What's your controversial opinion?

[Your once and future Fanboy]

*snip*

Africa's issues are completely due to the differences in amounts of melanin, mhm. I realise racists aren't the cleverest bunch in the world (as evidenced by how smoothly you pulled off the "I'm not racist, BUT...") but this is really the most motherfucking stupid thing I've read in a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_africa

Read up, and maybe you'll stop looking at the world through Neo-Nazi lenses.

well if you red the post, you would see that i talked about a sort of "sosietal evolution", i just didn't find the right word for it, and not physical or genetic differences.

 

[Manji187]

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.

How much do you know about the intricacies of patents/ licensing and the emerging life sciences industry?

"Science" these days is not pure...it is increasingly linked to that social science called economics with its dynamics of investment, competition and profit maximization.

Whatever rhetoric companies like Monsanto employ ("pro poor GM crops") they always think about numero uno first (themselves) and you prolly know the proverb "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip".

Where is the money in feeding the poor? Do you know of a way to make money from people who have none? There is money in licensing if you hold key patents though.

You prolly thought that if "science would just be left completely alone" it would solve all the world's problems...well guess what...it would create different problems. Google Myriad Genetics and BRCA.

Corporations like to move themselves into powerful positions, making people dependent on them...ensuring future revenue. Your view of science is idealistic and therefore naive.

Idealism is still better than what ever despicable evil passes for realism these days.

Oh don't think for a second that I condone the "realism" of today...I simply observe the way things are, regardless of how despicable it all is.

There is nothing wrong with having hopes and dreams...it's just that if you only TALK about them...you might as well not have them. In the end, dreams need to be realized through action.

But who, in this age of apathy, defeatism and comfort-induced sedation, has the balls to go all the way? Only a very select few and they will catch a lot of flak from the status quo.

 

[CarlMin]

I think that the concept of 'human' rights should be extended to a select few other species, such as the other apes and cetaceans. I don't think we should be allowed to keep them locked up in cages, or destroy their habitats.

I second that.

 

[Ekonk]

I'm a Christian and yet I actually have no problems with secularism. Does that mean I'm Satan? :O

PS> And yeah, I'm serious

Regardless of your beliefs, secularism is the way to go, people discovered that a long, looonggg time ago.

I'm not really that controversial. I do think that, while a lot of individuals may benefit from it and strength in it, religion is nothing but bad for the human race as a whole. (Als why secularism is cool, it keeps religion under people, and out of politics, where it has no place.)

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

I think illegal immigrants should get paid equally if they're doing work that American citizens are doing, and companies should be forced to abide by this principle.

Why would they be hired then?

That's exactly the point. If they're paid equally/given equal treatment, it's either going to see conditions for illegal immigrants improve (right now, 'exploitation' is probably the kindest word to describe what the American people have been doing to them), or companies no longer have the incentive to hire an illegal immigrant over an American citizen, and thus won't. This would then discourage future illegal immigration (and make legal immigration more appealing) because, as it turns out, they're not here because they love freedom or want to take things from Americans, but because they're just doing what they can to survive (like every other thing on the planet). In polite society, that means getting a job whenever or however you can.

 

[lionday]

King toasty can i just hug you? Matt smith is amazing. Steven mofat thank you.

 

[JoJo]

That the vast majority of the people on this fucking website are A) pricks B) liberal pricks C) conservative pricks D) complete dumbass shitholes or E) most or all of the above. Seriously though, what the fuck is wrong with you all? It's like they dumped all the morons and doey-eyed naive twats in the world into one stupid as fuck website. I'm getting banned for this, of course, thus...so long and thanks for all the fish...

Fucktard twatsuckers.

My controversial (or maybe not) opinion is that all rage-quitters are attention-seekers who try to gain a tiny bit of self-importance by rejecting a community in the most vocal way possible. Believe it or not, we Escapists can survive without the glorious and intelligent input of the Incredible Bulk.

 

[ThePirateMan]

I think religionsIslam and Christianity should fuck right off the world. Without any religious people being hurt, except for maybe the Pope, islamists and whatever other people use religion for power and/or harm.

You act like all Muslims are terrorists.

Muslims and islamists are two completely different things. An islamist is, basicly, a person who wants Islam to have political power, many of them even see Islam as a sort of political system in itself and the sharia law is something that most islamists promote. Quite simply put, an islamist is a supporter of islamic fundamentalism. A muslim is simply a member/follower/whatever of the faith Islam.

 

[Manji187]

No I don't think that if science were to be left alone then the worlds problems would go away, it's not that simple I honestly do understand this.

It would, (if appropriate government control was placed upon GM crops and products)help towards solving many of the hunger and disease problems in the world.

I know an example may seem like i'm desperate to find reason but hey I'll give it a shot.

say for example there was a hypothetical virus, we'll call it virus X, say on the same stage as, malaria, that had infected a westernized country with enough money to GM a bacteria, or hell even another virus.

you could, with enough time, create a hunter/killer variant of a already existing virus that will only reproduce when attacking the aforementioned hypothetical virus X, this would kill both the virus it is hunting and itself due to lack of ability to replicate without virus X.

there are a hell of a lot of things that could go wrong, both with the virus and socioeconomic factors, and yes public outcry would be horrendous, I mean who wants to know that a pharmaceutical company could literally create diseases, but I honestly think that the good factors of genetic modification far out-way the bad factors, but with the governments staunch and seemingly endless hatred of this it really doesn't seem like it will be the norm anytime soon.

I agree that in theory GM has great potential.

My problem is that GM rhetoric will promise the moon and subsequently deliver little to none because of economic considerations.

Either there is no money in a certain venture to begin with....or its more or less a one-off arrangement if the product is too effective (little revenue over time). Companies like to see their customers coming back to spend their money.

A cynical example: Suppose that a very effective CURE for cancer was ever developed. That's great for everyone....except the cancer treatment industry...whose source of revenue (all those chemo treatments/ surgical operations/ medication) will be destroyed. So they'll try to use all the influence they have to block this CURE so they can continue cashing in on treatments.

The benefits side sounds great....but the economics side is likely to fuck it over.

I don't know what government you're talking about....but it is likely to side with business (there's this practice called lobbying after all).

 

[boosh-boosh]

Also, the Revival seasons of Doctor Who are better than the old ones, and Matt Smith is my favorite Doctor.

GASP! not that i don't think matt smith rocks or anything, but i still feel that you have major balls for posting that.

 

[King Toasty]

Also, the Revival seasons of Doctor Who are better than the old ones, and Matt Smith is my favorite Doctor.

GASP! not that i don't think matt smith rocks or anything, but i still feel that you have major balls for posting that.

Oh don't worry, I live in Canada and have free health care. Also, I finished my will.

 

[King Toasty]

King toasty can i just hug you? Matt smith is amazing. Steven mofat thank you.

*brofist*
Tennant was fantastic, but I just like 11th's personality better.

 

[Blind Sight]

I largely (note largely, not completely) agree with the philosophical and moral arguments of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

For the Escapist specifically, I'm pro-gun rights which doesn't seem to go down too well on this site. Also (and after reading some of these posts I'm sure this is going to go over so well) I feel that anyone who believes that the first or best solution to a problem requires violence, murder, or genocide is a thuggish scumbag who's destructive logic will eventually consume them.

Based off of some Escapists' viewpoints of the human race, I guess I also have the controversial opinion of thinking that the human race is fucking amazing. Seriously, we went to the goddamn moon. Let's see badgers do that. Never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors (to paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson).

 

[Wrds]

I feel like sexuality has more to do with gender identification early on in a child's development than it does with genetics. This just makes sense to me but every time I mention it I get dirty responses.

Also on an emotional level I see nothing wrong with incest, I believe that you can't really help who you fall in love with. The risks involved are another thing all together.

I get a little upset when people use "America is not a christian country" in an argument. To me that seems more like a line one would use to justify their life choices, and to me that just screams a lack of confidence. To say that is to disregard American history. America was settled by religious fundamentalists who sought freedom from persecution. Christianity has had an extremely large influence on our culture. The majority of the founding fathers wanted religious freedom, not a state void of religion. We've moved more towards a country where life choices are free to be made, and rightly so. Nonetheless, there it is.

Not so much controversial but any time someone says "but animals do it in nature" or something along those lines I say "You know what else animals do in nature? Eat their young." People shouldn't use nature to justify anything.

 

[Blind Sight]

I get a little upset when people use "America is not a christian country" in an argument. To me that seems more like a line one would use to justify their life choices, and to me that just screams a lack of confidence. To say that is to disregard American history. America was settled by religious fundamentalists who sought freedom from persecution. Christianity has had an extremely large influence on our culture. The majority of the founding fathers wanted religious freedom, not a state void of religion. We've moved more towards a country where life choices are free to be made, and rightly so. Nonetheless, there it is.

When people say that they mean that the Founding Fathers (being deists) wished for a separation of church and state after viewing the results of both together in Europe. Specifically, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all discuss in their work how religion within a state poisons both the faith (by making it politically motivated, and thus neutralizing the morality of said faith) and the state's promise of religious freedom (by favouring one group, which negates the principle of an overlapping concensus of rational opinions and justice as fairness, both concepts developed early on by thinkers like Jefferson but has only been formalized recently). So yes, they did want a state completely void of religion, but they had no problem with personal and private religious and spiritual development.

 

[grindedstone]

I retract my privious statement

 

[FamoFunk]

I think the Niqâb should be banned in Western countries.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

Sorry to pick on you in particular but I've heard this opinion several times before and I don't mean this in a glib or offensive way but if you really believe that then why are you still alive?

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that you or anyone-else commits suicide, as that would be terrible, but I'm curious as to how you justify your own continued existance if you believe that the whole human race should be extinct.

That is a worthwhile question, I suppose ...
Think of it this way: Does a person who started smoking but then became an anti-drug activist kill himself? No. True, I do believe that humanity really doesn't deserve to be here, but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill myself; I do still enjoy life, for the most part.
I can't control my species; if I had the choice, I wouldn't be human, but as it is I make do with what I've got. Killing myself isn't going to help anything.