What's your controversial opinion?

[JoJo]

But that comparison doesn't work, as an anti-drug activist doesn't believe that people should be dead, they believe that people shouldn't take drugs. A more apt comparison to you would be an anti-drug activist who still takes drugs anyway. Surely according to your beliefs less humans are better, so you shouldn't exist? If you personally enjoy being alive then isn't it hypocritical to want to deny others life?

Okay, I do admit defeat on the bad comparison. You are right on that count.
But see, what you don't get is that a misanthrope doesn't necessarily expect everyone to kill themselves. Personally, I think human population ought to be more strictly controlled (as in, you should need a license to be a parent, and we shouldn't be allowed to have more than two kids), but that doesn't mean "EVERYBODY DIE OR YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON!" Frankly, if we were responsible we would control ourselves better in all departments, not just in our staggering population problem. We HAVE technology that is environmentally friendly; the majority of humans just don't use it because the majority of humans scream and whine over the slightest bit of change (people STILL gripe about the 'new YouTube' even though it doesn't inconvenience them in the slightest) ... but I'm kind of going off on a tangent here.
My point is, living responsibly makes more of an impact than "I hate my species." *proceeds to hang self* Do you see what I'm getting at? The extinction of an entire species isn't much of a cause, due to the fact that you're not likely to succeed in your endeavors without resorting to sabotage of the food industry and widespread terrorism.

So in other words, you don't wish for the human race to be destroyed, you just want them to be a bit greener? That's a lot less dramatic but makes a lot more sense, that's a goal I can get behind, though unfortunately our polictians rarely seem to want to actually take action.

 

[Rooster893]

I still like Sonic the Hedgehog.

OK, so maybe it isn't THAT controversial, but you have all these people wearing nostalgia glasses saying that it was better in 2D, treating it like so.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

So in other words, you don't wish for the human race to be destroyed, you just want them to be a bit greener? That's a lot less dramatic but makes a lot more sense, that's a goal I can get behind, though unfortunately our polictians rarely seem to want to actually take action.

I'm sorry I have to keep rewording my statements ... I'll say it straight.
As a whole, I disapprove of humans, and I DO think the planet would be better off if we weren't here, but we will be here for a while despite that; we're too resourceful to easily get rid of. So, in the meantime, could we clean up our act?
That's what I mean to say in a nutshell.

 

[JoJo]

So in other words, you don't wish for the human race to be destroyed, you just want them to be a bit greener? That's a lot less dramatic but makes a lot more sense, that's a goal I can get behind, though unfortunately our polictians rarely seem to want to actually take action.

I'm sorry I have to keep rewording my statements ... I'll say it straight.
As a whole, I disapprove of humans, and I DO think the planet would be better off if we weren't here, but we will be here for a while despite that; we're too resourceful to easily get rid of. So, in the meantime, could we clean up our act?
That's what I mean to say in a nutshell.

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.

 

[The Funslinger]

West burrow Baptist people should be allowed to do their thing. Freedom of speech and protest are ideals that should be upheld no matter the circumstances that's how ideals work.

Fair enough, but they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with people in such ways that they do. For instance, protesting funerals for their arbitrary reasons. It's illegal to dance at memorial sites, surely it's illegal to show up at a funeral, and say "sorry, folks! Your loved one doesn't deserve to be put to rest in the way that he and you all expected as a basic right!"

 

[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.

 

[MorgulMan]

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.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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.

 

[Saippua]

I wish nazis had won WW2. Im not an anti-semite though. Oh and I dont believe in freewill.

 

[harknesssimm]

i don't believe murder is intrinsically wrong

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I wish nazis had won WW2. Im not an anti-semite though.

Care to expand on that? The Nazi regime was a massive failure, why would you want them to be the victors?

 

[Saippua]

So all of eastern europe including my country wouldn't get fucked over by the soviets.

 

[Saippua]

I wish nazis had won WW2. Im not an anti-semite though.

Care to expand on that? The Nazi regime was a massive failure, why would you want them to be the victors?

Damn it pressed the wrong button. Anyway to the point. So all of eastern europe including my country wouldn't get fucked over by the soviets.

 

[LornMind]

No one knows what they're talking about, or actually believes in what they believe, except for a very small fraction of people. under extended torture and/or threat death, people can be persuaded to change just about anything about themselves. It's survival instinct.

As much as I enjoy life, make my own meaning, etc., it is entirely pointless, as human perception would be nonexistent without life and therefore incapable or bringing about any judgment on the meaning thereof.


I don't care if those points contradict themselves.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I wish nazis had won WW2. Im not an anti-semite though.

Care to expand on that? The Nazi regime was a massive failure, why would you want them to be the victors?

Damn it pressed the wrong button. Anyway to the point. So all of eastern europe including my country wouldn't get fucked over by the soviets.

Fair enough, I was expecting you to say that it's because they were actually fairly good. They weren't. However, they may have been fucked over just as badly by the Nazis and the continuous war from the Allies.

 

[harknesssimm]

I enjoy the Star Wars prequels. I happen to like episode 3 more than episode 4, but I love 5 and 6 much more than any of the other movies. Also, I sympathize with Anakin.

Halo is a fantastic game. So are all the sequels.

I'm proud to be a Christian, but I still don't care if you aren't. That's your choice.

Fox News is just another slant in news media and is just as bad as the rest of American Cable News. I happen to switch between all of them, and they all slant to their demographic.

Oblivion was much better than Fallout 3.

I love Fable 3. It was super fun and lived up to all my expectations.

I hope I didn't anger anybody too much here, I'm well aware that the above is extremely unpopular and many of you will dislike what I have to say.

i agree with almost everything you said except i'm not a christian and i've never played oblivion

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

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.

 

[MorgulMan]

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.

Again, as I said in my original post, I can't prove that consequentialism is wrong, not off the top of my head. It's mostly a matter of faith for me, with some logic thrown in. What a situation like that comes down to is, I believe there are worse things than physical harm, or even death. "Fear not him who can harm the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul in Hell." and all that. I believe that some actions are so wrong that committing them makes the world a worse place, makes me a worse person, and ignores the human dignity of the people I've harmed. And here's the thing, I think you do too. As you say "...though of course there are things that I could simply never do." This may just be you admitting a physical revulsion to something, but I would posit that that revulsion is based on a deeper moral recognition that you shouldn't go there, for any reason.

Let me put an example before you, outlandish and yet shockingly possible. There's a dirty bomb in [insert your densest local population center here]. We have the man who planted the bomb. He will not tell us where it is, or how to disarm it, or how long before it goes off. We have no idea where to start, and no way to evacuate [x number] of people in an unknown amount of time. What we do have...are his kids. He has a picture of his son and daughter in his wallet. And on his laptop. And as soon as we bring them in the room, he starts crying. As a father, I'd probably crack like an egg before you even started cutting off the fingers on my son, and so will he, with great certainty. Do we do it? Do we cut off his sons hands? Have his young daughter abused or violated? Why not?

I mean, if the sole criterion for whether an act was acceptable is the anticipated outcome, then this is no different than shooting the soldier with the detonator. Easier, in fact. I mean, no one dies, right? But I maintain that some things cannot be done, because they are wrong, evil, monstrous, horrendous. What those things are may be open to discussion or interpretation. But there is a line, and no matter how high the stakes, it is wrong to cross it. It's not a question of selfishness, but of evil.

 

[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.

 

[Arsen]

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.