What are the worst misconceptions you know of?

[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.

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..

My head is so full of fuck that not even Jackie Chan can describe it.

And, the pain is... actually, not too bad compared to what I feel constantly every day.

OT: That all Homebrew is piracy. Whomever started that idea needs to take a backhoe to the ass.

 

[conflictofinterests]

That everyone who doesn't believe in a crazy conspiracy is a "mindless sheep".

That anyone is a "mindless sheep" in general.

http://xkcd.com/610/

Or that anyone ISN'T.

Can't decide which.

 

[Quaidis]

(snips long post I made)

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.

Thank you for the nice reply.

I think there is something of a law here about helmets, but it is not enforced very well, or at all. I call it 'weeding out the population of idiots'.

It's okay if you don't stop riding. I use to ride passenger on a motorbike, and I have friends and old relations that ride them. (They all wear helmets.) It is fun, except I would never do it if there is snow or ice out. I just wanted to clear up the mis-misconception and state why people think it is suicidal.

I have many accident stories, though. Cars, semi trucks, etc. Most involve rear-ending and people not wearing seat belts. Like I said, people cannot drive around here. It is as bad as Russia.

 

[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.

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.

As to the first paragraph, the issue is not time it is lack of material. In the Miller-Urey experiment, all the necessary amino acids to create a protein were not created making the formation of life impossible regardless of how much time was given to allow them to select and retain. In addition there is the issue of oxygen in the atmosphere (too much causes quick decomposition of the proteins, too little and they could not survive).

On to the second, I will rephrase my statement: Life cannot arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. Creation of sugars, or other functions of cells happens as a result of already living matter doing its job. Also a self replicating RNA molecule has not been created, but tests have been done with RNA molecules to prove their ability to change and alter themselves.

It has been said "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." By accepting an impossible theory you show more faith than many religious fanatics who would disagree with you.

 

[REmaster]

That you have to go to college or you will be worthless waste of space and that if you are skinny you must be anorexic or bulimic.

 

[fnlrpa]

That all cartoons are for kids(not including anime)

There are many cartoons that have adult themes in them

 

[BioHazardMan]

That Napoleon was a midget. He was 5' 7", which is hardly a shrimp.

Still pretty short...

 

[Trildor]

That Napoleon was a midget. He was 5' 7", which is hardly a shrimp.

Still pretty short...

Average height for Frenchmen of the age.

 

[Mr. Meslier]

SNIP
As to the first paragraph, the issue is not time it is lack of material. In the Miller-Urey experiment, all the necessary amino acids to create a protein were not created making the formation of life impossible regardless of how much time was given to allow them to select and retain. In addition there is the issue of oxygen in the atmosphere (too much causes quick decomposition of the proteins, too little and they could not survive).

On to the second, I will rephrase my statement: Life cannot arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. Creation of sugars, or other functions of cells happens as a result of already living matter doing its job. Also a self replicating RNA molecule has not been created, but tests have been done with RNA molecules to prove their ability to change and alter themselves.

It has been said "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." By accepting an impossible theory you show more faith than many religious fanatics who would disagree with you.

Your argument is drifting into abiogenesis, as concerns about initial materials is not evolution's problem, it just works under the assumption that you have everything there. One could easily opt out of the conversation by invoking ideas of panspermia, where life on earth ultimately derives from abiogenesis, yet from a more hospitable place.

Although the Miller-Urey experiment did not create all the necessary components for life, it made most of them. The experiment was done under an assumption of what early-earth conditions were like. These assumptions are approximations, and were not considered to be a correct sample for all of earth. Different areas of the earth have different compositions. Again, these are not comprehensive experiments.

I am also becoming interested in your definition of life. Functions of modern day organisms, such as photosynthesis and sugar metabolism are not attributes that life always had. Evolution does not advocate for a spontaneous glycolysis cycle. Life also has a very unique property to adapt to its environment. Because of this attribute, your statement regarding oxygen in the atmosphere makes little sense. You make it seem as though the amount of oxygen on earth is perfect to sustain life. This falls to the same arguments that are made against typical theistic anthropic principles. Life adapts to the environment, not vice versa. It would be akin to saying that water is designed to fit a drinking glass, simply because it conforms to the glass's shape every time. Life would have adapted to the changes in oxygen, as evidenced by organisms that do not require oxygen for cellular respiration, to organisms that have a tolerance for excess oxygen.

Finally, please do not discard my statement that faith, belief, and acceptance are not interchangeable terms. My acceptance of evolution is based in no small measure to the consensus of the scientific community, as well as my own education on the subject. This conclusion is based on the same principle by which I accept the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. Evolution is a landmark in philosophy of science, a field I take rather seriously. Evolutionary theory follows those same principles of science that are so pragmatically useful. Conflating such a thing with faith is intellectually lazy.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Which is ridiculous, there are plenty of people out there who have no opinion one way or the other.

Then those people are called agnostic atheists.
Atheist: They lack a belief in any god(s).
Agnostic: They lack knowledge of any god(s)

Why? Their lack of belief and lack of disbelief automatically means disbelief?

No; to the best of my understanding, the divisions break up as follows:

Gnostic Atheist: There IS no God; this can be proven with facts. The sort of people "your evil twin" was ranting about.
Agnostic Atheist: There's enough doubt about the topic that I see no particular reason to believe.
Agnostic Theist: There is no 100% hard proof for God, but that is why all religions have urged faith.
Gnostic Theist: God has made himself manifest and accessible through human logic.
Most people: I don't care about philosophy. I might express preference either way but I don't really think about it and almost certainly don't attend a church. I resemble one of the "last men" Nietzsche spoke of in opposition to the ubermensch.

But that set of categories leaves no room for the 'don't know don't care's and the 'I have no idea but would like to find out's. There ought to be some fence to sit on between belief and disbelief, surely?

Also the ones that don't belief in a god, but follow a religion merely because they believe that it has good morals (ie, the ten commandments from the bible). There was a word for that, but I cannot remember what it is at the moment.

 

[N3vans]

(snips long post I made)

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.

Thank you for the nice reply.

I think there is something of a law here about helmets, but it is not enforced very well, or at all. I call it 'weeding out the population of idiots'.

It's okay if you don't stop riding. I use to ride passenger on a motorbike, and I have friends and old relations that ride them. (They all wear helmets.) It is fun, except I would never do it if there is snow or ice out. I just wanted to clear up the mis-misconception and state why people think it is suicidal.

I have many accident stories, though. Cars, semi trucks, etc. Most involve rear-ending and people not wearing seat belts. Like I said, people cannot drive around here. It is as bad as Russia.

Sounds rough :S And I know exactly what your talking about with the snow & ice thing, as soon as there's any sign of it here I don't drive. We had a cold snap here over December for about a month and I couldn't drive at all, it sucks so hard lol.

 

[Dark Knifer]

That all cartoons are for kids(not including anime)

There are many cartoons that have adult themes in them

Mm, I hear this one a few times to. Also when people say pixar movies are just for kids I get really annoyed and tell them to watch the start of up again and tell me that it's meant for children.

 

[Kyoufuu]

That religion = morality
Everyone that plays WoW has no life
Nintendo is for kids

Conversely, that religion = evil.

 

[Arsen]

United States of America:

- That we actually like the Hollywood culture.
- That Black Americans have it rougher or to a higher degree of less fairness than the rest of the majority/minority population.

- That modern day governments are extensions of past governments and are in essence, the exact same people as the previous rulers, bodies, etc.
- That warfare is immoral, wrong, and has no contributed to humanity in any positive way, shape, or form.
- That John Lennon was a good person and a moral human being.
- That not believing in gay marriage or being opposed to gay marriage and being against gays are the same thing.

 

[Steven True]

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.

You are arguing against abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life originated. The theory of evolution only describes how species have changed over time. And it says NOTHING about the origin of life.

Also, your criticism of abiogenesis is wrong in and of itself.
1) When life formed the atmosphere was NOT oxygen rich. It took a few billion years of cynobacteria pumping out O2 to do that.

"And a piece of nonliving (and never was previously) matter cannot be made alive by any means.

2) You do realize that every atom in your body (excluding hydrogen) was formed in the heart of a star, don't you? Was the oxygen in your body part of living being then? What about now? Obviously, the matter in your body was "made alive" by some means.

 

[Steven True]

Which is ridiculous, there are plenty of people out there who have no opinion one way or the other.

Then those people are called agnostic atheists.
Atheist: They lack a belief in any god(s).
Agnostic: They lack knowledge of any god(s)

Why? Their lack of belief and lack of disbelief automatically means disbelief?

Atheism & theism are binary. If you believe that god(s) exist then you are a theist. All others lack that belief and thus are athiests. Lacking a belief in any god(s) is completely separate from having a belief in the nonexistence of any god(s).

Example: Aliens.
If asked, "Do aliens exist?" I would say, "I don't know."
I have no belief in aliens. Therefore I am a "athiest" when it comes to aliens.
This is regardless of whatever my response would be to, "Do aliens not exist?"

 

[Jonluw]

[HEADING=3]"Glass is a liquid!"[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]No, it bloody isn't. *Slap*[/HEADING]

 

[Steven True]

United States of America:

- That Black Americans have it rougher...

I'm sorry, but that is not a misconception. African Americans (on average) have much higher rates of poverty, incarceration, lower educations, lower incomes, and lower life expectancy than the average American.

If being poorer and dying earlier is not having it rougher then what is?