What are the worst misconceptions you know of?

[Hunde Des Krieg]

That capitalism isn't killing the world.

 

[ActionDan]

That every person is at least a little Bisexual/Homosexual

I not only don't THINK, I KNOW that is bullshit.

 

[open trap]

Also that bisexual people must have sex with both genders at least once in their lives, or that they crave threesomes, or that they're more likely to cheat.

Its funny because my bi ex-girlfriend cheated on me.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

there must be primary attraction or attraction of some nature or it would never happen, even if it is situational there still must be some attraction for everything to work correctly. also i find you defense of pedophiles very disturbing.

An attraction in the sense that they are willing to entertain the idea, not exactly being a preferred sexual partner.

Why? It's the truth. People use Pedophile and Child Molester interchangeably as if they are the same, I'm just pointing out the difference.

i am pointing out that a child molester is simply a pedophile that has acted on his or her perversion. whither or not kids are the molesters preferred sexual partner or not is irrelevant. if a man has sex with both men and women he is a bisexual, and nevertheless if he just so happens to like women better. the same can be said about the child molester, whither he prefers adult partners better or not the person is still a pedophile based on the fact that he or she finds children sexually attractive enough to molest them in the first place. a non-pedophile will not find children sexually attractive in any situation.

Incorrect.
It means that they are desperate enough to use a child as a sexual outlet.
Pedophiles, are described as someone with a Primary or Exclusive attraction, not slight. By your logic, a fair amount of US citizens are Pedophiles, Hebephiles or Ephebophiles.

I'm honestly shocked to be having this conversation. you can argue semantics all you want, and give as many wiki links as you please, but my position and the obvious truth is and will remain that if you have ANY sexual attraction to a child then you are a pedophile, and that if you have sex with a child then you are most certainly a pedophile. I'm sorry that the obvious is lost on you and if you have an attraction to children even if its slight i recommended that you seek out help, and i do not say this jokingly.

Well... we kinda are... so... yeah, I suppose. Wouldn't be the first time I've had it.

If I cannot change your position, fine(although I was pointing out factual definitions), but when you say "obvious truth" and point no evidence to it other than popular opinion, you are just refusing basic psychology and stating lies which further spreads ignorance(no offense or insult intended).

When you say the obvious is lost upon me without it actually being obvious, you are once again stating your personal opinion as fact.

And trust me on the last part when I say that you would certainly not be the first to tell me this. Yet, I require no help because I am content with myself and that I am no danger to anyone. Hell, others are a danger to me, considering how many have threatened to kill me, but that is another discussion entirely.

[sub][sub]I think it would be best if we continue this by PM is you really want to discuss it further.[/sub][/sub]

That every person is at least a little Bisexual/Homosexual

I not only don't THINK, I KNOW that is bullshit.

I am siding with Ron White on this one.

Metal is all noise and screaming.

The Prince of Darkness would like to promote your statement.

 

[garmaniac]

Seeing how scientists haven't been able to recreate the circumstances or the results of evolution in an controlled environment and found that the things needed would counteract each other, I would say that evolution is one of the worst misconceptions there is.

Recreating the circumstances of evolution on earth would be a three billion year long experiment.

The genius of Darwin's theory is that its formation broke several rules governing philosophy of science, yet still ended up being quite good in the end. Imagine it like an incredibly lucky guess, though it it more like an incredibly good insight. It managed to retain its primary form regardless of the scientific advances thrown at it. Genetics, one of the youngest sciences, is its primary source of evidence. We have been able to generate scenarios that would potentially falsify evolution, but such things simply do not exist.

Knew I'd get someone upset on that one.

Indeed the full recreation of the entire evolutionary process would be unfeasable, the individual aspects of the theory that can be tested have been and have failed. All the proteins necessary for life cannot be generated randomly. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere prohibits any chance of the proteins being created, while the lack of such means the cell dies. And a piece of nonliving (and never was previously) matter cannot be made alive by any means. Overlooking these very glaring holes in the theory of evolution and declaring it as fact requires alot of blind faith and is unscientific. However, if blindly believing something that takes away responsibility from you, or going along with this because it seems like the cool and educated thing to say then go right ahead and accept these things with blind faith.

 

[Dark Knifer]

After an annoying conversation with someone, I have another thing to add.

That atheism automatically makes you superior being to those of a religious belief because they are not following anything and don't have to bow to anyone. Even though I have seen atheist who follow their belief with the same devotion as any religious nut. Seriously, atheism seems to be the 'cool thing' to be and it's really annoying.

 

[Baneat]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

Wait what? no seriously, what?

In fact, it'd just be easier to cite the source you got this from cause I can't understand how you're drawing this conclusion

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Worst misconception I face daily: Metal is confined to angsty screamo junk (No offense to anyone who is into angsty screamo). That's false.
Worst Misconceptions I've already heard: Covered already.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

Wait what? no seriously, what?

In fact, it'd just be easier to cite the source you got this from cause I can't understand how you're drawing this conclusion

Well, what little studies there are are mixed. Some say most, most say few.

Would link, but I doubt the mods would like the sites that they are hosted on.
Try Google.
Hell, just go to Newgon(Even though I don't 100% agree with what they are trying to do).

 

[Mr. Meslier]

Seeing how scientists haven't been able to recreate the circumstances or the results of evolution in an controlled environment and found that the things needed would counteract each other, I would say that evolution is one of the worst misconceptions there is.

Recreating the circumstances of evolution on earth would be a three billion year long experiment.

The genius of Darwin's theory is that its formation broke several rules governing philosophy of science, yet still ended up being quite good in the end. Imagine it like an incredibly lucky guess, though it it more like an incredibly good insight. It managed to retain its primary form regardless of the scientific advances thrown at it. Genetics, one of the youngest sciences, is its primary source of evidence. We have been able to generate scenarios that would potentially falsify evolution, but such things simply do not exist.

Knew I'd get someone upset on that one.

Indeed the full recreation of the entire evolutionary process would be unfeasable, the individual aspects of the theory that can be tested have been and have failed. All the proteins necessary for life cannot be generated randomly. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere prohibits any chance of the proteins being created, while the lack of such means the cell dies. And a piece of nonliving (and never was previously) matter cannot be made alive by any means. Overlooking these very glaring holes in the theory of evolution and declaring it as fact requires alot of blind faith and is unscientific. However, if blindly believing something that takes away responsibility from you, or going along with this because it seems like the cool and educated thing to say then go right ahead and accept these things with blind faith.

The highlighted section is very important here. Variation is only one aspect of evolution, along with selection and retention. The proteins necessary for life are not randomly generated. This statement is akin to the fallacious argument that a jet airplane cannot be constructed via a tornado given all the functioning parts. Evolution does not claim that everything fell into place instantly, but that multiple steps of varying success created the various proteins we see today through a variation, selection, and retention process. This necessitates precursors that that ultimately have simpler parts.

I am also confused by your statement that a piece of nonliving matter cannot be make alive, as such a thing is rather common. My example would be carbon dioxide in the air being used to create sugars via photosynthesis, or molecular iron being incorporated into hemoglobin. Amino acids and self-replicating molecules such as RNA have been generated via experiments (such as the Miller-Urey experiment) designed to replicate early-earth conditions.

I do not believe in evolution, I accept it as the most useful model for explaining the diversity of life on earth. Acceptance, belief, and faith are not interchangeable terms.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

Wait what? no seriously, what?

In fact, it'd just be easier to cite the source you got this from cause I can't understand how you're drawing this conclusion

Well, what little studies there are are mixed. Some say most, most say few.

Would link, but I doubt the mods would like the sites that they are hosted on.
Try Google.
Hell, just go to Newgon(Even though I don't 100% agree with what they are trying to do).

Well, one might grant that a pedophile may not ever actually molest a child, thereby not being a child molester. But if someone does molest a child then I wouldn't classify them AS a typical heterosexual male.

 

[Leg End]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

Wait what? no seriously, what?

In fact, it'd just be easier to cite the source you got this from cause I can't understand how you're drawing this conclusion

Well, what little studies there are are mixed. Some say most, most say few.

Would link, but I doubt the mods would like the sites that they are hosted on.
Try Google.
Hell, just go to Newgon(Even though I don't 100% agree with what they are trying to do).

Well, one might grant that a pedophile may not ever actually molest a child, thereby not being a child molester. But if someone does molest a child then I wouldn't classify them AS a typical heterosexual male.

Well, not typical but other than that, typical heterosexual male.

[sub]With no offense intended to heterosexuals or males.[/sub]

 

[N3vans]

Driving a motorbike is a suicidal. Just no. Obviously, they're more dangerous a car by their very nature, however, a lot of it is to do with how you drive. If you drive like a twat then you're far more likely to have an accident, whereas if you stay on the ball and drive defensively then it's relatively safe. Clearly you can still have an accident if you're unlucky enough to have a car exit a junction into you but being a safe driver can minimize the risks.

I've been driving for about 2 years, (currently got a Harley Sportster 883L ) and the only time I've come off has been through lack of foresight and driving on a country road around winter time when there were wet leaves on the road (about as good as ice when it comes to traction).

Please pardon my large post. I mean no offense by it. Just random stories and a life-learned warning on stupid drivers.

I was once driving down road X, and went into the left turn lane to go onto road Y. A light stopped me. There was an SUV in front of me. And there was someone riding a motorbike on the opposite side of road X (driving towards me). The light turned green. The person on the motorbike, seeing nothing wrong, kept going straight - which is perfectly fine since he had the right-of-way. The SUV driver, feeling powerful and with the Godly rights of an SUV, shot out to make the left turn the second the light turned green without looking to see if anyone was there.

The motorbike driver attempted to swerve to avoid the sudden SUV, and hit the side of it full impact. The motorbike exploded into a million fragments and the driver was flung through the air, slid across the intersection, and tapped my car bumper. The entire intersection went dead silent, and someone had to pull their car out in front of the SUV to stop them from riding off.

The only thing that saved that motorbike rider was a helmet. He also was wearing a full body riding suit, but that didn't save him from one awful road rash. No one would immediately help him - or maybe everything was in slow motion... I was in shock during the incident... I mean, it looked like a television show, right up until I felt the guy tapped into my car. Someone finally yelled at everyone else for a cellphone to call the ambulance, and someone else helped unfasten the helmet. The guy talked, but couldn't move. The police arrived, questioned me, and told me to leave once they put the guy into an ambulance.


And this is just one small motorbike accident I have seen in the area. People around here cannot drive well or at all. And no matter how careful you are, some loser is eventually going to rear-end or pull out in front of you. There was another, very similar accident one road away from the last story with a motorbike going slightly faster and hitting someone who left-turned in front of them, except they weren't wearing a helmet. They flew through the air, hit the concrete head first, and skidded quite a ways. The person, of course, died. The scene was so gory that police had to section off that entire stretch of road, light to light, until the blood and mess was cleared - which of course interrupted traffic for hours. The news and radio stations wouldn't stop talking about it, of course.

There are three reasons people say that riding a motorbike is suicidal: One, the rider is not wearing a seat belt; Two, the vehicle is designed to freaking disintegrate on impact and, unlike cars, do not have an airbag; and Three, many motorbike riders out there are stupid enough not to wear a helmet. Not all are, that's true. But I have seen a good majority that don't, and do stupid things like rear back on one wheel behind my car and burn rubber right when a light changes.

So yeah, to clarify: you can be the safest, most paranoid driver in the world. It wont save you from when that idiot in the truck runs a red out of nowhere or that crazy cell-phone chatting car-rider feels like they own the road. I was (and still am) the safest driver in the universe, right up until someone rear ended me going 80 because I didn't immediately turn while the light was red, sending me to the hospital.

Ouch :/ I understand things like that happen, unfortunately. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop riding because of it though, it's just bad luck if something like that happens. But I appreciate where you're coming from and I can understand why people think that way even if I don't necessarily agree with it (most of the time). I hear it a lot in person on occasions. As soon as I mention I'm a biker (usually obvious from the leathers lol) I get the usual assortment of horror stories and 'rather you than me' comments.

As for the helmet thing, I live in the UK where helmets are legally enforced on motorcyclists. This is something I completely agree with as you have to be a right idiot not to wear one. I mean you could come off fairly lightly and get away with a few bruises but even then, if you bump your head without the helmet on you're obviously putting yourself at a much bigger risk. If you don't wear one over here you'll get pulled over very quickly, get a stern bollocking from the police and get fined or potentially have your driving license revoked.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Snip

Also, just about the motorcycle thing. Don't you have some sort of (for lack of a better word) armor you can buy? I've seen the f1 style motorbike races and when they crash they can hit walls, bikes, skid for hundreds of meters but emerge with little injury. If all bikers just wore that wouldn't they be fine? Or at least not die from a crash?

 

[N3vans]

Snip

Also, just about the motorcycle thing. Don't you have some sort of (for lack of a better word) armor you can buy? I've seen the f1 style motorbike races and when they crash they can hit walls, bikes, skid for hundreds of meters but emerge with little injury. If all bikers just wore that wouldn't they be fine? Or at least not die from a crash?

Yeah you can buy the Power Ranger armor But it's quite pricey for a full leather suit (you'd be looking at about £4-500 up for a decent one), and you look like a bit of a tit unless you have the super bike to go with it lol.

Personally I have one of these: http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/product_images/richa_jackets_leather_spiker-black.jpg

It's got shoulder, elbow and spine protecting armor built in to it. As for trousers I have a pair of kevlar jeans with knee armor for in and about town, as well as some more industrial over-trousers with more armor in for going on the motor/freeway.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Snip

Also, just about the motorcycle thing. Don't you have some sort of (for lack of a better word) armor you can buy? I've seen the f1 style motorbike races and when they crash they can hit walls, bikes, skid for hundreds of meters but emerge with little injury. If all bikers just wore that wouldn't they be fine? Or at least not die from a crash?

Yeah you can buy the Power Ranger armor But it's quite pricey for a full leather suit (you'd be looking at about £4-500 up for a decent one), and you look like a bit of a tit unless you have the super bike to go with it lol.

Personally I have one of these: http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/product_images/richa_jackets_leather_spiker-black.jpg

It's got shoulder, elbow and spine protecting armor built in to it. As for trousers I have a pair of kevlar jeans with knee armor for in and about town, as well as some more industrial over-trousers with more armor in for going on the motor/freeway.

Hm, maybe they should come as standard with motorcycles, like an airbag for a car. If you made them common like that then the price would go down alot. That way people would stop calling bikers suicidal and move onto something else. My guess skateboarding, if they haven't started yet (which they probably already have done).

 

[N3vans]

Snip

Also, just about the motorcycle thing. Don't you have some sort of (for lack of a better word) armor you can buy? I've seen the f1 style motorbike races and when they crash they can hit walls, bikes, skid for hundreds of meters but emerge with little injury. If all bikers just wore that wouldn't they be fine? Or at least not die from a crash?

Yeah you can buy the Power Ranger armor But it's quite pricey for a full leather suit (you'd be looking at about £4-500 up for a decent one), and you look like a bit of a tit unless you have the super bike to go with it lol.

Personally I have one of these: http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/product_images/richa_jackets_leather_spiker-black.jpg

It's got shoulder, elbow and spine protecting armor built in to it. As for trousers I have a pair of kevlar jeans with knee armor for in and about town, as well as some more industrial over-trousers with more armor in for going on the motor/freeway.

Hm, maybe they should come as standard with motorcycles, like an airbag for a car. If you made them common like that then the price would go down alot. That way people would stop calling bikers suicidal and move onto something else. My guess skateboarding, if they haven't started yet (which they probably already have done).

They are making advances in biking safety, they've started to make bike jackets with inbuilt airbag systems: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news-product-news/wairbag---airbag-equipped-bike-jackets-now-in-uk/6135.html

Unfortunately, despite being brilliant, they're like £3/400 too. A lot of motorcyclists out there (certainly in the UK) do it because it's cheaper than running a car as insurance and fuel costs are a lot lower with bikes so expensive protective gear is sadly more of an afterthought. Most people just assume they'll be alright with a pair of jeans, a helmet and any old leather jacket which isn't really the case.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

The belief that rational, logical thought is the way forward and that it makes you fundamentally better as a person. I know my rationalist atheist types, and guess what? They're nearly exclusively cunts with massive egos and superiority complexes.

I may be a deeply irrational and chaotic human being but that doesn't make me better or worse than anyone (or anything) else (not that I believe better or worse exist in the first place, but that's another discussion entirely.)

I'm looking at you, Richard Dawkins.
(captcha: 'sky's the limit')

That depends on what you're being rational about. Condemning something through rationality is worse than absolving it through rationality.
The former says eugenics is a cool time and the latter says being gay, black, or a woman is a-okay.

 

[Aphex Demon]

That all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.

Protip: A typical heterosexual male is more likely to molest than a Pedo.

[sub]No, seriously.[/sub]

If a heterosexual male molests a child than that male IS a pedophile.

Ummm... no.
If there is no actual primary attraction, then he isn't. He is most likely just looking for an outlet i.e a situational offender.

No, im sorry, but no. If a hetrosexual molests a child, then its FACT that he is classed as a paedophile.

Yet that doesn't make the term correct. You can have sexual intercourse with someone who is 5 minutes before the legal age and still be classed a Pedophile.

The issue is, a more correct term would be Hebephile or Ephebophile(even if it is not a primary attraction to either age ranges). Laws need a massive rewriting.

I agree with you on this actually.

Technically I could be classed as one, I was legal, she wasnt by a few months. Yes the law DOES need re-writing, but only to distinguish the difference between 'sick fuck' and 'rules are rules, buddy, she aint legal yet, Warning for you'

I dont know, all too confusing for me.

It goes into my head asplode territory.

Lol, Oh and for the record, I was 17, she was 15.

My head is now full of fuck.

Congrats on this achievement in inflicting mental pain unto me.

Haha really? Please indulge on what you mean...

On what? The fuck or the pain?

Both..

 

[Dark Knifer]

Snip.

It's good to know they are making some progress, even if it is fairly expensive. I can see that becoming standard given time and the proper funding. So that may make motorcycles a lot more common then. They certainly would be easier to park...