• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Unpopular Opinions

malk

ravioli?
awesome. looks like a actually agree with someone, lol. so.... do you want to randomly post ellen page pics with me? (wait till i learn how to post pics :()

Well met, my friend. well met.
Totes. I have no idea how to do that either, though. I keep getting an error message saying that the file is invalid.
 

Feral Shadow

New Member
Totes. I have no idea how to do that either, though. I keep getting an error message saying that the file is invalid.

well, dont feel bad. I am still trying to figure out how to quote more than one furson at once. but trust me... I have a plethora of Ellen Page pics. I wish she was a vixen. haha serious.
 

malk

ravioli?
my unpopular opinion is

I think guys who act like women were only put on this earth to look attractive to them specifically are really skeavy and gross
It took me four or five times of reading this to understand what you were saying, because for some reason I was reading it like guys who have feminine personalities are skeavy and gross haha.

But no I am in rapturous agreement with you. Misogynists are chuds.
 

Zico

Member
My unpopular opinion was when i was back at school some years back now. Algebra was by far my favourite math subject
 

Sweetheartz22

Simply amazing.
Jar-Jar Binks is one of my favorite Star Wars character (don't judge)

I think photoshop is one of the worst inventions of mankind

I actually like guys without the washboard abs because they're the best ones to hug! (so much soft, very yes, wow, such hugs)
 

Torrijos-sama

The Artist Formerly Known as Jesusfish
I love the flavor of Camel Turkish over Marlboro,
Put ketchup on my hotdog
Purposefully term football as soccer around European friends
Expect a date to pay for their meal on the first outing

CAMELS ARE POOPY.
It's like comparing Target to Central Market or Whole foods. Marlboro is classier, is everywhere, and ain't that much more expensive.


with cigarettes, I hold the opinion that Pall Mall is better than American Spirits.
 
F

FriggaFanatic

Guest
I think skinnyness is gross (same goes with obesity...But I feel like that is not quite an unpopular opinion, obviously).

Mcdonalds is absolutely revolting...Whenever I try to eat it I feel like I'm going to throw up.
 

Ahzek M'kar

Anal Centipede
I think skinnyness is gross (same goes with obesity...But I feel like that is not quite an unpopular opinion, obviously).

Mcdonalds is absolutely revolting...Whenever I try to eat it I feel like I'm going to throw up.

That's not so unpopular. The McDonald part is quite sensible.
 
I'd say the majority of my opinions are unpopular. I pretty much fit into no group because I hold opinions that conflict largely with the various "categories" of people. Being a true individualist is a very isolating thing, indeed. For example... I support legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and I support much freer gun rights, in my opinion, buying a gun should be as easy as buying some jeans, and everyone should be able to be armed anywhere they go. I'm an anarchist and support individual freedom over anything else. I especially would like a society where there's no police, courts, or prisons, and everyone settles their own matters themselves by the means they feel fit. Basically I'd love to live in a society with no rules or regulations, the best example I can give is some sort of 18th century Caribbean pirate town. I resent all forms of authority and detest group think.

My views don't align with any political party or social groups that I know of. I can't stand liberals for their political correct idiocy, nor can I stand conservatives for their idiotic and evil sense of morality. I've never fit in with any group and find the vast majority of people narrow-minded and inflexible. That said I can get along with anyone by simply studying them and mirroring their behaviors and ideas. I hold racist views while at the same time I advocate for LGBT rights, which puts me at further odds of either category of people. I'm a strong atheist with a strange spiritual belief system that can only be really explained by appreciating great art or nature. I value animals but believe they should be basically left alone, and have zero qualms with eating meat, in fact I think it is the best way to honor an animal.

I could go on... but when you hold views that are normally not found together, you quickly lose the ability to relate to those who do think in stereotypical mindsets.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
If everyone settles their own matters the way they feel you will not have a world that promotes individualist freedoms.

I disagree, but it is impossible to say without attempting it. People theorized for thousands of years that democracy/republicanism could never work. Other European nations scoffed at the idea that America could ever make it as a free republic, not ruled by a dictatorship... but look what happened. On the other hand, look at communism and how it severely failed in practice, so there's no way to be 100% sure without attempting it.

Throat slitting, slavery and war mongers yes, the right to do whatever you like- no.

All those things go on far more rampantly the more organized a society is, this problem has nothing to do with the political system involved, in fact, an anarchistic society cannot go to war, slavery fails when you realize there's nobody to enforce ownership rights, so slaves can freely leave, and throat slitting? That happens far more often in a capitalistic system, at least in a metaphorical sense. Anyway... any form of highly organized society has far more of those problems you listed than what I listed. Compare the Wild West VS Ancient Rome. Which had more slavery and war mongering? Of course my example is rhetorical, because the Wild West isn't even a perfect example of anarchy, but it is the closest thing that comes to mind... but basically, war-mongering is impossible without organized powerful governments, and slavery likewise fails when there's nobody to enforce property rights but the property owners themselves.

Your views do align with 'volantryism', [except they're not as extreme as your views] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

My views are more aligned with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner.

That said I'm not egoist in the sense I believe you should take whatever you feel like by force, but I believe a society devoid of order is going to be far more friendly than one with a highly organized system of government. Ten men all armed are unlikely to cause a problem with each other. Five men armed for one nation against another will engage in battle without personal reason.


That's a great song, actually.

Still, anyone with a brain will realize you cannot have government without compromising your freedom. Look what America's become... a nation of lies and evil. We have the NSA, illegal wiretapping, "Patroit Act", Homeland Security, Gitmo... need I go on? Give someone power they will abuse it. The only laws that truly exist are the laws of nature.

People think of anarchy is violent and unstable... but there's never been more violence than at the hands of nations, see World War II & I for perfect examples. Anarchy is by its very nature far less violent.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Absolute anarchy has been attempted. Humans band together and form tribes, and large structures of order emerge spontaneously- often through lots of blood as alpha males battle to assume authority. How do you imagine complex societies and empires emerged in the first place?

Anarchy is a power vacuum, and nature abhors vacuums. You must pick your poison, I'm afraid.
 

Aleu

Deuces
I'd say the majority of my opinions are unpopular. I pretty much fit into no group because I hold opinions that conflict largely with the various "categories" of people. Being a true individualist is a very isolating thing, indeed. For example... I support legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and I support much freer gun rights, in my opinion, buying a gun should be as easy as buying some jeans, and everyone should be able to be armed anywhere they go. I'm an anarchist and support individual freedom over anything else. I especially would like a society where there's no police, courts, or prisons, and everyone settles their own matters themselves by the means they feel fit. Basically I'd love to live in a society with no rules or regulations, the best example I can give is some sort of 18th century Caribbean pirate town. I resent all forms of authority and detest group think.

My views don't align with any political party or social groups that I know of. I can't stand liberals for their political correct idiocy, nor can I stand conservatives for their idiotic and evil sense of morality. I've never fit in with any group and find the vast majority of people narrow-minded and inflexible. That said I can get along with anyone by simply studying them and mirroring their behaviors and ideas. I hold racist views while at the same time I advocate for LGBT rights, which puts me at further odds of either category of people. I'm a strong atheist with a strange spiritual belief system that can only be really explained by appreciating great art or nature. I value animals but believe they should be basically left alone, and have zero qualms with eating meat, in fact I think it is the best way to honor an animal.

I could go on... but when you hold views that are normally not found together, you quickly lose the ability to relate to those who do think in stereotypical mindsets.
You're a sociopathic anarchist. There ya go.
 
Absolute anarchy has been attempted.

Leave the city or town you are in an go to the isolated wilderness. Aside from the occasional representative of the state, it is anarchy. That is the natural order of things... society itself is an illusion agreed upon, much like this language we are using.

Humans band together and form tribes, and large structures of order emerge spontaneously- often through lots of blood as alpha males battle to assume authority.

Only in the context of a hunter-gatherer society. Being an agrarian species, we do not need "tribes". Hunter-gatherers also did not live in one location for the majority of their lives. As for blood to assume authority, it just proves my point that violence is an integral part of creating and maintaining power structures. Thanks for that one.

How do you imagine complex societies and empires emerged in the first place?

Correct. But some did arise peacefully, the conflicts between societies and empires were more a source of violence than their inceptions.

Anarchy is a power vacuum, and nature abhors vacuums. You must pick your poison, I'm afraid.

I disagree. There are a number of species that do not have established hierarchical societies and do fine, even those that do, there's always "lone wolves". Anyway we've transcended nature by creating the light bulb, so nature doesn't have any real bearing on man, aside from the laws of nature, which we are increasingly learning to circumvent, and I theorize, one day even alter entirely.

Mutualistic cooperation does not apply a structured form of government. If I were a farmer and you a tool maker, and I traded my food for your tools, we both benefit, with zero interference with government. Essentially anything the government does individuals can do for themselves.

If you ever go out in the wilderness with a group of people where there is no effective government presence, there is a short-term example of anarchy without the forming of government, each individual their own master. Even the temporary forming of a group with a designated leader can exist in this context, but where the difference is between government and this; when the task is done the group disbands... IE: sailors at sea. That cannot be said about nations. I recognize that people will naively cling to government because they've been indoctrinated to its requirement, but people have lived for thousands of years in rural communities with very little government presence, and managed well.

I'm also against massive corporations replacing the role of government, but massive corporations only exist because of the complex we've created by our society (see: government bailouts of corporations). A massive corporation won't exist without a strong government body in tandem... I can elaborate a lot more on this point, but it is too frustrating to really go on about without request.

Anyway, I've always felt strangely safer and more comfortable in more chaotic environments... but only recently have I really taken a severe hatred to every established form of governing.
 
Last edited:
You're a sociopathic anarchist. There ya go.

I'd try to be a sociopath but I feel too much empathy when I see people suffer. I have a real hard time dealing with human suffering, and I always feel guilt over harming other people. Strangely though, using justification can mitigate these feelings... which is what I believe nations and groups in general use to demonize/dehumanize their opposition in which to reduce any guilt in actions which would otherwise be horrid. It is really a lot easier to do evil unto those who are cruel to you than those who are nice to you... at least for me. Furthermore when you attach negative traits to them, it becomes even easier to not only absolve yourself of guilt, but feel justification.

An example is in a movie when something bad happens to the hero, people feel bad, but when the same thing happens to a villain, people sometimes cheer it on. This "morality" can be twisted quite easily... and people who think themselves good can be made evil, quite readily. Which is why I believe the vast majority of people who have done horrific things thought they were doing good.

If I had total freedom I wouldn't go around abusing other people... my life would be much as it is now, and I always raise skepticism to the idea people are bloodthirsty and savage without the threat of being locked in a cage if they let their "true nature" out... maybe I'm just more optimistic about people's true nature.
 

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
Leave the city or town you are in an go to the isolated wilderness. Aside from the occasional representative of the state, it is anarchy. That is the natural order of things... society itself is an illusion agreed upon, much like this language we are using.



Only in the context of a hunter-gatherer society. Being an agrarian species, we do not need "tribes". Hunter-gatherers also did not live in one location for the majority of their lives. As for blood to assume authority, it just proves my point that violence is an integral part of creating and maintaining power structures. Thanks for that one.



Correct. But some did arise peacefully, the conflicts between societies and empires were more a source of violence than their inceptions.



I disagree. There are a number of species that do not have established hierarchical societies and do fine, even those that do, there's always "lone wolves". Anyway we've transcended nature by creating the light bulb, so nature doesn't have any real bearing on man, aside from the laws of nature, which we are increasingly learning to circumvent, and I theorize, one day even alter entirely.

Mutualistic cooperation does not apply a structured form of government. If I were a farmer and you a tool maker, and I traded my food for your tools, we both benefit, with zero interference with government. Essentially anything the government does individuals can do for themselves.

If you ever go out in the wilderness with a group of people where there is no effective government presence, there is a short-term example of anarchy without the forming of government, each individual their own master. Even the temporary forming of a group with a designated leader can exist in this context, but where the difference is between government and this; when the task is done the group disbands... IE: sailors at sea. That cannot be said about nations. I recognize that people will naively cling to government because they've been indoctrinated to its requirement, but people have lived for thousands of years in rural communities with very little government presence, and managed well.

I'm also against massive corporations replacing the role of government, but massive corporations only exist because of the complex we've created by our society (see: government bailouts of corporations). A massive corporation won't exist without a strong government body in tandem... I can elaborate a lot more on this point, but it is too frustrating to really go on about without request.

Anyway, I've always felt strangely safer and more comfortable in more chaotic environments... but only recently have I really taken a severe hatred to every established form of governing.

So on one hand, you say you long for the chaotic environment of nature, but then you point out that, as a species, we've "transcended nature" through technology. I can't tell whether you're a wannabe mountain hermit or if you just have a typical distrust of The Man.
 
So on one hand, you say you long for the chaotic environment of nature, but then you point out that, as a species, we've "transcended nature" through technology. I can't tell whether you're a wannabe mountain hermit or if you just have a typical distrust of The Man.

Everyone is fine with the government until they have negative dealings with them. The American prison system is so incredibly barbaric and wicked that it really will make you question your society a lot more should you research it. The insane asylums of old were/still are? even worse. "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky... which really sums up my feelings exactly.

Even worse is Gitmo. We think of ourselves as the good guys but the stuff that goes on there will quickly dispel those notions, especially when some people there are completely innocent, merely associated with the wrong people at the wrong time. And that's not to mention the horrible wars and secret experiments the society has been involved with... but as laypeople, it is much easier just to suppress that knowledge and focus on the good of our great nation. But can you really whiteout that much evil with some good deeds?

I actually spent a few good months living in the mountains ironically enough, sleeping in a tent in the woods and emerging into town to work and for supplies. It is quite a life-changing experience, and makes you have a very different view on nature. People sometimes romanticize nature, but if you have to live in the wilderness, you will quickly have mixed feelings on it. Sure the beauty and freedom is great, but there's a lot of evil inherent in nature that will sicken you. I saw some animals killing and eating other creatures and there's nothing peaceful about that. Neither is the injustice of illness and starvation, but despite that, you really cannot beat the clean air and fresh breeze on your face, nor the stars and the trees.

We will one day I think transcend the laws of physics and even change them. We already can fly when we shouldn't be able to as a species without legs... heck we can leave our atmosphere and enter space and live in there for extended periods of time thanks to our wonderful technology. I don't think it is impossible to literally change the laws of reality with significantly advanced technology... anything is possible with science.
 

Ahzek M'kar

Anal Centipede
Leave the city or town you are in an go to the isolated wilderness. Aside from the occasional representative of the state, it is anarchy. That is the natural order of things... society itself is an illusion agreed upon, much like this language we are using.



Only in the context of a hunter-gatherer society. Being an agrarian species, we do not need "tribes". Hunter-gatherers also did not live in one location for the majority of their lives. As for blood to assume authority, it just proves my point that violence is an integral part of creating and maintaining power structures. Thanks for that one.



Correct. But some did arise peacefully, the conflicts between societies and empires were more a source of violence than their inceptions.



I disagree. There are a number of species that do not have established hierarchical societies and do fine, even those that do, there's always "lone wolves". Anyway we've transcended nature by creating the light bulb, so nature doesn't have any real bearing on man, aside from the laws of nature, which we are increasingly learning to circumvent, and I theorize, one day even alter entirely.

Mutualistic cooperation does not apply a structured form of government. If I were a farmer and you a tool maker, and I traded my food for your tools, we both benefit, with zero interference with government. Essentially anything the government does individuals can do for themselves.

If you ever go out in the wilderness with a group of people where there is no effective government presence, there is a short-term example of anarchy without the forming of government, each individual their own master. Even the temporary forming of a group with a designated leader can exist in this context, but where the difference is between government and this; when the task is done the group disbands... IE: sailors at sea. That cannot be said about nations. I recognize that people will naively cling to government because they've been indoctrinated to its requirement, but people have lived for thousands of years in rural communities with very little government presence, and managed well.

I'm also against massive corporations replacing the role of government, but massive corporations only exist because of the complex we've created by our society (see: government bailouts of corporations). A massive corporation won't exist without a strong government body in tandem... I can elaborate a lot more on this point, but it is too frustrating to really go on about without request.

Anyway, I've always felt strangely safer and more comfortable in more chaotic environments... but only recently have I really taken a severe hatred to every established form of governing.

This is all well and fine in theory, but humans can be selfish creatures, most of the time they are. To live in the Anarchy you describe will always result in cases like that of the Native Americans. Humans do not have the required mind-state to live that way. Nature, animals and such, only take what they need and that is a very rare occurrence amongst humans.
We have by no means "transcended nature" either. We cannot be apart from nature otherwise we die.
 
Top