Opinions that most people won't like/isn't mainstream

[Murder Doll]

So I'm just going to start off by saying this, I don't agree with nor do I like the opinions of Sephora but I will say this: Opinions are incapable of being right or wrong, they mean absolutely nothing and are fueled by personal beliefs.

I'd once again like to state that I don't like the opinions that are of subject at this moment, but I think we all need to take a chill pill and realize there are simply going to be people and aspects of them that we aren't going to like and that that's fine because we are all our own selves.

 

[bobjr]

Well, unless it can be 100% proven to be true, then I won't believe it.

It pretty much is 100% true, you're just refusing to believe it.

It's funny how something can be "flat out wrong" when it is an opinion. Since no facts can be used to prove any side, I am free to voice whatever stance I like.

Opinions can be wrong. Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean you can't be judged negatively for it. Especially when they ignore facts and logic to reach those opinions, because it only breeds ignorance in other people.

 

[Murder Doll]

What's right and wrong is purely opinion though, as for breeding ignorance only the ignorant let ignorance be bred on them, it's called making your own bloody decisions.

 

[Ryuken]

It pretty much is 100% true, you're just refusing to believe it.


Opinions can be wrong. Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean you can't be judged negatively for it. Especially when they ignore facts and logic to reach those opinions, because it only breeds ignorance in other people.

While i do agree with this point, that is not enough reason for hostility.

I am impressed at how when a random homeless person is screaming insanity on the street, no one gives a crap, but on the internet, they take it personally as a direct offense.

 

[John Madden]

Was cancer the same like it was 50 years ago? No. The amount of people who have cancer now are so much more than before and you cannot argue with that. Now, almost everybody at least knows someone who has some form of cancer. If that's not scary to you, then I don't know what is.

You mean that higher life expectancy has the tradeoff of a higher risk of developing at least one cancer, given that aging is the single biggest risk factor in its development?

You heard it here, folks: go back to simpler times where we don't have any 20th-century medical advances, because someone on the internet with pseudoscientific opinions is "scared".

And genetic modification in foods is a carcinogen,

[scientific citation needed]

Were there hungry people before genetic modification? Yes. Are there still hungry people after it? Yes. It is not really solving anything really.

Were there uninsured people before Canadian Medicare was put into place? Yes. Are there uninsured people in Canada now? Yes. Guess that didn't solve anything!

What's right and wrong is purely opinion though

In the case of opinions supposedly backed by facts, what's right and wrong are not purely opinion, by definition.

 

[bobjr]

What's right and wrong is purely opinion though, as for breeding ignorance only the ignorant let ignorance be bred on them, it's called making your own bloody decisions.

Or the people giving the wrong opinion keep the ignorant that way. It's basically the Fox News tactic.

While i do agree with this point, that is not enough reason for hostility.

It's not hostile, it's telling people that if they're going to have an opinion on something it has to be true and be backed by at least some form of logic. You can't just go "Well it's my opinion" and expect to be right. What if I went around saying "In my opinion the holocaust never happened?"

 

[Ryuken]

Or the people giving the wrong opinion keep the ignorant that way. It's basically the Fox News tactic.



It's not hostile, it's telling people that if they're going to have an opinion on something it has to be true and be backed by at least some form of logic. You can't just go "Well it's my opinion" and expect to be right. What if I went around saying "In my opinion the holocaust never happened?"

It is still your opinion, and even though its wrong, i highly doubt someone will end up saying: "Well, if you truly believe it go and kill a thousand jews."
Always keep in mind that when someone is dead set in something, you will be unable to change its mind unless you carefully manipulate it, no matter how hard you try to hammer it in its head, same with politics and religion.

 

[Sephora]

It pretty much is 100% true, you're just refusing to believe it.

"Pretty much"? It either is true, or it's not. And unless you can prove to me that it is 100% scientifically true (as in, no doubts and something all scientists agree with), then again I will not believe it.

Opinions can be wrong. Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean you can't be judged negatively for it. Especially when they ignore facts and logic to reach those opinions, because it only breeds ignorance in other people.

Ignore what facts and logic? Saying the earth is better now than before is not a fact. Saying that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture is not a fact. So again, what facts and logic are we talking about here?

You mean that higher life expectancy has the tradeoff of a higher risk of developing at least one cancer, given that aging is the single biggest risk factor in its development?

You heard it here, folks: go back to simpler times where we don't have any 20th-century medical advances, because someone on the internet with pseudoscientific opinions is "scared".

I am not talking about every medical advance, just the unnatural ones. Seriously, do people think I am talking about the Middle Ages or something? There was medicine back in the 20th century, but not as high of a risk as cancer.

[scientific citation needed]

"research has suggested that genetically modified foods (gmfs) are causally related to carcinogenesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/

It's not hostile, it's telling people that if they're going to have an opinion on something it has to be true and be backed by at least some form of logic. You can't just go "Well it's my opinion" and expect to be right. What if I went around saying "In my opinion the holocaust never happened?"

If that is not hostile, then I don't know what your definition of the word is.
That is not the same thing and you know it. The holocaust is a fact. My opinion that simpler times like the 20th century was better than the 21st is NOT. And the opposite is true as well.

 

[Peter Quill]

"Pretty much"? It either is true, or it's not. And unless you can prove to me that it is 100% scientifically true (as in, no doubts and something all scientists agree with), then again I will not believe it.

Then there's literally no point talking to you because there will always be one crock-pot scientist that doesn't believe in something (The majority of the scientific community believes in Evolution but because it's not 100% you must not believe it :B)

 

[John Madden]

I am not talking about every medical advance, just the unnatural ones. Seriously, do people think I am talking about the Middle Ages or something? There was medicine back in the 20th century, but not as high of a risk as cancer.

And the medicines allowing for such a massive boost in global life expectancy over one century, by and large, are "unnatural" in their synthesis.

Literally anything can cause cancer - aging is chief among those things.

"research has suggested that genetically modified foods (gmfs) are causally related to carcinogenesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/

"This commentary deconstructs, discredits, and demystifies the paradigm that eating genetically modified foods causes cancer"

A+, would read again

 

[Sephora]

Then there's literally no point talking to you because there will always be one crock-pot scientist that doesn't believe in something (The majority of the scientific community believes in Evolution but because it's not 100% you must not believe it :B)

Forget the one crock-pot scientist. My point stands that it is not scientifically proven 100%. Why are people not understanding this?

"This commentary deconstructs, discredits, and demystifies the paradigm that eating genetically modified foods causes cancer"

A+, would read again

Then I suggest you continue reading as well. I didn't say it causes cancer 100% when you eat it, but that it makes it more likely to develop cancer.

 

[THRILLHO]

lmfao

this thread is shit

 

[bobjr]

"Pretty much"? It either is true, or it's not. And unless you can prove to me that it is 100% scientifically true (as in, no doubts and something all scientists agree with), then again I will not believe it.

I mean that by saying ignorant people like you refuse to believe it, so it's not 100% true. Any person working in the field believes it outside of the one crackpot, and that's good enough for me.

Ignore what facts and logic? Saying the earth is better now than before is not a fact. Saying that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture is not a fact. So again, what facts and logic are we talking about here?

We're talking about the research into fetal development that's proven this. What kind of dumbass doesn't listen to research specifically on this kind of stuff? Any nature vs. nurture argument is laughed off today anyway.

"research has suggested that genetically modified foods (gmfs) are causally related to carcinogenesis"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615871/

Glad to know you're illiterate as well as incompetent.

That is not the same thing and you know it. The holocaust is a fact. My opinion that simpler times like the 20th century was better than the 21st is NOT.

Were you there at the Holocaust? If not you can't be 100% sure.

 

[John Madden]

Then I suggest you continue reading as well.

The recent report claiming that gmfs are causally associated with cancer development in rats has been debunked by informed opinion: genetically tumourprone rats were used; a spurious construct and research protocol was followed; and the statistical approach used did not satisfy confounding factors. The publication was apparently not subject to satisfactory objective refereeing, and certain tainted financial interests were also operative. All the foregoing factors skewed the results, rendering them invalid and not significant.

Eating fresh foods is preferable to eating processed foods, and fresh gmfs (or the nutritional derivatives from gmfs) are regularly and globally eaten in vast quantities without any proven side effects. Industrialized countries have been successful in producing ample sustenance for their populations from gmfs.

All manufactured edibles with a long shelf life—such as canned foods, soda pop, snack food, and other preserved comestibles—may have traces of carcinogenic substances that contribute to or facilitate carcinogenesis. Among the many compounds implicated are bisphenol A in the plastic linings of metal cans, benzopyrenes in barbecue, nitrites in delicatessen meats, carbon dioxide gas in soda pop, and saccharin in diet foods. These molecules are not derived from gmfs. All are dose-related, and all are acknowledged to be cancer promoters in abusively high doses.

I tell you, that's pretty convincing evidence.

 

[Pesky Persian]

Then I suggest you continue reading as well. I didn't say it causes cancer 100% when you eat it, but that it makes it more likely to develop cancer.

The recent report claiming that gmfs are causally associated with cancer development in rats has been debunked by informed opinion: genetically tumourprone rats were used; a spurious construct and research protocol was followed; and the statistical approach used did not satisfy confounding factors5. The publication was apparently not subject to satisfactory objective refereeing, and certain tainted financial interests were also operative. All the foregoing factors skewed the results, rendering them invalid and not significant4,5.

Eating fresh foods is preferable to eating processed foods, and fresh gmfs (or the nutritional derivatives from gmfs) are regularly and globally eaten in vast quantities without any proven side effects. Industrialized countries have been successful in producing ample sustenance for their populations from gmfs.

All manufactured edibles with a long shelf life—such as canned foods, soda pop, snack food, and other preserved comestibles—may have traces of carcinogenic substances that contribute to or facilitate carcinogenesis. Among the many compounds implicated are bisphenol A in the plastic linings of metal cans, benzopyrenes in barbecue, nitrites in delicatessen meats, carbon dioxide gas in soda pop, and saccharin in diet foods. These molecules are not derived from gmfs. All are dose-related, and all are acknowledged to be cancer promoters in abusively high doses.

Maybe you should read your own sources.

Edit: Oops. Ninja'd.

 

[Murder Doll]

*sigh* Is this a debate thread or a place where we can freely express our opinions...

It almost feels the people who are supposed to be keeping threads in check are actually killing this one.

 

[THRILLHO]

i think the only unpopular opinion that would be worth posting anymore is "this thread is good"

goodnight sweet prince