|
Being incredibly wealthy is like being incredibly famous, I think; it is such a niche experience, that it easily estranges you from regular people. It isn't that dissimilar, I think, to the opinion that someone offered, on how sheltered kids living in areas where you need a car to do anything, ends up with limited perspectives and socially stunted. People who grow up rich or wealthy, or come to wealth and fame during their formative years, or in other extreme life-circumstance, can easily end up estranged from society at large, I think.
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
I think it is easy to admit, that effort and merit is not rewarded directly, but relative to circumstance, no matter what your political affiliation is. Simply that you could find a skilled, full-time construction worker, or a hard-working waitress, who earns less than someone streaming video-games, and that they combined earn less than someone does of their passive investments, makes it readily apparent, that effort and merit can be wholly subject to circumstance. The reason why it is east to admit to it, is not only that it is readily apparent, but because there is no working alternative. It is simply not possible to reward effort and merit more directly, because effort and merit does not guarantee results.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
It is one thing to believe that a free market is the best working solution, and another thing to glorify it. Initiative is a great quality, and good for society, but it is not self-sacrifice, especially with the possibility of using corporate structures with limited personal responsibility. I am not against those structures; it is absolutely worthwhile to encourage initiative and upstarts that way, but glorifying job-creators as belonging to some kind of caste with a noble capacity for altruism, is a mistake. Upstarts, innovation and initiative should be encouraged, but the notion that top earners all stem from rags-to-riches backgrounds, and experience, or have ever experienced, any kind of meaningful risk or self-sacrifice compared to that of wage earner risking the loss of their job or health to a work related accident is a false narrative. Supporting upstarts and initiative is important, but top earners are not personally subject to risk in this way, or in any meaningful way compared to a wage-earner. Put aside a relative pittance of a top-earner salary, and you are virtually safe from any kind of meaningful economic disaster. That isn't bad, I am not interested in saying that people should not have that option, but the notion that top earners face risks greater than that of regular wage-earners is simply false.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Uhhhh...err.... ketchup... ketchup on...*trails off, slumps into a 1000 yard stare*...eugenics, charity, or whatever. Just, ketchup. ketchup on all of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I have seen some stuff in the last few years where people on the Internet who I would have thought were on the left were proclaiming themselves to be "anti-free speech". Where has all that come from? It stems from people who doesn't really get the following opinion; Tolerance doesn't encompass being tolerant of bigotry, and it is a common misconception that this should be the case. Legalization that serves to protect minority-rights, can't meaningfully encompass the protection of ideology that serves to subjugate people based on race. Minority rights are important, but all minority rights should not be considered equal. When minority rights are in direct opposition, the answer is not to treat them as being equally valid of protection, but to recognize that conviction-based minority demographics, such as religious and political minorities, should always be prioritized second to minority rights grounded in race, gender and sexuality. Any belief-system, whether political or religious, that does not respect equality between race, gender and sexuality, can not be meaningfully encompassed and protected by minority-rights legalization itself. When the purpose and value of freedom of speech is interpreted as a "free for all" where everything goes; then that is a misinterpretation that hollows out the purpose of freedom of speech protecting minorities. Someone who identified as a Nazi does belong to a political minority, but that freedom of speech should seek to ensure a free-for-all playing field between a Nazi and a someone expressing their sexuality as a homosexual, or someone belonging to a certain race, is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of minority-right protection that it is absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
A good deed being anonymous does not make it any more true, pure or laudable, than it otherwise would have been. Even buying into the bizarre premise, that an anonymous act can't be wholly or partially rooted in selfishness or vanity - taking pride in what you do, and enjoying the acknowledgements of others, is a normal and healthy way to be motivated, and doesn't lessen any act that follows.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:There's nothing wrong with being "right" for the "wrong" reasons. Is there anything concrete that made you think of that? Personally, one of the most aggravating things in this world, might just be poor decisions that are considered validated by dumb luck producing a good result. It is good that a nice result happened, but the decision was still poor. The same thing goes for good calls that ends up with poor results. Intent is important, but it really isn't just that, it is about proper decision-making being based on what information you have at the time of the decision. If you're more talking about sub-par, but working solutions being valuable, then sure, absolutely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Spoilers can't really ruin the spectacle of something, or encompass writing that is genuinely insightful, or well-written character development, I feel. Spoilers don't have to be all cheap jump-scares, but there is some truth to it, I think, that media which can be spoiled might often be poorly written. Some tools and narrative elements, which aren't inherently bad, are just often used by writers who are forced to rely on them, like a blank-slate or a Mary Sue character might be worthwhile and fitting in a well-written story, but it might also be the only kind of character that a poor writer is comfortable with. The same thing sort of goes for unexpected twists. Reveals can for sure be part of and integral to a well-written narrative, but they are nearly unavoidable and will litter the narrative of a writer who simply can't actually write a coherent story.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
This is possibly slightly off-topic, but this thread has gone on for long enough that I figured it'd be interesting to hear, if anyone has happened to change any of their previously posted opinions. I've changed my mind about flu shots being worthwhile. Tbh, I just never really considered the importance of preventing the passing on of contagion to people with compromised immune-systems.Jerry Cotton posted:Giving a poo poo about how other people eat, with the one important exception of eating with one's mouth open, is a sign of mental illness. It can be wildly out of proportion and unfair, but a knee-jerk reaction of judging people on their eating habits makes a lot of sense, imo. Sharing a meal is such a fundamental aspect of socializing, that being unable to conform to basic rules of etiquette is a fairly strong indicator of anti-social behavior, and as a result, may parse as off-putting or unsympathetic in a very base way. It is stupid, of course, to give people grief about not managing to conquer an acquired taste, but there is a strong correlation between people who are notoriously picky eaters, and people who are emotionally or socially stunted. Regardless of whether that is true or not for a given person; that does not make them worth less than anyone else, but it is still a social clue or tell that can be as strong as someone having bad hygiene, or being unwilling to conform in other basic ways.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Being drunk doesn't excuse anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Unless there is some kind of US Disney-version of the fable, I don't know why you would want to be either one; both the frog and the scorpion dies. As a similie for capitalism it just plain sucks, and comes across as being strained in order to fit a personal karmic power-fantasy .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of variations, but I think that the scorpion dooming itself is an integral part of the story, if the essence is meant to be about the nature of something being impossible to change or reason with. It is the same story, in essence, but just less powerful imo, if the scorpion, snake, or whatever, doesn't also doom itself.doverhog posted:It's actually very apt as capitalism is driving global warming, the ever increasing wealth gap between the rich and the common poor, etc. and in the end the rich still have to live in the world. No amount of hiding behind gated compounds will compensate for everything they lost. I get that, but it only fits if the scorpion actually ends up drowning, which seems to me, to be more of a power-fantasy, or far-future horror-scenario, than past or present reality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Not that it makes me an expert, but I live in Denmark, and I wasn't aware that the Scandinavian countries were thought of as any kind of departure from Western capitalism, like, at all. Currently the political landscape is relatively left-wing compared to the US, and has been for a long time, sure, but I'd still think that it is completely within the framework of both a capitalist and democratic system. Anyway, it isn't that I disagree with the point, but rather that I'm just not sure who the people are that would argue otherwise. Who is it that thinks of Sweden, or the Nordic countries, as examples of "full communism now"? It seems completely ridiculous to me, to not consider the Nordic countries as capitalist, despite relatively strong unions and high taxation - so I am wondering if the reason that you think of your stance as unpopular, is because the Nordic countries are actually viewed as not being capitalists, free-market economies in the US? The "Nordic" model re; unions is actually one area that seems more free market / capitalist here than in the US, imo. I'm not 100 % sure on how Sweden mediates in union issues, but I don't know why mediating would be considered any stricter, or more socialist, or less capitalist, than direct legislation. I mean, individual US states have minimum wages that are set by law, right? Sure, the state can mediate here, but it isn't the default that the state actively engages in negotiations - except in the situation where the state is one of the directly involved parties, as an actual employer - but it is fail-safe that seeks to ensure that critical fields of work wont break down because of strikes. As an example, there is no by-law minimum wage here, which is something that is reached through union agreement and negotiation in individual unions, which seems to me to be less invasive than direct legislation. EmmyOk posted:are you still eating raw potatos? That makes it sound as if I've been doing nothing else since, but yes. quote:Still don't think a great result validates a lovely decision This is what is important. I can forgive you, your weird soup-hangup, if you can overlook the raw potatoes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:If you go way far left, you get race separatists, actual misandry and a privilege point system where you're judged for things beyond your control, same as the right. I really, really didn't want to believe it until I met a living and breathing person who practiced it. She buys her two sons only dresses and dolls to play in/with, forbids them from watching superhero shows (which they watched at my nephew's house, in secret), openly talks about how males are garbage in front of them and criticized my niece for liking little girl things like princesses and mermaids. Her husband left her and she's now dating a trans person solely for the purpose of, in her own words, "supporting the cause." I met her, gently caress me. I actually met this person. I don't know that person, of course, but that sounds more like a mental breakdown or illness than ideology to me. Anyway, I think horseshoe theory makes a worthwhile point about the dangers of totalitarianism not being exclusive to any political ideology. I don't see that it is really accurate outside of that, but that's partially because a left/right alignment doesn't accurately sum up the complexity of ideologies or political parties to begin with, and is a poor way of categorizing political landscapes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:It's frightfully frustrating where we're at a point where "has principles" is treated like it's some sort of automatic positive good regardless of what those principles are. I recently saw a newspaper column where the columnist said "I disagree wholeheartedly with Jacob Rees-Mogg's statement that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape, but I admire that he has principles". That is patently absurd. You don't express respect for somebody just because they're honest about their views. Agreed, strength of conviction in itself just really isn't something that is laudable, and it is a fairly commonly misconception, I feel, that rigidness of belief translates into dependability and accountability of character. Taking pride in remaining unchanging in the meeting with others is misguided, and it is saddening when that is also construed as if a willingness to change is a weakness of character and flip-flopping. Admitting that you are wrong, taking in experiences and growing from them, is a far harder, healthier and more constructive process, than ignoring logical and ethical arguments and experiences that goes counter to your beliefs through sheer force of conviction. Also, I like honey on dark rye.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
I like Tarot because the art and history is cool, but I also like it because the number of card combinations is potentially astronomical, so there are enough combos that anyone can get a unique sequence. Although it may not, strictly speaking, be good science or application of statistics, I like that there are so many combos that there is probably a true reading in there, cold-reading aside. A 3-card reading has nearly half a million possible draws. The Buddhist monk I-hsiu, from the Kōan of "Dining with a General", comes across as a petty, passive-aggressive goon, rather than as enlightened. It is okay for the general to have a dress-code. Don't freak out, Master of Zen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I remember taking an abnormal psych class wherein every test covered about ~200 pages of material. Which would be perfectly fine if the instructor didn't select the most irreverent, specific things in the text to compose the test. Identify and discuss features of the different subgroups of schizophrenia? No, more like what was the national average of women in the US affected with catatonic schizophrenia in 1990? So I would just spend the day prior combing over the text, cherry-picking the most useless statistics appearing in either footnotes or one line mentions and memorize those. Instead of actually learning about abnormal psychology, I learned to predict what useless tidbits this dipshit would be testing me on and recovered with a high B. EmmyOk posted:All exams should be open book especially at university level. Most exams end up being far more about how well you can memorise things far more than they're about how you solve relevant problems in the course. In real life situations you always have access to the references you need or you can check old things you did to see how you did it previously. Obviously I don't think exams should have the same content, the questions would have to be harder too. Questions that are more about using what you know to solve a new problem as opposed to just things that you already covered in course assignments. If someone has to look up how to do everything to try and answer questions they'll run out of time anyways and still do very poorly in the exam so it's not like it'd suddenly lead to everyone doing well. Especially if you raise the difficulty and style of question being asked. Agreed on this, except I don't feel that it is an unpopular opinion here. If focus is meant to be on students showcasing the methodology of a field, rather than simply rote memorization, then open book exams is absolutely the way to go in order to shift that focus. Methodology varies by field, of course, but I feel that it is largely true, that methodology often boils down to being able to spot and make use of the relevant, ie; the applicable and credible sources within the field, and open book exams are a great way to shift focus from rote memorization to methodology. Anyway, phuo. Re-habilitation and crime-prevention is extremely important, but they don't override the need for the justice system to be perceived as just in society at large. To some extent, re-habilitation and the need for the justice system to appear just, absolutely goes counter to one another, and a working compromise has to be settled on. Both actual rehabilitation and crime prevention, and the need for the criminal justice system to instill a sense of justice are important aspects, and it isn't fair or constructive to dismiss the need for the severity of a sentence to match the perceived severity of a crime, as being mob mentality or blood lust.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Unpopular bus/train opinion - you shouldn't be expected as a man to give up your seat for a perfectly able-bodied woman. It was more commom in college buses but if a girl was in the aisle in front of you you would get stared/tutted at until you got uncomfortable enough to give it up. Where is this common at? Just curious since it isn't a thing here. Possible PHUO on public transportation: I don't feel as if you are expected to give up your seat to someone who is severely over-weight or obese, even though they may have as great trouble as some handicapped people with mobility - but it is a nice thing to do, and you should do it for the same reason as you'd give up a seat to someone not able-bodied or someone pregnant, I feel. It is also the proper thing to do, to give up or switch seats, so that parents with pre-school aged kids can sit next to them imo. It isn't on the level of the other stuff, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:PHUO: People who make a thing of, like, being really into Emma Watson all seem to be waving a huge red flag for potential sex crimes Yeah. Iirc she was one of the many celebrities where a bunch of media got creepy about doing countdowns to her birthday and implied legal "coming of age". Iirc, the major and mainstream UK publication The Sun did a countdown to her 16 year birthday. It is mind-blowing that the sexualization of kids is so mainstream that those countdowns are a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Dross posted:I said the same thing about people who were creepy about the Olsen twins before they became zombies. hard counter posted:while i would prefer it if those countdowns were framed more like treating someone more like an adult when dealing with them in interviews and the like than an it is now -okay- to publicly lust after them i still wish that were the beginning and end of it - from the same cast iirc daniel radcliffe mentioned he lost his virginity right when he turned 16 to a much, much older woman while on set for those films, so assuming he was honest about being the UK age of majority at the time a much older person with access to children pretty much waited until midnight and swooped right in which to me is pretty predatory even tho daniel himself does not regret it  and on a similar topic; the fetishization of twins (and siblings) is weird and off-putting, too. I get that the "twins/sisters" fantasy is about being with two women more than anything else, but it is weird as poo poo, still. Using terms like "daddy" and "baby" in a romantic or sexual context is weird, too. I get that you can't translate everything directly, but at least as a non-native English speaker, the primary concoction to family-relations is too strong for it to not sound creepy and off-putting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
It is fine to have preferences, but when someone is super picky it is just weird, and if you put sugar or sugary condiments on a lot of things it plays into that a little bit, I think, that's all, really. If someone has made a home-cooked meal, I also feel that it is completely legitimate to consider it rude for someone to season it heavily or use condiments without tasting it first. You should of course enjoy the meal however you like, and someone making you suffer through their bland meatloaf is criminal, but when someone has put effort into making a meal, at least trying it out as presented is a really basic way to show appreciation. Couldn't care less what you do about a meal that you bought at a restaurant, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Speaking as someone who was raised this way, I think that is more a result of their parents never seasoning food before serving it, expecting you to do it yourself. My parents still don't understand the point in adding seasoning until after it's done cooking. So when you think that's just the way people cook, of course you're going to salt/pepper it before trying it. I don't think it's usually meant to be offensive in any way. I for sure agree that it is not deliberately meant to be offensive  "Offensive" might be too strong a word, really, it is more like, mildly badly mannered, and I am Mrs. Hyacinth Bucket irl.More generally on intent and offensiveness; for a large part, really, I think that when it comes to whether something is offensive, it doesn't really matter that much what intent someone had. I think that holds especially true for stuff like using offensive terminology - you just can't expect people to know your perspective or intent, and it is largely the responsibility of the speaker to make sure that their message is received as they intend. Communicating well is a shared effort, of course, and just taking offense at everything is dumb, but it is largely the responsibility of a speaker to not cause offense, and something being offensive just doesn't hinge on intent, especially when the intent is hidden or poorly conveyed. Carelessness just isn't really an excuse for causing offense, basically. Tiggum posted:Taking offence to someone putting condiments on food you made for them is really dumb. You know that different people have different tastes and if someone knows that they prefer things with more salt or whatever then they should feel free to make such modifications. It's not an insult to you to say "I have different food preferences than you". If I buy you an ice-cream I won't be offended if you choose a flavour I don't like, so why should I be offended if I made you lasagne and you put tomato sauce on it? I don't think we disagree all that much. Like, I don't want you to suffer through a whole meal that you don't enjoy, but just that you try out stuff as it is presented first. I wouldn't expect you to go through that routine every time I make a similar dish either, especially not when it is obvious how much you hate my lasagna...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Also plastic surgery is fine, even cosmetically. If someone feels better about themselves, they act more confidently and people really do treat them accordingly. Looks do matter no matter how often we tell each other they don't and shouldn't. It sucks, but that's how it goes. Agreed, and it also really doesn't have to stem from a self-confidence issue. A virtually risk-free cosmetic surgery isn't really different from a tattoo, or a piercing, or just generally puttting effort into your apperance, I think. Beauty-care, fashion and stuff that is related to appearance, also really isn't more inherently vain or shallow than placing pride in something like knowing obtuse hobbyist minutiae. Beauty-care is both a valuable skill and to some extent has aspects of health-care.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Beauty care, fashion, etc. is a way to signal to people you embrace society, and have the money, dedication and time to spend on something "trivial". Sure there is signal value, but all hobbies and interests are in part identifiers. Fashion and beauty-care incorporates elements of creativity and design, and can be as worthwhile a creative outlet as any other, and may be used as part of counter-culture, as well, and are skills with worthwhile practical application. How they are more trivial than other hobbies, I don't really see.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
dissss posted:Being trivial is the entire point of any hobby. Yes, and that makes it dumb to consider fashion and beauty-care more trivial & shallow than other hobbies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
hard counter posted:while i agree in general i can also see how the fashion/beauty standards beneath it all can ultimately exclude people who don't really deserve it in rather exacting way, socially, when they can't meet current beauty/fashion standards for whatever reason and there's a (minor) extent to which people strongly participating in those trends reinforces it Yeah, you're right, and I would like to avoid inadvertently defending stuff that promotes unrealistic and unhealthy body-ideals and elitism. I feel that it is largely true within hobbies, that the healthiest and most constructive way to develop a hobby, is in competition with yourself; by setting goals and milestones that are realistic to attain, and which remains enjoyable. That goes for both fashion and beauty-care and extends to general fitness and exercise, which has a big crossover with fashion and beauty, and shares some of the same problems about promoting unrealistic body images. doverhog posted:That's why trivial was in quotes. In fact they are far less trivial than most other "hobbies", because the group in which they provide value is the whole of society, instead of a hobbyist sub-culture. Apologies, I definitely misread you. I agree, about fashion and beauty-care encompassing that quality. doverhog posted:Is an artist that never sells a painting a hobbyist? Are her works trivial? I think that is an interesting question, but I'm not sure if it is intended as rhetorical question, or how interesting it might for others. Since you have PMs, feel free to hit me up by PM on the topic, if you'd like As an aside, that's something I'd have asked you more than a few times in the course of this thread, hard counter, if you had PMs :P
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:We are under no obligation to find one another attractive and none of us is entitled to be considered attractive. Jastiger posted:Its also not rude to point this out. I don't really get either of these statements. Could you give concrete examples of when you feel as if there are expectations towards you finding someone attractive, and why you'd need to point out to someone that you don't find them attractive? It is not that I necessarily disagree, but I'm not really seeing what kind of concrete real-life scenario is the background.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
The notion that people owe you an account of their political affiliation, or their time and attention, at all, is just self-centered and entitled, and although I am sure that there is some degree of hyperbole present in the Unpopular Opinion thread, I sort of think that, if you often experience people reacting negatively to you giving them compliment irl, then the one thing that would absolutely cause otherwise bening compliment to turn sour, is if you come across as entitled to someone responding to you in a certain way.doverhog posted:Indeed. Casual conversation is not about expressing ideas or debating facts, it's for reinforcing a sense of community and sameness among the members of the in-group, as well as demonstrating that you are willing to follow social niceties and norms. My take-away from that is, that casual discussion is more fruitful. People don't actually change or develop their opinions in self-styled "serious" tree house debate club discussions, no matter how much they claim that their debating is some kind of ideological proving ground, they are more likely to improve their rhetoric than change their mind if engaging in a venue where they don't really have strong social ties with their conversation partners BIG BIC SQUAD posted:Salad is a genuinely enjoyable lunch/dinner option. I agree, but I'm not sure where that is unpopular. I'm sorta curious if people give you poo poo for eating salad at lunch :|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
I think it is largely true that women often have more range in choices fashion-wise, at least as far as operating within established dress-codes goes, but that really doesn't make it easier to meet expectations, because there is an expectation of that range being utilized appropriately and really not just on your whim and comfort.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Yeah, range is great when you actually can and would like to utilize it, but I just really wouldn't describe women's dress code or expectations on appearances as "easier" to live up or adhere to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I don't really get the criticism in that, you get exactly what you expect. Like, some viewer discretion is advised in actually going to a movie that you can reasonably expect to enjoy, and I'm sorta imagining people watching a super-hero trailer and then donning their opera cloak and top hat. The genre has pitfalls, but being disappointed with the social commentary in Batman or a lack of emotional resonance with The Incredible Hulk seems as off-base an expectation to be let down by as being annoyed by the choreography of the dance-scenes in The act of Killing. Local elections are starting here, and my current hot take is that, despite being vandalism; defacing and tearing down election posters that are hanged in public spaces is a legitimate means of expression.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I feel like sexual crimes in general shouldn't be treated like murder cases, in that the ramifications have often lead to the perpetrator killing the victim because they know the end result will be the same and they have a better chance if there isn't anyone to talk about it. I don't know what the proper answer to that problem is though I'm not sure that I follow, exactly, how sexual crimes are treated as murder cases. Like, the sentencing should be lighter for crimes with a sexual component, or you'd wish for prisoners' rights to be taken more seriously, so that inmate-on-inmate violence isn't considered some kind of justice? In-prison violence is absolutely a huge human rights issue, but I'm not sure I'm reading you right, is all. Solice Kirsk posted:Would we be able to go so far as to let the state determine if forced mental counseling or inpatient treatments are necessary with out a crime? Maybe I am misreading, or this is a joke that I am not getting, but is this seriously not possible in the US? Like, if someone's GP or psychiatrist or whoever believes that you are a legitimate threat to your own or others personal safety, you can't be forcibly committed if no crime has committed? I'm honestly surprised if that's the case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The people who do the actual shooting for trophies are sociopaths 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Me, upon seeing a beautiful flower: Pointless. This doesn't appear to contribute to society, no direct practical application or knowledge to glean from this. The flower will die without leaving a lasting impression in the fields of politics and mathematics; wasteful and inefficient.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Vic Mackey was a good cop in The Shield and the department was stupid for continually hamstringing him and trying to get him put away instead of letting him do his job. I have the same opinion to a less extreme degree re: Elliot stabler on SVU except for people trying to get him put away, but he has a bad reputation among fans of the show. Didn't Vic straight up murder an innocent person in the very first episode in order to cover his rear end?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:All vice/sin/crime/differing opinions/personality flaws are not caused by insanity (although some certainly are), and the people(*) who say it is sound a bit too much like the Soviet psychologists who committed political dissidents because "no sane person would disagree with communist theory" for my liking. I'm not sure that I read you correctly, but if I do, then I agree, but I don't know whether I'd really call it an unpopular opinion, as such. I guess it is an easy and common mistake to make, to default to looking for something pathological, traumatic or some kind of childhood neglect, in order to neatly explain away harmful and self-destructive behavior as only possible for unhealthy people and others to engage in. Blue Star posted:I think free speech and freedom of expression are vitally important and must be protected, and I don't think this makes me a Nazi, Nazi sympathizer, white supremacist, or fascist. I agree, but I don't think that a right that seeks to ensure the protection of minorities can meaningfully encompass the protection of ideology that is inherently oppressive of people based on their race, sexuality or gender. It isn't a slippery slope to me, to acknowledge that what race, gender or sexuality that someone belongs to does not infringe upon the freedom of anyone else, and that ideology which does infringe upon the freedom of people based on their race, gender or sexuality goes directly counter to the core purpose of ensuring minority-based rights. I'm not accusing you of doing this, and this is obviously somewhat hyperbole, but it is absurd that freedom of speech should be construed as if it is a fairness to create a free-for-all, level playing field between, say, someone who is homosexual and someone who wants to kill a person for being homosexual.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:This is all true. I agree that speech which advocates violence against a certain group shouldnt be protected. Its just amazing that me simply saying "Free speech is good" has brought out the weirdos in this thread. I think it is largely just that, depending on the context in which you present a viewpoint, you may need to preface or structure that viewpoint in specific ways in order to not make unintended impressions. I can't personally imagine being given poo poo about it if I were to say something as banal as "free speech is good", but if I posted it in some GBS or D&D news thread about some antifa punching a Nazi, and write out; "free speech is good", then I should expect a different reaction. Blue Star posted:You see how quickly this devolved? Because I'm for free speech? I even admitted that hate speech laws and protection of vulnerable groups was necessary*. But it wasn't enough, I have to completely kowtow to you in order to not be a Nazi. You're a smart woman, Blue Star, and I enjoy reading your post, but you're also deliberately playing a role that causes people to dismiss you and become adverse to engaging with you genuinely, and that's a shame, I think, because you do write interesting stuff. Now that Jastiger has been permabanned, please continue to use your powers for good, even though derailing the thread away from giving Jastiger attenttion is no longer needed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:maybe we should make like the money threads and derail into weddings now We haven't done that yet. I'll happily play the role of the person who attempts to explain how it is OK to spend money on having a good time with family and friends, and that creating a memorable day is worthwhile, and how that in general, the transient nature of life does nothing to diminish the beauty of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
What you get is the restoration of the Temple Mount which is necessary to bring about the rapture and the 1.000 year kingdom. Maybe try reading Revelations, morans.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 16:13
|
|