Unpopular Opinions - General Thread

[PeterJB]

Nah, the rings/hoops comes out much more easily than studs in most cases, so it's a bit painful, but rarely causes any actual damage.

I meant more from the perspective of them getting caught or snagged on something, which is why most swimming pools advise on removing jewellery where possible.

So preference then, but why does that translate into no-one should have them?

I'll admit it was poorly worded on my part - sounded less domineering in my head!

Only if pierced by someone who doesn't know what they are doing and/or proper aftercare isn't used, but that's actually the case for every piercing.

Similar to hoop earrings, I was thinking more from the perspective of them getting caught or snagged on, or in this case, IN something...

 

[Suzuki-Cara]

No one should have piercings anywhere other than the ears.

There was a saying at my first job that the weird little piercing just to the side of the nostril's called the "home wrecker". Make of that what you will.

 

[TexRex]

People often use, or enhance, superficial external characteristics to help define themselves as an individual, I'd imagine in some respect they hope that this will be judged positively by a certain social group, it's not unreasonable for a different social group to react in an opposing fashion.

I think it's not unreasonable to expect such a reaction from the latter, but I do think the reaction from the latter is unreasonable. I think it's also unreasonable to expect positive judgment or acceptance by the former.

The content of one's character can no more be predicted by superficial external characteristics that are selected than by those that occur naturally.

There was a saying at my first job that the weird little piercing just to the side of the nostril's called the "home wrecker". Make of that what you will.

On the other hand, nose piercing in the Ayurvedic tradition...exists.

 

[m76]

Wow, a reply for every one - love it!

Except in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Canada and Colombia, where euthanasia is legal (under varying circumstances).

I'm pretty sure only in case of terminal illness, so you can't just go to a doctor and say "kill me". But anyone can go to a plastic surgeon and get themselves hacked up. If anything this is in line with my original point. Euthanasia in case of terminal condition, and plastic surgery to correct hideous disfigurement.

I'd consider the actions of individual bad faith plastic surgeons to be on them rather than on the field as a whole, much like how I think there are, say, osteopaths more interested in collecting £40 per back crack than making meaningful inroads on someone's back problems.

That's a whole other can of worms regarding money and return customer's value over actually helping someone.

If we let exploitative individuals black mark every field of medicine we wouldn't have hospitals by now.

Well, I think this whole field is exploitative, not just a few practitioners. Most doctors save lives, or at the least prolong them.

It is, but given you make three other gripes about the appearance/presentation choices of others in the original post, I felt willing to speculate. You have a lot to say about how people choose to look, you should expect to have that questioned when a lot of people see it as a very petty concern in life.

I never stated that I'm giving up on a person completely because of it, I said it looks like snot that's it. Same for tattoos, I'm not kicking someone out of my life for having a tattoo. I just don't think it's an aesthetic improvement.

Tattoos can have a wild, wild range of meanings and aesthetics, from a drunken mistake that might remind you of your reckless youth, thru a memory of an event or person in your life you wanted to commemorate, or perhaps something of religious or cultural significance to yourself.

Sometimes it can be useful, as if someone has scripture tattooed on them that's a red flag I can't ignore.

The point being the reactions to others of the aesthetics of one's tattoos are rarely high in the list of concerns for those who have them. Your (or my) preferences don't determine the standard for others, and no one ever put a tattoo gun to someone's neck just to make them ugly (OK, maybe outside of prison and gang culture.)

I'm sure nobody goes to the plastic surgeon either to get uglier. But that's how they turn out in my eyes in 99.99% of cases.
And I never said they should care about what I think. They do them, and I walk the other way, end of story.

A reply to a ridiculous argument does stand to be ridiculous itself. I don't personally see a reasonable argument against holding our societies and justice systems to account for the passage of time and the evolution of culture. Law and rights are a constant progress thing, not a "we've got it right and it will stay like this forever" thing, imo.

I'm not a traditionalist, I'm not saying things should never change. I'm saying justice should be universally applied to everyone regardless of their unalterable intrinsic characteristics.

And yet you support UBI, a blanket application of social welfare.

Welfare is not social justice. It's a safety net, and it should apply equally to everyone.Social justice advocates differential treatment of certain protected groups. That's what makes it unjust. One's group identity does not determine their eligibility to welfare.

Again, I don't disagree with this one, but it is too often used to defend the uselessly vitriolic or outright hateful. I believe in free speech and the self-balancing of humanity thru slapping you across the face for saying stupid ****. The point being people should feel free to say what they want but should not feel free from the consequences of being a nob.

Controlling speech is a slippery slope, eventually it gets to a point where only one very strict and narrow "accepted" avenue is allowed. Which leads to stagnation, or regression if ideas aren't allowed to be challenged.

You didn't see what I was saying here. Religion and politics have incited plenty of war and violence, they have also incited plenty of peace and progress. Absolute anarchy (the only alternative to dogmatic society) can only be said to have incited the former.

No, I see where you are going, but progress happened in spite of religion, not because of it. Society should never be dogmatic, every rule should be open to revision when they get outdated due to advances of society or knowledge. Lack of dogma doesn't mean anarchy, it just means no rule should be absolute.

The origins of morality are again, a wider conversation than should really be played out here, but personally I believe I got my morals and ethics from my parents and the society I was raised in, which is a society based on many of the principles of Christianity. I do not care for the church or religion but it achieves nothing to discredit that there have been good aspects to Christian society.

I'm not denying that religion helped to make society more peaceful through history, but it is dogma, most of it is outdated and needs to be discarded. Yet the dogmatic nature of it doesn't allow that.

You mistake me again. I said if you cannot make a joke without it being at someone's expense, you aren't funny.

That doesn't imply you automatically aren't funny if you make jokes that have a butt to them.

You are arguing semantics now. I said a joke needs a punchline, it doesn't have to be one specific individual, it can be a group or construct, or even a strawman. This is one genre where strawmanning is accepted.

I stand by my statement, that people who get offended by jokes are uncomfortable with some aspect of themselves.

All the truly great comedians could do both. Personally I think there is much more art and craft to the former - picking on people is easy.

Joking about one specific someone who is in front of you is not what I meant. That's not being a comedian, that's being a bully.

I think there is a case where someone makes a joke about you that was completely unwarranted, without knowing if you are OK with it, which they do to get a rise from you or your peers.

I meant people who jump in front of the joke and go out of their way to get offended, by a joke aimed at a group who they think is protected (social justice) or that they belong to.

I don't think those kinds of jokes are funny at all. I can joke with some of my friends about their appearances or habits, but they wouldn't care to hear it from strangers.

I agree with that, but as I said that's not what I meant when I said jokes need punchlines.

I have vague memories of eating it and it being analogous to cardboard, again the UK is spoiled in that sense.

Some are worse than others.

People blame the poor in many Western nations for their bad habits, being unhealthy and eating junk.

That's like millionaire celebrities trying to educate the average joe on how to live.

A society that has a class for whom the only affordable food is processed trash devoid of true nutrition needs a deeper looking at. People don't eat frozen trash because they love it, they eat it because they can afford it and it's what is presented and marketed to them. People make a lot of money off this industry.

Frozen food is not necessarily trash, there is processed trash among it, but not everything that is frozen automatically trash.

With all of that said, instant ramen sucks ass, you can do a better job with some plain noodles making a simple stock broth, and in the end it only adds a couple of minutes work (and if you batch cook, can be just as cheap).

I like to cook, yet I still enjoy an instant soup once or twice a month, it's not about being cheap. Just because something didn't come out of a 5 michlen star restaurant doesn't mean it's bad.

I can see UBI being a thing in the future and I do actually support the principle, I'm simply against rushing it into societies not mature enough to handle it.

Perhaps not yet, I agree with that.

I see it as a part of measures to address the economy and productivity as we push automation into more industries, but it's not a silver bullet that can solve every problem relating to that.

I see it more as a workaround, than a solution.

Crypto is, yes, short sighted, greedy and a horrifying bubble that I believe will ruin quite a few lives of quite ordinary people when all is said and done.

I just don't rank it as the most majorest of major issues in all majordom right now. Horrifying economic bubbles come along and pop on a 20 year rota - all I know is I'll never catch one at the start, so I'll never bother.

The scariest things about crypto are the ways it contributes to other global issues - the link to climate change/energy consumption is quite well known, and cryptocurrencies were a coup for international drug smuggling and crime operations.

As in many other cases high minded idealism cannot stand up when co-opted by brutal, selfish realists.

Crypto helps hackers, scammers, criminals, it's an all out bad proposition. It's not a direct and immediate threat, but I fear it more than all out nuclear war despite living in a country bordering with Ukraine.

I do not see the sense blaming crypto miners upping usage on dirty energy grids that should have been made far cleaner/more renewable based over the past 30-40 years. The resistance to this needed change is also biting us in the arse with regards to the Ukraine, as too much of Europe is dependant on archaic dirty fuels.

But it's not just the electriticity. Even if we assumed all mining is done with waste or green energy, you still have the resources that went into producing the hardware, and it generating inflation.

The problems with crypto are symptoms of other ills with the world - at its conception it was a very pure and idealistic pursuit.

I'm not blaming the invention, I'm blaming the shortsightedness of people.

 

[m76]

Nope, it's subjective, as such an objective claim of fact is automatically wrong.

It's not a claim of fact, it's a statement of opinion, I thought the topic title automatically implied that, and I didn't have to start every sentence with "in my opinion"

You have little experience around tattoos or tattoo artists if that's your view, a tattoo can, by its very design obstruct or accent the shape of the body. However clothing, lighting and pigmentation can also all obstruct or accent the shape of the body, I take it from your view on this you wander around stark-bollock naked at all times? If not, your issue with tattoo's is hypocritical.

No, I'm just fascinated by human form, especially muscles, and tattoos often obstruct those. You can take off clothes, but you cannot take of tattoos. I have no problem with body paint, it is the permanent nature of tattoos that bother me.

Fairness in relations between individuals in society and equal access to wealth, opportunities, and social privileges is an evil concept?

Yes, there should be no equal access to wealth. Equal access to wealth in other words is equality of outcome. The only way you can get equality of outcome is if you handicap overachievers and subsidize underachievers. I think that is the height of unfairness. If you imagine society as a car race social justice would be the shady guy puncturing the tyres of the fastest drivers, and adding illegal power boosters to the slowest ones. How is that fair?

Given that human rights are one of the core tenants of Social Justice I think that could be considered a bold hill to climb, but I suspect you are using the term in a rather right-wing biased manner here, which is hilarious given you also said:

Religion also has good aspects to it, that still doesn't change my opinion that overall it is a net negative.

And even on that, no. Doctrine is no more than a set of beliefs and/or principals, and as such can be a force for good, bad or neutral.

To me doctrine suggests something set in stone. It's more than a set of agreed upon rules, they are unalterable, unchallengable rules. English is not my first language so I might have got that wrong, I'm not sure.

 

[Scaff]

It's not a claim of fact, it's a statement of opinion, I thought the topic title automatically implied that, and I didn't have to start every sentence with "in my opinion"

That's want how you wrote it, it says written as a factual statement.

No, I'm just fascinated by human form, especially muscles, and tattoos often obstruct those. You can take off clothes, but you cannot take of tattoos. I have no problem with body paint, it is the permanent nature of tattoos that bother me.

Which utterly ignores the point I made that tattoos can detract from or accent the human form.

Yes, there should be no equal access to wealth. Equal access to wealth in other words is equality of outcome. The only way you can get equality of outcome is if you handicap overachievers and subsidize underachievers. I think that is the height of unfairness. If you imagine society as a car race social justice would be the shady guy puncturing the tyres of the fastest drivers, and adding illegal power boosters to the slowest ones. How is that fair?

Tell me you didn't read the link without telling me you didn't read the link. Oh and miss reading one point and ignoring everything else doesn't strengthen your position, quite the opposite.

Religion also has good aspects to it, that still doesn't change my opinion that overall it is a net negative.

Which has zero to do with the part of my post you quoted!

To me doctrine suggests something set in stone. It's more than a set of agreed upon rules, they are unalterable, unchallengable rules. English is not my first language so I might have got that wrong, I'm not sure.

Doctrine does need to be fixed, while generally slower than other areas, religion does and has changed doctrine, and as for politics, the US republican and democrat parties has done 180 changes on doctrine over there history.

 

[Jezza819]

I'm pretty sure only in case of terminal illness, so you can't just go to a doctor and say "kill me".

Why can't you? I think we should be allowed to end our life any way we want to even if that means assisted suicide. I'm 56 years old, live alone, don't have any kids, not going to get married, don't owe any money anywhere. Do you think I want to drag on into my 70's, 80's etc and possibly become one of those old people in the senior care facilities just wasting away waiting for the end? I just want to make it to the end of my working career then maybe another year or two to do anything I think I've missed doing, then check out. What's so wrong with that?

So instead of me being a burden to some complete stranger and the system in general, I can just make the appointment, prepay for all of the disposal fees, cremation etc., get my affairs in order, show up on the chosen day, and go to sleep and never wake up again. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Darla Starch]

I know, I spent a semester in the UK and integrated into the culture very well. By the time I left to come home, I had an innate desire to colonize Africa, the West Indies, Asia, and the Indian sub-continent.

Tea and crumpets to you as well, ol' chap.

 

[Pupik]

Which utterly ignores the point I made that tattoos can detract from or accent the human form.

From my perspective, I've rarely seen a tattoo that has improved anything on anyone, but that doesn't mean that people can't get them. Some are interesting, but most don't mean jack squat to me...yet I also understand someone else's questionable choice is not for my personal benefit nor tastes. To me, it's just visual noise and the older I get, there's just more of that confounded noise versus useful signal, probably because everyone wants to stand out even more in a world where we are left literally to our own devices. And I suppose that's just tough beans.

It is just a personal opinion; due to the increased concentration of tattoos over the last few decades, I think it's in within the realm of an unpopular opinion. If we can't vent that opinion in this thread, then where else? (After all, that opinion it certainly isn't going to gain traction with someone who's already plunked down hundreds of dollars on them, as well as enduring time and pain during the process in trusting someone else to effectively modify their body.)

I just want to make it to the end of my working career then maybe another year or two to do anything I think I've missed doing, then check out. What's so wrong with that?

Well, who else is going to understand my future complaints about Alabama?

 

[m76]

That's want how you wrote it, it says written as a factual statement.

It is my opinion that less tattoos are better than more tattoos. Yes it is a factual statement of my opinion. You are just arguing semantics.

Which utterly ignores the point I made that tattoos can detract from or accent the human form.

Which utterly ignores the point that in my opinion it always detracts from the human form. Which was my originally stated opinion, that no matter how much you dislike, you won't be able to change. Imagine that you find an opinion you do not agree with in a topic titled "unpopular opinions" what has the world become!

Tell me you didn't read the link without telling me you didn't read the link. Oh and miss reading one point and ignoring everything else doesn't strengthen your position, quite the opposite.

Miss reading? Or mis-reading? It seems to me that you are the one who is not familiar with the contents of your own link. Perhaps you should read what it actually says about equity. I was merely highlighting the most significant reason why I believe social justice to be unjust. I'm not going to address every paragraph on the link. That would take too much time. And i never stated I disagree with everything that social justice advocates for. I'm sure there are aspects of communism or anarchism, or even national socialism I do not disagree with, yet I still think every one of them are bad.

Which has zero to do with the part of my post you quoted!

I was demonstrating the point with the example of religion that I don't have to disagree with everything an organization stands for, to be able to disavow said organization or movement, which was in this case social justice.

Doctrine does need to be fixed, while generally slower than other areas, religion does and has changed doctrine, and as for politics, the US republican and democrat parties has done 180 changes on doctrine over there history.

I was confusing the word doctrine with dogma. My bad. I should've wrote dogma* is the root of all evil.

*a set of beliefs that is accepted without being questioned or doubted

 

[Scaff]

It is my opinion that less tattoos are better than more tattoos. Yes it is a factual statement of my opinion. You are just arguing semantics.

I'm not. An opinion that is based on flawed reality is a weak one to hold, let alone be rigidly fixed on.

Which utterly ignores the point that in my opinion it always detracts from the human form. Which was my originally stated opinion, that no matter how much you dislike, you won't be able to change.

And as I've said above it's an opinion based on a flawed logic, what about tattoos that cover scars or replace nipples lost through surgery?

Imagine that you find an opinion you do not agree with in a topic titled "unpopular opinions" what has the world become!

Imagine some one then wanting to discuss that on a discussion forum!

Miss reading? Or mis-reading?

I take it you've never made a typo?

It seems to me that you are the one who is not familiar with the contents of your own link. Perhaps you should read what it actually says about equity. I was merely highlighting the most significant reason why I believe social justice to be unjust. I'm not going to address every paragraph on the link. That would take too much time. And i never stated I disagree with everything that social justice advocates for.

Oh I am, but you've just (for example) argued against the provision of ramps for wheelchair users. As that's an example of what equity is, it's providing a specific tool to a group of individuals (wheel chair users) to allow them a similar outcome (accessing a building).

I'm sure there are aspects of communism or anarchism, or even national socialism I do not disagree with, yet I still think every one of them are bad.

But not as bad as Social Justice, given that you stated a view that is "the most unjust and evil concept ever conceived"!

I was demonstrating the point with the example of religion that I don't have to disagree with everything an organization stands for, to be able to disavow said organization or movement, which was in this case social justice.

Yet that's exactly what your original opinion was, it had zero caveats or conditions at all. You stated your opinion was that "Social justice is the most unjust and evil concept ever conceived.", one that left zero exceptions or wiggle room.

I was confusing the word doctrine with dogma. My bad. I should've wrote dogma* is the root of all evil.

*a set of beliefs that is accepted without being questioned or doubted

And on Dogma I would be closer to agreement, but the root of 'all evil'? That's more of a stretch, and would require an agreed definition of 'evil' as well.

 

[MaxAttack]

And on Dogma I would agree.

Alright I expounded on this a few times in drafts before inevitably ending up in highly vague, philosophical waffling, so, I will leave this as an open ended question/food for thought -

Is the notion that life on earth should be perpetuated dogmatic?

Is the condemnation of murder, rape, bodily assault and other such crimes dogmatic?

Is it reasonable to challenge those ideas? Do they demand questioning simply by the fact that they are widely accepted?

My answer to these last two being "not really" settles my belief, I feel, that there is nothing essentially evil about the idea of a dogmatic belief or worldview.

By the same token, I do not believe that because one man takes dogma or religion as an incitement to evil, that necessarily makes the intent of that belief or religion evil itself. See: all world religions.

 

[Scaff]

From my perspective, I've rarely seen a tattoo that has improved anything on anyone, but that doesn't mean that people can't get them. Some are interesting, but most don't mean jack squat to me...yet I also understand someone else's questionable choice is not for my personal benefit nor tastes. To me, it's just visual noise and the older I get, there's just more of that confounded noise versus useful signal, probably because everyone wants to stand out even more in a world where we are left literally to our own devices. And I suppose that's just tough beans.

It is just a personal opinion; due to the increased concentration of tattoos over the last few decades, I think it's in within the realm of an unpopular opinion. If we can't vent that opinion in this thread, then where else? (After all, that opinion it certainly isn't going to gain traction with someone who's already plunked down hundreds of dollars on them, as well as enduring time and pain during the process in trusting someone else to effectively modify their body.)

Quite happy for anyone to vent opinions about it in this thread, but would that not also be with the understanding that those opinions may be challenged?

Alright I expounded on this a few times in drafts before inevitably ending up in highly vague, philosophical waffling, so, I will leave this as an open ended question/food for thought -

Is the notion that life on earth should be perpetuated dogmatic?

Is the condemnation of murder, rape, bodily assault and other such crimes dogmatic?

Is it reasonable to challenge those ideas? Do they demand questioning simply by the fact that they are widely accepted?

My answer to these last two being "not really" settles my belief, I feel, that there is nothing essentially evil about the idea of a dogmatic belief or worldview.

By the same token, I do not believe that because one man takes dogma or religion as an incitement to evil, that necessarily makes the intent of that belief or religion evil itself. See: all world religions.

Agreed, I posted in haste and edited a more considered reply in that regard.

I was more agreeing that Dogma is a better term for belief that isn't open to change or consideration, the main point I disagree on (and have edited to better reflect that) is that it's the root of all evil.

 

[MaxAttack]

Quite happy for anyone to vent opinions about it in this thread, but would that not also be with the understanding that those opinions may be challenged?

Agreed, I posted in haste and edited a more considered reply in that regard.

I was more agreeing that Dogma is a better term for belief that isn't open to change or consideration, the main point I disagree on (and have edited to better reflect that) is that it's the root of all evil.

I didn't mean to question your post at all, I just quoted you as reading what you wrote was the jumping off point that gave me that open ended question, which I thought I'd leave for the thread at large, sorry if you thought I was coming at you

I agree with you both on the definition and your point.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Quite happy for anyone to vent opinions about it in this thread, but would that not also be with the understanding that those opinions may be challenged?

It would be. Which begs the question, why challenge the opinion though? To note, I mean in general, not just the arguments there. You can challenge an opinion, but why do you want to?

 

[Scaff]

It would be. Which begs the question, why challenge the opinion though? To note, I mean in general, not just the arguments there. You can challenge an opinion, but why do you want to?

Numerous reasons, the first of which is the very reason why GT Planet exists, its a discussion forum.

Moving deeper you have:

• to better understand a view/opinion
• to understand why a person holds that difference
• to challenge that opinion

And more beyond that.

Opinions should be discussed and challenged, as while many are harmless perspectives, many are also dangerous and damaging. If someone hold the opinion that anyone not white/male/straight/etc. is inferior should that not be challenged?

Many opinions are also formed based on inaccurate reading of, or understanding of objective fact, and as such discussion and challenge is often needed to unearth the why behind the opinion. As an example a frightening number of people still hold the view that black people have a lower IQ than white people (and white people a lower IQ than Asian people based on a book called 'The Bell Curve'. If they are challenged and come to the understanding that the book is deeply flawed in both its methodology and accuracy, and has been roundly and firmly debunked (not to mention one of the authors ensured it fitted an outcome they wanted) they might change that opinion.

I will go even further and cite Popper's paradox to say that not only should we challenge opinion, but some opinions we should outright not tolerate as a society at all.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Numerous reasons, the first of which is the very reason why GT Planet exists, its a discussion forum.

Moving deeper you have:

• to better understand a view/opinion
• to understand why a person holds that difference
• to challenge that opinion

Yup, it's a discussion forum. Why is why I said you can challenge an opinion. I was asking why you want to?

Opinions should be discussed and challenged, as while many are harmless perspectives, many are also dangerous and damaging. If someone hold the opinion that anyone not white/male/straight/etc. is inferior should that not be challenged?

Yes, I agree opinions as such should be challenged. If it means human rights or end of the world scenarios like nuclear war or climate change, then most certainly.

But every opinion should be challenged? Even ones on...cottonswabs?

 

[Scaff]

Yup, it's a discussion forum. Why is why I said you can challenge an opinion. I was asking why you want to?

I've already explained that, to better understand the why behind an opinion.

Yes, I agree opinions as such should be challenged. If it means human rights or end of the world scenarios like nuclear war or climate change, then most certainly.

But every opinion should be challenged? Even ones on...cottonswabs?

Potentially yes, at the very least discussed, after all, why not?

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I've already explained that, to better understand the why behind an opinion.

Is there anything beyond that? Is it overwhelming curiosity or something?

Aside from everything you said already, I mean.

Potentially yes, at the very least discussed, after all, why not?

Well, it's just I think there's a point where the subject matter isn't really worth arguing about. I would understand people caring more about cottonswabs than I do, subjectivity and all that. But at that point, I feel the motivation is to just not want to rather than should do.

It's not likely anything significant will come out of the discussion, will it?

 

[Scaff]

Is there anything beyond that? Is it overwhelming curiosity or something?

Aside from everything you said already, I mean.

Aren't most desires for understanding borne out of a degree of curiosity? As an example, you appear to be doing just that right now, what's your motivation for doing so?

Well, it's just I think there's a point where the subject matter isn't really worth arguing about. I would understand people caring more about cottonswabs than I do, subjectivity and all that. But at that point, I feel the motivation is to just not want to rather than should do.

It's not likely anything significant will come out of the discussion, will it?

Does it need to? It could be argued that little of real significance comes out of more discussions, yet as social animals we still have them. It's not as if I'm forcing a response from people, nor is it a case that I've questioned mundane opinions either. Body modification, Social Justice, and what is 'the root of all evil' are all quite a long way from a view on cottonswabs!

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Aren't most desires for understanding borne out of a degree of curiosity? As an example, you appear to be doing just that right now, what's your motivation for doing so?

Yup, you're right and I know; it's very ironic. My motivation I guess is well trying what you said, understand. In this case, what's going through someone's head when replying to someone. And I guess I was hoping for something more than the points you mentioned.

Does it need to? It could be argued that little of real significance comes out of more discussions, yet as social animals we still have them. It's not as if I'm forcing a response from people, nor is it a case that I've questioned mundane opinions either. Body modification, Social Justice, and what is 'the root of all evil' are all quite a long way from a view on cottonswabs!

I suppose it doesn't need to, but if it doesn't, then it feels kinda pointless.

 

[Scaff]

Yup, you're right and I know; it's very ironic. My motivation I guess is well trying what you said, understand. In this case, what's going through someone's head when replying to someone. And I guess I was hoping for something more than the points you mentioned.

Knowledge and understanding aren't enough? The potential of changing a viewpoint because someone holds a potentially damaging and/or dangerous option based on objective untruths isn't enough (and that has happened in a number of threads in this sub-forum)? Damn, you're one tough audience.

(note, I talking about challenging and discussing options in general here)

I suppose it doesn't need to, but if it doesn't, then it feels kinda pointless.

That depends on the definition of pointless you use. Is better understanding people and why they hold views that they do, regardless of how mundane they may seem, pointless? I don't find that to be the case, I'd rather ask and know than assume.

 

[TexRex]

Euthanasia in case of terminal condition,

Life is terminal.

What, to your mind, is a "terminal condition"? Like...bare minimum to be permitted to end one's life. Why that and not less?

Should an otherwise healthy cripple whose every task is an unimaginable struggle not be permitted to end what could reasonably be expected (absent unforeseen factors) to be a long life? Why or why not?

What of deep emotional trauma, such as a victim of sexual abuse or rape? What of those who have suffered tremendous loss, such as one whose spouse and children were killed in a plane crash that the individual survived? Those for whom no day is tolerable as a result of what they have suffered, much less joyous. Why should they be forced to suffer absent physiological detriment?

Why shouldn't anyone who has consented (and whose consent is otherwise recognized in common law), absent any other exception, be permitted to check out at the time and in the manner (provided that manner can't reasonably be said to harm another) of their choosing?

As it is, I understand this position to be deeply rooted in religious doctrine of which you purported to oppose.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Knowledge and understanding aren't enough? The potential of changing a viewpoint because someone holds a potentially damaging and/or dangerous option based on objective untruths isn't enough (and that has happened in a number of threads in this sub-forum)? Damn, you're one tough audience.

Oh no, I actually didn't mean to make it sound like I was dismissing topics like that. Lord knows I don't want someone advocating for Nazism to go ignored for instance.

I mean, if you're referring to an opinion that's potentially dangerous, then it's more than enough of a reason to me.

But when it's not that nor something else that's vital. I just wonder if there's something I'm missing. I dunno, maybe I'm just reading into something and thinking it's more complex than in reality?

That depends on the definition of pointless you use. Is better understanding people and why they hold views that they do, regardless of how mundane they may seem, pointless? I don't find that to be

Well, if the outcome leads to nowhere and it's on a topic so mundane, then yes. But then again, I can get an idea on why it isn't. People could be bored and just want to make small talk. Maybe they want to break the tension in whatever environment they're in. Or something else.

 

[Scaff]

Oh no, I actually didn't mean to make it sound like I was dismissing topics like that. Lord knows I don't want someone advocating for Nazism to go ignored for instance.

I mean, if you're referring to an opinion that's potentially dangerous, then it's more than enough of a reason to me.

But when it's not that nor something else that's vital. I just wonder if there's something I'm missing. I dunno, maybe I'm just reading into something and thinking it's more complex than in reality?

Sometimes it's just a discussion, no more or less complex than that.

Well, if the outcome leads to nowhere and it's on a topic so mundane, then yes. But then again, I can get an idea on why it isn't. People could be bored and just want to make small talk. Maybe they want to break the tension in whatever environment they're in. Or something else.

One person's mundate is another's world. I'm sure to the vast majority of the world the discussions and debates that go on around sim-racing are pointless and mundate, but say that in a GT7 discussion and be ready for the world to end.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Sometimes it's just a discussion, no more or less complex than that.

Alright, then I guess I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

One person's mundate is another's world. I'm sure to the vast majority of the world the discussions and debates that go on around sim-racing are pointless and mundate, but say that in a GT7 discussion and be ready for the world to end.

I can't argue with that, I've been part of some of those discussions on here, Youtube, and more recently...Twitter. 🤢

 

[Team THRT Drift]

after all, why not?

My eyes would like to have a say, after reading the equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the past two pages

You can take off clothes, but you cannot take of tattoos. I have no problem with body paint, it is the permanent nature of tattoos that bother me.

I mean, tattoo removals have gotten a lot better with recent technology. It certainly depends on the amount of ink, amount of layers (cover-up work for example), and skin condition. However, it is definitely removable with multiple sessions.

 

[TexRex]

Oh no, I actually didn't mean to make it sound like I was dismissing topics like that. Lord knows I don't want someone advocating for Nazism to go ignored for instance.

I mean, if you're referring to an opinion that's potentially dangerous, then it's more than enough of a reason to me.

But when it's not that nor something else that's vital. I just wonder if there's something I'm missing. I dunno, maybe I'm just reading into something and thinking it's more complex than in reality?

I gather you've opted to bow out of discussion on this topic and I'm prepared to respect that, but I'm going to offer to you something to ponder much like I have for others, even if you're not inclined to respond, and that is..."What's the line? What's the bare minimum that should be addressed? Why that?"

I'd also suggest that opinions themselves aren't harmful. Actions may be harmful. Actions may be influenced by opinion, but between the two lies a vast ocean of human agency and responsibility.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I gather you've opted to bow out of discussion on this topic and I'm prepared to respect that, but I'm going to offer to you something to ponder much like I have for others, even if you're not inclined to respond, and that is..."What's the line? What's the bare minimum that should be addressed? Why that?"

Hmmm, if I had to draw a definite line somewhere; I would say it would probably be with these factors.
1. Any mindset related to heavy topics like human rights, racism, sexuality, war, and environment for instance. Because I feel like it's probably vital to explain the issue with someone's opinion regarding those topics.
2. Friend or family member that has personal problems and expect me to respond to them. If they're personally reaching out to me on a crisis, I want to be there for them.
3. Someone that is asking for my opinion in general, because it feels rude to not respond. Which I guess relates back to the small talk comment I made before.
4. If someone receives misinformation that can impact their life such as being told to buy a car that's, in reality, the most unreliable thing ever. I know if I let that go, that person could waste a lot of money on a car that won't work, which means they lose time and money on the car.

Otherwise, I think it gets really subjective and comes down to if I care enough about the opinion or not. For instance, discussing Gran Turismo 7's driving physics. It's a video game and I'm only doing it at that point because I care about the game.

 

[TexRex]

I think it gets really subjective and comes down to if I care enough about the opinion or not.

This is what I was getting at. Not only are people different from one another, but people are often different from themselves at any given moment.

I'm inquisitive and I enjoy engagement. However, I may encounter something that I might otherwise inquire about or engage but, due to whatever circumstance (it's usually because I'm busy--not so busy that I can't browse but busy enough that I can't justify inquiry or engagement--or my focus is elsewhere), I self-regulate.

Your threshold for inquiry or engagement is likely different from mine, and that's fine.