Post unpopular opinions here

[Richmondbread]

Unpopular opinion: Even in his prime, Brad Pitt was really not that great looking, also for being a Blondie.

[Tooting Carmen]

Men who use their looks and sexuality to enhance their wealth and fame are usually judged much less harshly than women who do the same. For example, could you imagine any female singer getting away with a live performance like this?

[BakersfieldChimp]

Men who use their looks and sexuality to enhance their wealth and fame are usually judged much less harshly than women who do the same. For example, could you imagine any female singer getting away with a live performance like this?

Madonna, Miley Cyrus for starters.

[Daco Celtic]

Listen babe, it's your night to pay for dinner

[Daco Celtic]

Pinot Noir is overrated

[TheOldNorth]

You guys are hilarious, it doesn't matter what you believe in, the world is on a completely different path now. It'll be years, decades, until it follows the law of nature.

@The Old North there would have to be a extreme global collapse for that to happen.

according to IQ scores over time and rate of technological advancement rate per capita, the world had been on the decline sense the 1960s and is currently like the year 1600 in the intelligence of people in the western world, and is expected to completely collapse into a second dark ages by the time of our grandchildren and the very latest unless something drastically changes the ever plummeting genetic quality of human beings

[JamesBond007]

according to IQ scores over time and rate of technological advancement rate per capita, the world had been on the decline sense the 1960s and is currently like the year 1600 in the intelligence of people in the western world, and is expected to completely collapse into a second dark ages by the time of our grandchildren and the very latest unless something drastically changes the ever plummeting genetic quality of human beings

Things will change it is called CRISPR, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and AI. CISPR/Genetic engineering and nanotechnological enhancements may not be available to poor people , though.

Anyway, it is obvious how genetic engineering can increase intelligence but not so much nanotechnology for most people. You will be able to inject nanotechnology, like heroin, that will put nanobots into your bloodstream that will lodge in your brain and enhance cognitive performance.

[JamesBond007]

You were doing well until you brought up Evolution.

Seriously, I don't have time for this kind of idiocy man I could be reading a good book rather than reading your vapid trash :

Some people, including most scientists, believe that evolution is a biological theory which describes factual truths about our world. Others - - mostly religious fundamentalists -- believe that evolution is a false theory, usually because they believe that life forms were created by a Deity and are immutable. And yet others -- mostly philosophers -- believe that evolution is a tautology which maintains the truth of the doctrine of "survival of the fittest" only because, in the final analysis, the term fit is defined as that which survives. In reality, however, all three of these positions are wrong: The fact is that evolution is an organizing principle which cannot be dispensed with because events cannot be sensibly interpreted without it. To explain, it is first useful to note that evolution is much like the Continuity Principle, i.e., the belief that the future will be like the past: While all natural law is justified on the basis of the Continuity Principle, it is obvious that the Continuity Principle itself cannot be justified on the basis of the Continuity Principle. Furthermore, if we were to cease to assume the truth of the Continuity Principle, then we would immediately lose the basis of our belief in natural law, and thus the basis of our belief in the regularities of everyday life. In fact, one could say that the belief in the Continuity Principle has been determined by evolution: Those who did not believe in it were eliminated in the struggle for survival, even if there is no "justification" for believing in it.

Now in light of the above discussion, it is not difficult to show that evolution constitutes a principle similar to that of the Continuity Principle. To explain, let us conceptualize evolution in terms of systems theory as follows: Consider an object x which has some finite number of states n which it has a non-zero probability of entering for any time t (Note: This is a general description of every object of the world). If there is some state or set of states S (a subset of n) which is such that, if x enters S, then x will remain in S, then S constitutes an equilibrium (or, more properly, a partial equilibrium) for the "system" of x's behavior, since x may now move among the states in S, but not to states outside S. We then say that the movement of x to S represents the process of evolution, and that the states of S "survive" and hence are "fit" while the states of the set n-S do not survive and are thus not "fit".

When evolution is understood in the above manner, we immediately see that it is not a dispensable concept, but rather is imbedded in our thought processes in such a way that thinking would be impossible without it, and thus that denial of evolution would be not merely futile, but absurd.

[Richmondbread]

Seriously, I don't have time for this kind of idiocy man I could be reading a good book rather than reading your vapid trash :

Some people, including most scientists, believe that evolution is a biological theory which describes factual truths about our world. Others - - mostly religious fundamentalists -- believe that evolution is a false theory, usually because they believe that life forms were created by a Deity and are immutable. And yet others -- mostly philosophers -- believe that evolution is a tautology which maintains the truth of the doctrine of "survival of the fittest" only because, in the final analysis, the term fit is defined as that which survives. In reality, however, all three of these positions are wrong: The fact is that evolution is an organizing principle which cannot be dispensed with because events cannot be sensibly interpreted without it. To explain, it is first useful to note that evolution is much like the Continuity Principle, i.e., the belief that the future will be like the past: While all natural law is justified on the basis of the Continuity Principle, it is obvious that the Continuity Principle itself cannot be justified on the basis of the Continuity Principle. Furthermore, if we were to cease to assume the truth of the Continuity Principle, then we would immediately lose the basis of our belief in natural law, and thus the basis of our belief in the regularities of everyday life. In fact, one could say that the belief in the Continuity Principle has been determined by evolution: Those who did not believe in it were eliminated in the struggle for survival, even if there is no "justification" for believing in it.

Now in light of the above discussion, it is not difficult to show that evolution constitutes a principle similar to that of the Continuity Principle. To explain, let us conceptualize evolution in terms of systems theory as follows: Consider an object x which has some finite number of states n which it has a non-zero probability of entering for any time t (Note: This is a general description of every object of the world). If there is some state or set of states S (a subset of n) which is such that, if x enters S, then x will remain in S, then S constitutes an equilibrium (or, more properly, a partial equilibrium) for the "system" of x's behavior, since x may now move among the states in S, but not to states outside S. We then say that the movement of x to S represents the process of evolution, and that the states of S "survive" and hence are "fit" while the states of the set n-S do not survive and are thus not "fit".

When evolution is understood in the above manner, we immediately see that it is not a dispensable concept, but rather is imbedded in our thought processes in such a way that thinking would be impossible without it, and thus that denial of evolution would be not merely futile, but absurd.

Scientists say this.. Scientists say that.. I suppose you're going to warn me about Climate Change as well because some Scientists says it must be true...

[Tooting Carmen]

Madonna, Miley Cyrus for starters.

I don't know about Miley Cyrus, but Madonna has been criticised and ridiculed for rather less raunchy stuff than that, including almost being arrested during her 1990 Blonde Ambition Tour in Canada.