Football in England is shit, epsically our mad belief we'll win the world cup and the fucktards called professional footballers need to get several zeros knocked off their salaries.
More like ten digits. Make them pay for beiong a bunch of arrogant pricks.
OT: Dictatorships have he potiential to work much better than democracy as 'true' democracy is both difficult to achieve through normal means and pointless to strive for as human stupidity and laziness renders it invalid. I mean, loook at how many people say 'oh, I don't vote because it's pointless.'
Then don't whine about needing the right to vote.
Second: Capital punishment should be used in a much greater capacity i.e. actually used in Britain and criminals should be sentenced to longer sentences of hard labour. Repeat offenders should be shot. People recently released from prison should not have it effect their lives (depending on crime) and assistance made available to prevent crime reoccurance. Get the crime rate right down when most criminals are dead.
Third: Peta and its fellow eco-terrorists should be shot, for sheer annoying-ness.
Fourth: Instead of neogeatation and ransoms, somali pirates and others like that should be shot.
Fifth: Illegal immigrants should be shot.
Sixth: Anyone whop makes fun of my odd sneeze should be shot.
seventh: Samll children should not be brought in public, as they annoy me. A strict child limit should be imposed on the planet, families with excess children being placed with severe finacial burden to encourage others not to do it.
Eight: Those commiting sexual crimes should be neutered.
Problem there now is wether (goddammit I hate spelling that word)other people should then be made to pay for their healthcare. If not, why not, as we care for those who drink too much alcohol. However drugs like that are more dangerous (per injection of herion, say than per pint of lager etc)so why sghould be care for those that deliblerately take that risk?
Problem there now is wether (goddammit I hate spelling that word)other people should then be made to pay for their healthcare. If not, why not, as we care for those who drink too much alcohol. However drugs like that are more dangerous (per injection of herion, say than per pint of lager etc)so why sghould be care for those that deliblerately take that risk?
Hmm, it's a bit of a grey area, because if you wonder if prostitutes/drug addicts get free health care, then you have to think about whether or not smokers/heavy drinkers get free health care. I mean, it's all damaging to the body (well, prostitution, not necessarily, but let's face, for the most part, it is) but all to different extents, so at what point do we say, 'This voluntary, yet harmful activity will be taken care of on the NHS, but this one won't.'?
Ah, it's all so complicated! Good job this is nothing but a vent-your-opinions thread, and nothing too world changing.
Compared to the amount of fat people who whine about stuff related to their weight, the number of people who have thyroid problems is next to none. Also, if you have a low metabolism I think you can just eat less, but I don't know that much about metabolism so feel free to prove me wrong on that point.
For the sports teams, maybe they don't deserve all that money in the first place.
Alright, I'm bored. Let's do this. Lots of controversial opinions, in roughly descending order of importance.
I'm a Catholic. Really truly. All the stuff, all the teachings. It's all true, it's all good, and I back it 100%. From One God, to the life of the world to come. Amen.
Of course, your mileage on this controversy may vary. It depends on what pisses you off. Perhaps to add extra juice to this possibly bland statement, I shall add that I think the world would be a better place, and the people in it happier if everyone believed the teachings of the Church and did their best to live them. I know I would be happier if I lived them better, at least. Further, this of course means that I think Hell exists, and it is a very real possible fate for myself, my family, for anyone else if he deliberately separates himself from God. It's kind of a no-brainer to me. If we actually have a choice, then our choices have consequences. If we really reject God, then God would be an arbitrary tyrant to force us to spend eternity with Him. Now, some people have trouble with the whole lake of fire, worm dieth not, eternal suffering aspect, but again, what else do you expect if you have finally rejected the source of all love, goodness, pleasure, and being? Probably not someplace nice. For the most part, though, I think no one would argue with the main day-to-day effects of my religious worldview. Do unto others, feed the hunger, clothe the naked, let your yes mean yes...it's all fairly commonly considered positive. That said...
I believe that their condemnation is just who say that we should do evil that good may come of it. In other words, the ends do not justify the means: consequentialism is wrong and, for good measure, utilitarianism is too.
Let me elaborate, and perhaps this won't be so controversial. Acts, in themselves, may fall into three categories in my estimation. There are good acts, neutral acts, and evil acts. Now, circumstance and intent may render a neutral act good or evil, or may even lessen the good or evil of an act, but they don't make an evil act anything but an evil act, and off the top of my head I can't think of a situation where the opposite was true either. So, for instance, telling a lie, or deliberately killing an innocent, etc, are always wrong, regardless of what I intended my evil action to bring about. Wait, did he just say...
Lying is always wrong. Even when you do it. Even when I do it. Even if I have a really good reason for it. (See above)
This one is really just a matter of faith to me. I'm sure if I looked at it philosophically and logically, I could defend it through non-religious argument solely, but the core of it, for me, is that I believe that the God of Creation is a God of Truth, and that, as I said before, my God told me to let my yes mean yes and my no mean no. I read in the Bible that the Devil, the enemy of God, is called a murderer and the Father of Lies, and that he doesn't mean me well. You can bring up all the Nazi-at-the-door, ticking time bomb situations you can think of. Telling a lie for a good reason doesn't make telling a lie right, it just makes it an understandable but regrettable failing of a person who seems to be trying to do the right thing.
Similarly, and more seriously, though hopefully less controversially to some, abortion is always wrong. Yes, even for a teenage girl. Yes, even if she was raped. Yes, even if it was incest. Yes, even if the mother is poor, and it is making her very sad.
There, that should piss off even people who consider themselves pro-life. This determination of mine has two main parts: religious and scientific. The less controversial part, I hope, is the religious determination: All human life is special, and deserves to be protected. We should not deliberately kill humans who are innocent of wrongdoing. The scientific part is that the growing baby/fetus/embryo/blob of cells (WTF, by the way, is with the "blob of cells" argument? What do you think you are, sir, but a blob of cells, you ugly bag of mostly water.) is alive, and that life is demonstrably part of the species homo sapiens, by its genetics and its parentage. It is alive, in that it grows, it takes in nutrition and excretes waste, it responds to stimuli and maintains homeostasis, all according to its point in development, same as me. It is human, in that it is the product of two human organisms, possessing the genetic components common to humans. It does not "become" human at some later stage in its development, or become more human, though it will eventually either fulfill or fail to fulfill its human potential, any more than I am MORE human than my son, because I speak and walk and feed myself and think deep thoughts man and hold down a job and have regular, satisfying sex and can fight off or flee from a predator, and he can do none of these things. Because of that, he, or any human, may benefit from my irrational, backward religious belief that we shouldn't kill humans who have done and intend no harm. Even if the sexual act which resulted in his coming into being was forced upon his mother, without even the tiniest hint of consent; that is, unarguably rape, a vile and disgusting crime of force and violence. Is this a painful and uncomfortable position? Of course. But clearly it is wrong to punish an innocent for the crime of his biological father. While daddy fades into the night or gets a slap on the wrist or serves his 5-12 years, Jr gets killed. That is not fair, or just, it is monstrous. (While the woman does have a right to defend herself from all the consequences of this attack, including pregnancy, it does not extend to homicide. Thus, though (re:above) I oppose the use of contraception, I fully support the right of a victim of rape to receive, speedily and free of charge, drugs to prevent ovulation and conception. I think my views are in line with the policies of most Catholic hospitals, and the judgements of the Church, but even if they aren't, it seems a prudent compromise in a mixed society.
I believe that marriage is an institution which is ordered not just towards the good of the spouses, but towards the good and expectation of children.
That the marital act is primarily aimed towards reproduction is so obvious as to make denying it a kind of insanity. That a monogamous, permanent relationship holds benefits for both spouses is well attested by sociologists and common sense. That such a relationship, with both biological parents, is worlds more beneficial to any potential children is also well attested. It is thus shown that, because it is best for the issue of the marital act to be raised with both biological parents until adulthood, it is in the interests of children that marriage be a permanent, monogamous bond between husband and wife. It is prudent, because of the causal relationship between the marital act and the appearance of said issue, that those acts be constrained to occur between two people in a relationship that is most beneficial to the issue, as pointed to above. If the society has an interest in the well being of children, then it is proper that societal pressures exist both to strengthen that relationship, and to discourage the performance of the marital act outside of it.
Divorce is wrong. It should be at the least discouraged, at the most forbidden or punished as a breach of contract.
I am not saying that people should be forced to remain in dangerous or abusive relationships. All things being equal, however, it is bad for society to so blithely disregard the good that is marriage. Again, as above, this is primarily for the good of children. As such, let me propose this: if both spouses wish a divorce, and there are no children or pregnancy involved in the marriage, then the marriage is ended quickly and cleanly. No alimony or anything of the sort. The case is made, the law decides how to equitably split the property that was held in common (if the spouses cannot come to such a decision privately, as would be best), and the marriage is over. If only one spouse wishes a divorce, then he must show a breach of the marriage agreement, through infidelity, abuse, or abandonment, physical or emotional. The judge may then decide to grant, or not grant, a divorce, and may impose an unequal division of property on the offending spouse. Even harder, if there are children. Even if both spouses want out, the weight is on the good of the children. Man and woman may have entered into the union freely, and both failed to live up to obligations or grown dissatisfied, but the children did NOT have a choice, and what is best for the children is now the issue. If the relationship is physically dangerous to spouse or children, it can be ended, but I'm thinking that someone needs to got to jail here, because I'm envisioning a situation bad enough that it is illegal and actionable. (This is not to say that a parent cannot flee an abusive relationship with his or her children immediately. Shelters exist for that purpose now, and if I had my way, they would likely need to be expanded, to safeguard the good of all involved.)
That's all I have time for now. Maybe later I'll get to the really juicy ones, like my views on politics or the abomination known as white chocolate.
But think about all of that potential lost! We shouldn't give up on humanity because it has failed thus far, we can fix it if everyone tries... and that will take time.
Also you must remember, that any animal in our place would do the exact same thing we are, we just haven't reached the carrying capacity (how much of a population a environment can support) of out race yet; which is just north of 10 billion.
But onto my controversial opinion:
I believe that both religion and science are both right about the creation of the universe. IE: God would use evolution in creating the universe. (This doesn't seam that bad to me, but some people get pissy about my opinion...)
Well you started of with saying " unable to find a job" which threw me a bit off. And lets say he was born able bodied and then got crippled after having worked for some time, then he's okay, but if he was born crippled or became a cripple before any major work then we kill them off. And I'm not being just an ass to others, if this were to happen to me under my rule then I would have myself killed off.
Anyway, my problem with all this is that it's A) ridiculously immoral, and B) unnecessary. The mentally and physically disabled really don't get very much funding, at least not where I live, and as long as they get private donations why does it matter? When they get funding it's not like the money disappears, it gets spent on things, and then spent on other things, and so forth.
Okay you taalk about harboring a controversial opinion, OP, then spout the opinion of absolutely EVERY expert deemed worthy for television? Nice going, the OP can't even stick to topic. So time to be on-topic: I AM religious and Conservative, and until someone shows me a reason to stop believing in God and individual rights, your perfect world will never be rid of the likes of me. Bonus points if you do actually try to prove me wrong.
Candidates for any office should be COMPLETELY forbidden from discussing either their political or religious affiliation. Should be based on what they want to do not if their a christian / atheist / republican / democrat.
We shouldn't have to add warnings / safety checks to EVERYTHING. If some kid is too dumb / not supervised enough to know that swallowing a golf ball is a bad idea. Well there's some crap gene's outta the gene pool.
If your kid is screaming, crying, throwing a tantrum in any, ANY public place people should be allowed to smack them and you for letting that noise continue on.
Athletes should be payed based on their performance. No sitting on the side-line for the whole season and payed $15 mill.
Immigrating into the US illegally should get your deported. No ifs, and's or buts. No, having a child wouldn't save you either. You broke the law, I don't care. Though on the same vein, having people jump through 500000 hoops to get in should be changed.
Weed should be the same as booze. Meaning, you shouldn't be thrown in jail for smoking it in your house with your friends but you should be punished for giving it to kids.
Health Care should be freeish. If you've got, say, cancer, not from smoking, then surgery should be provided and payed for by the public. If you're suffering from kidney disease from drinking like a fish though you should have to pay for it all.
Suicidal people, over the age of 18, shouldn't be stopped.
Yay I agree
The claims Israel has on its land stem from it being their promised land by God, though I presume, the Koran basically being a rewritten Tora, the Islam claims to have been promised the exact same land.
Then if you disregard that you'll see that Judea was muslim territories for a good 1300 years or so, longer than Spain and Portugal have been Spanish and Portuguese, however we never dispute the fact that those lands belong to them.
Also, (presumably out of guilt) the Western world is siding with Israel way too much. They are clearly out of line in their treatment of Muslim people, firing cruise missiles into hospitals, what the hell? Even if the Hamas sometimes uses those as bases of operations, it's inexcusable..
Yes the Hamas are VERY wrong too, but the Hamas is a terrorist organisation, not a country.
letterbomber223 said:
CalabusDabus said:
That there is no evidence whatso ever for The Big Bang THEORY, and the only reason it exists is the fact that people will do anything to avoid the thought that their sin will send them to hell.
Oh also, look up something called 'red shift' and 'the doppler effect'. Universe is undoubtedly spreading from a central point, which I'm pretty sure there's a name for... oh yeah, big bang.
Dumbass.
I take offense that you call him a dumbass, that implies you think you're superior to him, which is really a sin in the world of open debate...
666Chaos said:
I agree with you that you cant call yourself smart of enlightened and believe something without actually looking at it.
As for evolution yes there are a lot of assumptions but from a scientific point of view it is the best thing that we have right now. The reason that we dont see any transitional animals is because those things happen over thousands of years and we have know way of knowing what they are in current times. If you actually want to get technical every animal out there is actually a transitional animal since we are all constantly changing to adapt to our environment.
What makes it even better is that when you look at it the bible actually supports the theory of evolution with the everybody being descended from adam and eve bit.
Those that fail to adapt are the ones that go extinct.
Well you obviously agree that you do have to keep considering it a theory so my words regarding it would fall upon.. satiated ears? >.< but yeah I see no sense in continuing that
But I would like to add that I think it's very odd that people often view creationism and evolution as polar opposites, while the creator could just have created the world and some one celled creatures, knowing that they'd evolve But yeah, I like how you seem to criticise stuff as well
My controversial opinion is that it was tasteless to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Laden.
The man killed hundreds of people, and he promoted himself as an enemy of Western culture, but he was still a human being.
This seems like an express ride to the banning but feth it way not? I'm fiercely pro-life.Actually i'm more anti-abortion then anything else.Don't made the death penalty as long as it wisely implemented.oh i'm also a pretty outspoken atheist at times (mainly when an urber religious person starts mouthing of).All of this is fairly odd because i'm usually fairly lethargic and quiet 99 percent of the time.
I have bad news for you. JK
It means that there is no way you can prove either, there is just as much evidence for either. To quote glados: In laymen's therms 50/50.
There's no age when any person is too old to play the video games that they enjoy. I'm a big Nintendo fan at 20 and I don't care in the slightest whether people think I'm too old for it or not. It's just fun, ergo, I play it.
I think that all people that are either physically or mentally unable to ever work a day in their lives should just be gotten rid of. They do nothing to condone to society and just leech tax money.
I'm talking more definite disabilities. And if the families take care of them then that's fine, but if they don't and my tax payer money is spent on them, which is something that I don't want my tax payer money to go to, I see no reason to not whack them.
Where I live a lot of money from the tax payer goes to those who are disabled. And not many people donate unless there is a charity drive, which is almost never. Now if you want to keep someone who is disabled alive with your money then that's fine, but don't take my money that I might want to put elsewhere to them. That's more or less my point, the government should not keep disabled alive, the people close to them should.
Maybe I am being a bit drastic with saying that they should be killed, but my point is explained in what I said right now.
I think that all people that are either physically or mentally unable to ever work a day in their lives should just be gotten rid of. They do nothing to condone to society and just leech tax money.
I'm talking more definite disabilities. And if the families take care of them then that's fine, but if they don't and my tax payer money is spent on them, which is something that I don't want my tax payer money to go to, I see no reason to not whack them.
Where I live a lot of money from the tax payer goes to those who are disabled. And not many people donate unless there is a charity drive, which is almost never. Now if you want to keep someone who is disabled alive with your money then that's fine, but don't take my money that I might want to put elsewhere to them. That's more or less my point, the government should not keep disabled alive, the people close to them should.
Maybe I am being a bit drastic with saying that they should be killed, but my point is explained in what I said right now.
Right, and that makes a fair amount of sense. Which is why I think taxes should have some sort of "charity" option, if you check that, a little bit of your paycheck goes towards things like this, and people who don't want to don't have to contribute. Probably wouldn't work, but whatever.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
