Super Mario Bros. X Forums

lighthouse64 wrote:Here's another unpopular opinion. (Well at least around here, and no I don't want to revive that topic) Evolution is fake gibberish.

You should visit Reddit.

MarioLuigiToadAndToad wrote: 1. Porn is ok to be addicted to, but defentaly not to the point when you see a girl on Disney and want to fuck it.

2. Equal rights is something I am ok with. I beleive that Gay Marige should be legal in all contries, becuase love is love.

3. Im a Christian who doesn't follow most of what the Bible tells me what to do, because really, The Bible is kind of a judgmental little book thb imo.

4. Furrys and otherkins should be see medical help, and people should stop letting them think that they're amother species/non-exestining species. Because lets be honest, these people saying that they are not humans sound crazy. Even looking through an Atheists point of view, and a creationists point of view, you still look a bit touched it the head.

5. A company that says that they support equal rights is really stupid. Thanks for not hating a person with a sexual preference? Eh.

6. Feminists can be very...loud? I guess. But If it wasn't for feminists, would girls have the rights they do now?
I support the equal rights between both genders, and transgenders. But could you guys keep quiet? Maybe people
like us think you are annoying because you are. YES, women should have equal rights from us males. I support that act. But come on, tell us something we don't know already.

And you anti-femenists, you guys need to chill a bit, too. Hatred solved nothing, and neither do "Femenazis". (Women that try to be the more domanite gender, when fact is, there is none. We. Are. All. E Q U E A L.)


AND FOR A LESS IMPORTANT OPINION:

7. YouTube is not a job, and if you are making monney off of it, it should be used as way to make extra money if the job you have at the moment isnt exactly making you enough money a week.

Just gonna argue my opinion on your opinions here.

1. Agreed.

2. Yes. I'd love to have a husband. (Not kidding.)

3. Also agreed, except I don't follow any religion, but I'm not atheist either.

They way I see it, and this may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I see 'churches' and such as a hierarchy in a way. There is someone in power, whether is be Jesus or God, then there is Father, or the Priest, whatever. Then there are the followers, the puppets, who go out and preach whatever they were told by the Father/Priest. They could literally say anything and they would follow.

Now I'm not saying all religions are like this, nor am I saying all churches are like this, or people. But the majority, I see this kind of thing.

4. This is what initially got me to respond. "Furries" are not just people who think they are hybrid anthromorphic animals. They are just people who enjoy making characters in that sort of way. Otherkin are different. They do see themselves as part of an animal, mostly in spirit though. Really, this isn't much of a mental issue like you make it out to be. A lot of natives see themselves as such, with spirits of animals being a part of them.

5. Well the thing is, we live in a world where everyone grew up with "a man should marry a woman." That's just how things have been for thousands of years. The fact that businesses are supporting equal rights and allowing such marriages in workplace is worthy of applause, cause most 'professional' places, from what I've heard in the states, would immediately fire someone if they had sexual preferences other than 'the norm'.

6. Basically.. That's all I got to say.

7. Okay, this is actually another thing I want to nitpick about. Anything can be made a job. Youtube can be as well. I don't know why you think Youtube shouldn't be a job, since you didn't really argue why it shouldn't. The uploaders are working hard to entertain us viewers, taking hours out of there day to see one video go up, to please the ever waiting audience. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get paid for what they're doing? Isn't it the dream to work for something you love to do? Perhaps that's what they love to do; entertain. Sure they aren't up on stage telling the same terribly jokes every night in front of a live audience, but they are still there to make other people's days better. Thousands, perhaps millions.

tl;dr -
Find a job you love to do, and do it. Don't let anyone stop you. Youtubers are the same in this boat.

DannyDee wrote:That clearly flew right over your head, didn't it?

Uh, no? Rock and Roll has always been Rock and Roll. It has gone through a few different phases or different genres of Rock have branched off of it, but in the end the rhythm and the genre hasn't changed at all. It's the same as it has been since the 1940's. The Beatles didn't change it, they didn't introduce anything new into it, they didn't plagiarize it, and they didn't shape it as a whole. They were famous, maybe a little overrated, but their music was good.

Were they over-popularized? Sure, I guess you could say that, but it doesn't remove the fact that their music was good all around.

If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

It's not just rock music that does this, you seem to be targeting a singularity in something that happens to the mass of music just for the sake of taking the piss out of a specific genre that had a legendary group. You seem to be forgetting idols like Elvis who did the same exact thing you describe The Beatles of doing. The same is happening now for most big-name rappers. It happened with Katy Perry and pop music.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.

Now here's where you trip up.

Tim Buckley was never really associated with Rock and Roll, and he died of a heroin overdose at 28. Because he died so young he wasn't able to be appreciated as an artist as much as say a big Rock and Roll group such as The Beatles, who were a big staple in the entire music industry. It's hard to get recognized in any type of industry when you're just a single person anyhow, the video game industry and culinary industry are somewhat affected by this, there are probably others that get affected but I can't think of them off the top of my head. It's one of those things that requires a snowball effect, getting a good enough start to begin your growth, some snowballs last longer than others because the snow is a lot wetter.

It also depends on what kind of genre is blooming in the current generation. The 60's, while beginning the psychedelic funk era, were overshadowed by the growing Rock and Roll industry, and that wasn't caused by The Beatles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses.

The problem with this is that The Beatles had their own style. The Kinks had their own style. The Rolling Stones had their own style. To not speak highly of another competing band is somewhat common if not egotistical. All three bands, while being part of the same genre, all had their own unique styles of music. To say that their (The Beatles) music was inferior because so-and-so's music had better writing is all based on opinion and not fact. If The Beatles were as bad as you claim they were then they would not have rose to fame like they did. There is a reason why they got so famous, and it was because their music was well received. It may not have been the best, but it was enough to become well received.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.

Music is a form of art, and not all art has to be a big, complex, difficult-to-follow, grand-scale creation. Not all music has to have a deep meaning, nor difficult content, or technical innovations (hell music today doesn't have most of that). They were famous because their music was easy to follow by the masses, and it sold to people who really loved the band. Sometimes to get famous you need to do something crazy simple, such as create the music that The Beatles created. They didn't have big ballads like Queen, they had simplistic songs that could be enjoyed by anyone from any age group, which made them famous.

XerX wrote:3. Also agreed, except I don't follow any religion, but I'm not atheist either.

They way I see it, and this may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I see 'churches' and such as a hierarchy in a way. There is someone in power, whether is be Jesus or God, then there is Father, or the Priest, whatever. Then there are the followers, the puppets, who go out and preach whatever they were told by the Father/Priest. They could literally say anything and they would follow.

Now I'm not saying all religions are like this, nor am I saying all churches are like this, or people. But the majority, I see this kind of thing.

Well said.

Also by logic of shaming otherkins then that means people are shaming the Native Americans who held animals in high regards. OOHOHOOHHOHOOHOHO you could upset a lot of people with that.

Unpopular opinion: I'm tired of GhostHawk trying to shove his controversial right-wing opinions down everyone's throats at any given chance. ('-c')

Marina wrote:Unpopular opinion: I'm tired of GhostHawk trying to shove his controversial right-wing opinions down everyone's throats at any given chance. ('-c')

Well I guess I see your point there. Yeah... it is kinda annoying.

8bitmushroom wrote:Uh, no? Rock and Roll has always been Rock and Roll. It has gone through a few different phases or different genres of Rock have branched off of it, but in the end the rhythm and the genre hasn't changed at all. It's the same as it has been since the 1940's. The Beatles didn't change it, they didn't introduce anything new into it, they didn't plagiarize it, and they didn't shape it as a whole. They were famous, maybe a little overrated, but their music was good.

What you're doing now is re-wording the original context.

8bitmushroom wrote:It's not just rock music that does this, you seem to be targeting a singularity in something that happens to the mass of music just for the sake of taking the piss out of a specific genre that had a legendary group. You seem to be forgetting idols like Elvis who did the same exact thing you describe The Beatles of doing. The same is happening now for most big-name rappers. It happened with Katy Perry and pop music.

I'm not talking about other artists here. I'm talking about the Beatles.

8bitmushroom wrote:Tim Buckley was never really associated with Rock and Roll, and he died of a heroin overdose at 28. Because he died so young he wasn't able to be appreciated as an artist as much as say a big Rock and Roll group such as The Beatles, who were a big staple in the entire music industry.

Are you being serious right now? There are plenty of artists who died young and are still appreciated. Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, to name a few...

8bitmushroom wrote:It's hard to get recognized in any type of industry when you're just a single person anyhow

Google; Successful solo artists

8bitmushroom wrote:It's one of those things that requires a snowball effect, getting a good enough start to begin your growth, some snowballs last longer than others because the snow is a lot wetter.

What has this got to do with the original argument presented?

8bitmushroom wrote:The problem with this is that The Beatles had their own style.

Not in their early years. When they started experimenting with LSD they changed their tune a bit. The White Album is a very creative piece of work.
It's highly likely that all the songs of the Beatles you claim to have their own style were either post-1964 or, the Beatles are the only 60s band you listen to outside of those mentioned.

8bitmushroom wrote:To say that their (The Beatles) music was inferior because so-and-so's music had better writing is all based on opinion and not fact. If The Beatles were as bad as you claim they were then they would not have rose to fame like they did. There is a reason why they got so famous, and it was because their music was well received. It may not have been the best, but it was enough to become well received.

Again, right over your head.

I didn't write this, by the way, it's a quote from another source. I actually love the Beatles, but were they are definitely over-rated and thousands of bands have made better music than they have in terms of technicality and creativity.

8bitmushroom wrote:Music is a form of art, and not all art has to be a big, complex, difficult-to-follow, grand-scale creation. Not all music has to have a deep meaning, nor difficult content, or technical innovations (hell music today doesn't have most of that).

You are correct. Minus the last part.

8bitmushroom wrote:They were famous because their music was easy to follow by the masses, and it sold to people who really loved the band. Sometimes to get famous you need to do something crazy simple, such as create the music that The Beatles created. They didn't have big ballads like Queen, they had simplistic songs that could be enjoyed by anyone from any age group, which made them famous.

Still re-wording the original context.

lighthouse64 wrote:Here's another unpopular opinion. (Well at least around here, and no I don't want to revive that topic) Evolution is fake gibberish.

Please explain to me why you think evolution is "fake".

Oh boy, I feel like this is about to turn into another religion thread. =P

Anyways, my opinion is that Frozen is a mediocre movie please don't kill me

Zeldamaster12 wrote:Anyways, my opinion is that Frozen is a mediocre movie please don't kill me

I agree. I liked it, don't get me wrong, but it's really overhyped for what it is - a disney film.

I actually liked Big Hero 6 better. Pls don't kill me Valtteri baby ;-;

lighthouse64 wrote:Here's another unpopular opinion. (Well at least around here, and no I don't want to revive that topic) Evolution is fake gibberish.

It's a belief. You never know, one of either creationism or Atheism could either be false. Maybe they both are. Maybe we don't know this information yet.

in my opinion Hitler was a very very bad man and the nazis were also bad

green boy wrote:in my opinion Hitler was a very very bad man and the nazis were also bad

Ok but that's not really an unpopular opinion (meaning an opinion that the majority of people doesn't share)

Edited main post regarding people's religious beliefs and religion sharing rules. Anyone found insulting one's religion in anyway will be reported.

MarioLuigiToadAndToad wrote:Edited main post regarding people's religious beliefs and religion sharing rules. Anyone found insulting one's religion in anyway will be reported.

Whoa, what. That's kinda bull, but okay. Just because some of us voiced opinions on what we thought what religion was like. >.>

I can understand the insulting part, but really, I haven't read one post that directly insults another religion.

Marina wrote:

green boy wrote:in my opinion Hitler was a very very bad man and the nazis were also bad

Ok but that's not really an unpopular opinion (meaning an opinion that the majority of people doesn't share)

some people might be against it though

like GhostHawk the Neo Nazi

XerX wrote:

MarioLuigiToadAndToad wrote:Edited main post regarding people's religious beliefs and religion sharing rules. Anyone found insulting one's religion in anyway will be reported.

Whoa, what. That's kinda bull, but okay. Just because some of us voiced opinions on what we thought what religion was like. >.>

I can understand the insulting part, but really, I haven't read one post that directly insults another religion.

You may explain your religion, you just can't tell people that your religion is better then another once done or during explaining. You may also not tell other members their religion is "stupid".

This is because I don't want big arguments, resulting in people being banned, and this topic being locked for mass amounts of people being offended.

(EDIT: PUT THIS ON THE MAIN POST INSTEAD)

Frozen wasn't even that good.

FallingSnow wrote:Frozen wasn't even that good.

Basically this.

Marina wrote:Unpopular opinion: I'm tired of GhostHawk trying to shove his controversial right-wing opinions down everyone's throats at any given chance. ('-c')

He's not shoving it down anyone's throats. He's stating his opinion. Left wing opinions can be controversial too, you know. Just not to most of you all because you guys agree with most of it, I'll assume.

DannyDee wrote:

Zeldamaster12 wrote:Anyways, my opinion is that Frozen is a mediocre movie please don't kill me

I agree. I liked it, don't get me wrong, but it's really overhyped for what it is - a disney film.

Marina wrote:I actually liked Big Hero 6 better. Pls don't kill me Valtteri baby ;-;

Agreed and agreed.

MarioLuigiToadAndToad wrote:

lighthouse64 wrote:Here's another unpopular opinion. (Well at least around here, and no I don't want to revive that topic) Evolution is fake gibberish.

It's a belief. You never know, one of either creationism or Atheism could either be false. Maybe they both are. Maybe we don't know this information yet.

Agreed. Not knowing for sure if a believe in particular is 'true' does jot disprove it's legitimacy.

XerX wrote:

MarioLuigiToadAndToad wrote:Edited main post regarding people's religious beliefs and religion sharing rules. Anyone found insulting one's religion in anyway will be reported.

Whoa, what. That's kinda bull, but okay. Just because some of us voiced opinions on what we thought what religion was like. >.>

I can understand the insulting part, but really, I haven't read one post that directly insults another religion.

Eh, I saw a couple coming from both sides but I don't think anyone noticed.

I just want to shout out this personal statement: most christians in my area don't shun or hate any group of people, including homosexuals, but they do dissent the actions of homosexuality, but they never share these kind of opinions. Why? Because they know they can rustle someone's jimmies. I really expect you guys to do the same here. Don't be an ass about your beliefs.

If I see some purposely provocative posts, warnings will be handed out.