fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2474 ]

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2474 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [SPOILERS for NCIS]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OP here

I think you're taking this way more personally than it's intended. Everyone was an infant once, including me! I wouldn't have blamed someone for rescuing a puppy over me when literally all they knew about me was that I was a some random baby.

...You wouldn't be offended if someone had picked a puppy to live over you as an infant?

I don't think I can even argue with you.

OP here

Nope, not a single bit. I'd hope they were happy with the choice they made and the puppy got a good home and made people happy.

At that point I wouldn't have been able to grasp the concept of offended at all, anyway.

I don't think you should even try. This thread makes no sense to me at all. And disturbs me.

:(

Yeah, it really disturbs me too. I'm glad I'm not the only one! :/

*hugs*

Aw, thanks! <3

Most would though. In fact, there'd probably be a large group that argued that if they knew you did such a thing, violence upon you and your own death would be justified.

Many would consider your choice murder in this hypothetical scinario. It's an effective survival mechanism for our race to consider our own young more important then an animals. Your damage makes you a less desirable member of the pack with less to contribute in multiple scenarios and your removal or at least ostracism a probable benefit for the group on the whole as you have suggested you have less to contribute.

OP here

I realize that. That's why it's here in this thread. Isn't that what it's for? It's unpopular!

And most people would toss knee-jerk moral judgment at me for it instead of realizing a contrived situation in which I would have to choose between a puppy and a baby is pretty much never going to happen and a totally moot point anyway.

I've never met a single person who thinks like this (and I've met to date 3 irl) who was likeable.

To clarify: They were unlikable even if you entirely removed this viewpoint from your estimation of them. In two cases I checked with other folks who knew them and their unlikable status was not soley shared by me.

It's possible you are an otherwise endearing person. But it seems rather unlikely. It's possible you are very good at hiding things, but I'm going to bet this isn't your only unpopular viewpoint if we come down to it.

But this isn't even a moral issue. Your actually offending the sensibilities of people on an instinctual level. I'm sure you'd find somebody who talked about wanting to kick puppies reprehensible. Your hitting that same nerve.

As I have met people like you, I don't believe your a troll. Though if you got me with this one 10/10 btw.

OP here

I don't want to kick babies though. There are simply things I like more than babies. It's nowhere near on the kicking puppies level which is intentionally hurting things.

I probably am missing the instinct that makes people like babies or something. According to this thread, I'm not the only one, though. Nor would I be the only one who likes puppies more than babies. But I'd find it hard to believe that we're all people you would find impossible to like.

Since one of my jobs has involved working with kids, and I rather like babies, it'd probably be a struggle for somebody who shared this viewpoint with you and brought it to my attention to be somebody I'd consider likable.

I wouldn't say impossible. But difficult. And perhaps not considered worth the time/effort. Sure, it's possible that there's somebody out there with this viewpoint I'd find utterly charming. I haven't met them yet. Based on my admittedly singular viewpoint with anecdotal experiences, they are likely few and far between.

While you aren't the sole holder of this viewpoint, It's a safe bet that the majority of the world does tend to possess that instinct.

I'm aware you have no desire to punt either. Rather, I'm attempting to find an example you can better relate to. If you heard somebody express that desire, even if they said they'd never do it, I'm going to bet that'd illicit an emotional reaction in you towards that person.

If someone admitted a desire to whether or not they would act on it, that is a totally different, excuse the pun, animal. Admitting to a choice they would make if forced is an entirely different thing.

If someone admitted this puppiesorbabiesifforced viewpoint to you out of nowhere, I would also look at them strangely because why are they suddenly bringing this up? That shows a lack of social awareness and lack of care that people find opinions like these offensive, and I'd dislike the person for that. The lack of care that people are offended, as opposed to the thought itself. I don't find anything wrong with my stance on puppiesorbabiesifforced, but I would keep it to myself to avoid making others feel negatively, unless actually prompted by topics such as these. In a thread like this which calls for opinions like these, you came in forewarned which is again, another animal.

Forewarning rarely if ever prevents an emotional reaction so you shouldn't be surprised when others react.

I never once said I was surprised, nor did I complain about people's reactions other than about the incorrect assumptions people were making. I stated that I was surprised so many people agreed with me. I was expecting more people to react the opposite way.

So, eh... yes? Exactly? I'm in agreement with you?

OP here again

If someone said "I would rather kick a puppy than a baby, if I were forced at gunpoint to kick one or the other" I would not find that morally reprehensible at all. I wouldn't find the reverse reprehensible either. Again, these are ridiculous contrived situations that will never happen and that person will go along happily not kicking anything at all otherwise.

But where would they rank compared to someone who would panic and perish along with both?

Or panic and leave both behind. I believe that would be the most common response.

A reprehensible coward but not a murderer. The puppy saver had the time to make a choice and chose to allow a fellow human of the most vulnerable and sinless type to expire in favor of saving a dog.

I'd take issue with your use of the word "sinless" there. What constitutes "sin"?

Is having done no evil, enough to be good?
Is having done nothing at all, enough to be good?
Why do you assume a default good instead of a default neutral?
Would an animal who is not aware of sin or morality also be "sinless" since they have no concept of right or wrong, exactly like an infant?

And on and on...

They would, but personally I'd say that 'deliberately causing the violent death of a healthy adult' is far more serious than 'failing to prevent the accidental death of an unknown infant whom you have no responsibility towards'. And even if some people would consider not saving the infant murder, it really isn't, unless the puppy-saver also started the fire/blocked others from saving the infant/did some similarly assholeish thing which actively made the situation worse.

In a legal sense? No. Duty to act laws are scant and not often enforced... although an incident like this if fully disclosed to the public might result in the clamor to create/enforce one.

That said, if you go outside to find the childs mother, being physically restrained from entering that burning house as she desperately screams for her child... how do you think she'd respond to the good news the puppy was saved instead?

Or the mother is dead and nobody is around to take care of the baby and a family member who never wanted and wasn't prepared for a baby has to take care of it now.

Again with the tacking on tragic situations to the comparison that weren't originally there. Remember it can always go in either direction.

You sure want your situation to exist in a vaccum then. You know shockingly little about a place your inside that's burning and those around it.

Forget the moral decision, now I'm just curious how you got here in the first place.

Not liking babies is being "damaged" now? Jesus Christ.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Here's the honest thing

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread