When Reddit did this, the site crashed and the 10,000+ comment thread in AskReddit was full of people "bravely" disclosing racism, sexism, and other rather horrifying "controversial" opinions that amounted to confirmation that Reddit is essentially a wildlife sanctuary for young, relatively wealthy white males to openly wallow in their privilege and be praised for doing so.
I wonder what would happen if Hubskiers--yes, including you, Theory of Reddit migrants--answered the same question?
As a word of warning: if you truly mean this post as an experiment to compare the response on Hubski to the response on Reddit, then the open disdain phrased in your question creates a distinct bias against responding with a controversial opinion that could seen as belonging to a "young, relatively wealthy white male." That being said, I don't think Romney would have made a bad president. The way he ran his campaign was dubious and I tend to lean Democratic, but even still I still think Romney was a stronger choice than Obama.
You're completely right, of course; however, no, I don't intend it as a scientifically rigorous experiment. Actually, I'd like to see what happens when people whose most controversial opinions are NOT worthy of explicit disdain (such as racism or sexism) discuss their controversial opinions. Hubski is implicitly not a welcoming community to people who seek to offend or who are seeking microcosms online where opinions considered repulsive in the mainstream are heartily seconded, thirded, and more. (See: r/MensRights) So, it's not an experiment comparing Hubski and Reddit, necessarily. It's an experiment comparing a context explicitly welcoming to racism, sexism, classism, and so on and so forth, vs. the question of controversy posed in a context explicitly unwelcoming to the same.
Yeah, if I had to answer this myself I would say that being even slightly open to religion as a positive factor in human lives is probably my most controversial opinion, because I'm so on the fence there that the Internet hates me for kind of liking religion, and the Bible Belt would consider me a heathen for not being sold on it entirely. That and my own brand of religious experimentation is explicitly interfaith, so if you hate Christians, Jews, OR Muslims you're not allowed to like me!
I think the problem is that by picking a side in religion you're standing up and saying "I think this is the right choice". Which means you think all the other choices are wrong. Which in the modern world is probably the worst thing you could do, that is, be judgmental.
Rather than judging Presidents based on how their policies match with my own personal political ideologies, I prefer to judge them on how well I can see them performing their role in the office. This past election was past from clean, and as far as I can see, the Republican reaction to the election has not left President Obama with a Congress easy to work with. Since there's a split Congress, if Romney had won, he still would have had trouble with the Senate. However, with Obama's heavy influence on compromise for his past term, I feel like Democrats would be more likely to comprise with Romney than Republicans with Obama, even if they only do so out of an obligation to uphold their image as 'cooperative.' Romney, if nothing else, has also shown his flexibility in policies. While this has disgusted some people, I feel we need a President who knows how to do this. The current public image of the relationship between the President's seat and Congress is one of constant fighting. Certainly, both parties would like to paint it this way, because it's beneficial to both to show their side "extending the open hand of compromise", while implying it's the fault of the other side for being stubborn. Romney, hypothetically, would more easily be able to reach compromises and successfully push for bills because of both his flexibility and a more open Congress. This would give the public a more positive image of the government and increase faith that, perhaps, the government isn't broken and can still get things done. This faith, more than any policy a President can push, is what I believe can aid the country most at this point.
While I agree that Romney might have been able to pull off more compromises, I don't think that faith in government is more important than reasonable policies, which Romney really didn't have any of. I would go so far as to say that it's far preferable to have a government that accomplishes nothing than one that changes things in a negative direction, e.g. cutting health care, obfuscation of budget plans, necessary tax hikes falling on the poor and middle class instead of the rich, etc. In fact, given current Republican willingness to put this country on the line for corporations and the upper class, I would be happy to see a presidential term with no negative change. The positive change can happen once the Tea Party representatives are gone; for now, just hold the line.
I think the idea of God given human rights is bullshit. Human rights are a courtesy we should extend to one another. They are a standard we should hold ourselves to, but to say that these rights are an intrinsic part of everyone is wrong. The sea doesn't acknowledge the right of a drowing man to live.
In modern philosophy, the concept of "natural rights" is widely dismissed. It's a dated Enlightenment-era concept that is not based upon any real logic. Are you aware of the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance?
I really do agree with this. I'm also pretty sure God didn't want humans to have free will, and the devil is responsible for giving them that (Eve's apple for instance). So basically God is the bad guy, and the devil is the cool carefree dude who pretty much lets everyone do what they want. Or at least that's how I see it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Adam and Eve already have free will in the Garden? It was outlandish that God forbade eating from a tree that granted "wisdom" or what have you, but the devil essentially tricked them into eating the apple.
Well, if they didn't have free will they wouldn't have been able to eat the apple to begin with. In most Christian communities (at least that I've seen) the prevalent view is that God gave us free wills; it comes with having a soul. There's also the belief that the tree wasn't actually special, it was the act of disobedience that gave man knowledge of good and evil. Adam was ignorant to evil before hand, then disobeyed, and then realized he could continue to do that. Although I could see how @AlwaysOnTime came to his conclusion, as a Christian I think I have a slightly different perspective, haha
Actually I think you're right, that's why I wasn't fully sure about what I was saying. I never read the bible so I'm a bit uninformed. So did the apple actually give them something God didn't want them to have (i.e. wisom/some other devilish thing like knowledge) or was it just a test to see how they would use the free will given to them (i.e. use it to disobey or just accept it and be thankful)?
This is why, in my opinion, the bible was never meant to be taken in any literal or specific way. And now we have a lot of ignorant people using it to backup their ridiculous beliefs/statements, and cherry picking what they like or what can be interpreted to their advantage. It just sounds like a story that was meant to teach morality to people. I feel like the people who wrote it would laugh in modern religion's face for taking it so seriously. Then again, the morality aspect only went so far - they still stoned women and treated them like property, for example.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but you can't blame people for holding it all literally. The bible typically doesn't differentiate between the literal and the figurative, so it CAN be a bit hard to discern. Also, at the time that the individual segments of the bible were written they were pretty progressive. In the New Testament (the part with Jesus, I don't want to assume how much background knowledge you have) women could own property and not get married, which was a ridiculous notion in the first century. The New Testament also holds everyone as equals, where nobody is any better than anybody else. A Christian is only better off than any other human being because we've been forgiven our sins after seeking that forgiveness. We're still sinners, just sinners who get our slate wiped clean as long as we strive to improve. I know too many of my fellow believers who put themselves on a pedestal, an act which the bible specifically condemns. It's not the bible's fault that humans are fallible, it's our own.
That's what I'm saying - the bible is a decent book, and like you said, fairly progressive for its time, but people fail to apply it to their lives properly. You kind of jumped back on your point there - at first you said that it's wrong to blame people for holding it all literally (which I agree, it's too far down the road to really blame anyone), but then you admit that it's our fault for being fallible (unless those two are unrelated). But you are right, the bible is probably difficult to read through, but I still see no reason to take anything absolutely literally - its meant to serve as a moral guide, not a constitution.
Haha, I guess you could see it as me being a bit hypocritical, I'm sorry! Let me rephrase: We are, by nature, pretty messed up. I think anybody would agree with that. So it can't be helped that some would take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, even the stuff that isn't meant to be taken that way. That doesn't excuse the mistake, though, it just recognizes that it's natural.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the bible and its authors had the right ideas, but due to our nature, like you said, we were bound to make a mess of it and cause the troubles that we have today. Just the fact that Christianity has split into dozens, if not hundreds of different sects, all interpreting the bible in their own ways and modifying it, says so much about how we fail to simply follow along and be united under the same, general moral rule of "Be cool, man." (I'm pretty sure that was pretty much all Jesus talked about).
He also called the Pharisees (a self-righteous group of Jews at the time) a "Brood of Vipers" more than once, so that's neat. I think Jesus summarized himself pretty well in Matthew 22:36-40
I think an important thing is what God says as he banishes Adam and Eve.
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22).
God explicitly states that their expulsion is to prevent Adam and Eve from becoming immortal, and not as punishment for going against his word. Whether this is his true purpose, I have no idea, but throughout the Genesis, like striking down the Tower of Babel, God tries to prevent man from achieving immortality. Therefore, I think that the fruit "gave them something God didn't want them to have," as you said, and was not placed as a test. Of course, there are many other interpretations, and I'm not a scholar of the Bible. Regarding free will, I think that man had free will regardless if the fruit was a test. After all, God had only banned the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and allowed Adam and Eve to do whatever else they wanted. Unless I'm misinterpreting the meaning of "free will"?
The best analogy for free will was described as this: Free will is like God taking you to a fast food restaurant. God sets up the scenario, but you get to choose anything from the menu.
Brilliant. Where is this from? I tried googling but no results showed. Did you make it yourself?
I heard it at a youth convention when I was about in 7th grade. Mark Matlock was the speaker. He's very very good at explaining what he believes God intended.
Without getting too deep into Christian Dogma, Catholicism maintains that God expressly gave free will to humans so man is left to freely choose the right path, and this in turn makes God's creation of humans valid, as opposed to a selfish act of vanity (Making creatures that have to and can only love and worship you). Adam and Eve, however, is an allegory about the importance of obedience. The devil represents temptation, obviously, and the point of the story is really - "Listen to your parents (elders, superiors), or bad shit will happen." Parents, elders, superiors, and in this case, God, create guidelines so you don't accidentally kill yourself and learn to function well within the society you want to exist in. The difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is what those guidelines are meant for. In the Old Testament, it was quite literal, a set of rules that helped you not to die in the society and times it was written in. It is widely accepted among religious scholars that most of the Old Testament is not expressly the "word" of God, but rather the intentions of a loving, fatherly Creator working through the interpretations of the religious leaders of the time. I.E., God wants you to be happy and healthy, and I, as Abraham, have learned some things that will keep you this way - don't ingest certain types of food, don't kill other people, and don't lie with other men to keep our numbers up and people stop enslaving us. In the New Testament, the guidelines are about emotional and social well-being. The allegories start to be about sharing, caring, and loving the rest of humanity as much as possible. It's more of a "one-size fits all" mentality meant to promote understanding, self-sacrifice, and acceptance of others. Adam and Eve is the first allegory in the bible because it's the first thing we learn as humans - to trust and obey the judgment and wisdom of those responsible for our care.
Wait, I have somewhat of a problem with this. I was raised Catholic and we were always taught that original sin originated from Adam and Eve, and that's why we were baptised; to cleanse ourselves of that sin. So if it's an allegory, how can the Church maintain the idea that we actually have original sin if the Adam and Eve story was simply something used to teach a lesson?
Yay for reductionism. Adam and Eve being an allegory for obedience has nothing to do with its ability to be used as a foundation for the theological doctrine of original sin. It's a bit like saying that a car can't be used to carry birthday balloons because it is used to carry people the rest of the time. It has, magically, or rather like many other things in the universe, the ability to serve many purposes at once. I do however, tend to forsake the supernatural aspects of religion in these discussions. It's very easy to walk into a religious debate and go "You know you guys aren't really drinking the blood of a 2000 year old religious icon right?" and completely sideline any sort of real anthropological dissection of religious texts.
Yay for assumptions. I was genuinely curious, I wasn't trying to play a smug holier than thou atheist. I was curious as to how say a Catholic priest or official may answer this question; I wasn't trying to bring up a point for the sake of feeling superior in my beliefs. Sorry, I suppose.
I'm not really sure. It really depends on the priest or official you're asking. Their abilities to reason, and the depth with which they have chosen to study or interpret any given text or theological doctrine varies just as much as anything I suppose. Sorry for the assumption, it is the internet, and I know how godless all you heathens are. (I'm an atheist though, not that it matters. Tone is hard in text.)
The idea of human rights is completely a human-construct. They do not actually exist.
It's the difference between absolute and relative truth. There were no beautiful sunsets before someone came along and observed them as such. Those rights do not exist outside of human perception.
You know, this is honestly something I've never thought about before. I believe that it is such an important aspect of interaction to extend these human rights to one another that I might as well think of them as intrinsic to every person. I'm not normally one to believe in entitlement, but I do believe everyone is entitled to the basic human rights. So I guess it's more so believing something so strongly that it might as well be the other.
The golden rule as in 'treat others how you wish to be treated?' But then what happens when one person doesn't give a care in the world as to how they're treated?
Another controversial topic in and of itself. So you believe in 'an eye for an eye?'
And so I assume you're cool with the death penalty then? (I'm not trying to stir up debate, I'm just curious). I'm not sure myself of where I stand on it.
I am fine with it in principle, but there have been enough problems with ensuring they have the right guy, and over application of the penalty to minorities and the lower socio economic classes that I am concerned about how it is being used in our society today. If the authorities could address those problems and ensure it is being practiced fairly and accurately then I would be very much behind it.
Very good point. I think I agree with that. In principle, it makes a lot of sense. But like many things in life, many things good in principle are executed poorly.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to have children/it's not a right to have children.
I think this is something that we should start to address now. If life-expectancy continues to rise with improvements in modern medicines, etc. then starting now will help to preserve our future. From a less...charitable standpoint, I feel that if you're not capable of financially supporting yourself, you shouldn't be able to have a child that you will not be able to support. 13% Percent of children are born poor, and of these an estimated 49% will remain poor for at least half of their lifetimes. While there are success stories, this creates more problems than it is worth.
Some developed countries have a declining population, particularly when you account for the impact of immigration. This has been achieved through improved healthcare (knowing that your children will survive/access to contraception), improved education (sexual eduction/access to better jobs), free commerce and media (increased importance of lifestyle and material possessions), equal rights (women in control of their own future). Therefore, I think the focus should be on sustainable development. On your second point, I don't understand why those from more affluent backgrounds, with access to a better education and opportunities, should ultimately be provided rights that are not afforded to other less fortunate people.
Birth control is huge. Widespread access and a focus on birth control/contraceptives as opposed to abstinence in public education could do wonders in the long run.
Mine is that abortion is actually killing a human life in every case, but that is totally fine often times, as we shouldn't have to place as much value on really tiny humans vs larger, especially born ones in all cases, or even most if it doesn't suit us. I think abortion should be legal up to a certain point and that it should be the mother's choice whether to terminate, but I think most pro-choicers are too chickenshit to call a spade a spade and admit that we want to be able to kill tiny humans for what amounts to no more than convenience or to correct poorly thought out decisions in many cases. A lot harder to defend when you put it like that.
Heh, came back and read this right after shocking some crazypants pro-lifer on Facebook by not being offended when she called me "callous, heartless, and cruel" for asserting that I don't give a damn whether or not a fetus is a person or where life begins, because I'd gladly kill a full-sized adult, too, if that was the only alternative to using my own internal organs to sustain it for nine months, culminating in its removal through a painful process that would at best permanently change my body and at worst kill me. OK, so that's callous, heartless, and cruel. Fine by me. It's still my choice and I intend to exercise it if necessary, after taking all possible precautions to avoid it. Yes, I goddamn well feel I can kill tiny humans if they inconvenience me and the only alternative is supporting them inside my body against my will, and if I ever have to do so, I guarantee that more children will benefit from that choice than be harmed by it, considering that my no-kids status is what allows me the flexibility to do as much charitable work as I do, much of which benefits children.
I'm with you mostly; I don't think it's so hard to defend. The thing is, the question of abortion is one of the most difficult ethical/moral questions we have, because what you're dealing with is a spectrum of life from the single-cell to the fully-formed bawling smiling baby. You're dealing with a process which is mostly beyond human comprehension at this point--a process which takes a form of life which most people obliterate by the trillions on a daily basis (in the form of bacteria) to something which is so complex and mysterious as to be effectively the last true "magic" of the scientific world: the sapient human. The question of where to draw the line and how to formulate logically a policy for barring or permitting the systematic killing of organisms along this spectrum is one of the most ferociously gray areas you can come up with. Saydrah makes an interesting point below, which is that a pregnant mother is protecting herself from intense bodily transformation (and potential damage) by aborting a pregnancy. Another way to think of it is the euthanasia of a human being which has no quality of life by definition. This is analogous to the regular killing of humans who are irreversibly damaged to the point of being unconscious or terminally miserable. The place where this analogy falls down I guess is that while fetuses are completely incapacitated human beings, they are all but destined to "recover" by growing up and becoming (presumably) functional members of society. So aborting a fetus in this sense is no different from unplugging a Terry Schiavo who is almost certain to undergo a full recovery in the coming years, but a recovery which the caretakers are unwilling or unable to finance and supervise. In the end, I think abortion should be legal, but mostly that is a gut feeling. A feeling which is based on a respect for the intimate connection between the fetus and the physical identity of the mother as well as a recognition of the immense problems which unwanted pregnancies can lead to. In a pragmatic sense, I suppose the question should come down to whatever people feel is right in each occasion. Where and when you can say that an abortion should be forbidden is really hard to decide in, say, a conference room. Or, more accurately, our Congressional offices. When it comes down to it, I think people should do what seems the most right, and the least gross, and whatever moral implications there are will be in the interpretations of the people who see it happen.
The crazy thing is that because this is a 'spectrum' as you aptly described it, attempts to define life along it are arbitrary almost by definition. The least and perhaps only non-arbitrary place to define the beginning of a human life is at conception as I see it. This rankles people in the pro-choice camp, but probably rankles lifers more when the consequence of that view is that i feel you should still be able to kill it. So really the conversation to me is about how we value human life at different stages, and the question of where does life begin is secondary and kind of misses the point in the context of not holding the view that all human life is objectively valuable or sacred. The whole problem is made worse by the fact that there is no right answer but rather a cultural spectrum of ethical stances...which only makes sense.
But you can't paint all situations like that. For a lot of people, they did take the correct precautions and it still happened. Having a child is a huge financial and emotional burden, something that a lot of people aren't ready for. I'm of the opinion that it definitely is the beginnings of a life, but a life it isn't. Up to a certain point it can't survive outside of the womb, let alone react to stimuli.
It is alive but is it 'a life'? To me up to a certain point the foetus is only 'alive' in the sense that it is another part of the living mother. It really depends on what you consider 'life' to be, right? The foetus does not think for itself until a certain point and does not experience pain independently until another. Is it a life if it is not even capable of feeling its death approaching? Let alone understanding what death is? Surely the foetus is simply a part of the mother until it is able to think independently (even in the most basic terms). To me it would be strange to consider the foetus as 'a life' as it is not, at least until a fairly late stage, anything more than a part of the mother. It is part of her 'life' and she can remove it in the same way she might remove a wart.
Fetus is alive and shares chromosomes of both the mother and the father. Most of the points you made apply to newborn babies as well, including total dependency. Something that is alive is a life, by definition. All of your tests and qualifications for what constitutes a life are arbitrary, and I think speak directly to why society has such trouble defining life along a spectrum of development. I define it at the point where it begins, conception, and simply say its just not that valuable at that point unless the parents place a value on it, instead of trying to move the definition of where it begins for everybody else.
I agree with what you say but I personally take that train of logic slightly further. I believe that the younger the human is, the less of a person they are, they have had fewer experiences and have had less time to form a self (so an early foetus is barely a person and thus not a great shame if the life is ended). As a result I also think that when children die it is less of a tragedy (still obviously a bad thing though) than when an adult dies. When the Sandy Hook shooting news broke I realised how differently I valued human life to most people. I felt most angry about the teachers that died than the children, in their 30-some years of existence think how many thoughts they had thought, how many experiences and interactions they had which all contributed to a complex and sentient, interesting being. Compare this with the young children who had spent less than 7 or 8 years alive. Sure they had potential, but potential doesn't contribute to what kind of person you are. So that's probably my most controversial opinion.
Is masturbating killing a person? When does it become a person? Does it have to have a brain? How well developed does it have to be to be called a "person"? I'd rather kill a baby than a whale or a tiger.
Please no. That's a load of crap and you know it. It's very easy to distinguish between something which has half the chromosomes needed to be considered human and something that has all of them (or close in the case of some mutations :D) Of course, on a technicality the statement is correct. Masturbation does kill sperm which amounts to cells. The intended meaning of that propaganda phrase is that it's killing a human life (closer to the legal definition of murder) which is just plain dumb. That sort of completely useless, overly dramatic, and completely fallacious statement shouldn't be welcome here. If only we had "downvotes" ... I know you were probably trying to be funny or just spewing something you've heard dozens of times before, but please, no.
I think I agree with this, especially a really good brownie. Now if you have any kind of caramel topping to the brownie, nuts are required for the turtle experience
I hate you and am ignoring you. This is the most fundamentally incorrect thing I have ever read.
At my workplace it's hotly contested. Unfortunately, I'm outnumbered. Other hot topics are whether .gif should be pronounced like jif or gift sans the 't' and whether pizza can be cute.
I'm firmly in team jif and pizza most certainly cannot be cute. I do begrudgingly respect people who pronounce it like gift. No respect for people who think pieces of pizza are cute, however.
I don't think smoking should be so widely accepted. Insead of constantly narrowing the gap for people who smoke I think we should just make it really socially unacceptable. Pop culture is great at making children not want to be fat or different, and everything we learn at school shapes how we think. Instead of drugs are bad mckay, how about smoking makes you a idiot to everyone
I think that's the general opinion for people that don't smoke. It's very stupid. The issue is that people typically start when they're teenagers, and they just want to rebel. So they start by doing something stupid. People don't smoke because it's cool anymore, they smoke because it's rebellion, and rebellion is cool.
I'm going to have to step in here. I've almost universally noted that the people who complain about smokers tend to be people who don't smoke, and often never have, and who for that reason conclude that there is no rational reason to smoke, and that people only ever start to "fit in" or seem "cool". This is garbage. The first time I smoked a cigarette was out of curiosity; the second time was because I found the first enjoyable. Smoking is relaxing. It's an enjoyable activity, not an arbitrary one. Which isn't to say that it doesn't have a number of severe demerits - health problems, high cost, and, of course, addiction. (And, yes, many people do only start smoking to fit in, as they do other things.) But it is quite possible for something to be bad for you and be enjoyable - as indeed many enjoyable things are.
As usual, generalisations don't serve us well here. :)
I'm reading Gaston Bachelard's Psychoanalysis of Fire right now and it's a really interesting read. It'll make you think of the reasons one smokes in an entirely different light. Your're right. It is about rebellion, for one, but with polyvalent meanings. Rebellion against a young healthy body, proving that one can physically survive harm; and rebellion, psychically, against fire as a fundamental element i.e. holding, consuming, and controlling heat and danger. One takes in smoke with an agreeable face because, I feel, there is a primitive connection to the life of the fire. Nevermind the fact that you smell like shit afterward :)
Well, I'm certain that I can't articulate as well as he could. I'm definitely no Gaston Bachelard, let me tell ya. When dealing with the subconscious, it often seems 'a little far-fetched' frankly. I don't mean to come off as if what I was suggesting is a panacea for all the reasons why people smoke. Just thought it was a different perspective and at least fun to think about. But I will assert my previous sentiment, that concerning humans there is a primitive connection to the life of the fire, and smoke is the son of fire.
It is definitely fun to think about! It's an amazing feeling when you are able to use something you've read to reinterpret the world and I don't mean to take that away from you. The book sounds super interesting and I have reserved it at my library. I think it would be difficult to deny a deep connection to fire as humans.
Exactly. The first two times I smoked were out of curiosity (the first didn't go too well, haha). Now I smoke because my roommates aren't the most social of people. But, when we go to our front porch for a smoke, we talk about what's on our minds. Sure, it's probably not healthy for a relationship to be based on smoke breaks, but I see it as a foot-in-the-door. Another reason I like to smoke is because it gets me outside. I don't live near nature, and it's one of my favorite things. To have and excuse to be outside and just be still is wonderful. Again, I could do this without smoking, but it's very pleasant to see the snow fall counter to the smoke rising.
Thank you for reminding me of one of my favorite articles from this past year. I've re-posted it as a hubski thread, it's well worth the read.
The Idea that gets me into the most trouble is that I think that chance and bullshitery are more powerful than "genius" and "hard work". It seems to me to be kinda obvious but folks get angry.
It only becomes unobvious after one is successful. Hard work is a prerequisite for success in many fields, but certainly no guarantor. I think many successful individuals feel denigrated if it is pointed out to them that luck is the most powerful force in life.
While I agree that luck has a lot to do with many successes. I would also point out that most successful people put themselves in a position in which they can benefit from circumstance. The old adage "you create your own luck in life" is true in most cases. Work hard and you're far more likely to benefit from what people call "luck".
I think there is definitely ,a if you don't play you can't win, element to things.
un-submited manuscripts almost never get published getting a job you did not apply for is a bit rare. But I think there are a lot of folks that win the proverbial lottery and become convinced they are really good at picking lottery numbers.
But I think there are a lot of folks that win the proverbial lottery and become convinced they are really good at picking lottery numbers.
Absolutely, without a doubt, this exists. And you hit it on the head, if you don't take a swing you can't hit the ball. That simple. But SOO many people don't take the swing and complain about never hitting the ball. It's baffling.
Congrats man! Hope it went well. Enjoy. When you're back in the only town I've ever seen you in, let me know. I've been traveling there quite a bit of late and could use a sushi companion. My best to you guys.
Poor denigrated successful folks my heart goes out to them. What a hard row to hoe that must be. ;) Hard work and smarts are far from useless but they certainly are not the only horses running.
I always hate these threads, the most uncontroversial opinions (on the internet) are always pushed to the top. That said, my most controversial opinion is probably that LGBT people should be accepted in Christianity. To the vast majority of my fellow Christians this is 'against God's will' in some way or another and to any non-believers the idea of God is ridiculous.
After years of religious schooling, this is one of the things that really makes me seethe. Not only is there no standing for the rejection of LGBT in Christianity, judgment of others is completely "against God's will." Casting judgment of others or professing to know God's will is like saying you are God (which is considered blasphemy, the greatest sin you can commit as a Christian). The New Testament is nothing but the Christian God saying leave the judgment up to me, y'all just need to love each other and play nice. Being hateful towards any group or person is explicitly anti-Christian.
I guess I'm pretty fortunate because most of the Christians I know are prettying accepting of the LGBT community. It's interesting though how those Christians that are opposed to homosexuality quote Leviticus and justify their beliefs with it. Leviticus also bans the consumption of shellfish, yet I don't see any movement vehemently opposed to that. I think we'll see a shift within most churches soon. Many leaders of the church recognize that anti-LGBT beliefs tend to drive away more members than it keeps, especially among younger generations. I think we were raised to be more tolerant of sexuality than the generations that preceded us, and as we "take over", how everybody views and treats the LGBT community will change.
Socialism envisioned an economy Steve Jobs would be proud of -- centralized, coherent, running like clockwork. Capitalism envisioned an economy like an ant hill, optimal behavior emerging out of individual incentives. (Libertarianism even more so.) It's time for a synthesis. Socialism takes away all incentive, and capitalism puts incentives outside man's control. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to design -- and continually tweak -- an economy's incentives in open, transparent, centralized, coherent fashion, and let economic activity emerge from it? [My book of the year 2012: Red Plenty. http://akkartik.name/blog/red-plenty; https://plus.google.com/110440139189906861022/posts/V1N3toqm...]
I think capitalism was entirely appropriate, and a great idea in it's historical, socio-political environment. With changing ideas about divine right to rule, etc, etc, I think capitalism was a great way for humanity to push itself into its next age. However, I don't think capitalism is the end-all-be-all and ends up disenfranchising lots of people. I'm interested to see what next economic and political ideologies emerge in the next 100 years or so (or as many as I get to see).
But their society as a whole has less of a consumer mindset.
I think that online games like MMORPGs are the worst invention ever. (Generalization of my idea) They destroy kids abilities to socially interact with people in real life when they start playing them too much. It will eventually breed a generation of introverts and I'm afraid that mankind will begin to emulate that lifestlye of living in luxury while living in a fantasy world. I honestly believe that we could become like the people in "Wall-E". Fat slobs on hoverchairs, playing our videogames. There are always exceptions, but I don't like the trend of more people becoming centered on computers, tablets, and games like this. Society as a whole is changing due to some of these factors and I don't like it. Read a book. Play outside. Talk to a girl. C'mon man.
I don't think that's very controvertial, but I agree. I used to play some WoW a few years ago, and I wish I hadn't, the game is lame and has NO value at ALL. It just plays on the human mind to be good at something, and you get validation for that all the time in WoW, like new weapons, leveling up etc etc.
I used to play Runescape for hours on end (I think I have 56 days totaled up with two 99s). I quickly learned that I had to stop playing when my relationship with my girlfriend was heavily lacking communication.
Top Comment of this thread on reddit: "DAE think Richard Dawkins is a visionary, weed should be legalized, fox news can't be trusted, and women never go for nice guys?!?" So brave... I really don't hold too many absolutely off the wall opinions. I suppose my opinions related to the most controversial matters are that I am pro-choice and anti-gun control. Actually TBH I know what people don't like when I say it. I think that a pure capitalist market is both ineffective in the long-run and unrealistic given the current trends and realities of globalization. While free-market strategies can be valuable in seeking innovation and the blossoming of both new technologies and new firms specializing in those technologies, reality teaches us that capitalism has led to oligopoly situations in essentially every imaginable market. These oligopolies are good at producing dollar flow but are not optimal for the everyman. They do not provide the maximum amount of bang-for-buck to consumers because they do not have to compete with anyone is any real fashion. They just buy up new technologies and conduct competition through patent wars. And they are providing a far less than optimal job environment due to the ease in which they can outsource jobs and selectively hire/fire workers domestically. It is depressing to both total hirees and average wages around the globe. There are more optimal ways to run our economies than unchecked markets. Especially with regards to dealing with large amounts of "guaranteed" (not really) money as is the case with modern banking.
Could you expand on that? I'm genuinely curious. I would argue that America is showing great innovation and increases in their standard of living (note that I am not American, so this is not an America is the greatest country etc. etc. opinion). Microsoft, a behemoth in the early days of computing is now competing heavily with Apple & Google. Apple which took away the smart phone market from RIM is now under intense competition with phones using Android. Everyone is forced to innovate and create a better user experience as a result (see Microsoft's revamped lineup: skydrive, outlook, w8, wp8, etc.). Outside of tech, things continually help make living easier and more comfortable. For example, those automatic shower cleaners and disposable toilet cleaning brushes make it quick and easy to clean your bathroom (especially useful for those uncomfortable getting close to toilets to clean them). Oligopolies can be beneficial and I would say their presence does not necessarily mean a failure of capitalism. For example, accounting firms that audit multi national corporations essentially need to be an oligopoly. Oligopolies can also have the resources to innovate in a way small companies can't.There are more optimal ways to run our economies than unchecked markets.
reality teaches us that capitalism has led to oligopoly situations in essentially every imaginable market.
While I do not discount the fact that oligopolies can be just fine. I also observe that healthier competition should produce more real innovation. I don't pretend that innovation does not exist and you bring up a good example. The market for personal technology has been evolving (if you don't count the iphone) and that's a good thing. But I would argue that this is largely because differet firms are beginning to dip their hands into the same pot, not becuase of true competition. but because fo the nature of the devices we carry. We have phones with distinct operating systems which access the internet and drive a healthy app market. Suddenly it's not just apple and miscrosoft in the personal tech business. It's apple and microsoft and google and all the phone companies competing, and all of them competing with ISPs (google fiber, verizon hotspots). Also, its important to point out that while many American firms are innovating. Innovation cannot be the sole driver of an economy. America is relying very heavily on innovation and skilled labor to fuel its economy and these two areas simply don't have the volume needed to fuel the largest economy in the world.
As far as more optimal things go, the critics of my stance have a valid point. Alternatives are limited. But that does not mean they do not exist and it does not mean that they are even vastly different. I think that a model based on capitalism would be best for most countries including the US. However I also think that there should be more intervention in markets with regards to how they operate. But then that's where you need to be careful, while intervention can prevent crises it is suboptimal on the smaller scale environments. I think that the united states needs to seriously consider both more protectionist policies and regulation in markets where competition has stagnated. One of the reasons it is so difficult to do this is that market tend to be as different as the countries that there are in. What works for one area and good might not work for another so there's no sweeping answer to all the questions. Rather, a thousand little ones. Personally, I think we need to start with heavy industry. While it's true it is difficult for us to complete with the cheap unskilled labor of many countries I think markets exist both domestically and abroad for goods in different prices ranges. The main implication of what I'm saying here, after you muddle through the inbetween, is that countries who do this would see the price of goods increase and level of employment increase. While a dollar would not stretch as far domestically it should not lose value internationally, and as it stands now it is important for America to keep the dollar trustworthy as a denomination to own debt in.
Is this an environmental stance, animal rights stance, human welfare stance, or something else entirely? I think that might be the most actually controversial thing here. I'd probably physically fight you over it if I had a few drinks. (Impossible, I'm a teetotaler, but still.)
No, I'm really just annoyed at them barking at me when I walk down the street. I probably don't really feel that way about them, I'm sure there are positives to dogs and dog ownership, I know historically there have been great uses for dogs as human companions. But I'm not convinced those uses are fully realized nowadays. I had an inherent fear of dogs from when I was very young, a friend of my parents thought it was funny to have his dogs chase me down the street. Over the years I mostly got over it. There was even a period where I really wanted a Shiba Inu because they're such beautiful dogs. But intermixed with that I started walking a lot, partially for work, partially just because I love walking. I cannot tell you one experience I've had in a suburban neighborhood where a Dog just charges the gate and barks at you. when you're not prepared for it it's a huge shock to the system and even when you notice the dog and brace for it it's no fun. However, that's just the dog's nature, what can we seriously do about it? they're territorial, even a well raised dog is still going to bark at you when you're on the sidewalk (and often across the street). So it's kind of become a thought experiment for me, what if we ended the domestication of the dog? Is it inherently selfish for me to think, would any breed of dog survive? etc etc. Also it's a great answer for "most controversial opinion"
Thank you for the literal lolNo, I'm really just annoyed at them barking at me when I walk down the street.
Here in the city, people generally tend to get their dogs trained properly. I used to be weary about them (okay, I still am) but I have warmed up to passing them now-a-days. As long as you don't give the dogs eye contact they tend to go about their business. There are even people who have their beasts trained so well that they can walk them without a leash with tons of people walking about and go into a store without having to worry about the dog bothering others or running off. What made me feel a little more at ease about the whole dog situation is this one guy who had a pitbull that I was sure was going to go after a cat that a store owner owned completely, entirely disregarded the cat. For a few seconds I felt I was seeing things. It nonchalantly walked by, leash-less and sat at the side of the front door waiting for the owner to return. I lived in the suburbs in Texas, though, and it is a completely different aspect. I know exactly where you are coming from with this view. I would change to the opposite side of the street (and that is a good four lanes) to avoid peoples' crazed dogs. They would bark before you even realized a dog was trotting on your path. Ending the domestication is a vague concept, though. How would one go about this? Would we have to 'put down' millions of house-trained dogs (and I use this term very loosely) individually? Where would the money to do something on such a vast scale come from (taxpayers/owners)? People would definitely feel as if their freedoms are being threatened, seeing that any regulation is usually heavily dreaded. "Why do I have to pay for something that I do not own?" "Why do I have to pay for something I do not want?" Would it be systematic genocide of an entire race of animal? Wild dogs are rare enough as it is (at least, to my understanding). If we were to not kill the house-trained animals and let them roam free in the wild, it raises the possibility of them roaming free and unrestricted. Possibly hostile due to them being abandoned, hungry and left to die. The dogs would get diseases and spread disease. There would be millions of unaccounted dead carcasses peppered across the country (world). If you think flies are annoying now, imagine enough flies to feast upon these dogs that have had days and weeks to breed and thrive from the dead dogs. Now, imagine these same flies that have bred and gained in mass numbers with little to nothing left to feast on, having to scavenge for food once again but now with increased numbers and less food sources. It'd be a complete disaster. I guess you could, over the years, eradicate all of the dogs. Though, it would be too much trouble. You would have to create a fair system to choose which dogs are to be killed or there will be people calling racism and sexism. There will be those who cause trouble because their next-door neighbor can own a cat; a bird. I'm sure there are many more angles that I haven't addressed but the fact that there are so many show that this is highly improbable. Your opinion is understood and shared. Though, it is an unrealistic goal to accomplish within our lifetimes so we are better off learning to cope with it.
"Here in the city, people generally tend to get their dogs trained properly" is a blanket statement with several qualifiers. In Chicago alone there are dozens of dog "rescues", and many of the dogs are sourced from negligent owners living in the city. Anecdotally, I had neighbors who were young, educated, wealthy white males who owned a dog for whom they could not provide adequate care - due to their schedules and priorities, the dog became the landlord's primary responsibility. There were times I fed and watered the dog out of concern for the dog's well-being, and I'm the furthest thing from a fan of most dogs (for similar reasons to OP). That said, it would have been presumptuous and rude to 'report' their negligence and get the dog taken away either by a rescue or animal control, and so I didn't. I doubt this was a unique scenario.
That is unfortunate. It seems to me that for every one dog that is owned and taken care for responsibly, a litter of them are mistreated. Since people aren't showing that they are capable, in majority, of treating dogs (or any animals) with respect, there should be requirements to own them. In correlation, making hefty consequences for abuse would deter some animal abusers. Just like with owning a car (it still doesn't seem to do much) you should have to get a license before owning an animal. Not everyone is fit to own one. I guess the same could be said for a lot of things. Children. People should have to show proof that they will be able to take care of the child. There are a lot of instances of what /should/ be regulated as opposed to what is and what is infringing on our "rights". Honestly, sometimes I feel that people use the word more as a weapon and could care less about what it ultimately stands for. Alright, I'm getting off the main topic now. New York City is the city I was referring to, my apologies, I should have specified.
For the most part I agree re: licensing. Not sure how I feel about that in re: children, but it's probably needed for domestic pets, cats and dogs alike. The current scheme hints at it, what with screening and that sort of thing, but it's rather superficial; you're asked "do you have a home?", "do you have a job?", "can you care for this animal?" and if you answer in the affirmative to each you're free to go. No apology needed - apologize, myself, if it was implied :)
That's like saying we should all stop wearing pants. There is, however, an interesting debate about the hegemonic breeding practices of English Bulldogs in North America as it exists today. There are many groups who would like to see it legally regarded as a practice of animal cruelty. The fact that these bulldogs, themselves, can no longer procreate independently from human intervention, not to mention health issues due to shortened snouts and mobility issues because of short legs, makes people understandably feel like it's a completely unnatural and therefore cruel breeding ritual. I guess when tackling the issue, my first question would be, 'Do the dogs know that they have health problems'? and secondly, if they don't, and are still the same little happy animals, then does it matter?
I think the human desire to belong is the most dangerous thing in the world.
I think the human desire to be different is the most dangerous thing in the world.
Really? How so? As for wanting to belong, I think of nationalism, religion, tribalism etc. Extremely dangerous things. Not to mention High school clicks.
I was just implying that such a decanted idea as 'to belong' surely has a blanket counterpart with the potential to be equally dangerous. I would also suggest that deep inside the want of the group is the want to be different - i.e. nationalism vs. exceptionalism.
I believe that you should be able to "abort" your baby until it's one(x) years old :) If the baby comes out being totally fucked and has no chance of getting a normal life, you should be able to dispose of it in the hospital within it's first year of life. There, I've said it. If this was another site I'd be downvoted to hell and back, but that's what I think is reasonable. The baby isn't iven aware of its existance.
I'd agree with this. The potential for abuse is there, admittedly, but I doubt it would be over-used. A parent who is willing to do this without a damn good reason shouldn't be a parent anyway.
Not to sound rude or anything, but I call BS. Babies that are less than 12 months old RARELY string sentances together, and if they do they have no idea what they mean. Even "mama" and "papa" is just sounds to them. Unless he has a really high vocabulary IQ. Babies arent self-aware until 16 months or so. That doesn't mean they can't feel anything, but the baby wouldn't have understood anything if it would have been killed by a needle. And btw. Im not talking about healthy kids here.
I would take that a step further. I believe that most people who are mentally retarded/ severely disabled and that cannot serve a function (such as research) should be euthanized, as I see them a drain on limited resources. I honestly don't see how the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I've worked in a retirement home, and the condition that some of the residents are in it seems cruel to leave them like that. I also feel that the people who advocate against euthanasia are just in denial that will happen to them, and a cure will come along and save them.
That's funny. I would argue that if one can't find a suitable research agenda for even the most retarded of people, then they aren't trying hard enough.
That is certainly a controversial opinion. The smile after the first sentence scares me somewhat. I would argue that in a country with modern medicine, any 'legitimate reason' (and I am not sure what that would be) for terminating a life should be able to be identified at a much earlier stage. Therefore, I would suggest mandatory screening for life inhibiting conditions at X weeks into pregnancy would be a more suitable alternative. Following the same line of thought, what about those who suffer life inhibiting conditions at a later stage of life (degenerative diseases/brain damage etc)? Should others be able to take their life from them?
Haha sorry about the smile :P I'm not "that guy", but I just had to put it there because it's so controversial. About your next thought: I'm not really sure, I think that people who are unable to respond to anything in any way might aswell die. A friend of mine just got a kid which looks like quasimodo and has a serious braindamage, why would "we" keep that alive? It's not really beneficial for any part. I also have a relative who is mentally and physically retarded after a diving-accident, he just sits in a chair blinking his eyes. If that was me I'd rather be killed, and I feel that it might have been better if he died in that accident.
Wow, that's a legitimately controversial opinion. I might agree, up to a point. However, a year might be pushing it, a lot of development has already happened by then. In general though, if a baby is going to have a terrible life, due to poverty, disorders, whatever, that seems reasonable. After adoption has been attempted. I feel like a terrible person now.
Laurelai brought up this discussion on anarchism earlier this year. You might be able to look through her other posts for a more discussions on the topic.
Sorry, but I know people who are anarchist by heart, but all of them say that it isn't possible. It's just an ideology like communism and capitalism. They don't work, because all people are different. One could argue that there could be places dedicated to people with the same ideologies, but that wouldn't work either, because someone would get a better "lot" on the planet, and people that are very religious would still come to your country and tell you what to think.
Anarchism incorporates the idea that strict ideology doesn't work, because people have different needs in different times and places. This is pretty much the entire reason for the rejection of hierarchy: it allows individuals the freedom to implement what works for them. Check out An Anarchist FAQ, Section A.3: What types of anarchism are there?, it touches upon the idea that a single unified ideology is not a good thing.It's just an ideology [...] They don't work, because all people are different.
The Somalis may live in Chaos but they are not Anarchists. I don't think egalitarianism and the rejection of force are the central pillars of Somali life.
I am confused rejection of Ideology does not contradict the goals of an egalitarian and non-coercive society .
Considering how many non egalitarian and coercive societies we have seen in the history "egalitarian and non-coercive" sounds very idealistic to me. Idealism would sound OK to me if you would admit that these things would be a huge challenge to anarchist society. Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. But it would not be anarchy anymore.
For most of the life of the species all societies were thought to have been "egalitarian and non-coercive", hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be that way. It was not until the agrarian revolution the societal stratification became possible (outside of a few fishing cultures).
You need to have enough extra calories to support a non-productive class.(1) Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. (2) But it would not be anarchy anymore.
1 - Exactly, Equality and non-coercion are goals, choices.
2 - only if you define anarchy in a way anarchists historically don't.
I've heard there are a few different schools of thought regarding anarchy. Do you mind explaining them? I generally feel that people would be best if left to their own devices, sans government, but I also realize that this would just leave a vacuum of power that SOMEBODY would swoop in and take.
An Anarchist FAQ is a great resource for most questions you might have about anarchism. A basic idea common to all forms of anarchism is that the absence of hierarchy would maximize individual liberty and social equality. The largest difference in anarchist schools of thought is between "individualist" and "social" anarchists, though their methods and ideas are not incompatible, and it is generally acknowledged that no theory is completely ideal for every time and place. As to the idea of a power vacuum, the process of an anarchist revolution is to dismantle the institutions that make it possible for an individual or organization to "swoop in and take" control. Also consider that anarchists do not disappear after a revolution: The widespread theory and practice that brought about massive change in society would necessarily stick around to maintain the new society. Anarchists who struggled through a revolution and their children who grew up in a culture of resistance would not submit to a new ruler.
Thanks for the info! I do have a thought though. Isn't there the inherent risk that the anarchists who overthrew the status quo could themselves become the status quo? Especially if they stick around to maintain the new society, as you put it. Not to say those who fought so hard for success would become tyrants, but I could see it happening later down the line. It would be the same issue that communism has had in the past. Everyone is equal, but this guy is going to be put in charge to make sure of that. And then he collects more and more power. It started out well, but then fell apart.
The issues that communists have had in the past are rooted in what's called "vanguardism". This is essentially the idea that if a communist party gains control of the state, it can use the state machinery as an implement to conduct the revolution. Once the revolution is completed, the state would theoretically become redundant and dismantle itself. Unfortunately, hierarchical institutions are self-preserving, and generally incapable of purposefully destroying themselves. So the communist state eventually becomes self-interested and oppressive. A movement with a culture of resistance against hierarchy, and a goal of dismantling oppressive institutions rather than utilizing oppressive institutions, should not be susceptible to such failures. The AFAQ has a great section called H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?Isn't there the inherent risk that the anarchists who overthrew the status quo could themselves become the status quo? [...] It would be the same issue that communism has had in the past. Everyone is equal, but this guy is going to be put in charge to make sure of that. And then he collects more and more power.
I've always appreciated the idea of an "ideal anarchy" where no single power swoops in and takes over. There's some simpsons quote homer makes about why communism doesn't work but ideally it would work, it could apply to anarchy too.
That prostitution should be legalised but regulated in order to protect prostitutes and clients, generate taxes, and reduce organised crime (human trafficking/drug smuggling). I am of the opinion there should be licensed brothels, which are in appropriate locations (not near schools/residential areas), have transparent and auditable accounts and charging/payment model (to protect prostitutes and clients), professional management (not controlling pimps), and adequate hygiene and safety standards (safe sex/panic buttons). Likewise, prostitutes should be licensed and undertake regular health checks and basic education in sexual health. Both brothels and prostitutes should pay taxes to cover the cost of having proper regulation. On the flip side, any unlicensed brothels or prostitutes that operate outside of the law, and importantly, their clients, should receive far harsher punishment than at present (significant fines/prison time).
We have exactly this, here in NZ. It's working well, from what I hear.
After reading a book on the brain, I find myself thinking that no one is really responsible for their actions. I don't mean this so much in the "no free will, everything is determined already" sense, which seems a little bit dubious, but rather in a broader sense. If "we" are really just the product of our genetics and our environments, how are we to be held responsible for what we do? If someone commits a crime because his/her brain is underdeveloped, or badly developed (think: underdeveloped prefrontal cortex -> impulsive decisions), how is he/she to be held personally responsible? Our legal system seems to make the implicit assumption that everyone is in control of how they act; that everyone is on the same playing field. But we really aren't. Looking at that, it doesn't look too Reddit-y. It's a touch different than the standard brand of liberalism you get from the most upvoted comment in r/politics, at least.
A person is identically equal to whatever was created by the circumstances of the universe. It's hard to come up with a good way to say this. I just don't see any difference between holding someone "personally" responsible for their actions and holding the product of genetics and environment responsible. I think what you're more opposed to is a punitive justice system rather than a corrective one. Give people an environment that is likely to change them for the better for society rather than pointlessly punishing them. Punishment is a futile exercise in revenge unless it is also effectively corrective discipline. I think that is what our justice system (in the US) is supposed to do, but it utterly fails at it.
I think you're right. There is some merit to putting people who might pose a danger to society behind bars, but this only addresses half of the issue. I'd like to see a justice system that recognizes ways to help those people develop into functional human beings. From what little I know, Scandinavian countries already take this approach, to some extent; is it working, I wonder?
Every government or public institution and every business that is above a certain tax bracket should be legally required to stay open 24 hours a day. This would create more jobs as there are now more shifts to fill.
There would be more business during those hours because of all the new people that will be living their life at night so it won't be a waste of wages. Parents living their life at night will naturally choose to have their children go to school during those hours. We won't be lumping everyone together in one 8 hour time period therefore we will have smaller classes with a better student to teacher ratio which is more conducive to learning. There will be fewer traffic jams as highway congestion practically disappears since not everybody is trying to get to work / lunch / home at the same times. This is better for the environment as commutes will be shorter with less time a car is spending burning fossil fuels. That also means less wear and tear on the individual vehicles which will save the commuters even more money on general upkeep.
There will be far fewer traffic accidents for the same reasons which saves everyone in lives and money. You wouldn't have to stand in line at the post office for EVER since people can choose any time to go. There would be less crime at night. Crime doesn't happen more often at night because it's dark, it happens more often because there are fewer people around so you're more likely to get away with it. Change that and crime goes down. Crime is also likely to go down as unemployment drops because of the millions of new jobs created. A long time ago, it made sense for most of us to go to bed at night. We couldn't see at night and it was dangerous.
Well, we've invented the light bulb and killed off most of our natural predators. I think it's time for us to come out into the moonlight and Burns brand perpetual twilight.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate statement for everyone but I can only combat it with statements about myself, so we'll just say that's true. Even so, without recreating daylight, shouldn't the opposite eventually become true for a segment of the population? Of course, I know things like this take a long time but, if the opposite is biologically true for some of us and not just myself there would be more opportunity for us to thrive economically and socially living our lives at night. It could be that being able to lead fulfilling lives makes us happier and more socially successful, more likely to find mates and have children, pass that anomaly on to future generations, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. I think it's really interesting and I've never actually considered it before. I'm just saying there are a couple big obstacles to tackle before we can reach that point. The brain has a structure called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which interprets the light that comes into the eyes. It uses this information to release hormones like melatonin which cause drowsiness and sleep. It is true that you could block out light during the day and receive artificial light at night, but it has been shown that disruption of Circadian rhythm can cause metabolic problems in humans (ex: http://edrv.endojournals.org/content/31/1/1.long). But because this rhythm is just a 24 hour cycle, it would seem possible to have it completely reversed. It would be interesting to see the results of something like that.
Would crime actually go down, or would crime just be more dispersed throughout the day?
Well considering that crime rises when, among other things, unemployment increases and that most of the theft and violence are crimes of opportunity then I would think that creating millions of jobs and having more people being out and about during the night would certainly accomplish that.
I can see where you're coming from. It's a very interesting concept and I think it'd make a great short story or film. I'd like to see how others view the topic, seeing as not only is it controversial, but so unfamiliar of a topic.
We should let pandas become extinct. Population control would be a good thing. Charity does more damage than good (In a lot of cases) Junk food should be banned. We are not alive we are just a very complex energy transfer process like the weather we are a force of nature. conciousness if just a result of a highly evolved nervouse system everything we think and do is just a reaction like we react to pain but due to the perceved complexity we feel we are concious beings. Everything was predetermined at the time of the big bang nothing in the universe could be anything other than what it is. Time travel is imposible. Beliving in Aliens is a form of religion. Aliens do not exist. We are the only form of concious life in the universe. The universe is not fine tuned for life.
Time travel into the past may well be impossible. Time travel into the future is commonplace - I'm doing it now, at a rate of one second per second. I'm fairly sure other rates are obtainable.
I just wanted to reach out to tell you what I agree with you about. I'm also for population control. I mean, the global population has DOUBLED in 50 years. I'm also a determinist. Free will is an illusion, albeit a very strong one.
I think some people are cunts and I don't think I, or anyone, should be called sexist for utilizing those words in appropriate circumstances. However, I don't want them to be overused and lose their power. So everyone that uses them inappropriately should be hanged on the spot.
I've been calling my brother a cunt a lot lately. He's turned into a quite a little jock idiot in the past couple years.
"Jock idiot" sounds like a stereotype primarily aimed at males, while "cunt" is a vulgar term for the female anatomy. Can you explain why "cunt" is the appropriate pejorative, here? Does your view of the definition of "cunt" differ from its colloquial meaning, which I've always interpreted to be, "Someone who is the very worst possible sort of woman?"
In the UK 'cunt' is used against men more frequently than against women. Calling a woman a cunt is somehow more rude, but it is a general word for a terrible person. There is no gender barrier for its usage. Furthermore, 'cunt' is often used in a friendly manner here. I call my male friends 'cunt' all the time.
Well, you see, this is the thing about words. The 'definition' of cunt is that it is a vulgar term for the female anatomy, but definitions are static and really don't tell us an awful lot about actual use of words. When I call someone a "cunt", I basically mean that they are a bad person. And even if the word has sexist connotations, I am only saying that they are a bad person, not "they are a bad person, and I use the female genitalia as an analogy for their badness."
I think my opinion of cunt changed a lot when I lived in Australia. Rather than being a derogatory hate word for women, it is used more often between friends, especially in a pub environment. As of late, my brother has been making some immature, ignorant comments about general life circumstances and I suppose my use of the word cunt is a comeback of sorts to those comments that are, at times, so ridiculous that they don't merit argument. I suppose it is a way to try to get him to realize that he is saying stupid things without putting too much effort in.
Actually, here in Ireland "cunt" seems to be applicable to everyone regardless of gender. "Nigger" isn't so common, but then there aren't many black people in Ireland.
I really fell in love with the word cunt in Australia. It's used there pretty frequently and without hate. As a word I think it is pretty close to perfect. The combination of letters is just so matter-of-fact, straight to the point and strong.
As they say, in Australia you call cunts "mate" and your mates "cunt". When it comes to these sorts of slurs my own usage is a bit different. I often call my friends gay, or nigger, or cunt, but I'm playing on the fact that using them is taboo, which serves as my justification. I mean, I met a black man once. I shook his hand, and didn't even flinch. Edit: I just remembered that sarcasm isn't apparent on the Internet...
Nigger is a contextual word. When a white person uses it they are using a word who's purpose for most of the white world is to set Black people as less then other members of the human race. When Whites use it at my bar I generally kick them out or tell them that if they can't be civil they will be kicked out, the kick out is if they use it directly the warning is usually if they use it generally. There was White a gentleman at my bar who was being a total asshole one night. He was commonly a belligerent asshole, but rarely to the point of getting kicked out. After he left the bar two men kicked the living shit out of him. He did to some extent have a royal ass beating coming he was an offensive asshole. When he stumbled back into the bar covered in blood he said that some niggers jumped him. The next day when he came in to gather evidence he said that he got his ass beat by some niggers. Basically the whole staff thought that he was a classless piece of shit and rather then help along the investigation we all clammed up. The real selling point in our decision to not help this guy discover his attackers was his use of the word 'nigger' to describe his attackers. Who ever goes around slinging words like nigger shouldn't be surprised to get a beat down. If I were you I would be very reluctant to use the word nigger at all in any company, many people will write you off as a racist piece of shit. I would like to hear what you think a nigger is and how you divorce it from it's origins and contest to use it in a manner that doesn't condemn a race of man. That being said there are some people like the 'The Last Poets' or blacks in general who have licence to use the word. Black people in the U.S. have a long history of reappropriating words that are used in a derogatory way against them and repurposing them, but Whites don't' really get the privileged of using them. I don't use the word with my black friends or around them. The Last Poets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qW3F48s1fQ
Close, but not quite. Our white ancestors are mostly responsible for the socioeconomic classes that we have today. The connection between certain people's behavior and their socioeconomic class is much looser. I grew up in an area comprised mostly of poor to lower-middle class blacks and yes, many of them (a majority) fit into the category described by insomniasexx but there were also many who did not.
This problem makes me think of Irish gypsies and the discrimination they have to deal with. Some people suggest that "we'll stop calling them knackers when they stop acting like knackers."
The word cunt has never been used to designate an entire group of people as a subclass of human. Like cgod explained, no group of shifty looking pms-riddled women is going to beat me senseless at the mere mention of the word. I've also have never found the word cunt offensive in a sexist way, and neither does anyone I know.
I do, usually because it's directed at me in a way to emphasize that the person telling me it thinks that I'm mouthy, stuck-up, and really only valuable for what my vagina has to offer. Hate that word. Ruins my day.
And I do believe there are a set of rules/guidelines that we are to abide buy. I believe that the Bible has set up a lot of very awesome rules/guidelines for us to follow. If everyone were to live by the philosophies of the Bible, I think the world would be a better place. Haha, the Bible calls interest on loans one of the biggest sins.
There are some some reasonable guidelines in the bible, for sure. If people were to live by these, then I expect it would help us to get along. Some of its philosphies are totally unreasonable, however; to live life based on all of the bible's messages would be carnage! Interest free loans sound good, though! ;)
I've always believed that the Bible isn't about following Jesus per say, but listening to what he had to say and applying it to your life. Such as loving your neighbor as yourself, or not worrying about anything because God's gotcha covered. It's always very soothing going through the book of Romans. I would not be opposed!
I'm a peskitarian. Vegitarians and meat eaters admonish me for going half way along with the usual meat-eaters trying to feed me meat. It's mostly political for me. When I became peskitarian, it was much harder to get kosher meat and so I decided to just eat wild caught salmon. I am uncomfortable with, but accept killing. It's part of nature. But my father has covered heavy abuse in commercial slaughterhouses and I do not want to support the corporations that make that possible with abusive regulation.
I'm a peskitarian as well and I get loads of heat from everyone, because if there's one thing people hate it's inconsistency. "You don't eat that animal but you do eat that animal, you hypocrite!" My reasoning is simply that I don't go all the way with vegetarianism, and to make it easier for my friends and family to cook whenever I'm over for dinner. I almost never buy fish myself, but I eat it if someone puts it on a plate in front of me.
That's probably the first reasonable reason I've heard for a person to go peskitarian. Good for you.
Trans people are hypocrites because they impose their own schema of what gender is onto people with a normative, non-trans schema of what gender is, and then label proponents of the latter as cissexist, discriminatory, etc. In reality, both trans and normative understandings of gender are valid.
I've dated a couple of transgendered men and women, and this is absolutely true. I've wasted many long nights trying to explain that their definition is just as valid but not more valid than hetero-normative men and women. It never ceases to amaze me how many of my "liberal", left-wing, alternative lifestyle friends are so completely and irrevocably narrow-minded.
"Cis" came into use because when people tried to talk about trans* verses non-trans* people tended to use things like "normal people" which is hurtful and implies trans* people are abnormal, inherently, rather than it being apart of their identity. It's just nomenclature to make discussions more open, and easier.
Attempting to find said reddit thread, I typed "controversial opinions" into google, forgetting the site:reddit modifier. Behold, SMUGOPEDIA!
There seems to be a new one every week, but they mostly consist of the same ideas.
Ok here goes. I think this "in historical times there was no concept of nationality" is bullcrap. How do you explain Spartan military culture if they would not be fighting for their "nation"? How do you explain that free men of Athens volunteered to row those triremes into battle? Then I think that at least some of the saber toothed cats would have hunted their mouths closed, and just stabbed with those long protruding teeth. I think people who are trying to convert me to atheism are even more annoying that people who try to convert me to some religion. " You go to hell, but otherwise you're OK" doesn't feel very bad. "You are stupid and unscientific if you don't believe like I do" is like umm... Ok, let's not be friends. I'm not a fan of earth-hour, slut-walk or "veganism as a way to be ecological". It's all just publicity stunts to make people feel better. But nothing really gets done. I hate how people use the word "empowering" as an argument. Like this one lady who is selling her virginity claims it's somehow empowering. Well I bet Nazis found discriminating Jews was empowering. Just get over it, either you do something or you don't, regardless how empowered you feel. I don't think rape is as bad thing in itself as feminists wold lead us to believe. No I don't think it should not happen to anyone. Yes it's OK to be depressed if you're rape victim. But I think our society is exaggerating the whole thing, and makes it very much harder for those who have been raped. The whole thing is quite hard to grasp as rape is never a lone crime. It's always accompanied with something and yet people don't seem to understand that it's not this one "thing". Legislation of my country says it's rape, if a girlfriend and a boyfriend are having sex and the girl notices her favorite TV show beginnig and says stop and the boy makes a single more thrust. It's a spectrum of crimes, we have judges to decide about every individual case exactly because it's a spectrum of crimes. I think that we should pay attention to things we treat as taboos. There are things we're you feel have to start your sentence "I agree with you on X but...". There should not be. And I don't like domestic cats very much.
I'm not sure how 'controversial' it is but I don't particularly care about species extinction (whales, pandas for example) rainforests, arctic ice caps, rising sea levels, increased carbon dioxide levels, rising temperatures. I'm not denying any of these things are happening, I believe that they are but I am unconcerned. Almost anything involving a "Save the planet" mentality strikes me as false and self serving. The proper title for these movements would be "Keep the planet in a state that suits us humans.". The planet doesn't care about us, it is not a caring mother earth or some other crap. It is a system that right now supports our existence, but there is no guarantee that this will continue. A few small environmental changes could wipe out a lot of the planets biomass but life in other forms may continue. It has happened in the past and will happen again. The fact that we take on a measure of guilt for the change in the environment (regardless of the damage we supposedly cause via 'unnatural' burning of fossil fuels etc) is more to do with a human guilt complex than anything else. There is the argument that we should save the planet for out descendants but I don't find that particularly convincing. If the environment will be destroyed within my lifetime or even my grand childrens lifetime then it is already too late to change. If it occurs after this point then I will be long dead and the only reason to care for my descendants would be to hope my genetic material is not lost forever.
Aethists are fearful, prideful, and weak for not admitting their weakness that there is something more powerful out there.
Those same three adjectives can be used to describe someone who does believe in a God. Fearful that their lives may not actually have any deeper meaning, so they cling to an idea of grandiosity. Prideful, in the belief that they are worth creating, and something consciously created them. Weak, because in times of difficulty they use their faith as a crutch; they cannot find the strength within themselves. Also, this may be a controversial opinion on some Internet forums, but I'm sure if you were to look in a place like India, Saudi Arabia, or even Texas, your opinion would be widely shared. I'd like to clarify that atheism does not involve the belief that you are the supreme being in the universe, or that there is no greater power.
I suppose I have this opinion of atheists because I've never really sat down to talk to one and really get to know what they think. From what I've gathered of the Atheists I know, they all believe they are the most grand thing to walk the earth and go around saying "Praise Science!" Perhaps it is these people who give a really bad impression of Atheists? And perhaps it is the paralleled within Christianity in that there are many who give Christians a terrible reputation (because really, the central task of being is Christian is to love everybody). I thought that Atheism was the belief that God doesn't exist, and Agnosticism was that He might exist.
You appear to believe that atheists replace god with science (your "praise science" comment). This is a common fallacy - you are making an assumption that everyone truly in their heart must believe in a god of some kind, and if one claims not to, then "science" must be their god. I am an atheist. Science is not my god, but it IS the best thing humans have ever invented (and by science, I mean specifically, the scientific method). I do not worship it, or anything else - no matter what you may believe. Science is NOT just another religion, requiring its own similar brand of faith. To think so is to misunderstand science completely. Science is not something which expects or requires anyone's faith - quite the opposite, it demands your skepticism.
If I offended you I'm truly sorry, it's never my intention. I understand where you're coming from and I respect what you're saying. From what you're saying, there appear to be many congruences between the aesthetic and spiritual mentalities. For one, skepticism should be big within a Christian person's spiritual journey. What I've been taught is that when we doubt our beliefs, we'll always end up back to the truth. I believe truth to be God, so my skepticism has always led me back to Him.
I'm not offended at all; sorry if I came across that way! Skepticism, in the sense of seeking your own answers in life, is always the best philosophy, in my opinion. Just FYI, I was raised in a Southern Baptist home, and I was a true believer, for many years.
Puberty, followed by University. Just kidding, sorta. I really just started questioning. I read the Bible all the way through, at about age 10, and realised that the infallibility of the Bible (a Southern Baptist tenet) was a joke, and soon after, I read up on how the KJ Bible actually came to be (I had access to a library). More or less, I just didn't believe any more. It was pretty traumatic personally for a short while, but eventually I could not continue to pretend (to myself) that I still believed.
Hmm, very very interesting. You and myself are very opposite one another. Anytime I realize I'm straying, I eventually get back on a spiritual path by realizing what I'd consider to be the "error of my ways," if you will.
Atheism is the belief that god does not exist. Agnosticism means "I don't know". They are not exclusive terms, but ARE often mis-used. Agnostic atheist : "I'm not certain, but I have no reason to believe in any god" (this is me).
Gnostic atheist : "I'm certain god does not exist."
Agnostic theist : "I'm not certain, but I believe that god exists."
Gnostic theist : "I'm sure God exists."
Oh man. Where do I even start? I think capitalism is fundamentally broken and shoplifting is both a great way to exploit it, and underline its flaws to those with more control over the situation. Which to be honest is a supervisor with an inventory clipboard, and all we're underlining is a number on a chart. I'd like to do something a little clearer, like get 50 close friends, smash all the electronics and furniture in Walmart and scatter in under 90 seconds. Repeatedly. Until they close. I can't stand people who complain without considering a solution, or people who think the only way out is to destroy everything and start over, so I should clarify. We need to change the face of business such that ethics are included -- or else the business immediately fails. There are several ways to do this, and I doubt a direct attack is something I'd ever actually do. Instead, I work at a business that donates one of its products to the needy for each product bought, and I'm developing an app that scans product barcodes and finds information on the company that makes it. Alan Turing was chemically castrated. The housing bubble bankers got how much in bonuses? We need to level out that playing field. Copyright stagnates creativity, and I think it should be summarily abolished. Shakespeare never could have written under our ironically medieval copyright laws.
Couldn't you argue that a lack of copyright would also stagnate creativity? Why would I create if people could just steal my hard work? How could I make a living off a book if I couldn't stop people from posting pdfs of it on the internet?
I think we need more litter. Rubbish should fill the streets. Putting our garbage in street corner bins and having them collected and hauled away is just an example of "out of sight, out of mind." The real problem is our level of consumption and extraneous packaging. Maybe if we could all see the amount of unnecessary garbage we produce it would inescapably obvious that we have a problem and need to cut down on producing all this garbage in the first place.
Again, another topic on this thread I have never thought about. It would be interesting to see how garbage up to our knees would affect our consumer "needs." I only shop at thrift stores, and those are always full of plenty of perfectly good items just tossed away. I've also recently started dumpster diving in order to rescue goods deemed "not worthy." Starbucks throws away a lot of bread...
Speaking of that, there are also businesses that will purposefully destroy merchandise that is being thrown out just to keep dumpster divers from getting a useful or quality score. Wastefulness, at least in this country, is out of control.
That pisses me off so much. What's the point!? Just because they can't benefit from it, that doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't either.
I'm reading a book for one of my classes, and it speaks of Native Americans and how they went about gathering food. I believe that Natives had it right. By keeping a harmonious balance with nature, waste was nonexistent. Sure, you would have those who would probably perish from lack of food, but that kept populations at levels Mother Earth could maintain.
Call me a hippy if you'd like, but I'm firm in this belief of being a 'Leaver,' not a 'Taker,' as Daniel Quinn put it in his book Ishmael.Native Americans exploited the landscape in a way that maintained species population and diversity. In California, for instance, Indians pruned shrubs for the purpose of basket making, but took care to do so during the dormant fall and winter period when the plant's future health would not be jeopardized. Similarly, shirting agriculture tended to minim nature patterns in a way that modern agriculture, with its emphasis on single-crop production, does not. Second, dietary security, not the maximization of crop yields, was the most important element of Native American subsistence. AT times, this decision not to stockpile food could hurt them, even if it contributed to the long-term ecological balance.
I was thinking about this some more today, and I got to thinking. If we just threw our trash into the street, then we'd be more aware of how much garbage we produce. So then people would make more of an effort to create less waste. But is this really plausible in today's society? I think not. There'd have to be a huge societal and industrial overhaul. I went the store the other and bought bread. The bread itself won't go to waste, but what about the plastic wrapping? Sure there are ways I could reuse it, but I can't reuse every single container my food comes in. For this to become reality, packaging would have to be either biodegradable or useful for a wide array of purposes.
Yeah it's not exactly realistic but the pursuit of ideals are never totally realistic. I remember there was a biodegradable plastic-like material that was being used as packaging. I recently bought some spinach that came in a bag made of this stuff but it didn't really take off because people hated how crinkly it was. It was quite loud but it seems that the priorities of the general public do not jive with environment responsibility.
True. But pursing ideals is a very nice way to live. WHY THE HELL IS MY SPINACH SO LOUD???!!?!?!
That's what I image the general response was like.
I think weed legalization is the answer to a lot of problems. Not so much because of the weed itself but because of hemp, which has immense industrial value. In my opinion, it's illegal because of this, and because many companies and even industries would go down if the hemp industry became legal and robust. That said, more people getting high might also help with the population's general attitude towards life and others, but that may be just wishful thinking.
Wasn't the prohibition a result of the temperance movement? Unless there was some sort of conspiracy (which I doubt), historically it was pretty much a large group of people that wanted alcohol banned because it caused too much damage (drunk people make all kinds of bad decisions, especially when wives are involved). This is different, I think. It's still a prohibition, but noone asked for it to be prohibited.
You mixed up the markup a bit there, buddy :P I guess at this point it's a question of what came first. Was it the movement itself, or the funding to start it? Because if it's the former, one could assume Rockerfeller & co. just seized the opportunity of the movement going around and poured money into it to eliminate competition. Alternatively, they're the ones who got the fire going under the guise of populous protests. God, I've been on this site for like 3 hours and I'm already having such interesting discussions. I love this!
Fixed the markup. So embarrassed. I believe Rockefeller simply seized the opportunity the Temperance movement provided to remove his only real rival to energy dominance. Though it could be argued that the movement wouldn't have gained much traction without the oodles of cash he was able to provide. And I love this site already, only been a member for a couple days. The discussions are grand!
It seems like a chicken vs. the egg situation. Regardless, I don't recall any major protest movements against marijuana - so one way or another the case with this is still different, and I think the fact that it's banned is a lot more due to the suppression of its industrial and medical application (I forgot to mention all the pharmaceutical companies that would go out of business, or at the very least lose a LOT of money).
I've got no idea how pot got banned, haha. I just assume people threw the baby out with the bathwater in regards to other drugs that were outlawed. Granted, I have no desire to smoke, so it doesn't really effect me. I just don't like people lying to get what they want just because they know the truth wouldn't help them.
Haha I usually say staying straight is just as great, and just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you shouldn't recognize the fallacy of the laws prohibiting it. Ah well, I think things are looking up now - two states legalized it, more are likely to follow, eventually the world will catch on. Who knows, maybe I'm right - maybe we'll get out of all these global issues with oil, climate change, energy, etc, as a result of the domino effect that may be caused by the legalization of pot and hemp. Probably just wishful thinking though.
Well, I doubt we'll fix EVERYTHING because of legalization of marijuana. But it may help some. I don't really like the idea of me not being myself (I even hate laughing gas at the dentist), but it's not my job to tell people how to live. Also, I'm actually from CO, and will hopefully be moving back there soon. I miss those mountains!
Well in weed's defense you're hardly anything other than yourself, I think you (and a lot of other people) get this misconception from alcohol. Alcohol makes you "not yourself" and really destroys your judgement, weed does quite the opposite. It's kind of hard to describe, the closest thing I could think of is that you sort of become a younger version of yourself, albeit with the same, if not better judgement. And yeah, it probably won't fix everything, but like I said I reckon there could be a domino effect resulting from it. You have to admit, the world accepting pot would be a big deal - that would pave the way for the world accepting many new, good things, like renewable energy sources and space exploration (in my dreams...).
I highly recommend it, at least once! Even if it's not your thing, which is perfectly fine, I think anyone should experience it at least once just to see what it's like. There's really no bad that will come from it. Plus, you can easily control how high you actually get. Sure, if you smoke a whole lot the first time you will probably be very overwhelmed, if not repulsed, but if you take it easy you'll definitely enjoy it.
Sorry to jump in the conversation so late, but I agree that it's something that everyone should enjoyfully experience at least once. I have a friend who, on his first time, decided to smoke a whole gram by himself. Very bad idea. Now he's repulsed by it, which is funny, because he gets drunk every night. Like AlwaysOnTime said, it is very difficult to explain. I can't vouch for it being a more youthful self because I'm a week shy of being 21. However, I'd say that it gives you a more acute understanding of your surroundings. So, while you as a whole may not understand what is going on all around you, what your eyes/thoughts are focused on leads to a world of thought and imagination. Where people go wrong with it is that they confuse being high with their reality (kind of like in Inception). It's all about appreciating it for what it is, and realizing that sober life is just as awesome.
I just saw this! Happy birthday! Try to get out of your job and move to Colorado this year.
Oh, happy early birthday! By the way, this is a great page I found some time ago that tries to describe what being high feels like (and gets pretty close, I think). Definitely take a look! Link