What’s your ultimate unpopular opinion?
-
I think this depends on where you live. If you live in the US, maybe. Private healthcare means the effects on the public are limited to traumatizing people, the services to dispose of your body, and EMS.
In area with socialized healthcare, ain't no way my taxpayer dollars are going towards fixing your head if you crash.
I think that's exactly what happens if you live in an area with socialized healthcare. What are you trying to say
-
The Lemmy users who call themselves "Leftists" are garbage human beings. Shitty, hostile, unnecessarily combative, will disagree with you about anything you say even when you're on the same page.
And most of them aren't really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to, even though it's a fundamentally leftist ideal. They're just bad people.
Barrage of insults against leftists
Says leftists are insulting
-
I prefer rap music by white artists because it's less likely to feature the N word.
I only listen to rap by artists that can write a full fledged symphonic track.
-
Black liquorice tastes good
Find a European/Dutch deli if you've never been in one you might really enjoy what you find
-
Where are you getting your information?
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
-
Even if this were true, it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion. It's a way that you distract yourself from the moral component of your choices. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it doesn't even matter if you believe it or not. It just has to distract you long enough that you get past the point where you might accidentally engage your empathy, and have a feeling you don't want to have.
Even if this were true
it is
-
Even if this were true, it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion. It's a way that you distract yourself from the moral component of your choices. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it doesn't even matter if you believe it or not. It just has to distract you long enough that you get past the point where you might accidentally engage your empathy, and have a feeling you don't want to have.
it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.
the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you're free to do so.
-
Ah, the age-old unpopularopinions dilemma. Do I upvote because I agree, or upvote because it is unpopular and I disagree?
It's not that hard i don't think. Just ask yourself should other people see this comment?
Upvote only if it's an easy yes
-
Australia and New Zealand
Also Canada
-
Are you that blind to the world? Do you really look at something like.... The Trump administration, and think "Like, hw stupid can you all be? Who’s going to decide? Obvious professionals who know of kids and have worked with them. Social workers, pedopsychiatrist, teachers, etc.".
Very clearly professionals and the people who have the best in mind are not the ones who are chosen by those in power. Get real, truly pathetic take
Thinking that Trump and your shitty country is the only one in the world is pathetic to say the least. Nothing will work in your country (and I'm not talking just about kids but in general) but that doesn't mean it won't work in other countries as well
️Challenge: USAns not be the dumbest nation on this planet for one day (impossible)
-
Ah, the age-old unpopularopinions dilemma. Do I upvote because I agree, or upvote because it is unpopular and I disagree?
You should upvote that specific reply if you have more than 2 IQ.
-
Hot water? Now that's cereal killer territory right there
Whoa hold on, hold on. There's an advocate out there somewhere for putting orange juice on cereal. Hot water seems mild with that in the world
-
The Lemmy users who call themselves "Leftists" are garbage human beings. Shitty, hostile, unnecessarily combative, will disagree with you about anything you say even when you're on the same page.
And most of them aren't really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to, even though it's a fundamentally leftist ideal. They're just bad people.
Most users of those so open source, decentralizing apps are from the USA so, go figure...
-
Whoa hold on, hold on. There's an advocate out there somewhere for putting orange juice on cereal. Hot water seems mild with that in the world
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here "Eugenics". Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren't so "perfect" (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems...
-
Suicide is perfectly acceptable and should be a right, we should all have the choice of when we want to go. Some pain, physical or emotional is too much, or loss can be too great.
I don't care if I could or can get better, I should be able to down some hemlock and leave.
I’m with you.
Many years ago I read a sci-fi story about a society where crimes are punished by extending your life (which is dreary in some way - I don’t remember). The protagonist keeps committing suicide but being brought back to life by advanced medical technology and punished with more time to live.
In the end, he manages to completely destroy his body, so the state takes a cell from an old blood test, clones the person from it, and adds the punishment to the clone.
That story stayed with me since then. It really shed light on the point of view that not wanting to live can be natural and forcing people to live in pain can be very cruel.
-
Define needlessly?
You see, you probably define it as a subjective catch all for anything that you are used to having in your life.
But if you really inspect that idea you can reach all kinds of extremes, like do you really need a home? You can live on the street, do you really need a car? You could walk technically, do you really need meat? You could live perfectly healthy without it technically, do you need a towel after a shower? You can just let yourself dry, what about chocolate? Just a nice snack, is that a necessity? And marshmallows? Bread? Flavoured drinks?
So the line is individual and non linear. One might say they can live without cars but not without a home, one would say the opposite, one would claim that chocolate is more important than having towels, etc. Some can also say that the joy they get from turturing an animal is more significant for their own happiness than chocolate, or towels or eating meat, these people are 100% with the parameters of your logic, yet you lable it as unnecessary.
You could redefine necessity as things that would cause you serious harm if taken, which is still subjective but a little clearer. Most people can agree that never eating chocolate again would suck but not cause any serious harm. Most can also probably agree that not having a home would cause you serious harm. And while you might not like to admit it, scientifically going vegan won't just not cause you harm, it would actually be healthy for you, and just like people who go on all kinds of diets, it sucks at first, but it does not cause any serious harm.
So ask yourself, what justification can you use to inflict serious harm on to others for the sake of simple pleasure to you?
I'm not trying to argue for veganism here. I'm just saying killing animals needlessly is bad. If you need the animal dead, kill it. For its resources.
If you think that going vegan is good, then do it. If you think eating meat is not the "min max meta" way of living, then you do you. But I think, as long as you don't mistreat the animals, its worth it.
If you still want more discussion about avoiding mistreating animals and why it matters even if we are going to kill them anyway, ask your friends.
-
I realize they're not really for the dead, but the living decide that their dead bodies are entitled to more space than some living. Plots cost thousands of dollars. We ostracize the unhoused. Our priorities are broken, and graveyards are yet another thing for those "with" that those "without" will not have.
Not many of the living are entitled to less than 2 m² though. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
-
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
Also the amount of effort and wealth expended by the medical profession just so that some people can reproduce is mind boggling.
-
If you mean 18 and 19 year olds, you should probably say that instead of "sexually mature teen girls"
I mean, a further controversial opinion - the 18 year old cutoff is completely arbitrary. If we were somehow able to confer the ability to consent based on the maturity level of the individual, then the consent age of any given person might be lower, or might extend all the way to their death. In a small communal society where everyone has intimate knowledge of everyone else, this might be possible, and even preferred. But on the scale of nations, we need rules which are legible to courts, which means we say "the age of consent is X", and assume it covers most cases decently enough.
