Reply With Quotei like the I'll kill u argument more
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.Originally Posted by Matt
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
i like the I'll kill u argument more
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.
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.
Last edited by Delphinus; 04-24-2011 at 06:26 PM.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
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.
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
o (◡‿◡✿)
(ღ˘⌣˘ღ) ♫･*:.｡. .｡.:*･
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.
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.)
I like Tetsuya Nomura's artwork, particularly for the Dissidia games.
(he doesn't top Amano, though)
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.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks