Unpopular/Controversial Opinions #3

i saw sparks:

Like, I don't mean to be a bitch about it, but I find it a little unfair that people are so quick to compare them to the boy bands of the 90s because the boys of BTR aren't musicians.They're actors. It's like comparing apples to oranges to me, like comparing Chris Brown's handful of movie roles to someone who's famous for being an actor, like George Clooney

But nonetheless, BTR is a boy band - and boy bands do get compared, just because they have a TV show and the TV show is their main priority doesn't mean they shouldn't be categorized as a boy band... that's what that are too.

---

I'm with what someone else said above. I don't think Valentine's Day is all about romantic love. All kinds of love should be celebrated.

As much as I think Valentine's Day is overly commercialized, I'm still looking foreword to spending two nights away with my boyfriend for it. 0.-

i saw sparks:

Like, I don't mean to be a bitch about it, but I find it a little unfair that people are so quick to compare them to the boy bands of the 90s because the boys of BTR aren't musicians.They're actors. It's like comparing apples to oranges to me, like comparing Chris Brown's handful of movie roles to someone who's famous for being an actor, like George Clooney

Totally get what you're saying, but like Jewel Nicole said, they still sing, therefore I consider them a boyband. Even if they are primarily actors.

---

I don't think learning about, or wanting to learn about different religions makes me a bad Christian. I don't have to believe them just because I learn about them.

beneath the stars.:

I don't think learning about, or wanting to learn about different religions makes me a bad Christian. I don't have to believe them just because I learn about them.

I don't think so either. On the contrary, it shows (in my opinion, anyway) that you are actually aware of conflicting faiths, but you're still confident in what you believe.



______

I don't find going to the dentist to be all that scary. I mean, it helps in the end. Not to say I enjoy going -cough, minus the laughing gas, cough- but its not as bad as a lot of people act.

The Rumor:

I completely agree about not wanting an ereader. My sister and mum both have one and I'm just...not convinced. I love curling up with a good book, feeling the pages and turning them organically. It's all part of the reading experience for me. I'd hate to see books die out because of ereaders.

I don't like ereaders either - I've gotten them as gifts in the past and had to return them. I don't really see the point of it. It seems like the one real benefit is having a lot of books at your disposal at once, but that's not something that appeals to me at all. I can only physically read one book at a time so...eh. I also think that it would be too much of a risk to take them out on public transportation - could easily be snatched and stolen or even just lost (at least with a Mp3 player and cellphones, for the most part they stay nestled safely in your purse or pocket, rather than sitting in front of you for everyone to see). I'd rather risk loosing a ten dollar book than a $100 e-reader. I also think it would be easier to overspend with an e-reader, since your have all these books at your fingertips, books that you get as soon as you pay. It would just be too easy to splurge.

i saw sparks:

Like, I don't mean to be a bitch about it, but I find it a little unfair that people are so quick to compare them to the boy bands of the 90s because the boys of BTR aren't musicians.They're actors. It's like comparing apples to oranges to me, like comparing Chris Brown's handful of movie roles to someone who's famous for being an actor, like George Clooney

But bands (and pop music in general) from the 90s are different to bands these days, which is the point that was being made (that 90s bands are preferred.) Regardless of whether they also happen to act, BTR make music, ergo, are a band. I just googled them and their url is even btrband.

While I see where you're coming from, it's like saying a musician who has a degree or used to work in, I don't know, science, is let off for not being as good as other acts because 'oh, actually they're a scientist.' People can have more than one skill.

Bixby:

I don't like ereaders either - I've gotten them as gifts in the past and had to return them. I don't really see the point of it. It seems like the one real benefit is having a lot of books at your disposal at once, but that's not something that appeals to me at all. I can only physically read one book at a time so...eh. I also think that it would be too much of a risk to take them out on public transportation - could easily be snatched and stolen or even just lost (at least with a Mp3 player and cellphones, for the most part they stay nestled safely in your purse or pocket, rather than sitting in front of you for everyone to see). I'd rather risk loosing a ten dollar book than a $100 e-reader. I also think it would be easier to overspend with an e-reader, since your have all these books at your fingertips, books that you get as soon as you pay. It would just be too easy to splurge.

I agree with this for the most part however I wished that when I went away for a month in the summer that I had had an ereader. This is because as much as I prefer to have the actual book a month back packing with a ton of books is not easy. I took two and I read them in a few days then had nothing to read. However if I had of took an ereader I could have charged it and stored enough books for the whole month.

I'd only get one if I was going backpacking and couldn't physically pack and carry the books if need.

Love is love, no matter with who, what or how many. It does not affect me so I don't see why it should be my business.

pulmonary archery.:

But bands (and pop music in general) from the 90s are different to bands these days, which is the point that was being made (that 90s bands are preferred.) Regardless of whether they also happen to act, BTR make music, ergo, are a band. I just googled them and their url is even btrband.

While I see where you're coming from, it's like saying a musician who has a degree or used to work in, I don't know, science, is let off for not being as good as other acts because 'oh, actually they're a scientist.' People can have more than one skill.

But as I said, I still think it's unfair to compare them to the BSB because the BSB didn't have to stretch themselves out over fifty million different projects: they only had to focus on their music. Plus, since the guys in BTR are predominantly actors, not musicians, they've had to work harder (I know at least one of the guys had to have vocal lessons) on the music end because they didn't start out as musicians.

Referring back to my analogy before, though Chris Brown is predominantly a musician, he has acted in a couple of films, but no one would go as far as to compare him to someone like George Clooney, who is known for acting and whose career is solely focused on acting.

I mean, I don't have a problem if someone prefers 90s boybands to BTR (most people I know do because that's what they grew up listening to), but at the same time, I don't think the playing field is exactly even, and that's my unpopular opinion

(and in regards to the website, they also have a website through Nickelodeon channel for their show. Btrband.com is only to promote their music.)

I consider Led Zeppelin to be the best cover band ever, but I wont go as far to say that they are the best band ever.

--

I don't like or understand the assumption that just because someone is Christian they are automatically outstanding citizens or better/nicer/works harder than someone who isn't in that religion or doesn't follow a religion at all. I've met an overwhelming amount of Christians that are horrific people, just absolute drags. And, yes, I've met many that are extremely kind, too. But, just because someone is or isn't a certain religion doesn't mean you should choose the Christian (this is an example) as someone who wouldn't--say--steal or something.
I hope you guys can understand where I'm coming from without getting offended.

Bixby:

I don't like ereaders either - I've gotten them as gifts in the past and had to return them. I don't really see the point of it. It seems like the one real benefit is having a lot of books at your disposal at once, but that's not something that appeals to me at all. I can only physically read one book at a time so...eh. I also think that it would be too much of a risk to take them out on public transportation - could easily be snatched and stolen or even just lost (at least with a Mp3 player and cellphones, for the most part they stay nestled safely in your purse or pocket, rather than sitting in front of you for everyone to see). I'd rather risk loosing a ten dollar book than a $100 e-reader. I also think it would be easier to overspend with an e-reader, since your have all these books at your fingertips, books that you get as soon as you pay. It would just be too easy to splurge.

I didn't see the point of them either until I found out you can put college text books on them. They're a hell of a lot cheaper and lighter than buying regular physical textbooks.

Conflicted;:

I would rather read an actual book instead of using some electronic device. I don't see what's so appealing about the electronic things.

The only reason I have an e-reader (Nook) is because I won it at school for reviewing books. I completely love it but I'd rather read a hardback or paperback book since looking at the Nook for a certain period of time hurts my eyes.

---

I love doing projects for school. I think they're fun and I feel proud when I'm finished since I know I've done a good job. And if there is bonus attached to the project, I do it most of the time. I just think projects are fun.

Bob Dylan:

I don't like or understand the assumption that just because someone is Christian they are automatically outstanding citizens or better/nicer/works harder than someone who isn't in that religion or doesn't follow a religion at all. I've met an overwhelming amount of Christians that are horrific people, just absolute drags. And, yes, I've met many that are extremely kind, too. But, just because someone is or isn't a certain religion doesn't mean you should choose the Christian (this is an example) as someone who wouldn't--say--steal or something.
I hope you guys can understand where I'm coming from without getting offended.

They're called hypo-Christians. As a Christian, I find them to be abhorrent and disgraceful and a horrible example of God's love on earth.

---

I think the U.S. government would be so much better if people who did not really on their religion to base their morals held all the positions of power.

^ I disagree. What factors should one rely on if not their own personal beliefs? Social acceptance/opinions? For one, I find a lot of social norms to be immoral. So of course my beliefs contribute to my political opinion. And I'm not going to apologize for it.

/too sleepy to word that right.

Careless Whisper.:

^ I disagree. What factors should one rely on if not their own personal beliefs? Social acceptance/opinions? For one, I find a lot of social norms to be immoral. So of course my beliefs contribute to my political opinion. And I'm not going to apologize for it.

/too sleepy to word that right.

When you're an elected official,you are a representative of everyone, not just people who follow the same religion as you, and I think it's an abuse of power to force personal beliefs on others when it's not good for the general population, such as how Rick Santorum uses his Christian faith as justification for wanting to make contraception illegal in some cases and harder to obtain He has no objective reason or evidence; just a personal belief I'd argue the majority of America does not identify with.

I'm neutral when it comes to Valentine's Day. I do think it's overrated, but I really enjoy spreading the love around to my family/friends/boyfriend. I mean, I used to hate Valentine's Day, but I loved giving and receiving chocolates and cards with my friends. I guess my feelings are changing because I'm actually going to have a Valentine this year.


Sorry if none of this makes sense. So, to summarize it: I don't love it and I don't hate it.

I don't think people with power in the government should be religious at all because obviously having a belief would therefore give you a bias for your group, I think.

Kurtni:

When you're an elected official,you are a representative of everyone, not just people who follow the same religion as you, and I think it's an abuse of power to force personal beliefs on others when it's not good for the general population, such as how Rick Santorum uses his Christian faith as justification for wanting to make contraception illegal in some cases and harder to obtain He has no objective reason or evidence; just a personal belief I'd argue the majority of America does not identify with.

But it's obvious that somebody who votes Rick Santorum does so because of Santorum's religious beliefs, wouldn't completely changing his beliefs and his agenda after he gets elected betray the people who voted for him and who are supposed to be the people he's representing? When you're an elected official, you're the representative of the people who voted for you, not of everyone. I certainly don't want people whom I haven't voted for claiming that they're representing me and my views when they're obviously not.

I find it extraordinary that this is a problem in the hyper-religious US while in Germany (which has comparatively better protection against discrimination of all kinds and a significantly lower church going population - in fact, something like 1/3 of the population is nonreligious) a party which call themselves Christian Democrats (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands) have been ruling the country for the better part of the last 10 years and it hasn't collapsed into a theocracy yet.

Bob Dylan:

I consider Led Zeppelin to be the best cover band ever, but I wont go as far to say that they are the best band ever.

--

I don't like or understand the assumption that just because someone is Christian they are automatically outstanding citizens or better/nicer/works harder than someone who isn't in that religion or doesn't follow a religion at all. I've met an overwhelming amount of Christians that are horrific people, just absolute drags. And, yes, I've met many that are extremely kind, too. But, just because someone is or isn't a certain religion doesn't mean you should choose the Christian (this is an example) as someone who wouldn't--say--steal or something.
I hope you guys can understand where I'm coming from without getting offended.

I'd say that the latter is actually a very popular opinion. If you don't believe me, see the movie Beware of Christians. It's a really good movie, and it's about the perceptions of Christians around different parts of Europe.

I prefer natural redheads to unnatural red hair.