Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
i know a lot of people who use babe and honey in real life.
you've never met anyone in your life who uses pet names for their SO?
Never using real names ≠ not using pet names.
I also have never met a couple that never calls each other by their given name. That doesn't mean those same people never use pet names.
"Never using real names ≠ not using pet names."
nobody said they were.
"That doesn't mean those same people never use pet names."
Cool, nobody's making that argument except you.
Except the original post did? You aren't right here.
The OP doesn't like how terms of endearments sound, thinks they sound forced.
A subsequent commenter is misrepresenting the OP by arguing
"Never using real names ≠ not using pet names"
which nobody is asserting.
and complaining
"I also have never met a couple that never calls each other by their given name."
which nobody has said,
and
"That doesn't mean those same people never use pet names."
which again, nobody is saying except for that commenter.
they're propping up straw men using absolutes to argue against because they don't have any relevant answers for the OP or contributions to the thread.
In your first comment, in this thread, you asked "you've never met anyone in your life who uses pet names for their SO?"
I (and I believe the other people responding to you) don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the comment you were responding to.
The top comment (with the double negative removed for clarity) said that Every couple that commenter knows in real life does use each others' legal names. This does not suggest that those couples do not also use pet names, but your question implies that you think it does. This implication is what other commenters are responding to.
you got turned around.
my comment
"you've never met anyone in your life who uses pet names for their SO?"
is a direct response to
the absurd assertion that
"Nobody I know doesn’t use real names when addressing their spouse."
you:
"This does not suggest that those couples do not also use pet names"
No suggestion, they directly claim that nobody they know doesn't use real names.
They claim not to know anyone who uses anything other than their real names with their spouse.
Buy that if you want to.
You are definitely misreading what they said. The meaning you attribute doesn't make any sense in the context of the post and the remainder of their comment.
"Nobody I know doesn't eat onions." is equivalent to "Everybody I know does eat onions." but not to "Everybody I know eats nothing except onions."
Lol, ok buddy. Have a great day. 👍
lol ok sport.
That was not what I said. Reread what I said. Your entire argument in this comment section is based off of a complete misreading of my comment.
Nah, it's been litigated.
You can start again if you'd like.
no clue what you're on about.
checks out.
no worries.