Unpopular opinions

Author: KingLaddy01

Posts

Total: 304
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I support place and take as a way to expand.  Place and take in this context is placing so many Americans into foreign soil that they become the majority nationality group in that country.  You make sure they agree to vote for US annexation once this happens.  They also would go through the legal process that their host nation requires.  Once this is done, you get the locals (who are at this point, mostly American) to vote for annexation.  Then the USA annexes the land, claiming that most of the locals are okay with it.

Russia did this to get Crimea.  I propose a similar way to expand, but annexing whole nations at a time and without the genocide that the Russian military engaged in.  If we annex only a portion of the land, then it looks like we're taking land from the locals.  If we annex the whole country, then most of the locals are okay with it.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Wingnut imperialist dreams, most countries would rather be destitute than american.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,018
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Alec
No. Absolutely not. When countries do as you described, they eliminate the distinction between "minority group" and "foreign agent". It creates a moral dilemma where the receiving country can either commit genocide/ethnic cleansing or cease to exist.
Right now, ethnic Russians are a massive liability in, say, the Baltic states, because of the s**t that Russia pulled in Ukraine and because they could very well do the same ovrr there. Right now, it would probably be in the best interests of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to round up all their ethnic Russians into permanent detention camps, because there isn't any evidence that they can be trusted. It "isn't their country" and I assume they know that, but unfortunately that's not how human nature works. Over many generations foreign peoples will start to feel entitled, not just to equal treatment but to make their host country into a copy of the one their ancestors left, or even to incorporate it into such. Mere gratitude that they were let in will never hold the peace for very long.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,018
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
tl;dr If the US tries that in even one country then all American expatriates and tourists abroad will have one giant target on their backs no matter where on planet earth outside of the US they are.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
Usury should be punishable by death, not the basis of our economic system.

Landholdings should be tied to family, not individuals.

Limited liability is inherently unjust and evil.

God is going to severely punish America for basically ruining the entire world.

Most people in any given time period, especially ours, are intensely mistaken on certain socially reinforced points, and are completely blind to that fact.

Most of the problems in this world are rooted in the scale of human society, not ideology or policy, and will continue to get worse unless something drastic happens. The system is structured in such a way that at this point the only thing which would fit the bill is a massive natural disaster of some sort.

These are some of the most insightful words written in the 20th century:
"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in 'advanced' countries."

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,018
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Conversion Therapy has the potential to work. But it would be very difficult, requiring a highly trained and highly competent psychiatrist, and a willing subject, and it would take a long time to see results. You can't make it into some kind of twelve step program for the masses, administered by lay people. That won't accomplish anything.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Swagnarok
So you don't understand sexuality, good for you we are glad that you are a small minority.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Swagnarok
"If the US tries that in even one country then all American expatriates and tourists abroad will have one giant target on their backs no matter where on planet earth outside of the US they are."  I'm assuming this is a summary of your previous point since they were similar.  In the island nations, where many american tourists tour, they aren't going to discriminate against Americans because their economy revolves largely around tourism and if they give up tourism, then they give up a large portion of their economy.

If the US says they will use this method against anglophone countries within their sphere (exception to Canada, because they are too big), then other countries won't be scared about losing their sovereignty because they wouldn't think they are on the list.  As a result the American tourists won't be oppressed in popular tourist countries like those in the Caribbean islands.  
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@disgusted
What do you mean by "american".  Which aspect of America?  
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,018
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
The labels "Socialist" and "Fascist" should both carry the same stigma, of equal weight. The fact that they do not is an indicator of widespread historical illiteracy in the US and Europe.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
You have dysphoria if you go trans.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Popcorn is only good in the movies. I don't need that stale store-bought shit.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Progressives are inherently racist, despite what they advocate for.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@ethang5
But is cheese best with cheese? And is that cheese with the cheese best with cheese? Is dying in your 50's best with cheese?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
This is on unpopular opinion I have:

The USA should invade the entirety of Africa.  This would increase the GDP per capita of the Africans, it would increase human rights and the US can mine Africa for it's natural resources.  It also prevents China from influencing it, which they kindof have been doing.  
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Alec
No!

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Alec
That the most horrible idea I have ever heard since teaching Africans to practice abstinence only.  

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
What's wrong with the idea?  Here are some pros to the invasion:

1: It would increase the GDP per capita of the Africans.

2: It would help expand human rights within Africa.

3: It would cause financial aid to skyrocket to the continent.

4: The US can mine it's natural resources.

5: It makes the US more powerful.

6: It gives the US an opportunity to redraw borders, therefore ending the splitting up of cultures performed by European colonialism.  It allows culturally similar people to merge with another and to exclude other cultures from their own country.

7: The UN should be okay with it.  They wish to eliminate poverty worldwide, and an African invasion would help do that.  It also can make Africa first world.

8: It helps make Africa more racially diverse.  I don't care too much for racial diversity, but liberals do and this would help them support the idea.

9: Better education for the Africans.  This helps the natives prosper.

10: Less STD spreading due to the contraception that Africans would be able to buy, reducing abortions and the spreading of STDs including HIV.

11: If the US doesn't treat them like slaves, then it gives Africa a better reputation of the west.  This causes terms to increase between Africa and the current USA.  Africa would treat much of the west better due to their alliance with America.

Still think it's a stupid idea?  I think it's pretty decent.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@Plisken
Yeah man, it surely was better for the Africans to be degenerates practicing rape and FGM rather than Christians teaching them modesty. 
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
Tekashi 6ix9ine needs to be murdered.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@triangle.128k
No argument there
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Alec
Big question, although not intended to undermine your case: How do we deal with the diseases? It will certainly affect other races and will have more means of spreading with a high-populated, closer-to-middle-class society.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@KingLaddy01
But is cheese best with cheese?
Yes! Obviously you haven't yet lived.

And is that cheese with the cheese best with cheese?
Yes! Ever heard of 3 cheese lasagna?

Is dying in your 50's best with cheese?
I'm not out of my 50's yet so I'll get back to you on that. But I'm going yo guess it beats dying without cheese. That would just be sad.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@triangle.128k
@Alec
@--> Alec 
America is not able to invade and take over the whole of Africa. Africa is 65 different countries and bigger by a good than the entire united states even with Alaska thrown in. It would start a world war that America would either have to resign or destroy Africa and make it unfit for life.

But you are right that Africa would be better governed and more prosperous if America took it over.

@--> triangle.128k
Yeah man, it surely was better for the Africans to be degenerates practicing rape and FGM rather than Christians teaching them modesty. 
Rape was virtually unheard of in ancient Africa. FGM came from the Muslims who invaded Africa, it is not originally an African practise.

Africans back then dressed more modestly than many western countries do today. At least in Africa, women were not objectified so that everything became about sex and titillation.

When the first white and black men met, the black guy thought, "A new person! We must treat him with dignity and kindness." The white guy thought, "A new person! I can force him to be my slave." Which one is degenerate?

African cities had no bars on windows, no jails, no police, and no locks, and there was no burglary. Western cities were comparatively like prisons. Who's degenerate?

By the actual meaning of degenerate that is.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@ethang5
I can't argue here, you had me at 3 cheese lasagna. Also yeah I guess if you are going to die no matter what why not fill 'er up every once in a while? 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
Women were objectified in Africa from the first tribe of humans there ever was to now. Stop lying, I will school you on your own Continent's culture.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
The only thing you can "school" me on is your insipid racism, and I will pass on that course thank you.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
While I agree that Islam has been an issue, Christianity has less so still been a brutal one to the African cultural landscape. I won't go into how dumb, sick and undeveloped the nation was an how, naturally, this makes women die during childbirth and other things again and again without mercy or justice. I will, instead, explore the notion that your favourite religion isn't inspiring brutal treatment of women in African cultures, just less severely in output and frequency than Islam has.

You are the second worst religion in history and so you look at the worst one to feel better. African tribes and the stupidity and lack of any technology or healthcare hampering the welfare of both genders aside, Christianity has ruined the world, not just Africa but Australia and other nations too. Secularism has saved Australia, Western Europe and will save the whole world hopefully. I don't mind non-Luciferian religions but until you admit that Islam is just an older and more bitter Lucifer and Jesus is simply a less bitter, less cunning Lucifer than his older-self Allah, you will be lost in translation as to why Christianity and Islam have ruined the world and continue to do so, at the cost of each other no less. The rascal angel Lucifer is the issue. He and his brainwashing of the masses are the real fucking issue if your trilogy of Abrahamic nonsense. At least in OT, God is a fair and ruthless gangster, in the other religions it is just mania (most so in Islam) that justifies itself only by what it opposes being 'the devil'. God of the OT is Satan, Lucifer is not Satan and that's the fucking truth.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5

Taking on violence against women in Africa
Kenya’s current law against wife-beating was prompted some years ago by a particularly dramatic incident of a common problem — one that is not unusual across Africa. In December 1998 a Kenyan police officer, Felix Nthiwa Munayo, got home late and demanded meat for his dinner. There was none in the house. Enraged, he beat his wife, Betty Kavata. Paralyzed and brain-damaged, Ms. Kavata died five months later, on her 28th birthday.

But unlike many such cases, Ms. Kavata’s death did not pass in silence. The Kenyan media covered the story extensively. Images of the fatally injured woman and news of her death generated nationwide debate on domestic violence. There followed five years of protests, demonstrations and lobbying by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as by outraged men and parliamentarians. Finally, the government passed a family protection bill criminalizing wife-beating and other forms of domestic violence.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), domestic violence is a global problem affecting millions of women. In a 2005 study on women’s health and domestic violence, the WHO found that 56 per cent of women in Tanzania and 71 per cent of women in Ethiopia’s rural areas reported beatings or other forms of violence by husbands or other intimate partners.

Violence against women goes beyond beatings. It includes forced marriage, dowry-related violence, marital rape, sexual harassment, intimidation at work and in educational institutions, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced sterilization, trafficking and forced prostitution.

Such practices cause trauma, injuries and death. Female genital cutting, for example, is a common cultural practice in parts of Africa. Yet it can cause “bleeding and infection, urinary incontinence, difficulties with childbirth and even death,” reports the WHO. The organization estimates that 130 million girls have undergone the procedure globally and 2 million are at risk each year, despite international agreements banning the practice.

Rooted in culture
Perpetrators of violence against women typically have a history of violent behaviour, grew up in violent homes and often abuse alcohol and drugs.

In a report by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2000, the agency noted that in interviews in Africa and Asia, “the right of a husband to beat or physically intimidate his wife” came out as “a deeply held conviction.” Even societies where women appear to enjoy better status “condone or at least tolerate a certain amount of violence against women.”

A study on domestic violence in Uganda by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that families justified forcing widows to be inherited by other males in the family with arguments that the family had “all contributed to the bride price” and that therefore the woman was “family property.” Once inherited, a widow lost her husband’s property, which went to the new husband. And if a woman sought separation or divorce, the dowry had to be reimbursed. Often, the study found, “a woman’s family is unable or unwilling” to refund the dowry, and her brothers may beat her to force her back to her husband or in-laws “because they don’t want to give back cows.”

Africa’s economic decline over the past three decades has left many women in worse conditions. Their plight is so severe, noted a study by the WHO and the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), that many women see no option but to remain with husbands who routinely batter them. The women stay because men “serve as vital opportunities for financial and social security, or for satisfying material aspirations.”

The WHO found that women with at least a secondary education were more able to negotiate greater autonomy and control of resources within marriage, have a wider range of choices in partners and are more able to choose whether and when to marry. Such capacities have often been associated with lower levels of violence in the home.



RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,896
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour."
- Ephesians 5: 22-23

Next was:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent."
- 1 Timothy 2: 11-12

For years, Sally had believed that God wanted her to submit to her husband, and she did her best, bending to his will and working to pay the bills, despite the pain she was in.

But on this night, she was done. The next morning, she packed up her bags, grabbed some clothes for her daughter and left, taking the little girl with her.

She left everything else behind.

The fact that domestic violence occurs in church communities is well established. Queensland academic Dr Lynne Baker's 2010 book, Counselling Christian Women on How to Deal with Domestic Violence, cites a study of Anglican, Catholic and Uniting churches in Brisbane that found 22 per cent of perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse go to church regularly.

But American research provides one important insight: men who attend church less often are most likely to abuse their wives. (Regular church attenders are less likely to commit acts of intimate partner violence.)

Those who are often on the periphery, in other words, who sometimes float between parishes, or sit in the back pews. For these men, the rate of abuse committed is alarmingly high.

As theology professor Steven Tracy wrote in 2008:

It is widely accepted by abuse experts (and validated by numerous studies) that evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives."




Some attribute these findings to the conservative denominations and churches that preach and model male control, with male-only priesthoods and inviolate teachings on male authority.

Adelaide's Anglican Assistant Bishop Tim Harris says, "it is well recognised that males (usually) seeking to justify abuse will be drawn to misinterpretations [of the Bible] to attempt to legitimise abhorrent attitudes."

Stressing that his diocese "strongly rejected" any teachings on male superiority, he told ABC News: "This has been a particular concern for those coming out of evangelical and fundamentalist backgrounds."

Sorry, this video has expired
VIDEO: Julia Baird and Anglican priest Michael Jensen discuss domestic violence and the Church. (ABC News)
In Australia, it is widely accepted that gender inequality is a contributing factor to violence against women.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies probed this question and concluded: "The vital element to consider is the gender norms and beliefs surrounding male dominance and male superiority, created by power hierarchies that accord men greater status."

This is confirmed by global research. A study published in the Lancet in 2015 analysed data from 66 surveys across 44 countries, covering the experiences of almost half a million women.

It found that the greatest predictor of partner violence was "environments that support male control", especially "norms related to male authority over female behaviour".

'Wives be subject to your husbands': A husband yells scripture at his wife.
The past two decades of research has also shown women in religious communities are less likely to leave violent marriages, more likely to believe that the abuser will change, less inclined to access community resources and more likely to believe it is their fault; that they have failed as wives as they were not able to stop the abuse.

A culture of victim blaming or shaming can cause women to exit the church entirely. The most common story in the dozens heard by ABC News is that when marriages break, the men stay and the women leave.

The CEO of Safe Steps Family Violence Centre, Annette Gillespie, says that in 20 years of working with victims of domestic violence, she found it was "extremely common" that women will be "encouraged by the church to stay in an abusive relationship".

"I know that for many women the experience of violence was worsened by the lack of support people turned to in the church," she said.

"Often people say it is the guilt of going against the church teaching that leads them to stay in relationships well beyond a time they should leave because they are trying to please the church as well as please their partners … they often feel they will have to choose between leaving religion or violence.

"So when they leave a relationship, they leave a church."

Women in faith communities where divorce is shunned, and shameful, often feel trapped in abusive marriages.

In a submission to the Royal Commission on Family Violence, one Victorian woman wrote that five different ministers had told her to remain with a violent husband.

A church counsellor told her: "Be gentle with him, he's trying to be a man."

This is particularly true in the Catholic Church, where divorce is forbidden, as will be explored in greater detail in an upcoming instalment of this series.

If pastors prevaricate, or fumble, it could be too late. New research finds women in the church usually only go to their pastors when partners do something so violent they fear they will die.

After 25-year-old Wubanchi Asefaw was told by her church leaders to return to her husband in early 2014, he stabbed her to death in their western Sydney home shortly afterwards.