Other What's an unpopular opinion you have?

[Caffeine Freak]

Exactly what it says on the tin. One of mine, for example,

I don't care about animal cruelty. As long as I get a Big Mac or functional cosmetic product out of it, I say go to town.

What's yours? (Criticism is pretty fair game in this thread)

 

[Truff]

I'm American and don't like bacon or gravy

 

[Idea]

Unpopular? Oh, I could be here all giving out my unpopular opinions...and the day just started.

Perhaps one of my most commonly applicable ones is that little to nothing is subjective, that is, little to nothing depends on opinion. For something to be subjective, it has to change if the opinion changes. And not only does it have to change, it has to change in it´s integrity. Anything whose properties are retained upon a change of opinion is not subjective.
I actually came up with a set of rules to determine what is subjective and what is not, all of them taken directly from this understanding of subjectivity, it´s meaning and definition. And what I found is that a lot of the times, people say "It´s just an opinion" to things that not just aren´t just opinions- they can often have the direst of consequences for being wrong.
This is at the heart of my critical behavior. I criticize people and their beliefs, opinions , statements, whatever, because having your feelings hurt is often nothing compared to what happens when opinions are unexamined.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Skyrim is infinitely superior to Morrowind and Oblivion.

There are tons of gamers out there who are absolutely crazy about Morrowind, saying it's the best Elder Scrolls game there is.

 

[Windsock]

Democracy was a mistake.

 

[Lappi]

Democracy was a mistake.

Well democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
The USA is a republic

 

[Windsock]

Republics were also a mistake.

 

[Sunstone]

Spike is a likeable character.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

Democracy was a mistake.

Republics were also a mistake.

That's the entire population of Texas' opinions. Therefore not very unpopular.

I'm American and don't like bacon or gravy

..What?

Unpopular? Oh, I could be here all giving out my unpopular opinions...and the day just started.

Perhaps one of my most commonly applicable ones is that little to nothing is subjective, that is, little to nothing depends on opinion. For something to be subjective, it has to change if the opinion changes. And not only does it have to change, it has to change in it´s integrity. Anything whose properties are retained upon a change of opinion is not subjective.
I actually came up with a set of rules to determine what is subjective and what is not, all of them taken directly from this understanding of subjectivity, it´s meaning and definition. And what I found is that a lot of the times, people say "It´s just an opinion" to things that not just aren´t just opinions- they can often have the direst of consequences for being wrong.
This is at the heart of my critical behavior. I criticize people and their beliefs, opinions , statements, whatever, because having your feelings hurt is often nothing compared to what happens when opinions are unexamined.

You've kinda just defined subjectivity there. Yeah, sort've goes without saying that if people's opinions influence stuff, it's subjective - if not - it's not-subjective. Perhaps if you gave a few examples of something that you consider to not be subjective that the majority of people would consider subjective, or vice versa, -because I'm just not feeling a controversial opinion, here.

 

[Idea]

You've kinda just defined subjectivity there. Yeah, sort've goes without saying that if people's opinions influence stuff, it's subjective - if not - it's not-subjective. Perhaps if you gave a few examples of something that you consider to be subjective that the majority of people would consider subjective, or vice versa, -because I'm just not feeling a controversial opinion, here.

well, one of the major examples would be morals, as well as the quality art and roleplays, among other aspects of the later. All of those have an objective value that is independent from what anyone thinks. Nomatter how they feel about it, morality , the quality of a certain piece of art, the quality of a roleplay or writing... none of them change.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

well, one of the major examples would be morals, as well as the quality art and roleplays, among other aspects of the later. All of those have an objective value that is independent from what anyone thinks. Nomatter how they feel about it, morality , the quality of a certain piece of art, the quality of a roleplay or writing... none of them change.

I'd say you're right about morality, thinking something as 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't affect the action itself, and while you may be right about art and roleplays - I'd say their inherent value of 'quality' in them doesn't really matter, it's the quality that people assign to them that makes them worth something.

Take the painting 1948 against a painting like Crimson Mountains, for example. While one is superior in quality, the other is superior in both renown and monetary worth. If quality doesn't affect how popular artwork gets, what's the point in acknowledging it?
(and let's face it, it's not like the most popular roleplays here are of any special quality, either)

 

[Idea]

I'd say you're right about morality, thinking something as 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't affect the action itself, and while you may be right about art and roleplays - I'd say their inherent value of 'quality' in them doesn't really matter, it's the quality that people assign to them that makes them worth something.

Take the painting 1948 against a painting like Crimson Mountains, for example. While one is superior in quality, the other is superior in both renown and monetary worth. If quality doesn't affect how popular artwork gets, what's the point in acknowledging it?
(and let's face it, it's not like the most popular roleplays here are of any special quality, either)

There are two points to it. The first point has to do with the inherent value of truth. Truth has, as the word inherent implies, a value of it´s own that is not bound by it´s utility to another purpose. So, there being an objective quality to a piece of art, for example, is something which, once aknowledged gives us reason to persuit the finding of that value, uncovering the truth, which shares truth´s inherent value.

The second reason is that it stands to reason that one should promote better things. Tastes, by their very definition, change and are random, there is no way to real aim for the right appeal. The trope-filled culture of many industries proves how bad that approach easily becomes. So, it is only natural that we should, if we aknowledge that art does indeed have an objective value, find that value and strive to promote art which is progressively and objectively better.

 

[KhazTheGiraffe]

well, one of the major examples would be morals, as well as the quality art and roleplays, among other aspects of the later. All of those have an objective value that is independent from what anyone thinks. Nomatter how they feel about it, morality , the quality of a certain piece of art, the quality of a roleplay or writing... none of them change.

The problem with what your saying is that there is no universally accepted definition of morals, what makes good art. Those are both socially constructed based on your culture, your religion, your family, your peers, your education etc. You and I might have the same beliefs that killing is wrong, but in some cultures it's a perfectly acceptable punishment for disobeying your parents. Or just because we believe (or whatever your rules are for the quality of art) that a piece of art looks rubbish doesn't mean that the artist doesn't believe that it perfectly represents his emotions and that it is the best piece of work he's ever seen. There in lies the subjectivity with both your examples. Quite frankly it sounds like what your saying is "the morals and opinions that I have are right. Everyone should follow what I believe."

 

[Dawnster]

Pineapple on pizza

 

[Monster Lady Gay-Gay]

That JetStar is the worst airline that Ive flown on. Right, Ive been on it once and it was ok, but I still hate it and everyone is like "What do you have agonist Jet star?"

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Monster Lady Gay-Gay - You ever tried flying with RyanAir? Fucking nightmare.

 

[Monster Lady Gay-Gay]

Monster Lady Gay-Gay - You ever tried flying with RyanAir? Fucking nightmare.

Oh I have, I flown on many airlines throughout my years, RyanAir was a bitch, but it was a short hop. Air New Zealand is amazing however and I will say, Jet star seats are amazing, but that'd all I'm saying is good

 

[Monster Lady Gay-Gay]

Pineapple on pizza

I can see that Dawnster

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Monster Lady Gay-Gay - Delayed 5 hours flying to Spain, and delayed 2 hours flying back to England.

 

[Monster Lady Gay-Gay]

Monster Lady Gay-Gay - Delayed 5 hours flying to Spain, and delayed 2 hours flying back to England.

Oh god that would have been fucking horrible. I dont fly Budget Airlines, I only fly carriers that I know and have high marks for customer service

 

[Idea]

The problem with what your saying is that there is no universally accepted definition of morals, what makes good art. Those are both socially constructed based on your culture, your religion, your family, your peers, your education etc. You and I might have the same beliefs that killing is wrong, but in some cultures it's a perfectly acceptable punishment for disobeying your parents. Or just because we believe (or whatever your rules are for the quality of art) that a piece of art looks rubbish doesn't mean that the artist doesn't believe that it perfectly represents his emotions and that it is the best piece of work he's ever seen. There in lies the subjectivity with both your examples. Quite frankly it sounds like what your saying is "the morals and opinions that I have are right. Everyone should follow what I believe."

I know what you are trying to say. It´s a very common argument, and the main reason that makes the opinion stated to be unpopular. However, that argument is immediately rebuttable. So explain that better, allow me to put it in a formal manner:

argument 1
premise: There is a large disagreement between cultures and individuals of several beliefs
premise: No culture or individual has more authority over what is the right belief than others (when it comes to these specific matters)
conclusion: There is no acceptable defintion and there never can be

argument 2
premise: there is no acceptable definiton and there never can be
premise: if there can be no defintion then all that matters is what you think and how you feel about he subject, individually
conclusion: therefore these matters depend on opinion, they are subjective


that is the argument you presented, in a formal display. Do correct me if I am wrong, of course.

So, the problem lies in the first two premises and what they assume. You see, UNLESS these things are subjective, then it doesn´t matter what anyone thinks. Everyone in the world may be wrong, there may be just one lonely dude that is right, who knows? But it doesn´t mean anything towards whether or not there is an objective value. Being complicated to find one does not make it impossible either. The second premise is also broken by this same conception. Unless these things are in fact subjective, then there is no reason to accept the premise in the first place, because some will in fact have more authority in the matter.

So, as a starting assumption, we have to look at the world and at logic, and what would be the natural state. When it comes to assumptions one cannot assume anything that is not their natural state. The natural state of things is, as any sane person would agree, objective. Your opinion doens´t change what color the sky is, it doesn´t alter the force of gravity, it can´t change the intentions someone else had in doing a certain action, etc... Logically speaking, the rule of non-contradiction also dictates that things cannot be and not be at once under the same aspect, meaning once again, that acceptable starting state is objectivity.

Therefore, it doesn´t MATTER if some cultures accepted this or that, because NOTHING supports the idea that that makes it any more or any less moraly correct on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of something alone.




You mentioned that this may come off as me saying "oh I am right, do as I say", but that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. Because things like these are objective not subjective, then I can actually be wrong. And not only do you and everyone else have the right to point it out and show it to me, you have the duty to if you can. And the same applies to me. If I find something I find to be wrong, I should discuss it and criticize it. And if the debate is dealt with in a proper manner, both people involved will come out knowing reality better.

Of course, even if a piece of art is terrible, one can still enjoy it. Enjoyment of something, our appreciation for it, that meets the criteria for subjectivity. Just not it´s quality, and such factors.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

There are two points to it. The first point has to do with the inherent value of truth. Truth has, as the word inherent implies, a value of it´s own that is not bound by it´s utility to another purpose. So, there being an objective quality to a piece of art, for example, is something which, once aknowledged gives us reason to persuit the finding of that value, uncovering the truth, which shares truth´s inherent value.

The second reason is that it stands to reason that one should promote better things. Tastes, by their very definition, change and are random, there is no way to real aim for the right appeal. The trope-filled culture of many industries proves how bad that approach easily becomes. So, it is only natural that we should, if we aknowledge that art does indeed have an objective value, find that value and strive to promote art which is progressively and objectively better.

I'd pull out the realistic hammer here and say that art's objective value will fluctuate, like it has done for centuries, and will neither correlate positively or negativity in a linear fashion. While on paper, it makes sense that people want to better their work - but at the end of the day, art is more expression of individuals rather than it is an entity that can improve itself. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

Quite frankly it sounds like what your saying is "the morals and opinions that I have are right. Everyone should follow what I believe."

Deep down, I have a feeling that's everyone's core belief.

 

[welian]

Anime was a mistake.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

Anime was a mistake.

Isn't your profile picture... an animated character?