You do realize that, in general, first world countries are only seeing population growth where there has been a high influx of immigrants, coming from parts of the world spared your conditions and therefore making your idea pointless, right?Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:I believe that all first world countrys should bring in a 1-child law and stop all child allowance, untill a small and self sustaining population has been achieved in those countrys.
EDIT: Also, I think the retirement age should be raised to 75.
To expand on my third statement: Some first world countrys(Japan, Germany, Great Britain, ect...) can't grow enough food to sustain their population. I think this is very unsustainable, as if every country were to become like this, then a world food crisis would follow. I understand that some countrys already have a negative population growth(Germany, Japan) but imigration could solve that problem, allowing the population to reamain stable. Also, if the 1-child law was enacted, then first world countrys could allow more immigrants into the country, and offering them a better life.
In short, population density and food production is a mjor problem in many first world European countrys.
I always consider far cry 2 to be a work of genius. Despite it's 2 glaring flaws, vehicle control on PC and respawning checkpoints, I thought the game was absolutely beautiful, in just about every way. Story, gameplay, enviroments, etc.Woodsey said:Sometimes I consider Far Cry 2 to be a work of near-genius. (It depends on what mood I'm in.)
I used to like Star Wars but now I hate it and I've never seen Star Trek.kasperbbs said:I didn't like Star Wars all that much and i never even bothered to watch more than 10 minutes of Star Trek.
I know it's presumptuous, but from my observations, most of the optimists I personally know have had a pretty good run at life. Also, bad is subjective, so something like, for a wild example (sorry if this is too sensitive, but I'm just trying to make a point), your mother and sister are involved in a mugging and your mother dies from a stab wound, while your sister survives, heals and subsequently devotes herself to becoming the greatest boxer in the world. Is that good or bad? Some people would just lay down, be depressed and possibly even commit suicide, not to mention that boxing can be a dangerous sport and you wouldn?t want to lose two relatives like that, while others would see the mugging as good because it motivated their sister to success, even though their mother died for it.BiscuitTrouser said:Thats quite a presumptuous thing to say. Many optimists have had shit happen to them i imagine would make your experiences look trivial and remain positive because thats how to enjoy life and in my view if youre not enjoying life youre wasting it. If you like these people surely there must be something there worth liking and therefor something worth a damn in the world. If you can carve a bit of happiness in an apparent "sea of hate" then it cant be all bad.Relish in Chaos said:I?m not being arrogant; I?m probably the least arrogant person you?ll meet, due to my self-loathing. And I?ve learnt that human beings are the worst critics of themselves, so yeah, I?m not excluding anyone, including myself, from my criticism. It?s hard to describe, but I can?t just stop liking my family and my small number of friends at the drop of a hat, otherwise I?d just be an insane, sociopathic hermit. But it?s very hard to have even the slightest drop of optimism when I look at the world, all the poverty, the corruption, the innocent suffering while the guilty thrive, bad things that happen to people with seemingly no explanation, etc.
So yes, I am inclined to believe that optimists are simply people that haven?t received the brunt of life and have generally lived a good and bad luck-free life. And while you may reply and say, ?It could be worse?, I reply, ?It could be better.?
Ive had some pretty attrocious things happen to me your average person wouldnt have. I almost lost my father to cancer when i was 12. It came back a few times. I almost lost my mother to suicide twice over the last 2 years. The second one was pretty horrific... but i shant go into details here... the fact is that if all this crap covrered the good then im letting my life be wasted.
No, I think that's pretty popular, especially among those who support trans rights. I also think it's quite a double standard that it's perfectly acceptable for women to wear men's clothes like trousers and stuff, but it's frowned upon for men to wear women's clothes like skirts and crop tops, lest they get homophobic expletives hurled at them.orangeban said:And I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but the way that men and women have different types of clothing and it is UNACCEPTABLE for people to cross those gender/fashion lines is fucking ridiculous.
A protest against the power held by that 1%, against how they acquire their money more than the fact that they actually have it (and how they get it is often by shitting on the people beneath them), and the fact that their whims set everyone else's fate in motion. And then, yes, that leads into concerns about financial security.S1leNt RIP said:THEY don't have financial security?! Forgive me if I haven't had the intricacies of the Occupy movement explained to me before by a person who actually holds them, but if they are going to complain about people being fantastically wealthy, then they better not be fantastically wealthy as well (which relative to 95% of people alive, they are [95% is partially made up, it could be closer to 90%]) or they are hypocrites. Is that argument invalid somehow? That if these people, who live in America, are complaining about a wealth inequality, then they should be working to shrink all inequalities in wealth?Woodsey said:Many of those people are arguing about the fact that they have very little in the way of financial security and are penalised financially at the expense of the unimaginably rich getting richer. And your response is: "when's the last time they gave money away?"S1leNt RIP said:Edit: Oh, and anyone living in America who rages to ANY DEGREE about the "1%". They piss me off! "Rah rah, 1% is evil rah rah, I live better than KINGS of the past. I have nature bent to my will. In summer I am cool, in winter I am warm. I am part of the 1% historically, and right now I'm part of the top 5% alive." UGH!!! Hate that! Who CARES if someone has more money than you! Who CARES what they are doing with it, because when it comes down to it you are just as selfish as those people! Seriously, how many of those same people gave to a charity or non-profit that week? The month? My money is on most of them being hypocritical douche bags!
Congratulations, because my jaw just hit the fucking floor. I mean, there are arguments against the Occupy movement which I fundamentally disagree with, but I don't think I've ever seen one quite as non-sensical as that.
It seems to me like the Occupy movement is mainly about people wanting less for other so they can have more FOR THEMSELVES. At least that's how I've seen it portrayed.
How do you see the movement?
The thing is, all the inherent mechanical problems with it would seem to be a detriment, and yet in terms of what they seemed to want to do with the plot, it all fits. The idea is how farcical the conflict is, and how just drags people in and they just get stuck in it until they die. And the game's mechanical 'failings' certainly contribute to that feeling.RicoGrey said:I always consider far cry 2 to be a work of genius. Despite it's 2 glaring flaws, vehicle control on PC and respawning checkpoints, I thought the game was absolutely beautiful, in just about every way. Story, gameplay, enviroments, etc.Woodsey said:Sometimes I consider Far Cry 2 to be a work of near-genius. (It depends on what mood I'm in.)
I am excitedly looking forward to Far Cry 3, have only seen one trailer, but it looks like they are keeping it faithful to far cry 2, while making the needed improvements.
Yeah, when I ask people about they seem to agree that's it's stupid. Which begs the question as to why we still have this arbitrary gender divide. I think people just can't be bothered to actually change it. Inertia 'n' stuff like that.Relish in Chaos said:No, I think that's pretty popular, especially among those who support trans rights. I also think it's quite a double standard that it's perfectly acceptable for women to wear men's clothes like trousers and stuff, but it's frowned upon for men to wear women's clothes like skirts and crop tops, lest they get homophobic expletives hurled at them.orangeban said:And I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but the way that men and women have different types of clothing and it is UNACCEPTABLE for people to cross those gender/fashion lines is fucking ridiculous.
I fully agree with this one.I would actually say that child pornography laws need to be changed because some of the stuff covered under these laws is frankly ridiculous.For exampleshintakie10 said:To add to the pedophile one, any form of pornography that doesn't involve actual people (such as animated stuff) should be completely legal to produce and consume. If no one is actually hurt in the makin of the product, no one should be punished for havin it.
I like the sarcasm, but this thread is for the unpopular opinions. There's a reason they're unpopular. So everyone here is going to appear dark and edgy. Sorry bout that.Arontala said:Goddamn, you guys are edgy as fuck.
I wish I could be half as cool as most of you.
Exactly. People in America get up in arms when it's about 4 or 5 dollars a gallon. It's really not that bad, in my unpopular opinion. Sharing slight differences in gas prices is like a national pastime - like I care if someone paid ten cents less than me. I guess Europeans need to learn how to complain more.Da Orky Man said:Erm, excuse me? You pay less than $7 per gallon? After doing a bit of converting, in the Uk we pay the equivalent of $9.5 per gallon.
You've obviously never had a child or had an honest conversation with someone in the situation. "It" as you continually refer to them, is someone's child and the joy they bring into the parents' lives, however short, is something any parent would tell you is worth all the pain and difficulty in the world.Matthew94 said:Actually I would think taking care of a vegetable child would destroy the parents lives. They are caring for something that will never ever be able to do anything normally and will never even be able to reciprocate their love, it will just drool and need constant care.
And yes, it is selfish. They are costing the state thousands for something that can't even think which could have went towards people who have a chance in life.
To be brutally honest, they would be better off with a dog.