Why are some openings considered "for beginners"?

I never insulted the way you learn chess. You get so sensitive about it. It's totally fair to give my opinion on how someone can learn chess. I only disagreed with you.

Also if I believe the London is boring that's just my opinion and I can explain it fairly. It's not an insult at all.

I wasn't trying to belittle you. I did lash out, after you did.

It's hard to not lash out at someone if they act like a jerk. Maybe if you didn't write that one sentence about my chess learning being deluded, this argument wouldn't be so angry on both sides.

Sure, believe that it's boring.

You say I act like a jerk when all I said was deluded. You try to rub in rating and negate everything I said based on that instead of listening and making counterarguments. It's not your place to give advice to lower rated players when you have no respect for them.

Yeah I do and I can say that. You need to get used to the fact that not everyone likes what you like. Instead you just lash out about it.

That was a counterargument. In fact, as far as I know, everything I wrote was a counterargument. 

You didn't say you believe my chess learning is deluded. You said it is deluded. It's just not, and you can ask the average titled player if the London is good for beginners.

You lashed out about my opinion, so don't be a hypocrite.

Completely disagree. Your entire perception of chess learning is totally deluded.

Playing the exact same moves every opening is not good for chess improvement. I've seen this view that you should just play the London as it's easy and safe but this is not correct at all. You will only play one structure and only become good at that one structure but you will not learn to adapt and play well regardless of the structure. Also playing London all the time is very boring.

I have already mentioned this but you can play Sicilian at a lower level without knowing much theory. Theory is only relevant when you are playing against people who know theory. The definition of a theoretical opening is one that is very well analysed and known. So that isn't relevant to people who haven't analysed it and don't know it so well.

exceptionalfork. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS IN THE WRONG HERE.

I was only ever talking about the London but you took it as a personal insult and tried to take a stab at me and turn it into a drama.

how is YOUR chess learning going

SamuelAjedrez, listen. If you are here arguing about opening theory, people will check your rating and exeptionalfork's rating. Tell me, how does that look to you?

You're outvoted now, so are you sure I'm the wrong one?

Again, you took the first stab. If that's how you talk to everyone, then you aren't a very pleasant person.

Fine because you can't actually make logical arguments beyond rating. I did make logical arguments.

No, what I said was completely right. You are the one who is wrong for taking low blows and belittling someone for their rating when you couldn't make further arguments. I was only talking about the opening.

It doesn't matter how many other wrong people you bring. What you said is still wrong.

You're the unpleasant person. You just get off on your own superiority complex and pushing people around for having a lower rating than you.

What you said to me is completely unfair. You can't act like this towards other people.

It seems you're really stuck on people arguing about rating, but most of my argument to you wasn't based on rating. All you need to do is pay attention to what I'm writing.

I don't know what you're responding to.

Or maybe you did that on purpose, and you're just ignoring my comments.