Post your unpopular opinions

[JuniperWoolf]

It's "human", and therefore it's good?

It's unnatual to do everything we can, despite the cost, to ensure the (comfortable) survival of mankind. There's nothing artificial about diseased or starving people dying. It's against ecological principles to feed every animal and insect that's starving or to cure every animal that's ill.

I think creating cures for diseases, sending food to those who are starving, attempting to create rain, genetically manipulating plants and animals, locking up animals in tiny places, importing food is not natural at all. It's "civilisation" that has been screwing with nature. People seem to think they're above everything else, including the 'laws that have been around for billions of years' before we were born. People want to control every little aspect of their lives. I'm not concerned about the planet or nature. They'll be fine.

People have become a plague. An artificially sustained plague.

So you want to end suffering by keeping the fat, comfortable white first world alive and letting everyone else die a slow, painful and utterly disgusting death? End suffering by letting the sufferers die, so that everyone else can go on living a nice existence at their local Starbucks, completely free of guilt?

The problem isn't that our population is so large that there aren't enough resources in existence to sustain us, it's that 90% of the resources that exist are being used up by 10% of the population. The other day my friend Sean spent $700 on a hat. The leading cause of death in America is obesity, from over-consuming resources. Before genocide, couldn't we just try to share? Global poverty hasn't stretched so far, and overpopulation hasn't reached the point where some white kid in the first world has any right to call for the death of Africa.

Two questions:

1. Have you ever eaten so much that you made yourself sick?

2. Have you ever sat next to someone who was starving to death?

If the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second "no," then you might want to reconsider your opinion.

If the same little girl's father visits her bedroom everytime he's drunk and calls that love; if he beats up the little girl's mother out of boredom and calls that love, can all these acts be considered love too because that is his definition of "feeling of love"?

Actually, I have doubts that even a woman beater and pedophile would be warped enough to honestly believe in his mind that incestual child rape and assault for the sake of boredom is "love." Even if that's what he calls it when he's talking to the cops, he knows that that isn't what he's feeling. I'd be willing to try to prove that.

Again, "love" is just a word, which means that it's nothing more than a symbol. This symbol is representing something that's complex to say the least, because love is subjective and can't be accurately defined. For anyone to say that love at first sight isn't love is silly. What is love, then? And why try to prove that feelings of love for someone that you don't personally know isn't real? The world needs more love anyway.

[Propter W.]

So you want to end suffering by keeping the fat, comfortable white first world alive and letting everyone else die a slow, painful and utterly disgusting death? End suffering by letting the sufferers die, so that everyone else can go on living a nice existence at their local Starbucks, completely free of guilt?

No and no. Where did you get that?

The problem isn't that our population is so large that there aren't enough resources in existence to sustain us, it's that 90% of the resources that exist are being used up by 10% of the population. The other day my friend Sean spent $700 on a hat. The leading cause of death in America is obesity, from over-consuming resources. Before genocide, couldn't we just try to share? Global poverty hasn't stretched so far, and overpopulation hasn't reached the point where some white kid in the first world has any right to call for the death of Africa.

It doesn't matter who uses up 90% of the resources. If you give everyone an equal share, which, I agree, would be better, we'd still be using the same amount of resources at the same rate. And that is the real problem, because we are rapidly depleting our natural resources, which we desperately need.

Feeding everyone who is starving ameliorates the problem. You might not want to hear this and you might imply I'm a racist but it is simply the truth. The same goes for saving people from floods, earth quakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, and in general disease etc. You'd rather cover your ears, beause the truth is ugly. It doesn't change the facts, however. People think they can play god, without there being consequences. Well, you're wrong.

Agriculture is a means to an end and that end is to feed mankind. Who gets fed or what percentage of the population gets fed is beside the point, or rather a different point. In order to feed ourselves, we need land. So everything that grows and lives on that land has to be removed or killed. By doing this, we are threatening the very ecosystem we are a part of. But that's just the beginning. Once we've killed and destroyed a part of nature, we plant whatever it is we want to plant or we raise cattle on this new ground. Of course, the food we plant is meant for humans, we can't have animals, insects for example, eating our plants. So we kill them. Nevermind what this could do to the ecosystem. We kill them with pesticides, more than 90% of which reaches other targets, killing others species as well and affecting our soil, water and air. If we raise sheep, for example, for food, again we can't have any competition. Mankind doesn't share. Kill the wolves and all the other predators that might threaten our flock of sheep, our supply of food.

The more people on earth, the more land we need to feed them. To produce one steak, thousands of litres of water is need. Agriculture demands extremely high amounts of freshwater, which is (becoming) scarce already. This precious resource, which we cannot live without, is polluted by pesticides and fertilizer. Well, there's always fish. Wait, no... we are currently screwing up marine ecosystems at an alarmingly fast rate!

And that's just agriculture. This ever-increasing population will need wood, stone, cotton, apparently hats that cost $700, books, air conditioning, computers, cars, ducktape etc. Most of these things directly or indirectly contribute to the destruction of our environment.

It's a problem people like yourself are not willing to face because the implications are too daunting. So, you'd rather ignore the problem. Accepting this truth, equals recognising that the foundations of our entire society are wrong.

Two questions:

1. Have you ever eaten so much that you made yourself sick?

2. Have you ever sat next to someone who was starving to death?

If the answer to the first question is "yes" and the answer to the second "no," then you might want to reconsider your opinion.

1. No
2. No

[1n50mn14]

Oh, boy, oh, boy this is a great thread, Lit-Net, once again reminding me why I have NOT been around the forums for the past several months. The OP has some VERY valid points, yet you immediately jump to conclusions about his/her moral standing, and accuse said poster of trolling, when really he/she just has different view points from the majority of you. I see nothing wrong with the OP's opinions. And the majority of you take the crap you're fed about why things are the way they are and the way things 'should' be.

How's THAT for an unpopular opinion?

[JuniperWoolf]

No and no. Where did you get that?

You said:

1. We are overpopulating the world. It's more destructive to feed those who are starving. Stop sending food to countries where famine is a reality

We have so much food that it's literally hurting our health, and there are people on the other side of the ocean that are starving to death. The problem isn't overpopulation, it's distribution. Yet, you call for us to just sit around and let starving people die.

It doesn't matter who uses up 90% of the resources. If you give everyone an equal share, which, I agree, would be better, we'd still be using the same amount of resources at the same rate. And that is the real problem, because we are rapidly depleting our natural resources, which we desperately need.

Actually, not really. The technology that we're using to produce and deliver the things that we need to live (food, fresh water, clothing, whatever) is inefficient because it uses a material that takes too long to produce (carbon fuels, mostly). Bad old technology and scientific advancement are working on alternatives, and finding them too. Resistance is mostly from corporations and apathy, but we’re pretty close to living without oil dependence.

Again, if overpopulation were really that bad, there wouldn't be so many fat people having heart attacks everywhere. If you really want to get all pushy about overpopulation, you should argue in favour of providing funds to poor countries so that people can become educated and learn how to prevent pregnancy, or we could send them money for food so they would have what they need for their families so that they don't have to whore themselves out for money to eat and feed the children that they have from when they were children and were forced into that lifestyle by want. Or, if you wanted to take it a step further, you could get onto the pope and the catholic church and protest the fact that they'll only provide aid to poor countries if they are allowed to set up churches in communities to preach against the use of birth control. Instead of asking for people in the first world to let poor people die, maybe you should learn more about the issue.

Feeding everyone who is starving ameliorates the problem. You might not want to hear this and you might imply I'm a racist but it is simply the truth. The same goes for saving people from floods, earth quakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, and in general disease etc. You'd rather cover your ears, beause the truth is ugly. It doesn't change the facts, however. People think they can play god, without there being consequences. Well, you're wrong.

I'm not covering my ears, I'm researching an issue fully before I come to a decision. You think that you're being groundbreaking, brave and honest. Well, you're not. You aren't the first person to say "let dying people die," look into history. You're one of the people that are standing in the way of human progress. I’m not a coward (I think it's funny how you say that like sitting on your *** and letting a continent die is somehow “brave“), you’re just looking for an easy fix. Lay back and let them die, no work involved! And, you can feel good about yourself because you're just "letting the natural thing happen." Forget the fact that our predecessors moved in and stole land and forced people into slavery dehumanizing them and prohibiting Africans from learning, thus preventing their progress and making white Europeans a huge contributing factor to Africa's current situation, that's in the past.

The more people on earth, the more land we need to feed them. To produce one steak, thousands of litres of water is need. Agriculture demands extremely high amounts of freshwater, which is (becoming) scarce already. This precious resource, which we cannot live without, is polluted by pesticides and fertilizer. Well, there's always fish. Wait, no... we are currently screwing up marine ecosystems at an alarmingly fast rate!

The excess people aren't being fed, so they aren’t using up your precious “resources.” They're standing around with stomachs that are digesting themselves waiting for a bag of flour to drop from the sky. There are so many of them because they don't know how to control the rate of birth, or they're prohibited to by the people who promise them salvation, or they need to have sex because it's the only way that they can afford to eat their one serving of food a week. Focus on the rate of birth, not the rate of death.

Also, you're pretty pessimistic. Cheer up, man. Look at how much noise the "green" movement has made in the last decade. When I was a kid, anyone who recycled was considered a freak. Now people who don't are shunned. Anyone who smokes a damn cigarette is ostracized. It's irritating because you can tell that these people are getting off on their own self-righteousness, but as long as this trend continues we as a species have a pretty good chance. It’s progress. Really, really annoying progress.

And that's just agriculture. This ever-increasing population will need wood, stone, cotton, apparently hats that cost $700, books, air conditioning, computers, cars, ducktape etc. Most of these things directly or indirectly contribute to the destruction of our environment.

Haha, we need those things, do we? You kind of missed my point of throwing my stupid friend in there. There’s so much pointless stuff in the first world, I’m sitting here looking at a $70 lamp. WE DON'T NEED SO MUCH CRAP. If you were to take the money that we've used on stupid, pointless crap you'd be able to solve global poverty, no problem. Your views are too extremist, I think you might like the "emotionally detached rebel visionary" style that they give you. Moderation is the key, my friend.

It's a problem people like yourself are not willing to face because the implications are too daunting. So, you'd rather ignore the problem. Accepting this truth, equals recognising that the foundations of our entire society are wrong.

"Accepting the truth?" The facts are "too daunting?" Not really, buddy. Getting right in there, seeing people who are sick or dying from poverty and trying to find an actual solution that doesn't include sitting there in your house and hearing about things from a nice safe distance so that you can separate yourself emotionally from human suffering, THAT'S truth. I’ve got to just say, you have a pretty limited scope of technology and development. See, the problem is that you don't really understand how the problem was brought about or how the system works. Overpopulation on one continent in one generation could be rectified within fifty years given a bit of education and funds, it's not like these excess people are going to live forever and steal the subway sandwich out of your hands.

1. No

Bull. You've never stuffed yourself on Christmas or Thanksgiving? If not, then you're among the few in the first world. Most people eat until they make themselves uncomfortable at every meal.

I see nothing wrong with the OP's opinions.

Even the weird pedophilia thing?

[1n50mn14]

Even the weird pedophilia thing?

Except that.
That requires further analysis.

[Cunninglinguist]

I think these comments might be impertinant now but,

Many people (most?) are capable of thinking that they feel an emotion that they don't. There was recently a thread regarding "love at first sight". A physical response is NOT an emotion (love) but the two are often confused.

Depending on how you define the word, love is not necessarily a state of mind. It can be used as the state of a relationship between two (or more) people, just as happiness is not necessarily a state of mind but a state of ones life (i.e. he lives a happy life, though not every moment is pleasurable). The definitions are rather loose and often used interchangably. For example, you can say "I love x," which is to state the state of the relationship between you and x in the exact same way you can say "I own x." On the other hand, however, you can say "I feel love," which is to state your state of mind (Note how absurd it is to say "I feel own"). This is something to keep in mind while approaching an argument (or crafting one).

"Love" is just a word representing a subjective experience. What anyone believes is love, is love. If I see a little girl walking outside of my house trip over a crack in the sidewalk and hurt her knees, then I feel a rush of tenderness for the kid and define it as a "feeling of love" to myself, then that's what it is.

Same point here. Depending on how you want to define it, love is not necessarily subjective. In other words, it is not necessarily a state of mind but the state of a relationship.