Unpopular Opinions V5: "I still don't like Half Life 2."
5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49220842]Well I see any form of fanaticism as intolerance. Leftist ideals seem to generate fanatics. Therefore the ideal is not going to create tolerance in the long run.
I've dealt with my fair share of SJWs. So Ive tried to generate a new idea of what creates tolerance.
You however I would describe you as a good person.
This is why I am against gay marriage. I know that not popular but the original intent of marriage (I'm talking when it started, way back in the stone age) was to tie the political and financial fates of two families through a child. It was never or ever about love. It helps, but no......
I am however not against the idea of creating multiple forms of marriage after a primary couple has sealed the deal. A marriage where lets say wants to add another person temporally to the marriage for what ever reason (lets say the woman wants to get to know another woman a bit more intimately) then that I believe to be the solution.
The problem in the west is we have one idea what marriage means. Kinda like having just one brand of peanut butter. We need more "brands" of marriage or more ideas. Islam I believe is one culture that does this. Has different types of marriages for different situations. Not sure bout other ones.
We as a culture should follow suit.
The reason I am for this idea I have presented is it does solve two issues. The first issue? I have noticed that in todays world, there are single mothers. The children are either left with relatives or friends of the parents. The problem with this is such people may not be of the best of people. The other is reliability. Eventually the friends or relatives may have lives of their own. It becomes a different set of rules day to day. Im sorry to say this but children can be liars. So they never learn discipline or stability and end up becoming cheaters of sorts to get out things they dont want to do, but would be good for them in the long run. situation of the children bouncing from care taker to care taker. Which leads to having multiple different sets of rules. They never become moral. Just learn how to exploit people.
The second scenario is they are left to fend for them selves. The latter is a sure invitation for delinquency and emotional instability through the persons life. There as cases where both parents are trying to work and which creates the same situation. Which lead to same results. Latch key children sand children lacking discipline and a firm sense of morality and guidance.
Under my system, a couple if they want to, could having someone else to be a stay at home parent, while the primary couple does what they need to do. The reasons for the secondary could be for whatever the couple and the secondary may desire.
The second issue is when done properly, it creates a "clan" of sorts. By doing this, you give people a sense of belonging and community. This reduces fanaticism and fills the needs most people end up adhering to a political idea for. When this is created, when the people follow an idea, it would be because they genuinely want to follow, not because they want to have a false sense of importance, or a reason to screw other people up (or bully) or get attention. You would be left with genuine people[/QUOTE]
The world is progressive so why wouldn't the meaning of things be progressive?
Tbh being against gay marriage is nonsensical when you realise it's more a symptom of things rather than a cause. Marriage in general has been in decline and most people who marry get divorced. Blaming gay marriage for this is counterproductive, especially when gay marriage affects a small subset of a minority of the population.
[QUOTE]The world is progressive so why wouldn't the meaning of things be progressive?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
[QUOTE]Tbh being against gay marriage is nonsensical when you realise it's more a symptom of things rather than a cause. Marriage in general has been in decline and most people who marry get divorced. Blaming gay marriage for this is counterproductive, especially when gay marriage affects a small subset of a minority of the population.[/QUOTE]
You didnt read the post did you? I am not conservative.
I didnt gay marriage is to blame. Nor did I say Im against it. I just think [U]my form of gay marriage[/U] is superior to [U]your idea of gay marriage[/U]. I did say in my system gay marriage would be allowed. Maybe the better form of putting is I am against the traditional idea and notion of how marriage is commonly and traditionally perceived in the west. That what needs to be changed and the west needs to look towards history and other cultures that have different ideas of marriage.
As for your observation of marriage in decline, its due to capitalism I believe.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49221330]What do you mean by this?
You didnt read the post did you?
I didnt gay marriage is to blame. Nor did I say Im against it. I just think [U]my form of gay marriage[/U] is superior to [U]your idea of gay marriage[/U].
As for your observation of marriage in decline, its due to capitalism I believe.[/QUOTE]
A lot of countries with market economies don't have the same problem. The usa had that economic system for at least a century before marriage went into decline. Poland has low divorce rates, as does Ireland relative to a lot of other countries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49221385]A lot of countries with market economies don't have the same problem. The usa had that economic system for at least a century before marriage went into decline. Poland has low divorce rates, as does Ireland relative to a lot of other countries.[/QUOTE]
I personally don't know why that is in those cultures, other then they are heavily influenced by religion. Conservative.
The reason marriage is in decline in America I believe is the cost benefit ratio. It just does not make economic sense to for an individual to have children which in the end doesn't provide much profit. In more traditional societies, there was. In developed, no. Also education of females tends to play a role.
Right. I would like you to re read my post on what I think in American would be an ideal marriage system and why (or not). Like I said, it does allow for gay marriage. You just didnt read the post. I say this because, your counter didn't address the reasons why I think it would be a great system.
Right now, you just read a few words and assumed what my entire view point was. How do you know those assumptions are even close to being accurate?
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49221403]I personally don't know why that is in those cultures, other then they are heavily influenced by religion. Conservative.
The reason marriage is in decline in America I believe is the cost benefit ratio. It just does not make economic sense to for an individual to have children which in the end doesn't provide much profit. In more traditional societies, there was. In developed, no. Also education of females tends to play a role.
Right. I would like you to re read my post on what I think in American would be an ideal marriage system and why.
The reason I think mine is better is its designed to produce a great emotional outcome for all. Including homosexuals involved in the relationships. Gives them a group to belong to.[/QUOTE]
I think the institution itself is in terminal decline. Most government initiatives and legal changes aimed at reversing this are failures or unfeasible. I think the birth rate is going to remain below replacement rates, a pattern which will eventually spread to become a global phenomenon.
[QUOTE]I think the institution itself is in terminal decline. Most government initiatives and legal changes aimed at reversing this are failures or unfeasible. I think the birth rate is going to remain below replacement rates, a pattern which will eventually spread to become a global phenomenon.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Thats what the stats say.
But you said:
[QUOTE]Tbh being against gay marriage is nonsensica[/QUOTE]
Which I agree. I just created a different ideal of how gay marriage should be. Why are you against it? Why do you assume I hate gays? If you are against one idea of gay marriage (as having them as parents), then you must be against all forms of gay marriage.
What I just did is I created a new idea, that neither left or right has thought of, that would generate the same end result but in a different way, based on different assumptions. Im doing this to see if you are capable of listening.
I think that most emoji look really obnoxious, and I don't really care that an emoji got word of the year
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49221310]Fucking what[/QUOTE]
Marriage being love based is actually a really new idea. Carson is right that marriage was originally a political thing.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;49221458]Marriage being love based is actually a really new idea. Carson is right that marriage was originally a political thing.[/QUOTE]
It was designed to solve a practical, concrete problem. That is the ultimate test of an idea. Does it solve a concrete, practical problem and does it solve and produce results that are concrete and desirable?
Was the idea originally from needing to solve a concrete and practical problem? If yes, then the best approach is re design with that reason in mind around the problems we face today.
My approach allows for homosexual people allows to be parents and part of a household. So let me ask again, why are people rating it dumb?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49217400]The Wehrmacht is overrated. [/QUOTE]
They had their shit together with the helmet though. I mean come on, the stahlhelm is just cool, and an effective design to boot.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49221471]My approach allows for homosexual people allows to be parents and part of a household. So let me ask again, why are people rating it dumb?[/QUOTE]
Because it's an unfeasibly bad idea that won't work in practice.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49221508]Because it's an unfeasibly bad idea that won't work in practice.[/QUOTE]
Ok why is this?
Marriages between more then just two people was a main stay for a long time. Concubinage was also common. Why cant a man in a marriage have another man as a (lack of a better term) have a male concubine? Why is this a bad idea?
I did mention in Isalm, there are different forms of marriage, for different purposes. Why cant we in the west adopt this idea? Why one just one size fits all idea?
Also, if you are against it, then how would you address the problems I brought up? One of the reasons I came up with it is due to the observation of how over worked people are and these leads to latch key children. Which isnt good.
There are cultures with Polygamy, yeah. There is also this culture in Tibet where a woman marries brothers (like all the brothers in a family). Helps keep the little bit of land they have intact.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49221534]There are cultures with Polygamy, yeah. There is also this culture in Tibet where a woman marries brothers (like all the brothers in a family). Helps keep the little bit of land they have intact.[/QUOTE]
Right like I said, being against gay marriage was the wrong phrase. I apologize. What I saying is, maybe its time to look at other cultures around the world (past and present) and see how they do it. Then adopt it so everyone can be included in the system, that benefits all, in a way that solves concrete problems.
I did say I am against the idea of marriage between two people for it creates latch key children in America. Which is not great for society. Maybe having more then just two people as parent can be the solution? Multiple partners married together would to me seem to be the likely answer. Gay people can and should be parents. My idea allows for that.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49221540]Right like I said, being against gay marriage was the wrong phrase. I apologize. What I saying is, maybe its time to look at other cultures around the world (past and present) and see how they do it. Then adopt it so everyone can be included in the system, that benefits all, in a way that solves concrete problems.
I did say I am against the idea of marriage between two people for it creates latch key children. Which is not great for society. Maybe having more then just two people as parent can be the solution? Multiple marriages would to me seem to be the likely answer.[/QUOTE]
The cultures that have more than 2 people in a marriage tend to be pastoral in nature, ie the only reason its that way is to preserve land.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49221555]The cultures that have more than 2 people in a marriage tend to be pastoral in nature, ie the only reason its that way is to preserve land.[/QUOTE]
Well, Im not a stickler for ideas. I like to have results. So how would you deal with the issue of latch key children?
How would you tie the fortunes of two families together that doesn't require traditional reproduction?
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49221566]Well, Im not a stickler for ideas. I like to have results. So how would you deal with the issue of latch key children?
How would you tie the fortunes of two families together that doesn't require traditional reproduction?[/QUOTE]
Why do you think homosexual parents would be more likely to not care for their child?
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Here's how to solve the gay marriage issue: let them do it. There are no side effects.
[QUOTE]Why do you think homosexual parents would be more likely to not care for their child?[/QUOTE]
Lets reframe the question. What was the original problem meant to solve when marriage was invented?
It was to improve and tie the fortunes of two groups of people through the next of biological kin.
It is also used as a means to help raise the next generation. Hopefully, healthy, strong children that can be of benefit to their family, community and themselves.
To deviate from a practical, concrete solution is to invite problems. However that doesnt mean the idea cant be updated to address those concerns and the ones we as a contemporary society have.
Your question still holds assumption of what a marriage is commonly "should be" in the west. Between two people, and just for one purpose. I am saying there needs to be more then that. If two gay people want to marry for the sake of an adopted child, this would be of concrete benefit to all involved. They can have specific type of marriage for specifically this purpose.
As long as a marriage solves one of these two issues, then any thing be allowed.
Allow me to ask you a question:
Is the current model and conception of marriage is the healthiest and best option for both traditional and non traditional partners?
Can you come up with a critique of your ideals, find the flaws then create something better to fix those flaws? This is what I am trying to do. This is how progress is made.
Other cultures have a broader idea of what a marriage is and what it can be used for. So, why not in America?
[QUOTE]You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Here's how to solve the gay marriage issue: let them do it. There are no side effects.[/QUOTE]
Latch Key children are problem.
My idea is designed to help people who can't be home for the children due to working situations. This is something I have seen over and over. Single mothers are working which leave the children alone or in the care or less then responsible people. There are cases both parents are working. The parents have a choice. Child care (which causes more financial headaches) which leaves them in the care of stranger who may or may not have shady backgrounds. The other option is family, friends and siblings. The latter isnt that great either. In either situation, the children are affected negatively.
The traditional marriage between two people isn't working. Its needs to be changed. If there are more people, then the duties can be split up. If one of the two in that marriage want another person to be part of the contract, they should allow for it. Marriage should be for more then just two people. In such a setting, it can involve any one, regardless who they are.
I cannot access the whole article, but its the best I can find.
[url]http://study.com/academy/lesson/latchkey-kids-definition-effects-statistics.html[/url]
Another source is the book I believe to be titled "Emotional Intelligence", by Daniel Goleman which I believe covers this as well.
Sonic 2 is the weakest entry in the original trilogy
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49222003]Lets reframe the question. What was the original problem meant to solve when marriage was invented?
[/QUOTE]
That isn't related to the question at all. You just completely avoided answering it. Then you just said it again:
[quote]To deviate from a practical, concrete solution is to invite problems.[/quote]
What problems?
[quote]
Here is a question for you. Is what the current idea of marriage a good idea and best for those wanting gay marriage? [/quote]
Yes.
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
Marriage is an official, government-backed union between two people. This extends to things like tax breaks and custody of a child. Why should homosexuals be denied these benefits?
[QUOTE]Here is a question for you. Is what the current idea of marriage a good idea and best for those wanting gay marriage?
Yes.[/QUOTE]
Try again. There are problems with idea. Let see if you can come up with them. They deserve better. Progress is made by critiquing the ideas we hold dear, finding the flaws in them, then recreating those ideas to address those flaws.
What I am trying to do is create (on the fly) an ideal of progress and tolerance that is a contrast to your ideas of progress and tolerance. Why? As a means of critique.
As for the rest of the questions, I'll wait till you understand what I am saying. You still assume "I'm a conservative anti-gay fundie"
Try again.
I am not saying it is wrong to allow people (regardless of whom they are) to marry. I saying it is and should be used as a means to a solution. Marriage was originally conceived as an idea to solve a problem. It was to tie the financial and political fortunes of two families (or clans) together through the biological next of kin and to raise children who can be healthy adults and hopefully make society more healthy as well.
As long it sticks to one of those two points, any thing should be allowed.
Tell me how those two practical points are against homosexuals in any shape or form?
[QUOTE]Marriage is an official, government-backed union between two people. This extends to things like tax breaks and custody of a child. Why should homosexuals be denied these benefits?[/QUOTE]
If two gay people can get married under my system, of course they should get those benefits.Which in my ideal, can. Try again.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49222381]Try again. There are problems with idea. Let see if you can come up with them. [/QUOTE]
I'm asking you. You haven't brought any problems forth, even though you have stated there are. You have a completely empty argument. It's blatantly obvious you have no valid points.
[quote]
If two gay people can get married under my system, of course they should get those benefits.Which in my ideal, can. Try again.[/QUOTE]
We're not talking about your system.
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49222381]
As for the rest of the questions, I'll wait till you understand what I am saying. You still assume "I'm a conservative anti-gay fundie"
Try again.
[/QUOTE]So instead providing any actual support to your argument, you just put words in my mouth and say I don't understand you?
[QUOTE]We're not talking about your system.[/QUOTE]
Then your not critiquing my position. You're critiquing something else. We're both pro gay marriage. I just have a different idea to how to achieve it. The only reason you re against my view of gay marriage is you must have something against gay people. Stay on focus. You either for all ideas of gay marriage or you re not. Which is it?
[QUOTE]'m asking you. You haven't brought any problems forth, even though you have stated there are. You have a completely empty argument. It's blatantly obvious you have no valid points.[/QUOTE]
It obvious the current commonly conceived form of marriage was inherited from a hetronormative society. The only reason to want to adopt a hetronormative custom is have an artificial form of proving acceptance into a society that will never accept them no matter what. The better idea is to create a new society and culture that includes everyone and scrap the previous one.
The other argument is that it just a new market for divorce lawyers. Divorce in marriages tends to have a 50 percent failure rate. So marriage must be re made to lower the failure rate, for every one.
The only reason you dumbed my post is you're against any idea for a more equal, tolerant society. Either you're for all ideas for a better society, or you are not. Which is it?
Discriminating an idea that meant to combat of discrimination is proof of being discriminatory.
The Sonic Adventure series is subpar at best.
[QUOTE=Vaught;49222659]The Sonic Adventure series is subpar at best.[/QUOTE]
I had at least nostalgia for SA1 to get me through the PS3 version, but I never played SA2 when it was relevant so I just got bored with it pretty quickly. Dropped it as soon as the emerald hunt levels started.
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49222673]sonic as a franchise should just die
being second rate 90s edgy mario shouldn't have brought that garbage this far into the future, it should be laughed at like bubsy and coolspot but somehow it maintains a fanbase[/QUOTE]
Sonic helped Sega and the Genesis/Mega Drive actually compete with Nintendo, so it does have something to set it apart from Bubsy and Cool Spot.
Other than that though it should of been left in the 90s.
mario should've been left in the nineties too
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49222720]mario should've been left in the nineties too[/QUOTE]
What makes Mario so dated, design wise?
[QUOTE=Durrsly;49222730]What makes Mario so dated, design wise?[/QUOTE]
nothing. I just think that franchises crush creativity. There are literally millions of designers and writers out there with new ideas, but instead we get endless rehashes of ~*~nostalgic~*~ characters for no fucking reason at all.
Mario isn't even a character! He doesn't have a personality. He's a one-dimensional friendly face. Why does he exist? Do people really buy Mario games because they love the universe?
I never understood what's there to like about Sonic, and it's fanbase just makes me wonder about it even more
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.