What's your controversial opinion?

[The Funslinger]

I think wiping out 75% of the human population would solve a lot of our problems.

It probably would.

However, no problem that we currently face is great enough that wiping out 75% of the human population is preferable to just living with the problem until we find another solution.

This, and also what would the criteria be? 75% is such a vast amount, you'd be certainly wiping out a lot of people with what could be validly called "valuable skill sets". A lot of these people would also certainly be as innocent as you can be in this day and age. The uproar it would cause would probably counterbalance the good it would do. That 75% quota would probably end up being achieved through full on, no holding back warfare. And then, that would be so chancy and such a bloody mess, it's doubtful we'd end up getting rid of what could (loosely) be justified as the "correct" 75%.

Anyway, in the interest of ONLY playing Devil's Advocate, I've been considering the pros of eugenics. For those who do not know, Eugenics is the sterilization of those who could be seen to hold humanity back genetically. Those whose DNA offers the possibility of genetic defects, both mental and physical. I still don't agree with it. It can be argued that everyone has the potential to contribute to humanity. It also has similar issues to the exterminate 75% thing.

The thing is that Eugenics could be seen as a substitute for Natural Selection. As humanity is now "top of the pile" we've settled in, and basically eliminated that factor. We treat medical issues, peak physical condition is now no longer required to survive. Without this, humanity will not evolve, because everyone is basically passing on their genes. It could be argued that if not for World War 2, we would all look positively on it. Why? Because people such as Winston Churchill and other world leaders believed in it. Then they saw what Hitler was doing. The segregation and extermination of people for arbitrary reasons (extermination of people due to religion isn't the same as doing it to purge genetic defects, but it was close enough) so after world war 2, that whole idea was frowned upon.

To sum up, Eugenics is not just, but it is the gateway concept to what may be the necessity of our species: advancements in Gene Therapy. (e.g. the embryonic stem cell stuff I have mentioned in the past.)

 

[headshotcatcher]

[

Yet everyone treats it like absolute truth, and I dare say there's more people who believe fully in evolution than there are believing fully in the Bible.

That said, take a deep breath and count to 10 please..

I'm not sure I agree. By which I mean I really really don't but I've counted to 10. One is the closest we can get to truth, the other is fairy tales. It's like saying 2nd place and dead last are just as good, maybe.

But shouldn't the theory of evolution be treated as a theory instead of a fact then? I know some people do, but the vast majority treats it as absolute truth.

"That sciency man said so, so it must be true"

That seems to be an argument that pops up a ton, without those people actually reading the research of the sciency fellow or trying to contest it.. When self-proclaimed 'enlightened' individuals blindly follow random scientists I think it's even worse than someone blindly following faith because at least they don't contradict themselves.

 

[The Funslinger]

I am atheist... 'nough said. An by the way, reply#1 - rules!

OOh so edgy!
I wish I could be as edgy as you, wearing your heart on your sleeve and proudly displaying your beliefs in an attempt to get others to attack you for them.
Damn theists....

Your reply to him confuzzled me. He claimed to be an atheist, then you replied sarcastically, and said "damn theists." You may have just taken the "A" off to shorten it, but an Atheist being someone who doesn't believe in God, a Theist is someone of religion.

 

[JoJo]

The only "out-there" theory type thing I have is my opinion on our existance, which probably wouldn't offend anyone, some people are just likely to strongly disagree, and I'm fine with that.

Basically I believe that humanity as a whole would benefit greatly by going back to a more instinctive, animal-like lifestyle. No more money, no more cars, no more houses, no more intelligence, just basic animalistic thought processes to ensure survival.
So instead of thinking "Oh I'm hungry, I wonder what I could possibly cook myself that will taste yummy and fill me up." We would think, "Hungry, find food, eat food."
I think that this way we'd resolve many things like world conflict, famine etc because we'd have no reason to fight any more (other than territorial conflict) and anywhere that there wasn't food we'd instinctively stay away from. It would also help to make humans as a whole stronger, because only the stronger people would survive this way of life, and would produce strong offspring. (Survival of the fittest etc)

Feel free to pick at this any way you will, I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions on my little idea.

But surely then we would lose everything that makes us human; our art, our language, our discoveries and inventions, our love, our dreams... strip us down to animals and that's what we'll be, just one of the many sentient but not sapient animals on this Earth. Sure, there wouldn't be any ideological conflict but there wouldn't be anyone to reflect on how that would be a good thing either.

 

[The Cheezy One]

I think people who are anti-religious (not just apathetic, but seriously agressive about it - see, most of the posters on this thread) are scared. No-one knows what happens after death, so why are you so sure that there is no benevolent being? Get off your ingorant and fearful high horse, and believe in something.
What confuses me is why some people are so bitterly against something that does not directly affect them. As a Christian, I can sort of understand how people can be apathetic, but Richard Dawkins can ESaD [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching]. His work has been critised by many different people of varying occupations and religious beliefs. The link is to a review by a British literary critic called Terry Eagleton, who is not a Christian, but does review Dawkins book as he would any other work.
If you don't believe in anything, sucks to be you, but why should you attempt to destroy our lives in doing so? Contrary to popular belief, Religion and Religious extremists are not very common, and are less prone to burning your house down than an atheist.
The reason is because they are scared, and they see the peace we have, but rather than joining us in it, try to drag us to their despair. No thanks.

 

[The Funslinger]

I am atheist... 'nough said. An by the way, reply#1 - rules!

OOh so edgy!
I wish I could be as edgy as you, wearing your heart on your sleeve and proudly displaying your beliefs in an attempt to get others to attack you for them.
Damn theists....

Your reply to him confuzzled me. He claimed to be an atheist, then you replied sarcastically, and said "damn theists." You may have just taken the "A" off to shorten it, but an Atheist being someone who doesn't believe in God, a Theist is someone of religion.

Please allow me to clarify:
The post was sarcastic.

Yeah, I got that, but then for some reason, I thought you'd just made a mistake at the end. CARRY ON!

 

[crimsontide57]

i think that it is not the job of taxpayers, regardless of what country they are from, to support people, regardless of what coutnry THEY are from, who are not willing to integrate themselves into the countries they move into (i.e. not learning the language, you could at least do that if you cross the border)

 

[Schadrach]

3) Free speech needs relooked. I understand the importance of the law, don't get me wrong. But when you have Faux Noise brainwashing a good chunk of the country like it does and hiding from any and all punishment behind the First Amendment, or Westboro Baptist being completely immune from punishment for the harm they cause people...No. There needs to be a way for other citizens to hold these people, and any others who would abuse the power, accountable.

5) Tax churches. They long ago stopped adhering to the "No political preaching" rule. And on that note, NO TAX DOLLARS for "faith based initiatives." If you can piss and moan about your tax dollars going to my healthcare, I should be able to deny you mine for your religious shit.

Think that's plenty enough to have me several quotes of flaming when I log in next.

Snipped the ones I don't care to respond to (and also generally agree with, no less).

3) Free speech needs to be near unto absolute. There just needs to be a way to deal with people being assholes better, especially WBC. I've always thought that the locality for one of their protests should put them in a "free speech zone" like people who disagree with Republicans get locked in. With the "free speech zone" placed somewhere out of sight or sound of the funeral. WBC will almost certainly sue as a result, and it's a win/win -- either they win and free speech zones are declared unconstitutional under the first amendment, or they lose and people can grieve in peace.

5) Many churches engage in charitable works though, and those should be tax exempt like any other charity. Make them keep two separate sets of accounts -- one for religious functions and one solely for charitable functions. The "charity" fund is tax exempt and can only be spent on charitable works. The "church" fund is taxable and used for religious purposes. This is analogous to how Planned Parenthood does things, because due to the Hyde Amendment federal money may not be spent on abortions so they have an "abortion" fund and an "everything else" fund, where government funding is only placed in the "everything else" fund and no money from that account is spent on abortion. The "abortion" fund is private donations only.

Maybe give them a pass on property tax for land dedicated primarily to the performance of religious functions or some such, given that a lot of churches are built in places that they really couldn't afford to be if they hadn't been there since before the area was so developed.

 

[Harbinger_]

Spoiler: Dont look if you're interested in complete and utter equality.

I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as people but I don't think that churches should be pushed to marry homosexuals as if its God's wish as it says in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. Also I don't like seeing homosexual acts so yes have your rights as long as they're not shoved down my throat. I find it all disgusting personally but thats just me.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I think that all people that are either physically or mentally unable to ever work a day in their lives should just be gotten rid of. They do nothing to condone to society and just leech tax money.

Oh no, the poor crippled man is unable to find a job! Fuck empathy, that fucker isn't contributing, kill him! My cashier job at Walmart makes me a better person than him, doesn't it?

Seriously, dude, that is completely unnecessary.

 

[crimsontide57]

i think that it is not the job of taxpayers, regardless of what country they are from, to support people, regardless of what coutnry THEY are from, who are not willing to integrate themselves into the countries they move into (i.e. not learning the language, you could at least do that if you cross the border)

Like this? http://xkcd.com/84/

i actually wasn't talking about the united states. it was meant generally. i live in germany. turkish people should learn german. controversial enough for you? its a big topic here, especially where i live since the turkish population is extreemly high here near frankfurt.

 

[headshotcatcher]

[

Yet everyone treats it like absolute truth, and I dare say there's more people who believe fully in evolution than there are believing fully in the Bible.

That said, take a deep breath and count to 10 please..

I'm not sure I agree. By which I mean I really really don't but I've counted to 10. One is the closest we can get to truth, the other is fairy tales. It's like saying 2nd place and dead last are just as good, maybe.

But shouldn't the theory of evolution be treated as a theory instead of a fact then? I know some people do, but the vast majority treats it as absolute truth.

"That sciency man said so, so it must be true"

That seems to be an argument that pops up a ton, without those people actually reading the research of the sciency fellow or trying to contest it.. When self-proclaimed 'enlightened' individuals blindly follow random scientists I think it's even worse than someone blindly following faith because at least they don't contradict themselves.

Well with evolution you don't need science men or reports, just go look at fossils. They are the mineralised remains of animals, but no real examples of those animals are alive anywhere. With related and similar topics however, you are 100% right; people follow science as ardently as others follow religion. When they do it annoys me just as much .
Punctuation next to smileys never looks right...

To be fair the fossils in themselves don't prove evolution (and it's not the disappearance of animals that suggest evolution, but the appearance). But yeah we're on the same line here

(you can use a smiley instead of a period, it closes off the sentence just as well )

But shouldn't the theory of evolution be treated as a theory instead of a fact then? I know some people do, but the vast majority treats it as absolute truth.

"That sciency man said so, so it must be true"

That seems to be an argument that pops up a ton, without those people actually reading the research of the sciency fellow or trying to contest it.. When self-proclaimed 'enlightened' individuals blindly follow random scientists I think it's even worse than someone blindly following faith because at least they don't contradict themselves.

I think if your going to blindly follow something that it is far more logical to blindly follow the one that has untold amounts of research/evidence to back it up rather then the one requires blind faith with zero evidence.

Besides that I think your confused there it is religion and faith that are constantly contradicting themselves.

But blindly following ANYTHING contradicts the very nature of being self-proclaimed enlightened or smart. (Self-)criticism is the base of intelligence and 'enlightenment'.

For example I have no clue about how the world started and the theories about the big bang and whatnot are founded upon the assumption that a lot of things are constant, while they really aren't, so to me the thought of a creation is just as likely as 'blah blah quantum physics blah'. In fact, a creation would explain itself and pretty much leave no plot holes.
This doesn't exclude evolution though, and I don't really doubt evolution either BUT I do think it's rather weird we don't really see any transitional animals and we don't see any new species appearing. Yes we see natural selection, but that doesn't prove evolution.

 

[Pandaman1911]

Spoiler

I think 1984 was doing it right when it came to prisoners. I believe that any sentence greater than ten years, and you're just wasting time and resources on the prisoners. Break 'em, remake 'em, and then release them back into society, instead of spending all this money feeding them and clothing them and making sure they're happy in jail while the people they screwed over try to put their lives back together.

 

[Harbinger_]

Spoiler: Dont look if you're interested in complete and utter equality.

I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as people but I don't think that churches should be pushed to marry homosexuals as if its God's wish as it says in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. Also I don't like seeing homosexual acts so yes have your rights as long as they're not shoved down my throat. I find it all disgusting personally but thats just me.

Agree to a point. LGBT folk should be allowed to get 'married' - even if certain churches want no part of it, there shouldn't be a legal or linguistic difference between what straights do and what gays do.
And I think homosexuality should avoid being shoved down people's throats only as much as heterosexuality is. Sexuality in general is overused by lazy advertisers and it seems unfair that it's always straight.

I hate the straight stuff getting shoved down my throat almost as much. Almost because its my actual orientation.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Snipped the ones I don't care to respond to (and also generally agree with, no less).

3) Free speech needs to be near unto absolute. There just needs to be a way to deal with people being assholes better, especially WBC. I've always thought that the locality for one of their protests should put them in a "free speech zone" like people who disagree with Republicans get locked in. With the "free speech zone" placed somewhere out of sight or sound of the funeral. WBC will almost certainly sue as a result, and it's a win/win -- either they win and free speech zones are declared unconstitutional under the first amendment, or they lose and people can grieve in peace.

5) Many churches engage in charitable works though, and those should be tax exempt like any other charity. Make them keep two separate sets of accounts -- one for religious functions and one solely for charitable functions. The "charity" fund is tax exempt and can only be spent on charitable works. The "church" fund is taxable and used for religious purposes. This is analogous to how Planned Parenthood does things, because due to the Hyde Amendment federal money may not be spent on abortions so they have an "abortion" fund and an "everything else" fund, where government funding is only placed in the "everything else" fund and no money from that account is spent on abortion. The "abortion" fund is private donations only.

Maybe give them a pass on property tax for land dedicated primarily to the performance of religious functions or some such, given that a lot of churches are built in places that they really couldn't afford to be if they hadn't been there since before the area was so developed.

1) I never said it should be revoked. I don't think that it should at all. I just don't think that people should be able to cause genuine harm (a la WBC protesting at a funeral) and then be able to hide behind "Oh, free speech!" In short, you can say what you want, but there will still be consequences. Just not government imposed ones.

2) The problem with that idea is, many churches are biased in who they'll help. Either they won't help anyone their Bible deems a sinner, or their help is contingent on you showing up at their church...It's strings attached help. It's essentially another way for them to preach. If they discriminate in who they help, I fail to see why they should be able to do so tax-free. Those of us whose taxes go towards paying for their "initiatives" don't get to discriminate on where the money goes.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Christianity wouldn't even be around if there was a big piece of evidence proving it wrong.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is this a real post or are you one of those oh-so-admirable super-trolls? Christianity was invented by romans. The Pauline doctrine bears no relation to the message the 'jesus' apparently spread. You know, about there being 'one god' instead of three gods?
If god is omnipotent and omniscient why did he change his mind so often? How come he couldn't see Adam & Eve in Eden?
If he is all loving why create hell?
There is no concrete proof against it because every notion upon which it's founded is bullshit. You can't have concrete proof against the flying spaghetti monster. It's just obvious that its bullshit.

God is three in one. Jesus says it. Paul says it.
God never changed His mind, He knew what He was going to do all along and so He simply did it.
The Bible never says that Jesus couldn't see Adam and Eve, it says that He called to them to get them to come out of their hiding places.
"He will then also say to the ones on His left, Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;" Matthew 25:41
Don't bother posting any more of these to anyone online, but rather seek a Bible professor or something similar out on this topic.

I will not post on this thread again.

 

[electric_warrior]

I do not necessarily agree with the right of Israel to exist. I sympathise with their position (what with all the persecution, being expelled from their ancestral homeland etc.), but thousands of years of Palestinian history should not be disregarded just because the Jews were forced out millennia ago. The only reason they seem to have been assigned this right is out of some sort of god-given right to the land. As someone who does not believe in any judeo-christian god, this does not fly and to hand over land that did not belong to us to people who had no meaningful claim to it was wrong.

If they do have a right to the land, then the Palestinians have just as much of a right to it and should not have been so harshly treated as to have their country stolen from them.

That said, now that they're there they have a right not to be ousted from their homes.

The whole thing was a terrible idea and it would have been better if Israel never existed in its modern incarnation.

I'm not anti-semitic by any means, an old friend of mine is Jewish (by descent, not belief), but the existence of Israel seems to have a bit of a shaky basis and is grossly unfair to the people who had already been living there. All told, something like two thousand years had passed between the Jews losing Israel and regaining it. By that logic, the Romans have a right to every territory in Western Europe, it simply is not right.

I'm just glad this is like the 900th post, so probably no one will read it and get pissed off.

Again, to reiterate, I do not dislike Israelis and understand their policies. if they lose, even once, then they will be wiped of the face of the earth, so harsh policies are somewhat necessary, but, on the whole, the country shouldn't exist.

 

[mikeli4194]

(sigh) I don't really like the Lord of the Rings movies
*Puts on earmuffs to drown out sound of fanboy rage*

 

[crimsontide57]

i think that it is not the job of taxpayers, regardless of what country they are from, to support people, regardless of what coutnry THEY are from, who are not willing to integrate themselves into the countries they move into (i.e. not learning the language, you could at least do that if you cross the border)

Like this? http://xkcd.com/84/

i actually wasn't talking about the united states. it was meant generally. i live in germany. turkish people should learn german. controversial enough for you? its a big topic here, especially where i live since the turkish population is extreemly high here near frankfurt.

Yeah you get a like of Iranians there too, I hear. (got a mate from Hamburg)
I agree with you, though I think it would be a shame if your opinion was widely accepted as 'controversial' - the assimilation of migrants seems pretty essential and obvious to me, good sir.

(you can use a smiley instead of a period, it closes off the sentence just as well )

Argh! the double close-bracket! '))' It offends my eyes! XD

some people tend to think of the idea as 'Nationalistic' and such. calls up old and bad memories of a dark dark dark political and social past. the youth tends to think this way but perhaps they just are the only ones not afraid to voice such an opinion. the problem is you would have to force the integration somehow. its a little tricky. ill send you a message on the topic at some point

 

[CalabusDabus]

That there is no evidence whatso ever for The Big Bang THEORY, and the only reason it exists is the fact that people will do anything to avoid the thought that their sin will send them to hell.