What's your controversial opinion?

[Blobpie]

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...)

Listen to what sane person says.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Each side is eminently fond of the straw man argument it uses to attack the other. Each side demonstrates poor understanding of itself and its chosen opposition.

Science is a tool for understanding the universe. One of the most basic rules of science is that of improving the tool over time: any principle, no matter how basic, can be disproven or modified any time the evidence calls for it. Take light, for instance. It was once thought to be instantaneous. Then it was proven to have a definite, measurable speed. That light behaves as both particles and waves simultaneously (don't know the science, forgive any inaccuracy) seemed impossible but it is indeed the case. A true scientist would be the first to state that while science may someday collect evidence pointing to the probability of a supreme being, no amount of science can ever disprove God. All we can say is, "We haven't found anything conclusive."

Now for the religious side. The Bible was written by man, not God. Divinely inspired, perhaps, but written by man. Man is fallible, opinionated, and very limited in his understanding of the universe. If a supreme being had told man thousands of years ago that the points of light in the night sky were balls of fusing hydrogen, billions of years old, billions of miles away, do you think primitive man could have handled that? What about dinosaurs? God didn't bother explaining that stuff because it didn't have any relevance to his message and man wouldn't have understood anyway. He communicated to man in terms that man could understand at the time: fire, blood, sacrifice, love, judgement, et cetera. This does not mean the dinosaurs never existed, nor will it ever mean that, no matter how vigorously the fundamentalists scream and wave their hands.

"Sane person"... best title EVER!

 

[GraveeKing]

This thread worry's me and I can see some people aren't going to be as nice as the guy in the first post and actually use logic... but well here I go.

I agree, religion should not stop progress - but neither should anything else, no stupid morals or anything. If we need human test subjects - do it. Some people are willing to do that kind of stuff! Why not do it?! I mean it's a quick way to make progress and save lives, but nooo egg/sperm this is life? God no.

My other part of the opinion is, atheists: leave anyone who believes in god alone. When I have it, they seem to pick on the few guys who actually DO believe in science and logic. For example a friend of mine who carried a bible around in school was mocked for this, often having it stolen and thrown about - but he plans to be a scientist when he's older, he confessed the bible he reads is more about the morals of the story's rather than them actually being real, and he WAS a smart kid, he got max grades in everything to my knowledge, he got an award at the end of the final year.
So basically - atheists, go away you guys aren't as smart as you think you are - and just because you don't believe in one thing, it doesn't make you any wiser for it, science has barely proved anything yet and we've got a hell of a lot more to discover yet, so basically - if you don't want hardcore priests and religious folk preaching to you - why don't you do the same for us and leave our opinions to ourselves? They don't hurt anyone and a good majority of us don't yell them in your face, you only seem to notice the bloody loud faced ones the media films like Westboro Baptist church.
WE'RE offended by those kind of idiots and we believe in god! So why don't you just practice what you preach and keep your trap shut?

Okies, offense rant/text over - please I don't want anyone to reply to this for a flame war so leave me out of this... It's only my opinion - please respect it, that's what this thread is about anyway.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Its funny you should mention the 500 year rule over Africa.
Because most of the area's biggest problems occured after the white collonies left.

You've obviously never heard of the term "power vacuum". Look up the term, and then look at the history of colonial powers and Africa. If your as smart and educated as you say you are, you'll see the connection sooner or later. And it has nothing to do with race.

Doesn't it intellectually strike someone as odd that these people are attracted to the similar gender when...I know how this is going to sound...they aren't supposed to feel attracted towards the same gender, regardless of what your opinion or my opinion in the matter, is.

I would love to hear the evidence for such a bold statement beyond the usual "Christianity presupposes an intelligent designer that designed biological processes in nature to operate a certain way in which to not be sinful, Christianity dictates homosexuality does not follow this design and is such sinful, so clearly homosexuals cannot be truly happy unless they are in a True Christian Heterosexual Relationship (TM). Like Christians!".

I know how your post sounds, and it still sounds like Conservative Christian drivel (ie. "moral stick up one's ass") from someone whom can't think outside of the Bible and Church when interacting with the real world, and cries "Bigotry!" every time someone calls you out on such narrowminded assertions and absolutions in an attitude that would seem to suggest one deluded enough to believe everything he believes is objective truth and fact without question that everyone else must adhere to to ever live a content and satisfied life. And, of course, they are just clearly not enlightened enough to see the "awesome truth" of your chosen faith! How dare they reject it, the "bigots"!

 

[Yokai]

Spoilered, because I've caught flak for this before.

Spoiler: Concerning transsexualism

I think that transsexuals should try to find other outlets for their confused gender identities than a dangerous and ultimately futile surgical process. In my opinion, undergoing reassignment surgery is like cutting off your nose because you think it's ugly. Gender is just about the most fundamental physical element of a person, and it seems like a terrible shame to mutilate oneself in a futile attempt to change it.

Keep in mind that I don't bear transsexuals any ill will, and I won't condemn the decisions they make or think less of them because of it. It just pains me to see people who went through a purely cosmetic change that is both irreversible and unconvincing. This will be a non-issue when surgical procedures become advanced enough to physically change one's gender, but currently the attempts are just kind of sad.

In the meantime, I think transsexual people should focus on abolishing gender roles and exercise a freedom of action and expression, and avoid self-mutilation until a better alternative comes along.

 

[boosh-boosh]

Oh god, Tom Baker is at my window. 0.0

Watch out, i hear he's a menace with the jellybeans.

 

[Xojins]

My controversial opinions...

1. Women are not as logical as men and too often let their emotions make their decisions.

2. Conservative republicans are all scumbags who would rather let the entire country suffer than actually invoke change for the better of their people.

We think in terms of "is this the right way to approach the solution" instead of the "wow, this works great on a surface level" approach most leftist members typically view. Even then, one has to argue that morality comes into play, and we usually view it moreso from that angle than "whatever works...works". Sometimes it may "work" in a sense, but it isn't altogether the right way to solve the problem when you look deep down into the complexity of things.

Like homosexuality: Yes, it looks like on the surface level we're just gay bashing, trying to preserve rights to our own, and force a religious standpoint upon others, but then again we have to bring up the relevance as to what causes homosexuality. How do we know the people in the LGBT community are truly "happy" with their choices? Do they even know they are happy? How would they know they are happy, in a non-discriminating...open-minded fashion, if in fact it is a hormonal/sociological/environmental/genetic/etc/etc/etc...problem? The reason this is never brought up is the fear that it provides more ammo to the right wing types who wish to add more "proof" to the table and destroy their basis of rights.

Now, with that being said, what can someone honestly bring forth in contempt, that we aren't approaching the problem in the correct light? How are being unfair or cruel to these people? We need more answers on these subjects, things which are honorable and in depth studies, instead of just "surface level" answers.

I hope this provides answers for you.

Maybe you think of problems in terms of "is this the right approach to the situation", but the vast majority do not. Almost every conservative republican I have met, or even seen give a speech or something about one of those topics seem to just go along with whatever the guidelines of the conservative political party are, regardless of whether or not it's the right way.

Take Newt Gingrich for example. As soon as he disagreed with the voucher health plan, the entire right basically disowned him for not agreeing with the party's position. Then, Gingrich immediately went back on his previous statements claiming he never opposed it in any way. By the way, if you think the voucher health plan is the way to go, you don't care about your citizens (I'm assuming we're talking about American politics). I could write probably 10 pages of text about this, but I don't really have the patience.

My biggest problem with the conservative republicans though is the fact that they are completely unwilling to consider someone else's point of view. At least the left is willing to make compromises while the right refuse to even consider any other plan or opinion; "Our way or no way" pretty much sums up the right.

Also, regarding homosexuality, who the hell are you to question whether or not they are happy? If the majority say they are unhappy with the way the system is now, who the hell are you to question them? If they are happy being gay, you have no right to question it.

To be fair, the left often shows the exact same attitude. The only reason they often do make compromises is to make their public perception more appealing. Even then...everytime they do it's a lighthearted, lukewarm sort of "compromise" which is more often a political tactic instead of an outright "decision".

Who the hell am I to question them? Someone who has the logical belief that there may be in fact, something going on beneath the surface level that requires in depth, scientific explanation as to "why" they feel the way they do. Doesn't it intellectually strike someone as odd that these people are attracted to the similar gender when...I know how this is going to sound...they aren't supposed to feel attracted towards the same gender, regardless of what your opinion or my opinion in the matter, is.

It's a question that requires proper explanation for the debate to bloody hell end. Sorry, but it's not MY perception that needs changing. It's the understanding the gay rights advocates needs to come to the proper conclusion of.

And there is nothing to say that they "are happy". All they know is that "they are attracted to the same gender". It would be outside their psychology and ability to understand these things.

...I can't even believe what I'm reading. I've never actually said this before, but your point of view is wrong. Plain and simple. You can explain your point of view all you want, and you can try to justify your beliefs all you want, but it's not going to convince those of us who already know it to be wrong.

Everything you say is just a perfect example of how disgusting your conservative republican opinions are.

"There is nothing to say that they 'are happy'". Yes there is, it's called their self-evaluation of their own happiness, which you are completely unqualified to judge. Yet, I know you're going to do some kind of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you are.

There is no one reason for why homosexuals are the way that they are, yet you try to pinpoint it to one "problem" as you would say (yes, you do think it's a problem, I can tell). You want to "fix" what really isn't a problem.

I really can't put into words how disgusting I find you and your point of view. You can go ahead and respond if you want, but all you are really doing is reaffirming my opinion.

 

[Xojins]

Snip

Edit: Never mind, looks like my post did make it through, it just took way longer than I expected to show up. If my previous post seems to lack much structure, it's because I was genuinely shocked that you seriously defend that point of view.

Doesn't it intellectually strike someone as odd that these people are attracted to the similar gender when...I know how this is going to sound...they aren't supposed to feel attracted towards the same gender, regardless of what your opinion or my opinion in the matter, is.

I would love to hear the evidence for such a bold statement beyond the usual "Christianity presupposes an intelligent designer that designed biological processes in nature to operate a certain way in which to not be sinful, Christianity dictates homosexuality does not follow this design and is such sinful, so clearly homosexuals cannot be truly happy unless they are in a True Christian Heterosexual Relationship (TM). Like Christians!".

I know how your post sounds, and it still sounds like Conservative Christian drivel (ie. "moral stick up one's ass") from someone whom can't think outside of the Bible and Church when interacting with the real world, and cries "Bigotry!" every time someone calls you out on such narrowminded assertions and absolutions.

 

[Mr Fatherland]

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.

Sorry, your view is tantamount to Anarchism and anarchism is a precursor to the feudal system. The world does not to need to reverse 700 years. My controversial opinion is that I believe that Fascism didn't get a chance. It actually works. If you leader isn't Hitler that is. But even then, Germany was a world power within 6 years from when the Nazis got in power to the onset of world war.

What the political world needs, is order. No bickering, a strong set of rules that everyone adheres to and then just maybe the world world get on fine.

 

[Baradiel]

well, im anti-religion to the point that i've argued with preist...in church! but i am against all things that hinder intelectual reason, religion just happens to be the biggest obsticle to common sense.

Im gonna get flamed for this, but i belive that everywhere the black and brown people have control over a larger populous than 50-100 people, it will most likely go to hell. Just look at South-Africa, Libya and in South-America. You have powerty, corruption, genocide, rape, child labor and a general miss-use of power. Just look at the case with Gadaffi if you don't belive me! And he isn't one in a million either.

I belive that white people have better inclanation to build and function in larger societies. Look at democracy, industry, the scientific method, philosophy, international laws of war and conflict, underground sewer systems, better adjusting to being a part of larger groups (something that wheren't normal for our early societies in Africa, we would be more likely to lash out violently when emotionaly and mentaly stressed because we wheren't designed to live like that).

It's not a coincidence!
So when it comes to that part of humanity, I belive there IS a "evolutionary" difference between the first man in Africa and the caucasian man up in the north.

Of course Im not saying that makes one supperior than the other, and I am not a rasist!
I repeat, I AM NOT A RASIST!

He said "controversial opinion", not your most mind-numbingly retarded one.

"It's not a coincidence!"

Maybe not, but not because of fucking skin colour. And do not assume that just because certain areas are in shit now means they always have been. Africa's problems meanwhile are caused by factors ranging from simple bad luck to the nature of the land they live on. Them being black has nothing to do with it.

you are right, i agree, thats why i specified that the areas and countries where shit and the actions of that people in that region are whats the problem. im not saying that usa for example will become a chaotic mess if obama get a second term, or if another black person becomes president.

im just saying that the worst places in the world are in these areas where those races are in control and in these regions, but the history and culture of those countries are the problem. and they havent improved the world or the evolution of humans as a big, societal creatures with new ways of thinking like democrasy, or build up the rights of people and the induvidial.

If you want to disagre with that, go down to any African or islamistic country and say that you are gay!

you'll be beaten to death before you can think "oh fuck".

So, what I could gather from that seemingly impenetrable mass of ignorance is that you think the reason that Africa (in general) is worse off than the West and has not improved is because of their skin colour...

"im just saying that the worst places in the world are in these areas where those races are in control"

Mhmm... Theres quite a bit wrong with your theory.

For starters, The West has been relatively secure in it's sovereignty. Just take a brief glance at the history of Africa; it's spent most of the last 500 years under the rule of different European powers! You know those "white people". While being stripped of their natural resources (and therefore their opportunity for wealth, and advancement) they were also kept deliberately disadvantaged. It's easier to oppress a people when they don't know how to read or write!

Then theres the scientific evidence that comes crashing down on your flimsy argument. The colour of someones skin is dependant on melanin. Countless studies have shown there is no difference in intelligence depending on skin colour. Thats just one scientific fact that overrules your flawed, opinionated theory.

And crossing into religion, you're blaming religious extremism on their race? Seriously?! People are attracted to extremism for countless reasons, specifically when they are uneducated and stricken by poverty (see the after effects of Colonialism)

You can't spout this sort of bigoted bullshit without looking like an utter tool. (And by the way, you do.) Before you come up with these sort of crackpot theories, try and learn abit about history, and people, and science, before stating your ideas in a way that would make London cabbies turn away in shame.

I don't want to break Godwin's law, and I've been given a warning for accusing someone of being a troll, so by necessity you are somewhere in between. Some sort of troll-Nazi hybrid.

Oh, and you are most certainly a racist.

Its funny you should mention the 500 year rule over Africa.
Because most of the area's biggest problems occured after the white collonies left.

And If you read one of my other responses, I said that I could have formulated my post better. The history, culture and the way of thinking of the are the problems, not the race.

And hundreds of years of foreign domination isn't going to leave a mark? Make no mistake, the countries of Africa would probably be in a much better state if they hadn't been devastated by European empire-building. If you think it was a mutually beneficial agreement, why is Africa so behind the West in economics, and as such, general advancement? Because we took their stuff! (I'm assuming you're of European descent.)

Also, like someone else has said, the collapse of the European empires led to huge power vacuums. Regardless of their location or the race of the people involved, a power vacuum is never good. Take the French Revolution, for example. France had been an absolute monarchy for centuries. All of a sudden the monarchy was dead and gone. That means there was a power vacuum. What followed were some of the bloodiest years in France's history. French people are WHITE (generally, not counting French-Algerians) yet their country still dissolved into anarchy and civil war.

And yes, you could have formulated your post better. You could have started by not being so obviously racist. And your altered theory is still bull that is founded on a belief that African/black/non-white culture is inferior to your pure, Aryan society. Different =/= wrong or inferior.

 

[Hedonist]

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.

Sorry, your view is tantamount to Anarchism and anarchism is a precursor to the feudal system. The world does not to need to reverse 700 years. My controversial opinion is that I believe that Fascism didn't get a chance. It actually works. If you leader isn't Hitler that is. But even then, Germany was a world power within 6 years from when the Nazis got in power to the onset of world war.

What the political world needs, is order. No bickering, a strong set of rules that everyone adheres to and then just maybe the world world get on fine.

I think the biggest problem with fascism is the fact that power corrupts everyone. Putting a sane man in charge doesn't work because he'll eventually go mad. The way to combat this is putting mechanisms in place that prevent one man from having total control and to make sure that leaders are held responsible for their actions. And when you've done that, it isn't really fascism anymore.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

Fine, though I won't pretend that I in any agree with this, I see humanity as the most beautiful creations of the universe and believe we are superior to everything we have so far encountered it in. The Earth is the equivalent of a house, hugely important to it's inhabitants but only for the shelter it provides them, without them it is worthless.

And that ladies and gentlemen is my controversial opinion.

Oh ... I think I'm going to hate you.

 

[JoJo]

Fine, though I won't pretend that I in any agree with this, I see humanity as the most beautiful creations of the universe and believe we are superior to everything we have so far encountered it in. The Earth is the equivalent of a house, hugely important to it's inhabitants but only for the shelter it provides them, without them it is worthless.

And that ladies and gentlemen is my controversial opinion.

Oh ... I think I'm going to hate you.

Spoiler: Oh well you know what they say...

No matter, hate me if it makes you feel good about yourself, I don't mind. If it makes you happy, then I have achieved my purpose. Onwards humanity! :-D

 

[Wintermoot]

I think DNF isn't that bad of a game.
but somehow it got more hate here then the entire COD franchise.

 

[CATB320]

1. I believe in God.
2. I'm pro life.
3. I'm a Republican.
4. If the draft/conscription ever came back, I think it would be perfectly okay for women to be drafted as well. (That was a weird one, but, food for thought.)
5. I prefer the Battlefield series over Call of Duty.

 

[rutger5000]

Humanity is this species that consists out of homosapiens, these evolved primates are their environment and don't have a significant will on their own. I also doubt that they have a soul, these homosapiens form the vast majority of humanity. But amongst these evoleved primates humans walk, these humans do have their own will and diver from their environment. They most certainly have a sould.
This doesn't mean that homosapiens are evil and humans are good, just that homosapiens are less individual and of no real value (There are so many of them).
Examples. Hitler was a human, his followers were homosapiens, but so were the jews that led themselves be killed so easily. Ghandi was a human, but his followers were just homosapiens doing what their environment did.
I don't exactly know yet how to become a human, I'll let you know when I know.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Democracy is a failure because of the fact that the common man doesnt understand how to run an country. Yet we judge those who do when we vote, and anything that affects us negatively in the short term makes us vote against our leader so they cant always make long term plans. We'd be better off with a good natured and smart man as dictator for life. Only problem with that is finding such a paragon, and what happens when he dies.

 

[rutger5000]

I think that Niccolo Machiavelli was right, at least in a broad sense.
Continuing from that, I think that people who don't believe that "The ends justify the means" are incredibly selfish. Say that you had to kill a child soldier to prevent a bomb being set off in the middle of London/Washington/Moscow, or anywhere with a large concentration of people. Would you honestly allow hundreds of people to die just to allow your conscience to be clean?

As one of those people, I think you may misunderstand the position. If I say "The ends do not justify the means" or "You cannot commit evil with good intentions", that doesn't mean you can't do unpleasant things, but that you cannot do things which are, in and of themselves, always evil. Like killing an innocent. So, if your situation is that there is a child soldier trained to kill, in the middle of an operation which will result in a bomb going off killing thousands, then I would say that that soldier, child though he may be, is not an innocent. He's an enemy combatant. By all means, stop him by any means necessary, up to and including lethal force.

Then again, you may be talking about the classic "ticking time bomb" moral question. If that's the case, then my answer is yes, I would "allow" those people to die, rather than committing some monstrously evil act. How that is considered selfish, when in all likelihood I or my loved ones may be within the blast area, is a mystery to me.

I may well have misunderstood the position, though I thoroughly agree with your first statement.
However, if I had to commit a decidedly evil act to save that many people, then as long as I could emotionally do so at the time, I would, though of course there are things that I could simply never do.
I would consider it selfish because, rather than allow yourself to live with massive guilt and save hundreds of people, you would rather them die with yourself. Since it's your legacy lives on in the world, I would like to know that I saved lives at tremendous cost to myself rather than let myself and them die.
But surprisingly few people agree with this.

I believe morality is rather easy, and when it's not you're doing something wrong. For me your example only holds when you're 100% sure that child will kill that many people, and the only way to stop him is to kill him. But you can't bomb cities or kill children to win wars or something, those 'ends' are too uncertain, too far away and too subjective.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I believe that after 34 pages a thread should quietly die in a corner.

 

[Eggsnham]

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 not trying to flame anybody here or start something, but I just have to say this:

Sex is a biological imperative for all living beings. What that means is, that no matter how you look at it, sex is just sex. By all means, wait for the right person or even for marriage, but it won't change the fact that the only reason people consider sex to be special is the taboo and traditional feelings surrounding it. Repressing one of your strongest instincts can't be very healthy, though.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so I'm not trying to undermine yours.

Spoiler: My controversial opinion! Wow!

Anyways, my controversial opinion... I've gotten into a couple of arguments with people before because I think that abortion should be accepted into society.

It's not like the women going through it enjoy making that choice, and most of the time there aren't a whole lot of other choices for them besides giving birth to the child, which is what they don't want to do for whatever reason.

The baby isn't much more than a complex clump of cells at the times that abortion is legal in the U.S., so the whole argument that you're killing a sentient human doesn't really hold up. It's like saying that a dude whacking off in the toilet is murdering 4 million babies because the sperm cells all had potential to fertilize an egg.

 

[Creator002]

Spoiler: Cannablism

I think cannablism should be allowed, but with some guidelines to make it safe and legal.
For example, you can't kill someone just to eat them. They have to already be dead.
They have to agree to be food after dying, like organ doners.
Guidelines regarding cleanliness.
Etc, etc.