Unpopular Opinions
- Thread starter Relish in Chaos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
An unpopular opinion I have is that I have a strong dislike towards Tumblr, 9gag, Reddit, or any of those contemporary, teen-based, networking websites. Obviously, I'm not taking a stab at any Escapists that use those sites.
Also, another thing I dislike is people that walk on their jeans, you know what I'm talking about, when they let the cuff of their jeans fall beneath the shoe, so that they're walking over the jeans, it's just a silly, pet peeve. I hope I articulated it well enough, too.
Also, another thing I dislike is people that walk on their jeans, you know what I'm talking about, when they let the cuff of their jeans fall beneath the shoe, so that they're walking over the jeans, it's just a silly, pet peeve. I hope I articulated it well enough, too.
Your post just reminded me about how clever I think I am for wearing a Pink Floyd shirt with a rainbow coming out of a spectrum and not looking at all gay. It makes me feel like I found a loophole in societal views. Anyways, mine would be that absolutely anything imaginable can exist in the universe because we can't prove it doesn't. Unicorns, dragons, God, Unicorn-dragon-gods and what else have you. Though not by name, anything we identify them as probably exists somewhere. I think anyone who says they know what exists and what doesn't should shut up. (I am not religous)Jack the Potato said:
I strongly dislike capitalism, and yet, I work a part time job while paying for college and paying taxes, car insurance, car payments etc. And I live in Canada, where we get 13% sales tax on EVERYTHING.Spot1990 said:
To be fair, there are those "worthless" people on both sides. The non contributors who call you greedy as well as the actual greedy capitalists who don't necessarily "progress society" so much as they exploit it and everyone in it for personal gain. Like the whole occupy Wallstreet thing. People were angry that the big companies, who were bailed out with tax payer money, weren't giving anything back when it was the tax payers money that saved them from going under. Those are the kinds of things I loathe in capitalism. It's more than possible to make a contribution while making a profit.
You knew this was coming friend. *loads phosphorous grenades*hulksmashley said:
There is a chance god exists. The chance is about the same as the tea kettle. There's no reason TO believe in it, and it does hurt.
I don't think anyone minds the religious people who keep their beliefs to themselves, the problem is religion relies on blind faith. The problem with blind faith is that there is nothing objective to base it off of. There are different holy books, but people have many interpretations for them and people already pick and choose the lessons they like that it's not really anything solid. Opportunistic jerks love to use blind faith to their advantage, and you have no idea if what they're saying is actually the word of god or if they just want to control you. If someone like this comes along and manages to gain a following, what do you say to take away that following? You can't reason with them, that's for sure.
I'm not going to tell people what to believe in, but if Religion were to vanish overnight i wouldn't mind.
And the last thing you said bothers me, the one about there being some things we can't understand. I really don't like that train of thought. To me it's saying "we don't know something. Let's just be lazy and say we can't understand it and make something up". I think that there's nothing the human race can't do, given enough time. Nothing is unexplainable, it's just that some things are hard to figure. I personally can't believe in something without proof when i know that there's an answer out there. There has been plenty of instances in the past where even great scientists have given up trying to learn something, saying that god did it, only for that thing to be found out later.
Well that was weak. I didn't even use any curse words.. i sounded slightly civilized. Umm... fuck.
Relish in Chaos said:
I can usually sympathize with unpopular opinions, even those I don't agree with. But yours is just so cynical. Not everyone experiences life as a "stewing hell'hole". I'm actually quite happy with it and I hope to someday have kids who are as well. Maybe they won't, but I'm not going to not have kids because that MIGHT happen.
Of course, me being happy means I'm probably a "delusional idealist living in a bubble, blissfully ignorant to the true horrors of Earth". Not sure what I can do about that.
I don't believe that belief in a deity is poisonous, just the religions which use that god to further an agenda of some kind, aside from "Love everyone else, and don't be a dick." So people use that for a lot of reasons, such as oppression, creating distinctions, or wars. I haven't had bad experiences with religion personally, but I have a very polarized personality, so I will put my thoughts into the extreme, despite being moderate. This stems from Republicans, who want to do so many ridiculous things to persecute a group who are legally and morally humans and US Citizens, often claiming religion, which should be distinct and separated from any government.S1leNt RIP said:
Also, we can't be sure that homosexuality in its purist form can really be found many places in nature, specifically due to evolutionary pressures which have forced it out, whereas humans experience no such pressures. We also don't know what causes homosexuality to be expressed. I personally think it may be a combination of environment as a child and a genetic mutation which results in an attraction to the same sexes' pheromones and physical distinctions. But ah well. Whatever.
Woefully inadequate research? I don't know if you've paid attention to scientific journals over the past 20 years, but it's been in pretty much every issue I can think of. There are literally thousands of papers supporting evolution.S1leNt RIP said:
In the scientific community, it is taken as such a fundamental force that it's a fact. It's only slightly less understood than gravity, and only because it exhibits punctuated equilibriums rather than continuous distributions.
It exists, and I've personally manipulated the environment in experiments and watched as bacteria evolved. If it didn't happen, we could use penicillin forever, and HIV would never have been a problem.
You can see it in humans over less than a hundred generations in lactose tolerance (which evolved twice in humans) and things like jaw size. If you really have any serious questions, feel free to ask me. I'm literally an expert.
The thing here is, so do the pro-choice groups. The difference is where you define "life." Some would like to define it at the moment of conception (which would make every single woman in the United States a criminal as about 20-30% of all pregnancies are aborted before they reach the end of the first trimester via natural mechanisms), some would like to define it after the first trimester where the fetus develops recognizable features, etc.
My personal opinion is that abortion laws are fine as they are, and don't need changing. They prevent the ruination of two or more lives that usually occurs when a drastic money-vacuum (child) enters the world into a family that can't support it. I'd rather see a dozen well-loved, well-supported children than 50 who are a burden in every sense of the word - and grow up knowing it.
I may not agree wholely, but I do agree there should be a serious discussion about it. What I do hate are all the pro-Pot memes the supporters spew without any evidence at all. "Nobody's ever died of an overdose," ..... "It doesn't harm your brain or anything else, it is perfectly safe" (most studies I've seen say with chronic use mental abilities take a drastic hit), etc. The supporters act like it's a harmless, when that's not even true for common household spices.
The issue with the 1% was never that they were rich; it was that they weren't held accountable for (A) - The financial crisis which brought the American banking industry to its knees, and created the worst depression in 70 years. Very few people have been charged, despite nearly every major bank taking part in it. And (B) - They are disproportionately favored by taxes. You've seen Romney's tax return - a whole 12.5% tax rate because he lives off of a trust fund. The average middle class worker is taxed between 20% and 25%. Whether it's a flat tax or closing loopholes, the middle class is paying about double what millionaires and billionaires are paying as a percentage of their gross income. If you agree with that, then we simply don't see eye to eye on economics. ;-)
Another unpopular opinion of mine:
-I think cars should be vastly more expensive to drive and astoundingly more difficult to acquire a license for. With city planning trending towards smaller, more closely knit communities that are based on walking distance rather than house size, I think cars are a bad habit Americans desperately need to drop as an everyday convenience. I would love to see a city that bans most car use and only allows walking/biking/etc. as forms of transport. Not only would every inhabitant be worlds healthier, but imagine all the money saved from the tune-ups, the repairs, the initial purchase, the accidents, and the insurance.
-I think the United States should focus on becoming a leader in Solar power production. It's the only resource that will be around longer than the country (and the world) itself, and nothing angers me more than some 80yr old white bastard going on and on about how there's 150 years worth of oil underneath State XYZ if only we'd allow them to drill and get it out. Such rubbish. It's usually the same idiot who will blame Obama for gas prices, when the United States is actually producing a net positive amount of gas (and exporting it), and doesn't contain any significant amount of fuel reserves. The United States contains less than 20% of all reasonably obtainable oil in the world, and the vast majority is held below countries who we routinely piss off.
-I have no doubt in my head that, if left unaddressed, there will be a massive population problem within my lifetime. Yes, the most-developed nations are leveling off in terms of population growth, but the world is still growing at an unprecedented rate. We're already struggling with the logistics and capacity of 7B people, and when 10B hits all you'll see is more wars over resources. It will be war, and it will deliver horrenouds amounts of death unless we can slow down or reverse some of the population growth.
I might need this...
I believe that all music, except for that of the classical, the romantic era or some music using those styles, are horrible. The best composer was Beethoven.
I hate the younger generation without reason.
I don't think babies are cute, they are ugly and disgusting.
Science and religion don't contradict each other, as one poster has already said, science explains how and religion explains why. There can be evolution with a God, unlike most realise.
Also, religion should not be taught in public schools unless they are entirely optional unnecessary courses. (I'm honestly not sure if this is a minority opinion or not.)
Both atheists and theists can be closed minded. I'm trying not to make a sweeping generalization, I'm just making a point. There are people from all groups that suck.
Homosexuality is unnatural, at least physically such as being sexually attracted to that of the other sex. However, homosexuality should not be outlawed and homosexuals should still remain equally protected under law.
Paedophiles should not be blamed for their attraction to children and not be lynched or hated for it. However, if they act upon their urges then something must be done. But in any other case, they have not done anything wrong.
Those who have no regard for grammar and spelling are annoying. They are killing the language they speak. I say this because most I know have no care for it and ridicule me for caring.
No, enjoying being in solitude without much social interaction or enjoying activities which don't require it, such as playing video games, is not bad. People who share these traits are often mocked and told that there is something wrong with them.
Something is not sexist, racist, ageist et cetera, unless the intentions were so.
Which brings me to my motto: It's not an insult if it's true.
I believe that all music, except for that of the classical, the romantic era or some music using those styles, are horrible. The best composer was Beethoven.
I hate the younger generation without reason.
I don't think babies are cute, they are ugly and disgusting.
Science and religion don't contradict each other, as one poster has already said, science explains how and religion explains why. There can be evolution with a God, unlike most realise.
Also, religion should not be taught in public schools unless they are entirely optional unnecessary courses. (I'm honestly not sure if this is a minority opinion or not.)
Both atheists and theists can be closed minded. I'm trying not to make a sweeping generalization, I'm just making a point. There are people from all groups that suck.
Homosexuality is unnatural, at least physically such as being sexually attracted to that of the other sex. However, homosexuality should not be outlawed and homosexuals should still remain equally protected under law.
Paedophiles should not be blamed for their attraction to children and not be lynched or hated for it. However, if they act upon their urges then something must be done. But in any other case, they have not done anything wrong.
Those who have no regard for grammar and spelling are annoying. They are killing the language they speak. I say this because most I know have no care for it and ridicule me for caring.
No, enjoying being in solitude without much social interaction or enjoying activities which don't require it, such as playing video games, is not bad. People who share these traits are often mocked and told that there is something wrong with them.
Something is not sexist, racist, ageist et cetera, unless the intentions were so.
Which brings me to my motto: It's not an insult if it's true.
See, I agree with you 100% on the homosexuality thing. To blame either nature or nurture completely seems very ignorant to me.Pfheonix said:
Well I believe I have a few unpopular opinions but I guess i'll say the most unpopular opinion you can have on the internet.
I. Believe. in. God.
And also the secondary point to this startling revelation, I hate atheists.
Not all atheists mind you, I have some friends who are atheists and the fact that they don't believe in god is not what upsets me, I believe you can believe I whatever you want. What I hate is the fact that most atheist are pretentious, condescending asshole snobs who think that because they are atheist it makes them far more, intelligent, worldly and just an all around better person because of it. They look down on people who believe in god as one would look down an a dog, believing you have evolved past their level. Again I do not dislike the fact that they are atheists I simply dislike the fact that most atheists share these traits.
I. Believe. in. God.
And also the secondary point to this startling revelation, I hate atheists.
Not all atheists mind you, I have some friends who are atheists and the fact that they don't believe in god is not what upsets me, I believe you can believe I whatever you want. What I hate is the fact that most atheist are pretentious, condescending asshole snobs who think that because they are atheist it makes them far more, intelligent, worldly and just an all around better person because of it. They look down on people who believe in god as one would look down an a dog, believing you have evolved past their level. Again I do not dislike the fact that they are atheists I simply dislike the fact that most atheists share these traits.
Ridiculous and depressing. Nearly your whole post.Relish in Chaos said:
My impression of you from your post is that when you go into work, and your boss says "Prepare yourself, today is going to be challenging", you clock out and go home, cause you think there is no point in trying.
If someone says something really offensive to you or someone you care about, you should lawfully be able to hit them.
I have a growing number of throats I want to smash teeth down.
I have a growing number of throats I want to smash teeth down.
I was about to switch to another thread, but then I ran into posts back-to-back using lines of reasoning that annoy the crap out of me.
To the authors of these posts, I apologize for singling you out. This isn't personal, and it isn't so much about your opinions themselves or the content of your posts so much as that I've simply seen these particular kinds of argument far too many times and would like to address them.
You also don't have to know everything to know when something is incorrect. In fact, while you can never know if you are right, it can be trivially easy to know if you are wrong. An incorrect theory can be demonstrated false with a single fact, but even if you had the truth there would be know way of knowing whether you actually knew the truth, or merely something indistinguishable from the truth given the limits of your experience or experimental equipment. The whole point of conducting experiments is to determine the characteristics that the truth would have to have, so that you can eliminate any theories that don't have those qualities and build new theories that do. None of these theories may be correct, but within the limits of our power to observe, a well crafted theory will have all the qualities of the truth, and if nothing else, will at least be useful until a better theory comes along.
For instance, say a hypothetical caveman, with no prior knowledge on the subject, wanted to know the value of pi. After carving several stone wheels as carefully as possible and carefully measuring the distance that they traveled along the ground in one revolution in terms of wheel diameters he came to the conclusion that pi was between 3.1 and 3.2. Furthermore, lets say he split the difference and declared that pi was equal to 3.15. Say another hypothetical caveman came along and declared (with no research at all) that pi was equal to exactly 3. The first caveman doesn't know the exact value of pi, and his best guess isn't correct, but he can still say with certainty that the second caveman is wrong. And while neither caveman may be right, the first is still less wrong than the second.
Also, with regards to evolution specifically, most people are lumping several distinct facts and theories together and labeling them the "theory of evolution." Evolution itself, or the change in heritable characteristics across generations, has been observed repeatedly both in the lab and in nature and has been an accepted fact since before Darwin (who proposed the theory of natural selection, not evolution). Darwin's theory (natural selection) was the second major theory that attempted to explain evolution, the previous one being Lamarkism, or the theory that traits acquired during an organism's life were passed down to its offspring. In addition there are tons of separate evolutionary theories dealing with the evolution of particular species or groups of species. With those theories, there is a great deal of debate, not over whether or not evolution occurred, but rather how it occurred (much like the debate over gravity isn't about whether it exists, but how it works).
To the authors of these posts, I apologize for singling you out. This isn't personal, and it isn't so much about your opinions themselves or the content of your posts so much as that I've simply seen these particular kinds of argument far too many times and would like to address them.
First off, speaking as an atheist, I don't care about logical proof where truth claims are concerned. A logical argument is only as good as the premises upon which it is based, and it is all too easy to include a flawed premise given our incomplete understanding of the universe. What I do care about is empirical evidence. Simply making a claim that "you can't disprove" is pointless. There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong that are equally non-falsifiable. Unless you can provide some evidence that would make your claim worth considering I'm simply going to toss it on the vast heap of claims that failed to meet their burden of proof (that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).hulksmashley said:
You also don't have to know everything to know when something is incorrect. In fact, while you can never know if you are right, it can be trivially easy to know if you are wrong. An incorrect theory can be demonstrated false with a single fact, but even if you had the truth there would be know way of knowing whether you actually knew the truth, or merely something indistinguishable from the truth given the limits of your experience or experimental equipment. The whole point of conducting experiments is to determine the characteristics that the truth would have to have, so that you can eliminate any theories that don't have those qualities and build new theories that do. None of these theories may be correct, but within the limits of our power to observe, a well crafted theory will have all the qualities of the truth, and if nothing else, will at least be useful until a better theory comes along.
For instance, say a hypothetical caveman, with no prior knowledge on the subject, wanted to know the value of pi. After carving several stone wheels as carefully as possible and carefully measuring the distance that they traveled along the ground in one revolution in terms of wheel diameters he came to the conclusion that pi was between 3.1 and 3.2. Furthermore, lets say he split the difference and declared that pi was equal to 3.15. Say another hypothetical caveman came along and declared (with no research at all) that pi was equal to exactly 3. The first caveman doesn't know the exact value of pi, and his best guess isn't correct, but he can still say with certainty that the second caveman is wrong. And while neither caveman may be right, the first is still less wrong than the second.
This is an example of the argument from ignorance (basically Y must be true because I don't understand how X could be true, or Y must be true because I can't think of a better way). While I certainly give you credit for at least admitting the possibility of ignorance (this kind of self-knowledge is sadly rare), would it be so much harder to simply admit that you don't know? The simple fact that you can't think of a better way, or that something doesn't make sense to you doesn't suddenly make any opinion you may have on the matter more valid. If you can't live with not knowing, good, you're halfway there, now go learn something. This is the information age after all; it has never been easier to acquire new knowledge.S1leNt RIP said:
Also, with regards to evolution specifically, most people are lumping several distinct facts and theories together and labeling them the "theory of evolution." Evolution itself, or the change in heritable characteristics across generations, has been observed repeatedly both in the lab and in nature and has been an accepted fact since before Darwin (who proposed the theory of natural selection, not evolution). Darwin's theory (natural selection) was the second major theory that attempted to explain evolution, the previous one being Lamarkism, or the theory that traits acquired during an organism's life were passed down to its offspring. In addition there are tons of separate evolutionary theories dealing with the evolution of particular species or groups of species. With those theories, there is a great deal of debate, not over whether or not evolution occurred, but rather how it occurred (much like the debate over gravity isn't about whether it exists, but how it works).
Start with the fun one
-I believe the idea of a God takes away too much credit for the accomplishments of man
-Along with that I do not believe there is a god however I do think there is something along the lines of Karma.
-While I am Athiest I believe if Satan exists he is a good guy because he punishes evil....so does Batman. In this situation I would think God is selfish due to inaction.
Ok done with religious ones
Oblivion > Skyrim
Fallout 3 > New Vegas
Fable > Fable 3 > Fable 2
Military shooters are overrated piles of garbage and should be destroyed.
Children's cartoons are dead these days (except MLP FIM)
The news to be insulting to anyone with even average intelligence.
Criminals are not born, they are made through society.
I find celebrity obsession to be a waste of time and brain power.
-I believe the idea of a God takes away too much credit for the accomplishments of man
-Along with that I do not believe there is a god however I do think there is something along the lines of Karma.
-While I am Athiest I believe if Satan exists he is a good guy because he punishes evil....so does Batman. In this situation I would think God is selfish due to inaction.
Ok done with religious ones
Oblivion > Skyrim
Fallout 3 > New Vegas
Fable > Fable 3 > Fable 2
Military shooters are overrated piles of garbage and should be destroyed.
Children's cartoons are dead these days (except MLP FIM)
The news to be insulting to anyone with even average intelligence.
Criminals are not born, they are made through society.
I find celebrity obsession to be a waste of time and brain power.
Oh snap, I just remembered another one. A lot of people are gonna get mad after I say this.
Ahem...I think dubstep sucks.
Ahem...I think dubstep sucks.
I think action horror games like Dead Space are better, conceptually, than their actually-scary survival horror cousins. It's a matter of what those two different genres say in terms of theme. Survival horror is all about living in a world full of awful, terrifying things that you'll never be able to truly defeat, and the only thing you can ever hope for is to simply survive against them (and sometimes not even that, depending on how much of a downer ending the game wants to go for). In a properly-made action horror game on the other hand, while there are certainly awful, terrifying things about, the game will depict some hero who's skilled, strong-willed, and clever enough to overcome and defeat those things, or it'll simply opt to take the bite out of those scary things by being campy and humorous. While there is definitely something to be said for the thrill of a good scare, which only survival horror can properly provide, I just prefer to have a positive message.
The problem with action horror is that whenever a developer sets out to design what should obviously be in the action horror genre, they usually end up trying to force it to have the bleak, hopeless themes of survival horror, and it inevitably ends up just being some tonally-broken mutant hybrid of these two very different, distinct genres. So the players wanting survival horror will end up disappointed because the game isn't scary, and the people wanting action horror will just think the game's retarded for trying to be so bleak when the main character's running around blasting zombies with a rocket launcher. For this reason, the only truly great action horror games I've played are Dead Space 2 and Resident Evil 4 (the thematic equivalents of Aliens and a cheesy B-movie, respectively), which isn't a whole lot when compared to all the great survival horror out there.
The problem with action horror is that whenever a developer sets out to design what should obviously be in the action horror genre, they usually end up trying to force it to have the bleak, hopeless themes of survival horror, and it inevitably ends up just being some tonally-broken mutant hybrid of these two very different, distinct genres. So the players wanting survival horror will end up disappointed because the game isn't scary, and the people wanting action horror will just think the game's retarded for trying to be so bleak when the main character's running around blasting zombies with a rocket launcher. For this reason, the only truly great action horror games I've played are Dead Space 2 and Resident Evil 4 (the thematic equivalents of Aliens and a cheesy B-movie, respectively), which isn't a whole lot when compared to all the great survival horror out there.
You're aware that the major overpopulation is happening in 3rd world countries, and populations in places like Australia would be declining if not for an increased foreign presence, right?Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
There's this special sunglasses stuff that produces the appearance of rainbows whenever you look at a reflective surface/sky. I just noticed the other day that my prescription sunglasses have it, so I can marvel at rainbows whenever I want and nobody can call me gay because they don't even know it's happening.
Women who like sex aren't bad and should not be called names.
Everyone regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual preferences, race, etc should have equal rights.
Americans need to stop telling me I spell words like colour and flavour wrong.
Also, religious people who have to bring their religion into EVERYTHING and shove it in everyone's faces and down their throats should never hold a public office and should have some sense beaten into them so they stop. Because honestly I'm tired of being damned to hell and having different Christian beliefs shoved down my throat by people at gas stations whilst filling up my car and them not listening when I say I'm not interested.
Everyone regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual preferences, race, etc should have equal rights.
Americans need to stop telling me I spell words like colour and flavour wrong.
Also, religious people who have to bring their religion into EVERYTHING and shove it in everyone's faces and down their throats should never hold a public office and should have some sense beaten into them so they stop. Because honestly I'm tired of being damned to hell and having different Christian beliefs shoved down my throat by people at gas stations whilst filling up my car and them not listening when I say I'm not interested.