What's your controversial opinion?

[squintzepalladoris]

This is kind of cruel, but I am a firm believer in survival of the fittest. Every man/woman/family for themselves. If you can't survive on your own, you're clearly the weaker/lazier of the species and natural selection should be allowed to run its course.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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. I see no reason for why people believe in any of this mumbo jumbo other than greed (the different variants of heaven), it being hammered into their minds throughout their life (any religion and society ever) and the threat of harm (the different punishments of religions, such as hell.)
I sadly won't mention the second opinion of mine because I believe that it would be too controversial, even for this place.

I'm not going to just spout a stream of hate on you for what you just said but I do strongly disagree. I'm not actually religious myself because I'm the sort of person who cannot simply 'believe' something. I need something to be proven to me as true before I will support it. However, even I am getting tired of all the 'religion does nothing but harm' arguments. While I admit that a lot of bad shit throughout history would not have happened if religious differences did not exist, y'know what else would never have happened without religion? The Salvation Army, The Dhali Llama, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and the movement to abolish the slave trade that he fronted, and the entire concepts of medicine and education to name but a few. While it may be the politicians, scientists, and businessmen who are the driving force in modern society, they are building on foundations that were laid by faith. Most of the greatest humanitarians in history were inspired to do what they did because of their faith, and even today it is largely religious charities who help the people who slip through the net and give then hope.

OT: (I'm sorry I don't know how to spoiler tag this) While I accept that there have been atrocities on both sides in the conflict and in no way support the methods of Hamas, when it comes to who is at fault for starting the conflict in the Middle East and keeping it going for do long ISRAEL IS ALMOST ENTIRELY TO BLAME. Yes, the Jewish peoples of this world have a right to a homeland. They do NOT however, have the right to bully and murder their way to sole domination of this homeland regardless of who else has a claim to it. The Gaza Strip today is the closest equivalent the 21st century has to the Warsaw ghetto of all the peoples in the world the Israeli community should know better then to treat another race this way considering what they went through themselves. The Holocaust is not an excuse to kick downwards at a race of people who were perfectly happy to share their land with you until you started killing them.

 

[Greni]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

 

[ramboondiea]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

 

[TheGreatKlaid]

Native american special rights need to end now. They were lucky they didn't go they way of all the other losing peoples of the world.

 

[squidtm]

I think eating meat should be illegal. I also think there should be a mandatory one child per family policy.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Grandma's Boy was the worst movie ever made. The picture it paints of the gaming community itself is sickening and stereotypical but to make the film a fucking stoner comedy was just more proof that Hollywood in general doesn't know or care about gamers or the people who make games. I fucking hate Grandma's Boy.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, I had a couple, but since I'm an adult white middle-class male, no longer allowed a right to a controversial opinion; not until my ethnicity has paid of its "white guilt" tab to society.

In all seriousness: I wish that people would stop trying to jam life-altering philosophy down my throat simply because they "know" it's how I ought to think. For all I care, they could just disappear tomorrow and I would be a happier person as a result of it.

Not just morality, or codes of conduct necessary for civilized life; shit like Atheism/Religion/Politics/Sexual Orientation/etc. As far as I know, I haven't been recruited into a secret brain-washed religious fanatic, or retarded bible thumping simpleton who can't think for himself, and I'm quite tired of these stupid fucks who keep saying that I am based on a few lines of context.

I know genuinely good and intelligent Christians. I also know of some really stupid, hateful Christians. And I can apply this same reasoning to virtually every religion, political party affiliate, or mass-organization I've had significant encounters with.

But hey, I suppose it's easier to let stereotyping and gross generalizations do your thinking for you when you have that much of an ego.

 

[SillyBear]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

If the public are unable to protest laws and state their disagreement with new legislation, then social progress is instantly stunted. Have a think about how different our society would be today if people were never permitted to disagree with legislation, and if all crimes wielded the same punishment. We would still be practicing slavery, there would be no mixed race marriages, domestic abuse would be largely undetected, children would be working by age 12 and there would be no such thing as human rights and welfare.

Public back lashing to unpopular laws is a fantastic thing for social progress. If it were prohibited then we would be stuck in the social stone age. It would allow the powerful to create whatever laws they wish to exploit whomever they wish and no one would be able to contest that. You would lose out.

How the fuck can you even think that is a good idea?

 

[Zulnam]

I believe the only way we can learn more about the human body and, thus, how to heal certain diseases or mutations successful, is by performing experiments on dead and live human beings. Prisoners who are sentenced to life should be used in these experiments.

Yes, I know the Nazis did experiments on human beings as well, but what everybody seems to forget is that the information based on those experiments has been used in modern medicine.

 

[OhSnap]

I have many controversial opinions. I'm willing to bet I'll get flamed/reported for this, but since I was asked...


1) Religion is nothing more than an archaic tool used to control the masses through fear.

I really cannot emphasize enough how much contempt I feel for religious people who try and argue against evolution or try and tell me there is a god. Stop leading your life based on what the church tells you and follow your own morals. I'm not going to murder someone because a book tells me it's bad, I'm not going to do it because I can think for myself and I think it's wrong.


2) We need to stop sending money to third world countries.

How about we fix (oh look at that, commercial begging for money for some foreign children just came on -_- our own country, help our starving and homeless people before we go wasting millions of dollars on someone else.


3) Immigrants need to stop coming to Canada.

Seriously. We have enough people, unless you can contribute significantly to our country, go away.


4) Animal Rights.

If you've ever read any of my other posts you've seen my opinions on this nasty little topic. Everyone should be vegan in my opinion, or at the very least the blatant disregard for animal welfare needs to be addressed. Animal testing should be done on convicts instead, more accurate results anyway. Dolphins and cetaceans have been proven to have intelligence rivaling our own and are fully self aware, Sea World and places exploiting them need to be shut down (and for the record, the trainers who get injured or killed by the whales deserve what they get just as much as you'd deserve to get charbroiled by a dragon for poking it in the eye while it's sleeping).

 

[ramboondiea]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

If the public are unable to protest laws and state their disagreement with new legislation, then social progress is instantly stunted. Have a think about how different our society would be today if people were never permitted to disagree with legislation, and if all crimes wielded the same punishment. We would still be practicing slavery, there would be no mixed race marriages, domestic abuse would be largely undetected, children would be working by age 12 and there would be no such thing as human rights and welfare.

Public back lashing to unpopular laws is a fantastic thing for social progress. If it were prohibited then we would be stuck in the social stone age. It would allow the powerful to create whatever laws they wish to exploit whomever they wish and no one would be able to contest that. You would lose out.

How the fuck can you even think that is a good idea?

I said nothing about the prevention of protest, nor did i say all crimes deserve the same punishment, what i said was people should be expected to obey the laws of their land, and if they choose to break these laws, then they should be punished as far as possible. now notice the bit were i said "as far as possible" this is in relation to their crime, i dont believe that people should be given different punishments "just because" this isnt to say that legitimate circumstances should be ignored, but only those recognised by law should hold any merit.

and like i said, i never said anything about not opposing the law, i just believe if you are going to protest it, you should use the legal means the system has provided, if you choose not to,and then break this law, you should be punished.

so please in future do not jump to conclusions so rashly

 

[SillyBear]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

If the public are unable to protest laws and state their disagreement with new legislation, then social progress is instantly stunted. Have a think about how different our society would be today if people were never permitted to disagree with legislation, and if all crimes wielded the same punishment. We would still be practicing slavery, there would be no mixed race marriages, domestic abuse would be largely undetected, children would be working by age 12 and there would be no such thing as human rights and welfare.

Public back lashing to unpopular laws is a fantastic thing for social progress. If it were prohibited then we would be stuck in the social stone age. It would allow the powerful to create whatever laws they wish to exploit whomever they wish and no one would be able to contest that. You would lose out.

How the fuck can you even think that is a good idea?

I said nothing about the prevention of protest, nor did i say all crimes deserve the same punishment, what i said was people should be expected to obey the laws of their land, and if they choose to break these laws, then they should be punished as far as possible. now notice the bit were i said "as far as possible" this is in relation to their crime, i dont believe that people should be given different punishments "just because" this isnt to say that legitimate circumstances should be ignored, but only those recognised by law should hold any merit.

and like i said, i never said anything about not opposing the law, i just believe if you are going to protest it, you should use the legal means the system has provided, if you choose not to,and then break this law, you should be punished.

so please in future do not jump to conclusions so rashly

All my points still apply. You are against people doing illegal things to protest an unjust law. Have you ever heard of 1800s USA? Or present day Syria? What legal means do they have?

Your views are still in favour of indirectly stunting social progress. Fact is, when greedy powerful people make laws, illegal means are quite often the only way of fighting them.

Once the government introduces unjust laws, they can no longer expect the public to behave "legally". The perception of the law and its effectiveness is entirely based around the people. The people are the ones who decide whether or not it is just and whether or not it is worth following. This is a good thing. It prevents power monopolies and maintains a healthy balance of power.

 

[Greni]

Ah, almost forgot.

[...]laws are absolute,[...]

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

Let's look at a hypothetical situation with a totally fictional ruler of a totally fictional regime called Democratic Kampuchea, formerly known as Cambodia. The fictional ruler was called Pol Pot.
He passed on many "absolute" laws, like banning religion; spiritual leaders (priests, imams and such) were captured and tortured then later killed, educated people like lawyers and doctors were also hunted down, undesirables (read: anyone he saw fit) were relocated to the countryside which were basically massive graveyards and starved to death.

Oh, and this is not fiction. It's true.

Some dickhead passes a law and you will gladly follow it blindly although it makes no sense and is possibly hurting people.

Good for you, but I would rather keep my sanity then turn a blind eye to a tyrant, racist judge, hypocritical congressman, opportunistic police officer or any other incompetent power hungry authority figure who's more worried about his own fat arse then the people who voted for him because he promised them he'd be good to them.

Empty promises and shallow lies, laws, rules, regulations. All manifestation of control to keep the status quo, them in power, us not. Always them and us, never just us.
Do not rock the boat, do not question authority. Go back to sleep people, the authorities are handling everything. Don't worry and don't think. Go back to sleep.

Rant over.

 

[ramboondiea]

Ah, almost forgot.

I think laws are absolute, if something is made into a legally binding rule then whether you agree with it or not, even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. and any one breaking them, even in a minor degree should be punished too the full extent possible.

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

If the public are unable to protest laws and state their disagreement with new legislation, then social progress is instantly stunted. Have a think about how different our society would be today if people were never permitted to disagree with legislation, and if all crimes wielded the same punishment. We would still be practicing slavery, there would be no mixed race marriages, domestic abuse would be largely undetected, children would be working by age 12 and there would be no such thing as human rights and welfare.

Public back lashing to unpopular laws is a fantastic thing for social progress. If it were prohibited then we would be stuck in the social stone age. It would allow the powerful to create whatever laws they wish to exploit whomever they wish and no one would be able to contest that. You would lose out.

How the fuck can you even think that is a good idea?

I said nothing about the prevention of protest, nor did i say all crimes deserve the same punishment, what i said was people should be expected to obey the laws of their land, and if they choose to break these laws, then they should be punished as far as possible. now notice the bit were i said "as far as possible" this is in relation to their crime, i dont believe that people should be given different punishments "just because" this isnt to say that legitimate circumstances should be ignored, but only those recognised by law should hold any merit.

and like i said, i never said anything about not opposing the law, i just believe if you are going to protest it, you should use the legal means the system has provided, if you choose not to,and then break this law, you should be punished.

so please in future do not jump to conclusions so rashly

All my points still apply. You are against people doing illegal things to protest an unjust law. Have you ever heard of 1800s USA? Or present day Syria? What legal means do they have?

Your views are still in favour of indirectly stunting social progress. Fact is, when greedy powerful people make laws, illegal means are quite often the only way of fighting them.

Once the government introduces unjust laws, they can no longer expect the public to behave "legally". The perception of the law and its effectiveness is entirely based around the people. The people are the ones who decide whether or not it is just and whether or not it is worth following. This is a good thing. It prevents power monopolies and maintains a healthy balance of power.

okay, right of the bat, here power is maintained through the doctrine of the separation of powers, 3 separate groups governing each over, the system itself is in need of reform, but is fundamentally valid.

and no, the "people" should not be the ones too decide if they should follow the rules or not, people differ, if the passing of a law hinged upon everyone agreeing to it, then no laws would ever be passed, thats why they should only be able to oppose them with the tools the system provides. by your logic, anything should be allowed because one group doesnt agree with something, and is choosing the easy method of just ignoring laws, in your words this would legitimise the likes of murder, terrorism and vigilante justice. that way anarchy leads.


laws are implemented for the people, this doesn't mean they can simple ignore it because it is inconvenient for them. my ideology is that of a more civil system, whilst you seem to be leaning more towards an anarchist viewpoint

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

If every human being died, it would only be a good thing. I include myself in that.

Please contest this opinion, as I would love to change it.

Wouldn't be good for me, I don't want to be dead.

OT: I hate Mass Effect 1 it is a clunky, boring, sloppy mess. I hate Final Fantasy, just bleh. And something non-video game: believe all religions are cults. No matter what, and that all religious works are works of ficition. But they do provide daring, intelligent, and powerful stories to live by in some cases.

 

[Happy Toki Toki]

I believe sex is a special, meaningful act that you should share only with the person you are married to. I get some really weird looks from people when they first ask if I'm a virgin and I say yes, then they ask why and I give them that answer.
The fact that I believe in God also seems to be rather controversial, at least on this site.

I'm with you all the way, my wife is the only woman I've ever been with and thats the only way I would ever want it, it's so much more initimate and satisfiying to know that we are the only ones who will share it.

 

[ramboondiea]

Ah, almost forgot.

[...]laws are absolute,[...]

This statement is on the verge of fascism, we could have so much fun together.

Although I call troll on this one.

excuse me, what have I said to make you think that? and it is hardly fascism, i think laws are there for a reason, and just because you dont agree with them is no excuse to ignore them

Let's look at a hypothetical situation with a totally fictional ruler of a totally fictional regime called Democratic Kampuchea, formerly known as Cambodia. The fictional ruler was called Pol Pot.
He passed on many "absolute" laws, like banning religion; spiritual leaders (priests, imams and such) were captured and tortured then later killed, educated people like lawyers and doctors were also hunted down, undesirables (read: anyone he saw fit) were relocated to the countryside which were basically massive graveyards and starved to death.

Oh, and this is not fiction. It's true.

Some dickhead passes a law and you will gladly follow it blindly although it makes no sense and is possibly hurting people.

Good for you, but I would rather keep my sanity then turn a blind eye to a tyrant, racist judge, hypocritical congressman, opportunistic police officer or any other incompetent power hungry authority figure who's more worried about his own fat arse then the people who voted for him because he promised them he'd be good to them.

Empty promises and shallow lies, laws, rules, regulations. All manifestation of control to keep the status quo, them in power, us not. Always them and us, never just us.
Do not rock the boat, do not question authority. Go back to sleep people, the authorities are handling everything. Don't worry and don't think. Go back to sleep.

Rant over.

once again another person has jump to conclusions.
i never suggested a tyranicle rule, i never suggest fascism, i never suggested the inability to protest a law, i merely started that when a law is passed, you should follow it, if you are opposed to it then you oppose it with the means the system provides.

laws are at their core, there to protect people, your example is not that of law, yours is an example of power, they are two very different things, law is a system that governs, it belongs to no one man and must always be there for the greater good, if you choose to ignore a law, then you should be punished as far as is possible, but pay attention to that last bit, "as far as possible" thats the important bit. people shouldn't be given preferential treatment, nor should they be unfairly represented, everyone should be susceptible to the same except for circumstances the law recognise.

you also draw a distinction between "them" and "us" im assuming what you mean by that is them in power, us not? if so then your right, "us" will never be in power as if we are we will become "them", there is no difference between them in power and those not, each effect the other and the line it self is not that clear

 

[Kachiporra]

Oh, I have one:

I think that the U.S.A. should change their name, so that every person borned in the American continent can call themself "american", same as europeans, asian, ect.