At some level, you must understand that this is wrong.

[Mojo]

Linux objectively is the best OS, apple is too expensive and Microsoft is too complicated.

OH GOD, so many buttons. Damn, what do they all do?
Just kidding, I don't know if Linux is objectively the best OS, never used it. Windows 7 all the way.

 

[Terramax]

Religious people whom can't comprehend the possibility that their deities maybe be false.

I had a friend that used to adamantly preach that it was unthinkable that God might not exist. To him, it wasn't a case that he 'believed in God', but that everyone around him that wasn't religious were too thick to understand that God's existence was as definite as gravity and oxygen.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I believe that piracy is theft but people call it "copyright infringement" because that makes it better somehow in their mind.

See! Pandemonium already! Just wait until someone waltz in with a "All religion is followed by sheeples" comment

Piracy isn't theft.

If I break into your house and steal your TV, you've lost a TV and I've gained it. I've taken property that belongs to you, and as a result you can no longer use it, charge anybody else money to use it, or sell it. That's theft.

If I illegally download a film that you own part of the "rights" to (and trust me, that's a sticky enough argument in itself), you still own those rights. You can still make a profit from them. You've lost nothing unless it can be said that I would absolutely have bought a licence to view the film from you myself if I didn't illegally download it - an unprovable hypothetical situation. I haven't stolen anything from you because you haven't lost anything. Ergo, it's not theft.

You might very well say that piracy is WRONG. Under most circumstances I'd agree with you. But saying "piracy is theft" isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply factually wrong given the simple definitions of those words. As such I'd argue that it's outside of the purview of this topic anyway - "Is piracy theft" is a matter of definition and semantics, whereas "Were the Nazis right?" is emotive and subjective.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Do you ever hear someone express views that you think that at some level they should understand don't make any sense? Like when my grandmother didn't agree with me that Michael Jackson had been framed for pederasty crimes by people who wanted to get a big bunch of dollars from him, because to wuote her, "Do you really think people would do that kind of thing for money?" Leaving aside the issue of whether Michael was guilty or not, at some level she must have known that people will lie for money.

So... what have you heard people say or believe or think that at some level they must have known was untrue?

Here's the massive contradiction in what you're saying here. I don't know if Michael Jackson was framed or not - I'm not particularly interested in the subject and haven't looked it up. I have no idea what the evidence is either way.

Now if the evidence proves conclusively that he was, or wasn't, framed, then you can say that your grandmother is wrong (or right). That's a question of FACT. If there's not such conclusive evidence (which is what I'm gathering from your post) then your grandmother's statement is an opinion, and so is yours. And that's where we run into difficulties because an opinion can't be "true" or "untrue". A belief can be either provable or unprovable, and again, if it's the latter, it can't be said to be "true" or "untrue". It depends on the observations and life experiences of the believer.

Maybe your grandmother has never met anybody who would commit such a cynical, self-serving act, but has met or read about people who would molest children. Maybe, given her experiences in live, she finds the notion of a pedophile singer plausible, but the notion that people would cynically exploit an innocent person in that way impossible (or just emotionally intolerable). My point is that there are SO MANY different things that influence a person when deciding a question like this one.

A lot of people believe in some kind of creator or God (myself not being one of them). There's no empirical evidence for the existence of any God, so their belief is based on other factors - upbringing, a view of the world that includes the supernatural, or just a world-view that sees complexity as evidence of some kind of creator. This world view is pretty much the opposite of my own. I'm not judging the "objective validity" of either viewpoint. I'm just saying that their definition of "reasonable" is entirely different to my own, because we have different experiences and therefore a different view of the world.

So when you say "untrue", what you really mean is "unreasonable, according to my personal experience". To me the notions of racism or anti-gay prejudice are unreasonable (and repugnant); but I doubt I'd be able to convince a member of Westboro Baptist Church of the latter. Why should things be any different in terms of the less controversial questions? If we all thought exactly the same way, the world would be a much more boring - and probably a much more terrible - place to live.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

OT- People getting angry at other people just because other people have different tastes. Er, hello? Diversity is one of the best things that's on this planet...

i don't like Diversity, I think the woman with the dog should've won...
well, sorry we're not all comedic geniuses

ANYWAY the thing that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING gives you cancer these days. brightly coloured drinks, being male, being female, going in the sun for 3 seconds, staying inside, being alive, being dead. I know cancer is a serious issue but these things...and more...i just think they must know that you don't catch cancer from mountain bloody dew

 

[Phlakes]

Gamers.

It seems like everyone's taken for granted that, behind DLC and DRM and company CEOs and marketing and color grading and all that, are games that came from hundreds of hours put in by hundreds of people. But that doesn't matter. Nope, they're offering me extra content for 5$, so fuck that developer.

And this community is absolutely included.

 

[murdeoc]

in a thread about gun control in america on these forums i read a post in which someone stated:
'allowing guns in a society can only be beneficial because then everybody has a gun and the bad guys wont do the bad things because they know the people they are doing it to can kill them.'

(this isnt an actual quote btw, i dont remember the exact wording, but this was the extend of his post anyway)