I don't care if you call me bigoted, I don't care if you call me ignorant. The one thing that I absolutely WILL NOT TOLERATE being accused of is watching Fox News. Too far, man. Too far.
That would work if the world was simple and built out of plain denotative definitions and objective meanings with no moral ambiguity whatsoever. But considering that all opinions are based on some sort of basic experience, whether relevant or not, don't you think that's a bit of a logical leap? I mean, your reasoning works fine as long as all Muslims believe exactly the same thing about their Prophet, Muhammad... except that they don't. The most basic declaration of the Islamic faith is that "Allah is the one true god and Muhammad is his prophet." That doesn't necessitate worshiping Muhammad or even thinking he was a good person, but rather implies that he brought some sort of knowledge or other brand of teaching from their deity. In other words, you're generalizing, which I would guess is why your opinion is unpopular (and is also why you can be prejudiced as well as experienced). EDIT: I just thought I'd tack this on here: I might disagree with you, but I'm trying to talk primarily about your comments regarding the nature of prejudice, as opposed to getting into a religious/political debate. I don't mean to take things down that route, or to offend you.
I would like to make it clear that even I though I personally dislike Muslims, I'm not trying to encourage anybody to agree with me. I believe that everybody should come to their own conclusions based on established facts and their own morality and experiences, for this and every other controversial subject.
Capcom (or as I like to call them, "Crapcom") are making a plethora of HORRIBLE BUSINESS DECISIONS that is putting them on the verge of absolute collapse. This includes the decision not to localize Ace Attorney Investigations 2/Gyakuten Kenji 2.
in all fairness though the sales for the first one were pretty bad. the real dissapointing thing though, I played it with the fan translation patch and I feel confident calling it my favourite in the series. even better then the main series.
My grandparents watch FOX news literally 12 hours a day, it's made them paranoid of the world outside their 5000 population town. They think Obama is the Antichrist. My unpopular opinion is that in modern times, there is just as much discrimination and prejudice from minority groups towards majority groups as there is the other way, in terms of percentages of each group.
Getting offended and trying to silence someone's free speech, even if it's rather rude, is stupid, and you should feel bad for it if you do~
EXACTLY. I felt the same way after I was done doing my Let's Play of it. Only further proving that Crapcom is continuing to make HORRIBLE BUSINESS DECISIONS by not localizing it.
I never really understood the significance of the anecdote about an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. What happens? The object exerts an equal and opposite force. You know, like it would for any other amount of force applied. Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
I have never thought that the horse mask was funny, and anyone who wears one thinking they are funny irks me
Save-scumming, glitch exploits, and even cheat codes are perfectly acceptable in a single-player game. It is more important that a game be fun than challenging.
I'm much happier playing a game that takes me 500 hours to complete, than one that takes 50. It's one of the reasons I hold Dwarf Fortress in such high regard; it provides a near unbounded amount of unique game time, and in no one play through will ever be the same. Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
Correct. The real reason that the "unstoppable force meets an immovable object" is dumb is that the very thought problem itself misuses the word "force", acting like forces can just be these ethereal things with no substance or medium. There is no debate: under those conditions, an unstoppable (and for the purposes of understanding the implications of the problem, we will consider the medium indestructible) force meeting with an immovable object would produce absolutely no reaction. That question is similar to asking, "If two rocks are indestructible and are thrown at each other, which rocks breaks first?" Neither, because the premise of the dumb question is that both rocks are indestructible and thus cannot be destroyed.
Much agreed! Well, this brings me to another thing: I think too many people misuse the phrase 'freedom of speech'. It represents the freedom to speak your mind without being silenced or threatened by the government. It does NOT restrict another person for calling you out for being stupid when you voice what they believe to be a stupid belief, or if you are offending them, it does not prevent them from asking you to be quiet or getting angry at you for it. Disagreements are inevitable, and if people weren't allowed to voice their disagreement or offense in response to another person's statement, that is restricting the listener's speech just as much as telling the speaker to be quiet would restrict their speech.
