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)
What's your controversial opinion?
- Thread starter The Funslinger
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Snipped the ones I don't care to respond to (and also generally agree with, no less).BabyRaptor said:
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.
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.
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?RanD00M said:
Seriously, dude, that is completely unnecessary.
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.letterbomber223 said:
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 hereletterbomber223 said: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 muchheadshotcatcher said:.
Punctuation next to smileys never looks right...
(you can use a smiley instead of a period, it closes off the sentence just as well
)But blindly following ANYTHING contradicts the very nature of being self-proclaimed enlightened or smart. (Self-)criticism is the base of intelligence and 'enlightenment'.666Chaos said:
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.
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.
I hate the straight stuff getting shoved down my throat almost as much. Almost because its my actual orientation.letterbomber223 said:
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.Schadrach said:
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.
God is three in one. Jesus says it. Paul says it.letterbomber223 said:
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.
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.
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.
(sigh) I don't really like the Lord of the Rings movies
*Puts on earmuffs to drown out sound of fanboy rage*
*Puts on earmuffs to drown out sound of fanboy rage*
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 pointletterbomber223 said:Yeah you get a like of Iranians there too, I hear. (got a mate from Hamburg)crimsontide57 said:
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.
Argh! the double close-bracket! '))' It offends my eyes! XDheadshotcatcher said:(you can use a smiley instead of a period, it closes off the sentence just as well