Your Unpopular Opinions

[wolfman]

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]

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

[GunZet]

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]

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]

i really dont see the point in drinking cider, or things like smirnoff ice, it tastes JUST like fizzy apple juice or lemonade

[GunZet]

Omg *dies cause of what Cype and Wolf said*

[Fenn]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.