How come no one's allowed to hate stuff anymore?

[Char-Nobyl]

Well then, your opinion is one I disagree with but I must mention that I never once have directly insulted a person on this thread, only the views of a general mass of people. Also I have not yet broken and sworn.

Then you're being condescending in addition to being the normal sort of insulting. Ah, scratch that: you've been condescending the whole time already. Every time you cite "it tastes bad" as a reason why you hate bacon, you tell everyone who does like bacon that they somehow misinterpreted their own taste buds when they thought it tasted good to them, or that they're too stupid to distinguish between good tastes and bad tastes.

 

[kikon9]

If your friends are dumb enough to dislike you because you don't like coffee or bacon, you may need to reassess your social standing in life and get some friends who are actually friendly. Yes, I like bacon, but a good friend of mine is a vegetarian, I respect the fact she doesn't eat meat in the same way I respect the fact that you hate bacon.

 

[claw38]

Mostly music...oh my god, anytime I disagree with anyone's taste in music, it brings about a hellfire worthy of the devil himself.
For example, if my friends blather on about how Tim Mcgraw is the best musician since the Beatles, and I don't like him, then I become a top 10 wanted man on their list.
Everything else is usually a bit more relaxed..but people are way too touchy about music.
If you don't like my favorite band that's perfectly fine...just don't kill me for disagreeing with your taste if I don't agree with it.

 

[beniki]

Judging by how you've explained your dislike of the Beatles (for the record, my opinion on the Beatles is that I can take them or leave them), I'd say it was because you seem to make it sound like your opinion is the right one and people should conform to it, when really they have as much right to like bacon as you do to dislike it. If you're constantly going around making people feel defensive about their choices and acting superior, they won't want to hang around you. I've never gotten anyone angry at me for saying I dislike coffee or don't drink alcohol, so I can't imagine why just that sort of thing would cause people to stop speaking to you.

You see though, my arguments aren't to prove that my opinion is superior. Just that is actually logical and based in facts. based on music wavelength, Beatles music is far from anything that most of the world considers rock e. g. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. and Elvis's music is rather close (And, I remind you, Elvis came first). They did not innovate anything new other than what I previously mentioned and if you can find me an example of another innovation originally made by them and you back it up then I will admit fault, but by all logic the Beatles did not invent rock and roll.

Logic is subjective, and facts are alterable.

The way you are wording your responses is implying that you posses more facts, and that whilst your opinion is based on logic, the other persons is not, and therefore less valid.

The language you are using is abrasive. You call people childish, and keep re-directing points to well trodden territory where you are comfortable you can win, such as the healthiness of bacon, and the legitimacy of the Beatles creating rock and roll. You see these minor victories as proof of your own intelligence.

You are afraid to actually confront the real point of the person you are quoting.

In short, you're no fun.

... Then again, you can save yourself with answering the most important question of all.

You like marmite?

What you just said about logic and facts literally contradicts the definitions of the words.

Also, if a previously made point trumps a new argument, then it is my duty to restate the previously made point. That does not make me no fun, it makes me rational.

I did not specify that any person is childish. I merely stated that the idea of doing what I specified is itself childish.

When have I not confronted the point of a quote? Seriously, I'm honest and will right my mistake if it truly is one.

Marmite? Never had it.

Logic alters based on the mind of the person using it. Mass Effect 2 describes this better than I could. Facts change with an alarming regularity. The world was flat, then was round, then was a squished ball. The molecule was the smallest thing in the world, then atoms, then quarks, now some equations no one really understands.

The previous post talks about the way you presented your argument, and not the content of it. You ignored this, instead focusing on proving you were right about the Beatles. Restating a point about them doesn't 'trump' and argument, but redirects it.

You are not confronting the post. Read again, and see how many lines are written about the Beatles, and how much is written about how you speak to people. Read yours again, and do the same analysis.

Ideas are people. Call their ideas childish, and you call them childish. If I could borrow your motto; 'You are what you think.'

And try marmite. On toast. Or vegemite. I'm not sure what you have in the States anymore, it's been years since I lived there.

 

[Caravaggio]

But that doesn't mean someone can't like coffee in spite of its health issues. Why bring up a laundry list of reasons why this is bad for you/not innovative/whatever when the topic at hand is liking or disliking something, and then starting arguments over it? I like bacon, you don't. Okay, whatever. Bring up arguments as to why that thing, and therefore the person's opinion, is bad, is just asking for arguments.

Ok, I admit your arguments are valid. Only the original point was how people have begun to discriminate against people for opinions that are unimportant such as whether bacon is good or if the Beatles are good, not about the arguments themselves. I apologize for straying so far from my original intention and thank you for bringing me back full circle.

 

[Thundero13]

Well, after telling people that i'm vegeetarian they generally say "Really, I can't imagine living without eating (insert meat type here)"

 

[Requx]

I agree with you on video games all the way, but they are kinda fun theres just better, its why I dont get sports games but bacon is the shit. You should eat more of it so you get attuned, and while I can drink coffee I don't because the taste is okay but I'd rather have tea.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Its funny how people seem to be able to overcome different religious beliefs, but shun one another over coffee and bacon. Its the little things.

and remember

 

[Caravaggio]

Judging by how you've explained your dislike of the Beatles (for the record, my opinion on the Beatles is that I can take them or leave them), I'd say it was because you seem to make it sound like your opinion is the right one and people should conform to it, when really they have as much right to like bacon as you do to dislike it. If you're constantly going around making people feel defensive about their choices and acting superior, they won't want to hang around you. I've never gotten anyone angry at me for saying I dislike coffee or don't drink alcohol, so I can't imagine why just that sort of thing would cause people to stop speaking to you.

You see though, my arguments aren't to prove that my opinion is superior. Just that is actually logical and based in facts. based on music wavelength, Beatles music is far from anything that most of the world considers rock e. g. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. and Elvis's music is rather close (And, I remind you, Elvis came first). They did not innovate anything new other than what I previously mentioned and if you can find me an example of another innovation originally made by them and you back it up then I will admit fault, but by all logic the Beatles did not invent rock and roll.

Logic is subjective, and facts are alterable.

The way you are wording your responses is implying that you posses more facts, and that whilst your opinion is based on logic, the other persons is not, and therefore less valid.

The language you are using is abrasive. You call people childish, and keep re-directing points to well trodden territory where you are comfortable you can win, such as the healthiness of bacon, and the legitimacy of the Beatles creating rock and roll. You see these minor victories as proof of your own intelligence.

You are afraid to actually confront the real point of the person you are quoting.

In short, you're no fun.

... Then again, you can save yourself with answering the most important question of all.

You like marmite?

What you just said about logic and facts literally contradicts the definitions of the words.

Also, if a previously made point trumps a new argument, then it is my duty to restate the previously made point. That does not make me no fun, it makes me rational.

I did not specify that any person is childish. I merely stated that the idea of doing what I specified is itself childish.

When have I not confronted the point of a quote? Seriously, I'm honest and will right my mistake if it truly is one.

Marmite? Never had it.

Logic alters based on the mind of the person using it. Mass Effect 2 describes this better than I could. Facts change with an alarming regularity. The world was flat, then was round, then was a squished ball. The molecule was the smallest thing in the world, then atoms, then quarks, now some equations no one really understands.

The previous post talks about the way you presented your argument, and not the content of it. You ignored this, instead focusing on proving you were right about the Beatles. Restating a point about them doesn't 'trump' and argument, but redirects it.

You are not confronting the post. Read again, and see how many lines are written about the Beatles, and how much is written about how you speak to people. Read yours again, and do the same analysis.

Ideas are people. Call their ideas childish, and you call them childish. If I could borrow your motto; 'You are what you think.'

And try marmite. On toast. Or vegemite. I'm not sure what you have in the States anymore, it's been years since I lived there.

It seems you have a point about my regards to the presentation of my argument. When I went into my breakdown of the Beatles' innovation, it was meant as an example of presenting an argument objectively.

I do admit now that facts change with time, only I must say that as time went on, the fact in your example increased in truth, for now we know the truth of the shape of the world (for certain, since we can see it from space now)

Thank you for reminding me of my motto. I guess I meant it as forewarning about letting ideas polarize. A danger that has obviously shown its potential in this very thread. You've helped me be more introspective of myself instead of condemning others, and I appreciate it.

Now I wish to re-direct. How do you feel about the topic at hand, people discriminating against those with opinions on existential things such as bacon or the Beatles that conflict with their own opinions? (This group now including me in as I have demonstrated in this thread).

P. S. I may just try to hunt down some marmite next time I'm out.

 

[Caravaggio]

Mostly music...oh my god, anytime I disagree with anyone's taste in music, it brings about a hellfire worthy of the devil himself.
For example, if my friends blather on about how Tim Mcgraw is the best musician since the Beatles, and I don't like him, then I become a top 10 wanted man on their list.
Everything else is usually a bit more relaxed..but people are way too touchy about music.
If you don't like my favorite band that's perfectly fine...just don't kill me for disagreeing with your taste if I don't agree with it.

Music definitely has grown into a touchy topic. I like to say that the reason there are so many bands and genres is because someone thought knew that they could make music that would be better in their opinion than the rest that is out there, and so the fact that there is so much music in existence is proof that it is a topic meant to be disagreed upon.

 

[Boom129]

how daaaaaaaaare you not like something!
You must love and worship EVERYTHING

 

[Burck]

It has to do with something in what Psychology calls the steps of "reflective judgment".

The step applicable to your issue with people who say you can't like bacon are in the "quasi-reflective stages". In this stage they will only accept arguments that fit their beliefs or support a conclusion that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that all opinions are created equal.
-Props to my Psych 101 book.

Anyhow, they stay in this stage likely because they don't really want to take the issue seriously to begin with. They love the guilty pleasures that are Bacon and Coffee, and perhaps are exaggerating their position for laughs, or already feel guilty about it and don't want you confirming their worries about it being bad for them.

 

[beniki]

Judging by how you've explained your dislike of the Beatles (for the record, my opinion on the Beatles is that I can take them or leave them), I'd say it was because you seem to make it sound like your opinion is the right one and people should conform to it, when really they have as much right to like bacon as you do to dislike it. If you're constantly going around making people feel defensive about their choices and acting superior, they won't want to hang around you. I've never gotten anyone angry at me for saying I dislike coffee or don't drink alcohol, so I can't imagine why just that sort of thing would cause people to stop speaking to you.

You see though, my arguments aren't to prove that my opinion is superior. Just that is actually logical and based in facts. based on music wavelength, Beatles music is far from anything that most of the world considers rock e. g. Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. and Elvis's music is rather close (And, I remind you, Elvis came first). They did not innovate anything new other than what I previously mentioned and if you can find me an example of another innovation originally made by them and you back it up then I will admit fault, but by all logic the Beatles did not invent rock and roll.

Logic is subjective, and facts are alterable.

The way you are wording your responses is implying that you posses more facts, and that whilst your opinion is based on logic, the other persons is not, and therefore less valid.

The language you are using is abrasive. You call people childish, and keep re-directing points to well trodden territory where you are comfortable you can win, such as the healthiness of bacon, and the legitimacy of the Beatles creating rock and roll. You see these minor victories as proof of your own intelligence.

You are afraid to actually confront the real point of the person you are quoting.

In short, you're no fun.

... Then again, you can save yourself with answering the most important question of all.

You like marmite?

What you just said about logic and facts literally contradicts the definitions of the words.

Also, if a previously made point trumps a new argument, then it is my duty to restate the previously made point. That does not make me no fun, it makes me rational.

I did not specify that any person is childish. I merely stated that the idea of doing what I specified is itself childish.

When have I not confronted the point of a quote? Seriously, I'm honest and will right my mistake if it truly is one.

Marmite? Never had it.

Logic alters based on the mind of the person using it. Mass Effect 2 describes this better than I could. Facts change with an alarming regularity. The world was flat, then was round, then was a squished ball. The molecule was the smallest thing in the world, then atoms, then quarks, now some equations no one really understands.

The previous post talks about the way you presented your argument, and not the content of it. You ignored this, instead focusing on proving you were right about the Beatles. Restating a point about them doesn't 'trump' and argument, but redirects it.

You are not confronting the post. Read again, and see how many lines are written about the Beatles, and how much is written about how you speak to people. Read yours again, and do the same analysis.

Ideas are people. Call their ideas childish, and you call them childish. If I could borrow your motto; 'You are what you think.'

And try marmite. On toast. Or vegemite. I'm not sure what you have in the States anymore, it's been years since I lived there.

It seems you have a point about my regards to the presentation of my argument. When I went into my breakdown of the Beatles' innovation, it was meant as an example of presenting an argument objectively.

I do admit now that facts change with time, only I must say that as time went on, the fact in your example increased in truth, for now we know the truth of the shape of the world (for certain, since we can see it from space now)

Thank you for reminding me of my motto. I guess I meant it as forewarning about letting ideas polarize. A danger that has obviously shown its potential in this very thread. You've helped me be more introspective of myself instead of condemning others, and I appreciate it.

Now I wish to re-direct. How do you feel about the topic at hand, people discriminating against those with opinions on existential things such as bacon or the Beatles that conflict with their own opinions? (This group now including me in as I have demonstrated in this thread).

P. S. I may just try to hunt down some marmite next time I'm out.

It is an issue only with people who take their lives too seriously, and can be dealt with by following this truth, as poignant today as the day it was told to me:

Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice. Pull your pants down and slide on the ice.

 

[el_kabong]

If you lost your friends over this, I would largely bet it's because you kept bringing it up like a broken record. That, or they're not very close to you as friends.

Also, you're wrong about the dopamine production. Coffee, through it's active ingredient caffeine, increases dopamine levels similarly to what you see in cocaine (source: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/caffeine4.htm). Also, if you use said argument and still drink soda (caffeinated), then you're pretty much a hypocrite.

So, if you spent more time researching your opinions instead of berating your friends about their lifestyle choices, maybe you wouldn't have such a rough go of things.

I do not enjoy any caffeinated drinks, including sodas that aren't caffeine free. And if you really new about how the brain works like they teach you in anatomy, then you would know that when any drug, caffeine, cocaine etc. increases the level of any neurotransmitter in the brain, your brain will temporarily stop natural production of that neurotransmitter, expecting more of the drug, creating addiction.

The following links include accurate, though simplified explanations of this:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/caff.html

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/coca.html

I do know what I'm talking about, please don't insult my intelligence.

That's habitual consumption. If you enjoy coffee in moderation, it's not going to have the effect that you claim. Coffee doesn't cause decreased levels of these neurotransmitters on its own. It's the pattern of habitual behavior that causes the situation you're arguing.

Classical conditioning follows that your body will associate coffee with an increase in dopamine. To compensate, your body may react oppositely and autonomously to stem the oncoming addition of more dopamine when the stimulus is introduced. Coffee is the stimulus, but only through habitual consumption will your body be conditioned to react in such a way. This also explains "tolerance effects" with drugs.

So, it's only when the variable of habitual use is introduced that you see your described effect. If you gave coffee to someone who doesn't drink caffeine or drinks it rarely, you would see only increased dopamine levels without the negative reaction that comes through conditioning because that's what caffeine does by it's pharmacological nature. Coffee, as an independent variable, doesn't have the validity to show what you claim in regards to decreased dopamine in and of itself.

Side note - When did I insult your intelligence? When I openly debated your assumption? I wasn't aware that engaging a topic with refuting information was considered insulting. I guess the research scientists I'm used to debating with simply provide their rebuttal without taking it personal.

 

[angry_flashlight]

Your hatred of bacon, is well, wrong [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZUFs04C6I&feature=related]

Okay, cheap trolls aside, from what you've written about how your conversations have gone, it sounds like someone forgot the humour in giving someone else a ribbing. Losing friends over something like liking/disliking bacon and coffee is just not worth it. Learn from this and move on.

 

[mastiffchild]

Seems to be a trend in this thread that I've been a victim of as well-the cult of Portal! I thought it was only m,e that didn't see what the fuss was about and only me that had suffered what verges on the wrath of the "normal" gamers who love it so much. Seriously, only religion, nationality, race and other actual BIUG issues seem to get my mates as riled as me not loving Portal.

I also get stick for disliking Bethesda and FO3(big fan of proper , original Fallout and EVEN TES4! )but it doesn't compare to the looks and outbursts the Portal thing gets me. It clearly isn't OK to even miss the point of some things! I don't "hate" anything beyond the obvious(kiddy fiddlers, violence, Thatcher)but can see society is getting less tolerant of some things and wonder if it's because we're all used to the anonymity offered by being online where it's too easy to be glib and over upfront about your tastes. To me it's making some of us less able to cope with the subtlety of face to face conversing.

 

[JamesBr]

Although I will agree with other responses here in regards to the use of the word "hate", I get where you're coming from. Using the word "hate" loosely and strictly in a casual, conversational way, I hate all forms of melon. An opinion which gets me a lot strange looks. Watermelon, honeydew, cantaloupe etc... Hate it, Hate it, Hate it. I wish I could enjoy it, it looks tasty and I love the bright colours. But the moment it hits my taste buds, my throat tightens and I can't bring myself to swallow. It get spit out in seconds. My tastes refuses it outright.

I agree entirely on the subject of melons. Mostly the texture is what turns me off from them.

This specific dislike though has gained me the epithet in my family as 'the one who doesn't like desert.'

Though that's half from my dislike of most pies as well.

Conversely, although I can abstractly understand the dislike of something based of texture, I can't relate. Lots of people dislike foods based on texture, I would go so far as to say most people I know won't eat certain things based almost exclusively on texture. And yet, texture doesn't bother me. Never has. It's purely a taste thing. Mind you, this is something else that gets me a lot weird looks as I like things a lot of other people won't eat (raw oysters come to mind. If you can eat something that has the consistency of thick mucus, you can eat just about anything, lol).

 

[Hardzero]

i like bacon but i don't think i would worship it. as for coffee, i hate it. no matter what i put in it just tastes awful.

 

[Caravaggio]

If you lost your friends over this, I would largely bet it's because you kept bringing it up like a broken record. That, or they're not very close to you as friends.

Also, you're wrong about the dopamine production. Coffee, through it's active ingredient caffeine, increases dopamine levels similarly to what you see in cocaine (source: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/caffeine4.htm). Also, if you use said argument and still drink soda (caffeinated), then you're pretty much a hypocrite.

So, if you spent more time researching your opinions instead of berating your friends about their lifestyle choices, maybe you wouldn't have such a rough go of things.

I do not enjoy any caffeinated drinks, including sodas that aren't caffeine free. And if you really new about how the brain works like they teach you in anatomy, then you would know that when any drug, caffeine, cocaine etc. increases the level of any neurotransmitter in the brain, your brain will temporarily stop natural production of that neurotransmitter, expecting more of the drug, creating addiction.

The following links include accurate, though simplified explanations of this:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/caff.html

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/coca.html

I do know what I'm talking about, please don't insult my intelligence.

That's habitual consumption. If you enjoy coffee in moderation, it's not going to have the effect that you claim. Coffee doesn't cause decreased levels of these neurotransmitters on its own. It's the pattern of habitual behavior that causes the situation you're arguing.

Classical conditioning follows that your body will associate coffee with an increase in dopamine. To compensate, your body may react oppositely and autonomously to stem the oncoming addition of more dopamine when the stimulus is introduced. Coffee is the stimulus, but only through habitual consumption will your body be conditioned to react in such a way. This also explains "tolerance effects" with drugs.

So, it's only when the variable of habitual use is introduced that you see your described effect. If you gave coffee to someone who doesn't drink caffeine or drinks it rarely, you would see only increased dopamine levels without the negative reaction that comes through conditioning because that's what caffeine does by it's pharmacological nature. Coffee, as an independent variable, doesn't have the validity to show what you claim in regards to decreased dopamine in and of itself.

Side note - When did I insult your intelligence? When I openly debated your assumption? I wasn't aware that engaging a topic with refuting information was considered insulting. I guess the research scientists I'm used to debating with simply provide their rebuttal without taking it personal.

You insulted me when you said outright, you're wrong about coffee, later coming back and saying that this happens with habitual use. So coffee does do what I said in what was not an assumption, considering I backed it up with research which makes it a fact, but it only does under habitual use. So we're both right.

But, 'coffee, as an independent variable' does have the validity to show what I claim, you already admitted this when saying that it does show what I claim under habitual use.

 

[ZombieDarwin]

i'm with you 100% on the CoD point. i have a particular dislike for war-sims in that i think war is the last thing to be taken lightly and watered down into videogame form. regardless of how "reverent" or "historically accurate" they claim to be, the bottom line, in my eyes, is that war is not fun, it's not a game and shouldnt be treated as such or enjoyed as a recreational activity. millions of ppl getting off on killing each other online not only insults actual soldiers that have fought and are currently fighting in our armed services but also cheapens the concept and consequences of war itself. our lust for war is disgraceful.

i'm also with you that any game worth playing is one that succesfully removes the player from their immediate reality using imagination and innovation. when i game, i dont want anything that i experience in real life involved with it except maybe physics. i'd never play Gran Turismo when i can play Mario Kart. why play fishing or sports games when there's Shadow of the Colossus and Mortal Kombat? i wont even get started about sport-sims coz i hate beating dead horses...unless i'm doing it in an alternate dimension with psychic-fists with a jellybean-eating blob as a sidekick.