Opinions You Just Don't Understand

[SirDerick]

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.

 

[ninjaRiv]

This topic came about through me watching Highlander with a group of friends. I personally LOVE the film, its got everything; sci-fi, fantasy, sword fighting and Sean Connery. Whats not to love? I admit the sequels were an abomination against mankind but the first Highlander film was great. After we watched it, a couple of people said it was good but many of my friends said it was one of the worst films they've ever seen, some saying it was THE worst film they've ever seen. Now, i'm a film studies student and have also seen a shit-ton of movies so I know Highlander isn't the best film of all time but I just can't understand people hating it seeing movies like Baby Geniuses and Son of The Mask exist, its just unfathomable to me.

So Escapists, what opinions have you heard that have just completely shocked you? Opinions that just make you so angry, you feel like punching a kitten. Opinions so stupid that- Well, you get the idea...

EDIT: As people pointed out, don't let this thread turn into random arguments. I may find it incredibly hard to understand why someone could hate Highlander, but I'm sure someone could also find it incredibly hard to understand why I like some of the movies I do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I just wanted to find some of the strangest ones out there.

Here's an opinion I hate that you might relate to.

Views on Media Studies. I was a media student not so long ago and even now when I say that's what my highest qualification is in people react with confusion and mocking. "Oh so you can watch films? HAHAHAHAHA! I do that! HAHAHAHAHA!"

 

[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.

 

[ninjaRiv]

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.

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

I find it disconcerting that you view your clients as a group rather than as a set of individuals. Not everyone takes drugs for the same reason, you know just like not everyone drinks for the same reason. I'm on the other side of the field as you, here. I know and am friends with drug fans and I also smoke the occasional spliff. I've seen people who need the help you and the clinic you work with offer but a majority of them lead full lives. Kind of like a drinker. They work weekdays and take drugs over the weekend. I'm not talking heroin or coke, obviously. That shit's bad and I think we'd agree that it's gotta go. But weed, the occasional hit of E... Not so bad. Like booze, you just need to keep yourself in check.

 

[ninjaRiv]

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.

 

[Random Argument Man]

EDIT: As people pointed out, don't let this thread turn into random arguments.

Bad joke of the day: I guess that I belong here then...

Well.. let's see.... I would say a major generalization of something based on simple minor stuff. "BWAR, I BOYCOTT THIS GAME BECAUSE ONE PERSON FROM THE PUBLISHER'S PR DEPARTMENT IS A BAD MAN AND I'M IGNORING HOW GOOD THIS GAME IS OR HOW MANY DEVELOPERS WORKED FOR MANY MANY MANY SLEEPLESS NIGHT".

I'm sure there are worst examples out there.

 

[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.