Tell an opinion you have that is in the strong minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand all black colleges.

You don't understand that at one time blacks weren't admitted into primarily white institutions or you don't understand that HBCU's (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) accept whites, Asians, Indians, Latinos, Europeans, etc. and are not ALL black? Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Me too 00:14! My family is so welcoming to my ABC husband. His family not so much. They stick with Chinese community.

[Anonymous]

I hate both sides of my family. Nothing but hassle and annoyance.

[Anonymous]

I agree with this video

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Activists who specifically target a flower shop or a bakery, knowing the owner is deeply religious and will not want to participate in a gay wedding, then take that person's business from them to 'make a point' are disgusting, selfish, horribly intolerant people.

If they throw a gay couple out of their flower shop or refuse to serve them pastries, that's one thing, but there's no reason anyone should have to participate in your damn wedding. Go to a different shop.

I would not go into a Halal shop and ask them to cater my son's Bar Mitzvah, and serve only Kosher food, then when they refused, sue them out of business.

Nor would I go into a sex shop that sells sex books and demand a bible, then when they don't provide, sue them out of business.

+1 When you get the the bottom of it extreme left wingers are as intolerant as extreme right wingers.

[Anonymous]

beards are unattractive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that most infertile people are infertile for a reason, and they should not push the issue. It's just a natural selection, and some genes just don't mean to be reproduced. I have not yet met a good parent of artificially created child.

Wow. Asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most infertile people are infertile for a reason, and they should not push the issue. It's just a natural selection, and some genes just don't mean to be reproduced. I have not yet met a good parent of artificially created child.

I don't agree about the "good parent" part, but I think you have a point about being infertile for some biological reason and it being part of natural selection.

add to that women who miscarry

Thyroid issues, fairly common and for many people easily addressed with hormone replacement, cause infertile and resukt in miscarriages. So, the treatment of that condition "cures" the fertility issues. Some treatment is more complex and requires (or at least suggests) ART as a better solution.

Curious...which of the above, if any, in your opinion, are "allowed" to have children?

People with known defective genes that causes life threatening conditions for themselves or in potential in offspring can have zero issues with fertility. Kind of blows your fucked up theory out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most infertile people are infertile for a reason, and they should not push the issue. It's just a natural selection, and some genes just don't mean to be reproduced. I have not yet met a good parent of artificially created child.

I don't agree about the "good parent" part, but I think you have a point about being infertile for some biological reason and it being part of natural selection.

add to that women who miscarry

Thyroid issues, fairly common and for many people easily addressed with hormone replacement, cause infertile and resukt in miscarriages. So, the treatment of that condition "cures" the fertility issues. Some treatment is more complex and requires (or at least suggests) ART as a better solution.

Curious...which of the above, if any, in your opinion, are "allowed" to have children?

People with known defective genes that causes life threatening conditions for themselves or in potential in offspring can have zero issues with fertility. Kind of blows your fucked up theory out the window.

how

[Anonymous]

All post men should be replaced by drones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All post men should be replaced by drones

How the hell is a drone going to unlock the front door of my condo building & come in and unlock the mailboxes and sort the mail correctly?

Oh wait. You're joking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All post men should be replaced by drones

How the hell is a drone going to unlock the front door of my condo building & come in and unlock the mailboxes and sort the mail correctly?

Oh wait. You're joking.

I'm serious. Drones can find in kill terrorists in Afganistan, they can sort your mail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most infertile people are infertile for a reason, and they should not push the issue. It's just a natural selection, and some genes just don't mean to be reproduced. I have not yet met a good parent of artificially created child.

I don't agree about the "good parent" part, but I think you have a point about being infertile for some biological reason and it being part of natural selection.

add to that women who miscarry

Thyroid issues, fairly common and for many people easily addressed with hormone replacement, cause infertile and resukt in miscarriages. So, the treatment of that condition "cures" the fertility issues. Some treatment is more complex and requires (or at least suggests) ART as a better solution.

Curious...which of the above, if any, in your opinion, are "allowed" to have children?

People with known defective genes that causes life threatening conditions for themselves or in potential in offspring can have zero issues with fertility. Kind of blows your fucked up theory out the window.

how

Are you really that stupid?

People who have life threatening conditions but who don't have trouble reproducing are ok by you? But people with treatable conditions that (if untreated) cause fertility problems) shouldn't get help? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this video

That's not Muhammad, dear. That's Ali, or his martyred grandson Hussain, depending on who you ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this video

That's not Muhammad, dear. That's Ali, or his martyred grandson Hussain, depending on who you ask.

Duh sweetheart, he makes a point in the video about depictions not being allow of the "prophet"