Unpopular Opinion: Atheists telling religious people that their beliefs are stupid and illogical is just as bad as religious people shoving their religion into the faces of atheists.

^^^^^

Unpopular Opinion: Atheists telling religious people that their beliefs are stupid and illogical is just as bad as religious people shoving their religion into the faces of atheists.

I can only beg to agree man

I think both are decent if done to educate, as opposed to offend.

Unpopular Opinion: Atheists telling religious people that their beliefs are stupid and illogical is just as bad as religious people shoving their religion into the faces of atheists.

This! This! This!

Unpopular Opinion: Atheists telling religious people that their beliefs are stupid and illogical is just as bad as religious people shoving their religion into the faces of atheists.

BIG AGREE

Agree

I think both are decent if done to educate, as opposed to offend.

with respect as well

I agree with this

I think both are decent if done to educate, as opposed to offend.

Well yeah but I mean specifically when they're antagonizing one another.

What you yall think about relationships?
Should they be 50/50?
Should there be compromise?
Should there be one dominate personality over the other?

I think one person should take the lead. But more as a tie breaker than an actual boss if you get what I mean. Obviously the two should both be giving always to the other, putting their spouse before themselves.

What you yall think about relationships?
Should they be 50/50?
Should there be compromise?
Should there be one dominate personality over the other?

All of the things on this list can apply, there's just one key factor… Or two I guess. Consent and honesty (which hopefully comes with understanding. Dang it now it's three things.)

For the examples above, starting with 50/50ness. It should depend on what the couple wants. I have seen relationships where you could argue it's not "50/50" and the relationship continues to flourish. The reason is because there is some reason that one person is doing "more" than the other, but they both understand the arrangement and respect it. They're even happy and okay with it. Some people can't put everything into a relationship for their own individual reasons. For example the one person might work most of the day to the point where they have to instantly go to bed while the other has less work hours. Besides, for my example here, most would say "one person isn't putting as much into the relationship" but some might not even agree which one. In this example and many others, it's less who "puts in more" and more how the two put into the relationship. As long as they are both can agree on the outcome, it should be fine. And hey, they may both wish they could put in more for their partner, but as long as they can agree that in the current state of events they can't, that's what matters.

Should there be compromise? Again, it's situational depending on the compromise and if both parties are okay with it.

Should there be a dominant partner? Here comes my example again. Only if they want and agree with it, in and out of the bedroom.

So the moral of the story is: Yes kids the word "consent" is not just a word that makes the difference between safe sex and prison time, it relates to all parts of a happy, healthy and safe relationship.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

I rather enjoyed this Ted Talk

So….
Anyone have anything to debate?

I wish. Oh I know! I just posted something like this to Jyn. What do you think about an author putting a certain viewpoint, idea, or belief through a character? Does it say anything about the author?

Do you mean consciously or subconsciously?

Consciously putting things in.

I think it’s cool if used subtly. Like if you really have to think about the character's actions or words before you can understand the meaning. And I think it should be used more in more sophisticated literature. Like not in books for kids or young teenagers. But like higher level books for adults and older teenagers? Yeah go for it. I think it gives the book more depth. I think it can say that an author is really passionate about that.
What do you think?

Do you think a characters beliefs etc. have to do with the authors feelings on the subject?

I think it depends on how the character is portrayed. If they’re portrayed in a way that readers are supposed to like them, then yes. Otherwise probably not. Or maybe that’s what the author thinks to an extent. Like maybe there’s a character that has an extreme view on something. Like they’re not an evil character but they’re not a super moral person. Maybe the author agrees with them, but in a less extreme way. Like have you read Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison?

Maybe the author agrees with them, but in a less extreme way. Like have you read Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison?

Nope, but I've seen it.

I think I break that a little bit. In Addar, Aya believes in grey morality, while Kaiman is something of a Utilitarian and Kirisano is a super black and white morality type, but I don't agree with him on multiple things.

I agree with @Moxie that it's fine as long as it's subtle. People are going to be writing about things that they're passionate about so it's almost a bit inevitable. But at the end of the day, when I'm reading a story it's typically because I'm interested in… well, the story. I don't want to have the author's personal opinions being shoved down my throat, I just want to know what happens to the characters, y'know?

But if the characters have strong opinions do you think they are the author's?

Well just as it's possible to debate a point of view that isn't yours, I think authors can give characters strong opinions that they themselves don't agree with for the sake of relatability

But if the characters have strong opinions do you think they are the author's?

I think its like I said, I think its how the character is portrayed.