What's your controversial opinion?

[lettucethesallad]

I think being fat shows a lack of character. My roomie gets on my back about being 'discriminating to fat people', but I can't help it. Yes, I understand that there are diseases that can lead to problems with weight, but most people don't have these. They just don't have the willpower to put down the cheeseburger. It's a character weakness, and it's not something that should be condoned or okayed, at least not while I have to pay for the medical consequences with tax money.

 

[Robert Ewing]

The vast majority of people that are on the Jeremy Kyle show, all serious offender convicts, Westboro Baptist Church and such organisations. Serious criminals etc.

Yeah, this goes against a lot of free speech. But I think free speech isn't always good either.

 

[Mr Companion]

Ok this ones a little extreme but I just sometimes think that... well I know people get really angry about people saying this but, um, well...

I think Notch should work on Minecraft sometimes!

 

[Davey Woo]

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.

 

[rutger5000]

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.

Chicken. This is a place for controversial opinions, if someone gets pissed it's their own fault. So speak your mind.
I disagree with you though. Religion has it's place in the world.

 

[rutger5000]

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.

Dunno I think violence and war is part of our animal instinct. More then anything else it caused us to evolve. The moment when ape became men was not when he killed game with a stone, but when he killed he brethern with one.
Other then that there are plenty of animals that do strave to death. That will also happen to us. But yes maybe it would be better in the long run. That is the only way we can prevent our self-destruction.

 

[warthoggunner]

The goth subculture doesn't have to be tolerant.
Because then it will become (even more) mainstream and die.

(EBM and all that rubbish electronic music is NOT Goth).

 

[Davey Woo]

Dunno I think violence and war is part of our animal instinct. More then anything else it caused us to evolve. The moment when ape became men was not when he killed game with a stone, but when he killed he brethern with one.
Other then that there are plenty of animals that do strave to death. That will also happen to us. But yes maybe it would be better in the long run. That is the only way we can prevent our self-destruction.

When I said there would be less conflict, I meant invasion of countries, racial/religious conflict, terrorism etc. Your point is also really interesting, we became men when we realised we could kill others of our species for reasons other than survival.

 

[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!