Search Results

My tastes tend to broaden. I still like the music, movies and games I liked in high school, but I also like genres now that I (would have) found dreadful back then. So yes, my tastes do change but primarily in a single direction.

I have to arrange boxes in an efficient manner so I have to retain some level of focus, but I catch myself listening to the radio at times, and more often humming my own favourite soungs. An attractive blonde who also works there sometimes distracts me, but I'm careful not to stare. Ideas for writing don't bless me often, unfortunately, nor do other random ponderings that could take up a good chunk of my time. Maybe I should try to actively think about stuff to get me going, but like I said, those damn boxes demnand my attention too.

Good luck with that job by the way!

The question borders on rthetorical, so I can see why it has been moved. Of course tourists should keep in mind that they're not the only ones there. A bit of solidarity goes a long way: you wouldn't want your vacation ruined by rubes either, would you? That being said though, a certain degree of tolerance is advisable. You should try not to annoy people, and you should try not to be annoyed too quickly. I understand, however, that this is easier said than done when people are being irritating around every corner, even if they're not being all that annoying individually.

Wasn't it confirmed that this wasn't going to happen? Because I seriously don't want that either. I agree with most of your other points by the way.

This is true, but it doesn't necessarily contradict the evolutionary advantage of cheating. In species where this is true, females usually aren't the only ones who actively select their partners. When we're talking attractiveness, men unconsciously look for the "reproductive value" of a female. These are traits that signal fertility and youth. From an evolutionary perspective, and keeping in mind that breeding is cheap for a guy, it is sensible to ditch one woman for another with a higher reproductive value. These females are more likely to produce a healthier and attractive child.

On the contrary, it has survived so long because of evolutionary principles. How else do you explain the lack of paternal care in so many species (including species closely related to humans such as the bonobo)?

Not necessarily. I think the population would follow a sinusoidal pattern, with periods of it booming alternating with population crashes. These crashes are mostly a consequence of those high densities and the scarcity of resources it comes with. Having many children can still be disastrous though.

To my knowledge, homosexuality in general is still an evolutionary mystery. There is a shitload of hypotheses on the very topic, including some centered around the much reviled group selection, but I don't think there is a consensus. There's also the hypothesis that homosexuality is an overexpression of traits considered attractive by females (such as lack of aggression and social behavior).

I never said that humanity can be summarized in one theory and we should all be thrown on the same heap. As I stated in my previous post, my point was only meant to demonstrate that labeling something a "natural instinct" doesn't make it right. Cheating on your wife is a natural instinct, but generally thought of as not very nice. Some of these instincts have indeed become anachronisms. Having (multiple) children can become one of them for all I care.

Calling it a "truth" was a dumb choice of words, I'll grant you that.

I didn't insult you or your intelligence.
Oh, and pointing out that I'm basically re-iterating stuff I've been told by people that know their shit coms down to an appeal to authority, which does support my argument.

16. If lots of people genuinely enjoy a game (or any medium meant to entertain), then it cannot be overrated.
17. Altruism doesn't exist. Everything you do will be satisfying at some level.

No, I was right. Since sperm cells are cheap to produce and not bound to a certain time of the month, males of many species including humans increase their reproductive success by mating with as many females as possible. Contrariwise, because ova are precious resources, females benefit from carefully selecting their partners. Seeing as they wouldn't want their ova to go to waste, females select (among other traits) on loyalty and paternal care.This is a plausible theory as to why monogamy came into being and adultery became unacceptable, taught to me by people more experienced and intelligent than you, so I will not have you deny this truth unless you can back it up with the same level of elaboration they did.. Monogamy and polygamy are both natural instincts, although the former came into being due to constraints on behaviour. My point was that "natural instincts" don't justify anything.

Taken to a more extreme side, this is true.

Oh, so I can only judge a person's actions by how good they are for the environment? How terribly nice of you. And before you try to make a case for other factors to having children, save your breath. I have never heard another reason for having kids other than the parents' personal desire to have them. I sincerely hope you're not going to try and argue how this is anything other than selfish. Note, though, that I don't condemn their selfishness but their hypocrisy. If you care so much about the environment that you feel the need to rub it in people's faces every other second, then having kids and thus doing your part in making it worse doesn't give your statements much credibility.

That's only true if you deny the idea that it's easier and more likely to do more harm than good. It may be possible to to tilt the balance in a productive favour in theory, but good luck finding any examples in practice.

Oh yes, because I've obviously been more informed on this subject by the media than, oh I don't know...my university courses.

"Why bother?" is exactly the question I'm asking. You see the future of humanity as something that must be protected at all costs, while I do not. Whether humanity can keep living on for 500 or 5000 or even 50 years, I truly couldn't care less. That is the other option, and equally worth considering.

My "poor excuse" is that I'm not going to fight for a lost cause.

Not listening to their arguments because they're just one group is equally biased.

So creating a brand new market for it and the chance to reduce crime aren't benefits at all? Just throwing that in here. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion of it and yes, there are plenty of negatives to it as well.

Having the mother of all hangovers so keeping it curt...

Maturity just isn't as entertaining. And promoting unity wasn't the main goal, I was just saying that there were two sides on this coin.

That was the idea, but I knew discussions would erupt eventually.

So is cheating on your wife.

I said I could be more environmentally friendly, just like your child could turn out a conservationist.. Of course there's a chance I won't be. Said brat(s) may opt to spend their days in the forest hunting deer caveman-style, but I don't think anyone has a negative carbon footprint, so not having kids is always more environmentally friendly and having them is always selfish.

Also, the example was a figure of speech, as I thought was obvious. I'm sure you have Literal Day marked on your calendar, but I'd appreciate it if you celebrated it within your personal entourage.

No, we don't. You make the same mistake everyone else does: treating the option to "save" the planet as the only one we have.

Politics are biased. Business cats generally voted for Romney, poor sods generally voted for Obama. There's no shame in choosing for what benefits you.

So having an opinion means you're biased? How does that work exactly?

The fact that no one really jumped on someone's list hoping to tear a particularly irking point to shreds (like part of me hoped they would) is proof enough that the members here are mature enough not to be poisoned by the "toxic atmosphere".
On another note, I've also seen people in agreement on opinions they deemed unpopular, so the thread can be seen in a more positive light as well.

Wait... This isn't right. You should all be at each other's throats by now. Damn you and your civility, KHV! *voice trails off in the distance*

By all means, knock yourself out. Here, I'll set the example:

11. Related to my #9 (and LARiA's #5), tree huggers who chastise you for not caring about the environment while having kids are hypocrites. You're also responsible for their ecological footprint. I could chop down a piece of woodland to build an extra garage for the Hummer I cruise several blocks around town in for no reason, and still be more environmentally friendly.
12. You can never claim to be offended when people mock your appearance. If it's not your fault (e.g. early balding, body odor), the very realization that you can't help it should suffice and if it is your fault (e.g. being fat because you eat too much), then you deserve to hear it. In fact, this goes beyond appearances.
13. Natural disasters don't interest me. I don't care how tragic they were, news about them just bores me.
14. While I should look into this before forming a concrete opinion, defenders of the legalization of all drugs generally have some good arguments (or one big one at least).
15. You'll always find a job if you really want to work, just not always in the field you were hoping for. This may not be an unpopular opinion, but some people should really keep it in mind.

Every "main" game (or games that were confirmed to be equivalent to them) has introduced a new type of enemy: Heartless, Nobodies, Unversed, Dream Eaters. I don't know what they're going to pull out of their hats next, if at all, but you can bet there will be bosses of that new enemy type.4
And then there's the True Organization XIII of course...

The Coliseum is pretty much a given. It'd be great if you could fight other organization members (both old and new), but it's always been a good place to level grind too. I haven't played BBS and 3D, so I hope I'd get the chance to roam around in their worlds too. Oh, and I also hope we haven't seen the last of the Pride Lands and the Land Of Dragons.

Wow...It's been ages since I saw you here. Welcome back.

Scyther will always be my all-time favorite.

That's true, but I've heard the phrase "You should show more respect to his/her opinion" all too often, even on these boards. I think that people just forget that what I mentioned isn't or shouldn't be limited to extremist opinions.

That's actually one I left out of my list.

An unpopular opinion is one that you feel not many people share. Now can we please skip the technicalities and play ball?

Forgot i could delete posts too. It's cleaned up now.

- Impressions?
- Have you gotten your user award nominations all figured out, if any?
- Are you religious? If so, what religion?
- Name three pet peeves you have.
- What names would you give to your children? (Let's say your partner's fine with anything.)

I' haven't been on tumblr much, but the problem you mention isn't limited to that community alone. Facebook groups also range from harmless fun and educational to offensive and even disturbing. While I often scowl at the fact that vocal idiots have found their way to yet another medium, I realize that the medium itself cannot be blamed. On the contrary, the global nature of these communities have given us the opportunity to respond to and openly criticize them when before we could only stand idly by. And if you don't feel like stepping into the ring, you are given plenty of opportunities to just ignore these dumbfucks (at least this is true in Facebook's case).

I can understand the frustration of a group that you couldn't disagree more with being successful but in the end, you're only as involved as you want to be. It would be petty to let yourself be driven away by the likes of them.

I expressed my views in the thread Misty linked to. To summarize, you chose to take in consciousness-altering chemicals so you should accept all natural consequences that come with it. I consider falling asleep in an ashtray a natural consequence, while being groped in a daze isn't.

A drunken yes should still be counted as a yes, because it is an answer you give under the influence of substances you willingly downed. Compare it to roids rage. Would you let someone off the hook if they gave in to aggressive behavior, just because they were under the influence of steroids? I hope not.

Yes, alcohol makes people bolder and more honest, which is often mistaken for gibberish. Their words should still be taken with a grain of salt because they often forget or leave out important details, or are just out to taunt you, but one can learn interesting things in drunken conversations.

Oh and by the way, I consider that boldness a natural consequences too. So if you'd ever find it funny to pick a fight with a gang of Outlaws and end up having your guts flossed with your own intestines, don't come crying to me.