Post a controversial opinion

Does that even qualify as an 'opinion'? It's kinda just non-factual...

Btw I believe in the big bang, and I believe in God's existence. But one doesn't really follow from the other.

Here's another one: It's quite possible that God created the earth 5000 years ago. (it just follows that he sure made it look like he didn't, for whatever reason)

Has this become the thread of posting any controversial opinion regardless of whether you believe it or not?

Danny Devito is a very tall man.

If one's definition of God is limited to being the 'first cause', initiating all subsequent causes and effects, then the Big Bang theory aligns well with that definition of God. But it is a very narrow definition and the proof (as far as it goes) does not extend to proving any other attributes God might have, or even prove God's further involvement with the universe at all past the first instant.

now playing on Netflix...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudQkA06tTM

ilx is oozing with experts

so you're an ooze expert now?

^ apparently not english language ones

Ooze askin

Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it.
Just because something can't be done doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do it.

I think I've said this before.

shoot for lag∞n. even if you miss, you'll land among calstars.

Even in hindsight, Hilary Clinton was still the right choice as a candidate in 2016.

Also, anyone who still wants to debate the primaries should have his/her mind checked.

Yeah, those two opinions don't really make sense together. And the second one probably isn't at all controversial.

I really dislike the The Mountain Goats' music

First one I thoroughly endorse.

by and large everything will get worse until or unless global capitalism is destroyed

probably not that controversial at this point, but felt the need to get it off my chest after seeing that global drought projection chart

Global capitalism isn't the root cause of all our woes. Does this one count?

People would find a way to rip each other to shreds and destroy the planet even if everyone became Quakers and set up small communitarian villages based on love of kale and the poetry of Rumi.

it's how we do!

that's definitely the opposite of a controversial opinion

To some extent, we are far less murderous and destructive than before. Not that it'll ever be enough.

alas i am with just1n3

living to be old is pointless (this is v v much a "me" opinion tho and not some truth)

scratching oneself in public is perf acceptable

Things get demonstrably better

Smoked Gouda tastes like American Cheese

living to be old is pointless

^ mayflies' motto

'humble' is Kendrick jumping the shark

^yeah okkkk

lol

time will exonerate me.... it's a bad song.

Mental health will take a long ass time to be understood. People can't and are not willing to understand that mental problems are equivalent to physical problems and because of this many will suffer and feel misrepresented. This may seem non controversial but many people just simply don't get it

Fuck i regret this already

don't worry i got u

fgm should be legal on first amendment grounds

My controversial opinion is that we do not do enough to PREVENT mental health problems vs treat them. If we are just an effects based society, we will never curb ineveitable issues.

thanks Mordy I appreciate U

lol mordy with the hold my beer

what's your opinion on the permissibility of jehovah's witness parents who refuse medically necessary blood transfusions for their children?

more generous than toward californians who use conscience objections to avoid vaccinating their children

i was looking at some of the precedence for christian scientists failing to treat their children medically and while it seems somewhat unclear normally it appears to be upheld on first amendment grounds. in europe there have been recent cases recently that challenged jewish and islamic circumcision and ritual slaughter practices. i think we need v expansive meaning of the amendment to protect communities and traditions that the majority strongly disapproves of. i suspect that if fgm were practiced by christian denominations it would likely be legal right now. nb that obviously this has limits i don't think i can defend aztec child sacrifice.

recent cases recently i'm watching this finals game while i'm typing this

my understanding is that your reading of that precedent is wrong, but i will have more time to research it further in a couple of days

imo you do not have the right to intervene or refuse an intervention for a child if there is clear evidence that that action will be harmful to them. you cannot make a child a martyr for your beliefs

esp in 2017 the meaning of "harmful" is v nebulous

clear evidence that it is associated with adverse health outcomes without any benefit seems like a reasonable test

i understand your POV is shaped by your experience as a religious minority but to me the reasons you give above are not compelling enough

Mordy- including cutting off the clitoris?

as far as i can remember that is the first opinion expressed on this thread that's actually shocked me

Christian denominations do practice fgm, btw.

Indeed, Coptic Christians do.

Dunno why anyone would think "traditions" would need more rights than actual living children. "Communities" also usually means the powerful people and structures within that community, quite often they are the worst part of said community.

Maybe this should go in "things you were shockingly old when you learned" but I knew about Coptic Christians.

However when I heard someone on the radio discussing Copts I heard it as "cops."

Like, systemic persecution of cops, several cops were killed in Egypt, etc. I was like damn, Ice-T is getting bold.

Consenting adults and consenting adults only should feel free to hack away at one another's genitals to their heart's content.