other hand, tend to be unique to the person experiencing them both in practice and effect. How you feel will not directly affect anyone else, nor are your individual emotions practiced by anyone but yourself. So why should anyone else but you decide how you should feel? We're not talking about acting on your emotions because that opens up into broader and more prevalent issues (like violence) that, understandably, have standards attached to them. This is because they affect society abroad. We're talking about how one copes with his own emotions. Why should you let somebody else decide what's acceptable in that sense?

In fact, I would attest that letting someone tell you how to deal with your own emotions is 'weak', especially since this standard is highly "ungrounded" and based merely on outward social appearances. Or, as I termed it earlier, "social flattery". I stand by the statement that "real men do cry" and only pansies subvert their emotions in order to impress some baseless social standard. I'm frustrated with this debate; can you tell? Good.


Emotions make you weak.

No. Not being in control of your emotions makes you weak (which is what I've been saying, lawl). Having the utmost control over your emotions and using them to fuel your decisions makes you strong. You are talking about being clouded by emotions; I am talking about controlling emotions and expressing them freely. But abandoning emotions altogether in favor of logic is inherently illogical. Unless you are willing to argue that the pure chemistry of our design is logically flawed. That's something you have to take up with "God" or evolution, not me.

Delphinus
04-25-2011, 06:48 PM
It is a joke that you, of all people, are arguing this, considering you believe "egoism" is a perfectly fine justification for breaking widely applicable standards and laws.
I didn't say breaking them was morally unacceptable, just that it made logical sense to follow them. The police could arrest me if I gunned someone down; I don't want to be arrested. My opinion is immaterial in this case, so unless I'm sure I can get away with it, I'm not going to gun someone down. On the topic of BLOODY MURDER, is your username a portmanteau of Cypress Hill and Black Dahlia? If so, cool.

Since the next section's reasoning is largely based on your final paragraph (which is arse-backwards in an academic essay, but this is a forum so I don't care) I'll deal with your final paragraph rather than that one. Just one point


So why should anyone else but you decide how you should feel?
I wouldn't tell anyone how to feel, it's just easier to be apathetic and cold when facing life, as a general rule. If you make yourself incapable of feeling emotional pain, you cannot be hurt. Simple.


No. Not being in control of your emotions makes you weak (which is what I've been saying, lawl). Having the utmost control over your emotions and using them to fuel your decisions makes you strong. You are talking about being clouded by emotions; I am talking about controlling emotions and expressing them freely. But abandoning emotions altogether in favor of logic is inherently illogical. Unless you are willing to argue that the pure chemistry of our design is logically flawed. That's something you have to take up with "God" or evolution, not me.
Using emotions to fuel decisions makes no sense. You're not guaranteed to come up with the best possible solution if you involve them in the decision-making process beyond the end goals. I can accept "this woman rejected me, I will be avenged" as a primarily emotional goal: that's fine, I've been tempted to crush people for that reason before. But making decisions based on your emotions is just spur-of-the-moment and won't necessarily achieve your goal. For example, with that bitch who rejected me (this isn't a real scenario btw and it's deliberately creepy), I could go and beat her up and rape her, but that's probably not a good idea. The chances of me being discovered doing that shit are pretty high. On the other hand, I could find out where she lives, memorise her routine, make friends with some of her friends, then slowly build up an atmosphere of distrust around her which would cause her to react adversely, making her look bad. I could then increasingly use these adverse reactions to perform character assassination through gossip etc. The more she's rejected, the worse she'll act, and even if she notices and points out my manipulation to her friends, they'll just think she's paranoid. Eventually I can destroy her to such an extent that she has no emotional support and breaks down. Mission complete - and I haven't even broken the law. :D

I would argue that our brain chemistry is mostly unsuited to the conditions of modern living. It worked well in prehistoric times where battles were fought between men for women and rejection from a tribe entailed possible death, but nowadays it's ill-adapted to society. That's probably just because from 8,000 years ago (the oldest known modern civilisation, I think) until now, there simply hasn't been time for evolution to make any significant changes to our brain chemistry. So yes, I would argue that we are intrinsically flawed when it comes to dealing with other people effectively, and that strict adherence to logic is the best way to circumvent these flaws.

Evil_Cake
04-25-2011, 07:15 PM
Your legs are cold but your feet aren't?yes

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 08:55 PM
I didn't say breaking them was morally unacceptable, just that it made logical sense to follow them.

You are supporting a baseless standard that appeals to nothing more than social appearance. What part of that is logical, or can even reasoned with logic? Furthermore, how does it make sense to let the majority decide on an issue that affects a single person exclusively? lol.


If you make yourself incapable of feeling emotional pain, you cannot be hurt.

And that is simply impossible. Hence the best way to go about it is to acknowledge your emotions and COPE with them. And the first step to achieving that is to not be ashamed of having emotions lol.


Using emotions to fuel decisions makes no sense.

Many of our decisions are driven by emotion and they provide plenty of motivation to follow through with them. Maybe my sentence was badly phrased but beyond the syntax it makes perfect sense and is actually often the case.


You're not guaranteed to come up with the best possible solution if you involve them in the decision-making process beyond the end goals.

As humans, we're never //guaranteed// to come up with the best possible solutions under any circumstance. Also, you are assuming that a person who involves emotions in the decision making process is no longer thinking logically. That is a heavy assumption to make. A person can be fully aware of their emotions and still make sound decisions (which is the best method, IMO). But the act of denying your emotions does not make a person any more logical (critical thinking has a standard of its own) nor will it guarantee the best possible solution.

In fact, I would argue that denial has a heavier toll on the mind and rationality of a person than emotions. Case in point: most teen suicide cases are the result of bottled up emotions and introversion.


I can accept "this woman rejected me, I will be avenged" as a primarily emotional goal... followed by stuff

http://www.conversationmarketing.com/Snidely%2BWhiplash.png


I would argue that our brain chemistry is mostly unsuited to the conditions of modern living.

You are assuming there is something wrong with our brain chemistry when there isn't. Our brains are still capable of working under the conditions you deem "optimal". It is perfectly possible for the average human to think logically, while still acknowledging their emotions. What's ILLOGICAL is denying the fact that said emotions exist in the pursuit of more logical thinking. In fact, it's just plain wrong because they do exist in the most objective manner (chemically and hormonally) and denying their existence is about as good as denying fact.

In short, COPE with your feelings. Don't DENY them. You achieve the same result with greater control over your psyche, don't have to follow arbitrary standards of social grace and retain a huge chunk of your humanity. Thumbs up !

Evil_Cake
04-25-2011, 09:08 PM
so we shouldnt be vulcans

CypressDahlia
04-25-2011, 10:58 PM
Well, everyone but Delphinus.

Sylux
04-26-2011, 08:35 PM
Without emotion, we don't have any gratification, and therefore no reason to exist. Don't deny your existence.

Fenn
04-26-2011, 08:55 PM
Without emotion, we don't have any gratification, and therefore no reason to exist. Don't deny your existence.

Thus, we should just do whatever our emotions tell us to do? Um, no.

Besides, that isn't my point. Let me try another example. Lately, your friends have all been distant from you, avoiding talking to you and acting suspicious. The natural feelings you may have are of frustration, sadness, lonlieness, etc. If you act solely based upon these impulsive emotional reactions, you might yell at your friends, or ignore them yourself, or try to replace them. You will begin to make assumptions and rash decisions before you know anything about the situation. Fast forward a week. You enter your house and SURPRISE!!! they threw you a surprise party. Suddenly all that anger and sadness changes into joy, relief, and a renewed trust in your friends.

Your emotions are different because you now understand more about the situation. It doesn't change the act: that your friends were staying away from you and acting suspicious. That is still the same. What changed is the context of the situation: They were hiding a good surprise for you, not something negative as your initial emotions may have led you to believe.

That is how I view verbal abuse. For the longest time I took those comments personally, and felt anger and sadness as a result of this understanding. Now, I use the three step analysis I posted earlier, and my emotions are laughter, indifference, and a spot of pity for those poor souls who resort to the cheapest weapon in the human arsenaul. I took the time to analyze the situation, and my emotions naturally changed. This is the argument I am making; take the time to CHOOSE to look at the situation, and I believe you will feel different about it emotionally. Moreover, when you use logic to view this situation, you can help yourself make the decision to act in a way that will benefit YOU the most.

Evil_Cake
04-26-2011, 08:55 PM
anchorman movie was bad seems 2 be an unpopular opinion

Outcast
04-26-2011, 08:56 PM
yes

What he said.

jubeh
04-26-2011, 08:59 PM
anchorman movie was bad seems 2 be an unpopular opinion

Um yeah that movie was brilliant

Sylux
04-26-2011, 09:05 PM
Thus, we should just do whatever our emotions tell us to do? Um, no.

Besides, that isn't my point. Let me try another example. Lately, your friends have all been distant from you, avoiding talking to you and acting suspicious. The natural feelings you may have are of frustration, sadness, lonlieness, etc. If you act solely based upon these impulsive emotional reactions, you might yell at your friends, or ignore them yourself, or try to replace them. You will begin to make assumptions and rash decisions before you know anything about the situation. Fast forward a week. You enter your house and SURPRISE!!! they threw you a surprise party. Suddenly all that anger and sadness changes into joy, relief, and a renewed trust in your friends.

Your emotions are different because you now understand more about the situation. It doesn't change the act: that your friends were staying away from you and acting suspicious. That is still the same. What changed is the context of the situation: They were hiding a good surprise for you, not something negative as your initial emotions may have led you to believe.

That is how I view verbal abuse. For the longest time I took those comments personally, and felt anger and sadness as a result of this understanding. Now, I use the three step analysis I posted earlier, and my emotions are laughter, indifference, and a spot of pity for those poor souls who resort to the cheapest weapon in the human arsenaul. I took the time to analyze the situation, and my emotions naturally changed. This is the argument I am making; take the time to CHOOSE to look at the situation, and I believe you will feel different about it emotionally. Moreover, when you use logic to view this situation, you can help yourself make the decision to act in a way that will benefit YOU the most.
I never said that, Fenn. You are twisting my words around very boldly, and I will now tell you why you are wrong: What happens when you are devoid of all emotion? Life becomes unbearable. You have no reason to live. You simply exist, without happiness or sadness. You have no motivation and only do things based on logic, yet logic is based on emotion, general welfare, and gratification. There is no logic without emotion. There is no human thinking without emotion. If I do a good job, I will possibly get a raise and live more happily. If my squad flanks left, we can defeat the enemy and go home alive, and happy (since we are alive).

Well, if you were truly intelligent you would find out why they were being distant and talk to them about your feelings without harming them. Also, if your friends were smarter, they wouldn't have treated you in an ignoring manner. Your scenario is quite flawed, Fenn, so you'll have to try harder.

Verbal abuse is simply someone who cannot logically assess a situation. They feel they are wronged, and act out in an unpleasant manner upon an uncertainty. There is no point to getting angry or feeling unjust if there can be no good outcome, so you must, as Cyp said earlier, cope with these feelings, and try to deal with things in a logical manner that ensures general welfare.

CypressDahlia
04-27-2011, 01:56 AM
I think you and Delphinus are treating emotion and logic as if they're mutually exclusive. You can practice both and still make healthy decisions. Actually, you both continually assume that respecting your own emotions automatically means making rash decisions based on impulse. That's not what I mean at all. In fact, I don't condone making decisions that would negatively impact anyone without thorough evaluation. What I mean is simply this:

Don't be ashamed of your emotions and understand that it is your right to be upset or angry, just as much as it is your right to be happy or content. This does not entail making any decisions with transitive effects on other people. In fact, it does not entail making decisions at all. It simply means you acknowledge your feelings as natural and warranted reactions and feel free to practice them. I'm talking about the realm of your own ego, nothing greater. Not even to the point where you affect other people.


Your rationale is flawed though. One, I disagree that the natural response is always the most logical...

But you cannot. You forget that our natural bodies, outside the realm of our psyches, are essentially computers. Emotions are hardwired into us. They are not simply concepts that exist only in our minds, but manifest themselves in hormones and chemicals --physical truths. When we are bothered, we trigger these chemicals and hormones naturally, like a computer that is programmed to unconditionally perform Task A. So yes, the most natural response is the most logical, because it is an objective truth. It can be measured empirically, in precise numbers.

But maybe we're just misunderstanding each other. By "natural response", I don't mean a physical reaction--I just mean an emotional reaction as in being angry, or sad. What you choose to do with those emotions is entirely our prerogative and is different from person to person. And I agree, once again, that the most immediate //physical// response is rarely the most appropriate. But if it does not hurt anyone, crying doesn't seem like such a horrible option to me. Or venting to yourself or a close confidant.

Evil_Cake
04-27-2011, 12:54 PM
Um yeah that movie was brilliant

idk man i watched it in the movie theatre on this cruise ship and it didnt seem very good.

although i was sea sick at the time

jubeh
04-27-2011, 01:17 PM
You should watch it again while you're not sea sick.

Fenn
04-27-2011, 04:57 PM
I never said that, Fenn. You are twisting my words around very boldly, and I will now tell you why you are wrong: What happens when you are devoid of all emotion? Life becomes unbearable. You have no reason to live. You simply exist, without happiness or sadness. You have no motivation and only do things based on logic, yet logic is based on emotion, general welfare, and gratification. There is no logic without emotion. There is no human thinking without emotion. If I do a good job, I will possibly get a raise and live more happily. If my squad flanks left, we can defeat the enemy and go home alive, and happy (since we are alive).


First of all, other than my first sentence (which I will admit was incorrect and twisting your statement) I said nothing about denying emotions.


Well, if you were truly intelligent you would find out why they were being distant and talk to them about your feelings without harming them. Also, if your friends were smarter, they wouldn't have treated you in an ignoring manner. Your scenario is quite flawed, Fenn, so you'll have to try harder.

Yes, it's flawed, but it accurately demonstrated my point that emotions regarding a situation change after understanding and analyzing a situation. I can create a better example if you wish.


Verbal abuse is simply someone who cannot logically assess a situation. They feel they are wronged, and act out in an unpleasant manner upon an uncertainty. There is no point to getting angry or feeling unjust if there can be no good outcome, so you must, as Cyp said earlier, cope with these feelings, and try to deal with things in a logical manner that ensures general welfare.

Uh, yes? That's almost exactly the point I was trying to make earlier with my three step process. Hehe, I love miscommunications (on my end as well, admittedly).


I think you and Delphinus are treating emotion and logic as if they're mutually exclusive. You can practice both and still make healthy decisions. Actually, you both continually assume that respecting your own emotions automatically means making rash decisions based on impulse. That's not what I mean at all. In fact, I don't condone making decisions that would negatively impact anyone without thorough evaluation. What I mean is simply this:

Don't be ashamed of your emotions and understand that it is your right to be upset or angry, just as much as it is your right to be happy or content. This does not entail making any decisions with transitive effects on other people. In fact, it does not entail making decisions at all. It simply means you acknowledge your feelings as natural and warranted reactions and feel free to practice them. I'm talking about the realm of your own ego, nothing greater. Not even to the point where you affect other people.

Oh...that I agree with. 100%


But you cannot. You forget that our natural bodies, outside the realm of our psyches, are essentially computers. Emotions are hardwired into us. They are not simply concepts that exist only in our minds, but manifest themselves in hormones and chemicals --physical truths. When we are bothered, we trigger these chemicals and hormones naturally, like a computer that is programmed to unconditionally perform Task A. So yes, the most natural response is the most logical, because it is an objective truth. It can be measured empirically, in precise numbers.

But maybe we're just misunderstanding each other. By "natural response", I don't mean a physical reaction--I just mean an emotional reaction as in being angry, or sad. What you choose to do with those emotions is entirely our prerogative and is different from person to person. And I agree, once again, that the most immediate //physical// response is rarely the most appropriate. But if it does not hurt anyone, crying doesn't seem like such a horrible option to me. Or venting to yourself or a close confidant.

I totally thought you meant a physical reaction. Now I'm in complete accord with everything you said.

My later argument was an attempt to reveal the nature of verbal abuse in an attempt to convince, not force, others to feel less angry and more humored at the idea of verbal abuse, and to subsequently use this understanding to respond to it in a way that benefits them far more than an angry or depressed PHYSICAL response would.

It's my unpopular opinion that this kind of thinking is the key to ending verbal racism. Imagine if no one was ever offended by racist comments. Racists would be forced to take physical action (violence, prejudiced decision-making) against these people in order to harm them now, which is much more explicit and will more rapidly shun the racist from the rest of socitey. But that's my opinion. Also, other forms of racism are a totally different beast.

Hayashida
04-27-2011, 05:15 PM
One of my unpopular opinions: We should get rid of all wheelchair access ramps. It's not that I've got anything against handicapped people, I just hate standing on an angle.

Rio
04-27-2011, 07:07 PM
Dude, you should just invent auto-leveling shoes that'll work on ramps and make millions. ...Or not.

Hayashida
04-27-2011, 07:15 PM
my calves... They just can't take it.

Outcast
04-27-2011, 09:35 PM
Jump the ramp.

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 02:06 AM
No, they've all gotta go

butternut
04-28-2011, 02:08 AM
or use the stairs. Most places i've been, its usually stairs with a little area of the ramp for the handicapped.

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 02:10 AM
Stairs? You think I'm some kind of animal?

butternut
04-28-2011, 02:12 AM
As far as I know, even humans use stairs you know..

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 02:17 AM
ridiculous

butternut
04-28-2011, 02:32 AM
What age have you been living in, Haya?? Wait, have you become so engrossed in the execution of your murder that you took leave of your senses??

Quick someone get a doctor in here!!

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 02:34 AM
I just can't take standing on angles anymore

CypressDahlia
04-28-2011, 03:35 AM
More unpopular opinions:

Minecraft is friggin boring. Also, what's the point of building a house powered by redstone circuits if the circuit is twice the size of the house? It's more like building a convoluted circuit with a house attached to it.
Battle for Wesnoth sucks because ranged units don't actually have any range. I mean...for a game praised as one of the most strategically intense and intelligent TBS' available, how could they drop the ball so bad? Archers in this game are just melee units with make-believe "range" armor that makes them invulnerable to counterattacks. I guess that's all the makers of Wesnoth took away from the strategic value of ranged units as demonstrated by other great strategy games.
La Mulana and Eternal Daughter are nigh unplayable due to bad gameplay mechanics and clunky controls.

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 03:36 AM
Cypress, don't you hate standing on angles?

CypressDahlia
04-28-2011, 03:37 AM
Yes, actually.

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 03:43 AM
A recruit!

butternut
04-28-2011, 04:05 AM
Here's an opinion: Friends can never get boring. I mean the sitcom.

Delphinus
04-28-2011, 05:04 AM
Minecraft is friggin boring.

Interestingly, from a game design point of view Minecraft Beta is fairly close to perfect, balance issues aside. The reward it gives you is given very soon after you take the risk required to get it (diamonds are always near lava, etc), and how valuable a material is links directly back to how much effort it takes to get it. The problem arises in that how much people value creating a house or a monument of some kind varies - if they don't enjoy the end result enough for it to be worth the effort of gathering materials, then they'll be disappointed and won't like the game. Also, as you grow more experienced, the risk required declines, making the game easier and less fun (this is my situation). So I suppose if you like standing in some digital temple of doom and gloating over your might, then you'll like minecraft. If you have better things to put time and effort into, then you won't.

Apparently you have better things to do than play Minecraft. ;)

GunZet
04-28-2011, 05:06 PM
Minecraft is p. boring to me too. I would've found it godlike if it existed 8 years ago.

jubeh
04-29-2011, 12:01 AM
On one hand when I look at the city we built on the mt server I can't understand how nobody could see the value in our efforts.

On the other hand whenever somebody builds something rad in minecraft I assume they have no life.

You know what I mean.

Evil_Cake
04-29-2011, 12:24 AM
ya

CypressDahlia
04-29-2011, 02:43 AM
If the circuitry setup was a little more intuitive and circuits didn't take a city block to build, then I would be more into Minecraft.

jubeh
04-29-2011, 02:51 AM
That's fair but recently he added a repeater I believe and they are working on pistons.

wolfman
04-30-2011, 04:15 PM
The reward it gives you is given very soon after you take the risk required to get it (diamonds are always near lava, etc), and how valuable a material is links directly back to how much effort it takes to get it.
except the lapis lazuli its really rare but stupidly useless, unless you REALLY like the colour blue

Sylux
04-30-2011, 08:44 PM
Dude you have no clue how much I fucking love blue. It's like, almost purple. O_O

GunZet
05-01-2011, 05:55 PM
PlayStation was pretty cool without a network. Jubes was cooler when he drank real blood.

Fenn
05-02-2011, 09:44 PM
Unpopular opinion: It is possible to be simultaneously crude, aggressive, and even violent in nature while being just and charitable. There are enough "safe" outlets for violent aggression (contact sports, workouts, movies, video games) that one can express this side while remaining within the legal system and being a moral, logical, and even virtuous person.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
05-02-2011, 10:01 PM
- Led Zeppelin are the greatest band ever. Hands down. Its not The Beetles, come on. Zep are musically superiour in every way.
- The concept of marriage is probably the stupidest idea in the history of everything
- Marijuana, Mushrooms and blotter acid should be legalised.
- Watching child pornography should not be an arrestable offence
- Apocalypse Now is a better movie than The Godfather
- Women who cry rape, but later drop the charges due to no evidence, should be fired out of a cannon aimed in the general direction of Belarus.
- Fat people should not be allowed on airplanes
- Every MP should have to live in the empoverished areas of the country they claim to represent for 2 years before they are allowed to represent them.
- Anyone who doesnt agree that 'Just' by Radiohead is the greatest music video ever should be kicked between the legs till I deem they have had enough.

jubeh
05-02-2011, 10:10 PM
Just is an awesome video but iduno about greatest.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
05-02-2011, 10:14 PM
Ok, spread your legs...

Seriously though, if you can name me a better video, I'd like to see it.

CypressDahlia
05-02-2011, 10:55 PM
Wait, HoS, I'mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best music videos of all time.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-001-300x180.jpg

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
05-02-2011, 11:03 PM
Awh, I love you, Cyp.

Fenn
05-03-2011, 07:35 PM
Wait, HoS, I'mma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best music videos of all time.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-001-300x180.jpg

Hehehe...win.

Sylux
05-04-2011, 12:47 PM
- The concept of marriage is probably the stupidest idea in the history of everything


There are more legal advantages to having a legitimized life partner with whom you procreate than disadvantages.

Delphinus
05-04-2011, 01:12 PM
There are more legal advantages to having a legitimized life partner with whom you procreate than disadvantages.

how does this require marriage be given more rights than long-term partnerships of any sort

Sylux
05-04-2011, 01:37 PM
I never used the context of requirement, now did I? I just said that there are, not that there should be. HoS said that it's the worst idea ever, but I simply plugged in a fact, not a statement of agreement or disagreement. Now, would you like to debate on how bad an idea marriage is?

CypressDahlia
05-04-2011, 02:53 PM
TBH, I think our generation believes marriage is stupid because of how largely people fail at it. I'm sure if the divorce rate wasn't so high, people would think it was a little more respectable.

GunZet
05-04-2011, 03:04 PM
Marriage sucks
experience: Years of watching Married... with Children.

Psy
05-05-2011, 01:05 AM
Jackass is not funny. Tim and Erik is not funny but is gross and disturbing. Same goes for squidbillies and aqua teen hunger force.

If you dye your hair blonde you have to do the eyebrows to or you look stupid.

Evil_Cake
05-05-2011, 01:16 AM
If you dye your hair blonde you have to do the eyebrows to or you look stupid.
man thats not unpopular

Arashi500
05-05-2011, 11:48 AM
Cypress, divorce rates are so high now likely because now it's actually possible to get divorced and not look like a societal outcast. Historically speaking, I doubt marriages were happier in the olden days, and if those people had the option to get divorced and not seem disreputable I'm sure our rates would look insignificant.


OT: I don't believe gays should be allowed to get married, but not for the pregidous reasons, but for the same reasons I don't think aethiests should be allowed to marry. Because they do not belong to a religion that utilizes marriage and recognizes homosexual patnership (being gay and christian is such a self-destructive decision I can't comprehend it). I DO believe civil partnerships between any should have the same legal benefits that we give marriage though, and that the differences between marriage and civil union should be in name only.

Psy
05-05-2011, 12:13 PM
A marriage is not legal in America until it is recognized by the state. So even tho the idea of marriage is based on religion it has no legal merit if you only go through the church. Giving civil partnerships the same legal rights as marriage while nice defeats the point because it is then the same thing as marriage so why not call it what it is. It's a matter of right and wrong and not giving the same rights to gays and lesbians that straight people get is wrong.
It's not about being treated special it's about being treated equally.

Delphinus
05-05-2011, 01:15 PM
I DO believe civil partnerships between any should have the same legal benefits that we give marriage though, and that the differences between marriage and civil union should be in name only.

Why not just abolish marriage and replace it with civil unions? Marriage is only a word, after all.

GunZet
05-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Jackass is not funny. Tim and Erik is not funny but is gross and disturbing. Same goes for squidbillies and aqua teen hunger force.

If you dye your hair blonde you have to do the eyebrows to or you look stupid.
Jackass can be funny at times
Tim and Erik is fking retarded and as you said, gross and disturbing.
Squidbillies can be funny...but overall it sucks.
ATHF is disturbing, gross, and awesome. The best out of the selection.

Matt
05-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Rock fans will kill me for this unpopular opinion:

I don't like the band Disturbed.

I've looked for a reason, I've listened to every element of their songs, but I just couldn't figure it out. I like bands/composers like Limp Bizkit, Nightwish, Rise Against, Harry Gregson-Williams and Celtic Woman. With that variety, I thought it would make sense for me to like Disturbed, but I don't. They make good "angry" songs that I listen to when I'm writing a violent scene, but I never to them for fun, as I do with the groups above.

Also, on the stair thing from earlier, I find it very stupid that millions are being spent to make life guard towers handicap-accessible (can't remember where), when you can't be a lifeguard if you're handicapped.

I believe marriage can be a beautiful thing. People these days are too hasty in their decisions, though. When people say a couple fighting is a sign that they care about each other, I think they're full of crap. Fighting is discourse. Discourse leads to divorce. I think people should be a lot more careful in that sort of thing. High school relationships? Guy wants sex, bangs girl, separates after she becomes pregnant because, even though he might have THOUGHT he truly loved her, he doesn't want to bear the responsibility of a child, therefore dumping it all on the girl. And that's just at the high school level, but the same thing applies to the older age groups. People marry hastily without getting to know their partner, thus dooming any kids they've had to switching parents every week and watching their parents fight whenever they get together. The studies I've read have shown that children with divorced parents are a lot less likely* to succeed and a lot more likely to become delinquents, or some kind of prick in general. *LESS likely. Does not mean all the time. So those of you with divorced parents who want to challenge me, I rest my case.

Outcast
05-05-2011, 09:55 PM
What about us bastard kids?


On music I don't like slayer and metallica, I just find them so boring.

Arashi500
05-06-2011, 03:06 AM
Why not just abolish marriage and replace it with civil unions? Marriage is only a word, after all.

That being the core idea.

@Psy: I've just always considered the term marriage to defer to a unon of a man and a woman(as I have yet to hear of a religion that utilizes same-sex marriage as a concept, although there may be those don't speak against it outright), and if I was a ember of said religion, I would not want another couple being called something from our religion which our religion does not accept. I just understand this a plausible cause members of said religion would be offended by the notion of gay marriage, even if the individual offended is all for gay rights.

It's a little weird to put it into words, but I'm sure you get the point. The word "marriage" also just sounds unromantic IMHO.

I also don't like metallica.

Matt
05-06-2011, 10:08 AM
I like Nothing Else Matters. That aside, I find their vocals a bit boring. Old bands from the 80's and such--I GENERALLY don't like their vocals. Bon Jovi was an exception. I didn't like the AC/DC stuff with the impossibly high, screechy voices.

Gedeon
05-06-2011, 10:46 AM
Matt you dont like TnT QAQ? not even that?

Matt
05-06-2011, 12:03 PM
I like it in the same way I like certain Disturbed songs: mood music. If I feel like TnT, I'll listen to TnT, but it's definitely not my favorite. My general taste in music is in clear, unaltered voices (i.e. Celtic Woman, Kamelot) and good melodies (this, depending on your taste, could mean anything from AC/DC to Lady Gaga; for me it's Nightwish, etc.). But, mostly, I use music I don't generally like as background music when I write or draw. If I'm drawing a bunch of gangsters, I'll listen to rap, although I don't like the majority of the stuff.

I did a big search for instrumental AC/DC songs awhile back because I liked their guitar, but not their vocals. I couldn't find any in high quality.

I can't explain a lot of my tastes in music, but I'm working on it. I should read a philosophy about it sometime.

Sylux
05-06-2011, 12:46 PM
Cypress, divorce rates are so high now likely because now it's actually possible to get divorced and not look like a societal outcast. Historically speaking, I doubt marriages were happier in the olden days, and if those people had the option to get divorced and not seem disreputable I'm sure our rates would look insignificant.


OT: I don't believe gays should be allowed to get married, but not for the pregidous reasons, but for the same reasons I don't think aethiests should be allowed to marry. Because they do not belong to a religion that utilizes marriage and recognizes homosexual patnership (being gay and christian is such a self-destructive decision I can't comprehend it). I DO believe civil partnerships between any should have the same legal benefits that we give marriage though, and that the differences between marriage and civil union should be in name only.
A marriage is a legal bond of two humans that provides legitimate advantages to procreation and care of its products, not just a religious thing bro. I'm very excited to marry though I am a devout Sol worshipper (read: atheist) because of the legal benefits that my partner and I will receive for support of each other and the children we intend to have.


I like it in the same way I like certain Disturbed songs: mood music. If I feel like TnT, I'll listen to TnT, but it's definitely not my favorite. My general taste in music is in clear, unaltered voices (i.e. Celtic Woman, Kamelot) and good melodies (this, depending on your taste, could mean anything from AC/DC to Lady Gaga; for me it's Nightwish, etc.). But, mostly, I use music I don't generally like as background music when I write or draw. If I'm drawing a bunch of gangsters, I'll listen to rap, although I don't like the majority of the stuff.

I did a big search for instrumental AC/DC songs awhile back because I liked their guitar, but not their vocals. I couldn't find any in high quality.

I can't explain a lot of my tastes in music, but I'm working on it. I should read a philosophy about it sometime.

If you want a clear voice, listen to Metallica's S&M album. In concert James sings very nicely, cleanly and clearly because his voice needs to last for a good 20 songs or so. On albums he can record one song at a time if he so wishes, and using pitch editor they can fix it up so that the inaccuracy of rasping one's voice seems to disappear.

Delphinus
05-06-2011, 01:13 PM
A marriage is a legal bond of two humans that provides legitimate advantages to procreation and care of its products, not just a religious thing bro. I'm very excited to marry though I am a devout Sol worshipper (read: atheist) because of the legal benefits that my partner and I will receive for support of each other and the children we intend to have.

Not sure you're getting the difference between practicality and ideology. Marriage might be beneficial legally, but in practise it's just legitimised long-term cohabitation. Why should it be treated differently?

Sylux
05-06-2011, 01:52 PM
Not sure you're getting the difference between practicality and ideology. Marriage might be beneficial legally, but in practise it's just legitimised long-term cohabitation. Why should it be treated differently?

Differently from what?

Delphinus
05-06-2011, 02:13 PM
From long-term cohabitation. Why should it and marriage be distinct in law?

CypressDahlia
05-07-2011, 06:42 AM
Cypress, divorce rates are so high now likely because now it's actually possible to get divorced and not look like a societal outcast.

Yeah, I guess our values have changed. But doesn't that just means marriage is taken less seriously nowadays than it was? This, combined with its dismal success rate (which I'm sure that factors into), gives it a bad image. And that just results in a negative feedback loop. People take marriage less seriously, resulting in more divorces, which makes marriage seem even //less// serious, etc, etc.


Historically speaking, I doubt marriages were happier in the olden days.

I wasn't talking about like the Dark Ages, dude. I was talking about recently, comparing figures under nigh identical social and legal conditions. The divorce rate was "4,539 per 100,000 for males and 6,577 per 100,000 for females" (http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics) around the '80s. It is now "9,255 per 100,000 and 12,305 per 100,000 for women."


I don't believe gays should be allowed to get married...Because they do not belong to a religion that utilizes marriage.

Marriage was never a religious thing to begin with. Hell, back during its origins, marriage was little more than prostitution that lasted forever.


From long-term cohabitation. Why should it and marriage be distinct in law?

Because it is the choice of the couple to make their partnership legally binding. It's not unlike taking your backyard lemonade stand and making it into a real business. Once you sign that contract, you are held accountable for your partner forever.

Delphinus
05-07-2011, 10:19 AM
Because it is the choice of the couple to make their partnership legally binding. It's not unlike taking your backyard lemonade stand and making it into a real business. Once you sign that contract, you are held accountable for your partner forever.

For once I agree with you... mostly. ;)
Having some sort of legally-binding contract seems reasonable, but yeah, I don't think it's acceptable to make that only apply between a man and a woman or necessitate a romantic/sexual connection. Homosexual marriages should also, I feel, be allowed to occur, as should marriages between platonic life friends. Finally, the concept of monoamory is too ingrained in marriage for me, so I also feel people should be allowed to marry as many people as they like.

Arashi500
05-07-2011, 11:19 AM
Finally, the concept of monoamory is too ingrained in marriage for me, so I also feel people should be allowed to marry as many people as they like.

I agree here as well.

Fenn
05-07-2011, 11:34 AM
For once I agree with you... mostly. ;)
Having some sort of legally-binding contract seems reasonable, but yeah, I don't think it's acceptable to make that only apply between a man and a woman or necessitate a romantic/sexual connection. Homosexual marriages should also, I feel, be allowed to occur, as should marriages between platonic life friends. Finally, the concept of monoamory is too ingrained in marriage for me, so I also feel people should be allowed to marry as many people as they like.

Are you talking legally or personally regarding your last point? I'm not well-read in the legal benefits or implications of marriage, but allowing people to secure multiple binding contracts for marriages, hetero or homosexual, seems bound for abuse.

Marry whomever you wish, but I think you should only be allowed one contract. How many people you associate with sexually and romantically is your choice.

Delphinus
05-07-2011, 12:34 PM
Are you talking legally or personally regarding your last point? I'm not well-read in the legal benefits or implications of marriage, but allowing people to secure multiple binding contracts for marriages, hetero or homosexual, seems bound for abuse.

Marry whomever you wish, but I think you should only be allowed one contract. How many people you associate with sexually and romantically is your choice.

Personally: the benefits you'd gain would be identical to those you'd gain by marrying one person (although I'm not sure having benefits for married couples really serves any purpose other than as a conservative social policy), and in the event of a divorce, shared property would be divided according to the fraction of the estate a person is entitled to. In the case of a marriage involving 3 people, 1 of whom is married to both other people, any participant who got divorced from the central person would take 1/2 of the shared estate between them and the 'centre'. If all three wanted to share property rights equally, they'd have to all be married to one another.

Though this seems excessively complex: you'd probably need to rethink shared property to some extent to simplify the system.

Fenn
05-07-2011, 02:17 PM
Personally: the benefits you'd gain would be identical to those you'd gain by marrying one person (although I'm not sure having benefits for married couples really serves any purpose other than as a conservative social policy), and in the event of a divorce, shared property would be divided according to the fraction of the estate a person is entitled to. In the case of a marriage involving 3 people, 1 of whom is married to both other people, any participant who got divorced from the central person would take 1/2 of the shared estate between them and the 'centre'. If all three wanted to share property rights equally, they'd have to all be married to one another.

Though this seems excessively complex: you'd probably need to rethink shared property to some extent to simplify the system.

Yeah I'm not sure how it would work, or why we have benefits in the first place.

Renmazuo
05-07-2011, 02:40 PM
Why not just abolish marriage and replace it with civil unions? Marriage is only a word, after all.

Because it's longer. I hate when words become longer. :/
One is not 'blind', they're 'visually impaired', not 'disabled' but 'differently able' and so on and so forth. The reason for those is political correctness, but I still don't understand why changing something that works perfectly.

At least for us, in Italy, you have marriages in church and the ones in the municipality - the ones in the church still need to get recognition from the state, which kind of gives the impression that the marriage in the municipality is the legally recognised one.
That said, I'm not Christian nor I ever believed a piece of paper could make me love my SO more than I do... I'm planning to just put two signatures wherever I have to and then have a BBQ or something with my friends. :)

BBQ is shorter than marriage, too. I guess it could be a bit confusing to swap the two, though...

GunZet
05-07-2011, 02:56 PM
Love just isn't enough to bind I guess.
:monkey_piss:

Renmazuo
05-07-2011, 04:37 PM
Oh, no: it certainly is.

I just want a BBQ.

GunZet
05-07-2011, 04:38 PM
Why have a bbq when you could have a big ass party first......THEN a bbq.
I hate parties btw.

Japxican
05-07-2011, 07:39 PM
Well, my unpopular opinion of late is that carrots go really well with peanut butter. Preferably baby carrots and crunchy Kraft/Skippy peanut butter. Most people tend to look down on this wonderful combination of foods. In fact, I've tried peanut butter with raw broccoli and it's very good, too. And let's not forget the classic celery with peanut butter.

Fenn
05-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Well, my unpopular opinion of late is that carrots go really well with peanut butter. Preferably baby carrots and crunchy Kraft/Skippy peanut butter. Most people tend to look down on this wonderful combination of foods. In fact, I've tried peanut butter with raw broccoli and it's very good, too. And let's not forget the classic celery with peanut butter.

I'll have to try that. LOVE it with celery.

Japxican
05-07-2011, 07:46 PM
I'll have to try that. LOVE it with celery.

Oh, I recommend it for sure. You're gonna have to let me know what you think of it. :D

Arashi500
05-07-2011, 11:59 PM
I think mushrooms(not the narcotic kind, the store bought kind obviously) go great with Bullseye BBQ sauce.

CypressDahlia
05-08-2011, 06:19 AM
Having some sort of legally-binding contract seems reasonable, but yeah, I don't think it's acceptable to make that only apply between a man and a woman or necessitate a romantic/sexual connection. Homosexual marriages should also, I feel, be allowed to occur, as should marriages between platonic life friends. Finally, the concept of monoamory is too ingrained in marriage for me, so I also feel people should be allowed to marry as many people as they like.

I do support gay marriage, so I'm with you there. But platonic friends getting married defeats the purpose of marriage. Marriage binds your significant other to you; in a way, you stake a claim to them. It would be weird to say: "this person is my friend forever; nobody can be their friend but me." So, in a lot of ways, a "marriage" between platonic friends is not as binding as one between a couple, because the relationship cannot be enforced through the marriage. So, in turn, they can't be held as accountable as a couple.

And I don't mind monogamy, TBH. If the idea of marriage is to be an exclusive institution between two people who care enough to dedicate the rest of their lives to their relationship, it would defeat the purpose to be able to extend this offer to many people at once. That's like saying, "You are all my best friends." Or, "You are all the best basketball players". It defeats the purpose of classification.

Shinyy
05-12-2011, 03:03 PM
I seem to be the only one who prefers soft drinks(soda) to alcohol when given the option. I also don't see the point in weed, but thats probably because it doesn't really do anything for me other than make me giggle rather than laugh.

Lol you must have tasted some pretty shitty weed then.

Fenn
05-14-2011, 09:55 AM
I don't like drugs or alcohol because, even if they aren't proven to affect you long-term, they require some degree of surrendering your consciousness. I prefer to keep in control of my own body, thank you very much.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-14-2011, 10:17 AM
I don't like drugs or alcohol because, even if they aren't proven to affect you long-term, they require some degree of surrendering your consciousness. I prefer to keep in control of my own body, thank you very much.
What? They DO effect you in the log term.

Delphinus
05-14-2011, 02:04 PM
^ Depends on your degree of usage. Mild alcohol consumption has very few long-term effects: likewise with most 'hard' drugs right the way up to cocaine. IIRC 2 lines of coke a week is proven to only very rarely lead to long-term health damage. Of course, with some of the harder drugs, you're more likely to become physically addicted to them, so the chances of using them to a degree where they become harmful is higher.

But ultimately, the key to drug usage, as with most things, is moderation. And going anywhere near smack is a really stupid idea.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-14-2011, 11:31 PM
Depends on your degree of usage.
Fair enough.

Scarletlight
05-15-2011, 04:42 AM
after watching it , I can agree that just by radiohead is the best music video haha helarious.

hmm unpopular opinions, well heres some of the stuff I say at college that everyone hates to hear :

- alternative music is better then the charts stuff in many (but not all ) cases
- Call of duty sucks reasons :
they release them every 6 months with very little change
The campain modes of the newer ones suck because the designers now rely soley on the online content.
The online has no interesting element of game play.
Could be just a personal thing because I prefer story driven games and this one...well the story is equivalent to a small turd.
- RPGs are quality games but things like runescape are dull.
- People don't change
- ' you can do anything if you believe in your self ' is a lie
- Being right is generally more important than happyness.

Delphinus
05-15-2011, 07:37 AM
hmm unpopular opinions, well heres some of the stuff I say at college that everyone hates to hear

I agree with the first three, but the 4th and 5th are way too cynical. That is, they sound like the product of teen angst. Number 4: Of course people change. Most people aren't the same at 60 as they were at 20. Number 5 (is alive!): only if you don't have the skills necessary to do those things. But skills can be developed, and if you have the motivation, then of course you can succeed. Even in rare cases like "I want to be a celebrity", developing your networking and social skills, with the addition of some sort of mediocre talent and a little hard work, should make you into at least a B-lister. I mean, come on, do you really think most pop stars out there are any more talented than most kids who strum out a tune around campus?

Slurpee
05-17-2011, 05:33 PM
I miss Brock from Pokemon.
I think I'm the only one :(

Bacon_Barbarian
05-17-2011, 05:52 PM
You aren't. Trust me.

Evil_Cake
05-17-2011, 06:18 PM
trust that guy

Fenn
05-17-2011, 10:01 PM
1. Love is neither essential nor useless. It is a risk/reward.

2. People can survive either without love or with it and be truly happy, it just depends on the person. Both are free to debate and persuade the other side, but neither side should force the other to agree.

3. A universal language would be pretty cool.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-17-2011, 10:30 PM
3. A universal language would be pretty cool.

How is that a minority view?

Son44
05-18-2011, 06:49 AM
Unpopular with Americans, but most Europeans know it's true:

Socialism is glorious

Matt
05-18-2011, 08:45 AM
I'm not big on it, but actually, a lot of Americans think we should switch to socialism. Just not the majority.

A universal language would be nice. Then Pixiv would be easier to navigate.

Rio
05-18-2011, 11:05 AM
I don't think we should switch to socialism. It totally screws up the American foundation of "hard-work will lead to success". If everyone is getting hand-outs, we'll just become another lazy country that relies on others to pay for our way. It will be a sad day when this country turns into a bunch of entitled SOBs that can't stand on their own two feet. Btw, this isn't an attack on you. I just have a very decided opinion on socialism. :D

Delphinus
05-18-2011, 11:31 AM
That's the Fox News or 'American Idiot' opinion on socialism: it was observed to be the case in communist countries, but not socialist ones. There's practically no evidence to support the view that government benefits lead to a decrease in work. In addition, the American Dream, "hard work will lead to success" has never been true and never will be. It's insane that anyone still believes it after the Great Depression.

It's not like introducing free healthcare or whatever is going to turn everyone into man-children with entitlement issues. Acceptable, though, is the argument that socialism is basically a system that means all people are subjugated before those around them. Not that I mind charity, but socialism and communism are pretty much the government holding a knife to your throat and telling you to give money to complete strangers - completely spitting in the eye of freedom. Indeed, the founding fathers of America knew this and it's why they didn't introduce massively socialist systems in the constitution.

That giving out free things to people will lead to them becoming lazy is mere rhetoric: again, there's no evidence to support it. The problem only arises when people don't reap the benefits of their own work, which is only the case under a communist system where the state takes the vast majority of earnings as taxes.

Also, America is already fat, lazy, and stupid - what makes you think socialism would make it any worse?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- An unpopular opinion:

Communism: Subjugation to the state.
Capitalism: Subjugation to the corporations.
Authoritarianism: Subjugation to the Supreme Leader.
Socialism: Subjugation to other people.
Liberalism: Subjugation to 'humanity'.
Theocracy: Subjugation to religion.
Democracy: Subjugation to the masses.

ANARCHISM: FREEDOM.

Matt
05-18-2011, 12:57 PM
I agree with Rio on the socialism issue.


Also, America is already fat, lazy, and stupid - what makes you think socialism would make it any worse?
Probably what we've seen of socialist systems so far. Also, yes, more than half of America's population is overweight. As far as lazy and stupid go, that vastly depends on the person and can't be said as a generalization.

Rio
05-18-2011, 01:47 PM
That giving out free things to people will lead to them becoming lazy is mere rhetoric: again, there's no evidence to support it.

John Stossel on American Indians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ey_g4wOnw

There are two groups of American Indians -- those who receive money from government and those who do not. Guess who's doing better? Those who are not receiving money from government.

Delphinus
05-18-2011, 01:56 PM
One group. Various factors. Not evidence.

Also Fox News. No bias likely?

EDIT: fyi, income tax in Germany ranges up to 45%, and it has similarly high VAT (20% - the UK is 17.5% and was 15%). Inheritance tax - a commonly objected-to taxation here in the UK - ranges between 7 and 50%. Public spending is 43% of GDP. The result? Germany has the largest economy in Europe. That's hard statistical evidence - and it applies to a far larger territory than your Fox News report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

nya~

EDIT2: And the members of the European Union as a whole tend to be more socialist in their policies than the US. The European Union covers a land area of 1.7 million square miles; the U.S.A. has an area of 3.8 million square miles. The European Union's GDP is around $16,000,000 million - the US's is $14,000,000. It has under half the land mass yet its economy is larger. How is that not evidence for socialist policies generally being as, if not more, economically sound than capitalist ones?

nyan~ (http://nyan.cat/)

CypressDahlia
05-18-2011, 02:38 PM
English is pretty much a universal language.

Outcast
05-18-2011, 04:52 PM
John Stossel on American Indians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ey_g4wOnw

There are two groups of American Indians -- those who receive money from government and those who do not. Guess who's doing better? Those who are not receiving money from government.

"I watched a biased news video, I know everything about native american affairs."

Really?

Bacon_Barbarian
05-18-2011, 08:46 PM
Fox News? Rio? Really? NOOOO!!


English is pretty much a universal language.

This is getting to be a better and better point as the years go by.

CypressDahlia
05-18-2011, 08:56 PM
The arbitrary hate against the Fox News network is just about as undereducated as most of their reporters. Just saying. You know, Wolf Blitzer isn't their only newsman.

I have the same feelings about "I hate Obama", "I hate Bush" movements. You ask 9/10 teens why they think the way they do and they'll give you a blank stare. C'mon people, get off the bandwagon.

Sylux
05-18-2011, 08:59 PM
I think Fox is strange. It's nothing like... WAVY TV 10: Hampton Roads' News Broadcasting that's Always on Your Side.

Outcast
05-18-2011, 09:03 PM
I was commented on the video not on fox.

CypressDahlia
05-18-2011, 09:29 PM
Then what makes you assume the report is bias?

Fenn
05-18-2011, 11:07 PM
Communism: Subjugation to the state.
Capitalism: Subjugation to the corporations.
Authoritarianism: Subjugation to the Supreme Leader.
Socialism: Subjugation to other people.
Liberalism: Subjugation to 'humanity'.
Theocracy: Subjugation to religion.
Democracy: Subjugation to the masses.

ANARCHISM: Subjugation to the strongest, scariest SOB out there.

Fixed.

Delphinus
05-19-2011, 05:28 AM
That would be a strawmanning of anarchism. Bear in mind that anarchism doesn't necessarily mean 'total abolition of the state', just 'abolition of arbitrary authority'. It varies as to the degree that it would abolish the state; personally, I would argue for the minimisation of the state as a body that forces people to give up taxes and its transformation into a body that gives to the populace. I find socialism and communism objectionable because they attempt to force people into paying massive taxes and, in Bolshevik communism, to force them into believing certain things. My ideal state would be a body that only makes policies that are to the benefit of its citizens. All of them.

For example, instead of taxation, I'd prefer state-owned companies. The profit goes directly to the state to spend in the same way as taxes nowadays. A part of state funds would be put back into these companies to drive down prices of basic commodities like food by increasing production substantially - with the ultimate aim of both increasing employment (through expansion of state-owned companies) and decreasing the price of basic resources required for survival. Likewise, unnecessary laws like those regarding drug use would be abolished - they cost obscene amounts to enforce while persecuting victimless crimes, and the amount of money that could be made from controlling and selling them - again, through state-owned companies - would be beneficial in other areas of policy, like increasing the funds available to healthcare for example. It would also lower crime rates; if drugs are cheaply and legally available, then criminal organisations that make their profit from selling drugs would see their profits sharply decrease; they'd shrink.

Son44
05-19-2011, 06:06 AM
I don't think we should switch to socialism. It totally screws up the American foundation of "hard-work will lead to success". If everyone is getting hand-outs, we'll just become another lazy country that relies on others to pay for our way. It will be a sad day when this country turns into a bunch of entitled SOBs that can't stand on their own two feet. Btw, this isn't an attack on you. I just have a very decided opinion on socialism. :D

It's funny that even with the "Arbeit Macht Frei" atitude of the US, The US government spends more money on Public Welfare than all of the Scandinavian countries together, except Sweden. I live in Norway and in American eyes we're basicly handing out cash.

So, why doesn't our system collaps? Why aren't there 3 million people sitting on their asses doing nothing?

I have two possible answers:

1. Fewer people
2. Better system

Number one sounds plausible, but it isn't. Yes, our population is smaller than the US, but our economy is much smaller. We have fewer recources and a much smaller labour force. Take the GDP of Norway, Danmark, Iceland and Finland and we still can't reach the US.

Number two is two is the most plausible. In the USA, if you're poor, you can choose betwen getting 500 dollars from the state or work at Mc Donalds for 10 - 15 dollars pr hour. It's very obvious what you would choose. In Norway you earn 20 - 25 dollars pr hour. There is also less difference between what a lawyer earns and what a guy working in a store earns.

I won't go further into this because it'll just end up as a "Socialism vs Capitalism - State vs Corporations"

So the answere in THIS case; Socialism itself isn't the problem, it's the way you execute it

Edit:


For example, instead of taxation, I'd prefer state-owned companies. The profit goes directly to the state to spend in the same way as taxes nowadays. A part of state funds would be put back into these companies to drive down prices of basic commodities like food by increasing production substantially - with the ultimate aim of both increasing employment (through expansion of state-owned companies) and decreasing the price of basic resources required for survival.

Funfact - Statoil is run like that

Rio
05-19-2011, 12:08 PM
Fox News? Rio? Really? NOOOO!!lol I watch whatever news channel has interesting content from local news channels, Fox News, CNN, BBC, Euro News, etc. For the record: I am neither red nor blue (political affiliation for those who don't get it).

@ Delph
Give me a break - everyone is biased not just Fox News. It's all a matter of taking in information, assessing it, and forming your own opinions. As far as I'm concerned, if you're turned off by a news channel just because you think they're biased - then you're doing yourself a disservice because you're closing off a possible news source. What they spout may be true and it may be false but YOU should be the one to decide that.

You say one example isn't enough but medical studies are usually based on one study and the results usually sway public opinion. I do agree that another study should be done just to make it fair (to disprove the original study or to help it) but evidence is evidence regardless.

Anyways, TL;DR any of the other posts so no more replies. :D

CypressDahlia
05-19-2011, 01:03 PM
Delphinus, vehicular manslaughter does, indeed, have a victim.

Also, I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but in my current situation it suits me best to not have to worry about everyone else. I'm starving, for chrissakes. >=[

Scarletlight
05-19-2011, 03:27 PM
I agree with the first three, but the 4th and 5th are way too cynical. That is, they sound like the product of teen angst. Number 4: Of course people change. Most people aren't the same at 60 as they were at 20. Number 5 (is alive!): only if you don't have the skills necessary to do those things. But skills can be developed, and if you have the motivation, then of course you can succeed. Even in rare cases like "I want to be a celebrity", developing your networking and social skills, with the addition of some sort of mediocre talent and a little hard work, should make you into at least a B-lister. I mean, come on, do you really think most pop stars out there are any more talented than most kids who strum out a tune around campus?

Glad to find someone that shares my views with the first three. About the cynicism...guess thats just me all over haha.
Make some valid points about number 4.
With 5, yeah its possible to become a celebrity.. just gotta handle the networking and similar in the right ways, don't even need any real skill or intelect. But to say anything can be achieved is inaccurate in my opinion. Although many things can be achieved with hard work, many things cant just because of restrictions that society has. Speaking from english society atleast. For example aslong as society is as is I could never become king of england. Cant marry into royal family without coming from amazing background.


since were talking about the state now :

Control of companies by the state does have its advantages like Delph said but those advantages all assume the state will always act in interests of the majority. Giving the state control over companies ontop of the control it already has will give them pretty much absolute power of the people. Problem is , is the state gauranteed to use the money they gain from corporation to represent the majority or will they persue their own interests ? If they do you might see a large ammount of inequality start to rise which is ofcourse bad.

But I suppose if the state own corporation they don't have to worry about corporate crimes costing the country millions. And I having corporations owned by the state means majority of people work for the state which does create a sense of unity among the people in some small way. Dont really have a definitive opinion here, can see both sides.

Delphinus
05-19-2011, 04:55 PM
Delphinus, vehicular manslaughter does, indeed, have a victim.

We have a habit of not outlawing things based on possible scenarios for a good reason. Drink driving and drug driving are already offenses, and to say that the mere possibility of killing someone by driving while stoned or high justifies the illegality of those substances is a platitude. By owning a cook's knife I could choose to butcher someone. By having any freedom whatsoever I could choose to throttle someone. Unless you want to restrict those freedoms based on the possibility of me performing those actions your argument is totally insane.


Funfact - Statoil is run like that

Winning.

Scarletlight
05-19-2011, 06:20 PM
We have a habit of not outlawing things based on possible scenarios for a good reason. Drink driving and drug driving are already offenses, and to say that the mere possibility of killing someone by driving while stoned or high justifies the illegality of those substances is a platitude. By owning a cook's knife I could choose to butcher someone. By having any freedom whatsoever I could choose to throttle someone. Unless you want to restrict those freedoms based on the possibility of me performing those actions your argument is totally insane.



Winning.

Huh, an arguement iv never thought of before. Makes sense to me on one hand. But killing people is generally illegal.

What I mean is just like drink driving is illegal because of the danger, as is throttling people. Though I see your point certain freedoms can't be out lawed for safety or there would be nothing that was legal. But things such as drink driving are unneccasary and dangerous which is why they are illegal as opposed to throttling people. A chef owning Cooks knives is a neccasary part of the job and this is why the act is permitted. Dont know whether things being that way is good or not though..

Delphinus
05-19-2011, 06:36 PM
No, I think drink-driving laws are perfectly okay - they're pretty much 'reckless endangerment'. But using the possibility that someone might take drugs and drive as an excuse to outlaw drugs is ridiculous; taking drugs in itself endangers nobody but oneself, unlike drink-driving where there's obvious risk being posed to others.

Scarletlight
05-20-2011, 07:02 AM
Oh no in that case I agree with you. Thats a terrible reason for making drugs illegal.

I always figured the reason was just public reaction. Majority ( or at least those whos opinion is considered in these things ) have negative attitudes toward the illegal drugs and accociate them with violence and general deviance which is why they are illegal. Would also explain why smoking is legal whilst Weed for example is not. Smoking is for some reason considered more acceptable ( and was even fashionable in the past ) than weed.

Making drugs illegal because of the potential to do damage would mean alchohol should be illegal.

Son44
05-20-2011, 08:17 AM
Oh no in that case I agree with you. Thats a terrible reason for making drugs illegal.

I always figured the reason was just public reaction. Majority ( or at least those whos opinion is considered in these things ) have negative attitudes toward the illegal drugs and accociate them with violence and general deviance which is why they are illegal. Would also explain why smoking is legal whilst Weed for example is not. Smoking is for some reason considered more acceptable ( and was even fashionable in the past ) than weed.

Making drugs illegal because of the potential to do damage would mean alchohol should be illegal.

Thats the problem with democracy....

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Scarletlight
05-20-2011, 11:27 AM
Thats the problem with democracy....

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
- Thomas Jefferson

yup it is a problem.. i mean
democracy - a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. By definition a democracy which fails to take into consideration the views of the 49th % is not a democracy.

Rio
05-20-2011, 12:09 PM
By definition a democracy which fails to take into consideration the views of the 49th % is not a democracy.I laugh at that. What happens when the 49% is heard but not the 51%? My unpopular view:
Religious objects should be allowed to be posted in public buildings. The public = everyone. Everyone is comprised of people who have religions and those who do not. Libraries and schools are being sterilized of anything associated with religion which is a real shame considering that the public majorly have some kind of religious affiliation. I see libraries not being allowed to post a menorah or a Christmas tree. Even if all major religions are represented - someone will cry and spit that they shouldn't be displayed. And these public officials running public buildings comply. Why is that? It's totally backwards! It reeks of intolerance and takes away the opportunity to educate people about other beliefs (or no beliefs in a deity) and having an open mind.

Sylux
05-20-2011, 12:32 PM
I'm thinking about sueing the public school system on the grounds of promoting Druidry as an official religion.

Kodos
05-20-2011, 01:35 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/The_Mystery_of_the_Druids_Coverart.jpg

Lucy
05-20-2011, 03:16 PM
Just had to, didn'tcha Kodos.

ClockHand
05-20-2011, 03:48 PM
I laugh at that. What happens when the 49% is heard but not the 51%? My unpopular view:
Religious objects should be allowed to be posted in public buildings. The public = everyone. Everyone is comprised of people who have religions and those who do not. Libraries and schools are being sterilized of anything associated with religion which is a real shame considering that the public majorly have some kind of religious affiliation. I see libraries not being allowed to post a menorah or a Christmas tree. Even if all major religions are represented - someone will cry and spit that they shouldn't be displayed. And these public officials running public buildings comply. Why is that? It's totally backwards! It reeks of intolerance and takes away the opportunity to educate people about other beliefs (or no beliefs in a deity) and having an open mind.

There is quality on the opinions, and doing it quantitative its a mistake.
Example: there is a project to make a hydroelectric in the south (in here). Most people agree to have more energy, but the people who live in there oppose this (and for good reasons, because in the south we have the biggest forests and green protected zones, having a hydroelectric means part of the destruction of this).
The who have more power on their opinions? the people who live in there or the people who doesn't?

Sadly politic needs to be a consensus of Political agents with the people, things that are not in a Capitalist system and is tried to be done in a socialist.


Socialists FTW!!!

Delphinus
05-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Rio, the reason they don't post religious icons in publically-owned buildings is because of this little thing known as the separation of church and state. I mean, I know the constitution isn't very popular in the Union of Slavery and Ambition but really.

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 04:12 PM
But using the possibility that someone might take drugs and drive as an excuse to outlaw drugs is ridiculous...

I can see where this is headed. If you want to hear me debunk this argument a second time, I recommend you read the Weed thread again. Srsly.

But really, would you propose that we live in a society where it's illegal to own a kitchen knife? Or where it's illegal to use your hands? C'mon, Delphinus, have some sense. The illegality of drugs is balanced out with the practicality of their use. Unlike our kitchen knives and our hands, drugs (non-medicinal) hardly have any practical use, therefore it doesn't "hurt" to tightly regulate them for safety's sake. And please, let's not bring up television or cars again because all of those things are rather essential to living.

Besides, drugs themselves actively raise the possibility of death. I don't remember kitchen knives or hands ever impairing my judgement to the point where I would kill someone accidentally. Heat of Passion is one thing, but I never look at my hands, feel a little woozy, climb in my car and accidentally run over someone. C'mon, man, srsly.


And having religious symbols posted in public facilities essentially doesn't violate the separation of Church and State, Delphinus. The separation of Church and State exists so that we can't make crazy laws based on what "the spirits of our ancestors" told us.

ClockHand
05-20-2011, 04:20 PM
Maybe in the future kitchen knifes are going to be banned, and we are going to be forced to use those chopping machines.

Delphinus
05-20-2011, 04:31 PM
It violates the spirit of Church and State seperation. If the State is secular, then it should attempt to be seen as secular. Allowing religious symbols to be shown in public buildings is misleading at best and liable to cause proselytising in town halls at worst.

The fact that drugs have no practical use is immaterial, if we consider them as a form of entertainment. And endangering oneself, last time I checked, wasn't a crime. For fuck's sake, we don't send failed suicides to prison, so raising one's own chance of death slightly is hardly the sort of thing that needs to be made a crime.

But ultimately, if you want to be consistent with drug policies, either you need to ban all of them except perhaps caffeine or you need to make them all legal. On the one hand we value safety; on the other we value freedom of choice and individual empowerment. Is it better to die on your feet or live on your knees?

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 04:46 PM
Endangering oneself, I have reserved opinions about because some people just don't have the self-control to overcome substance abuse (again, read Weed thread). But actively endangering others is what I'm addressing. Also, you don't think we have plenty of individual empowerment as of now? Westboro Baptist Church exists, and we can't legally lay a finger on them. But, like I said, drugs are, by nature, conducive of poorly judged actions. That's the one thing about them in particular.

Delphinus
05-20-2011, 05:04 PM
They might be conducive to them, but they don't force bad decisions. Those are entirely the choice of the person in question regardless of how drunk that person is. Also the choice to take drugs in a certain environment is a choice of the individual. Like I said, drugs might make people more likely to make stupid decisions, but until those stupid decisions are actually made, that's immaterial. Love makes people do stupid things (knife the adulterer) but we don't prosecute love itself, we prosecute the foolish actions taken under the influence.

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 05:11 PM
I don't think you fully understand what I mean by "conducive". I mean like, CHEMICALLY ALTERING things in your brain and endocrine system to such degrees that you could vomit immediately after a single consumption and feel woozy within minutes.

Delphinus
05-20-2011, 05:28 PM
Then take it in circumstances where you're unlikely to take a stupid course of action as a consequence. Have someone watch you. It's still not the drugs you ultimately want to defend against.

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 05:53 PM
Yeah, actually, it is. lol. No matter what precautions we take, nothing will change the fact that consumption of drugs is harmful to your body and equally harmful to your judgement. And not just on the level of "temptation", either, unlike fatty foods or lazy habits, but through hard chemistry. They are the source of the problem.

What you're saying is: murder is not bad as long as we have law enforcement. No, the point of law enforcement is to stop murder because murder is inherently bad. It doesn't get any better just because we have people to stop it from happening. Likewise, no matter what precautions we take, (most) drugs are inherently harmful.

Delphinus
05-20-2011, 06:06 PM
They are harmful to oneself. You are proposing that we protect people from potential harm that they consent to on the grounds that you believe that taking drugs is 'bad'. Didn't that strike you as a little authoritarian?

To run with the murder analogy, it's more like if watching violent films put you at increased risk of murdering someone. Would you ban those violent films? Of course not, that would be insane - the act of murder is criminal, not the risk factors that might cause it. Preventative law is as misled as preventative war.

CypressDahlia
05-21-2011, 01:39 AM
They are harmful to oneself.

No, they are harmful to everyone around you in that they CHEMICALLY increase the chances of some shit going down. We're talking hard chemistry, not by whim of temptation. Drugs affect everyone in a similar, chemical way. Whereas watching a violent movie would only affect someone who go the temptation to kill, or was inspired by the movie, or whatever. That's not the case with the majority of people (obv.). But if you observe cases of alcohol-related deaths, most of them are accidents. In other words, a lack of murderous intent. You don't have to be a killer to kill someone cuz you're fucked up. That, sir, is the effect of drugs.

But I admit that my analogy was badly phrased. My laptop was running out of batteries and I was in a hurry to post. What I meant is: murder is bad. Murder kills people. Likewise, drugs are bad and increases the risks of fatal accidents. What you're saying, though, is that we should blame drug-related deaths on the circumstance (like not having responsible friends around). That's like saying we should blame murder on cops because they couldn't stop it when truly the murderer and the act of murder are to blame.

But hey, I actually don't think our current drugs should be banned. I think they're okay, in moderation. I only brought that argument to call a bluff in the Weed thread. So we really have no debate here anyway. I just disagree that drugs are not the source of the problem.

Scarletlight
05-21-2011, 03:19 AM
I laugh at that. What happens when the 49% is heard but not the 51%?

what happens is we again have a fake democracy. Which is why democracy in the form we currently have it will never bring complete equality. Only the legitimization of one groups views over the other. Not that I can suggest anything better

Alexander_Hamilton
05-21-2011, 05:07 AM
I laugh at that. What happens when the 49% is heard but not the 51%? My unpopular view:
Religious objects should be allowed to be posted in public buildings. The public = everyone. Everyone is comprised of people who have religions and those who do not. Libraries and schools are being sterilized of anything associated with religion which is a real shame considering that the public majorly have some kind of religious affiliation. I see libraries not being allowed to post a menorah or a Christmas tree. Even if all major religions are represented - someone will cry and spit that they shouldn't be displayed. And these public officials running public buildings comply. Why is that? It's totally backwards! It reeks of intolerance and takes away the opportunity to educate people about other beliefs (or no beliefs in a deity) and having an open mind.
Whaaat? No. The problem with putting religious stuff on public buildings is because it implies that the state is supporting one religion over another. Ben 'inclusive' in this case almost always means that it is majority strutting their stuff, looking down their noses at minorities that aren't like them and are therefore have to play by their rules.

The Ten commandments on a public school or courthouse is essentially saying:
"Hey you! Atheist, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan! Screw you! The law and this country belong to us. Sure, if you're not CHristan you can come here...but you don't truly belong here. You aren't a legitimate part of the government or this community. This government belongs to the Christians; we're merely tolerating your presence because we are soooo generous."

Putting a religious symbol on a public building is, 99% of the time, territory marking. If someone wants to express their religion, they can do so on the street, at home, at church. Why go out of their way to stick it on public buildings if it isn't a big middle finger to everyone that doesn't share their religion, or to imply that their religion is the official one?

Governments should never promote one religion over the other. It can be reasonable argued that holiday displays which are open to any faith or group are fine, or that Christmas trees have become secular. But in the majority of cases, it is a blatant, Christian-only display.

The Christian majority slapping their symbols on everything that belongs to the public is not promoting tolerance of ANYBODY. And later on, someone will point to that cross on that courthouse and say, "See? This government is based on Christian principles and Christian values. We should use public funds to promote it, and we should make laws based on it. And if you're not a Christian, shut up and deal or get out."

Kodos
05-21-2011, 07:28 AM
Hammy put it well. Additionally, I think we need to examine what religions teach too. Christianity is a religion that says it is morally acceptable to torture someone in what are literally the worst ways possible for what is literally forever. Do we want our government to promote an ideology that promotes eternal torture?

The most I think that should be done is around major holidays celebrated by a major segment of the population is maybe some sort of generic "Happy Holidays" thing of some sort. Keep it vague and generic. And while that may be appropriate in some areas, in places like courthouses and other "serious" government buildings, even that would be unacceptable I feel.

And as an aside, yeah. I'd argue we should take steps to just make the final push towards making Christmas secular as we have Thanksgiving. Plus Christmas is an awesome holiday. Give/receive gifts and decorate a tree with awesome little figures? Fuck yeah!

Fenn
05-21-2011, 10:30 AM
The spontaneous entrance of Alexander Hamilton into this thread makes it win.

As far as drugs are concerned, I think the best solution is to legalize all drugs, and greatly increase the penalty of every crime which is proven to have been influenced by drugs or alcohol. I'd argue any (proven) drug-related cause for a crime or misdemeanor-- be it assault, DUI, etc--should have mandatory jail time without bail (and not just a week) and full compensation for any damage or inconvenience caused.

In addition, the wrappers or packaging for any legally produced drugs (alcohol, weed, etc) should have these criminal warnings in big bold print by law. Then everyone who chooses to take any drug is essentially saying they are certain they will not commit any crime.

If they do, we punish them so hard they won't even think about a repeat offense.


And as an aside, yeah. I'd argue we should take steps to just make the final push towards making Christmas secular as we have Thanksgiving. Plus Christmas is an awesome holiday. Give/receive gifts and decorate a tree with awesome little figures?

I say we do just that, but we change the name and meaning. Holly Day maybe? Then we can go around saying "Happy Holly Day!" And the themes would be new life, charity, and new beginnings (a good prep for new years).

Fenn
05-21-2011, 10:33 AM
Double post.

CypressDahlia
05-21-2011, 02:46 PM
what happens is we again have a fake democracy. Which is why democracy in the form we currently have it will never bring complete equality.

I'm sorry, but if you think something is 'fake' because it can never accomplish an impossible ideal, then I risk it to say your standards are way too high.


And, again, I don't see what's wrong with every religion being publicly represented, as long as they're represented equally, or as equally as possible. Of course you can't get someone to fly the Hebrew flag in Church, but you an get them to tolerate it. And the only way to build tolerance is through desensitization, not sheltering. How the hell are we going to get over our hate, contempt or just outright fear of other religions and people if we just harbor those emotions and let them boil? Tolerance comes through education and exposure. This is the same reason that racism still exists in America: fear, sheltering and an unwillingness to learn and accept.

And Kodos, c'mon, man, srsly. I know you hate the Bible, but hating Christianity because of the Bible is just as ludicrous as you say believing in it is. You are hating a religious demographic based on hearsay and make believe written by 2000 year old monks. Yeah, so God //hypothetically// killed tons of people, so what. It's a story. It's not like Christians these days are going around killing hundreds of people on a whim. Chill out. Yeah, there are some horrible STORIES being told, but that doesn't mean everyone accepts them as truths, adopts them as values and puts said values into practice.

Kodos
05-21-2011, 03:52 PM
Your right. Modern day Christians don't believe in Hell. Modern day Christians don't try to pass hateful legislature against homosexuals and women. Modern Christians don't try and turn America into a theocracy. Modern Christians don't wage wars in the Middle East. You're right. I'm sorry. I apologize.

EDIT: And, of course, modern Christians most certainly do not teach these things to children, causing them to have serious issues regarding their sexuality and guilt. That definitely never happens. There are no young men and women in America being brought up to believe it is a sin to masturbate, or that pre-marital sex is evil. There are no young people in America being taught that their homosexuality or bisexuality - a core part of who they are - is something evil, sick, and diseased. There are no young transpeople in America being taught that they are their genitals and that their feelings and identity are illnesses.

EDIT 2: And yes, let's represent every single religion equally. I agree. How many religions in America are practiced? This is certainly a feasible and realistic idea. There's no way there are waaay too many religions to make this idea possible. None at all!

Delphinus
05-21-2011, 04:18 PM
I know you hate the Bible, but hating Christianity because of the Bible is just as ludicrous as you say believing in it is.

Hating a religion based on its holy book? Holy crap, that's almost as illogical as hating the KKK based on their bestselling book "How To Lynch Blacks"!

Kodos
05-21-2011, 04:27 PM
Del, just because a group of people define themselves around an ideology, and that ideology is fucking reprehensible, doesn't mean that this group of people are reprehensible. I mean, it's not like they define themselves around that ideology.

CypressDahlia
05-21-2011, 08:17 PM
Kodos, those things you mentioned above are true of //some// (few, actually) Christians. Delphinus, it's ironic that you bring up the KKK as saying "modern day Christians are all accountable for the actions of extremists and overzealous evangelists" is equally judgmental and absurd. lol. Yes, obviously the average Christian is waging wars in the Middle East, turning America into a theocracy and being hateful towards gays! And apparently gay Christians are a myth, Christians that masturbate are purely hearsay and Christians that engage in pre-marital sex don't exist! Dude, c'mon, srsly.

Not only are you being extremely judgmental, but you are superimposing things that happened in the Bible (book of make believe) onto random people. Just because it happened in the Bible, every Christian is guilty of believing and condoning it, amirite? Because God murders people, every Christian is okay with murder, right? I think you need to lay off the Psalm 14. You've been in that thread so long that it's going to your head (and why wouldn't it? You basically bait religious people into posting with judgmental and outright insulting topic titles).


Also, representing every religion wouldn't be all that hard. It's really just dependent on the degree of representation. Of course, we're not going to erect a statue of Jesus in every school hallway. For some people, representing personal ideas and values is as simple as hanging up an ornament or buying a bumper sticker. /shrug

Kodos
05-21-2011, 10:23 PM
Not only are you being extremely judgmental, but you are superimposing things that happened in the Bible (book of make believe) onto random people.
Random people who claim to base their lives around this book. You are an idiot and being deliberately obtuse. I'm not even going to bother addressing anything else you said because this quote right here sums it up perfectly. Disliking Christianity and as a result disliking Christians is in no way, shape, or form random. And yes, I am being judgmental. When I see evil and ignorance, I do not shirk from calling it out.

Also there are over 4,200 religions off-hand listed on Adherents.org. I'd like to see how a public building can equally honor each and every one of these religions without creating a spending and logistics nightmare. I eagerly await your explanation.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-22-2011, 12:16 AM
Random people who claim to base their lives around this book. You are an idiot and being deliberately obtuse. I'm not even going to bother addressing anything else you said because this quote right here sums it up perfectly. Disliking Christianity and as a result disliking Christians is in no way, shape, or form random. And yes, I am being judgmental. When I see evil and ignorance, I do not shirk from calling it out..
And you aren't? Cyp is being quite succinct. How many of the millions of Christians in this country follow everything said in the Bible? When was the last time someone was killed in America for handling a pigskin? Hmmm? You can't blame stupid, otherwise sweet people for being controlled by malicious and charismatic individuals.

CypressDahlia
05-22-2011, 02:16 AM
Random people who claim to base their lives around this book.

I guarantee you that most Christians these days don't even bother to read the Bible, lol. None of the Christians I know have read it in its entirety, nevertheless "base their lives" around it. I know a girl who loves God, but also loves gays, different religions and tolerance.


You are an idiot and being deliberately obtuse.

Great argument.


Disliking Christianity and as a result disliking Christians is in no way, shape, or form random.

Disliking Christians because of the actions of nonexistent characters in an ancient storybook is pretty random. Assuming that all Christians believe and condone these actions is an even greater stretch.


And yes, I am being judgmental. When I see evil and ignorance, I do not shirk from calling it out.

Oh, the irony.


I eagerly await your explanation.

Being represented is about having your identity acknowledged, which can be as simple as buying a bumper sticker. Also, I doubt there are 42 hundred recognized and formally practiced religions here in the United States.

Superdooperphailmachine
05-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Cyp, that ",lol." thing you keep doing is fucking irritating. Please stop it.

CypressDahlia
05-22-2011, 01:58 PM
I would just advise you stop reading my posts. lol.

Besides, why //are// you reading my posts? I don't remember ever talking to you--like literally ever. o_O Who are you?

Superdooperphailmachine
05-22-2011, 02:50 PM
I am, lol. Superdooperphailmachine, Lol. And I am reading the posts, lol. Because I like reading these stupid debates, lol.

Alexander_Hamilton
05-22-2011, 03:17 PM
No whining please.

CypressDahlia
05-22-2011, 05:34 PM
What she said. If it's your own prerogative to read them, don't whine about it.

srsly, you're going to come into a debate thread for the sole purpose of criticizing the way I type? GG, dude.

Delphinus
05-22-2011, 08:05 PM
I guarantee you that most Christians these days don't even bother to read the Bible, lol. None of the Christians I know have read it in its entirety, nevertheless "base their lives" around it. I know a girl who loves God, but also loves gays, different religions and tolerance.

Then why call herself a Christian? If you just make Christianity about being nice and baking cookies for the village fête, then what's the point? Just say you worship a Supreme Being and leave it there. "Herp derp I'm going to ignore 90% of what this religion is about and still claim to be a member of it. Excuse me while I go boil my face, herpy derp derp."

----------------------------------------

On a TOTALLY DIFFERENT note and in another unpopular opinion, Satanism is pretty rad. Though I would never join any sort of Satanist church; most of the followers seem like a bunch of douchebags who are just trolling Christians. Discordianism is pretty cool though, thanks Kodos, hail Eris, Kallisti, 23, etc.

In another religious unpopular opinion, I think self-deification may be the best possible religion. Basically, all you fuckers kneel down and worship me.

EDIT: Pretty good symbol for the Sect of Apotheosis:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Fountain_of_Eternal_Life_crop.jpg

Rio
05-22-2011, 08:55 PM
@ Hammie

How does it imply that the government supports one religion over the other? Sure, the government may fund schools and libraries, but again how does that say that the GOVERNMENT supports ONE religion? I said equal representation of religions. I said schools and libraries. I did NOT say other government institutions like courthouses or other similar buildings. Schools and libraries are educational places meant to teach people. Tolerance is one of them. As Cyp said, if you take away any chance of understanding, you will just breed fear, intolerance and down-right hate.

Say someone displays a Christmas tree, a menorah, and the kwanzaa kinara, where is there anything about "My religion is better than yours" anywhere?* How the hell is it territory marking??? (First time I heard that phrase) They represent the major religions that make up the general population. (Sorry, don't know if there is something for Ramadan and unfortunately, athiests have nothing) Just as long as someone biased DOES NOT try to push their belief on you (teacher, librarian or otherwise) and no ONE religion is represented by itself, why can't there be anything religious displayed in these institutions? Because of this whole separation of church and state? Fine, don't display anything at courthouses, Congress, and so on because they actually have to make laws and important decisions but to take them away in EDUCATIONAL places like schools and libraries where things like this SHOULD be talked about - it's like pissing on the people of this country. It's like saying "Got a religion? You can talk and show it anywhere else but here - screw you, you can't do it!" Is that not a form of censorship? Isn't that against the Freedom of Speech that this country likes to tout so much? As far as I see it, as long as religious objects are not allowed in schools and libraries, it's as unjust as saying gay people can't get married.

* You know, somethings wrong with anyone who feels threatened just by looking at a religious symbol whether it's inane like Santa, the star of david, or more specific things like the 10 Commandments and to take even further to the point that they feel oppressed by it, that they're being hounded to follow that religion - Hammie, I don't know if that was just an example or your own view, but religion isn't the problem - it's usually the fanatics and extremists that take it to such an unacceptable level (and annoyingly persistent missionaries D: ). And not just people with religions- atheists can get downright fanatical too (not aimed at you Kodos and anyone else who are atheists). Just keeping it fair by representing everyone - religion and no religion alike.


--------------------

"Then why call herself a Christian?"

People can call themselves anything as long as they feel they have an affiliation with it. It doesn't matter if they actually follow it or are it 100%. For example, for the Census, you may choose your race. If you are of mixed blood, you choose one that you felt more affinity for.

Unpopular opinion: I don't see what the big deal is over Apple products. Sure, it's all sexy looking at first look but after the initial first impression, there's no substance to it.

Superdooperphailmachine
05-22-2011, 09:13 PM
I'm not really whining, more showing my annoyance at the way you type. Kind of like displaying annoyance at a feature of a video game that I dislike despite liking the game as a whole.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-22-2011, 10:35 PM
Then why call herself a Christian? If you just make Christianity about being nice and baking cookies for the village fête, then what's the point? Just say you worship a Supreme Being and leave it there. "Herp derp I'm going to ignore 90%; of what this religion is about and still claim to be a member of it. Excuse me while I go boil my face, herpy derp derp."
That is what most people do.


In another religious unpopular opinion, I think self-deification may be the best possible religion. Basically, all you fuckers kneel down and worship me.
Sorry, I enjoy your being a psychopath, but no thanks.

Delphinus
05-23-2011, 11:33 AM
The last part was a joke. I like making jokes based on my narcissism. Though having people worship me would be awesome. ;)

When I say self-deification I mean that each individual treats themselves as the only worship-worthy being, the only source of morality, and the only one entitled to make moral judgements: the only one they're obliged to serve, and the only one they should strive towards the happiness of.

...so yeah, 'self-deification' in this sense is just total individualism with religious imagery. On the note of narcissism, though:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE

CypressDahlia
05-23-2011, 02:11 PM
I'm not really whining, more showing my annoyance at the way you type.

You are the only person talking about what you're talking about.


Then why call herself a Christian?

You don't have to follow a religion to its fullest to identify by it. Some people call themselves Christian because they believe in God. That might not even entail that they believe every one of his exploits as written in the Bible. They just believe in the entity and therefore can identify with a group of people who share that belief. That's what religion is: a society of people who share beliefs. It's not a requirement to subscribe to everything imposed by a religion to identify with people of that religion. Just like how not every member of MT is actually an artist, but simply share like interests. In this case, they share a faith and it empowers them. The artists of MT call themselves "artists" and it empowers us. That's what being part of a social demographic is about--empowerment through mutual acceptance.

To assume everyone who identifies by Christianity is a delusional zealot is extremely judgmental and hypocritical. To hate them under that assumption is just pure prejudice. Religions, like other social paradigms, change over time and modern Christianity is extremely diluted. This is due to lot of factors: mostly the commercialization of holidays and new-age thinking. It slowly //is// becoming about being nice and baking cookies. I've been to many Korean churches with friends and I'd say they're little more than social functions. I'm Buddhist and they had no problem sharing their bread and wine with me.

But hey, whatever. I'm not here to change your mind. Kodos already admitted he is judgmental so I'm fine with that.



But yeah, adding on to what Rio said: our fear of showing our beliefs shows how much of social hedgehogs people really are. They are not ready to accept or tolerate anything, but instead choose to be combative or make the assumption that everyone is equally combative, therefore become ideological hermits to "protect" themselves from a nonexistent enemy.

Delphinus
05-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Modern Christianity is extremely diluted, yes. To the point where it's indistinguishable from any other ideology that preaches:

a) Altruism. (delusional zealotry, madness, and suicide of reason)
b) The existence of a Supreme Being. (schizophrenia)

Everything else is mere pomp and ritual, play-acting, and gang formation. What a Catholic and a Baptist believe are indistinguishable in all important aspects - yet Baptists and Catholics have been known to fight over those unimportant and pathetic points of contention between the two schisms of their cult. This violence over insignificant scriptural details is why religion is so dangerous. It breeds herd mentality and gang culture.

EDIT: And... this. is. not. a. question. of. personal expression.

The state is secular, therefore it should neither endorse nor dismiss any religion. That is written in your constitution, the thing you Americans seem so enamoured of. Apparently you only call on it when it benefits you to do so. Having any religious icon in a public building would entail endorsing a religion. Is that so hard for you to understand, or do I need to tattoo it on your forehead with a rusty needle?

CypressDahlia
05-23-2011, 03:23 PM
The state is secular, therefore it should neither endorse nor dismiss any religion...

Rio has already said this like four times, but uhhh, you know, representing a religion doesn't mean endorsing it, merely acknowledging it as an established part of society. Lol. Why do you jump to the conclusion that representation = endorsement?

Delphinus
05-23-2011, 03:44 PM
Because the displaying of religious matter is a territorial marking. It says: we are here. Given how antithetical religions are to one another, placing a crucifix in a library is practically equivalent to posting a sign saying "MUZZIES OUT" in glowing neon letters.

And quite besides that, it shows bias to display one icon over another. Why, for example, choose a crucifix and not a Star of David? Like Kodos said there are over 3,000 different religions in the US - and it's better to not-exactly-satisfy all of them than to satisfy some and attract the ire of others.

CypressDahlia
05-23-2011, 04:02 PM
Because the displaying of religious matter is a territorial marking. It says: we are here. Given how antithetical religions are to one another, placing a crucifix in a library is practically equivalent to posting a sign saying "MUZZIES OUT" in glowing neon letters.


You know, somethings wrong with anyone who feels threatened just by looking at a religious symbol whether it's inane like Santa, the star of david, or more specific things like the 10 Commandments and to take even further to the point that they feel oppressed by it, that they're being hounded to follow that religion...


our fear of showing our beliefs shows how much of social hedgehogs people really are. They are not ready to accept or tolerate anything, but instead choose to be combative or make the assumption that everyone is equally combative, therefore become ideological hermits to "protect" themselves from a nonexistent enemy.

That's a problem with us, psychologically, not a problem with religion or representation. In fact, that is the problem I hope we someday overcome through a long process of exposure and reeducation.

Delphinus
05-23-2011, 07:36 PM
That won't happen unless religion ceases to exist. Which makes the issue redundant. Religion is nothing but the remnants of ancient tribal mentality; all that can ever arise from it, in the end, is sickening violence.

CypressDahlia
05-24-2011, 06:30 AM
Being combative and self-defensive about religion will only perpetuate religious intolerance. Abolishing religion is to run away from the goal of achieving tolerance. We shouldn't run away from our goals.

Fenn
05-24-2011, 09:39 AM
I have no problem with banning religious icons from public buildings. What I DO have a problem with is banning religious DISCUSSION and vocabulary from public buildings.

In some public schools, you are not allowed to even mention God. How is this preparing kids for the real world, where they will face religion every day? The same goes for the government. I'm not saying religion can be used as an official argument in Congress, but let them say it anyway; they will be either praised or ridiculed, most likely the latter.

Delphinus
05-24-2011, 09:51 AM
That's a problem with us, psychologically...

Wait, actually, I just noticed this. The argument that we're psychologically 'problematic' is ridiculous. Belief in the value of tolerance is equally a function of the mind as our tendency to form tribes - and it makes most sense to build our systems around everything that comprises human nature rather than forcing ourselves into focusing on little parts that we're socialised to believe are best. In addition, by what values exactly do you judge the human mind 'problematic'? Do you have any that originate from outside the mind of a human - that are objective? I don't think you can call the human mind 'good' or 'bad' or 'problematic' any more than you can call a sea snail a 'failed experiment'. The mind is, that's all.


The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded, condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignored, suppressed, repressed, robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual human being. The social engineers, statisticians, psychologists, sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish it. The psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still, the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots.

CypressDahlia
05-24-2011, 01:41 PM
The argument that we're psychologically 'problematic' is ridiculous.

This statement basically makes every debate and every debate thread obsolete because the only reason we debate is because we believe other peoples' thinking is problematic. Some peoples' minds cannot facilitate tolerance, therefore their minds are problematic. The mental block of prejudice and intolerance is stopping it from doing so. And this is, undeniably, the source of all religious strife.

Furthermore, by that logic, how is religion as "evil" as you claim it to be? Religion, objectively, is neither good or bad. The problems you so vehemently attribute to religion are actually problems of the //people// that adhere to it. Instead of exercising their ability to be tolerant, they choose to be intolerant. Though it's within the capacity of their minds to accept one another, they choose not to.

So the issues of religion spawn from problematic people, not religion itself. Tearing down the establishment of religion is pointless because it's fixing something that is essentially not broken and ignoring the true issue.

Sylux
05-25-2011, 07:27 PM
I really agree with Delphinus here. We're not problematic, we're just trying to justify and satiate our feelings for balance. Their religion is no better than mine, so in a place territorialized by the Govie'ment there should be no religion symbolified at all. None whatsoever.

Religion is evil, because it preaches supreme law. Law is evil, because it exerts control. Control is evil to all but the controller, and as humans in the name of freedom, we should seek to abolish all law, all control, and all religion. If you submit to control, you are weak. Willful ignorance is evil. You, of course, see exactly where I'm going with this.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-25-2011, 09:00 PM
Religion is evil, because it preaches supreme law. Law is evil, because it exerts control. Control is evil to all but the controller, and as humans in the name of freedom, we should seek to abolish all law, all control, and all religion. If you submit to control, you are weak. Willful ignorance is evil. You, of course, see exactly where I'm going with this.

DAMN YOU YOU DAMN DIRTY QUAKERS/BUDDHISTS/HINDUS/MENNONITES!!

EDIT: Laws are evil? It's evil for me to tell you not to kill someone? That's a riot.

CypressDahlia
05-25-2011, 09:02 PM
I hope that is sarcastic, Sylux.

EDIT: +++ No, really. I really, really, hope that's sarcastic.

Delphinus
05-26-2011, 05:59 PM
Religion is evil, because it preaches supreme law. Law is evil, because it exerts control. Control is evil to all but the controller, and as humans in the name of freedom, we should seek to abolish all law, all control, and all religion. If you submit to control, you are weak. Willful ignorance is evil. You, of course, see exactly where I'm going with this.

Slow down cowboy, I never said all law was bad, it works well for controlling the idiot masses. Let me quote myself on how I think about law:

Each social more is a fetter, of which the individual who wishes to be truly free must rid himself. The greater the taboo [or law!] one breaks, the more one has succeeded in ridding oneself of fetters. If one has violated all taboos, and now reclaims both 'taboo' and 'more' as irrelevant to one's will, then the individual is at last truly free, ruled only by his will. Before true freedom is possible, one must have broken all fetters - of respect for life, of non-exposure to 'dangerous elements', even of regard for those one loves. When I have total control over how I exercise my emotion and my reason, I am altogether - Promethean.

A good symbol for that sort of thing is the idea of the rebel against overwhelming force: Prometheus, Lucifer, etc.

Those who submit to control deserve to be controlled. Those who rebel against control are worthy of freedom.

EDIT: See here. Post-conventional morality (http://www.postconventionalmorality.com/) based on individualism appears identical to pre-conventional morality at first glance but is actually rather more sophisticated. On Kohlberg's scale, I'm at least a level 6. I may be pushing the boundaries of his hypothetical level 7.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 06:43 PM
So essentially, "the more you offend and injure people, the more free you are." Honestly, now.

Am I not free, despite the fact that I //choose// not to break the law? Is that not my prerogative? Besides, why do I need to "prove" my freedom to anyone? Isn't it stupid for "freedom"--which, by that definition, is just a general lack of standards--to have a standard?

I rebel against your standard for freedom by refusing to meet it. Ultimately, I am more free than even your quote proposes.

Delphinus
05-26-2011, 07:25 PM
The idea is not to actually offend or injure people persay, that's not the desired end result. The desired end result is considering nothing relevant but what I want and the best means of obtaining that end result. If that means sending your reputation to hell, then - considering the cost of sacrificing your reputation - so be it. The ultimate end is just to live by one's own principles and wants regardless of what those around you want. Fairly sure that living by your own principles regardless of circumstances is not just freedom but aggressive freedom. Injuring people is just a means of desensitising oneself to breaking free from the pointless and arbitrary taboos of society. I'm socialised not to steal - that's a restriction. Stealing frequently will help me overcome the socially-ingrained fear of that act.

And your objection to having a 'standard' for freedom is petulant. If I'm unrestrained, I'm free. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.

And yes, you are free. Everyone is free, absolutely free; but to take full advantage of that freedom one must first realise the unimportance of codes and laws. Liberating oneself from mental servitude is just as necessary as not being under the yoke of a master to be free.

If you don't acknowledge your mental freedom, you're a very pretty songbird tweeting fruitlessly in a cage of moral codes.

GO TO TVTROPES (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered)


In pursuit of a goal they have no limits, inhibitions, or fear. Nothing chains them or holds them back. You cannot make them flinch or falter. They cannot be intimidated, blackmailed, coerced, or otherwise convinced to back off from achieving their goal. There is no sacrifice they are unwilling to make or principle they are unwilling to compromise.

^ The desired end state.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 07:43 PM
Okay, then everyone is free. This is somewhat of a change from your morality and ethics argument, where you said everyone who is law abiding or moralistic is enslaved. I'm willing to accept this new outlook as, theoretically, it's true, according to the most basic definition of "freedom". Whether or not it would work in application: highly debatable.

And what I meant by the 'standard' thing was: the quote insists that there is some rite of passage or something for someone to be "truly free". Why should that quote decide what it is that makes me free? Why do I have to follow its requirements? Isn't that subjugating yourself to its standards? And, thus, you are following an impression given to you by someone else, therefore you are not free.

Delphinus
05-26-2011, 08:30 PM
And what I meant by the 'standard' thing was: the quote insists that there is some rite of passage or something for someone to be "truly free". Why should that quote decide what it is that makes me free? Why do I have to follow its requirements? Isn't that subjugating yourself to its standards? And, thus, you are following an impression given to you by someone else, therefore you are not free.

Nope. The only standard for freedom is a lack of restriction (that's the definition of 'negative freedom' and in a sense of 'positive freedom' as well): to capitalise on one's physical and intellectual freedoms, one must remove the restrictions of moral codes that check one from exercising one's freedom to the fullest. If I want sex but don't believe in extra-marital sex, then my moral code is restricting me from exercising my freedom: I'm sacrificing my needs and wants before some philosophical spectre.

It's no change of position, it's just stating it differently. Granted everyone is always free to do as they will, but fixed morals (unchosen ones) impede the fulfilling of my wishes and replace them with synthetic replicas for me to serve. Instead of sex I proselytise; instead of deep thought I pray; instead of surgery I absolve myself to God. Et cetera.

Sylux
05-26-2011, 09:00 PM
Staples of religion can be found in atheistic individuals as something inlaid in them essentially since birth. I, personally, am completely free. All things that are illegal I do not wish to do because they simply feel wrong to me to do them, with the exception of murder (and sometimes rape), but I really don't have the means to achieve that as a minor anyway. However, I can respect your will to be free, Delphinus. If you want to murder, Del, I think you should be able to do it. If you want to rape, I think you should be able to do it (since you probably are able to do it, as you must know the importance of physical fitness and probably implement it in some small way into your daily life). I've really been on Del's side since age 13, and I've definitely been on his side for the past 8-14 months. His unpopular opinion of Anarchism as a(n) (anti)governmental practice has been one of mine as well for those definite months.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 09:09 PM
Yes, Delphinus, that is the textbook definition of freedom. What I meant is: who gets to decide what "true freedom" is? As long as you're doing what you want, it's freedom, no? Why would I have to break moral codes when my decision is to follow them? Wouldn't I be more 'free' if I follow my own decision rather than obey the standards set by some author or philosopher? In the end, it's all relative.

And Sylux, speaking in all practicality, the control you so detest is what guarantees the freedoms of the average citizen. You do realize that, right? So your beliefs, in theory, are fine (by the most basic reasoning), but they're entirely inapplicable to society.

Sylux
05-26-2011, 09:18 PM
Oh, I know. There's only one person in this world keeping me from actually believing in Anarchism as a system that would benefit me. Yeah, I just see a lot more personally intrinsically meaningful benefits in a life partner than the ability to kill and rape whomever I please when physically unmatched.