unpopular opinions

[FenrirDarkWolf]

8 minutes ago, Cingal said:

I think resolving issues of gender identity should be about stopping a person feeling that way, not further playing into the fantasy.

I can't... actually tell what you're trying to convey by saying this.

I know it looks pretty cut and dry, but can you elaborate?

[Gay Tush]

8 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

What if they don't get aroused by the opposite sex?

That kind of sucks yeah. I am in no way advocating that any homosexuals out there try to be heterosexual, I'm just saying it's entirely possible to live their lives pretending to be one. Historically this has definitely happened, in times when open homosexual behavior was reason for persecution. While times have improved and I think now is a better time an ever to be gay, I don't believe in the tyranny of "you must do this/ you must follow your heart," because there might be people who value some other things more like social structure or whatever. 

[WileyWarWeasel]

1 hour ago, Gay Tush said:

That kind of sucks yeah. I am in no way advocating that any homosexuals out there try to be heterosexual, I'm just saying it's entirely possible to live their lives pretending to be one. Historically this has definitely happened, in times when open homosexual behavior was reason for persecution. While times have improved and I think now is a better time an ever to be gay, I don't believe in the tyranny of "you must do this/ you must follow your heart," because there might be people who value some other things more like social structure or whatever. 

So you believe in the tyranny of "you must only be with the opposite sex" and that social structure cannot be maintained if gay people don't pretend to be straight?

[ChaosCalix]

1 hour ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

So you believe in the tyranny of "you must only be with the opposite sex" and that social structure cannot be maintained if gay people don't pretend to be straight?

You're putting words in @Gay Tush's mouth. They're saying they don't believe in the idea that if you're gay, you MUST seek to be in a homosexual relationship (which now that it's been mentioned, I have seen people who act that way). I'm not taking sides on the matter, just saying that what you're saying is jumping the gun and making assumptions about their perspective.

[FlynnCoyote]

Faith is not a virtuous trait. Faith is a mental crutch that allows you to believe whatever you want, despite any evidence to the contrary.

People who place faith above all else are not rational people and should not be in positions of authority.

[WileyWarWeasel]

59 minutes ago, ChaosCalix said:

You're putting words in @Gay Tush's mouth. They're saying they don't believe in the idea that if you're gay, you MUST seek to be in a homosexual relationship (which now that it's been mentioned, I have seen people who act that way). I'm not taking sides on the matter, just saying that what you're saying is jumping the gun and making assumptions about their perspective.

You're right, I was getting ahead of myself there. @Gay Tush I'm not sure what to make of your position now.

[Cingal]

4 hours ago, FenrirDarkWolf said:

I can't... actually tell what you're trying to convey by saying this.

I know it looks pretty cut and dry, but can you elaborate?

 

I think gender related illnesses should resolved by accepting who you are rather than a whole bunch of surgery which ultimately can't change the sex of a person, just their appearance.

[Vae]

35 minutes ago, Cingal said:

I think gender related illnesses should resolved by accepting who you are rather than a whole bunch of surgery which ultimately can't change the sex of a person, just their appearance.

What does it matter if people both have the money and wish to undertake the risks of surgery?
Whether that be for cosmetic reasons, identity reasons, or otherwise?

If I pay money, and expend time and effort to change my hair color (something I actually do), why shouldn't I be allowed to do that if I want? Obviously, I don't grow blue hair IRL, but honestly, who gives a fuck.

We work out, because we're dissatisfied with our physiques and health.
We wear makeup to change the look of our face.
We wear certain cuts of clothing because of the way it shapes our bodies and makes our forms look.
We shave because we don't like the way our hair naturally grows in certain places.
We take chemicals to alter the unfavorable chemistry mixes we're born with.
We use birth control so we don't breed as a result of sex.
We dye our hair because we're dissatisfied with the color we're genetically born with.
We legally change our names because we're dissatisfied with the ones we were given at birth.

How is getting gender reassignment surgery any different?

We alter things to change our needs and wants.
That's part of being human.

[Cingal]

3 minutes ago, Vae said:

What does it matter if people both have the money and wish to undertake the risks of surgery?
Whether that be for cosmetic reasons, identity reasons, or otherwise?

If I pay money, and expend time and effort to change my hair color (something I actually do), why shouldn't I be allowed to do that if I want? Obviously, I don't grow blue hair IRL, but honestly, who gives a fuck.

We work out, because we're dissatisfied with our physiques and health.
We wear makeup to change the look of our face.
We wear certain cuts of clothing because of the way it shapes our bodies and makes our forms look.
We shave because we don't like the way our hair naturally grows in certain places.
We take chemicals to alter the unfavorable chemistry mixes we're born with.
We use birth control so we don't breed as a result of sex.
We dye our hair because we're dissatisfied with the color we're genetically born with.
We legally change our names because we're dissatisfied with the ones we were given at birth.

How is getting gender reassignment surgery any different?

We alter things to change our needs and wants.
That's part of being human.

Sure, but I live in England and so socialist healthcare means that rather than it being a case of a person paying for a thing, society at large has to. 

 

What people do with their own money isn't much of a concern but having others pay for it rather is.

 

I suppose there's some question to ask where the line crosses from body modification to self harm, and I'm unsure where that line is.

[Spot]

Make a separate thread about it ya windbags, could do without the notifications.

Thread related: shuffling is lame.  

  

[Astus]

This new rap or hip hop music (whatever it is I don't really care) craze is terrible.

[Vae]

4 hours ago, Cingal said:

Sure, but I live in England and so socialist healthcare means that rather than it being a case of a person paying for a thing, society at large has to. 

What people do with their own money isn't much of a concern but having others pay for it rather is.

I suppose there's some question to ask where the line crosses from body modification to self harm, and I'm unsure where that line is.

In the cases of actual dysphoria, that's like asking why anyone should pay for any actual mental conditions, or why those issues should exist in the first place.

"Why don't people with depression just... you know... stop being depressed?"
Because that's not how psychology works.

A lot of things could cross into "self-harm," by that definition. Smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy shit, etc.
Things that far more people do, with a far more costly impact on a socially-funded system, than the rather miniscule amount of HRT treatments and SRS surgeries that actually occur.

"Self-harm" generally qualifies as deliberate, personal action taken to mutilate the body out of self-directed maliciousness, anyway.
It's more of an intent thing.
People getting SRS aren't trying to hurt themselves. They're just trying to change themselves.

[Lucyfish]

Justin Bieber can sing.

 

He's a little shitling, but he's got pipes.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Lucyfish

[Cingal]

16 minutes ago, Vae said:

In the cases of actual dysphoria, that's like asking why anyone should pay for any actual mental conditions, or why those issues should exist in the first place.

"Why don't people with depression just... you know... stop being depressed?"
Because that's not how psychology works.

A lot of things could cross into "self-harm," by that definition. Smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy shit, etc.
Things that far more people do, with a far more costly impact on a socially-funded system, than the rather miniscule amount of HRT treatments and SRS surgeries that actually occur.

"Self-harm" generally qualifies as deliberate, personal action taken to mutilate the body out of self-directed maliciousness, anyway.
It's more of an intent thing.
People getting SRS aren't trying to hurt themselves. They're just trying to change themselves.

My argument isn't with treating these people, it's that the treatment is wrong.

I simply don't believe that changing one's physical appearance has any affect on that fact that you're still male or female given that your DNA is still the same.

 

Ultimately, people who have SRS or HRT still have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

 

So, we have a treatment that, after which, you're still significantly likely to kill yourself. That doesn't really seem like it solves the whole thing.

As such, I just think that resolving gender issues with "Changing yourself" is wrong, and that instead we should focus on people accepting who they are via other methods.

To use your example of depression, it's like saying "Why don't we just give depressed people a bunch of money, solve all their problems and leave them nothing to be depressed about!" rather than "Let's teach depressed people to not be depressed with behaviour therapy."

[Vae]

35 minutes ago, Cingal said:

My argument isn't with treating these people, it's that the treatment is wrong.

I simply don't believe that changing one's physical appearance has any affect on that fact that you're still male or female given that your DNA is still the same.

 

Ultimately, people who have SRS or HRT still have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

 

So, we have a treatment that, after which, you're still significantly likely to kill yourself. That doesn't really seem like it solves the whole thing.

As such, I just think that resolving gender issues with "Changing yourself" is wrong, and that instead we should focus on people accepting who they are via other methods.

To use your example of depression, it's like saying "Why don't we just give depressed people a bunch of money, solve all their problems and leave them nothing to be depressed about!" rather than "Let's teach depressed people to not be depressed with behaviour therapy."

Wait, so giving people hormone treatments and sexual reassignment surgeries through a funded system is just like tossing money at them and solving everything else in their lives?
Lol what?
Gee, I didn't know that transitioning came with that big of a care package in England. Brb, crossing the ocean.

Your argument was that they do not warrant surgery, because of their issues. Because you feel they can just "solve" them through self-acceptance.
That is not your call to make.
Just as it's not your call to make on whether someone with depression should take pills, seek therapy, or if their chemistry can even be fixed by altering their mindset, to begin with. (And as someone who has issues in the regulation of chemicals in my brain, sorry, it's not quite that easy. It's not even easy with medication, for that matter.)

I don't think people are focused on their dna. They want to be who they feel comfortable as.

Furthermore, HRT and SRS do not increase suicide rates. What does is... well... the obvious. Environmental factors.
Despite everything else, being trans still creates a fuckton of issues with how people treat you in society. Everything from actual discrimination, to the simple, consistent devaluation of your person by insistence in not respecting your actual gender identity.

[some reading]
[some more reading]

Granted, there should be better support options offered to transgenders because of how delicate of a process this is, and the issues that surround it.
But telling them "You don't need surgery. You just need to accept yourself." is not it.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Vae
redundant acronym use

[Onnes]

44 minutes ago, Cingal said:

Ultimately, people who have SRS or HRT still have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

The control group for a study about the efficacy of HRT/SRS should be people with gender dysphoria who do not transition, not the general population. Using the general population, you'll likely see similar effects for absolutely any medical or psychiatric intervention just by virtue of someone requiring such an intervention already being more prone to adverse events than the population at large. The question is not "Is X a complete panacea?" but "Is X better than not-X?"

The underlying issue is that you're trying to consider an alternative that does not currently exist, namely that there's an at least equally efficacious treatment for gender dysphoria that is on some metric more 'palatable' than transition.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Onnes
typos

[PastryOfApathy]

20 minutes ago, Cingal said:

My argument isn't with treating these people, it's that the treatment is wrong.

I simply don't believe that changing one's physical appearance has any affect on that fact that you're still male or female given that your DNA is still the same.

 

Ultimately, people who have SRS or HRT still have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

 

So, we have a treatment that, after which, you're still significantly likely to kill yourself. That doesn't really seem like it solves the whole thing.

As such, I just think that resolving gender issues with "Changing yourself" is wrong, and that instead we should focus on people accepting who they are via other methods.

To use your example of depression, it's like saying "Why don't we just give depressed people a bunch of money, solve all their problems and leave them nothing to be depressed about!" rather than "Let's teach depressed people to not be depressed with behaviour therapy."

Okie dokie. As a certified faggot I'm gonna quickly explain why you're wrong.

As I'm sure many people are more or less aware at this point (since nowadays like 1 in 4 forum people have to be a tranny for some reason) the whole reason for trans-y feelings is due to "Gender Dysphoria", which is simply your brain's "gender" and body's sexy parts don't match. That's actual science by the way.

HRT rectifies this discomfort by changing your chemical and physical body structure to be more in tune with your "brain sex", which outside of "pray-the-gay-away" styles of repression or full on lobotomy can't be changed. Same thing as SRS, albeit to a lesser extent and is more of a final bow than anything else.

This isn't like depression, you can't just take a dysphoria-be-gone pill. The only way to end it is to target the thing that's causing the actual dysphoria, otherwise you end up with married men with kids in their 50's coming out and ruining the lives of several other people and turning into horrifying she-man monstrosities.

I'm not gonna talk about the suicide part because that's just fucking dumb.

[Lucyfish]

51 minutes ago, Cingal said:

My argument isn't with treating these people, it's that the treatment is wrong.

I simply don't believe that changing one's physical appearance has any affect on that fact that you're still male or female given that your DNA is still the same.

 

Ultimately, people who have SRS or HRT still have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

 

So, we have a treatment that, after which, you're still significantly likely to kill yourself. That doesn't really seem like it solves the whole thing.

As such, I just think that resolving gender issues with "Changing yourself" is wrong, and that instead we should focus on people accepting who they are via other methods.

To use your example of depression, it's like saying "Why don't we just give depressed people a bunch of money, solve all their problems and leave them nothing to be depressed about!" rather than "Let's teach depressed people to not be depressed with behaviour therapy."

I guarantee if I'm forced to live my life with this fucking thing dangling between my legs I'm much more likely to live a shorter life.

It's my body, why should I not change it to suit what makes me feel right? How is that wrong?

I don't want to accept myself how I was born, because that would just be me giving up on living happily. It is impossible for me to have these sexual organs and live a life feeling how I should. When I look in the mirror and I see peach fuzz I literally break down into tears sometimes. I hate what I was born as, it is completely wrong and it does not fit who I am, a woman.

You should probably read some books about dysphoria. There's no pill or therapy you can take to get rid of it. Trust me, they've been trying for decades. It doesn't work at all.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

8 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Faith is not a virtuous trait. Faith is a mental crutch that allows you to believe whatever you want, despite any evidence to the contrary.

People who place faith above all else are not rational people and should not be in positions of authority.

I agree with your second sentence in the sense that extremely irrational people shouldn't maintain positions of authority, but the idea of a human being "rational" is not only an oxymoron but an outright absurdity to boot; you're not going to get a bastion of reason and logic to run for any authority position because such a person probably doesn't exist at all.

Also, I really wish people would start to comprehend that the vast majority of humans that reside on this wonderful water ball of ours are religious or spiritual in some shape or form.

Religiosity has a substantial genetic underpinning (roughly a 0.50 heritability coefficient if I recall). You won't be able to get the intrinsically religious to completely denounce their beliefs.

It's an unreasonable expectation that simply cannot be satisfied.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

Just now, Saxon said:

Your notion that people are intrinsically religious and that there's no point reasoning with them is pretty silly @I Did It For The Cat Girls I'm pretty sure you misunderstood some paper about heritability or predisposition somewhere and potentially confused 'genetic predisposition' with 'inevitability'. 

I'm not a genetic determinist.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Then it's silly to think that it's useless reasoning with religious people because 'their genes are making them intrinsically religious', isn't it? 

 

I think you're misconstruing my point. I didn't say it was pointless in trying to reason with religious people. Obviously, it's possible to a notable point regarding things such as evolution, but you, Rassah, CaptainCool, and several other posters on this forum seem to maintain the peculiar position that you can somehow transform a theist or spiritualist into a perfectly rational atheist droid who will treat the writings and work of Albert Einstein as gospel and see Richard Dawkins as the new messiah of mankind if you just preach science at them enough.

This is just as nonsensical (if not even more so) than a persistent and devout Christian attempting to make me a willing convert by taking me to their church every Sunday, reciting bible excerpts to me during religious study sessions, or encircling me with four of their fellow churchgoers and sternly informing me that I will be condemned to an eternal afterlife of harrowing agony in Satan's domain if I do not permit Christ into my heart. After having been authoritatively lectured, preached at, and savagely derided by a wide assortment of friends, family, and peers for my atheism over the past fifteen years, I can confidently state that am in no way, shape, or form any closer to worshipping God as I was when I was seven. Castigation didn't work; guilt-tripping didn't work; familial exclusion didn't work.

My brain just isn't wired up for religion. It never really was.

If you wish to alter a group or a person's behavioral mores, you'll need to be well aware of the things that you cannot change. Rather than seek to malign human nature through the application of brute force, why not attempt to understand why some people do the things that they do?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[FlynnCoyote]

That is not the point I was trying to make at all. Believe me, I know how hard it is to de-convert people. But I have seen it happen. My point is that so many people seem to think that the pious church going sort will make great leaders and politicians, and I simply do not agree with that sentiment in the slightest.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I will assume that they're a reasonable person

Your faith in humanity is admirable. :v

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

....right.

You're coming off as unconvinced and unimpressed.

Edited February 27, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

14 minutes ago, Saxon said:

On the contrary I think not treating people as if they are reasonable is pretty rude; you're certainly not going to have any productive discussions with someone if you start from the pretext that they're a congenital idiot. 

I usually don't start off thinking that, but I'm often met with what amounts to a brick wall that cannot be surmounted when opening up a controversial topic with someone. It's less about people being idiots and more about them being unreceptive to a contrasting perspective. I see this a lot on these very forums, but I don't take it personally. I'm guilty of this myself.

Pitching an idea to an individual or a group of people without triggering their defensive side isn't exactly easy.

Edited February 27, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Spot]

More gender-bender shit? Willow made a thread for it, take it over there.

[PastryOfApathy]

Older war vets are some of the most nauseatingly entitled fucks on the planet.

They're always the ones starting shit at work, for example today some old fuck took someone else's reserved seat (since when you buy a ticket you have to reserve a seat) and someone eventually came to the front to get him to move.

Next thing you know he's at the front screaming at this poor kid demanding to know his name and personal info and a manager and literally screaming shit like "IS THIS HOW YOU TREAT A VETERAN!?! KICKING ME OUT OF A SEAT,"  and I'm not even kidding, claiming he knows the mayor personally and that he's going to sick him on this random teenager who had the audacity to ask him to move. Another example was when I worked at Kmart we had to ask people if they wanted to donate to some charity that (allegedly) helped sick kids, annoying but completely inoffensive. Then all of a sudden this guy with one of those Vietnam veteran hats comes into my line and I ask him if wants to donate and all of a sudden he gives me this incredulous look and starts saying "pfft, tell me when Kmart starts donating to veterans who really need it," before going on a tirade while I checked him out. Since y'know, sick kids don't deserve shit obviously.

I got nothing against cool vets who don't act like complete spastics, but I swear to god there's so many cunts nowadays who think they deserve everything and can bully people because they were in a war once.

Edited February 28, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Derin Darkpaw]

22 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I swear to god there's so many cunts nowadays who think they deserve everything and can bully people

That basically sums up the majority of retail experience for you right there.  I work as a customer service manager and I swear it feels like 90% of my job is just dealing with entitled shits in one form or another.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

I think that stammering online on text based chats looks pretty dumb. I can understand if you do that IRL or on voice chats, but if you jam that on text to try to appear cute or whyever, it feels like a desperate attempt to appear special.

I mean stuff like "t-thanks. o-oh, s-sorry"

Maybe that's just me.

[CETME]

Coca-Cola isn't that great of a soda

[DrGravitas]

The upcoming VR and AR wave is going to be a fad and suck only a little less than 3DTVs. Few, if any, of the major innovations made since the last wave will make for a more compelling interface in the long run.

[Hux]

I don't care about the Oculus Rift.

[Lucyfish]

I don't think being in the military or serving in open warfare automatically entitles me to unquestioningly respect the hell out of somebody.

If you're a douche, you're a douche, no matter what you've done in the past.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Lucyfish

[Endless/Nameless]

2 hours ago, DrGravitas said:

The upcoming VR and AR wave is going to be a fad and suck only a little less than 3DTVs. Few, if any, of the major innovations made since the last wave will make for a more compelling interface in the long run.

They just wanna blow their load on "whiz-bang lookit we made game whoa boy" instead of actually thinking about putting the technology somewhere that will actually benefit our lives. Kinda like the whole flexible screen craze; everyone's going nuts over these pointless bendy smartphone prototypes instead of thinking "Hey, where can we put this tech that will really make a difference??" It's kinda like if Apple developed the iPhone's capacitative touch display and stuck it on a Blackberry instead.

[willow]

Bieber's new album is actually good. he's still a douche and his fans are still crazy but his new album is tolerable 

[ChaosCalix]

6 hours ago, BlitzCo said:

Coca-Cola isn't that great of a soda

Soda in general is an overrated beverage.

6 hours ago, DrGravitas said:

The upcoming VR and AR wave is going to be a fad and suck only a little less than 3DTVs. Few, if any, of the major innovations made since the last wave will make for a more compelling interface in the long run.

I like the idea of AR, and the practical uses for it. But lets be honest, how many people are actually pursuing practical AR uses? Oh, and VR is a joke and a waste of time in my opinion.

[Lucyfish]

On 3/1/2016 at 3:57 PM, willow said:

Bieber's new album is actually good. he's still a douche and his fans are still crazy but his new album is tolerable 

I've been feeling so weird for thinking the same thing. The new singles I hear from him are like... surprisingly good.

He's still a dickhole sandwich though

[Brazen]

People who look at child/cub porn are pedophiles and should be doxed 

 

[Terminal7]

2 hours ago, Brazen said:

People who look at child/cub porn are pedophiles and should be doxed 

 

size_difference

[CETME]

There are worse artists out there than Nickelback. Sure I can understand some of the dislike for them but I don't understand why people act like they're clones of satan.

[Newt]

1 hour ago, Terminal7 said:

size_difference

aka) the Zaush defense

[Augmented Husky]

iPhones still lack a lot of innovation in terms of actually new things. Yes there are spec bumps and 3D touch but still I really hope the iPhone 7 does something more radical like the Samsung Galaxy Note series did by promoting its big phone before apple did and with a stylus.........also loosing wasted space on bezels is just senseless 

[Spot]

MLP sucks.

[Rabbit Head]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

MLP sucks.

That's not an unpopular opinion.

[Spot]

1 minute ago, Rabbit Head said:

That's not an unpopular opinion.

It is if you're a Brony.

[Rabbit Head]

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

It is if you're a Brony.

Are bronies still a thing?

 

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Rabbit Head said:

Are bronies still a thing?

Are furries still a thing?

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Are furries still a thing?

Is the thing still a thing? 

[Gamedog]

19 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

I've been feeling so weird for thinking the same thing. The new singles I hear from him are like... surprisingly good.

He's still a dickhole sandwich though

 

 

[Lucyfish]

16 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

[Song]

 

That song is really good WHAT THE FUCK DO I DO D:

[Rabbit Head]

3 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Are furries still a thing?

Furries have been dead since the mid-2000's.