It would be cool if all the clocks, watches, and anything that shows the time in the world stopped, and no one will ever know the exact time when it comes back, amirite?

It wouldn't matter because it was an arbitrary scale to begin with. As long as we can reestablish a means to measure the passage of time, we'll be able to function just fine.

You would rather become extremely good-looking than get a 30-point IQ boost, amirite?

I would take the the IQ boost after I confirm that it would actually boost my intellectual abilities. The reason is very simple. It would mean that I can continue being my lazy self and still not fail out of med school. If that works out, I would be a doctor and have enough money to make whatever cosmetic changes I feel like making later on.

What do you prefer?

I would like a trained monkey

One of the most irritating things is when someone has the potential to be so much more than they are, but they just don't try, or keep making bad decisions, amirite?

It is also very irritating when everyone thinks that you are the person with who has the potential to be much more if you ujust tired and won't keep their nose out of your business. Maybe you want to be where you are for some reason or another.

You wish humans would have evolved by now to not have body hair in certain areas (armpits, legs, etc), amirite?

As a very hairy female, yes, yes I do.

It's amazing that over the years, humanity is able to constantly elevate technology, but lower the quality of music at the same time. amirite?

Unless you are complaining about how records sound "deeper" than digital music, which isn't really true, you make very little sense. Older music/art does not mean it is better. It just makes it older and different from modern art. Though it is true that the style of art will probably noy be recreated again, that is true for the art of any generation. What we have now will be ancient in a few decades. But we'd still enjoy it and call whatever it is that our kids would be listening to garbage. Even classical music was considered popular trash for rowdy young men at one point.

Our bodies were made to MOVE. Our sedentary, cushy lifestyle is killing us, amirite?

If that is thhe case, why do some of us have such cushiony butt cheeks?

The old saying "Money makes the world go round" might be true, but it doesn't necessarily make it a happier place, amirite?

It truly depends on every person's situation. Someoe for whom money isn't an issue, wealth does not ensure happiness. However, if their wealth is lost, recquiring it would surely grant transient happiness.
For someone living below the poverty line, money would allow them to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves as well as get medical care. The fact that they can finally ensure that their family/children don't have to die because of lack of resources would provide them with happiness.
For me, money allows me to buy things which lets me fill the voids that my family has left me with. In the moment that I finallya acquire something new, I am truly happy.

You would not be opposed to legalizing polygamy as long as everyone involved knew what they were getting into and could consent. It would probably be a legal minefield what with wills and hospital visitation rights and shared bank accounts, but it isn't hurting anyone, amirite?
@B10ckH34d I think that goes without saying. But still, legality and popularity are completely separate. There would probably...

Yeah. Same here. I do not advocate polygamy/polyandry and will never participate in it. However, there are a lot of places where polygamy is legal but polyandry is not. Many of the Islamic states allow and encourage polygamy but if a woman is even seen with another man, she would be killed. Even in the States, the fundamentalist mormon church encourages polygamy but scorns upon polyandry. I just wanted to make the point since disparities in multiple marriage laws/ideologies already exist.

You would not be opposed to legalizing polygamy as long as everyone involved knew what they were getting into and could consent. It would probably be a legal minefield what with wills and hospital visitation rights and shared bank accounts, but it isn't hurting anyone, amirite?

As long as polyandry was legalized along with it.

There is no moral difference between killing a non-human mammal and an insect.

Insects lack the ability to feel pain.

"What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of someone who can't afford an education?" "Yeah, well, what if it's trapped in the would-be mind of an aborted fetus", amirite?

In both scenarios, the cure for cancer is not trapped. It is non-existent.

However insensitive it seems, the world should switch to a Darwin-like society. Without it, the world will be too populated and bad genes are left in the gene pool
@MusicIsAGift A lot of people use Darwin to justify eugenics. And this Darwinian world leads to a "might makes right" kind of...

Yeah, unfortunately they do. However, Darwinian natural selection is not even close to eugenics. The closest thing to that is artificial selection used for farming. I do understand your point that if we go around saying that the world should adhere more to the principles of Darwinian selection, people would misuse it. However, if a society was truly Darwinian, we won't have the opportunity to misuse it because it would be beyond us. We would understand what is happening but there would be no way to misuse it. Also, we still are inadvertently utilizing artificial selection because everywhere other than developed countries, the poor do struggle much more for survival. Although the differences in survival are due to socio-economic status, it is still not natural as the rich do not necessarily have all the genes that made their parents successful and rich. In a true Darwinian society, an individual, regardless of their families monetary standing, would not survive if he/she didn't have the right gene. Do understand that the key for Darwinian evolution is natural selection. The "natural" part of natural selection is kind of necessary for the process to work.

However insensitive it seems, the world should switch to a Darwin-like society. Without it, the world will be too populated and bad genes are left in the gene pool
@MusicIsAGift Who gets to determine what genes are the "bad" genes? Who gets to determine which of us is the master race?

It seems that you don't understand natural selection very well. In a Darwinian world, no one would have to make that decision. Nature will "choose" the best of genes. The "best genes" will obviously change with the changes in conditions, thereby leading to constant evolution instead of the stagnation that the human race has been plunged into since about 2000 years ago (reference to that study that claimed people are getting stupider).

Almond milk? How do you milk an almond? amirite?