Opinions You Just Don't Understand

[ninjaRiv]

I don't understand the hate for the last Spidey movie. I thought it was pretty great.

 

[Valkrex]

Well one opinion I hate is the whole "If I don't like it no one should" and better yet "If you like something I don't then you're a *&#&#@ and should die."

I also don't understand racism, xenophobia, anti-homosexual, anti-furry, and anti-brony thoughts.

Usually when someone has a problem with the last three, or experiences the first two, it seems to me that the anger and hate is born from ignorance.

Just my two cents on the subject.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You'd be surprised how many DON'T end up there.

That doesn't matter to my argument, because we're still paying a ton of taxes for the ones who are. I find drug use inresponsible because people take an inherent and uncontrollable risk at ending up like that, and becoming a huge burden to society.

It's comparable to driving drunk: It's not a given you always end up running someone over, but it's still heavily inresponsible because the risk of that happening is always there.

I understand your point and I do agree with you for the most part but I don't think you can call everyone who takes drugs irresponsible. I mean, are you against drinking? I find that to be more irresponsible than someone who regularly smokes weed. Drinkers, the more outgoing party kind, tend to cause a lot of damage out in public, end up in a cell and waste a lot of tax payers money. More so, I think, than drug takers (I'm sure someone will have the figures to prove me wrong or right on that). But people still do this and it's legal. Truth be told, smoking weed doesn't give you the energy to tear stuff up.

 

[Kennetic]

I can't understand why so many Americans seem to fear free healthcare while defending assault weapons with arms and teeth (nothing against Americans, just stating a fact).

To shed light on it, many Americans (myself included) dislike the idea of national healthcare because it is, by definition, a socialism and this nation is founded on the idea of capitalism. I understand that sometimes you need something that is socialistic (if that is the right term) like a postal service where is it the government having a hand in providing a service outside of defense because, at the time of its creation, there would be no way for any company to do it. However, we can have privatized healthcare. Not to say that if a person can not afford healthcare we should let them die, however. If you are poor to the point where you can't afford to pay for your own health care you should be supported.

Also, in the instance of gun control and assault weapons its (for me) not about needing an assault weapon to defend myself from intruders (a nice 12 gauge would to just fine), it is to defend myself from my government. I am not saying it will happen any time soon (if at all) but 25 years down the road there might be a time were the citizens of this country revolt against the government. If that happens I want to at least have a weapon that would stand a fighting chance. Like I said, if this ever does happen it I don't see it happening for a VERY long time, but it doesn't mean it wont. Look at Lybia. Look at Egypt. The people in those countries aren't that different from you and me. If where I live gets anywhere close to as bad as they had it I would be more than willing to pick up my gun and fight for my freedom and I want to make sure I got the best weapons to do it with.

Oh, and BTW, you said free healthcare. That's actually not anywhere near accurate. Nothing is free, and if we didn't pay directly for each visit to the doctor we would be paying it through our taxes, not to mention a LOT of that money would be going to the national debt which is fucking enormous.

Agree with you and want to add one thing: Capitalistic healthcare requires there to be competition for business among healthcare providers. The best way to get business is to be better than your competitors. Universal healthcare leads to sloppy healthcare since they don't have to worry about losing business to someone else.

 

[Kennetic]

Most guns used for crime or obtained illegally through black market sources.

Well this is an opinion I don't get, or rather the insinuasion that "illegal" weapons are somehow a different breed of weapons, that are created and put in circulation completely separately from the "legal" ones.

If only it was that easy! Then you could simply raid the arms manufacturers who specialize in production of "illegal arms" and shut them down, and bam, no more "illegal" arms, problem solved.

That's the problem, nobody knows where they come from. Gang violence is one of the leading gun crimes in the U.S. They aren't getting them legally. Also, they aren't just gonna say "Hey look where I got this cool gun that I just shot this rival gang with!" Gun control doesn't work. Chicago and Washington DC are proof of that.

 

[WitherVoice]

I'm asking what's wrong with say, the guy that has a couple of spliffs with his mates on a Friday night.

You'd be stunned at the amount of those that end up in our centre. ^_^
Sometimes I joke that we only cater to recreational users, since it's THE most heard excuse; "I only use recreationally", "Only in the weekend" or "But I'm in control". I mean, if drug use was something that could be controlled, there would be no addicts at all. I like the idea, but what I'm seeing all around me proves that when you use drugs, you are risking health damage, causing problems and risking addiction. There's no way to disable those risks.

I find this a great example of something I don't understand... taking anecdotal "evidence" of an extremely skewed sample as proof of something. I remember someone working at a center for abused women telling me about how all men were evil, and I had a hard time swallowing that statement, too.

Thinking about it, I guess TECHNICALLY I can understand where that mindset comes from, but I cannot comprehend the absolute conviction people get. I know well-functioning, working drug users who pay their rent/mortgages, keep their houses clean and tidy, save up money for the future, and use drugs. Do you acknowledge their existence?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

About 50% of the things in R&P. I'd rather not go down the list because that's a can of worms I'd like to keep shut.

I never understand people people who post the abbreviated name of something without context and expect people to know what they're talking about.

Also: S.F.C. I can't understand why anyone would willingly watch an S.F.C.

Was this intentional?
Because I sure as hell have no idea what you are referring to...

I don't understand the hate for the last Spidey movie. I thought it was pretty great.

Same here, I really liked it, nearly as much as the first Iron Man movie...

 

[CrystalShadow]

I'm asking what's wrong with say, the guy that has a couple of spliffs with his mates on a Friday night.

You'd be stunned at the amount of those that end up in our centre. ^_^
Sometimes I joke that we only cater to recreational users, since it's THE most heard excuse; "I only use recreationally", "Only in the weekend" or "But I'm in control". I mean, if drug use was something that could be controlled, there would be no addicts at all. I like the idea, but what I'm seeing all around me proves that when you use drugs, you are risking health damage, causing problems and risking addiction. There's no way to disable those risks.

The biggest mystery when it comes to drug use, is the social schism that results from the huge list of 'illegal' drugs, compared to the ones that are legal.

A UK scientist advising the government did a comparative study on the relative risks of various drugs, both legal and illegal.

The result? Marijuana was not entirely harmless, but not especially dangerous compared to other things, ecstasy (assuming it wasn't adulterated with some unknown substances) was one of the least harmful drugs overall...

And... Alcohol was more dangerous than the majority of class A drugs (which in the UK is the stuff that's considered really, really dangerous.)

But of course, this person got fired, his research results ignored, and the government perpetuated the same old biases regardless of the evidence.

Considering the evidence, it really doesn't make sense that Tobacco and Alcohol are legal, considering several illegal drugs are less harmful overall.

It's really a bit of a contradiction. Either more things should be legal, or less should. But the current situation doesn't appear to make these judgments in any way that's actually proportional to the risks involved.

 

[WitherVoice]

Errr ... and somehow I'm arguing in the pro-incest camp. How did that happen?

At a guess, you have discovered that rare, magical mental trick some people have that just because you agree with a viewpoint you can still disagree with some of the argumentation for the viewpoint. It ties into the "we have idiots on this side too" school of thought. Not to be confused with the "OMG I'm surrounded by idiots" school, by the way.

 

[AperioContra]

The entire idea that people from the midwest and south in the US are automatically stupid, or stubbornly religious, or closed-minded. This is quite ironically a closed-minded concept. I see this a lot from coastal commentators (though it's not exclusive to them) and MovieBob does this occasionally in his work, basically dismissing the worth of people who don't live on the coast because we happen to have vocal groups of closed-minded zealots (something not exclusive to the midwest or south). It really gets to the point that in my videos I actually have to hide my accent, so people will take me on the level of seriousness I want them to take me. It gets annoying.

When has MovieBob done this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I am literally just curious.

I'm from the British version of those areas so I know how you feel.

He talked about this mostly in his failed "American Bob" series, but any time you hear him refer to old town americana, or "The Heart Land." He's referring to us. It's not often, but if you happen to be from the midwest it's actually kind of glaring.

 

[WitherVoice]

I'm saying that Helmohltz Watson was intentionally playing with the ambiguity of "don't like" in order to avoid admitting to his own homophobia. He doesn't merely passively lack an appreciation for homosexual actions (which would not be homophobic, any more than my lack of appreciation for blondes would make me blondephobic), he actively dislikes seeing overt homosexual acts like two men making out and takes steps to prevent himself from seeing them. I contend that that is homophobia, and not a simple preference for heterosexual behavior.

I find your example odd.

First off, a phobia is not "having any negative emotion about", it's "a persistent, irrational fear of".

Second, the case for a heterosexual male wanting to take at least minor steps to avoid seeing male homosexual behaviour is pretty simple. Empathy allows the human organism to picture itself in the situation of the participants. If a heterosexual male WAS in the situation of male homosexual acts, he is likely to be unaroused, at which point the sexual nature of that contact would be unwelcome and traumatic. Thus, a very rational way to handle this empathetic discomfort, which is not the least bit alleviated by the willingness of the participants in question, is to avoid looking. I myself will take minor steps to avoid seeing male homosexual acts, and this is not homophobia. If I ran screaming from two guys kissing, or tried to destroy them to erase the sensory input of it, that would be homophobia.

And third, we need better terms. People who lobby against gay rights do not do this because they are homophobes. They may well BE homophobes, that is, someone who irrationally fears and/or hates gay people, in fact I'd imagine it's likely. But homophobia is a mental state, not an activity. Persecuting gay people makes you an ass, not a homophobe. Albeit homophobia probably helps.

 

[Karhukonna]

There are a couple of things I can't wrap my mind around. The two that perhaps should not be taken seriously are as follows:

I don't understand how some people don't like dogs. Not just a specific breed, but the whole species as a whole. This whole dog-people VS cat-people standoff has got to come to an end. As a closing line, yeah, it's pretty silly. I know some people with fears towards dogs, but I still cannot understand how one comes to not like dogs.

The other thing is Manowar. Sure, some people are not into awesome power metal, and that's cool. But I do not understand it. What sort of tragedy must scar a person so deeply that they cannot enjoy Manowar, I truly do not understand.

Okay, with those easy, light-hearted ones out of the way, we turn to the one I struggle with personally. Racism and prejudice. I can't understand what could possibly be going on inside a person's mind when they decide that someone is wrong and lesser, simply for being black, gay or somehow different. I have some unfair prejudices of my own, but I'd never act on them as such. I would never actively seek to push someone down simply for being different.

I know the whole "straight white guy telling everyone he knows someone who is gay/black/foreigner so there's no way he's a racist" routine gets old real fast, but it's the only proof I can give, not to you, but to myself in a vain attempt to deny my own racist habits. I guess somehow it's the way the media portrays certain groups. There was that news clip about the muslims in Sweden, throwing rocks at a firetruck and destroying the mansions they were given to live in. I don't know if it's all that black and white, but it still colors my views on their entire group as a whole. It's wrong, and I know it, but somehow it still happens in my mind. Why, I may never know.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I don't understand the opinion that society would be safer if the only people with firearms were people willing to get them illegally.

 

[funkyjiveturkey]

i don't understand how someone thought making the shadow the hedgehog game would be a good idea......

 

[Professor James]

People hating GOW or Halo or COD because some developers copy them.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Irrelevant. You have negative feelings. That's homophobia.

I mean where do you draw the line between personal preference and Homophobia?

When it's anything south of the "I don't care" line.

I feel grossed out watching two elderly people have sex to, am I anti-old people? I find public bathrooms absolutely disgusting; worse then anything I've seen in our cat's litter box. Am I anti-human? Tolerance and acceptance of something doesn't mean you can't find it disturbing. Just because you don't enjoy what you see doesn't mean you hate it, nor does it mean you dislike it because of a preconception. Saying that is homophobia is basically saying gay sex would be appealing to everyone if they just opened their eyes. Haha, no. Even most gay people would agree it doesn't work that way. Most people are very adverse to things alien to them, particularly when it comes to sexuality. I don't care about a lot of lifestyles, but I also don't feel any need to watch movies about them either. They just aren't my thing.

 

[Coppernerves]

Evolution denial.

There are entire libraries dedicated to the evolution of life on the planet, and the systematic denial of it is an opinion that staggers my sensibility. It is in the same vein as denying the sky is blue, grass is green, et cetera. I don't want to imply I am against on religious grounds, although I do feel creationism is another opinion impossible to reconcile with. The most baseless argument used to defend such an undefendable position is that "evolution is just a theory". Well, gravity is also just a theory, and before the advent of satellites and space exploration the "earth was round" was just a theory.

Evolution is real, and the idea that it isn't is completely absurd. How, when, where, and why are all open to debate, but multi-cellular, complex organisms did not inhabit this planet when it was first forming. It didn't even have an oxygen atmosphere for the first several hundred million years. How life began is, again, open to debate, but it began as single-celled organisms, most likely a proto-form of bacteria that lived in a methane rich environment, and from that the building blocks of life began.

Anyone who denies evolution I look at the same way as someone who would propose the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese. It is preposterous to anyone with even a thimble full of common sense or appreciation for life, biology, and science.

Isn't it just how people are brought up?

(hang, on I feel like slipping into "slow southern drawl" suddenly)

Now look:

What if you had, more faith, in the, "the good book", than, the scientific method?

And, what if, you had more faith, in it, than anybodies' logic, or reasoning, even your own?

Well then, there'd be no reasoning with you, not against the book.

Ya just cannot expect, to convince someone, of sumtin that contradicts their fundamental axioms, not if they have any intelligence.

You'll just have to write 'em off, as lost souls, and bring up your own kids better, than they were, with your superior axioms, and systems of belief.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Let's say there's a heterosexual romance drama show you are completely ambivalent about. Brokeback Mountain is on TV. Those are your only two choices, and you can't turn off the TV. Do you switch the channel from Brokeback to watch the heterosexual romance? If so, then yes, you're a little bit homophobic.

Yes I would.

I guess were discussing a very subjective subject, but I still feel that Homophobic isn't the right word to describe me lack of desire to watch men make out, considering the fact that I don't hate homosexuals nor do I advocate violence against them.

Irrelevant. You have negative feelings. That's homophobia.

I mean where do you draw the line between personal preference and Homophobia?

When it's anything south of the "I don't care" line.

I mean would it be homophobic for me to go on a porn site that offers different kinds of videos and have the option to watch gay porn but refuse to do so and only watch straight[footnote]While I'm aware that some straight guys like Lesbian porn, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to stuff where a man and a women are having "regular" sex and where no phallic objects are involved.[/footnote] porn?

No. You're confusing the issue. It is not a matter of preference. You are described yourself as having an antipathy toward homosexuality, and that antipathy being anything less than hatred or a desire for violence doesn't magically make it disappear.

But let's put it another way: You're on a porn site. Imagine the following two scenarios:

A) You unknowingly click on a link that unexpectedly takes you to a gay porn video.
B) You unknowingly click on a link that unexpectedly takes you to a heterosexual video you know you will not find arousing. Let's not include extreme fetishes in this. Just a hetero video with say an actress you don't find at all arousing.

If you click the back button for A faster than for B, congratulations, you're a little homophobic.

Lots of us are a little homophobic. In some of our cases, it's because we haven't been around many gay people and it's still a novel experience because it circumvents our expectations. In other people's cases maybe they're a little bit afraid that if they see two dudes enjoying some cock that it will give them the gay. But it's all homophobia.

On the bright side, if you're willing to admit that your repulsion is irrational and unnatural, that means you're on the road to being able to deal with it in a civil way. If you're not, well, then you have to potential to turn it into all kinds of nasty things down the road.

I do believe your example is a bit off here.
Now, let's imagine this gentleman of fine breeding wants to spank it...
Actually, let's not imagine that.


Glad we avoided that, now back on topic: I do not care about homosexuals, and as far as I am concerned, they can do to each other whatever they damn well please, however, I have no desire to watch them whilst they are getting to know one another carnally.
Why?
Because I wouldn't want to watch two grown men have intercourse in any form, since it would not in any way sexually appeal to me, what with me being a straight male.
Does that make me homophobic?
Does the fact that, if I clicked on a link to gay porn instead of the usual midget-unicorn-chainsaw-orgy, I would back out of there extremely fast make me a homophobe?

If so, then fine, I am a giant homophobe because I have no desire to watch other men doing unspeakable things to each others bums, possibly involving the use of various power tools whilst an amputee midget prances around the room spraying hot glitter everywhere.

In short:
I do not care what one consenting adult of legal age does to another consenting adult of legal age, as long as I don't get labeled for not wanting to see them have intercourse.
I have nothing against public displays of affection, holding hands, kissing, gentle fondling, etc, just as I tolerate this behaviour in straight couples.
However, if one of my best friends, a gay physicist, suddenly decided to stick something up his lovers bum over dinner, then I would reserve myself the right to get a tad upset.
For good measure: I would also object to any straight friend of mine sticking stuff up another man's bum over dinner, as I would object to anyone sticking anything up anyone's bum over dinner. This also goes for anyone sticking anything up any other holes in the trouser region.

And if that makes me a homophobe, then I appear to be a homophobe.
And I am willing to be labelled as such if that means I get to quit watching gay porn I accidentally clicked on as soon as humanly possible without having to watch for a certain period of time because "tolerance".

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Does the fact that, if I clicked on a link to gay porn instead of the usual midget-unicorn-chainsaw-orgy, I would back out of there extremely fast make me a homophobe?

Yes, actually. As long as you backed out of it faster than you would any other porn you don't want to watch.

However, if one of my best friends, a gay physicist, suddenly decided to stick something up his lovers bum over dinner, then I would reserve myself the right to get a tad upset.

Helmholtz specifically framed this conversation in terms of public displays of affectiong ("making out"). For you to try to re-frame it in terms of explicit sex acts doesn't help your "I'm not a homophobe" case.

Oh I am sorry, let me try that again:

Let's say there's a heterosexual romance drama show you are completely ambivalent about. Brokeback Mountain is on TV. Those are your only two choices, and you can't turn off the TV. Do you switch the channel from Brokeback to watch the heterosexual romance? If so, then yes, you're a little bit homophobic.

Yes I would.

I guess were discussing a very subjective subject, but I still feel that Homophobic isn't the right word to describe me lack of desire to watch men make out, considering the fact that I don't hate homosexuals nor do I advocate violence against them.

Irrelevant. You have negative feelings. That's homophobia.

I mean where do you draw the line between personal preference and Homophobia?

When it's anything south of the "I don't care" line.

I mean would it be homophobic for me to go on a porn site that offers different kinds of videos and have the option to watch gay porn but refuse to do so and only watch straight[footnote]While I'm aware that some straight guys like Lesbian porn, I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to stuff where a man and a women are having "regular" sex and where no phallic objects are involved.[/footnote] porn?

No. You're confusing the issue. It is not a matter of preference. You are described yourself as having an antipathy toward homosexuality, and that antipathy being anything less than hatred or a desire for violence doesn't magically make it disappear.

But let's put it another way: You're on a porn site. Imagine the following two scenarios:

A) You unknowingly click on a link that unexpectedly takes you to a gay porn video.
B) You unknowingly click on a link that unexpectedly takes you to a heterosexual video you know you will not find arousing. Let's not include extreme fetishes in this. Just a hetero video with say an actress you don't find at all arousing.

If you click the back button for A faster than for B, congratulations, you're a little homophobic.

Lots of us are a little homophobic. In some of our cases, it's because we haven't been around many gay people and it's still a novel experience because it circumvents our expectations. In other people's cases maybe they're a little bit afraid that if they see two dudes enjoying some cock that it will give them the gay. But it's all homophobia.

On the bright side, if you're willing to admit that your repulsion is irrational and unnatural, that means you're on the road to being able to deal with it in a civil way. If you're not, well, then you have to potential to turn it into all kinds of nasty things down the road.

I do believe your example is a bit off here.
Now, let's imagine this gentleman of fine breeding wants to spank it...
Actually, let's not imagine that.


Glad we avoided that, now back on topic: I do not care about homosexuals, and as far as I am concerned, they can do to each other whatever they damn well please, however, I have no desire to watch them whilst they are getting to know one another carnally.
Why?
Because I wouldn't want to watch two grown men have intercourse in any form, since it would not in any way sexually appeal to me, what with me being a straight male.
Does that make me homophobic?
Does the fact that, if I clicked on a link to gay porn instead of the usual midget-unicorn-chainsaw-orgy, I would back out of there extremely fast make me a homophobe?

If so, then fine, I am a giant homophobe because I have no desire to watch other men doing unspeakable things to each others bums, possibly involving the use of various power tools whilst an amputee midget prances around the room spraying hot glitter everywhere.

In short:
I do not care what one consenting adult of legal age does to another consenting adult of legal age, as long as I don't get labeled for not wanting to see them have intercourse.
I have nothing against public displays of affection, holding hands, kissing, gentle fondling, etc, just as I tolerate this behaviour in straight couples.

However, if one of my best friends, a gay physicist, suddenly decided to stick something up his lovers bum over dinner, then I would reserve myself the right to get a tad upset.
For good measure: I would also object to any straight friend of mine sticking stuff up another man's bum over dinner, as I would object to anyone sticking anything up anyone's bum over dinner. This also goes for anyone sticking anything up any other holes in the trouser region.

And if that makes me a homophobe, then I appear to be a homophobe.
And I am willing to be labelled as such if that means I get to quit watching gay porn I accidentally clicked on as soon as humanly possible without having to watch for a certain period of time because "tolerance".

Buuuuut to be fair, I should have addressed that porn thing a bit more:
I wouldn't back out of gay porn faster than out of other porn I don't watch, simply because I back out of porn that is not appealing to me really damn fast.

 

[klaynexas3]

The 360 is a good platform. How? It has one exclusive series, which will probably come the PC anyway(as the first two of it have) and even that is run of the mill. If you like it because it's fun to relax with a controller, you could easily hook your computer up to a tv and use a gamepad(or even a 360 controller with the right drivers) and get to play all the same games(except the halos). If you like it being cheap, there is the fact that you have to pay for any online services, which after a few years will add up to a point that if you saved that money, it would be enough to build a PC with just as good specs and be able to play the same games. So again, what's so great about it as a platform?