What are the worst misconceptions you know of?

[SL33TBL1ND]

When people think that Jesus was white. So stupid.

When people think Jesus was black, one of the most annoying things in the world is when people hear that Jesus is white and then start trying to argue that he was black because they cant think sensibly.

Also all sorted of stupid misconceptions about nearly every single religion there is, if anyone ever brings up any religion in a conversation you can be pretty certain that 90% of whatever being said are misconceptions unless you have someone of that religion around.

I never said Jesus was black, but he was clearly not European like so many believe. Don't be an ass.

You completely missread me, i never meant that aimed at you. I was agreeing and adding to you. Sorry if you thought it sounded like an attack on you, that was never my intention.

Ah ok, sorry 'bout that.

 

[DoubleTime]

No I am not evil, I am not a satanist, I don't wear black all the time, I am not always depressed

As a female goth I totally agree with this. It can be so infuriating when people assume those things. Also the people who freak if I wear a collar and/or glare at my boyfriend like it's his fault.

 

[Criquefreak]

That the most vocal element of a group always represents the majority.

That there's physiological or psychological things we haven't discovered yet.

That a rise in diagnosis means something new is occuring.

That any person can reach conclusive proof of external phenomenon without input from other persons.

That a person who likes cats will like lolcats.

But I think the worst would probably be: That coincidental evidence is proof.

 

[Aphex Demon]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

I agree with you on this actually.

Technically I could be classed as one, I was legal, she wasnt by a few months. Yes the law DOES need re-writing, but only to distinguish the difference between 'sick fuck' and 'rules are rules, buddy, she aint legal yet, Warning for you'

I dont know, all too confusing for me.

It goes into my head asplode territory.

Lol, Oh and for the record, I was 17, she was 15.

My head is now full of fuck.

Congrats on this achievement in inflicting mental pain unto me.

Haha really? Please indulge on what you mean...

 

[Dark Knifer]

That misconceptions has three s's.

Hmm, surprised no-one pointed this out sooner. You must be the finest grammar nazi in the land then. Or at least the most devoted, take your pick.

Don't know which one's the best really... But it's spelled correctly in the OP, so I guess it was a bit of a snark.

Well consistency is nice, so if your going to be a grammar nazi you may as well go all the way with it. It's not like it ever hurt anyone... To my knowledge...

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

I agree with you on this actually.

Technically I could be classed as one, I was legal, she wasnt by a few months. Yes the law DOES need re-writing, but only to distinguish the difference between 'sick fuck' and 'rules are rules, buddy, she aint legal yet, Warning for you'

I dont know, all too confusing for me.

It goes into my head asplode territory.

Lol, Oh and for the record, I was 17, she was 15.

My head is now full of fuck.

Congrats on this achievement in inflicting mental pain unto me.

Haha really? Please indulge on what you mean...

On what? The fuck or the pain?

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

On topic, I would say that all people who play video games are/were/will become this man:

That would be.........



[HEADING=3]Awesome[/HEADING]

 

[garmaniac]

Seeing how scientists haven't been able to recreate the circumstances or the results of evolution in an controlled environment and found that the things needed would counteract each other, I would say that evolution is one of the worst misconceptions there is.

 

[Stevanchez]

1) people with small feet/hands have small penis'

2) everyone in europe can understand each other (chinese people believe this)

3)the virgin mary was a virgin

Every saying or belief about penis size is completely false and stupid.

Actually, in general the length of your middle finger to your wrist is approximately the length of your penis when erect. It's just the way proportions work. Go on, measure. I'll wait.

EDIT: This is of course in the average sized human, which does make it harder to prove. But suspect that if the ratio changed with a man's size, it would change uniformly in both directions, due to the nature of proportions in the case of the human body. Such as the foot being as long as the forearm and so forth.

That's not true either.

The average male's hand is 189mm or 7.4in in length(tip of the middle finger to the wrist) and that is way longer(almost 2 inches) then the average erect penis.

 

[silentsentinel]

We only use ten percent of our brains, and if we unlock the other 90% we can become super-smart gods.

I want to go up to people who believe that and kick them in the face. With a boot.

Isn't that whole, ten percent thing just we use ten percent but only because we use so many different sections at different times? like you use different sections for different things, and some are used sub-conciously?

We don't use it all at the same time, but I assure you that if you go through all the actions of a normal day you will have used all the parts of your brain by the end of that day.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

That Napoleon was a midget. He was 5' 7", which is hardly a shrimp.

You serious? That was medium height back then.
Didn't know that.

Whole "Napoleon is short was actually invented by his British enemies so they could constantly poke fun at him (since their were no photos back then that could refute it.

In the old French system, he was 5'2, which equaled 5'7 today, but the English took that 5'2 and sold it as "our enemy is a midget."

OT: All ideas that maturity are ideals of a Michel Bay film.

 

[xdom125x]

Excalibur was the sword in the stone.
[Probably didn't know this either, did you?]

The Lady of the Lake gave it to him, right?

 

[acturisme]

Well, most of mine involve magical thinking people. The worst one I know is that some people have this notion that inanimate objects can be "evil."

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

That wikipedia is full of lies. There are just a small minority of users who screw with the wiki, and the edit rarely ever stays (the bots fix most vandalism).

I may have been ninjaed on this, but...

Wikipedia is the Most Accurate Encyclopdeia in the world as of 2008, when it surpassed the encyclopdeia Britianica. There are more experts contributing and fact-checking Wikipedia than any other encyclopdeia in the world.

Just wanted to jump in with the support on this one. I hate this particular misconception.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I don't think that is a misconception...Mary is said to have been impregnated through miraculous means. Not saying she never had sex, but I'm fairly certain she was a virgin when Jesus was born, or at the very least conceived. So referring to Virgin Mary is referring to her miraculous pregnancy and subsequent birth of Jesus.

Actually, no. THAT was added in the year 500 or so. The same with Buddah - it was popular to stick a miracle onto the prophet's birth in that time period.

In the original text, it says "first born" - the greek word for first born is "virgin birth" - Rome used the greek word to come up with the immaculate conception thing.

Here's another one - that Mary Magdaline was a prostitute. She was a PRINCESS (or at least a jewish noble woman). The prostitute thing was added WAY later, in like 1100 AD or so. Mary Magdaline was Jesus's wife, because a good jewish boy would have been married (and had children) by the time he was 35.

 

[Blitzkrieg64]

Spoiler: Really hate this one

"There is no such thing as bisexuality, only straight men/women or gay men/women who were confused about themselves originally."

[sub]Don't ask where I got that from, it's really not okay to ask that from me. [/sub]

Spoiler: Just, no.

"If a guy has sex with another guy then he's gay permanently, and any sexual feelings he has toward women ever again are just God's way of torturing him by showing him something he will never be able to have or enjoy."

[sub]Again, do not ask.[/sub]

Seriously, these two are both the most wrong things I've ever heard.
[sub]Also I am aware there is a contradiction between the two statements, please do not let me know about it. They're wrong enough on their own.[/sub]

 

[Steven True]

Which is ridiculous, there are plenty of people out there who have no opinion one way or the other.

Then those people are called agnostic atheists.
Atheist: They lack a belief in any god(s).
Agnostic: They lack knowledge of any god(s)

You're missing the point. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. As in, there could be a god, but there might not be. Which part of that sways towards atheism?

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s), NOT the belief in the absence of god(s). Those are two different things.
So, if somebody could go either way on the subject then they lack a belief in any god(s).
They therefore are an athiest.

Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of whether or not god(s) exist.
So, if somebody could go either way on the subject then they claim to lack knowledge.
They therefore an agnostic as well.

 

[Mr. Meslier]

Seeing how scientists haven't been able to recreate the circumstances or the results of evolution in an controlled environment and found that the things needed would counteract each other, I would say that evolution is one of the worst misconceptions there is.

Recreating the circumstances of evolution on earth would be a three billion year long experiment.

The genius of Darwin's theory is that its formation broke several rules governing philosophy of science, yet still ended up being quite good in the end. Imagine it like an incredibly lucky guess, though it it more like an incredibly good insight. It managed to retain its primary form regardless of the scientific advances thrown at it. Genetics, one of the youngest sciences, is its primary source of evidence. We have been able to generate scenarios that would potentially falsify evolution, but such things simply do not exist.

 

[Steven True]

Okay if what you mean by meaning not being "inherent" is that meaning is not etched into the very fabric of the universe waiting to be found by sentient beings, then yes of course I agree. Meaning is a cognitive construct. No cognition, no meaning. I think most everybody would take that as a given.

However, I don't think that is what many (if any people) mean when they say that. When it is said that meaning is inherent in something, that is a short hand for saying that there is a widely held consensus within a specific cultural context on the meaning of something.

For example, when a playwrite writes a scene without "inherent meaning", that is just a short hand way of saying something to the effective of, "This scene was written in a way that makes it very difficult for the audience to reach a consensus on its meaning or decipher what I (the playwrite) wished to communicate based on their common cultural references."

To take your example of a crucifix, it has inherent meaning, in that the culture in which it exists has come to a broad consensus that it symbolizes Christianity.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

there must be primary attraction or attraction of some nature or it would never happen, even if it is situational there still must be some attraction for everything to work correctly. also i find you defense of pedophiles very disturbing.

An attraction in the sense that they are willing to entertain the idea, not exactly being a preferred sexual partner.

Why? It's the truth. People use Pedophile and Child Molester interchangeably as if they are the same, I'm just pointing out the difference.