|
steinrokkan posted:Ideology is nearly always based on logic. That doesn't mean its axioms or logical operations cannot be flawed. Fascism is the one that comes closest to discarding logical thought, but it does come to that conclusion through a logical analysis of its basic assumptions. Thanks. That's an English word I didn't know of and should perhaps have incorporated if I did; "axiom". I still do the wasabi into soy sauce thing, though 
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
There is also the option of allowing both the buying and selling of sex, but not pimping. Some places have legal prostitution, but in an attempt to lessen the possibility of exploitation, it is not legal to earn money of prostitution as a middle-man or manager.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:LoTR is terrible, the books anyhow. Just when you think something will happen, they decide to stop their adventure in order to eat their seventh breakfast or whatever. They take out their silverware and then it's described who's father's, father's, father's, father's made it, whole timelines for foods and objects, and then they break out in twenty different songs before packing up and continuing. I'm hyperbolizing, of course, but not by much. My friend told me the second half of the second book and the first half of the third is terrible. So why do people put up with it? Obviously I don't "get it". I'm fine with that. I didn't like it either. If you're not really into "world building", then you simply wont like it, I think. Great works of literature transcends genre, I think, and LORT really doesn't. It exemplifies fantasy, for better or worse, which means for worse if you're not specifically into fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
I like Tiggum and Blue Star's opinion pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
From what I've seen of his shows, despite interviewing racists, survivalists, religious fanatics, UFO conspiracy people, and a bunch of other fringe groups, somehow the one show with the most insane people, where the host easily appeared to be the most shaken and fearful in the face of the unhinged mental stability of the people around him, was then he visited some wrestling fans.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Anti-establishment sentiments that takes the form of any kind of authoritarianism is frighteningly short-sighted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
There is really no significant anti-US sentiment in Europe, and to what little extent anti-US sentiments exists, it is largely confined to fringe, extreme left or extreme right political groups, and are absolutely dwarfed by the resentment between European countries themselves, like Germany and Greece, or anyone and Turkey. Europe is so overwhelmingly pro-US that anyone talking about a European anti-US sentiment comes across as if they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and are buying into some kind of Cold War scare of a big unified communist Europe that hates freedoms, which is frightfully stupid, as pro-US sentiments are massive in even eastern Europe. Eastern Europe probably holds the most positive view of US influence on world history of anywhere, including the US itself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
I am not interested in arguing that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I think that both extreme left and extreme right wing political rhetoric has become part of youth counter-culture, and to an extent where it is often largely or wholly removed from any meaningful connection with political involvement, like wearing a Hot Topic Che Guevara t-shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Toddlers are the best. I love the look they give you when they're evaluating whether you're lying. (You are.) Yeah, that's really cute. You can really see the cogs spinning. Not really hiding or moderating how they feel or express themselves is just incredibly endearing, for the most part. The immediate, genuine reaction to basically everything is just great, and I think something it is healthy for most people to be around to some extent whether they have kids of their own or not. Adults can't and shouldn't act that way, but a child-like perspective is still really refreshing and rewarding, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Babies are boring. Once they can speak they're great, but before that, what's the point of them? You can't communicate with a baby in the same way that you can with a toddler, of course, but there is still a lot of stuff happening with communication. I might mistake you for someone else on this, but if I remember correctly, you might have mentioned not being great with non-verbal communication once? Babies might be less "fun" partially because of that, if that happens to be the case, since communication will rely on reading facial gestures and mimicking more than verbal communication.. Other than being cute, I think that one thing that is cool about babies is how they learn and grow really quickly, and it is just neat to see such rapid development. Babies have to learn a ton of stuff before they are able to talk. As far as communication goes, milestones that come before talking would be stuff like smiling, laughing, mimicking behavior, understanding increasingly complex games, words and phrases, beginning to emphasize more with their surroundings. Non-communication milestones develop rapidly, too, like crawling, rolling, more complex gesturing. A lot of stuff happens prior to talking, really, and an inability to be able to communicate by talking isn't the same as not being able to communicate, at all. I don't mean to be rude with the "non-verbal" communication part, but imo it makes a lot of sense for people, people like goons, who might not be the greatest at picking up on non-verbal communication, to have trouble interacting in a way that feels meaningful to them with kids that can't talk yet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
I don't see the point of making some kind of tier-list of pets & animals. If you are around animals then you'll end up liking them. Animals don't have the same emotional range that humans do, but they still have individual personalities, at least to the extent of having different tempers and preferences. This is so immediately obvious if you are around animals, I feel, that if someone voices the opposite opinion, I assume they have very limited exposure to animals, or difficulty interpreting non-verbal behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
I assume that anyone who argues for mandatory voting really does so because they assume that the great downtrodden masses will vote for their own side. I'm glad that there is generally a relatively high voter-turnout here, because I think it means that people feel relatively involved and as if the political process is worth to try and influence in at least that basic way, and also simply that it is fairly easy to cast your vote in a practical sense; like a short distance for most people and no registration required. Making people vote simply under threat of a fine or whatever just seems as a way of fixing a problem in the most stupid way. Forcing people to do something under threat of being fined or whatever other sanction there may be doesn't make them more involved or feel less disenfranchised, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle This is somehow the greatest troll and the vilest thing you can say to a lot of people. Like, all the anime communist and alt-right will  perk up and stop fighting about whether a system that managed to send a dog into space merely by killing millions of people was good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Teaching and promoting abstinence is fine, it just shouldn't involve misinformation and trying to scare or shame.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Pretty much. I agree that there is no inherent value to abstinence; it is just a viable choice that may fit some people in a period of their lives. Neither abstinence or being sexually active should be something to shame people for; there really doesn't need to be a moral dichotomy between people based on how sexually active they are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually abstinence is harmful. Sexual frustration can lead to addiction, depression, and social isolation. People need to gently caress. This is part of why abstinence-only sex ed is terrible. It tends to include things like "condoms don't actually work all that well" so people start humping without them because good luck convincing people not to do it. I don't see anyone saying that abstinence-only sex ed, or spreading misinformation is good. It is obvious that any kind of repression can be unhealthy, but that doesn't mean that people who chose to not be sexually active, for a a period of their lives, are making a choice that can't be right for them. I realize that people who call themselves "incels" are pretty much insane, but that has little to do with abstinence as a choice, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Incel is short for involuntarily celibate. You might be thinking of volcels and men going their own way, who claim abstinence by choice but really just resent women. My impression is possibly tainted from only hearing of people calling themselves "incels" in the context of weird internet people who seem to be men who hate women, so they seem crazy in the same way to me. They seem to have a hate for women in common.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:American-style abstinence comes from the religious right and yes they are against masturbating. They believe that sex is only for procreation so if you enjoy it too much (or if a woman enjoys it at all) or do it for fun rather than making babies then you are wrong. That's where pretty much all of the sexual repression in America comes from; they want sex to exist only within a marriage between a man and a woman and only for making babies. What comes across as a weird reaction against abstinence makes a lot of sense in the light of this, I feel. From my Foreign Country perspective, teaching abstinence is pretty much confined to dumb rear end teens needing to be made to feel that it is OK for them to not gently caress as much as their classmates are pretending they do because they've discovered porn, and to not feel pressured to do stuff they don't feel ready for, and abstinence applying to masturbation is just so absurd I'd think it was a joke. I mean, we have ton of idiot stuff, too, but stuff like super weird Chastity father/daughter balls/dances, and going to hell for masturbating is just so far removed from mainstream culture that I forget that it even exists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing people's experiences with sex ed in the US, but it'd be a boring derail for most other people here, I think. I made an Ask/Tell thread about asking various dumb questions to people living in the states about how it is to live in giant hamburgers, so if anyone feel like they might have something to share there on US sex ed, please head by Ask/Tell & check it out if it'd interest you any.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Religious or not, mob mentality is dangerous. Large-scale organization dealing with matters of ethics in any way are potentially, extremely dangerous, because they easily promote mob mentality. Authoritarian thought is dangerous because it promotes mob mentality. Singling out religious thought as a root evil, rather than simply mob mentality, feels like missing the mark completely imo. There is nothing wrong with religious thought in itself. People need to be part communities that deal with both the spiritual and the ethical, and there is no way to organize that without needing to be aware of the dangers of mob mentality and authoritarian thought, whether within political parties, the state, religious communities, NGOs or whatever. That religious communities or any communities dealing with matters of ethics and spirituality can, will or should be phased out because of some kind of nebulous concept of what progressis , is ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Why? Because humans are social beings, and being part of a multitude of communities and society at large isn't optional. Building communities and relationships, and infusing them with personal meaning is in the nature of man. It is good to be critical of any community you're part of, of course, but singling out religious communities just strikes me as arbitrary. I might feel different if I didn't live somewhere, where nearly 80% of the population belongs to a relatively liberal, Lutheran denomination which encompasses the possibility of sanctifying same-sex marriages and does not advocate against women's right to abortion. From my perspective, the communities I see as dangerous here, are less founded in religious thought, than in political ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
I don't know anything about music history and trends, and I'm not interested in saying that The Beatles were overrated, but the thing about The Beatles, is that if you lived a million years ago, you either listened to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, not both, and I can appreciate The Beatles, but if you want to be at a venue that plays like Yellow Submarine and Strawberry Fields Forever, rather than one that plays Paint It Black, then let's split up and meet later.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Come to think of it, if you listened to Jimi Hendrix do The Beatles stuff, then I'm not sure why you would even consider The Beatles being the best at even being The Beatles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Isn't pop like a cross-genre thing that doesn't really describe anything about form or content? Like, genres can be broad and all, but something being labeled pop doesn't say anything about themes, style, commonly used instruments, or anything else. If something is popular or mainstream enough, people will start to consider it pop no matter what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
sassassin posted:All good comedy is political. The opposite of this imo. Political cartoons are like those optical illusions where people claim there is something in them, but I plain can't see it. People who laugh at stuff like political cartoons don't laugh at things because they are funny, but because they agree with something a lot or very little, I figure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:I think the problem is that political cartoons are your only idea of political comedy They just embody it, is all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
There isn't much of a difference between politically inspired memes and political cartoons imo. I don't actively seek them out or avoid them, but I see them often enough on social media.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:There are good political cartoons and cartoonists. They are often the ones that dont label everything and dont charicature the people they are writing about unless its topical to the point they are making just out of morbid curiosity, would you post a couple of individual strips that you have laughed at?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:walrusman is right, even though it makes me a hypocrite. not having kids is ultimately selfish for plenty reasons. I don't see how that makes you a hypocrite? Deciding whether to have children is a selfish decision either way, I think. There isn't anything inherently wrong or hypocritical about a decision being selfish, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
walrusman posted:Knew it was the right thread for it. it is a good unpopular opinion imo. We can always get back to discussing eugenics and whether to put ketchup on well-done steaks again later. And again later. And again later.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Just curious, what is the original context? I mean, some of you apparently discussed this elsewhere, and if you have a big thread full of wonderful opinions then share it, please.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
walrusman posted:Nothing, I just asked for a link in a different thread because I was blind and couldn't find it. Said I had a doozy to post but I didn't realize people were waiting so anxiously. Kids are just a really divisive topic, as I'm sure you know. Religion, politics, and whatever else can be provocative, but there is nothing that gets people riled up like whether to have kids and how to raise them properly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
I don't really get the point of striving for a one world government. Any system, or group of interlocked systems, will need checks & balances in an attempt to prevent an ultimate consolidation of power, I think. Just because there is "one" government, that doesn't mean that the system will be any less complex or free of strife than a system of multiple nation-states. A system consisting of one government, or one party, doesn't remove the need for checks & balances, at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I guess my overall unpopular opinion that "an ultimate consolidation of power" isn't necessarily a bad thing that should be fought against, as long as they are right. I doubt anyone would really disagree with that, but would just find it unrealistic. The point is whether you are willing to trust any one authority with an absolute power, or if you feel that a system of checks & balances is necessary. I'm of the opinion that anyone who has paid attention in history class would believe that the saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely isn't just an empty phrase. That doesn't have to be an argument against capitalism, or socialism, or whatever else, but simply that system needs in-built checks & balances that creates a certain distribution of power between government branches, political parties, or corporations, or whatever other entities a system may encompass.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think the key is to appoint someone who didn't seek the position, and hold them accountable if things go south. As far as unpopular opinions goes, I honestly think that a completely random lottery between the eligible voters would on average produce better members of parliament and government, than the career-politicians we get through referendums.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
hard counter posted:i don't think an idea this radical for reducing corruption would ultimately produce a better system tbh, largely because these days government systems are so complex that they require significant expertise to successfully navigate; i mean i know there's pages and pages of legislature and other legal documentation to know but one also needs to be aware of the proper protocols, conventions and even the language used since this field has produced its own terminology, all that makes it difficult to even know what tools you have at your disposal, let alone how and when to use them - you essentially need to be specialist of some kind to be able to take an active role in government and that implies taking the time to be a career politician* or at least having the benefit of being surrounded by careerists I think you vastly over-estimate what is required and necessary for politicians to know about legislation. Members of parliament, ministers and others, do need to adhere to professional rules of conduct, and it is important that they do, but isn't any more complicated than that a host of other jobs require. Those rules of conduct are not at all comparable to something like a years-long education required by a prosecutor to practice law. Professional rules of conduct for members of government, really aren't more complex than the very basic stuff that social workers, medical personnel, and a ton of other jobs have to adhere to when it comes to proper conduct. I'm not saying that being a doctor or a social-worker aren't jobs that require skills, but it is not because it is difficult to learn the professional codes of conduct. Learning rules of conduct is comparable to something that can be taught as part of a very basic on-the-job training, like a health safety class or getting a truck certificate. There are good reasons to not use a lottery system, but that there is a great barrier of knowledge that separates career politicians from regular people, just really isn't true, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
hard counter posted:anyway the analogy wasn't tight so i'll just stick to the original point that i don't think a random lottery would select people with the required skillset or the specialist knowledge required to navigate a government office, design complicated policies (economic, foreign, defense, etc), or measure up to other tasks even though you could argue that random people would be less prone to the type of corruption the sometimes plagues career politicians Just to elaborate a bit, because I don't think we really disagree about the importance of elected government officials being knowledgeable in their fields: Part of my point is that I think that politicians basically don't have that knowledge, really. A minister of agriculture or a parliament member can't possibly know what they need to know in advance of being presented with individual law-proposals and issues that needs to be fixed. A career politician being appointed as a minister of foreign relations, or agriculture, will not know what they end up needing to know about Turkey or pesticides, or whatever else in advance. Being in the position as s legislator requires a massive on-the-job, constant education, I think, that far out-weighs the usefulness of any one trade or skill that elected officials have prior to being elected, career-politicians or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:People take politics too seriously. I agree, but I live somewhere where the mainstream political framework doesn't really encompass such stark and fundamental differences like "pro life" vs. "pro choice". I have little interest in what political party my friends and family members belong to, but that is probably due to it being realistic to assume that we largely agree on basic rights re; the equality of gender, sexuality and race.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Intelligence is not a laudable trait; not any more than being tall is. Physical strength is laudable, and is more comparable to education than intelligence, in that maintaining physical strength and educating yourself requires exertion; education and physical strength is laudable as expressions of willpower and discipline. Intelligent people may have an easier time educating themselves, but being intelligent and being educated isn't the same thing. Losing weight in an attempt to be healthy is laudable, but having a high metabolism is not. Of course outside circumstance dictates possibilities in education and physical capacity, too, but not fully. starkebn posted:After having pets basically my whole life I've come to almost the same conclusion. Dogs and cats seem to be so bred to be around us I don't think it's as bad, but I'd like to see dog and cat ownership fade away. Reptiles I've got no experience with, fish seem brainless but I don't know, but I really wish people wouldn't keep birds Choom Gangster posted:Pet ownership is pathetic. The culture of pets and animal husbandry is disgusting. Choom Gangster posted:Also, the culture pet ownership creates is devastating for humans and animals alike. If those of you who hold these, or similar opinions, would be interested in expanding a bit, then I'd like to hear more in-depth about your reasoning or feeling behind it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Total economic freedom removes the most pressing need to conform to surrounding society, meaning that you have very little pressure to put effort into integrating with and relating to people who are different than you. Being wholly free to pick and chose, or abstain from integrating yourself into communities, makes it likely for people to chose to integrate simply where there is the least resistance and effort involved; in extremely insular communities of like-minded people. Anyone might do this, but the greater your economic freedom is, the more real the choice is to not subject yourself to anyone but like-minded people. Imagine the absurdity of being able to interact with someone who has to work a full time job to barely support themselves, if you have virtually limitless funds. How would you be able to defend your possessions as being in any way fair Respecting some is acknowledging their value, and an hour of time that they could spend with their family and friends isn't worth more or less than an hour of your time; but economic facts dictates; that either your time and your life is worth more, or your wealth is undeserved. Why not remove yourself of that reminder, by integrating with people of similar means: No need to feel guilt when ordering brunch that costs the same as someone's weekly or monthly food budget, if no one like it is present at the table. Of course, if this bizarre notion was true, then there would be tiny mini-communties, like enclaves, of the richest people in the world who chose to travel around the world in order to form communities with each other. Anyway. A big part of how people learn to socialize is through a need to conform, and someone removed from that experience for whatever reason, like isolation or total economic freedom, is likely to become estranged from people at large.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 10:07
|
|