(Potentially) Controversial Opinions

Mellodome seems to be a fairly homogeneous place, so I'm not sure how a thread like this will work. But let's give it a shot - post an (honestly held) opinion that you think is an unpopular one, on Mellophant in particular or to the wider world. And if you wish to comment on / take issue with someone else's opinion - do it! We are not afraid of discussion here.

Mine - I am particularly angered by women who express bigotry toward gays / lesbians, while at the same time fitting all the stereotypes for butch lesbianism themselves.


Go go go go.

I think some of the worst misogyny present in today's culture was generated by radical feminists who so disparaged the limitations put on women by society that they made it acceptable to disparage traditional feminine pursuits, interests and desires.

I think sports are as valid and important an area of human endeavor as art, music, poetry, or philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

I think sports are as valid and important an area of human endeavor as art, music, poetry, or philosophy.

---

Ooo, good one, because I can't at all agree. Surely the tangible, permanent aspect of say, a sculpture means it will have a much more lasting impact on a culture than a football game?

Politically I'm pretty moderate, but I agree/sympathize a lot more with the philosophies of the right wing than the left.

I also agree 100% with both Zuul and OneCentStamp's posts.

I have no problems with gun ownership in general, but I think that someone who feels the need to carry around a concealed weapon at all times is more than a little paranoid.

If you say "Oh, the Harry Potter books really helped my child learn to love reading" then I know you're a bad parent. If you say "The series really encouraged the love of reading, that Rowling is amazing" I know you're an idiot. Because a child shouldn't "learn how to love reading" when they're 14 and they read a crappy, poorly written, mostly cliched book. If a child grows up in a home where reading is encouraged and regularly done by all members of the household, it won't be such a fucking revelation to them that a book can be entertaining like a television show. Reading isn't a chore that every child is going to automatically hate. Acting like it is makes me want to punch somebody in the face. If it's a regular, fun part of a child's existence, reading a book (or 10 boring ones or however many HP books there are) isn't going to be so fucking special. It'd be business as usual.

Recently more as been said about the "childhood obesity" epidemic, and Michelle Obama is taking that up as her main cause, apparently. But nobody seems to be interested in pointing out why this happens. Often, television and video games and the computer are mentioned as the culprits. People bring up schools that don't have PE classes anymore. Or they say "in this crazy world, everybody eats out." But look, you stupid fucks who insist on banging the drum of the obesity epidemic, there are two things you need to realize. First, the BMI is pseudo-science bullshit, and if you're going to start announcing kids are all obese, please find some other measurement for it. Second, America survives on heavily processed carbs. It's every fucking where. I notice it especially when I've cut sugar out of my diet and I become intensely aware of all the "normal" food I can't eat. Don't give your kid some an apple (full of fructose) and think that everything is okay when they're eating sugary cereal for breakfast, sandwiches and cookies for lunch, and then come home to a nice, healthy dinner of Mac & Cheese. The FDA Food Pyramid is a fucking joke, designed and paid for by people with a vested interest in making consumers a shitload of grain. Don't be scared of protein and fat! Feed them eggs for breakfast! Give them tuna or chicken salad for lunch! Give them good cuts of meat and fresh veggies for dinner (actually there are a shitload of options for low carb dinners besides that, but I won't post a whole menu to prove my point). Don't reduce calories, reduce the amount of sugar you're pumping in your little angels. Yes, bread and pasta and cereal and chips and cookies and processed frozen foods are harmful especially if that's all they ever eat. You wouldn't open up your kids mouth and pour a bowlful of sugar down their throats would you? So why do we insist on 8-12 servings of "grains" a day?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Ooo, good one, because I can't at all agree. Surely the tangible, permanent aspect of say, a sculpture means it will have a much more lasting impact on a culture than a football game?

---

Can we measure importance by how long it lasts? All of our lives are fleeting. There's something almost spiritual about, say, a dancer. They spend their entire lives working with their bodies and perfecting their craft, yet have only moments on the stage and nothing to show for it in the end, so much like life itself.

We're all simply soap bubbles on the verge of bursting, to be lost and forgotten. Maybe more people are aware of the genius of those who leave something tangible behind, but that doesn't make that genius more worthy than others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

If you say "Oh, the Harry Potter books really helped my child learn to love reading" then I know you're a bad parent. If you say "The series really encouraged the love of reading, that Rowling is amazing" I know you're an idiot. Because a child shouldn't "learn how to love reading" when they're 14 and they read a crappy, poorly written, mostly cliched book. If a child grows up in a home where reading is encouraged and regularly done by all members of the household, it won't be such a fucking revelation to them that a book can be entertaining like a television show. Reading isn't a chore that every child is going to automatically hate. Acting like it is makes me want to punch somebody in the face. If it's a regular, fun part of a child's existence, reading a book (or 10 boring ones or however many HP books there are) isn't going to be so fucking special. It'd be business as usual.

Recently more as been said about the "childhood obesity" epidemic, and Michelle Obama is taking that up as her main cause, apparently. But nobody seems to be interested in pointing out why this happens. Often, television and video games and the computer are mentioned as the culprits. People bring up schools that don't have PE classes anymore. Or they say "in this crazy world, everybody eats out." But look, you stupid fucks who insist on banging the drum of the obesity epidemic, there are two things you need to realize. First, the BMI is pseudo-science bullshit, and if you're going to start announcing kids are all obese, please find some other measurement for it. Second, America survives on heavily processed carbs. It's every fucking where. I notice it especially when I've cut sugar out of my diet and I become intensely aware of all the "normal" food I can't eat. Don't give your kid some an apple (full of fructose) and think that everything is okay when they're eating sugary cereal for breakfast, sandwiches and cookies for lunch, and then come home to a nice, healthy dinner of Mac & Cheese. The FDA Food Pyramid is a fucking joke, designed and paid for by people with a vested interest in making consumers a shitload of grain. Don't be scared of protein and fat! Feed them eggs for breakfast! Give them tuna or chicken salad for lunch! Give them good cuts of meat and fresh veggies for dinner (actually there are a shitload of options for low carb dinners besides that, but I won't post a whole menu to prove my point). Don't reduce calories, reduce the amount of sugar you're pumping in your little angels. Yes, bread and pasta and cereal and chips and cookies and processed frozen foods are harmful especially if that's all they ever eat. You wouldn't open up your kids mouth and pour a bowlful of sugar down their throats would you? So why do we insist on 8-12 servings of "grains" a day?

---

Needs more exclamation points and caps, but I approve.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

I have no problems with gun ownership in general, but I think that someone who feels the need to carry around a concealed weapon at all times is more than a little paranoid.

---

I expressed the same opinion in chat once and someone was arguing pretty heavily for the other side (but I can't remember who!), hopefully they will pop into this thread.

I really do believe that just about anyone can improve their circumstances in America, if they are willing to work hard and sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Yes, bread and pasta and cereal and chips and cookies and processed frozen foods are harmful especially if that's all they ever eat. You wouldn't open up your kids mouth and pour a bowlful of sugar down their throats would you? So why do we insist on 8-12 servings of "grains" a day?

---

While I mostly agree with your overall point (especially regarding processed foods), I do think there's a place in a healthy diet for the occasional potato or piece of bread. It's not the carbs that are the enemy, it's the amounts and proportions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I really do believe that just about anyone can improve their circumstances in America, if they are willing to work hard and sacrifice.

---

I used to believe that. I don't any more. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

I have no problems with gun ownership in general, but I think that someone who feels the need to carry around a concealed weapon at all times is more than a little paranoid.

---

Yeah, I'm always torn about that in the gun control discussions on the SDMB. On the one hand, I think people have the RIGHT to own and even carry a gun if they want to. On the other hand, a person who feels that they want or need to everywhere they go? Weird.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrnalene

Ooo, good one, because I can't at all agree. Surely the tangible, permanent aspect of say, a sculpture means it will have a much more lasting impact on a culture than a football game?

---

Well, sports are a live, real-time art form, much closer to dance, or live theater or music than sculpture or painting. Sculpture is a particularly well-lasting form of art, but even sculpture will eventually crumble and fade. Ultimately, any creative human endeavor - whether it's a song, poem, painting, or platform diving routine - is simply an artifact of the creator's abilities and values at the time it occurred, and however long the physical vestiges of that last, its real impact and value are in our collective memory.

For example, Jesse Owens' performance at the 1936 Olympics, even though it didn't leave a physical canvas for people to look at, was of enormous historical importance. It's much more apt to compare a football game to, say, Woodstock, than to the Venus de Milo. But they're all fields for human expression and achievement.

Well I don't hide mine I think. I think people are too sensitive to words. Many including Myrna disagrees with me on this.

I have some very unpopular thoughts about population growth and its relation to religions. I feel it needs to stop and that there is a real concern about the RCC and various Moslems sects trying to win the world through out-breeding the rest of the world. Mainly though my concerns are in limited resources and our impact on the environment.

I’m not sure any of my other opinions which are many, are really controversial though. My political views seem close to the norm here though I am less liberal leaning than many and give Reagan more credit than most. But this is little stuff, not big stuff.

I love baseball and care more about it then art, poetry or philosophy and as much as music. But I do have an appreciation for art, music and poetry at least where I can see it as more important. As to philosophy, I don’t really buy its “great” importance. It seems overrated to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I really do believe that just about anyone can improve their circumstances in America, if they are willing to work hard and sacrifice.

---

I don’t think this one is too controversial.

I find overall it is true but these long recessions can really put people in a hole and sometimes it is just bad luck.

As someone that read the job market during the last terrible recession and made the move to a field I did not love and devoted my all to it, I know it is usually true. I made a good educated guess, but if I guessed wrong, I am not sure where I would have found myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Yeah, I'm always torn about that in the gun control discussions on the SDMB ...

---

Man, the SDMB lowered my opinion of gun enthusiasts considerably.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

As to philosophy, I don’t really buy its “great” importance. It seems overrated to me.

---

Philosophy = self-important wankers showing off how smart they think they are despite their having no useful skills.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

While I mostly agree with your overall point (especially regarding processed foods), I do think there's a place in a healthy diet for the occasional potato or piece of bread. It's not the carbs that are the enemy, it's the amounts and proportions.

---

Yeah, I'm not saying everybody should cut out all carbs. I am quite healthy and happy at 20 carbs or less a day, but for most people that's extreme. But even if you set the bar at 100 carbs a day that's still less than how much an average person could consume on an average day when you factor in everything from cereal in the morning to dessert at night.

I believe people have gown too intolerant of each other. Now if you're not part of the political correct crowd, or you don't always care about some other peoples opinions you're a bad person in need of help. They're not, they're just jerks and assholes, bitches and cunts. Instead of seeing our differences as a strength we get angry when people don't care about the same things, think the same way. I have no proof to back these statements up, it's just something I've been wondering about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

As to philosophy, I don’t really buy its “great” importance. It seems overrated to me.

---

The early philosophers were basically early scientists. Nowadays it tends more toward a lot of obnoxious wankery, but then I remember it's been thousands of years since the first round of greats were around. All the wankers were no doubt forgotten by history. Think about what philosophy has brought us over the past 500 years, after all. Science and politics as they are today are a result od that. Perhaps in another two thousand years only a few geniuses of philosophy today will be remembered.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Philosophy = self-important wankers showing off how smart they think they are despite their having no useful skills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

The early philosophers were basically early scientists. Nowadays it tends more toward a lot of obnoxious wankery, but then I remember it's been thousands of years since the first round of greats were around. All the wankers were no doubt forgotten by history. Think about what philosophy has brought us over the past 500 years, after all. Science and politics as they are today are a result od that. Perhaps in another two thousand years only a few geniuses of philosophy today will be remembered.

---

Well we seem to agree on this. Thus I will put Sports > Philosophy at least, but not to slight the greats of the past that led to science. Philosophy students seem slightly less useful to society then communications majors. :LOL:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

If you say "Oh, the Harry Potter books really helped my child learn to love reading" then I know you're a bad parent. If you say "The series really encouraged the love of reading, that Rowling is amazing" I know you're an idiot. Because a child shouldn't "learn how to love reading" when they're 14 and they read a crappy, poorly written, mostly cliched book. If a child grows up in a home where reading is encouraged and regularly done by all members of the household, it won't be such a fucking revelation to them that a book can be entertaining like a television show. Reading isn't a chore that every child is going to automatically hate. Acting like it is makes me want to punch somebody in the face. If it's a regular, fun part of a child's existence, reading a book (or 10 boring ones or however many HP books there are) isn't going to be so fucking special. It'd be business as usual.

---

I'd have to argue with you here.

I read an exorbitant amount, always have. Every adult in the house regularly read for pleasure. The GirlChild was read to and/or read to someone every single night, at the very least, for her entire life. The adults would be reading while she was watching TV or on the computer. There was no learning disability that might cause problems or anything like that.

She had any books she wanted, plus any books that any of us thought she might enjoy, and was always encouraged to read.

She simply did not read for her own pleasure until the HP books. I have no idea why that first book caught her attention when everything else had failed. IIRC, she couldn't explain it herself when we asked. But she read that book straight through, I believe over a single weekend, and never looked back. She started reading all sorts of stuff and still does.

I've read the HP books (they were in the house and better reading than shampoo bottles). While they're certainly not great works of literature, they're not as bad as all that. I've read worse, both adult's and children's.

And, for some bizarre reason, they got a lot of kids started reading. What difference does it make what gets a kid to love reading, as long as they do?

OK, I've got another one, which I'm not sure is controversial or not, but it's probably not very PC. I have a lot of difficulty believing that poly relationships are psychologically healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

...
She simply did not read for her own pleasure until the HP books. I have no idea why that first book caught her attention when everything else had failed. IIRC, she couldn't explain it herself when we asked. But she read that book straight through, I believe over a single weekend, and never looked back. She started reading all sorts of stuff and still does.
...

---

I have to agree as something similar happened to me, though I would say with a far better book series at least. ;)

For me it was the Hobbit when my reading really took off. I picked it up in early sixth grade and it made me an avid reader. Within that one year my reading jumped from below grade level to 12th grade level. It was the catalyst and I do believe the HP books were the catalyst for a large number of kids.

I had some good success with my kids. My wife did the reading to and did it a lot. My daughter was still lagging in reading. In third grade I came to a simple agreement with her, she still had to go to bed at 9pm but I did not care how late she read. I did not give her books she had to read, I just made books available and by 4th grade she was well above level and reads for fun and entertainment now.

My son responded to the same treatment but I would not call him an avid reader but he likes it at least.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

OK, I've got another one, which I'm not sure is controversial or not, but it's probably not very PC. I have a lot of difficulty believing that poly relationships are psychologically healthy.

---

I think they could be and I don’t know enough about the ones that do exist to judge. They make sense in many ways. I do know they are not for me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

OK, I've got another one, which I'm not sure is controversial or not, but it's probably not very PC. I have a lot of difficulty believing that poly relationships are psychologically healthy.

---

I think it's probably a fairly PC opinion out in the real world. The Internet tends to greatly exaggerate the political power of certain special interest groups.

Now, I could agree with you about whole classes of poly relationships. Polygamy cults, triads, "One Penis Policy" type relationships, etc, where there's some sort of weird power dynamic going on don't lend themselves toward psychological health. But I don't see much mentally unhealthy about situations where, say, Anne is dating Bob and Bob is dating Carol and Dan is dating Anne and everybody knows about everybody but they all have their separate little spheres. Good environment for raising kids in? Probably not. But it's not too much different from casual dating.

I don't know if I could handle it long-term, but I've seen it work okay for people so long as they keep it in that flexible "open dating" sort of situation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

I think sports are as valid and important an area of human endeavor as art, music, poetry, or philosophy.

---

LOL

You have that backasswards. If only society valued art, music, poetry and philosophy as much as it does sports.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Can we measure importance by how long it lasts? All of our lives are fleeting. There's something almost spiritual about, say, a dancer. They spend their entire lives working with their bodies and perfecting their craft, yet have only moments on the stage and nothing to show for it in the end, so much like life itself.

We're all simply soap bubbles on the verge of bursting, to be lost and forgotten. Maybe more people are aware of the genius of those who leave something tangible behind, but that doesn't make that genius more worthy than others.

---

What about a sculpture that is in storage for one-hundred years versus a football game watched by one-hundred million people?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

I'd have to argue with you here.

I read an exorbitant amount, always have. Every adult in the house regularly read for pleasure. The GirlChild was read to and/or read to someone every single night, at the very least, for her entire life. The adults would be reading while she was watching TV or on the computer. There was no learning disability that might cause problems or anything like that.

She had any books she wanted, plus any books that any of us thought she might enjoy, and was always encouraged to read.

She simply did not read for her own pleasure until the HP books. I have no idea why that first book caught her attention when everything else had failed. IIRC, she couldn't explain it herself when we asked. But she read that book straight through, I believe over a single weekend, and never looked back. She started reading all sorts of stuff and still does.

I've read the HP books (they were in the house and better reading than shampoo bottles). While they're certainly not great works of literature, they're not as bad as all that. I've read worse, both adult's and children's.

And, for some bizarre reason, they got a lot of kids started reading. What difference does it make what gets a kid to love reading, as long as they do?

---

But I'm not talking about one or two stories of triumph and reading victory. And that's my fault. I should have been far more clear in my first post. I'm not opposed to kids in general falling in love with the books (though I DO think they are as bad as all that) but I do have an issue with the...I don' t know, culture that sprang up around the whole HP thing.

This shit has been said by countless people. Countless. It's all I ever heard when things were ramping up for a new HP release. I worked with a lot of people who are currently elementary school teachers and they were saying the same thing. It's like a freaking epidemic. And why were thousands and thousands of kids "introduced" to reading for pleasure at that point? I'm pretty sure it's because for thousands and thousands of kids, they had never even conceived that such a thing was possible. Children across the UK and the US shouldn't have been in such a bad situation that HP needed to "Get kids reading again." It's bullshit. It reflects a shift in values when it comes to raising kids. And then the very people who are responsible for this are so freaking pleased when their kids start reading.

And I think it goes even deeper than that. Everybody talks about how great it is "for kids to be reading again" but nobody gives any thought to that phrase. Did kids stop reading? And when? And why? Do the adults even know why it's so important for kids to read and be read to when they're young? My guess is that the answer is no, because the vast majority of adults I meet IRL don't read. At all. Ever. Unless they're forced to. Even the people in education.

Every time somebody said that, I felt like they were glossing over some serious issues. Like it was a bandaid put on a gushing neck wound. I think it does make a huge difference why kids start reading. I feel like the "as long as they do" thing is something that people say to feel good. In general, that's where the conversation starts and stops and it infuriates me.

Sorry Harry Potter parents, but no. Maybe there are individual success stories out there, but the fact is those books haven't had the impact they're supposed to have had. For somebody who works in education or publishing, hearing about how awesome they are and how they have brought a generation to literacy can be really grating when you know it isn't true.

Statistically, there's been very little change since before Harry Potter. I've seen numerous articles on how the majority of kids who read the HP books...just read the HP books. They don't have their minds opened to the wonderful world of reading for pleasure. They read those ones and then that's that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by redtail

I'd have to argue with you here.

I read an exorbitant amount, always have. Every adult in the house regularly read for pleasure. The GirlChild was read to and/or read to someone every single night, at the very least, for her entire life. The adults would be reading while she was watching TV or on the computer. There was no learning disability that might cause problems or anything like that.

She had any books she wanted, plus any books that any of us thought she might enjoy, and was always encouraged to read.

She simply did not read for her own pleasure ...

---

This was my experience too. I was an avid, even obssesive reader as a child...I stood out in that regard among even among my overwhelmingly nerdy, bookish cohort of friends and siblings. When the Little Lagomorph came along we read to him, provided him with any books he wanted, books we had enjoyed at that age, books other people enjoyed at that age, new books recommended for his age or that I discovered on my own, you name it. I read all the time, our house was full of books.

The kid did. Not. Like. To. Read.

He would read for a school assignment, or if we really insisted, but he never did it for pleasure. He would much rather play with Legos, or of course watch TV or play a computer/video game. Even when we got him books on subjects he was into he was rarely motivated to read on his own.

I don't know why. He might have some type of learning disability that makes it harder for him, it is difficult to tell because he is partially deaf so he scores lower on language related tasks in general.

What changed it for him (very recently) was not Harry Potter but Star Wars, and all the Star Wars/Clone Wars books out there for kids. They are at or above his grade level and he will happily dive into one at any time.

He actually asked me for permission to read the other night. :smack

I think that publicly funded art is universally chosen to appeal to far too narrow a group of people. Art, like many things (including sports), requires an educated audience to allow the more interesting and inventive techniques to be used, and appreciated. Because of this people who have broad and in depth groundings in art and art history, are going to be fascinated and attracted to art that is simply difficult for the general public to embrace. In a very real sense they'll be using different criteria to judge what is and is not appealing.

By ignoring the tastes of the less well educated public art councils increase the barriers between art, the art world, and the general public. By insisting on choosing the more challenging pieces to fund, they're doing the exact opposite of what they've been charged to do: Bring art to the public, for the public's edification and enjoyment.

I don't know how to fix the problem, but until art councils start to recognize that they have an obligation to meet the tastes of the high school drop out as much as the MFA graduate they're going to continue to find their funding under constant and merciless attack.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

I think that publicly funded art is universally chosen to appeal to far too narrow a group of people. Art, like many things (including sports), requires an educated audience to allow the more interesting and inventive techniques to be used, and appreciated. Because of this people who have broad and in depth groundings in art and art history, are going to be fascinated and attracted to art that is simply difficult for the general public to embrace. In a very real sense they'll be using different criteria to judge what is and is not appealing.

By ignoring the tastes of the less well educated public art councils increase the barriers between art, the art world, and the general public. By insisting on choosing the more challenging pieces to fund, they're doing the exact opposite of what they've been charged to do: Bring art to the public, for the public's edification and enjoyment.

I don't know how to fix the problem, but until art councils start to recognize that they have an obligation to meet the tastes of the high school drop out as much as the MFA graduate they're going to continue to find their funding under constant and merciless attack.

---

Except there is lots of pop culture that appeals to the high school dropout. Sounds like a solution in need of a problem.

But more people are educated about the minutiae of baseball than the minutiae of the entire medium of painting. That's one sport versus an entire discipline. More people are educated about the minutiae of football than music and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinker

Except there is lots of pop culture that appeals to the high school dropout. Sounds like a solution in need of a problem.

---

The difference is that pop culture, whatever its merits might be, pays for itself by appealing directly to consumers.

The sort of government funded art councils I'm talking about take public monies, and then complain that the public, at large lacks the education to understand what they're getting. And then gets huffy when that same public curtails that funding because they can't see a benefit from the money, when everyone involved admits they can't benefit from what's nominally being spent in their name.




Though I'd also love to cut all government subsidies to the major sports leagues, teams and owners, too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

The difference is that pop culture, whatever its merits might be, pays for itself by appealing directly to consumers.

The sort of government funded art councils I'm talking about take public monies, and then complain that the public, at large lacks the education to understand what they're getting. And then gets huffy when that same public curtails that funding because they can't see a benefit from the money, when everyone involved admits they can't benefit from what's nominally being spent in their name.




Though I'd also love to cut all government subsidies to the major sports leagues, teams and owners, too.

---

Right. I get what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinker

LOL

You have that backasswards. If only society valued art, music, poetry and philosophy as much as it does sports.

---

Oh no doubt you're right regarding the world at large, but at the SDMB, where quite a few posters were former high school AV club geeks who had had a few too many wedgies at the hands of the football team, and still had a mad-on for jocks even decades later, it was an edgy position to hold. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

Oh no doubt you're right regarding the world at large, but at the SDMB, where quite a few posters were former high school AV club geeks who had had a few too many wedgies at the hands of the football team, and still had a mad-on for jocks even decades later, it was an edgy position to hold. ;)

---

Ha, fair enough.

In addition in pepper's thing about bad diets, I would like to add this:

Low fat alternatives mean exactly that. It has lower fat. It probably has higher sugar, salt and artificial flavours. It is certainly fattening, perhaps even more so. Low fat junkfood is not healthy. It will not help you lose weight if this is the only compromise you make with your lifestyle.

But that is hardly controversial.

So many choices... :p

I don't believe that democracy (defined as rule by the majority of the people, not as "good") is a morally superior system of government. What matters is that the government respects individual rights, and, more basically, what it does, not how those decisions are made. Of course, democracies are generally more likely over time to be less oppressive, but that does not make it a justifiable basis to "let the people decide" when that decision would lead to oppression or violation of peoples' rights. This is precisely what irritates me about people who want to hand Palestine over to the democratically-elected Hamas party (and proceed to let them, at the very least, kick out the Israeli settlers), who complain about "tyranny of the courts" (whether in the context of gay marriage, abortion, gun control or campaign finance reform), or who want to abolish the filibuster (be it "nuclear option" Republicans of the Bush era or current Democrats). So while democracy generally works out better than rule by philosopher kings, if a hypothetical enlightened absolutist were to do a better job, I'd have no problem with it on that basis alone (it's just highly unlikely).

By the way, this is what my signature comes from. It means: "They should not be listened to who keep saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God, for the clamor of the vulgate is always close to insanity." (Also, it is coincidentally the first use of the phrase "vox populi, vox Dei" on record.)

I don't believe that sexual orientation is completely inborn and unchangeable. And so, I'm not exactly opposed to the concept of actively trying to change one's own for whatever reason. I don't feel like people should be discouraged from making an effort to be straight (or gay, as the case may be), if they feel like that's what would make them happy. Also, I think in the long run it'll be more useful to get across that it doesn't make any difference whether orientation is a choice or inborn, either way there's nothing wrong with being gay, rather than the party line of "I can't help it, I was just born that way."

That said, I am completely opposed to the current practice of "reparative therapy", which is essentially Christian ministries parading as psychologists and using their patients' shame and self-loathing against them to push them into a mold of Christ-approved heteronormative behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

So many choices... :p

I don't believe that democracy (defined as rule by the majority of the people, not as "good") is a morally superior system of government. What matters is that the government respects individual rights, and, more basically, what it does, not how those decisions are made. Of course, democracies are generally more likely over time to be less oppressive, but that does not make it a justifiable basis to "let the people decide" when that decision would lead to oppression or violation of peoples' rights. This is precisely what irritates me about people who want to hand Palestine over to the democratically-elected Hamas party (and proceed to let them, at the very least, kick out the Israeli settlers), who complain about "tyranny of the courts" (whether in the context of gay marriage, abortion, gun control or campaign finance reform), or who want to abolish the filibuster (be it "nuclear option" Republicans of the Bush era or current Democrats). So while democracy generally works out better than rule by philosopher kings, if a hypothetical enlightened absolutist were to do a better job, I'd have no problem with it on that basis alone (it's just highly unlikely).

By the way, this is what my signature comes from. It means: "They should not be listened to who keep saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God, for the clamor of the vulgate is always close to insanity." (Also, it is coincidentally the first use of the phrase "vox populi, vox Dei" on record.)

---

Oh, Vox. Vox, Vox, Vox, Vox.

I, shockingly, agree with you. Democracy is not necessarily the best system, because the opinions of "the people" may be geared toward protecting the majority (something a tyranny has no guarantee of) but there's nothing about it whatsoever that might protect the minority. And when, to correct the faults of democracy, you have the activist judges trying to protect minorities (I'm thinking specifically of miscegenation laws, SSM, the overturned sodomy laws, etc., but there are further examples) there's always that voice out there crying, "But that isn't democratic. We should vote on it." And the voting public is about twenty years behind modern civil rights.

I don't know what the solution is and I know it's a terribly unpopular opinion, but no, the voice of the people is not the voice of God. The voice of the people has apparently kept Survivor going for twenty seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

I don't believe that sexual orientation is completely inborn and unchangeable. And so, I'm not exactly opposed to the concept of actively trying to change one's own for whatever reason. I don't feel like people should be discouraged from making an effort to be straight (or gay, as the case may be), if they feel like that's what would make them happy. Also, I think in the long run it'll be more useful to get across that it doesn't make any difference whether orientation is a choice or inborn, either way there's nothing wrong with being gay, rather than the party line of "I can't help it, I was just born that way."

That said, I am completely opposed to the current practice of "reparative therapy", which is essentially Christian ministries parading as psychologists and using their patients' shame and self-loathing against them to push them into a mold of Christ-approved heteronormative behavior.

---

I think I agree with you but only partially. I suspect without proof that people vary. Some are born straight and some gay and another largish portion are probably not set one way or another but come to their sexuality as they grow up. For this middle group orientation could be changed I would think but it does not mean that "reparative therapy" should be done and it is unlikely to do anything but cause damage. Hell even the weird experiments of trying to get lefties to write righty turned out to be a harmful and a bad idea. That seems like it would be a lot less potentially dangerous.

For the record, I wasn't really suggesting that therapy of any sort would be particularly useful to reorient oneself. Also, I should add that I think sexuality very likely is unchangeable for some people. Just not everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

And so, I'm not exactly opposed to the concept of actively trying to change one's own for whatever reason. I don't feel like people should be discouraged from making an effort to be straight (or gay, as the case may be), if they feel like that's what would make them happy.

---

This may be my straight person privilege talking, but I don't know why anyone would want to change orientations in a perfect society where there was no bigotry. I think the problem is with the culture, not the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Also, I think in the long run it'll be more useful to get across that it doesn't make any difference whether orientation is a choice or inborn, either way there's nothing wrong with being gay, rather than the party line of "I can't help it, I was just born that way."

---

I agree with this.

Can a mode please change the thread title to "Uncontroversial Opinions"? Because about 90% of the posts here are things that 90% of the people here or at the SDMB agree on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

So many choices... :p

I don't believe that democracy (defined as rule by the majority of the people, not as "good") is a morally superior system of government. What matters is that the government respects individual rights, and, more basically, what it does, not how those decisions are made. Of course, democracies are generally more likely over time to be less oppressive, but that does not make it a justifiable basis to "let the people decide" when that decision would lead to oppression or violation of peoples' rights. This is precisely what irritates me about people who want to hand Palestine over to the democratically-elected Hamas party (and proceed to let them, at the very least, kick out the Israeli settlers), who complain about "tyranny of the courts" (whether in the context of gay marriage, abortion, gun control or campaign finance reform), or who want to abolish the filibuster (be it "nuclear option" Republicans of the Bush era or current Democrats). So while democracy generally works out better than rule by philosopher kings, if a hypothetical enlightened absolutist were to do a better job, I'd have no problem with it on that basis alone (it's just highly unlikely).

By the way, this is what my signature comes from. It means: "They should not be listened to who keep saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God, for the clamor of the vulgate is always close to insanity." (Also, it is coincidentally the first use of the phrase "vox populi, vox Dei" on record.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Our Lord and Master, The Great and Terrible Zuul

Oh, Vox. Vox, Vox, Vox, Vox.

I, shockingly, agree with you. Democracy is not necessarily the best system, because the opinions of "the people" may be geared toward protecting the majority (something a tyranny has no guarantee of) but there's nothing about it whatsoever that might protect the minority. And when, to correct the faults of democracy, you have the activist judges trying to protect minorities (I'm thinking specifically of miscegenation laws, SSM, the overturned sodomy laws, etc., but there are further examples) there's always that voice out there crying, "But that isn't democratic. We should vote on it." And the voting public is about twenty years behind modern civil rights.

I don't know what the solution is and I know it's a terribly unpopular opinion, but no, the voice of the people is not the voice of God. The voice of the people has apparently kept Survivor going for twenty seasons.

---

The solution is what we have here in the U.S. A Democratic Republic where the rule of Law (the Constitution) is higher than the rule of man (a tyranny) or the rule of the mob (a straight democracy). A good republic protects the rights of the smallest minority, the individual. Without individual rights no others mater for they can be taken away from you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

OK, I've got another one, which I'm not sure is controversial or not, but it's probably not very PC. I have a lot of difficulty believing that poly relationships are psychologically healthy.

---

I'll bite. First off if you're going to claim that poly relationships can be psychologically and emotionally unhealthy, I'll agree 100%. If you're going to argue that all poly relationships must be unhealthy, then I'll argue.

There are certainly abusive relationships being disguised or explained as poly relationships, with a dose of 'you couldn't understand,' to get them past the rough spots. But, again, that's not unique to poly relationships.

What I think it more to the point is that not everyone can handle the stresses of being in a poly relationship. Jealousies in normal families can crop up often enough - with a poly relationship, there's got to be more certain trust than I often see in monogamous relationships, or it won't work. But simply because I acknowledge that something is difficult, and not for universal in its potential application doesn't mean that it's necessarily unhealthy. Simply that it's not healthy for everyone.

And that's something that can be said about monogamous relationships, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Can a mode please change the thread title to "Uncontroversial Opinions"? Because about 90% of the posts here are things that 90% of the people here or at the SDMB agree on.

---

ETA: yelling deleted since Exy posted his opinions below

Free software is usually terrible. This is because it is largely developed by people who enjoy programming but aren't good enough at it to get anyone to pay them to do it professionally.

Fruit juice is just as bad as soda. They're both poison. It's foolish to drink either of them frequently. For that matter, fruit isn't that great for you.

The almost universal hatred for animal rights activists that one sees on the internet is excessive and stupid. Most of the criticism people lodge at PeTA and the like is silly, and it comes out of a broader hostility to left-wing activism that has been carefully created through decades of deliberate manipulation of public opinion.

The pharmaceutical companies are not screwing people over. There are some bad guys in the health care industry but it's not the drug makers.

It's perfectly accurate to call homosexuality a "biological error". It's almost certainly a negative evolutionary adaptation, because it almost certainly reduces reproductive fitness. The various theories people come up with to try to explain this away are ridiculous on their face.

Joe Biden is funny as hell. And kind of sexy.

People who complain about media coverage of celebrity news are deliberately seeking it. I know this because I don't care for celebrity news and as a result I invariably have not heard of whatever news story you are complaining about. No, the media do not force celebrity coverage down our throats. You know about Brangelina's children or charity album or tumor or whatever because you chose to read about it.

There's nothing wrong with the way the young people say "like" so much. It's not even young people in particular. It's found frequently in the spontaneous speech of Americans in their forties. And the use of "like" to introduce quotations (And I was like or she's all like and so forth) is a fascinating little linguistic innovation that became popular because it's quite useful.

Deviant sexual impulses are way more common in men than women. Women tend not to appreciate the magnitude of this difference.