What's your controversial opinion?

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

I believe an implementation of a parent license or a child policy is needed globally.
I've heard the argument "reproducing is a fundamental human right" and I think that's BS since it goes beyond your individual right and affects that of your child.

Between overpopulation, parents having kids they are incapable of providing for and just horrible parenting, I believe there are enough valid reasons to at least consider my point of view, what is needed is to sort out the moral kinks and the technicalities of it (for example, id never tell someone to kill their child because they have too many, nah if you give birth to more then is allowed, consider yourself fortunate). How to prevent people from having kids illegally would be a headache...Probably involves some intrusive scientifical procedure which I'm not sure I'd be ok with.

Let's just say I believe in the above, not sure how it would be executed though.

Controversial opinion #2: I believe a good monarchy>democracy any day.
A king has been bought up from birth to do their job, they do not care about pleasing the majority or playing mindgames since they have a personal stake in the country and its future success.
The kings interests is his own and that of his legacy, lobbies wouldn't be the driving force in politics like they are today (something which undermines the entire political process imo and has been the source of more laws then you'd think...)
The problem is when you have a bad or crappy king....

But seriously I'd rather be ruled by 1 elite bloodline born for the role then be ruled by a class of elites with conflicting agendas and narrow vision.
Also having 1 ruler will enable him to focus on a grand strategy, something a democratically elected leader is unable to do simply because they are only in their post for a few years, and this period is spent fighting other political forces to get their way, ultimately resulting in very little getting done.

On opinion #1 - You sir . . . you're insane!

And yet I think your suggestion is brilliant. One flaw in your view though: The government would abuse this law to make money off people who want to be parents. Hell, there'd probably be a fucking parent tax.

Opinion #2 - Disagree. Being born through a 'royal blood' probably puts them in the wrong mind set. Besides, if they live a life of luxury and decadence they probably won't see eye to eye with anyone beneath there own source of income. . . But I do agree with you that democracy sucks.

 

[The Funslinger]

I'm not talking about murder; I'm talking about euthanasia. As an encouraged choice

Because it's way fine to encourage someone to put down their child like a sick puppy. 'Hey, lady, that child of yours looks a little slow. Maybe we should kill it. You know, for their sake. It may be smiling now, but really it's in agony. Do the right thing; kill little Jasmine.'

Oh yeah, that's pretty encouraging.

I've a better idea! Instead of talking about how to help people and save the world, why not, you know, do something about helping people? Maybe not sitting behind a computer preaching the ethics of murdering the disabled and coaching others into a reproductive cycle you find pleasing.

But hey, it's just a thought.

Christ Almighty... Not a 'little slow'.
If your newborn child shows the symptoms of having an utterly debilitating congenital condition, then you should be made aware of the fact that he/she will never be a human in anything other than the taxonomical sense. What you do after that is your choice, but you should not expect unconditional help. The human body is capable of producing multiple children. There's a slim chance that every one will grow up in pain, unless it's a genetic condition, in which case you should think twice about having kids.
Why exactly should everybody pay for the parent's choice to raise a genetic train-wreck?

Nice of you to assume that I preach ethics via a keyboard all day, though. Please list your humanitarian efforts, and I'll try to match them.

Duclinea, if you're going to debate this, at least try and listen to the points the other person makes. I for one studied Euthanasia extensively, and support it, as long as it isn't used in a corrupt sense. Imagine this situation: You had an accident, and were doomed to be bed ridden your entire natural life.

You were going to be tube fed, and have your bowels mechanically emptied. The rest of your life was going to be spent in that hospital ward, lying in that same position day in and day out. Chances are you'd succumb to depression, and it's just cruel to leave someone in that situation. Although it can be argued that a human life is worth more than that of a house pet (we are more intelligent, feel a wider range of emotions and are more sentient, etc.) the reason why we put down animals is because they are in a state of irreversible suffering. If we are above animals, why don't we deserve to make that choice?

As for babies, if you know for a fact that they're going to be living in a state of perpetual suffering, it's more than a little cruel to force them through that ordeal. While it can be argued that they should be able to make that choice, our laws aren't currently geared up for that, and even if they were, it would still be a fairly literal hell of a wait for the child before he/she is considered old enough to make that choice. It's really something you can only understand if you are in such a condition or have a loved one in that condition. The closest you'll come is to go and see people who are disabled in such a way and how it affects them psychologically.

To sum up: you're generalizing putting people out of their misery as killing people with any remote defect like some Aryan race thing. Euthanasia is not Eugenics, though.

 

[MetalDooley]

Gonzo porn should be banned. Watch it and tell me it shouldn't. I was actually listening to an interview from a woman who did a study on the masturbating habits of men and how it affected their sex lives, and the ones who used Gonzo (SeeL Violent, degrading, dangerous porn) tried to bring it in to the bedroom. They found it was harder for them to climax by just have vanilla sex and the women who allowed it (or felt intimidated in to it) felt disgusting afterwards. I'm aware there are fetishes out there, but violent stuff that's out there already is doing more harm than good. (ALSO, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST PORN BEFORE YOU ASK)

"Gonzo porn" is just an term used to describe any porn shot from a first person perspective(similar to FPS games except it's usually a penis in view rather than a gun).The only real difference between gonzo and other porn is the camera perspective.Gonzo =/= violent,degrading etc.

OT: This is probably only controversial to Irish people but I believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK indefinitely

 

[Frankster]

Glad to see some are sympathetic to my first idea I do get quite a bit of "you're a monster! how dare you want to prevent people from having kids" when I express it.
They often cite human rights to me, but I counter the child's human right is every bit as important as them and they are the ones that concern me the most.
Children after all are the future, and giving them a bad start in life is the start of a recipe for disaster.

One flaw in your view though: The government would abuse this law to make money off people who want to be parents. Hell, there'd probably be a fucking parent tax.

Unfortunately...Yes T_T And this will lead to corruption and a circumvention of the law, weakening the whole system and likely forcing harsher rules on those who do follow the law.
Eugh we really are our own worst enemies...

I guess what is needed is a goverment genuinely out for what is best IN THE LONG TERM, and this I believe is one of the natural flaws of our current goverments, we are far too short sighted, which brings me to opinion #2

Aye, monarchy ain't without its possible pitfalls. The kid could grow up to be a spoilt brat and using the country as his personal playpen for 70 years or so....
Let's say the kinks need to be worked out here too

Perhaps royalty need to go through a vigorous trainning scheme, IIRC the most famous and applauded kings of the past often had great teachers during their childhood.
Taught by the wisest men of the land, given a rigorous education in aspects of life most relevant to ruling a nation and being instilled moral values to uphold...
It's a lot to ask from a kid I guess :\

Meh, opinion #2 needs a rework, all I know is I despise how influencable our democratic system is, being pushed around by a few very powerful individuals ><

 

[Newfie]

I think that Apocalypse Now is the best movie that Francis Ford Coppola has ever directed, even more than Godfather Part 2.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I think that all emotions, sexual desires, religion and "stupidity" should be removed from the humanity - in order for human to gain the next step in evolution and harness new powers and expand from world to world. This would be achieved by taking people who will not accept the "fact" and move them to some small continent with only small amount of resources for them to survive (They would stay alive and healthy, but unable to anything else. Let them be there with their religion and sexuality until they realize what fools they have been. I don't want any be killed because of their opinions/views/beliefs/sexuality/lifestyle/whatever.

Also Human is an animal but is advanced as an animal. Animals do not equal Humans. Animals are stupid and driven by their primal instincts and desires- Human can choose how he acts, regardless of hes "animal instincts".

 

[ChicagoTed]

Pedophiles should be publicly branded with large P's on both sides of each hands.

 

[Magnethead]

There's just as much truth in the Bible as there is in the theory of evolution.

How anyone chooses to interprate this is up to them.

I agree, in the same way there's just as much water in a litre as there is in an ocean.

 

[JoshGod]

I believe that voting is not a right, but a privilege that you should have to show your worth to gain (by worth i mean political awareness and understanding).

That sounds suspiciously like "if your opinion matches my opinion, you can vote". And even if that's not the intention, that's how I could see it ending up as.

The people who don't know anything about politics are less likely to vote anyway. Those who still do vote without knowing anything I doubt make enough of a splash.

I mean basic understanding of politics, being able to justify their views. And let me extend on that while answering your second point about those who don't know, in the last election for the AV system my mum worked in a polling station, most people turned up asking 'what is av' and she was not allowed to tell them, yet they voted anyway.

But how would you justify it? If someone's voting for the BNP because they hate anyone whose got a different skin pigment or who wears a turban, that doesn't make their vote any more thought out, nor is it a particularly good justification from someone else's point of view.

And fair enough, but you could argue that's down to a wider issue with referendums themselves, as opposed to people. I don't truly believe that would be the case at a general election, but maybe so.

The same way you justify a driving license, you wouldn't let someone drive who hasn't passed as it would put people lives at risk, so why should you allow people to vote on who runs the country without showing they are not gunna vote stupidly. I realise this makes me sound like I want everyone to vote like me, I don't, I want people to vote with intelligence.

Well no, not the same way you justify a driving license. If you can drive, you can drive. Trying to gauge if someone should vote by how they justify what they're choosing is near-impossible. Who is anyone to say that voting for Labour because they aren't the Tories is any less a justifiable reason than voting for Labour because they like their manifesto?
I appreciate that, however you can easily gauge someone general politcal awareness.

 

[DaMullet]

Bawhahahahahaha....

Oh no, you did not just ask me that....

Let's make a short list shall we?

- The advancement of Science is helping prove the existance of God.

- Skinny women are gross.

- Having children is one of the most selfish acts that you can do.

- Male/Male couples that adopt children have a better chance of getting into heaven then most bible beaters.

- Samus in Other M is who Samus is and was all along.

- To vegans; I say that a tomatoe plant is just as much an animal in the way of 'rights' as any tuna and turkey.

 

[Alon Shechter]

I think stupid people have no right to live and should be executed brutally.
Especially the kids that throw rocks at you and then run away like morons.
Well, at least that's what my dreams tell me about myself.


..What? You asked for an outrageous opinion.

 

[madmatt]

Morals and ethics have no place in science and that progress for progress sake should be encouraged rather than discouraged, moral questions only hold us back.

An example of this would be Golden Rice, a rice that is rich in vitamin A genetically engineered and therefore baned form consumption and production.

thousands of people dying of vitamin A deficiency to appease busybodies who claim genetic engineering is evil.

I can see where you're coming from. It's worth remembering that there is a scientific argument as well though, i.e. that GM crops out-compete local variants, and spread uncontrollably when used on a large scale through wind etc and enforce genetic homogeneity by replacing local crops, which in turn makes areas at risk to disease if there is a genetic weakness.

I see your point though. I do think there is a place for morals in science, but it shouldn't be done by weight of public opinion or feelings, but on reason and logic. It is very frustrating though, I agree.

 

[Magnethead]

OT: Human life is valueless. Sorry guys, but that's just how I see it in the long run. If I died, it wouldn't have any affect on the future because the future doesn't exist yet. I would just 'die'. Same goes for everyone.

Also, the afterlife. Death is not a 'next step'; it's simply an absence of life. There is no heaven or hell or anything. When we die, we just... cease to live.

Those are the two I get flack for most.

I wouldn't agree that human life is valueless, but it's certainly not as valuable as some people try and make it out to be. And of course, it's value fluctuates wildly based on geography and skin colour. Pro-lifers in the USA will picket medical centres (and kill the occasional doctor) that dares to perform a few hundred or a few thousand abortions per year, yet they seem perfectly happy to let tens of millions die of AIDS or starvation in Africa. If they were really so concerned with saving lives surely that's a more worthwhile use of their time.

Also, isn't a particular resource valued by it scarcity? There are 7 billion of us, and that number's going up all the time. As far as a renewable resource goes, we're right up there with solar power and farmed pine trees.

 

[JoshGod]

I believe that voting is not a right, but a privilege that you should have to show your worth to gain (by worth i mean political awareness and understanding).

That sounds suspiciously like "if your opinion matches my opinion, you can vote". And even if that's not the intention, that's how I could see it ending up as.

The people who don't know anything about politics are less likely to vote anyway. Those who still do vote without knowing anything I doubt make enough of a splash.

I mean basic understanding of politics, being able to justify their views. And let me extend on that while answering your second point about those who don't know, in the last election for the AV system my mum worked in a polling station, most people turned up asking 'what is av' and she was not allowed to tell them, yet they voted anyway.

But how would you justify it? If someone's voting for the BNP because they hate anyone whose got a different skin pigment or who wears a turban, that doesn't make their vote any more thought out, nor is it a particularly good justification from someone else's point of view.

And fair enough, but you could argue that's down to a wider issue with referendums themselves, as opposed to people. I don't truly believe that would be the case at a general election, but maybe so.

The same way you justify a driving license, you wouldn't let someone drive who hasn't passed as it would put people lives at risk, so why should you allow people to vote on who runs the country without showing they are not gunna vote stupidly. I realise this makes me sound like I want everyone to vote like me, I don't, I want people to vote with intelligence.

Regardless, people are voting on things that affect them. Whether it be a new system, or representative, or regulation, if it affects the person they should be able to vote.

In today's society, intelligence isn't an issue. It's how those higher up can play those down below. If you were truly intelligent you would either..

1) Be in the position that you would be trying to obtain votes, or
2) Not have posted this here, because you don't care enough about the situation.
Evidently, you are not a part of either option.

I don't follow how posting my opinion instead of not posting makes me unintelligent, and perhaps i care, but am increadibly lazy and have given up on the political system, also I realise my opinion is controversial and hence would not become a reality and any campainging would be a waste. Also people may be affected by something, but that doesn't mean they understand both sides, and then they make an uninformed decicision.

 

[UltraDeth]

I think incest should be legalised.

Provided both partners use birth control

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I think abortion should be illegal.

And yet simultaneously place a low value on individual human lives.

 

[The_Echo]

Spoiler'd to avoid unintentionally offending anyone. Topic is paedophilia.

Spoiler

I feel paedophiles get viewed worse than they should. You rape a child, then by all means you're bringing down the rightful hatred of those around you, but paedophiles aren't destined to do harmful things. That they're judged as a whole for the worst possible manifestation of their condition seems wrong to me.

I agree completely. It's not their fault.

Spoiler: More controversial opinions

Personally, I think that under the right circumstances, a pedophile should be allowed to have a relationship with a child. (Circumstances relating to mental maturity of the child, an inherent platonic nature of the relationship up to a certain age, etc.)

Spoiler: Different opinion. Topic: the N word

Niggers are a type of person, not a color of skin. Anyone can be a ****** if they act like one, and thusly the term shouldn't be considered a racial slur anymore.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I feel that followers of all religions are either deluded or incredibly misguided.

Can't get much more contraversial than that in such a god-fearing world...

 

[Roofstone]

I find fat people disgusting, lazy and not worth living.

Spoiler

People who just eat unhealthy, don't take care of themselves and above all are incredibly lazy. Not people with health conditions or that of the sort.

I agree, though it only applies to the fat people who complain and nag about their rights.. And "people like them".

 

[crop52]

*yawn*
i'm seeing a whole bunch of very reasonable opinions here, i mean i might not agree with them, but they're very reasonable,
so here's my "controversial" opinion,

everyone loves sharing their opinions as if they've got life all figured out, and as if they're the only one to have figured it out,

is that a hypocritical opinion?