We should all just go back to having Kings and Queens. A prince or princess is guaranteed power so there would be no need to lie to the masses in expensive election campaigns.
Why you ask? Because the level of consumption is to high, and it would take to long to change our system for it to be effective.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
And that is the only unpopular opinion I can think of right now that I have.
Praise Jim. I've never seen the appeal of that movie and never understood why it got a sequel. But then, I've also always been amazed that Sacha Baron Cohen keeps getting work.
OT: Hell, this thread is at 21 pages now. My post won't be read. My unpopular opinion is that people shouldn't get so goddamn worked up and angry over such little things as video games, movies, books, comics, music, or television. It's a waste of energy to spend every waking moment proclaiming how you're going to boycott this or how you hated that, and quite frankly it's been devaluing all of those words as well. Hate has no meaning in American-English anymore, because it's used to describe everything that a person so much as mildly dislikes. And it's just a subconscious thing too: "Hey, you wanna go see Anchorman II?" "Nah man, I hate Will Ferrel."
Honestly, if you actually have such a seething hatred for the man that you'd wish physical harm on him, you've got bigger problems. If you just dislike his films because you don't think he's funny, then say that. "Oh, no, I don't care for Will Ferrel. I've never found him to be funny." If you get a visceral kick out of using such strong feelings for such a minor thing. . . again, I think you probably have bigger problems.
I don't know, maybe I'm just as emotionally stunted as the rest of the males in my family (though I seem to be the emotional one), but I've never seen the point in getting angry over this stuff. Yeah, I get mad at games. While I'm playing them, if I'm stuck on a particular part or if the game is openly mocking how bad I might be at it. I'll get angry, I'll yell, I'll throw petulant little hissy fits and flail my arms around. But after I close the game, I'm done. I don't feel the need to brandish my pixel sword and ride off to the internet forums, attacking everything remotely related to the game. If I were a video game critic, then maybe. . . but as it stands it just makes no difference.
I don't know about everyone else, but it's very rare that I'll actually return to a game that I've finished. Unless it really encourages replay value or is just a really excellent game, once I'm done with it, I'm done with it. And I don't even understand how someone could literally play the same game for weeks on end, multiplayer or not. I'll do multiple play-throughs of Mass Effect or Deus Ex, but not back-to-back. There's likely to be a month or two, maybe even longer, between each game. I play other games in that time. I move on. I don't get emotionally scarred and feel that the game developers betrayed me personally because of a sub-par bit of writing that was contrived and stupid. I don't feel like they've engineered combustible lemons to burn my house down. I feel like their publisher put the pressure on them and they needed to rush, so they couldn't put in all of the context that would've allowed for the sub-par bit to feel natural and in-place.
You know what has made me angry? Ubisoft accusing their entire PC fan-base of being lying, thieving pirates. Toying with them by floating out rumors of countless titles they'd cancel for the PC and release only on consoles because of piracy. EA's endless cycle of buying a developer, letting them release a game or two, and then crushing them so they're never heard from again. Activision buying Blizzard. Publishers who have no way of proving anything having press releases that are meant purely for scaring the developers, investors, and public, saying "OUR GAEM HAS BEEN PIRATED FORTY-EIGHT BILLION TIMES!!!!" No it hasn't. Bitorrent or whatever it's called is even cocky or stupid enough to release the numbers of how many times so-and-so's game has been downloaded, and the highest number is something like eight million for a Call of Duty game. I don't even know, I don't pay attention to that stuff, all I do know it that the big corporations are trying to use fear-mongering and that makes me angry.
But those have nothing to do with the games themselves. Those have to do with the companies behind the games. Get mad at the companies, sure. "Oh, Bioware sold out when EA bought them." Sure, sure, that's fine. "Mass Effect sucks, I hate Bioware, I'm never going to buy from them again!" Now see, that's how EA manages to justify crushing a game studio. It's not explicitly Bioware's fault that Dragon Age 2 was mediocre or that Mass Effect 3 has a horribly contrived ending. They shoulder a lot of the blame, yes, but EA shoulders almost an equal amount for being the driving force that has the final say of what gets put into the game and what gets pulled out. But have two lackluster games really been enough to make you swear off the entire studio forever and hope that they turn out like the next Pandemic Studios?
I fear that I've strayed away from my original point, but I suppose it does all fit within the over-arching "Unpopular Opinions" thing this thread is about, so there you have it.
I read your post... 21 pages in and I read your post
anyways... I think saying hate is more of a cultural thing nothing they actually mean. Some people say they're depressed a lot to mean upset or very sad and that's not exactly true and a lot of people also overuse the word love. It does make the word seem rather meaningless when you use it describe something stupid like some kind of food or whatever but oh well.
to be honest... I skimmed your post :P I read a few sentences from each paragraph but I didn't spend too long thinking about it... it's way too hot here for that
Why you ask? Because the level of consumption is to high, and it would take to long to change our system for it to be effective.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
Weren't you banned?
I was kinda upset to see you banned... what happened? You don't know me but it always upsets me to see escapists leave... especially since I've seen a number of your posts before.
Mad World: "Oh and don't forget female teachers, they are condemned to hell as well, for having authority over men. You should write some letters to your congressmen to get teachers to be exclusively male, lest too many women be sent to hell for their sins."
Where does it say that they are condemned to hell for that?
It says that it is wrong. Where are people sent to after death, when they willfully do wrong in life?
Mad World: "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved."
I should fear for her eternal soul? Even if that still applies, it never says that she would go to hell if she prophesied with her head uncovered.
Again: It says that it is wrong. Where are people sent to after death, when they willfully do wrong in life?
Uhh I think he was asking where it says Women with power over men should go to hell,
like wise with praying,
And from a guy who believes in Jesus but not the bible ((Reasons stated before)) I think they meant something like women manipulating men. and the praying thing? I think ((If it's in the bible)) was a sign of the times, where Women were treated like trash.
Again I believe in god, I believe in Jesus, but the bible? that can go into a fire, Its annoyingly contradicted, allot of it is based on times, I don't really take it as written in stone because its chinese whispers, hell most history books are like this.
Why you ask? Because the level of consumption is to high, and it would take to long to change our system for it to be effective.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
Weren't you banned?
I was kinda upset to see you banned... what happened? You don't know me but it always upsets me to see escapists leave... especially since I've seen a number of your posts before.
I'll PM you. Wasn't a huge terrible fiasco or anything, but doesn't seem like good practice to air it out on the forums.
1. The book of Acts repeals laws regarding things that are unclean. This is considered part of that. This reference is going to be coming up a lot.
2. That comes from Timothy, a book largely of advice from one preacher to another. It is very cultural and should not be taken as absolute in any way.
3. There's a difference between fortune telling and reading a fortune cookie.
4. Timothy wrote nothing, Paul wrote that book. Once again, a book largely of advice and it is good advice at that. People really should focus more on doing good than worldly goods.
5. A book of law that Christians do not have to follow to the letter as far as punishment is regarded, but rather as far as not doing the bad things that require the punishment.
6. This is therefore not a contradiction.
7. Acts
8. I really take no issue with this one. Despite my own weaknesses in this regard, I don't think of this rule as bad. You have to realize that most Christians don't actually think they can accomplish many of these goals, but rather should always be aiming to do so.
9. That was a very specific biblical story pal, regarding a very specific individual. Looking at the era the story was about, it did make sense though. Infant mortality was high at the time.
10. Acts. MOTHERFUCKING ACTS.
11. New Testament has no problem with Eunuchs.'
12. Timothy, again. You really need an understanding of context.
13. See 5
14. I believe that was part of a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Yes it was part of a metaphor.
15. Acts
16. Ha! See 5. I seriously didn't think I'd end up using that one more than Acts. You proved me wrong.
17. I can't believe you didn't realize he was talking about the Israelites specifically there. God did that a lot. He would often punish his own people especially hard so that they would learn their lesson and because they knew better. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Swedish.
I find the absolute ignorance of context within all of your citations hilarious. Though I don't necessarily agree with the individual you are quoting (the exact NT verse could be specifically referring to male prostitutes), I find myself annoyed by your know-it-all behavior combined with an absolute lack of understanding of context. Try again some other time.
Uhhhh thank you for helping to prove my point? But it's not really necessary, as it was not aimed at you. Also you seem pretty hostile for having basically figured out exactly what the point of my post was... it's almost like the words are all there but you haven't connected the dots between everything.
Let me make it more clear:
1) Mad World says 'God is against fags' 2) I respond with a list of practices that are no longer used, pointing out that God apparently changes his mind about things(I guess he's not infallible) because previous religious requirements are overturned, and thus it is insane to say that Jesus thinks "homosexuality is evil" given the above contextualization. 3) You get mad because you don't like it pointed out that the bible has modified as a document and respond by pointing out that the bible has been modified as a document; because you don't like that I'm using that to point out that there is precedent for homosexuality being not evil, because you think homosexuality isn't evil... what?
Oh, nevermind. You also came off as a bit hostile. You literally just quoted off the list of "well these rules are ridiculous and that's why Christianity is stupid." I apologize for being more angry than I should have. Also, I son't really take too strongly to either side regarding homosexuality, but I think it would be a bad idea for me personally. Also I wouldn't say it is insane to think that, just not as infallible of an idea as it is presented as. The thing is that for most Christians unless a rule is specifically overturned by the NT, it still applies. The NT has one passage relating to homosexuality, and it isn't that positive, though it could be referring to prostitutes in the original Greek. All the rules you outlined are far more easily dismissed.
And I personally wouldn't say that God has changed, rather that people and our relationship with God has changed.
Ok, Where to start... 1 All high school dropouts should not be allowed to vote.
2 Torture is ok if it is used as only a LAST resort
3 All parent who drink through pregnancy should have no compensation if the kid is disabled, the same goes for smoking.
4 All people with ADHD should be taught better self control,and not just dosed up on ritalin and the only funding it should receive is thought the school system.
5 All people who do not want free public healthcare should be immediately have to pay full price for all "free" prescription medication.
I'm sure there are more then this but I can't be bothered to write everything down.
1. There will only be world peace when one group of people with a similiar set of ideals and beliefs eliminates all other groups of different ideals and beliefs.
2. How life originated and how the universe started is irrelevant, all that matters is that we are here. We should instead focus on making the future better.
3. War is inevitable and necessary for Humanity to advance, no matter how much you may want to deny it most of the technologies, freedoms, and conviencies you enjoy today are products of war.
4. Just because you are using the internet doesn't mean you can throw spelling and grammar into the garbage. It doesn't need to be perfect, I know for a fact mine isn't, but atleast I try to make what I am typing coherent.
5. You don't need to text constantly, I'm sure whatever message you're sending isn't that important. Put down the phone and focus on driving.
6. Just because you party and get drunk all the time doesn't mean you're better than someone who likes to spend their time indoors playing video games.
7. You are not special, you are no more or less important than any other Human, you are nothing more that a sack of glorified meat just like everyone else.
8. At somepoint you too were a beginner, just because you've had more time to practice doesn't mean you can talk down to someone who is just starting an activity. Instead of being an ass why not help them get better.
9. Everyone is afraid of dieing, I don't care how bad ass you think you are the last few seconds of your life will be the most terrifying thing you will ever experience... mainly because it will be the last thing you experience.
Why you ask? Because the level of consumption is to high, and it would take to long to change our system for it to be effective.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
I wrote a paragraph and a half on this... you really think I was going to go into specifics? Besides, I certainly would not be able to plan this myself, but I know there would, of course, be civil unrest. There's civil unrest when taxes are increased by .5% ffs. That does not take away my opinion though. I believe the population is to high and I believe the best way to lessen it is by getting rid of people hurting or hindering society. And when I mentioned changing the system, I meant changing the rate and way we consume things in, which I believe would take to long for it to be effective. Let's say the developed nations of the world start using only green energy, technologies, etc. How long do you think it would take to make that the norm in every First World city? Now how long to make that worldwide? Maybe 50 or more years?
You disagree? Congratulations, you disagreed about an unpopular opinion in an unpopular opinion thread.
Why you ask? Because the level of consumption is to high, and it would take to long to change our system for it to be effective.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
I wrote a paragraph and a half on this... you really think I was going to go into specifics? Besides, I certainly would not be able to plan this myself, but I know there would, of course, be civil unrest. There's civil unrest when taxes are increased by .5% ffs. That does not take away my opinion though. I believe the population is to high and I believe the best way to lessen it is by getting rid of people hurting or hindering society. And when I mentioned changing the system, I meant changing the rate and way we consume things in, which I believe would take to long for it to be effective. Let's say the developed nations of the world start using only green energy, technologies, etc. How long do you think it would take to make that the norm in every First World city? Now how long to make that worldwide? Maybe 50 or more years?
You disagree? Congratulations, you disagreed about an unpopular opinion in an unpopular opinion thread.
Well your opinion just seems to be very... idealistic in a twisted way. You seem to think that you can more easily put into motion a plan to kill nearly 4 billion people and counting than to get them to stop doing things. Killing over half the population of the world doesn't seem like it has very good chances of success, even when compared to lowering consumption.
I think you've essentially shot yourself in the foot by talking about effectiveness and changing the system. How do you propose to reduce the population by that much without riots and civil war? I'd say your solution is even less effective if we consider what it would take to implement it.
I wrote a paragraph and a half on this... you really think I was going to go into specifics? Besides, I certainly would not be able to plan this myself, but I know there would, of course, be civil unrest. There's civil unrest when taxes are increased by .5% ffs. That does not take away my opinion though. I believe the population is to high and I believe the best way to lessen it is by getting rid of people hurting or hindering society. And when I mentioned changing the system, I meant changing the rate and way we consume things in, which I believe would take to long for it to be effective. Let's say the developed nations of the world start using only green energy, technologies, etc. How long do you think it would take to make that the norm in every First World city? Now how long to make that worldwide? Maybe 50 or more years?
You disagree? Congratulations, you disagreed about an unpopular opinion in an unpopular opinion thread.
Well your opinion just seems to be very... idealistic in a twisted way. You seem to think that you can more easily put into motion a plan to kill nearly 4 billion people and counting than to get them to stop doing things. Killing over half the population of the world doesn't seem like it has very good chances of success, even when compared to lowering consumption.
That's the thing with unpopular opinions of a political nature. There is always a catch, they are always far fetched, and they always believe they will work. Sadly, I know this wouldn't work; and yes, it is very drastic. Would I be able to choose who lives or dies? Probably not, there would be to many grays. But I can tell you that my opinion is that we need to either lower the population severely to stop the saturation of resources and lower pollution rates, or we can try and change our consumption rate in time so that we stop fkn up the world as much as we are. Look, I would love to be able to pick the second option, but I really believe we are too late for that. Sometimes big changes need to be made, and that means sacrifice in one way or another. But that doesn't mean we have to randomly kill people off. In fact, I believe the people that should go are people hurting our society, people that have no real quality or shot at a good quality of life, or people that simply dragging the rest of us down with them. Sad as it may be, I try to make the best of it.
Now, you said it's idealistic, probably thinking that people wouldn't go for it, maybe even revolt. Of course they wouldn't go for it. It's an unpopular opinion. But if it were ever to become a popular one...
I wrote a paragraph and a half on this... you really think I was going to go into specifics? Besides, I certainly would not be able to plan this myself, but I know there would, of course, be civil unrest. There's civil unrest when taxes are increased by .5% ffs. That does not take away my opinion though. I believe the population is to high and I believe the best way to lessen it is by getting rid of people hurting or hindering society. And when I mentioned changing the system, I meant changing the rate and way we consume things in, which I believe would take to long for it to be effective. Let's say the developed nations of the world start using only green energy, technologies, etc. How long do you think it would take to make that the norm in every First World city? Now how long to make that worldwide? Maybe 50 or more years?
You disagree? Congratulations, you disagreed about an unpopular opinion in an unpopular opinion thread.
Well your opinion just seems to be very... idealistic in a twisted way. You seem to think that you can more easily put into motion a plan to kill nearly 4 billion people and counting than to get them to stop doing things. Killing over half the population of the world doesn't seem like it has very good chances of success, even when compared to lowering consumption.
That's the thing with unpopular opinions of a political nature. There is always a catch, they are always far fetched, and they always believe they will work. Sadly, I know this wouldn't work; and yes, it is very drastic. Would I be able to choose who lives or dies? Probably not, there would be to many grays. But I can tell you that my opinion is that we need to either lower the population severely to stop the saturation of resources and lower pollution rates, or we can try and change our consumption rate in time so that we stop fkn up the world as much as we are. Look, I would love to be able to pick the second option, but I really believe we are too late for that. Sometimes big changes need to be made, and that means sacrifice in one way or another. But that doesn't mean we have to randomly kill people off. In fact, I believe the people that should go are people hurting our society, people that have no real quality or shot at a good quality of life, or people that simply dragging the rest of us down with them. Sad as it may be, I try to make the best of it.
Now, you said it's idealistic, probably thinking that people wouldn't go for it, maybe even revolt. Of course they wouldn't go for it. It's an unpopular opinion. But if it were ever to become a popular one...
I'm not at all arguing about killing people being wrong or anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the population. I see no point in trying to take those approaches. I am, however, arguing about how effective it would be to try to implement. If we need to make it a popular opinion for it to work it seems like a lot of trouble. It seems easier to make cutting back a popular opinion, doesn't it? Especially if such drastic alternatives are being seriously offered. The key element that seems to stop your plan from working seems to be the exact same thing that stops other alternatives from working, lack of cooperation due to unpopularity.
I'm not at all arguing about killing people being wrong or anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the population. I see no point in trying to take those approaches. I am, however, arguing about how effective it would be to try to implement. If we need to make it a popular opinion for it to work it seems like a lot of trouble. It seems easier to make cutting back a popular opinion, doesn't it? Especially if such drastic alternatives are being seriously offered. The key element that seems to stop your plan from working seems to be the exact same thing that stops other alternatives from working, lack of cooperation due to unpopularity.
Ah, but there is the beauty of reducing the population, there are many, many ways to do it. Not all humane, and I would certainly not back them, but they are there. If we could change everyone's consumption over night, if there was a way to do it, even if it meant some sacrifice (economic probably) had to take place, I would rather that. But if faced with the over-consumption of resources, which means the end of the world as we know it and millions of people dying of starvation or some other related consequence, and we cannot change our consumption in time, there is always violence. Which would suck, suck big donkey cohones. There are plenty of viruses out there which can be modified to have a 2/3 mortality rate, and its distribution would not be hard. A small deposit here, another there. TA DA! half the world is infected. It's wrong to even consider it a possibility, but it is one. My approach would need it to be politically accepted however, and I would stick to it to my death. Violence would not be my resource, but it might be someone else's. In comparison, I find reducing the population my way to be humane, even if impractical.
Matthew94: I think children with severe mental deficiencies (to the point where they aren't conscious of who they are or where they are etc) should either be killed or have all medical care cut off from them.
They don't do anything and cost the government thousands before they die. That money could go to a better cause.
*Flame shield up*
This, as long as it's done as humanely as possible. Failing that, an alternate (possibly more acceptable) method is to remove any state funding from special education and medical care.
While I've been told before that I am horrible for this opinion I do still stand by it... I mean I would gladly accept death than to never experience life.
White Lightning: I'm sure there are more then this but I can't be bothered to write everything down.
1. There will only be world peace when one group of people with a similiar set of ideals and beliefs eliminates all other groups of different ideals and beliefs.
2. How life originated and how the universe started is irrelevant, all that matters is that we are here. We should instead focus on making the future better.
3. War is inevitable and necessary for Humanity to advance, no matter how much you may want to deny it most of the technologies, freedoms, and conviencies you enjoy today are products of war.
4. Just because you are using the internet doesn't mean you can throw spelling and grammar into the garbage. It doesn't need to be perfect, I know for a fact mine isn't, but atleast I try to make what I am typing coherent.
5. You don't need to text constantly, I'm sure whatever message you're sending isn't that important. Put down the phone and focus on driving.
6. Just because you party and get drunk all the time doesn't mean you're better than someone who likes to spend their time indoors playing video games.
7. You are not special, you are no more or less important than any other Human, you are nothing more that a sack of glorified meat just like everyone else.
8. At somepoint you too were a beginner, just because you've had more time to practice doesn't mean you can talk down to someone who is just starting an activity. Instead of being an ass why not help them get better.
9. Everyone is afraid of dieing, I don't care how bad ass you think you are the last few seconds of your life will be the most terrifying thing you will ever experience... mainly because it will be the last thing you experience.
U mad?
Seriously, some of those just seem... personal...
#9)No. Not everyone is afraid of dying. I can remember more than a few occasions (a shit-load) of people very combfortably passing away in their sleep after a fulfilling life. Not only that, but when I'm an old man (heh... even now) I wonder about all the knowledge I will gain from dying. I will finally have all the answers that death brings.
2#)not even going to touch this absurdity
and a special WTF to #1) It is perfectly viable for there to be world peace. There just needs to be a lot of massive advancement in philisophical, social, and scientific views and realize that conflict is inferior to cooperativeness.
Probably that I enjoyed movies such as "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "The Dukes of Hazzard. I tend to like stuff other people don't for some reason...
hulksmashley: *Dresses in a fire fighter's suit, and puts up flame shield.*
If I may, just wish to address, and hopefully clarify, a few common points. If you're uncomfortable about this, feel free to disregard it:
hulksmashley: My unpopular opinion is that I believe atheists are just as close minded as the christians they claim to hate. Really? You only believe in something you can logically prove? You don't think there is anything in the entire universe that might be beyond your comprehension? You are so smart you can understand everything that has ever been?
Really?
They try to be logical, but it comes off as arrogance to me.
Yes. I only believe in things that can be proven. Otherwise I don't believe in them. This isn't saying that we understand everything, much to the contrary. It's admitting we don't know everything.
A common example: How often have you heard "Well, then, what, if anything, came before the bigbang?!?"
We don't know. That's the only correct answer: We don't know. It's not "We don't know, so it was god!". If you "don't know", you don't know. Let's find out. Till we find out, "we don't know" is the only correct answer.
When religious people use limitations of knowledge as evidence of god they are, first, incurring in the very mistake you're now placing in atheism's shoulders - assuming they know what nobody knows, and second, closing themselves to further knowledge on the subject by providing an easy, if erroneous, answer instead of looking for the real answer. It's the "god in the gaps" argument, wherein god is but a shadow of human ignorance. An apparition capable of existing only at the border of knowledge and understanding, and as the latter recedes the former runs out of room to exist in.
So I contend that the only logical and non-arrogant way to look at the world is to accept that we know what we know, what we have discovered and are able to prove. And everything else is a big question mark waiting to be discovered. "Don't know" should be the end of your argument, not the beginning.
Another unpopular opinion, is that science and religion don't conflict. They are fundamentally different, and are answering fundamentally different questions. Science is answering the "How?" Religion is answering the "Who?" and the "Why?" questions. I don't see why people have a problem with it.
*Hides in corner and hopes for no responses with mean curse words in them.*
It's not as unpopular an opinion as you think, but it's incorrect. They are fundamentally diametrically opposite. Science and religion are ways of looking at the world which can't possibly co-exist by their very nature.
God can not exist in a mind to whom the unknown is just the unknown. The same person that can not accept a statement of fact without evidence can not then turn around and accept an entire philosophy of life based on dogmatic statements without evidence. Likewise, a mind to whom god exists can not possibly maintain a straight face while demanding evidence for any finding.
The same brain can not belong to both science and religion. Anyone can claim they are, in the same manner that anyone can claim to be anything they wish. But anyone that does is a fraud in one of those.
Just wanted to clear that up.
@OP: Plenty of things really. The biggest one might be that concepts such as "human inteligence", "humanity", etc... are often overrated and misunderstood.
James Ennever: Ok, Where to start... 4 All people with ADHD should be taught better self control,and not just dosed up on ritalin and the only funding it should receive is thought the school system.
I don't know if this is actually how you meant it, but I am glad you said "not just" because medication for ADD and ADHD is a very good idea and is far more effective when used alongside therapy. I should know, I am ADD myself, and my parents were very careful about how my condition was treated. They used therapy alongside medication to give me the best chance of overcoming the disadvantage. They did it right. But I am telling you that the medication is a really good idea. Without that medication I probably wouldn't have made it through high school.
True ADD and ADHD is not something you can just will away. It is, at its root, a physical problem in the brain. Over years a person can learn to deal with it sometimes even overcoming the absolute need for medication, but that is very rare. And it's not like it goes away, they just learn to control it so it impacts their life as little as possible.
I do think over diagnosis and over medication is a problem but getting rid of medication completely, as I have seen many suggest, is just stupid. ADD and ADHD are not problems you can simply man up and deal with. That's like telling a person to man up and stop being diabetic. That is not how it works.
I think it's wrong to fight with people on the internet if you don't enjoy it. That'd seem like an easy opinion everyone could get behind but I haven't seen too many people on any message board I've ever been to willing to let go of a grudge mid-thread.
Caliostro: It's not as unpopular an opinion as you think, but it's incorrect. They are fundamentally diametrically opposite. Science and religion are ways of looking at the world which can't possibly co-exist by their very nature.
God can not exist in a mind to whom the unknown is just the unknown. The same person that can not accept a statement of fact without evidence can not then turn around and accept an entire philosophy of life based on dogmatic statements without evidence. Likewise, a mind to whom god exists can not possibly maintain a straight face while demanding evidence for any finding.
The same brain can not belong to both science and religion. Anyone can claim they are, in the same manner that anyone can claim to be anything they wish. But anyone that does is a fraud in one of those.
Just wanted to clear that up.
I disagree. Let me see if I can explain why.
Lets take the question "Is there a God?" This is not an unreasonable or irrational question to ask. Every day scientists ask questions about the unknown, testing one hypothesis after another until they can find the answer. In fact, a question who's answer has such important implications should be asked by everyone. If there is a God it is likely the single most important fact there is. If there is not a God, then we have learned a great deal about the nature of the universe. This is a very important question.
So, we ask the question. The next step, like always, is to gather evidence. It has been conceded by both sides that there is no absolute proof one way or the other currently documented. But that does not mean that the question should automatically been thrown out. Imagine what would happen if every scientist who had a hypothesis only looked at the available data without any experimentation. We would never make any progress.
So, experimentation is the next logical step. And this is where it gets muddy. You will not obtain concrete evidence that can be peer reviewed. All evidence gathered will be through personal experience and qualitative. But that does not mean that this evidence should automatically be struck from your personal record when considering this question. In fact, each piece should be carefully weighed and considered. If, after careful consideration, the balance of the evidence gathered suggests to you the existence of a God, then it is not unreasonable to believe, tentatively, that there is a God. The experiment should be continual, each new piece of evidence weighed carefully and objectively as possible and added to the body of evidence already gathered, the body as a whole reevaluated, and your conclusion changed (if need be) to fit the evidence gathered.
Using this method we cannot make any concrete conclusions but we can feel out the shape of the unknown. Ten thousand personal experiences is not a bad thing to base a conclusion on when the best science can do is "no comment."
While I will not claim that the above method is scientific, it can easily exist alongside a scientific world view. Science should be the overriding view, but religion can fit nicely in the places science doesn't touch.
I'm either neutral to a lot of political issues in my country or have a complicated answer to my views on it that don't put me on one side or the other. This irritates some people that I talk to.
Gypsybob: We should all just go back to having Kings and Queens. A prince or princess is guaranteed power so there would be no need to lie to the masses in expensive election campaigns.
Maybe a Dictatorship, but the dictator gets to pick their replacement.
I don't understand the need for drugs. I'm not just talking about illegal things, I'm talking about alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine. Although it's almost impossible to ban the latter examples because of the effect it would have on the world economy, I still wouldn't mind if they weren't used.
I also don't like porn. I know that people imagine themselves as the actor in the flick, but I don't understand how you ignore the fact that your watching two random people screw the crap out of each other and don't feel like a pervert. I also don't like how easy it is to access. There are probably a lot of kids out there that learned about sex from the internet.
We should all just go back to having Kings and Queens. A prince or princess is guaranteed power so there would be no need to lie to the masses in expensive election campaigns.