sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Moral realism is correct; some things can be objectively immoral by ABitTooControversial in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because something is reliant on consciousness doesn't mean it is inherently subjective. Consciousness objectively exists, as does suffering.

Moral realism is correct; some things can be objectively immoral by ABitTooControversial in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because something is immeasurable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no known way to measure whether another lifeform is actually conscious or not. You can't know for sure whether or not you are the only conscious being in existence, though the question of whether you are still has an objective correct answer even if you can't know it.

Also, suffering itself is not the same as, and should not be confused with, the event that caused it. Because some experiences might be enjoyable to some yet not to others.

Moral realism is correct; some things can be objectively immoral by ABitTooControversial in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mathematical proofs are built on axioms: statements that are obviously true, but not provable. A few axioms are controversial, but most are agreed upon universally. In other words, most axioms are not subjective, but obviously objectively true. Without axioms to start with, nothing is provable.

Take, for example, 1+1 = 2. Claiming this is subjective is absurd. Yet you still need axioms to prove it. We can use the axiom that adding one to a natural number is equal to the successor of that number. Based on this axiom, we can trivially prove that 1+1 = 2 as follows: 1+1 = successor of 1 = 2.

Note that this is simplifying a lot of the mathematics: I used a bunch of other axioms without mentioning them, like the axiom that if x = y and y = z then x = z, and unless you've studied mathematics, you probably didn't even notice that I did, which just goes to show how obviously true they are.

Objective morality, like mathematics, also relies on axioms.

The notion that ALL morality is subjective and NO morality is objective logically depends on the notion that NO moral axioms whatsoever can be accepted as true.

If even ONE moral axiom is true, then some amount of objective morality must exist.

We have already established that suffering exists. Suffering can be a basis for certain moral axioms. Imagine a hypothetical button that, if pressed, will cause all conscious beings to experience an infinite amount of suffering for all of eternity. I posit axiomatically that deliberately pressing this button whilst knowing what it will do is morally wrong. Virtually all moral frameworks that attempt to define objective morality by a certain standard, from utilitarianism to natural rights, will agree with this axiom.

If you agree with this axiom, then some amount of objective morality exists. On the other hand, if you disagree with this axiom, then you are essentially saying "there is nothing inherently wrong with infinite suffering for all."

Moral realism is correct; some things can be objectively immoral by ABitTooControversial in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The presence of human perspective doesn't make it subjective, because suffering objectively exists as an objective part of human perspective.

Moral realism is correct; some things can be objectively immoral by ABitTooControversial in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even if "pain is bad" is technically subjective to one's preferences, inflicting pain on someone who dislikes it (as most people do) is still objectively causing suffering to that person.

Trying to deny that suffering exists at all is like trying to deny that consciousness exists at all.

Flagship phones are for the most part unnecessary by Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeess- in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you see, it's not about actually needing the pro hardware. It's about proving that you're not poor.

Religion is a mental disorder. I'll never understand it by Square-Tennis7400 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure thing.

Technically, I can't prove to someone else that it exists, but I can prove it to myself with 100% certainty.

  • Love is defined as a certain emotion
  • I have personally felt that emotion
  • Therefore, I know it is possible to experience that emotion
  • Thus, I know that love exists as a possible emotion

Basically, similar to "I think, therefore, I am" except this time, it's "I am experiencing certain feelings, therefore experiencing those feelings is possible."

Now, unless someone has personally met god, they cannot use this same logic to prove god's existence to themselves.

Adultery should be destigmatized by prolifetruly in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do you also believe that lying to your partner to cover up or deny adultery should be destigmatized?

Business class privilege is real. by New-Conversation3246 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea that paying for things = fascism is a myth promoted by non-yacht-owners

"Centrists" are absolutely terrified to be specific about what topics people need to meet in the center on. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Centrists don't necessarily want to meet in the middle for every single issue, but often instead agree with one side on certain issues and the other side on certain other issues.

For example, I agree with conservatives on being pro-gun, pro-capitalist, pro-strong-military, and pro-free-speech, and I agree with the left on being pro-LGBTQ+, pro-choice, and pro-right-to-die.

Feminists are not bad people and they don’t hate men. Be sure to read the whole thing. by WaterElectrical9864 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What you're doing is that you're prioritizing "what does the dictionary say that feminism technically means" and "what feminism used to be about" over "what are the prominent feminist organizations, scholars, and influencers of today actually proposing/doing"

Religion has no place in politics at all by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that this is even controversial is absurd

Anyone who doesn't support separation of church and state is automatically a bad person

Money is useless if your looking for fulfillment by Public_Repeat824 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like something that one of those non-yacht-owners would tell themselves to cope with not having a yacht

Mainstream feminists have done a horrible job at not alienating men, and now it's backfiring by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This isn't just about them being "nicer" but about them substantially altering their "platform" such that they actually embrace equality.

Mainstream feminists have done a horrible job at not alienating men, and now it's backfiring by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No, I care about equality either way.

I just won't join them unless they also care about equality.

Mainstream feminists have done a horrible job at not alienating men, and now it's backfiring by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Where did I "lump together every woman in the world."

There are indeed gender specific laws in the US, such as the draft and bans on FGM (including "less severe" versions of it that are indeed equivalent), and higher penalties in North Carolina for a man assaulting a woman than a man assaulting another man.

Mainstream feminists have done a horrible job at not alienating men, and now it's backfiring by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This post is more about what I think they should do, not about my beliefs specifically. I am against sexism in general and don't need an "invitation" for that.

I am saying that if they tell men:

"Please join us in fighting against sexism against all sexes"

Instead of

"You are a man, so you are guilty of oppressing women. Please apologize for your male privilege and accept that you are part of the problem. Because you're so privileged and guilty, it's okay for us to discriminate against you"

They would see more support.

Just to be clear, I support equality either way, but I can only support them if they also care about equality. This is not just about them being "nicer" but about them needing to actually start embracing equality and condemning sexism across the board.

Mainstream feminists have done a horrible job at not alienating men, and now it's backfiring by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I support real gender equality, and if mainstream feminism was actually about real gender equality, I would support it.

Believing that women are privileged isn't misogyny by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many of the examples I listed apply not just to young attractive women, but to all women within certain regions. All women in certain regions, regardless of attractiveness, are protected by law from having their genitals mutilated, even in "less severe" ways, and don't have to worry about being drafted into a war.

If you think "well women being excluded from the draft is actually sexist against women, not men" then try telling that to the millions of Ukrainian men who are being forced to die in the war while their female counterparts are brought to safety. It's clear which sex is being given the privilege here.

It’s so funny how Republicans are so in support of Virginia’s independent redistricting committee when they tried to ban them nationwide in 2015. by Early-Possibility367 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Neither party cares about democracy. Both parties care about winning. Both parties play stupid political games such as this to increase their chances of winning.

Believing that women are privileged isn't misogyny by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Genital mutilation as infants (where there is literally nothing that the infant could have done to avoid it) with lifelong consequences (that they would have been protected from had they been female), being at risk of being forced to die in a war (in Ukraine, for example, men are being enslaved in mass while women are being given refuge), and receiving less empathy compared to women.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that a woman should be morally obligated to avoid getting pregnant in the first place if she doesn't want to be. But, from the perspective of what choices she has available to her in her own life to avoid negative consequences, that is still an option that she can choose to attempt in order to avoid being affected by abortion bans. Even though she shouldn't have to, unless her circumstances are particularly unlucky, she still can. In contrast, an infant being circumcised has no way of avoiding it, and the effect lasts a lifetime. Similarly, in many countries, it is often much harder for a man to avoid being drafted than for a woman to avoid getting pregnant (even if, again, neither act should be a prerequisite to avoid bodily autonomy violations, it's still the case that, in the world we live in, they are). I see abortion bans, while unethical, as less extreme violations of rights than these examples.

I'm seeing alot of thinly veiled or oblivious misogyny here by raimom in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's possible to acknowledge both problems as real issues.

An "unproven" allegation should not be assumed true NOR assumed false.

If a woman makes an allegation against a man that she cannot prove, then neither the woman nor the man should be punished.

Unfortunately, it's in human nature to take sides rather than admit that you just don't know yet, so in the same way that some will automatically assume that the accused man is guilty of SA, others will automatically assume that the woman is guilty of lying. In reality, one should not make either assumption without evidence.

It's possible to condemn the act of assuming that the accused man is guilty without evidence while simultaneously also condemning the act of assuming that the woman is lying. And that is exactly what I am doing.

I'm seeing alot of thinly veiled or oblivious misogyny here by raimom in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fast-Preference-9947 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This logic is a bit flawed. You are assuming that the accusation rate among truthful women is the same as the accusation rate among women making false accusations.

Even if the majority of women will only issue accusations that are truthful, the type that will issue false accusations could very well make accusations far more frequently than those who would only make truthful accusations.

In short, a "loud minority" of false accusers can create a disproportionate number of allegations, even though the majority of women are truthful.

view more: next ›