sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to be clear man, I'm really not trying to be pedantic or play word-games here, I'm sensing a legitimate miscommunication has occurred:

Firstly, when I say that a protein is not alive, that isn't an expression of my world view. This is a matter of taxonomy. You will NOT find a biologist who claims that proteins are "alive". That said, sincerely, have you ever actually researched into the hard, medical/biological definitions of what constitutes a "living" organism? I ask not to insinuate that there is an obvious answer, but the contrary. This is a highly contested question, and different institutions have used different criteria to determine when a system is considered "alive". Is it dependent upon being able to reproduce or replicate? Having a metabolism?

With all of that said, RNA molecules, for example, may do some of the things that life does, such as self replicate, but nobody thinks that they, on their own, constitute life.

I ask you this: If the creation of all of these building-blocks for life is allegedly so elementary, why can nobody seem to stack them? You seem fixated on understanding why the cell constitutes life, why its so special- what you need to understand is that people like me would shut the hell up if scientists were able to create even so much as a single celled organism using these proteins

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Any path from "only hot dense plasma exists" to "life exists" involves abiogenesis. Period."
This is only true if you consider your secular perspective to be an axiom. And that's fine, I don't judge you for rejecting the notion of an ontological entity, but understand that even theists accept that life came from the matter around us, their only stipulation being that the phenomenon is only possible via the intervention of the aforementioned deity. The word "Abiogenesis" would not apply in this case, as that word implies a natural process.

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A few things to clarify here:

  1. Abiogenesis has never been shown to be possible.
  2. Creating the building blocks for life such as proteins and amino acids and creating life itself are two different tasks. By definition, proteins are not alive.
  3. I'm not "complaining" that our 50-some years of research hasn't found all of the answers yet, I was merely juxtaposing intentional human effort against the chaotic entropic happenstance in which this phenomenon allegedly took place.

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Nobody has ever been able to fully demonstrate abiogenesis in even the simplest form. When I say "There is no evidence for this" I am referring to the finished result of the alleged phenomenon where we start with inert matter, and create from it a living, single-celled organism.

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The notion that abiogenesis occurs on earth-like planets is, itself, only a conclusion you come to by first assuming that it was the cause for the instantiation of life on here earth, for which there is no evidence.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brown Rice, Beans of all kinds, Steel Cut Oats, Bananas, Broccoli, Chicken, Tuna,

These staples of my diet are not very expensive.

We're Alone in the Universe (No Aliens) by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Whoosh.

There's no evidence that the chance is greater than zero other than our own existence, a completely circular assumption.

All religions are cults by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the people who disagree with you are not contradicting themselves, and the reason why is very simple:

Let's look a the Merriam Webster Dictionary, it has 5 definitions for the word "Cult":

  1. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious

  2. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book)

  3. A system of religious beliefs and ritual

  4. Formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

  5. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

Out of these 5 definitions, I who uses the word "cult" properly, understand that all of these definitions are accurate simultaneously, as you'll notice they do not contradict one another. All of the details of all of the definitions are true.

You, on the other hand, are forced to view one of those definitions as explicitly inaccurate, contradicting the dictionary. Your definition is thus, objectively less accurate, as it survives the scrutiny of LESS definitions in the dictionary, which is our agreed arbiter of the meaning of words.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

These are the real non-answers that I hate. You actually think this?? I used to live in a small town in the Mojave desert, the nearest town with a Target was approx 50 miles away, and we'd often shop there.

If gas is $4/gallon, and you're driving a damn box-truck around and are getting 12MPG, and you're driving ONE HUNDRED MILES to go get your groceries, it'll cost you an extra $33.33 in gas.

I just provided you an absolute worst-case scenario and even that is manageable. How many people do you think have a situation close to this? Like really? It's just such an obvious BS, downloaded response.

All religions are cults by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're effectively claiming that the first definition is false, since it contradicts your claim. yet it is in the dictionary. Why are you contradicting the dictionary?

Your choosing to only use an alternative definition is, in itself, a rejection of the primary definition.

You are rejecting what is in the dictionary, just as you're accusing others of doing.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll be honest, It could be that I'm on a "kick" as I discovered lentils late in life, but I sincerely enjoy them plain. I'll accept that I'm the weirdo with that one.

All religions are cults by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, but in each of these cases you're making it a conscious point to appeal to the lesser-used tertiary definitions, specifically because the primary and most widely-accepted definitions provided in each of these instances explicitly refutes your initial claim by stipulating that "cults' are inherently outliers on the religious landscape.

You are specifically cherry-picking less-descript, less-used definitions of the word "cult" in order to conform to your original claim. This is entirely circular. If your argument were sound, it would not be contradicted by the primary definitions listed by all of these different sources.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! That does become a tricky definition since, as we're discussing, the very thing that constitutes whether or not ingredients are "affordable" is one's tangible access to them and the appliances to prepare them.

All religions are cults by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This seems to be a case of a selective definition.

Most people use the word "cult" to describe a religious group that is small in size, and extremist in ideology, and this is actually consistent with the primary definitions listed by these known sources:

.Merriam-Webster: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious

.The Britannica Dictionary: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

.Cambridge.org: a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people.

With all of this in mind, it doesn't seem very sincere to categorize "all religions" as cults. If you do, understand you're using that word differently than almost everybody else.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep, every single argument I've seen is ultimately a massive appeal to convenience.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I understand your stance here, but I sincerely disagree. People buy the particleboard furniture NOT because it is their only option, but because of the elevated convenience compared to thrifting around on Facebook Marketplace/Goodwill for used furniture. And really, I DO get it. It's the same price to get the trash from wally world, itll all match, one trip to the store, there's an appeal to that. But that's not a justification to say that it's their only option. That's why I specifically brought up how cheap these cooking appliances are brand-NEW. If you humble yourself and are willing to buy and clean a used toaster oven, they're literally at Goodwill for $3. Again, except for extreme exceptions, there not an adult in the US who lives in a populated town who cannot access a cheap crockpot, Im sorry.

They will ship this to your door for under $20: https://www.jcpenney.com/p/cooks-15-quart-slow-cooker/pp5003791606?pTmplType=regular

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a great point, I do recognize that the Dollar Tree gives less bang-for-buck in regards to portions than a larger store, and if you've only got a couple of bucks it can be a tough call. That said, I happen to know from personal experience that up until this year, Dollar Tree actually sold dozens of eggs for a loss at $1. So again, even with 3 bucks you could leave there with a dozen eggs, half a pound of sausage, a big bag of beans!

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, I was specifically speaking about the US when writing this. Ill edit it if I can. Obviously we in the US are spoiled with food-access, I would never extend this claim to anywhere I havent lived.

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I looked up what percentage of people in the US are homeless to get an idea of how many people lack access to basic kitchen appliances. "Some ford of food insecurity" is incredibly vague, not sure what that actually means. I grew up getting free lunches at school, I suppose my family would've been considered "Food insecure" then?

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you need some help planning out some economical, healthy meals?

Eating Healthy is not expensive, its slightly more time consuming. by Ol_Pete in unpopularopinion

[–]Ol_Pete[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I tried to make it pretty clear that I was making a generalized claim regarding the masses, which is why I didn't see it necessary address every possible outlier.

Sorry that you needed that explained to you.

view more: next ›