Post a controversial opinion

definitely

I really annoyed a normy with that opinion a few months ago, had some jibe about how I must not have a sense of humour or something stupid.

i think even stand-up comedians would agree? my impression is they generate an awful lot of material that gets discarded bc it doesn't work when they try it out on stage.

what's a 'normy'?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/norm3.jpg

a normy is someone who wears nonbranded clothing with solid colors so the world's most hated tech companies can't use algorithms to identify their fashion preferences and sell them to other companies without the normy's knowledge

i think we can all agree on that

http://www.bedlammag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Angus_Black_and_White.jpg

those are norms

normys are people without substance abuse / mental health problems

I didn't mean that brimstead, I meant "normal" aka dull, though it would also work with that other definition tbh

lol brimstead

there are no conspiracies

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.

nonsense, when walking on stilts, actually becomes true

living past the age of 40 when you have no kids is pointless

I think I agree with both Sanpaku and man alive.

That is, I agree that an ostensible natural right is pointless if it isn't able to do you any practical good. I have no use for a right that doesn't do me any practical good - either because it's not recognized by the rest of the world, or because it isn't backed up by something with worldly force.

If the "stilts" in the metaphor correspond to practical real-world systems of persuasion, compulsion, and protection, I agree that stilts change the situation.

A baseball player who has hit a home run has the "right" to run around the bases and score a point for his team - not because he is endowed by his creator with the inalienable right to do so, but rather because his right to do so is enshrined in the rules of the game he is playing, and both the teams and the umpires generally agree to respect those rules.

Let us say I assert that I have a natural right to not get eaten by my co-workers. Because there are laws in effect, and people generally respect them, this right has achieved some valence in the world. This "right" is helping me NOT because it is self-evidently endowed to me by my creator - I'm utterly agnostic about whether or not that's true - it's helping me because of the way the "right" has been enshrined in law and custom.

But let us say that a cow on a farm were to suddenly achieve a heretofore unseen level of intelligence, communicative ability, and moral sophistication. She could argue that she has the natural right to not be eaten. Maybe she could persuade people to not eat her, but they wouldn't be doing so out of respect for her natural rights. Because her natural rights are not enshrined in law and custom, they have no "stilts."

the "loose meat sandwich" is an abomination against god

I'm hoping I'm really hoping that's not slang for anything

its a sloppy joe without the tomaters

realizing that probably doesn't sound much better to a non-yank

brb off to lobby for an end to transatlantic travel, the cessation of all broadcasting of American programming and closer ties to the soviets

at the very least, prospective parents should need to take a month-long seminar on raising children.

(i don't care who gives birth, this isn't about that. we might be talking about adoptive parents).

ideally, however, parents would not only take that month-long seminar, but would also be required to have an iq of over 120. . . there's more. i'll probably piss people off, though.

i don't care who gives birth, because in my ideal world, more children could be put up for adoption and raised by parents more adequate.

Most heartland rock is boring.

Are you 40 yet?

whatever, I'm betting this actually turns out to be pretty funny, though I'm sure everyone else here is likely going to rain smdhs and nagls upon it

― Über, Über mensch (wins), Saturday, December 12, 2015 11:01 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Is posting someone else's controversial opinion allowed? From the Sacha Baron Cohen thread.

Lol! it seems quite mild when it closely follows a pro-eugenics post

Really funny movies sometimes have awful commercials.

being over 40 and wishing death is difficult, being under 40 and hoping there is an end is par for the course

I'm under 40. But part of the statement comes from having a garbage last 2.5 years.

better days, friend

Is posting someone else's controversial opinion allowed?

Only if you agree with it. The "nonsense on stilts" quote I posted is a rather famous line from Jeremy Bentham.

He had some spoons, but he bentham. He had cars, but he rectum. He has customers, but he gypsum.

Elastica's "Connection" is the good version of The Breeders' "Cannonball."

eh love them both, don't care

Sometimes alcohol is good therapy that does what talking cant. As long as you don't abuse it

sometimes abusing alcohol is good therapy

nah

Def not abusing.

None of my opinions are controversial.

Technological human civilization squandered its last opportunity to avert suicide in my lifetime.

Climate feedback runaway, population overshoot, resource scarcity, pervasive warfare over the scraps, and an unmistakable sixth mass extinction are inevitable over the next couple centuries; barring a near-term massive pandemic.

Without accessible fossil fuels, subsequent human civilizations will remain stuck at Roman-to-17th century technical development.

This was our species test prior to expansion into our star system and the galaxy beyond, and we failed.

Perhaps this accounts for the Fermi Paradox as well.

I think that particular controversial opinion is well established

I'll continue to save a few quid in the expectation of a nice retirement myself tbh

I think everything's going to be OK

...for wealthier people and people who don't live in developing countries, yep

I agree with half of Dr. Pangloss' famous dictum, namely that this is the best of all possible worlds. The idea that everything is for the best, however, is pure nonsense.

People who are otherwise not religious or especially not Christian putting up Christmas trees are weird.

It was pagan syncretism to begin with though

Sure. But it's not now. Especially irks me when people call them secular, seasonal decorations. Yeah, if you celebrate Christmas.

it has always been semi-pagan and unexamined and the tree isn't a christian symbol anyway

an unexamined tree is not worth trimming

If you agree that the meaning of Christmas can change from pagan to Christian, why do you disagree that it can change from Christian to secular?

You talking to me? Because it's called a Christmas tree, is overwhelmingly celebrated by Christians and is usually accompanied by Santa, elves, presents and, um, Christmas?