Unpopular Opinions

UPO: I dislike the idea of corporations going into space. I also hate the idea of humanity colonizing the moon, mars or any other planet someday.

Every time I hear about planetary colonization, I hear talk about obtaining resources which puts the thought about humans colonizing other planets only to purse more financial gains into my mind. This also leads me to concluded that since we are trying to attempt this at a time were we still create imaginary boarders on the planet we currently reside on we’re only going to fight over those resources like we do here, which will then lead to one of the major super powers ignoring the space treaty to only quickly gain an advantage over the opposing country force to gain a victorious hand in battle. Regardless what kind of restrictions we put into the treaty now, it’s all only going to be ignored just like the Geneva rules we have now.

If there was a “Space Defense Front” like there was in “Planetes” I wouldn't totally oppose them.
 
MrAnime said:
Your assuming the crime the murder has done automatically assumes that the thing he/she has done automatically makes him/her to be someone not cared for nor about without even taking into account the context of the accused crime they've committed. And the idea that just because you don't know the person further allows you to not care for them seems like a selfish stance to take because your now only further weeding out people among those you do know seems like you selectively caring about people based on your own values.
Click to expand...

To be selfish I would have to be concerned for my own advantage, pleasure or welfare, regardless of this person; merely choosing an apathetic stance toward the murderer fulfils none of those.

Selfishness requires active participation for one's own personal gain. If I glance over a news headline that reads "3 Dead", it's not selfish to not read it or to want to know the details. Even upon reading that article I would still have no personal connection to the people involved and would have no reason to care. This, again, is not a selfish response because it is not for one's personal gain.

Everyone does it every day, but it's more to do with the psychological phenomena of Dunbar's Number than it is with selfishness.

I thought it was obvious, I'm sorry

Let me begin with saying, You're including yourself, here:

You state everyone is selfish

Then add this to say everyone is sell fish to an extant on something or anything

However this part of the sentence

Negates the first part of your sentence because

Includes you.
Click to expand...

I really don't follow your logic there.

Saying "everyone is selfish to some degree" allows for situations in which people are not always selfish, so I'm not contradicting myself when I state that I'm not being selfish in this situation, neither does it negate anything I said.

Is used for emphasis to say "in any way" or "any extent".

Which opposes

because

also opposes the

in the first part of the sentence. That's whats contradicting.
Click to expand...

The "at all" was specific to this topic and the situation we're discussing, I wasn't making a sweeping statement that I am absolutely incapable of being selfish, so I'm not contradicting myself. "At all" does not oppose "to some degree" because, again, they're used in different contexts. I'm saying, "all humans are selfish to some degree but in this situation I am not being selfish in any way." Where's the contradiction?

For both parts I've addressed there the only way there can exist a contradiction is if you take everything I've said out of context and invent the contradiction yourself.

EDIT: Also, you're ignoring when I said this: "Once you make that decision to end someone's life for personal gain or pleasure then I cease to care what happens to said person." I have specifically stated where my apathy sets in.
 
Last edited:
Had to move some discussion that was not going anywhere.
Multi-quote discussion was about to reach epic proportions.
Let's try not to dominate with multi-quote hell if it is obviously not going anywhere.

Any questions, you can PM me.

As for the above, UO, I am not sure that is a horribly unpopular opinion, other than it all comes down to money.
 
UPO: Cricket is overrated.

MrAnime said:
UPO: I think people shouldn't be shamed or attacked for asking a larger woman if their pregnant. Nor for making a observation if someone seems large to them.
Click to expand...

Even though I was someone who got the "pregnant" remarks when I was younger (both from high-school bullies and "just curious/concerned" individuals), I sort of agree with this. I agree in that attacking someone for it is a bit much, but I think the one being asked should be allowed to express any discomfort / opposition to that line of questioning to the one asking without the asker taking it personally or flipping tables over it. :happy:
The answer that always worked for me was:
"No, I'm just getting ready for hibernation!" (said while patting stomach)
 
CaptainSlow said:
UPO: Cricket is overrated.
Click to expand...

1scTpWr.jpg
 
Video 1, I'd say is too neat an tidy. If this were let's say, someone who saw both sides and not her protected safe life, devoid of a totalitarian government, then sure. You have a case to complain.

Are we in too many regions, with too much influence, Yes. Do we need a unilateral retirement and weapon dump and pull out of governments we are propping up? No

Also, not I am not sure singing the National Anthem or pledging allegiance, inherently equate to a military homage to your country.

Video 2

Have not had a chance,
 
The first video: I feel the need to point out that is not an unpopular opinion. Even during the draft when people were not even sure they could come back to this country if they defected, there were TONS of people hating the troops.

That is a super popular opinion... but one I do not share... I think that energy is better spent targeted towards the people sending them and keeping them there... of course... that's just me... a soldiers duty is to follow orders... and in exchange they get free healthcare, free school, and they are supposed to get the respect of their country... but I can show just as many pictures of people hating on Troops more even than people who support them.

My father when he came back from Vietnam had to take off his uniform to hitchhike back to madison because nobody would pick up someone who was from the army (back then people hitchhiked without problems), Most military personnel don't believe in what they are doing... but they signed up for protecting this country and not signing up means our country would be weak... the target of these angry protesters should be the people who are putting them in bad situations on both sides... the people above. People who think it's the troops fault are ignorant.. they are the type of people who are sitting all comfortable at home trying to wrap their head around whats going on but are too uneducated to point at the real problem. Sorry but as someone who has had generations of family in the military it really upsets me. You know what else the military does? It provides aid both here and abroad to victims. People who are hurt from natural disasters, people who are hurt during conflicts, ect. Is this youtuber against that too? They put themselves in danger and deal with bad situations... sometimes they don't belong in those situations and some of the troops are just violence junkies no doubt, but the majority... they enrolled to protect this country if and when the time comes that it needs to be done and it's unfortunate that it is so POPULAR to bang them.

The second video: I will agree as a whole is an unpopular opinion.
I watched some of it so far... I can't say I like the opening, in fact it would be a total turn off if I hadn't decided to sit and watch more... after the beginning part, it gets into the grit of the argument, and in some ways I can understand it... I mean even though republicans claim to be for government as a last resort, they tend to like government when it comes to prisons and army. Now... even though in a perfect world I would somewhat agree with this youtuber to a certain extent... I don't really care for government either... the truth of the matter is... unless the whole world abandons government then all your asking for is a new government to come in and take over instead of our own.
Truth be told without government or police we would be survival of the fittest... sure we would get rid of the overpopulation issue that way. But without rules people would run wild... you wouldn't have to worry about drugs because anyone weak enough to think about them would have been killed or taken from long before that... sleeping would be a thing of the past... in our truest form without rules or consequences humans are worse than animals.

Do I think that the current government is the best answer?... NO...
Do I think taking it all down and telling everybody to do as they feel is the right answer?... definitely not.
Do I think government will be fixed eventually? Nope.
Will it get worse? Probably.
Will this video or anything like it effect world change? No

In reality... I get where the video is coming from somewhat... and I can even agree with it in some ways... but... I don't think no government is the answer... we need rules... because humans are horrible creatures. Not only destructive towards other plants and animals but self destructive as well.
 
Those were some ignorant and idealistic as fuck videos.

The point of not blindly trusting the government is true, but those solutions are not solutions.
 
ok I got 1 question

if we got rid of all laws, police, government enforcement agencies etc

would you continue to lead a normal "law-abiding" life or would you go out and start robbing and stealing and committing acts of violence?

please stay within the confines of the question and note, the question is what YOU would do, not what you think others would do

I'm guessing most if not all ppl on here would continue to lead good lives
 
Unpopular Opinion: More vbloggers/Youtubers should have subtitles on their videos, or at least provide a transcript in the description or something. :cereal:

GrendelSilmarillion said:
would you continue to lead a normal "law-abiding" life or would you go out and start robbing and stealing and committing acts of violence?
Click to expand...

According to most modern post-apocalyptic fiction, it's always the latter because that's how human nature apparently works. :troll:
 
GrendelSilmarillion said:
ok I got 1 question

if we got rid of all laws, police, government enforcement agencies etc

would you continue to lead a normal "law-abiding" life or would you go out and start robbing and stealing and committing acts of violence?

please stay within the confines of the question and note, the question is what YOU would do, not what you think others would do

I'm guessing most if not all ppl on here would continue to lead good lives
Click to expand...

Me.... I'd go eye for an eye.

Tell me, who would work without the assurance of getting paid? Who's going to pay their workers if they are not forced to do so? Who would not crack if people kept taking from them, who would not kill if they were attacked and there were no repercussions... the "Decent" people in that situation would be the first who would be dead or begging to survive and I'd say it's a far better bet that everyone in a hypothetical scenario would try to sound like they would be good but... if they were in the scenario for real it would be a very different

That's my take on it...
 
Last edited:
casandra29 said:
Me.... I'd go eye for an eye.

Tell me, who would work without the assurance of getting paid? Who's going to pay their workers if they are not forced to do so? Who would not crack if people kept taking from them, who would not kill if they were attacked and there were no repercussions... the "Decent" people in that situation would be the first who would be dead or begging to survive and I'd say it's a far better bet that everyone in a hypothetical scenario would try to sound like they would be good but... if in the scenario for real it would be a very different

That's my take on it...
Click to expand...


wow
I was kinda shocked by that statement at first and then I reread the first line
"I'd go an eye for an eye"
so I'm presuming you only act badly once you had been acted badly against first!

I'd like to draw attention to the Normalcy bias here and say that it would be unlikely that ppl stopped getting paid barring some massive global shock
if we simply removed law enforcement and government enforcement agencies the normalcy bias would pretty much ensure that normal life continued
without a police enforcement the ppl would very likely form some kind of local peacekeeping and dispute resolution body

at least, I like that think that and I don't like to think that we would all degrade to animal status
, however , looking on the brightside, if we did degrade, rest assured that my battle with addiction and my exposure to the violet crimial underworld would stand me in very stead
:smile:
 
casandra29 said:
Me.... I'd go eye for an eye.

Tell me, who would work without the assurance of getting paid? Who's going to pay their workers if they are not forced to do so? Who would not crack if people kept taking from them, who would not kill if they were attacked and there were no repercussions... the "Decent" people in that situation would be the first who would be dead or begging to survive and I'd say it's a far better bet that everyone in a hypothetical scenario would try to sound like they would be good but... if in the scenario for real it would be a very different

That's my take on it...
Click to expand...

Society wouldn't work at all if the social contract were so fragile. The vast majority of people wouldn't just fall into depravity just because laws and government were removed. Most people just want to get on with their lives. I agree with the premise that most people would continue on being decent.

However, that word "most" is where the problem starts and the source of a major flaw in the premise. If it was all and not most then there would be no need for laws and government. Laws and government are in place, because that majority that just wants to get on with their lives needs to be protected from the minority that can and do try to harm others and take advantage.

Another flaw in the premise is that while major stuff like violence and murder are generally agreed upon there are a whole host of lesser crimes where people are going to be different and have different lines they are not willing to cross. Society only works if everyone are all going to be bound by the same laws.

It's one of the reasons I always find the Purge movies to be so stupid. Those movies seem to think if all crime were legal for a period of time then murder, rape and violent crimes are the only things people would be interested in. There are ways to totally fuck shit up without resorting to violence and those kinds of crimes can be as damaging if not more in the long run.
 
ZetsubouKaiji said:
Society wouldn't work at all if the social contract were so fragile. The vast majority of people wouldn't just fall into depravity just because laws and government were removed. Most people just want to get on with their lives. I agree with the premise that most people would continue on being decent.

However, that word "most" is where the problem starts and the source of a major flaw in the premise. If it was all and not most then there would be no need for laws and government. Laws and government are in place, because that majority that just wants to get on with their lives needs to be protected from the minority that can and do try to harm others and take advantage.

Another flaw in the premise is that while major stuff like violence and murder are generally agreed upon there are a whole host of lesser crimes where people are going to be different and have different lines they are not willing to cross. Society only works if everyone are all going to be bound by the same laws.

It's one of the reasons I always find the Purge movies to be so stupid. Those movies seem to think if all crime were legal for a period of time then murder, rape and violent crimes are the only things people would be interested in. There are ways to totally fuck shit up without resorting to violence and those kinds of crimes can be as damaging if not more in the long run.
Click to expand...

I agree that crimes in general are an issue and not just murder and such... but its silly to think even the majority would be upstanding citizens without police and laws to make them be upstanding... Well I guess it would depend on your definition of what upstanding citizens are...

Everyone here has had things they didn't do because they didn't want to get in trouble... say I'm wrong,.. I'll call you out on your lie. The significance of each of those things in your mind is small usually... say you think about cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend for one night... in your mind... your not leaving him or her, and they don't have to know about it the significance is small... but it could become large in many different ways. Not only that but in different people's eyes, the significance of such an act would be different...

It's the same with other things too... many times people don't do something because they don't want to be caught... but if those things are not crimes anymore, what would stop people from doing them? In their mind they are but a small, insignificant, trifle of a thing (nobody would notice it missing, it wouldn't hurt anyone)... in other people's eyes they might not be so small and you might be trying to minimize it for your own sake... but that is the way people are... and things snowball from there.

As I was saying before... I think we should have less more simplistic laws... I don't like lots of government... however some laws are important and there need to be people protecting those laws so that there is still a "What if I get caught..." thought before someone does something that is not "decent".

Unfortunately, it will not get better from here, no matter what anyone says. We have tons of unnecessary laws and we are going to continue to get more and more of them... it's not going to get better it's going to get worse.
 
CaptainSlow said:
Unpopular Opinion: More vbloggers/Youtubers should have subtitles on their videos, or at least provide a transcript in the description or something. :cereal:


:
Click to expand...

Thats not unpopular, its just the cost vs reward. Many would love to do so, but the time it takes vs the amount of money is not worth it 90% of the time.
 
GrendelSilmarillion said:
if we got rid of all laws, police, government enforcement agencies etc

would you continue to lead a normal "law-abiding" life or would you go out and start robbing and stealing and committing acts of violence?

please stay within the confines of the question and note, the question is what YOU would do, not what you think others would do

I'm guessing most if not all ppl on here would continue to lead good lives
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I'm not particularly ambitious or extravagant enough to run around and act for my own betterment for the sake of it. But if I'm faced with a situation where someone tries to swindle me for whatever reason, and if I don't have a guarantee or political Leviathan behind me to back up the legitimacy of my words, I'll be forced to resort to violence immediately if I want to preserve my daily mantra, which is already endangered by the lack of political sovereign that "guarantees" peace.

Look at it like this; while I'm driving, I'm limited by the laws, I can't just drive the way I want, but by living in a world where not only I have to abide that law but everybody else. I know that if scoreboard shows green the other person sees red and stops. In that interaction my well being is preserved with interest - I'm completely aware that in that limited state - precisely because I know the other people respect it as well. In that system of law I have a "guarantee" of a safe life I don't have if the law enforcement does not exist. I can turn my back to people on the street without having to think that they'll stab me to death. In an opposite situation, even the weakest person can kill. So if my Hobbes wasn't apparent enough; I'll end it with his words: "freedom is in silence of the law: and I think it should be so because it protects us from natural terror that is human condition."
 
What it comes down to is everyone needs to be playing by the same rules for society to work and for that government and laws are needed.
 
central ok I didn't say we would have no police at all, we would still have a local peacekeeping and criminal investigation group
and we would also still have some kind of central organisation group
and the laws would be much simpler and easier for ppl to understand

there, of course, would be Big differences
one of the main differences would be the central group would not be allowed to rob its citizens or extort them with menaces (don't get what I mean try not paying taxes and see what happens)
murder would still be bad and murders would still be hunted down and punished and, if possible, rehabilitated
each local central group would keep the lights on and the traffic flowing

we are NOT animals

everyone who's said they would act badly so far has also made the point they would only do it after it had been done to them
if what you guys had said was true, well we wouldn't have pc's would we. also, we wouldn't have got together to build democratic systems or overthrow tyrants
look at your phone did government build it? no ppl built it to earn money so they could live their lives
did central government build the roads? NO local authorities built them and maintain them

the fact is the statism argument can be knocked down at every turn
but most ppl's religion is statism and the reason for that is indoctrination and because of that you can not even accept the possibility of another way and you will attack anyone who even tries to point it out (this is the self-policing population that government loves)
please watch Josie's "a prison by any other name" to see what I mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMhURei8N6Q

the fact is the government is shitting on us from birth
within a few hours of birth, we have to have a mandatory vaccination that contains more mercury that is legal for a fully grown man to be exposed to in the workplace
yet anyone who flags this is an EVIL ANTIVAXXER whose children should be taken from them by our oh so loving central government
a central government that right now is fighting off a massive and I mean massive pedophile scandal, and yet ppl are still happy for this ppl to take the children of other ppl
the government are the evil ones, not us

and don't forget most of the world's great atrocities have been carried out by and in the name of government and law and order
it was policemen and civil servants that rounded up the jews into ghetto's , it was policemen and civil servants that that forced ppl into the killing fields of Cambodia , it was policemen and civil servants in Russia

don't think it can happen here, look at the work of Naomi wolf
in fact here's an easy link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5c99jLHp9o


actully heres a more upto date version done in 2014 for the obama age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJSp1skVIkA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top