Unpopular Opinions V5: "I still don't like Half Life 2." - General

Kicking your kid out for reasons other than lazyness or them exploiting you is a terrible reason to kick them out. Age shouldn't matter.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49531479]If you kick your child out of the house before they're 30, you're a terrible parent[/QUOTE] if you can't afford an apartment or find roommates past 24 you're probably failing at life

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49531595]Lol you live in the United States, if it was Greece or something then I would agree.[/QUOTE] How to tell if someone is well off 101 [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;49531617]if you can't afford an apartment or find roommates past 24 you're probably failing at life[/QUOTE] example 2

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;49526618]I think we can all agree that Cinemasins is terrible[/QUOTE] Cinemasins is old hat. We all know the real goofs and gaffs are at uh, Brony Cinemasins [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bUWmEorpiU[/media] yep, this is extremely real I know it too because my little brother was constantly watching this shit for like months

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49531479]If you kick your child out of the house before they're 30, you're a terrible parent[/QUOTE] I just turned legal age to drink(21), and I'm constantly bombarded by my Dad saying "Hey sport! Found a decent looking apartment by Baltimore yet?" It's an hour away driving distance and I'm not eligible for UMBC for another semester or two. Plus my job is making it hard for me to get a raise now that college is almost over because the website is fucked! Maybe 24-25, but not 21.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49531618]example 2[/QUOTE] no, not really. my family was below median income and going through a foreclosure while I was graduating highschool. I put off college for a couple years while working a fucking awful minimum-wage job and paying rent to my parents, and when I did go back to school it was on a shoestring budget (<$20 weekly expenses). I was fortunate in that I qualified for a number of decent federal student loans and I managed to find a cheap, shitty apartment on craigslist. Anybody can do that if they temporarily dedicate their life to it. People in their 20s are not children and they're not helpless; they are capable of accomplishing difficult things. I'm a lazy piece of shit and even I made it work.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49531704] I was fortunate in that I qualified for a number of decent federal student loans [/QUOTE] Case in point. You still got a job, and you applied for better loans than most people can. You had it easier than msot people. You don't just "get a job" and then poof find an apartment, not everyone's like you.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49530461]they're both fine but all the people who worship them are morons. They're almost like some kind of weird idol replacement for people who aren't religious. pop science in general is just fucking painful. "I fucking love science!" No, you love reading sensationalized headlines and pretending to be a genius.[/QUOTE] Pop science as a concept is fine, I think. I can get being annoyed at people pretending to be something they're not, but it's better to have the non-STEM major population be taught a loose grasp of things through TV shows and nature documentaries than not at all. As long as they're not being fed misinformation or anything.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49531845]Case in point. You still got a job, and you applied for better loans than most people can.[/QUOTE] [url]https://fafsa.ed.gov/[/url] literally anyone can qualify for federal student loans, and the less money you make, the better of a deal you get. I also went to one of the cheapest schools in my state for an associate degree after doing job market research. [quote]You had it easier than msot people. You don't just "get a job" and then poof find an apartment, not everyone's like you. [/quote] that is, in fact, literally how it goes. Unemployment rates for 20-24-year-olds peaked at 11.2% last year; if you are looking for a job and are unemployed, you are the minority. If you can land a full-time position, you can find a place to live in any half-decent state. If you can also find one other person who doesn't mind living with you, you can afford a place in most of the country (outside of major cities.)

If your child is doing nothing but being lazy and living at your expenses you're not a terrible parent for kicking them out (well not overnight obviously). But if they legitimately need help and can't afford to live by themselves you'd be a terrible parent to kick them out. Age has little to do in the matter.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49530461]they're both fine but all the people who worship them are morons. They're almost like some kind of weird idol replacement for people who aren't religious. pop science in general is just fucking painful. "I fucking love science!" No, you love reading sensationalized headlines and pretending to be a genius.[/QUOTE] [url=http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd]A great Maddox article on the subject.[/url] [quote]What you actually "love" is photography, not science. Below are a handful of posts from "I fucking love science:" The page is comprised mostly of pictures of space, Neil deGrasse Tyson, pop-science junk, worn out memes, Neil deGrasse Tyson and thinly veiled political agendas. Oh, and Neil deGrasse Tyson[...][/quote]

[QUOTE=Hypoxide;49439045]Facts are not a matter of opinion ahhhhhhhhh stop trying to be edgy. If I see a tree and everyone else I ask sees a tree, there is a tree. It's not a case of "xD well the human eyes are not perfect so that could be a horse distorted by light woahhh!!!!!" If I assassinate someone and in the future they are remembered as being famous, people would say "[name] was assassinated by [me]" and that would be fact. It's not "but what if he was already dying from an unknown disease, surely he was already being killed woahhhhh" or "its an opinion bcos did u assassinate him or did the bullet woahh". Stop.[/QUOTE] Old post, but I just had to respond due to the nature of the thread. The position you are opposing is actually 100% defend-able in that a sentient being can literally not know anything outside the expanse of the mind. I'd go as far as to say that it is more philosophically sound to say we know nothing about the external world than to say that we can make objective facts. Your arguments are not sound in that they assume entities outside the mind. Do I assume that their is an external world? I do. Can I prove it? Nope. Therefore the argument is [i]techniquely[/i] more in favor of the opposing position. So next time you tell someone to just "stop", keep in mind that this is one of the most defend-able beliefs a person can have. Just my two cents.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49532019] that is, in fact, literally how it goes. Unemployment rates for 20-24-year-olds peaked at 11.2% last year; if you are looking for a job and are unemployed, you are the minority. If you can land a full-time position, you can find a place to live in any half-decent state. If you can also find one other person who doesn't mind living with you, you can afford a place in most of the country (outside of major cities.)[/QUOTE] I've been looking for a job for the past two months where I live and after putting in countless applications and meeting with people face to face I can safely say that it's not possible to work here if you don't have a car. Unfortunately, I can't apply for any grants for my school because I won't be able to drive to school without a car. Without grants or a job, I cannot afford to buy a car. You seem to know everything, what should I do?

Also, I wanted to add my own (what I perceive is an) unpopular opinion. Let us also first assume that there is an external world (because I brought it up in a previous post). I am to believe that eating meat is ethically wrong [i]in the context of a society that can sufficiently sustain itself with other sources of nutrients[/i]. To expand on this, meat (that is not grown in a lab) is obtained through the killing of other sentient animals (other than humans). This may or may not cause suffering depending on how the act is done, but what we can be sure to say is that there is no consent obtained through communication with the animal. Unfortunately, we have no way to effectively communicate with these animals and ask for consent, therefore the act is ethically wrong in my opinion. Some might say that meat is delicious, and although I do agree, the lives of sentient beings are at stake. I am a believer that the choice to live should be extended to all other animals if human society can sufficiently get all of their essential nutrients elsewhere. I will also say that I do not know if our society can currently sustain itself through other means so I am [i]not[/i] stating that what our society does is wrong in it's current context. This is purely a hypothetical. ---- Sentient (in this context) - an entity who experiences subjectivity.

[QUOTE=Hypoxide;49439045]Facts are not a matter of opinion ahhhhhhhhh stop trying to be edgy.[/QUOTE] This post is a great example of why the word "edgy" sucks anymore. They're not edgy - they're stupid, or extremist, or literally anything but edgy.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49531617]if you can't afford an apartment or find roommates past 24 you're probably failing at life[/QUOTE] yeah, let's ignore the damn 2008 economical crisis that put more than half my country having to spend 90% of their money on bills and debt for almost the past decade totally our fault

[QUOTE=supafly1337;49532393] You seem to know everything, what should I do?[/QUOTE] Well he had the government help him. Should try that.

[QUOTE=exhale77;49532401]Also, I wanted to add my own (what I perceive is an) unpopular opinion. Let us also first assume that there is an external world (because I brought it up in a previous post). I am to believe that eating meat is ethically wrong [i]in the context of a society that can sufficiently sustain itself with other sources of nutrients[/i]. To expand on this, meat (that is not grown in a lab) is obtained through the killing of other sentient animals (other than humans). This may or may not cause suffering depending on how the act is done, but what we can be sure to say is that there is no consent obtained through communication with the animal. Unfortunately, we have no way to effectively communicate with these animals and ask for consent, therefore the act is ethically wrong in my opinion. Some might say that meat is delicious, and although I do agree, the lives of sentient beings are at stake. I am a believer that the choice to live should be extended to all other animals if human society can sufficiently get all of their essential nutrients elsewhere. I will also say that I do not know if our society can currently sustain itself through other means so I am [i]not[/i] stating that what our society does is wrong in it's current context. This is purely a hypothetical. ---- Sentient (in this context) - an entity who experiences subjectivity.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it's unethical to eat meat, just the way that we get it in normally in America is wrong. There's nothing wrong with humanely treating and killing animals. It surprises me that vegetarians go to the extreme of "never harming an animal" when in reality they can still eat meat while still making things better with how we get it. Going to to the extreme of vegetarianism or veganism is an extreme that helps no one. In this hypothetical limb of society that is showing minor signs of infection that can be dealt with individually, why immediately opt for amputation? And going vegetarian or vegan isn't stopping the murders. By eating vegetables produced on common farms, you're contributing to the amount of farm animals that get in farm machinery constantly with meat that isn't even used for anything. But don't tell that to a vegetarian or vegan who is only concerned with their perceived morality and convenience. When things get too inconvenient, all bets are off.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;49532464]I don't believe it's unethical to eat meat, just the way that we get it in normally in America is wrong. There's nothing wrong with humanely treating and killing animals. It surprises me that vegetarians go to the extreme of "never harming an animal" when in reality they can still eat meat while still making things better with how we get it. Going to to the extreme of vegetarianism or veganism is an extreme that helps no one. In this hypothetical limb of society that is showing minor signs of infection that can be dealt with individually, why immediately opt for amputation? And going vegetarian or vegan isn't stopping the murders. By eating vegetables produced on common farms, you're contributing to the amount of farm animals that get in farm machinery constantly with meat that isn't even used for anything. But don't tell that to a vegetarian or vegan who is only concerned with their perceived morality and convenience. When things get too inconvenient, all bets are off.[/QUOTE] Thank you for responding. To reiterate (I deem it necessary), I believe that conscious life is a spectrum; humans are likely the most "conscious" in some sense, while a cow or a chicken might be considered "lesser conscious", but still conscious. If it an ethical goal to alleviate suffering and offer humans the chance to live, I would like to see this extended to all conscious life: this is my current position with regards to the ethics of the matter. With regards to stopping the murders, living a life of vegetarianism or veganism is a lifestyle I would deem as "more ethical" in the since that it willing participate in the process of the perpetuation of the idea that we should kill conscious animals that cannot provide consent [i]only if the society can sustain itself on nutrients provided by other resources[/i]. (This last italicized part is crucial to my argument) ---- Sorry, I don't understand your "hypothetical limb of society" analogy (despite the fact it may be very obvious); can you further explain that point to me? ----- I am also having trouble seeing the correlation between "amount of vegetables eaten and its affect on vegetables produced on common farms" and "farm animals getting caught in machines". Can you elaborate that point further as well? If I am understanding it right, it sounds like a phenomenon that is out of human control and is purely accidental: I might compare that analogy to "stop driving cars because it causes manufacturers to make more thus increasing the risk of a person making one becoming injured". This is if I am assuming your analogy right. Please elaborate if you have the time.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49531617]if you can't afford an apartment or find roommates past 24 you're probably failing at life[/QUOTE] Look, man, my family is right in the window where we make enough that I didn't qualify for good financial aid but my parents couldn't support me almost at all financially in college (partially because we live in a very high-cost area and partially because they haven't been great with money in the past, but is that my fault?). I didn't get great grades in high school, but I went to community college for two years and did very well and then transferred to a 4-year college. I got a degree from a decent state school, I majored in two technical STEM majors, and I've been looking for a bit over a year now, but I haven't found a full-time job that can support me. I'm 24. As I said before, I live in a high-cost area. I work part time to pay for my student loans, I'm going to be a grad student in a few days, I study constantly to retake my GREs and for a funded Master's/PhD program, and I look almost constantly for full-time work. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let anyone tell me I'm untalented or lazy. I may not have been the top of my class or the hardest worker ever, but does that mean I don't deserve to be able to support myself financially? I think making blanket statements like yours about people's characters based on their living situations is demeaning and unnecessary. Like I don't deal with enough without random people on the internet judging me based on the circumstances I've dealt with throughout my life. You didn't come from a well-off background and you made it through alright? Great! But it doesn't mean you ought to look down on anyone who hasn't managed to carve a comfortable living yet.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49532424]yeah, let's ignore the damn 2008 economical crisis that put more than half my country having to spend 90% of their money on bills and debt for almost the past decade totally our fault[/QUOTE] I'm not using "failing at life" as a derogative phrase. Everyone fails at life for periods of time unless they're a perfect little fuck.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49532827]I'm not using "failing at life" as a derogative phrase.[/QUOTE] Suuuuuure

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49532917]Suuuuuure[/QUOTE] It's true. For me, realizing how goddamn shit I actually am has always predated periods of immense personal growth. I know for a fact that if it weren't for the specific combination of work, timing, and luck that resulted in me being self-sufficient, I would hate myself. At every point in my life I can identify hundreds of opportunities that I ignored or didn't have the guts to seize. People who blame circumstance for their failures are not equipped to learn from them. If you try to repaint failure as "your best shot" or "bad luck" then you are going to be unhappy for even longer.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49531617]if you can't afford an apartment or find roommates past 24 you're probably failing at life[/QUOTE] It's ideas like these that contribute to people's self-hatred, depression, and suicide. I'd be interested to see what other ways you see a person as a failure, because in my opinion you're a complete failure if you can only think binary with the comfort zone that society presents you without the ability truly think for yourself and without the ability to put yourself in other people's shoes. Your philosophy on failure completely ignores the notion that one could inherit a large sum of money and have access to a lot of shit and that other people can be born under only the worst circumstances. Is the first a "success" and the second a "failure"? Why is money the barometer of your success? I would focus on rethinking your world if I were you.

[QUOTE=exhale77;49532633]Thank you for responding. To reiterate (I deem it necessary), I believe that conscious life is a spectrum; humans are likely the most "conscious" in some sense, while a cow or a chicken might be considered "lesser conscious", but still conscious. If it an ethical goal to alleviate suffering and offer humans the chance to live, I would like to see this extended to all conscious life: this is my current position with regards to the ethics of the matter.[/quote] Why? Why is conscious life inherently precious? As long as torture is not involved, why does it matter if I humanely kill an animal that has, for instance, lived a long life in efforts to put a meal on my plate? [QUOTE=exhale77;49532633]With regards to stopping the murders, living a life of vegetarianism or veganism is a lifestyle I would deem as "more ethical" in the since that it willing participate in the process of the perpetuation of the idea that we should kill conscious animals that cannot provide consent [i]only if the society can sustain itself on nutrients provided by other resources[/i]. (This last italicized part is crucial to my argument)[/quote] [I]A drunk driver that kills two people is better than a drunk driver that kills ten.[/I] They're still murdering. They're still guilty. [QUOTE=exhale77;49532633]Sorry, I don't understand your "hypothetical limb of society" analogy (despite the fact it may be very obvious); can you further explain that point to me?[/quote] If the problem with killing animals is that we're being inhumane about it, then the goal should be to make it humane, not to stop the killing. We can kill animals who have lived longer lives, for instance, in humane ways. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. [QUOTE=exhale77;49532633]I am also having trouble seeing the correlation between "amount of vegetables eaten and its affect on vegetables produced on common farms" and "farm animals getting caught in machines". Can you elaborate that point further as well? [/quote] Farmers don't give a rat's ass about what gets caught in their machinery. If you're being vegetables, you're murdering all kind of rodents by proxy, and since you're aware of it, you should do something about it. Most vegetarians and vegans won't because it's too inconvenient. [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html]Read more about it in this article[/url] and [url=http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill#SOURCE]also its use in making Maddox's argument against vegetarians and vegans[/url]. [QUOTE=exhale77;49532633]If I am understanding it right, it sounds like a phenomenon that is out of human control and is purely accidental: I might compare that analogy to "stop driving cars because it causes manufacturers to make more thus increasing the risk of a person making one becoming injured".[/quote] If your goal is to end animal suffering and you do absolutely nothing to stop it, you are then purposely causing those deaths. If you're going to say that people who eat meat are guilty of murder and I tell you that you are also guilty of murder, you can't back away and say that it's on accident any more. I'm literally telling you and you are now aware of what you are doing, and to continue doing it is to let it happen. If a vegetarian or a vegan wants to go to the extent of planting their own farms and stuff like that, or ensure that their farm of choice that they buy from doesn't harm animals in any way, then sure, whatever. I won't call them out for being hypocrites. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy. [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49533175]We can only measure success by putting ourselves in others shoes. It's all relative. If the son of a CEO works at a shop for 10 an hour to support his family, he didn't do very well If the son of a crack addict single-mother of 6 gets a job at the shop for 10 an hour and supports their family, they've done pretty well[/QUOTE] I'll tell you why you're wrong: People have this weird idea that they need to move up - that they need to [I]progress[/I] - but in reality no one has to do jack shit. Success isn't how far up you move, it's your happiness. If your happiness comes from moving up, fine. But if your happiness is working $10 to support your loving family, all the power to ya.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;49533140]Why is money the barometer of your success?[/QUOTE] There are a tremendous number of metrics for success and failure, and they all apply to people differently, but I think that independence is generally seen as critically important in life - especially in American culture, where living in a multi-generational family home is not conventional. It's not so much money as self-sufficiency. [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]People have this weird idea that they need to move up - that they need to [I]progress[/I] - but in reality no one has to do jack shit. Success isn't how far up you move, it's your happiness.[/QUOTE] not many people consider absolute hedonism to be a success strategy, though.

Even in career, though, some people just value being able to do something they like as opposed to making lots of money.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]Why? Why is conscious life inherently precious? As long as torture is not involved, why does it matter if I humanely kill an animal that has, for instance, lived a long life in efforts to put a meal on my plate? [/quote] Nothing is inherently true. I am not stating that it is. let me remind you that this is my subjective opinion regarding the subjective ethics. My subjective view regarding the set of ethics regards two principles. 1. Suffering Suffering is a negative subjective experience, therefore it should be avoided. Ideally, we should try to minimize suffering. In this scenario, I will agree that it is possible to "humanely" (without suffering) end and animals life. I will admit that my claim sought out to lay ground for my basic moral principles rather than address this specific issue. So allow me to focus on my next point. 2. Consent All animals and sentient beings who possess a will to live should ideally be given the choice that reflects there motives (to either live or to die); my basic debate is this: a. We cannot directly communicate with other animals. b. We cannot get consent from them for the reason above. c. Because we cannot get consent, we can not justify the act of killing the animal(s). ---- [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191][I]A drunk driver that kills two people is better than a drunk driver that kills ten.[/I] They're still murdering. They're still guilty. [/quote] Unless you believe ethics is completely black and white, no. One of those acts is more ethical than the other. They are both murdering yes, but surely the murder of two is [i]more ethical[/i] than the murder of ten in that scenario. In my claim, I stated that vegetarianism and veganism are more ethical (Note that I have not placed them into one of two extremities), for the reason I had listed in my previous post. [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]If the problem with killing animals is that we're being inhumane about it, then the goal should be to make it humane, not to stop the killing. We can kill animals who have lived longer lives, for instance, in humane ways. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. [/quote] I was not debating if it was inhumane, I recognize it can be done in a way that has transcends subjective suffering. I am debating we cannot gather consent. I will agree that it is not an "all or nothing" situation however. (Refer to my second response of your second quote in this post) [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]Farmers don't give a rat's ass about what gets caught in their machinery. If you're being vegetables, you're murdering all kind of rodents by proxy, and since you're aware of it, you should do something about it. Most vegetarians and vegans won't because it's too inconvenient. [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html]Read more about it in this article[/url] and [url=http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill#SOURCE]also its use in making Maddox's argument against vegetarians and vegans[/url]. [/quote] I will keep these articles in mind when furthering pondering this topic, thank you. Unfortunately, I do not currently have the time. I will say that I have heard from various sources in the past that a human being can get their nutrients elsewhere (which is what my original argument is based on in its hypothetical nature), however I currently do not possess those sources. Since we are debating my ideal ethics than yes, I should effectively do everything in my capacity to stop this from happening. I should also do everything in my capacity to stop everything else I deem as unethical in the world. You can be a hypocrite but still identify that something is unethical. There is a difference between identifying what is ethical in nature, and actually holding oneself to that moral standing. What I am debating is the former. [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]If your goal is to end animal suffering and you do absolutely nothing to stop it, you are then purposely causing those deaths. If you're going to say that people who eat meat are guilty of murder and I tell you that you are also guilty of murder, you can't back away and say that it's on accident any more. I'm literally telling you and you are now aware of what you are doing, and to continue doing it is to let it happen.[/quote] Agreed. Refer to previous quote response. More specifically, refer to the last three sentences. [QUOTE=wauterboi;49533191]If a vegetarian or a vegan wants to go to the extent of planting their own farms and stuff like that, or ensure that their farm of choice that they buy from doesn't harm animals in any way, then sure, whatever. I won't call them out for being hypocrites. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy.[/quote] Agreed. Refer to previous quote response. ---- Thank you again for your time.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;49532827]I'm not using "failing at life" as a derogative phrase. Everyone fails at life for periods of time unless they're a perfect little fuck.[/QUOTE] I think that's a very twisted phrase to use. That's great if you're not trying to hurt people for doing the best they can, but it sure sounds like you are. I think it's very dependent on the metric you use for succeeding/failing at life.

honestly, I fucking loved having no money I was so tired of living with my family that all my wants had coalesced into one overwhelming desire: I wanted to wash my own dishes. I was desperate to actually have a sense of ownership over something; the foreclosure had erased my sense of home and I needed it back. I have incredibly fond memories of learning to cook for myself in my gnome-sized galley kitchen. My first place was literally 1.5 rooms stuffed into the corner of a misshapen townhouse, but it was awesome.