Opinions You Just Don't Understand

[JagermanXcell]

A lot of opinions I don't understand.
Why people support DmC even after being insulted by Ninja Theory... several hundred times.
Why people have hate for MG Rising Revengeance not being stealth centered... even though it is clearly a hack n slash spinoff.
Why people pre-order video games without even considering it may suck like Philip J Fry telling the cashier to shut up and take his money.

But this one really gets me:
People who say The Amazing Spiderman (2012) is better then the ENTIRE Sam Raimi Trilogy.
Yes 3 sucked, and 1 was doomed to be cheesy but good fun anyways, but saying Spiderman 2 SPIDERMAN. FRIKIN. 2 SUCKS?
Spiderman 2 was a near perfect film, great characters, great plot, great screenplay, great direction in general. All of that Amazing Spiderman lacked.
Why?... how?... but?... I don't even?... I need to go hit something...

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

To be perfectly honest, I feel this way about any negative opinion towards something that I greatly enjoy.

I can understand people's explanations for why they don't like what I like, but at the same time it just doesn't make sense to me. Most of the time the reasons that people say they dislike something that I like are things that I either don't notice or are things that I don't consider to be flaws at all.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

Personally I don't understand how people view drug taking as morally bad.

I think that, so allow me to explain:
Because it's downright inresponsible behaviour, and drug users burden society massively through crime both directly and indirectly related, as well as healthcare expenses.

That's for instance why drug users tend to deny the inherent risks of drugs (for instance the pothead lobby denying marijuana causes schizofrenia), because otherwise it means they're risking becoming a massive burden, just to get high, and that's extremely selfish and therefore immoral.

When I'm working my arse off for little more than a minimum wage, it just strikes me as downright obscene when someone comes in to complains for hours that his social security benefits is already used up and he still needs to purchase more weed, and that he needs to remain clean in order to get free housing, while I pay a skyrocketing rent for a single room appartment, just before picking up a medication subscription for more pills a week than my entire family pops in a year.

Really, working in a drug user aid centre is truly enlightening about these things.

This is the topic that gets me everytime. I can't help but get involved.

The amount of misinformation that gets thrown around is ridiculous, such as marijuana causing schizophrenia.
The amount of issues that are caused due to the drug war are staggering compared to those actually caused by drugs.
The negative stereotypes associated with drug users absolutely annoys the crap out of me.

If you ever saw me walking down the street, you would not think "there goes a drug user". I look and act just like a "normal" person. Hell, I'm usually better dressed and more hygenic. I have a job, a girlfriend, a good relationship with my family. All that good stuff.
The key is educating yourself on the real effects and consequences of drugs, and practicing moderation.
Drugs don't need to make people bad or stupid. People are already there.

The problem is that for a lot of drugs moderation is very difficult, if not borderline impossible, to practice. They don't call it an addiction for no reason.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

Many people I know think TF2 is better post updates.

There is a MELEE weapon with a ranged attack. It fits in the MELEE weapon slot and has a RANGED attack. Read previous two sentences over for 30 seconds and reevaluate your entire life.

How in the holy fucking hell do you think that the updates in TF2 are a bad thing? There are more than a dozen new weapons and several new maps, each offering an incredibly wide variety of playstyles that still maintain the overall balance of the original game.

And so what if the Sandman has a ranged attack? In case you didn't notice, it can only be used once, after which it takes 15 seconds to recharge, unless you either pick up the ball again or go to a resupply locker, both of which are a risk that could hinder your team.

Saying that TF2 is better without updates is by far the most idiotic thing I have ever heard anyone say in a video game EVER. Valve has been keeping TF2 fresh with updates for more than six years now. I can honestly say that I would have gotten bored with it a LONG time ago were it not for the new content.

 

[The Hero Killer]

Racism and homophobia still existing in this day and age.

That the game industry is the only industry that tries to tell someone that after they buy something it isnt their property
to sell or give to whomever they want and no one in an official or legal position has not called them out on this.

Most views in American politics from BOTH parties.

 

[Epic Bear Man]

That the game industry is the only industry that tries to tell someone that after they buy something it isnt their property
to sell or give to whomever they want and no one in an official or legal position has not called them out on this.

The video-game industry is not even close to being the only industry that suggests that after you buy something it isn't your property. For one thing, it's embedded in virtually ALL forms of digital media. Why? Simply put because you don't actually buy the game, you buy a license for the game. It can also stem down into physical items as well, dependent on how the license is negotiated and formed.

When we drop down into the legal or official channels stemming into it, we have to start looking at EULAs, which can differ vastly. It would take too much time and effort to seriously try to argue against this.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

For me, that would be...

the whole carbon emissions and climate change scam.

There's only so little we can do to do better, and instead of making mankind work in unison to fix the (severe) issues at hand, we come up with carbon emissions money redistribution schemes and wet dreams of new manbeast cattle. It's a shame.

I respect people that genuinely believe in it and plain don't know better, but I have severe issues with the folks selling us those dreams and fears and renewable energy horrors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an inventions addict, I think it's our most important purpose in life to overcome issues and problems and get better at everything and I am pretty hyped about, say, supercapacitors. But the same folks selling us man-made climate change and second earth shit are the very same folks that were calling doomsday on the last ice age that didn't happen just until they changed their tune and created the global warming/climate change bandwagon. We got smart folks working on actual scientific progress, but they live shitty lives in the current political climate. Most people aren't even aware that the IPCC predictions were so far off they actually have to consider most of their core stuff to be refuted, but the CO2 moneytrain has already derailed and is still merrily chugging along tearing states, societies and, in the end, mankind a new one. It's a pity.

 

[axlryder]

People earn your love like they earn your trust.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that if I'm interpreting your statement correctly. People don't need to earn love to receive love. I know I've felt love towards people for no specific reason before (unless you want to constitute them merely existing in their current form as "earning" love). The unconditional thing I'd be more inclined to agree on, but only in a formal logic sense, since total altruism is "technically" impossible, thereby invalidating a possibility for unconditional love.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

So..what about people who just don't like seeing men make out? What would you call those people then, because clearly from what you have showed me "homophobic" isn't the proper term,and if anything it seems that homophobia is Ego-dystonic Sexual Orientation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego-dystonic_sexual_orientation].

...'human'?

See, I am neither gay nor a man, but the surplus of cock in a not too kinky gay video is something I can enjoy very much. The penis is a wonderful thing. The more, the better. In reality... not so very much, thank you. As consumable... yes, please.

If you've ever been to a proper gay party, like the upcoming Easterf**ks, you know that there's more roleplay and specialist perfection going on than at any LARP event, and things get bestial it makes furries look even sadder. No matter your preference, the real life RPG of perfecting orgasmic intercourse or brutally efficient doggy-style trigger->response mechanisms is an amazing thing to behold.

I could do with a lot less of the kinky shit and the water games, but, hey, it's a free world in some places. We really should enjoy that as long as we don't forget about the more important stuff than selfish indulgence. 'sall.

 

[sagitel]

the opinion that many of my friends have is if a game looks bad (in terms of texture quality) it is bad. i ... its ... you... uhhhh! the opinion frustrates me and drops the person many levels on my intellectual worth list.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

People earn your love like they earn your trust.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that. People don't need to earn love to receive love. I know I've felt love towards people for no real good reason before. The unconditional thing I'd be more inclined to agree on, but only in a formal logic sense, since total altruism is "technically" impossible, thereby invalidating a possibility for unconditional love.

I find it to be much easier to resist temptation of becoming beastly, mean, angry and compulsive with a sprinkle of self-service religious basics. I'm not interested in the fairy tales bits, just the basics of how to efficiently prevent degenerating into the beast I am in the face of whatever adversity might jump at me at any given point in time.

I believe in unconditional love as a valid concept to not turn into a grade a asshole every time you feel like you've been cheated, lied to or otherwise emotionally slighted. Lack of tools to cope with less-than-stellar experiences is a huge issue for the human population of 2013AD/2556/5772/1433/1434/whatever we're to call it.

 

[Bertylicious]

It's really because they're both a crime against Nature. But Incest, for me at least, is just the most disgusting thing you could do. It's just a thing that I have. Having sexual attraction to a member of your own family is just so unnatural that it just goes beyond that line. I will say, however, that Cannibalism doesn't cross it as far. But cannibalism is far more situational. If you eat human flesh because you prefer the taste, you should probably be jailed. If you have to eat it for survival, and your odds of survival outweigh the other persons who you are going to eat, then I'd say you could justify it. But incest could never be justified. Not to me at least. Mainly due to those close links in genetics, and even the risk of having malformed, fucked-up, disgusting babies. It sickens me that anyone would ever put a child in that situ0ation.

But you finding it disgusting is not a reason to prevent others doing it; they have no need to 'justify' it to you, if it causes no harm. What society allows should never be the result of what people find distasteful. Take children out of the question (even though I'm pretty sure the risk of malformation is far smaller than society generally believes), because plenty of couples don't want kids.

As for 'against nature', millions of animal species are incestuous. It's not a particular taboo in the glorious kingdom of Animalia.

I get the impression you find it physically repulsive, personally, and are taking at face value certain moral arguments to back this up (unnatural, risks birth defects), when in fact those moral issues are fallacious or exaggerated.

I mean, I find the concept physically repulsive myself, but others may not.

Also isn't there a line of reasoning that suggest that a lot of our ancestors must have screwed their cousins else there would have to have been a million billion people living during the birth of Christ?

 

[hooblabla6262]

The problem is that for a lot of drugs moderation is very difficult, if not borderline impossible, to practice. They don't call it an addiction for no reason.

That is true for some drugs. Mostly harder drugs like cocaine or meth.

Marijuana is very much habit forming, but doesn't require that much willpower to cut down on (like trying to stop biting your nails). I could imagine it being difficult for people in their teens or those with weak resolve, but those people should probably not be doing drugs.

And for drugs like lsd, mushrooms, and other psychedelics it is quite difficult to get addicted simply due to the way these drugs interact with ones body. These are the drugs I call home <3

Regardless, we would be better served if these types of issues fell under the the rule of the medical/social services instead of law enforcement.

 

[Angie7F]

I dont understand other people in general so I just dont bother making too many arguments about things i disagree on.

 

[Silvanus]

You bring up some good points. But it's still absolutely repulsive...[snip]... Millions of years of evolution has brought us to the point where we can distinguish right from wrong.

But what makes it morally wrong? In my book, something is morally wrong when it is harmful, damaging to society or somebody. Something cannot be morally wrong solely due to being repulsive. That's not how morality works for me.

Also isn't there a line of reasoning that suggest that a lot of our ancestors must have screwed their cousins else there would have to have been a million billion people living during the birth of Christ?

Not around the birth of Christ; 2,000 years ago, there were plenty of people on earth for a genetically-diverse population without close inbreeding. You'd have to go back a lot further, to pre-recorded-history, for a 'human' population without enough genetic diversity to avoid inbreeding.

 

[Tom_green_day]

In Britain, I don't understand why our NHS still caters to obesity. True there is the genetic type that is passed down in the family and I am not talking about that. I am talking about people that through choice eat so much they become obese, and then rely on other people to cater for them and serve them. This actually happens, if you pass a certain level the NHS pays for a carer for you.
This wouldn't be as much of a problem but it means that people with actual diseases, ones they get through chance and not choice, are not being looked after as well as they could as the money that could be spent on them is instead spent on improving the equipment to cater for the obese.
The NHS actually spends millions of pounds buying bigger equipment such as beds, ambulances etc as obese people are too large for normal sized ones. I come from a family with a large number of nurses which is why I know all this, but I also come from a family that has lost people to diseases that they don't choose. I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think they could have had at least more time if the NHS focused more.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You bring up some good points. But it's still absolutely repulsive. Your family is something that you love unconditionally, and that's where it should stop. Having a sexual attraction to someone who you are related to is just absolutely revolting. Yeah, it may not cause harm to me or anyone else, but it's the principle. There has probably been more than one case of inbreeding that results in a perfectly normal baby, but taking that out of the equation you still have something that is morally reprehensible. To bring up the Animals with Incestuous behavior argument I will put this forward: We have evolved to a state where we can make choices far beyond that of a Dog, Cat, Giraffe, ETC. We've evolved to a point where we have a moral code. Having morals is what makes us different from an Animal. It's what makes us Human. That's just one of the many reasons I find Incest to be utterly revolting. Because we should be past that by now. Millions of years of evolution has brought us to the point where we can distinguish right from wrong.

Actually 96% of babies born of incest are perfectly fine if it is only a single generation as opposed to 98% of babies that are born of unrelated relationships. The myth that babies having fucking tentacles from inbreeding is a lie created to make everyone hate incest. And if you need to corrupt science to make people agree with you chances are whoever came up with this grotesque lie about biology is wrong. I dont really care about incest. But dont you go spreading total fabrications about biology to make a point. I dunno whose original idea that was but fuck that guy he was a dishonest asshole. The chance of an abnormality doubles with each generation of incest, from 2% to 4% to 8% ect so about 4 or 5 generations makes it become quite dangerous.

Your logic doesnt make sense and can be applied to everything. Including not eating and banning Marmite. What is right and wrong are not dictated by what we find disgusting (I fucking hate marmite and BDSM) but i cannot ban those things because others doing them has nothing to do with me and doesnt impact society.

If what makes us human is picking some random harmless shit and saying THIS IS WRONG FOR REASON BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GIRAFFE! then count me the fuck out. I think what makes us human is accepting and understanding eachother despite differences and rejecting our inbuilt nature to attack and fear what we do not like and what is different. I think incest is disgusting as fuck. Id NEVER take part. But i dont think its right to tell other people what i say is absolute moral law or that by not following my massive totally arbitrary random list of things NEVER to do because i say so they are more like animals and less like humans.