What's your controversial opinion?

[ScumbagEddie]

"World Peace" is only achievable when the last human being dies.

 

[FangShadow]

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.

What about someone who occasionally eats healthy, takes moderate care of themselves and isn't lazy, but is still kinda fat? is their a weight limit your talking here? (I'm just curious)

OT: I believe the US Political party system is complete and utter BS. It's more a mafia the actual damn mafia, and all it does is prevent things from actually getting done.

The whole marriage vs gay marriage debate can easily be solved, I think. All the anti-gay marriage people claim that marriage is a between a man and women because the bible says so. By that token the marriage licenses issued by the government should be thrown out. Anyone gay or straight should be required to have a civil union in order to be recognized by the government. Marriages can take place in the church simply for the spectacle, thus the religious people can have their whole marriage thing. I know preachers who would marry gay couples so I think it can be done.

Finally, I believe religion is like every other thing in the world. It's okay until you give it to people because then, at some point, someone will fuck it up for the rest of us. I'm also agreeing with the people who say that religion shouldn't be allowed to limit scientific or medical research. I'm religious and I don't see why that means we can't go further to learn more about the world.

(Throw up industrial sized flame shield)

 

[Abengoshis]

I agree, anyway my controversial opinion?
Free will is a delusion, but fate/destiny don't exist.

 

[Ren3004]

If someone crosses the street out of place, I shouldn't have to avoid hitting them.

It seems insensitive, but zebra crossings and traffic lights are there for a reason and, at least here, running over someone, no matter the situation, is a crime. But nearly every day I see people forcing cars to stop because they don't pay attention to the traffic lights, or cross where they shouldn't. I'm not saying I'd hit one of those people on purpose, I'm just saying that if the law wasn't on their side, and they had to pay the driver for making them waste their time, and this was actually enforced, people would start respecting the rules of the road more.

Or alternatively, forcing people to have a "walker's license" to go out on the street.

 

[similar.squirrel]

If a child is born severely handicapped [both mentally and physically], it should be terminated at birth. If it becomes evident that the child will be born like that, it should be aborted. If the parents want to keep it, they should not be given state assistance to do so.
Raising a human being of that sort is cruel, heartbreaking and wasteful.

Oh, and I think that religion is the memetic equivalent of a carcinogenic retrovirus. I know and respect plenty of religious people, but only as people.
Religious belief is a fatal glitch in the human psyche. Then again, we're growing out of it quite fast, so that's good.

All, IMHO, of course.

I think Stephen Hawking would disagree...

anyway my point is where do you draw the line? like if a child is going to be wheelchair bound do you believe their life is not worth living?

how do you test mental capacity at child birth anyway?

or do you only mean like extreme cases like when the person just "isn't all there"

I don't think cerebral palsy or the like is grounds for death

or what about autism? could you pick up how severe it is at birth? what if they were high functioning?

Hawking's condition was diagnosed when he was 21. ALS wasn't identifiable at birth in the 40s, and it did not cause him to be a burden on anybody during his formative years. He is one of our most eminent scientists despite his terrible condition, and I'm almost certain that he pays for his own upkeep. It doesn't matter, because he's earned a lifetime of care with his contributions to human knowledge.

I meant severe physical and mental disability, that is evident from birth, or before. Latent genetic conditions that manifest themselves later on in life do not count, because that's a lottery we all play.
I just don't see the point in keeping somebody alive if they were born without the capacity to do anything useful or even comprehend this world fully. It's depressing, it's unnatural, it's pointless and it's a waste of resources that could be used to help people who are held back only by external circumstances.

So someone who is mentally handicapped...but I mean can still function, would they be OK?

I mean I know the slippery slope argument is flawed but the line is kinda blurry

oh...you're blind...sorry but you not worth it

It depends on to what extent. But generally speaking, yes. As long as they're capable of doing some beneficial work, it's all good. Things like gardening or arts & crafts are very therapeutic as well.

It is a slippery slope. I wouldn't really like seeing a law to this effect being enacted, because the line is very much subject to being shifted around by unsavoury eugenicist-type folk. I think this needs to be done by the citizenry, as a responsible personal choice. Enforcing it has a lot of potential for horribleness.

 

[Vault Girl]

no matter how much we pretend it was to end a war, America is responsible for one of the most vial and inhuman acts ever created by man. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot ever be forgiven, no matter how much scientific progress, nor "peace that followed" can be enough.

The Holocaust AND the Nuclear attacks on Japan are one of the most base and animalistic attacks on our own species to ever happen. Why does everyone separate the nuclear attacks as a necessary evil?

 

[Vern]

I think that helping the homeless is bullshit. The vast majority of vagrants got to the point they're at because they are shitty people. They used up all their chances, no family member or prior friend will help them, often because they stole from them or harmed them in some way. They've burned all their bridges, lost their jobs, and they live in the situation they created for themselves. I've tried to help homeless people. If you give them five dollars, they're ecstatic. If you give them a sandwich so they can eat, they get pissed off. The reason? The sandwich doesn't buy them a bottle of cheap vodka. I think charity can be good when it goes to help children, who have no control over their situation, but helping adults who should be fully functional and able to make their own decisions and determine their own destiny is ridiculous.

Throughout your life you're taught that there's a right way to do things, and a wrong way. If you do things the wrong way, bad things will happen to you. If you skip school, you get detention. If you skip school in college, you end up failing your class and losing 20,000 dollars. If you show up drunk or high at work and you can't do your job, bad things happen. If you beat your wife, girlfriend, or children, bad things will happen to you.

Plus from what I've been exposed to, I've had one ask me to buy him a sandwich, I've had fifteen ask me for a cigarette. If most of them want to kill themselves I don't see why I should feel bad.

 

[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.

 

[Vault Girl]

I agree, anyway my controversial opinion?
Free will is a delusion, but fate/destiny don't exist.

So are you suggesting that Free Will is more of a social constraint rather then a Omni benevolent one?

 

[harmypants]

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.

 

[Vault Girl]

no matter how much we pretend it was to end a war, America is responsible for one of the most vial and inhuman acts ever created by man. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot ever be forgiven, no matter how much scientific progress, nor "peace that followed" can be enough.

The Holocaust AND the Nuclear attacks on Japan are one of the most base and animalistic attacks on our own species to ever happen. Why does everyone separate the nuclear attacks as a necessary evil?

I have to agree with you, but the truth is, during WWII Japan was an unstoppable juggernaut. They didn't know fear and they sure as hell didn't know defeat. There were Japanese soldiers that were still stationed on islands during WWII that were discovered recently.

Do we decimate millions of innocent civilians, or allow ourselves to be overthrown by one of the strongest military forces of the time, who could have probably taken over the world?

It's an impossible question to answer.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but it is not impossible. There is no justification for flash vaporising thousands of innocent civilians, and allowing the survivors to suffer painful symptoms because of it. Japan was weakening as shown by the progress of the Allies through, Pelileu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese are not blameless as evidenced by the use of tying civilians to soldiers as shields, using women and children as walking bombs by playing on the emotions of soldiers, comfort women etc.

Japan was weakening, you can't use their "spirit" or inability to surrender as justification, as the Allies all took that stance as well.

The bombs wiped out EVERYTHING, in mere moments. Thousands of souls who stood no chance, who could NOT fight back. Nuclear Bombs don't just kill they MAIME generations.

No justification, no matter of saying it was a "necessary evil".

The Nazi's killed millions over a period of time.

America killed Thousands in seconds, in 2 cities. The death toll is over 1 million and climbing ever since.

The world can pretend all it wants, but America committed inhuman and unnecessary suffering in war and civilians.

there is NO justification.

I don't mean to be preachy, but thats why i think its a controversial subject. the inability of the world to understand that it was and never will be right.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

It's an impossible question to answer.

And yet it WAS answered wasn't it?

OT: I think that someone should invent a water-delivered Biological weapon that specifically infects people.....and Neuters an exact fraction of them. As in turns off their Birth giving capabilities. Maybe by disabling the Testes in men; Ovaries in women; both? I don't know the details, but yeah: Create a real life version of the Krogan Genophage........and spray it all over the Tibetan Plateau, which acts as the source for nearly every River systems in Eastern Asia (The Ganges and Yellow river being the most prominent).

And Blam! Instant antidote to Over-population. It's technically not even cruel since you're not "Harming" anyone. You're just "preventing" Illiterate morons from creating babies because they think "God gives them to us".

That is not a Douchie joke. I have spoken with illiterate Indian people, and that is literally what they think. They don't know what Sex does.

 

[DonMartin]

Sigh, another one of these threads. Most of the controversial opinions here are not controversial at all, or just to the ones on the other side of the argument. "I think religion is bad" or "I think abortion is bad" arent really controversial, theyre very common. Although I suppose most of the people commenting have opinions that are looked down upon in their particular societies or circles (atheists in bible-belts, etc.) so I suppose it would be silly of me to criticize that, or just stupid/rude.

Anyway, Im not sure if I have any controversial opinions. I suppose I dont really think that nihilism is as bad as it's made out to be, but I still dont think it's something to strive for. It's just reason, I suppose, or things I think are logic. As such, I can just explain why I believe the things I do, and most people will see why, even if they dont agree with me. So I hardly think Im very controversial, and I dont try to be either. I dont know, I cant really explain it all that well.

 

[Mandalore_15]

First of all, the wave of islamophobia spreading through the western world disgusts me. To judge so many people based on the behaviour of an extreme minority is just wrong on so many levels.

Are you serious? Please don't tell me you support the UAF...

Islamophobia is the biggest lie of the last 20 years. I can't think of a single area where people don't bend over backwards to accommodate them. I practically live in a muslim ghetto and I get racial abuse all the time for being white. The people in my area have segregated themselves by choice and are openly hostile to our own culture and community.

Meanwhile, muslim schools in the UK teach anti-semitism to their students; they are told that Jews are no better than pigs or dogs, and should be killed. "Anti-racist" *cough* organisations like the UAF are quick to slander everyone for going against a muslim's point of view, but are silent when it comes to Jews, or in some cases openly hostile.

Islamophobia is bullshit. It doesn't exist, never existed, and never will exist. The only things people complain about when it comes to muslims are problems they actually cause, which would make it not a "phobia", which is an unjustified fear. Every complaint against islam I've ever come across has been justified. None of this is to say that muslims as a whole are bad people, of course they're not, but there's no smoke without fire, and the world will be a much happier place once they realise that their religious views are not going to be held in higher regard than anyone else's.

 

[Warlord211]

I believe that every single thing in this world should be free (food, clothes, cars, medical care, houses, etc...), we should do away with money, and have all people on the planet work for no pay (well, all the free stuff would kind of be pay).

As a child I always thought that this solution would solve all issues human beings could ever face.

The thing with this is, most people won't work without incentive, money gives them that incentive. Society would collapse because most people are lazy and will decide if everything is free why do I have to work, then it will begin catching on. Soon, no one will be producing food and then we will all starve to death because of our own stupidity.

OT: I'm a Christian and almost anywhere on the internet that is controversial for some reason. Also I believe in the pursuit of happiness so if being gay or bisexual makes you happy, go for it.

 

[Woodsey]

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 don't mean to be preachy, but thats why i think its a controversial subject. the inability of the world to understand that it was and never will be right.

Arguing it was right is just as silly as trying to argue its completely wrong.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

Most of the time obesity is a result of the parents not encouraging a healthy life style. They encourage a sedentary live style and once you learn that behaviour it's hard to unlearn it. Then there's also society itself which encourages a "busy" life style. Most people don't have time to cook or exercise. This is quite obvious with doctors, lawyers, office workers etc. Unless you work a job which requires you to physically exert yourself it's fairly impossible to remain fit. Saying that obese people shouldn't live is frankly a disgusting opinion.

OT: I believe a person should do what they want with their bodies as long as they do not harm the people around them. This is all fine and dandy until people realize I support the legalization of all drugs, prostitution etc.

 

[Vault101]

If a child is born severely handicapped [both mentally and physically], it should be terminated at birth. If it becomes evident that the child will be born like that, it should be aborted. If the parents want to keep it, they should not be given state assistance to do so.
Raising a human being of that sort is cruel, heartbreaking and wasteful.

Oh, and I think that religion is the memetic equivalent of a carcinogenic retrovirus. I know and respect plenty of religious people, but only as people.
Religious belief is a fatal glitch in the human psyche. Then again, we're growing out of it quite fast, so that's good.

All, IMHO, of course.

I think Stephen Hawking would disagree...

anyway my point is where do you draw the line? like if a child is going to be wheelchair bound do you believe their life is not worth living?

how do you test mental capacity at child birth anyway?

or do you only mean like extreme cases like when the person just "isn't all there"

I don't think cerebral palsy or the like is grounds for death

or what about autism? could you pick up how severe it is at birth? what if they were high functioning?

Hawking's condition was diagnosed when he was 21. ALS wasn't identifiable at birth in the 40s, and it did not cause him to be a burden on anybody during his formative years. He is one of our most eminent scientists despite his terrible condition, and I'm almost certain that he pays for his own upkeep. It doesn't matter, because he's earned a lifetime of care with his contributions to human knowledge.

I meant severe physical and mental disability, that is evident from birth, or before. Latent genetic conditions that manifest themselves later on in life do not count, because that's a lottery we all play.
I just don't see the point in keeping somebody alive if they were born without the capacity to do anything useful or even comprehend this world fully. It's depressing, it's unnatural, it's pointless and it's a waste of resources that could be used to help people who are held back only by external circumstances.

So someone who is mentally handicapped...but I mean can still function, would they be OK?

I mean I know the slippery slope argument is flawed but the line is kinda blurry

oh...you're blind...sorry but you not worth it

It depends on to what extent. But generally speaking, yes. As long as they're capable of doing some beneficial work, it's all good. Things like gardening or arts & crafts are very therapeutic as well.

It is a slippery slope. I wouldn't really like seeing a law to this effect being enacted, because the line is very much subject to being shifted around by unsavoury eugenicist-type folk. I think this needs to be done by the citizenry, as a responsible personal choice. Enforcing it has a lot of potential for horribleness.

its like so many of thease controversial opinions...the theory is sound, but actually enforcing it is an eniirely diferent story

but yeah I can almost understand if say said person is pretty much a vegtable..but even then..I wouldnt really want to go there

 

[Mandalore_15]

As for my (other?) controversial opinion: I don't think gay couples (either male or female) should be allowed to adopt children. Society isn't ready for it yet. It's for their own protection and (most importantly) the protection of the child.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I believe that every single thing in this world should be free (food, clothes, cars, medical care, houses, etc...), we should do away with money, and have all people on the planet work for no pay (well, all the free stuff would kind of be pay).

As a child I always thought that this solution would solve all issues human beings could ever face.

...Like the Federation in Star Trek?

I'm familiar with this in spite of not being much of a Star Trek fan, so I must ask: Do they ever explain how that might be, in any way whatsoever, a feasible form of Governance and economy?

Common sense grounded in the context of OUR world tells us that there is zero possibility of that system working here. What's different in Star Trek?