你有什么不受欢迎的观点( 二)

Ali K, Critic of modern/liberal narratives
I have many, and here they are:
Human life and animal life are not equal. Human life is far more valuable. Basic moral intuition tells us this. This doesn’t mean animals should be mistreated or should be killed as a hobby (i.e hunting) unless its for eating. However, ask yourself if you could save a baby toddler or a rat from dying, which one would you save? I would instantly save the toddler, not a rat. Most sane people would do the same. This alone shows that human life is more worthy of saving.
Science is very powerful, however we in this day and age blow its power out of proportion. Lets be honest, science is perceived by many as modern day God. A lot of the science we lay people take is really, faith. Atheists have heavy emphasis on proof yet they cannot realize that even science, which is limited to empirical evidence has to rely on factors such as logic, rationality and mathematics which it cannot prove. So how can science be at the forefront of evidences when it cannot prove the very factors it has to rely on? To add on top of that, you need to have faith in the scientific method you are using. If you do not have that, then how would you proceed to do the experiment and judge it according to what your method?

我有很多这样的观点，比如下面这些:
人的生命和动物的生命是不平等的，人的生命要珍贵得多，基本的道德和直觉告诉我们，这并不意味着动物应该被虐待或应该被杀死，仅出于爱好(即狩猎)，除非是为了吃，但是，问问你自己，如果你能拯救一个蹒跚学步的婴儿或一只濒临死亡的老鼠，你会拯救哪一个?我会立刻救那个蹒跚学步的孩子，而不是一只老鼠，大多数理智的人都会这么做，仅这一点就说明人的生命更珍贵。

科学是非常强大的，然而我们在这个时代把它的力量吹得不成样子，老实说，科学被许多人视为现代的上帝，我们普通人所接受的很多科学都是信仰。无神论者非常重视证据，但他们无法意识到，即使是仅限于经验证据的科学，也不得不依赖于它无法证明的逻辑、理性和数学等因素，那么，当科学不能证明它所依赖的因素时，它怎么可能代表真相呢?除此之外，你还需要对你使用的科学方法有信心，如果你没有，那么你如何继续做实验，并根据你的方法来判断它?

I don’t know why this is controversial but white people can be victims of racism just as much as anyone else. I mean, the amount of criticism and jokes and mockery made out of white people nowadays is way too far. If this was done to someone outside the white ethnicity, then they would be looked down upon. Men and women are not equal when it comes to capabilities, biology and psychology. Needless to explain, this is a fact. Again, this is not to be sexist or anything. It is true. The generally conservative views on social climate just makes more sense. I feel that liberal thought process is generally hard to be consistent with. I also feel that conservative thoughts and view points tend to have more logic behind them.
Gender roles exist and are natural and are more beneficial to societies than to not have them. There are certain things that are better suited for men such as construction, military, working in mines and others that are better suited for women. This isn’t to say men and women are limited to their roles. It simply means that men and women are more efficient in terms of certain roles in society. For example, even in Scandanavian countries that have gone further than any other country in terms of gender neutrality, the differences in genders are FAR higher than any other country. Women choosing to go into STEM fields has dropped further. Many psychologists argue that if you leave a society to make its own choice, men and women will segregate themselves in accordance to their capabilities and natural inclincation towards certain tasks. Also, you cannot blame culture because even the most conservative views and cultural expectations of women, have seen a huge portion of women in STEM fields, higher than the West. For example, Iran, 70% of graduates in medicine are women, in Algeria, 42% of graduates in computer science are women. If culture was the reason as to why women choose traditional feminine fields such as nursing, surely we would at least see a better rate in western societies of women choosing to go into STEM fields than Iran and Algeria, which are not known to be gender egalitarian.

我不知道这个问题为什么会引起争议，但是白人和其他人一样也可能成为种族主义的受害者，我是说，现在对白人的批评，笑话和嘲笑实在太多了，如果这种事发生在白人以外的人身上，他们就会被人看不起，在事实上，在能力、生理和心理方面，男女是不平等的，再说一次，这并不是性别歧视，这是真实存在的。我觉得自由主义的思维过程通常很难保持一致，我也觉得保守的思想和观点背后往往有更多的逻辑。

性别角色自然是存在的，对社会来说，有一些工作更适合男性，比如建筑、军事、矿山工作，也还有其他更适合女性的工作，这并不是说男人和女人被限制在他们的角色范围内，这仅仅意味着男人和女人在社会中的某些角色更有效率，例如，即使是在性别方面比其他国家走得更远的斯堪的纳维亚国家，性别差异也远高于其他国家 选择进入STEM领域的女性人数进一步下降。

许多心理学家认为，如果你离开一个由社会自己做出选择的社会，男性和女性将根据他们的能力和对某些任务的自然倾向而将自己隔离开来，此外，你不能责怪文化，因为即使是对女性最保守的观点和文化里，也有很大一部分女性在STEM领域工作，高于西方，例如，在伊朗，70%的医学毕业生是女性，在阿尔及利亚，42%的计算机科学毕业生是女性，如果文化是女性选择护理等传统女性领域的原因，那么我们肯定会看到西方社会女性选择STEM领域的比例要高于伊朗和阿尔及利亚，这两个国家并不以性别平等著称。

Religion is the only way to obxtively justify morality. Without it, you simply cannot. No, utilitarianism is not the answer. Saying utilitarianism is a way to derive morality is wrong because the greatest good for the greatest number of people doesn’t make something moral. Atheistic positions cannot justify morality. Again, this is not to say that atheists cannot be moral. It just means that they cannot justify it. There will never be a system of absolute equality. Keep in mind, I am referring to it from an outcome perspective, not opportunity or human value. Human value and opportunity should be equal all across the world. Human beings, generally are not perfectly equal in terms of their talent. Not everyone will make the same amount of money, have the same talents, or have the same luxuries. you simply cannot however, force equal outcomes.
Modern day western feminism has done more disservice to women than it has done good. They have forced many women to believe that they like to do things that they simply do not want to. Entering into workforce which women generally, do not want to. Spend hours at work as opposed to preferably spending hours with kids at home. Wage gap doesn’t exist. This statistic of women earning 70 cents for every dollar a man makes is horse shit. They do not take into account the fact that on average, men do put in more hours at work, women take more time off of work due to having children. By the ways, there is nothing wrong with this. But at least be honest in statistics. When the differences are taken into account, we see the wage gap doesn’t exist. On top of that, more men are willing to work dangerous jobs hence why the fatality rate at work place is way higher for men. Not something we should make a big deal out of. Plus, if companies could get away with paying women less, they’d do it.

宗教是客观地为道德正名的唯一途径。没有它，你根本做不到。不，功利主义不是答案。说功利主义是推导道德的一种方式是错误的，因为为大多数人带来最大的好处并不意味着道德。无神论立场不能为道德辩护。这并不是说无神论者没有道德。这只是意味着他们无法为其辩护。绝对平等的制度永远不会存在。请记住我是从结果的角度而不是从机会或人类价值的角度说这个话。人类的价值和机会在全世界应该是平等的。人类在才能方面通常是不完全平等的。不是每个人拥有相同的天赋，都能挣到相同的钱，或者拥有相同的奢侈品。然而，你根本不可能强迫出现平等的结果。

现代西方女权主义对女性的伤害多于带来的好处，他们迫使许多女性相信，她们喜欢做自己根本不想做的事情。进入劳动力市场通常是女性不愿意的。把时间花在工作上，而不是花在家里陪孩子。工资差距并不存在，说男人赚1美元，女人赚70美分，这一统计数据太扯淡了。他们没有考虑到这样一个事实:平均而言，男性确实投入了更多的工作时间，而女性则因为有孩子而请了更多的假。顺便说一下，这没什么错。但至少在统计数据上要诚实的考虑到这些差异，我们发现工资差距并不存在。最重要的是，更多的男性愿意从事危险的工作，这就是为什么工作场所的死亡率对男性来说要高得多。我们不应该小题大做。此外，如果公司可以不受惩罚地降低女性薪酬，他们就会这么做。

Men are dominant ones in society because they more of them tend to have dominance in their nature. There is nothing wrong with this and we shouldn’t lose our minds over this. Personality traits such as agreeableness, less prent in men. This is proven my numerous studies done. In fact in most gender neutral countries like scandanavian countries, the gender differences increased instead of decreasing. But this results in them being more dominant.
Women generally make different life choices than men when it comes to roles in society. Being dominant comes with too many responsibilities. Civilizations were built upon men conquering parts of the world, building societies etc. This isn’t to say women are not capable of doing this. They simply would rather not. This is why traditionally, it is the men that propose, men hold doors open, men protect the family, and women LIKE this. They prefer that the man does his part. Again, nothing wrong with this. We need to be a little more conservative in our thought process as it makes more sense and is more in line. It isn’t everyday labeling everything as sexist or traditional. The issues men face in society isn’t talked about enough. Examples of this are suicide rates, fatality at work places, unfair judgement and settlements at divorce cases to name a few. When have you seen a feminist stand up for these? never.

男人在社会中是支配性的，因为他们在本质上更倾向于支配性，这没有错，我们不应该为此失去理智一定要弄清楚这个问题，随和等个性特征在男性中并不常见，这证明了我做过的许多研究，事实上，在大多数性别中立的国家，如斯堪的纳维亚国家，性别差异增加而不是减少，但这导致他们更占优势。

当涉及到社会角色时，女性通常会做出与男性不同的生活选择，主导地位意味着更多的责任，文明是建立在人类征服世界部分地区，建立社会等基础上的，这并不是说女性不能做到这一点，她们只是不想这样，这就是为什么传统上，男人求婚，男人保护家庭，而不是女人，她们更希望男人做他该做的事，我们需要在我们的思维过程中更加保守一点，因为它更有意义，更符合生活，并不是每天都给每件事贴上性别歧视或传统的标签，男性在社会中面临的问题谈论得不够多，这方面的例子包括自杀率、工作场所的意外死亡、不公平的判决和离婚案件中的和解等，你什么时候见过女权主义者支持这些?从来没有。

obxtive morality exists. Morality cannot be subjective. This gives the green light to anyone come out and say stealing is okay and gives as much legitimacy to it as someone who says stealing is not okay. There is no real ethical reason behind being a vegan. To say all life is valuable and we shouldn’t kill animals raises the question that plants are classified as life. Now the argument against this is that plants do not feel pain. Debatable but even if I agree they don’t, that only throws the all life is valuable argument out the window because now your reasoning for not eating meat is that animals feel pain. Which implies that if we could find a way to kill animals without them feeling pain, it would be okay.
I will add another one. Equal outcome and equal opportunity is not the same. You can give people equal opportunity, however you cannot enforce an equal outcome. The more liberal side of the population seems to conflate the two. They think that there is unequal representation of people in every playing field because there isn’t equal opportunity. This isn’t true. In a free society, people are bound to make unequal decisions and therefore resulting in unequal results.

道德是客观的，不是主观的，这就给那些站出来说偷窃是可以被接受的人开了绿灯，就像那些说偷窃是不可以接受的人一样给他们披上合法的外衣，成为素食主义者并没有真正的道德原因，所有的生命都是有价值的，植物被归类为生命，反对这一观点的论据是植物感觉不到疼痛，这是有争议的，但即使我同意他们不这么认为，那也只能把所有的生命都抛到一边因为现在你不吃肉的理由是动物会感到痛苦，也就是说，如果我们能找到一种方法杀死动物，不让它们感到疼痛，那就没问题。

还有就是，平等的结果和平等的机会是不一样的，你可以给人们平等的机会，但是你不能强求一个平等的结果，民众中比较开明的一方似乎把这两者混为一谈，他们认为在每个竞技场上都有不平等的代表，因为没有平等的机会。其实，在一个自由的社会里，人们注定要做出不平等的决定，从而导致不平等的结果。
 
Anonymous
I'm posting this anonymously because I'm afraid that I will be stoned because of the opinion I hold. I'm a liberal. I believe that people are ¨C evidently ¨C equal, regardless of their race. I'm a member of a minority that often faces discrimination, therefore I can imagine what it could be like to be black. But... Here comes the unpopular opinion.
I think the Black Lives Matter movement has done more harm than good, is misleading, and is not a solution to anything. Especially with all the rioting. Police brutality is a very serious problem, there is nothing similar in any democratic, western country. But one thing is very clear: it is not specifically against blacks but against all people. The system is wrong and it needs to change. Racism is a serious problem but it has little to do with this. (If we take the bigger picture of course, not individual cases which can unfortunately be racially motivated.) If we look at the data, we can see that whites are not less likely to be killed by the police then blacks. This is a fact. The media just withholds information; they're comparing the wrong numbers. 

我之所以匿名发表这篇文章，是因为我害怕我会因为我的观点而飘飘然，我是自由的，我相信，无论什么种族，人们都是平等的，我是一个经常面临歧视的少数族裔，因此我可以想象身为黑人的处境是什么样子，但是，下面是一些不受欢迎的观点：
我认为“黑人命也是命”运动弊大于利，这是一种误导性的观点，不是解决所有问题的办法，特别是在发生暴乱的情况下，警察暴行是一个非常严重的问题，在任何民主的西方国家都没有类似的情况，但有一件事很清楚:它不是针对黑人，而是针对所有人，这种体制是错误的，它需要改变。种族主义是一个严重的问题，但它与此无关(当然，如果我们从更大的角度来看，而不是个别情况，这些情况很可能是由种族因素引起的)，如果我们看一下数据，我们可以看到白人被警察杀害的可能性并不比黑人低，这是事实，媒体只是隐瞒信息，他们在比较错误的数字。

You can look up the FBI database. African americans make up 13.4%[1] of the US population, yet 29,3%[2] of people who are killed by the police are black. But, here comes the other part of the story... The thing is, african americans are responsible for 38.7% of violent crime.[3] Same number for whites for example:
Total: 60.1%[4] Violent crime: 58,4%[5] Shot to death by the police: 46,1%
[6] So if we take the offenders, not the whole population that has nothing to do with the police, we get this:
Fatal police shootings of blacks/ number of black violent crime offenders: 0,155%
Fatal police shootings of whites / number of white violent crime offenders: 0,162%
No significant difference. I don't think we shouldn't question our own media unlike the other side's. This is somewhat propaganda-ish, and although not for a bad cause, it is to make hatred and is nothing more than a political movement instead of a civil right one. 
I'm truly disappointed in left-leaning media. Also in people. How to get rid of violence with violence? Blacks are killed by the police. This must stop. But whites and latinos are also and on a similar if not insignificantly higher rates. This must stop too. There is just no point calling this movement Black Lives Matter, as police violence is against all people. 
 
你可以查一下联邦调查局的数据库，非裔美国人占13.4%，占美国人口的29.3%，被警察打死的人中没有一个是黑人，但是另一方面的表现是，非洲裔美国人对38.7%的暴力犯罪负有责任。同样的数字，例如:暴力犯罪:58.4%，被警察枪杀:46,1%，所以如果我们把罪犯，而不是所有和警察没有关系的人放在一起比较，我们得到这个数据:

警察枪杀黑人人数和黑人暴力犯罪人数对比数据:0.155%；
警察枪杀白人的人数和白人暴力犯罪罪犯的人数对比数据:0.162%.

由此看出，没有显著差异，我认为我们不应该质疑我们自己的媒体而不去质疑对方的媒体，这听起来有点像宣传，但它是制造仇恨，只不过是一场政治运动，而不是一场民权运动。我对左倾媒体和这些人真的很失望，如何用暴力来摆脱暴力?黑人被警察杀害，这必须停止，但是白人和拉丁美洲人的比率也差不多，如果不是微不足道的话，这种情况也必须停止，称这场运动为“黑人的命也是命”是毫无意义的，因为警察暴力是针对所有人的。
 
Marco Antonio Muoz, Lawyer, experienced and boring.
The main problem with society today is that IT HAS NO REAL PROBLEMS. DISCLAIMER: I am making my claim observing the traditional western society of the rich countries. I am PERFECTLY aware that there are many societies with a myriad of problems in the world. But please hear me out. For much of his history humans fought for their very survival. It was either be strong or be dead. As time passed we progressed, and societies became more complex and rich. But STILL you could die from a simple cavity, apendicitis, or your city could lose the wrong war and you were either dead or enslaved. Even all mighty empires suffered this fate (i.e.: Samarkand and Baghdad when facing the mongols).
Come the Renaisance, and humanity took a leap forward. But STILL we suffered from many problems, even monarchs and leaders: Frederick the Great, mighty and wise king of they wealthy state of Prussia, and George Washington, leader of the mighty new nation of the United States, ended with wooden teeth early in life. As we continued our progress, wealth increased and we solved most of mankind¡¯s problems, one by one. Infections and diseases were beaten by antibiotics and vaccines. Distance and communications problems were solved by engineering. Hunger and famine were solved by technology (and yes, GMO’s played an important role on this). We are even closer to global peace than we have ever been (anyone who claims we are not, should read more history).
Today mankind is vastly more wealthy, prosperous, and peaceful than it has EVER been in history. We produce more food than we need globally (the fact that some people still hunger is merely a problem of policy and management, not capacity). We have instant worldwide communication, and we can travel to the farthest places of the world in at most 24 hours. We have baten nearly every disease known to man. Poor people today have more luxuries than kings and emperors had 100 years ago (i.e.: regular food and heating). And yet some people keep claiming that humanity is in crisis. We’ve beaten diseases, so some people decided that vaccines were unhealthy, and measles is back for vengeance. We had more than enough food, so some people decided that GMOs were not natural and only organic food is really good, and thus blocked Golden Rice, removing an excellent source of Vitamin A from millions of children in need.
But not content enough, some people are now being offended and feeling unsafe just from hearing certain words or opinions different than their own, despite living in the SAFEST moment in human history. We now deny basic biology and claim that gender is fluid and it doesn’t depend on your genes but on your choices, So, despite mankind having solved almost all of its problems, we decided it was not enough and simple created new and fictional problems, all so that we can complain again
 
当今社会的主要问题是它没有真正的问题，免责声明:我是通过观察富裕国家的传统西方社会来发表我的观点的，我很清楚，世界上有许多社会存在着无数的问题，但请听我说完，在他的大部分历史中，人类为生存而战，要么坚强要么死亡，但随着时间的推移，我们进步了，社会变得更加复杂和富裕，但你仍然可能死于简单的龋齿，阑尾炎这些病，或者你的城市可能在一场错误的战争中被输掉，你要么死，要么被奴役，甚至所有强大的帝国都遭受了这样的命运(比如:撒马尔罕和巴格达在面对蒙古人的时候)。

到了文艺复兴时期，人类向前迈进了一大步，但是，我们仍然遭受了许多问题的困扰，甚至君主和领袖也一样，比如伟大的、强大的、英智的普鲁士国王腓特烈，以及强大的美国新国家的领袖乔治·华盛顿，都很早就去世了，随着我们的不断进步，财富不断增加，我们解决了人类的一个接一个的大多数问题，抗生素和疫苗战胜了传染病和疾病，距离和通信问题都由基建工程解决了，饥饿和饥荒是由技术解决的(转基因在这方面发挥了重要作用)。我们比以往任何时候都更接近全球和平(任何声称我们不和平的人，都应该多读一些历史)。

今天，人类比历史上任何时候都更加富裕、繁荣和和平，我们在全球范围内生产的粮食超过了我们的需求(事实上，一些人仍然饥饿只是政策和管理的问题，而不是能力的问题)。我们有即时的全球通信，我们可以在24小时内旅行到世界上最远的地方，我们几乎预防了人类已知的所有疾病。

今天的穷人比100年前的国王和皇帝拥有更多的奢侈品(即:正常的食物和供暖)，然而，还是有些人一直声称人类正处于危机之中，我们战胜了疾病，但有些人认为疫苗不健康，麻疹又回来复仇了；我们有足够多的食物，但有些人认为转基因食品不是天然的，只有有机食品才是真正好的，因此阻止了“黄金大米”，使数百万需要维生素A的儿童失去了一种极佳的来源，除此之外，一些人尽管他们生活在人类历史上最安全的时刻，现在正因为听到与自己不同的某些话语或观点而感到被冒犯和感到不安全。

所以，尽管人类已经解决了几乎所有的问题，但我们认为这还不够，并且还简单地创造了新的和虚构的问题，所有这些都让我们可以再次抱怨。
 
Thomas Mitchell Friend, Viewpoints of life from an arguably unique perspective
Currently, after watching the news during this rather tacky time of the year, I hold what could possibly be an unpopular opinion but here’s the lowdown of what I saw. The news report I saw was about a particular person being rather anti-mask-wearing and claiming that it is draconian and an affront to her human rights. Of course such videos have popped up very frequently during the course of this pandemic but what has sort a led me to formulate this opinion now is when I saw that Australia civil libertarians and lawyers actually admit that such an incentive is actually necessary - and I actually agree with them and I personally am proud that they’ve finally stood up to say this.
But what my unpopular opinion about this whole mask vs no mask controversy is about is not so much about the legality of it all (because I do believe it is legal for the police and private businesses to warn people about the consequences of not wearing a mask). It’s more or less to do with what could be an incentive or something to that effect. I believe that if a person willingly forgoes wearing a mask or doing a COVID test because they believe it is a draconian measure, then let them be but then when they get sick with Coronavirus, they should be charged a higher medical bill when they seek recovery and FURTHERMORE should be charged the medical bills of anyone who they’ve directly affected with the virus (through contact tracing).
Sure, we will respect your right to not wear a mask, self-isolate and/or take a viral test but your freedom to be out during such a crisis should not be without its consequences. You KNOW that the virus is dangerous and it can incapacitate anyone, you KNOW you could be a carrier for the virus and not know, you KNOW that there is advice from medical professionals about how to decrease your risk of catching it, you KNOW that businesses are doing their best to do their bit for public safety while also allowing for the economy to run¡­ and yet you just choose to disregard all that just so you can be free to you, To the rest of us however, the advice from these medical professionals literally makes the difference between life and death. Sure the economy will be hit regardless of what measures are taken but if we all do our bit to be COVID-safe by following the guidelines, then the chances of deadly outbreaks occuring and (consequently) issued extended quarantines will be significantly lowered. The proof is there. Masks and controlled physical distancing help lower the chance that you and the people around you acquire COVID.
 
目前，在这个时候看了新闻之后，我认为这可能是一个不受欢迎的观点，但以下是我看到的真相：

我看到的新闻报道是关于一个人在非常时期不戴口罩，并声称要求戴口罩的行为严厉的侵犯了她的人权,澳大利亚公民自由主义者和律师承认这个观点，实际上，我也同意他们的观点，我个人感到很欣慰，他们终于站起来把自己的心声说出来了，但我不喜欢的观点是，关于整个戴口罩与不戴口罩的争议，并不是关于它的合法性(因为我相信，警察和私人企业警告人们不戴口罩的后果是合法的)，这或多或少可能需要激励或达到类似效果的措施，我认为，如果一个人因为认为这是一种严厉的措施而自愿放弃戴口罩或做冠状病毒检测，那就随他们去吧，但当他们感染了冠状病毒时，当他们寻求康复时，他们应该被收取更高的医疗费，而且他们应该被收取任何因他而感染病毒的人的医疗费(通过接触者追踪)。

当然，我们会尊重你不戴口罩、自我隔离或接受病毒测试的权利，但你在这样的危机中外出的自由不应该没有后果，你知道病毒是危险的，它可以使任何人丧失能力，但你不知道你可能是病毒的携带者，你知道医学专业人士会建议你如何减少感染的风险，企业正在尽最大努力为公共安全尽自己的一份力，同时也让经济运行，但你们却选择忽视这一切，这样你们就可以自由地面对自己，然而，对于我们其他人来说，这些医学专家的建议实际上是生死攸关的，无论采取什么措施，经济都会受到冲击，但如果我们都能通过遵循这些指导方针，为2019在疫情防控尽一份力，那么发生致命疫情的几率和延长隔离时间的几率将会显著降低，证据就在那里，戴口罩和隔离措施有助于降低您和您周围的人感染病毒的几率。