Unpopular/Controversial Opinions

[BaconBits]

As someone who has never seen a Zaxby's before in his life, I cannot comment on how good they are. Are they a fast-food place like Chick-Fil-A (who has wonderful chicken sandwiches, the best biscuits in all of fast food, and terrible politics?) or more of a restaurant?

And in regards to the second half of your statement, there can be zero truth to that, as unless the IHOP chicken tenders are wrapped in pancakes they do not exist. The restaurant is called International House of Pancakes, not International House of Chicken Tenders.

IHOP chicken fingers absolutely do exist. They have a small sampling of food that desnt't have anything to do with pancakes.

[Барбоса]

The Dark Knight trilogy was basically James Bond/Jason Bourne movies with a guy in a tech suit fighting terrorists.

That's... that's... that's who Batman is...

You can claim all the faux nuance you want but in the end Batman is a rich vigilante in a suit, who is largely useless at hiding, gets caught and beaten up frequently and uses his gadgets to escape and defeat the villain.

He is James Bond in a mask minus the killing.

[JGlass]

Batman is inherently silly. The Dark Knight trilogy was basically James Bond/Jason Bourne movies with a guy in a tech suit fighting terrorists.

Ah yes, I remember having many a hearty chuckle as I thumbed through The Killing Joke.

I'm not saying they're bad movies. They're great movies, but as Batman movies they're bad. It's akin to how Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is a great film but a poor adaptation of the source material.

I couldn't disagree more. While Batman certainly has a history of escapades and capers, he also has a history of gripping, dramatic storylines. Just because Nolan was the first director to attempt to portray Batman on film in a more serious, dramatic way doesn't mean it's not a Batman movie.

[Uncle Sam]

I'd personally like a return to campy Batman a la Batman: The Brave and the Bold, but I appreciate we're unlikely to get it any time soon, and I think if there's any one fictional character for whom you can say "This interpretation isn't valid," it's not someone who's had as many drastically different versions as Batman.

But The Dark Knight Rises is still utter shit.

[Alex]

Ah yes, I remember having many a hearty chuckle as I thumbed through The Killing Joke.

Yes a clown shooting the police commissioner's daughter and then kidnapping him and taking him to a circus is something you read about all the time.

Something can be silly/strange and still be harrowing

I couldn't disagree more. While Batman certainly has a history of escapades and capers, he also has a history of gripping, dramatic storylines. Just because Nolan was the first director to attempt to portray Batman on film in a more serious, dramatic way doesn't mean it's not a Batman movie.

Tim Burton's take is still the best interpretation in my opinion. Has a serious tone while embracing the silliness of the concept

[Alex]

That's... that's... that's who Batman is...

You can claim all the faux nuance you want but in the end Batman is a rich vigilante in a suit, who is largely useless at hiding, gets caught and beaten up frequently and uses his gadgets to escape and defeat the villain.

He is James Bond in a mask minus the killing.

Ok I'll say he's more old school movie Bond than Daniel Craig Bond

[Барбоса]

But The Dark Knight Rises is still utter shit.

Indeed

[Big Nick Dudley]

I'm not a Peta nutjob but I'll have a go.

What breeds and how are they inherently dangerous?

Mainly pitbulls/terriers of whatever sort. Generations of being guard/attack dogs. Germans can be risky, too.

I will say if a Dog isn’t taught well or doesn’t have a good owner then some breeds maybe more likely to grow up vicious (only because those breeds are often mixed with the bad environment like the pitbull, you don’t see golden retrievers or poodles in the Hood) but id never say it’s a dog breed. I’ve had 4 Rotties and never have any of them attacked or even made someone worried that they would attack them. I know there are different breeds out they but usually Rotties get a bad name because of their strong jaw. I will say though if a Dog is played with, taken for a walk (socialised) and only scolded for stuff that it knows not to do, not just because it wasn’t sitting down straight away or whatever, then the dog will never be dangerous. That’s my experience with dogs.

I add to the thread though and say people are required to go to atleast a 2 hour show on how to treat your dog properly and you should also have a license to get a dog to prove you can be a responsible pet owner. Too many people are buying dogs and don’t treat them at all how they should be treated, or people will get them for a year and because they’re not doing what you want them to or you want to move towns and don’t take their dogs with them. I understand for some circumstances why people leave their pets but I would say over 50% of people have just gotten rid of their pets because they didn’t look 5 minutes into the future. If you’re thinking fuck that, I’m not taking a 2 hour class for a license, then you don’t really want a dog very bad do ya? It’s 2 hours of your life to help the rest of your life.

Rottweilers, if I'm correct, are far less likely to attack their owner than a pitbull. I have been around plenty of Rots who are perfectly adjusted to new people. Are they more likely to snap than, say, a Golden
Retriever? Probably.

Point is - some breeds are much more likely to attack and not give up. Why even bother with a breed like that? Seems like taking a pointless chance when you can have a dog that isn't dangerous.

[Fallout]

I cannot for the life of me understand why Counter Strike is still popular, and the fact that Global Offensive has such a large competitive scene still. Siege completely blows it out of the water in terms of dynamics, game layers, intricacy and skill required at the highest levels.

[The Bearded One]

As someone who has never seen a Zaxby's before in his life, I cannot comment on how good they are. Are they a fast-food place like Chick-Fil-A (who has wonderful chicken sandwiches, the best biscuits in all of fast food, and terrible politics?) or more of a restaurant?

And in regards to the second half of your statement, there can be zero truth to that, as unless the IHOP chicken tenders are wrapped in pancakes they do not exist. The restaurant is called International House of Pancakes, not International House of Chicken Tenders.

Zaxby's is also a fast food place, but it's more of a go in to eat than drive and eat, if that makes sense. The one positive Chick-Fil-A has over Zaxby's is its portability. It's a lot easier to eat Chick-Fil-A on the go. But the last few times I've been there, the chicken on the sandwich barely took up half the bun and seemed to be mostly breading. I have the same issue with their strips, too, as it seems like there is very little chicken to them. At Zaxby's, the strips are generally much larger and have a lot more chicken. The fries are also better, and Zax sauce is far superior to any other restaurant's sauce, save for maybe Red Robin's Campfire sauce.

I also feel like you get more food for your money at Zaxby's. At Chick-Fil-A this:



costs about the same as this:



does at Zaxby's, where you get three strips, about a half-dozen chicken wings, fries and toast.

And as for IHOP, I'm not a big fan of pancakes, so on the rare occasion I end up there I have to get other stuff. So I've discovered their surprisingly good chicken strips.

As far as breakfast restaurants go: Waffle House > IHOP > Cracker Barrel