What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Fights in school are not a big deal and the zero tolerance is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think ADHD is caused by poor or neglectful parenting.

That isn't just controversial, it's so ignorant. I have ADHD. Damn, I wished I had been diagnosed in my youth and gotten proper treatment. My life is night/day with treatment.

How do you explain how many more kids have it today? It is SO many more kids and not just because of additional diagnoses. It has to be environmental somehow.

There are as many poor and neglectful parents as there have ever been. You can't explain a change (increased incidence of ADHD) with something that hasn't changed (parenting quality). Science 101.

False. Screens and screentime have increased by orders of magnitude.

And there are many who believe it has negative results, especially for kids.

Researchers found by age 5, children who spent two hours or more per day, looking at screens, were 7.7 times more likely to meet criteria for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, than children who watched screens for 30 minutes or less each day.

OVER SEVEN TIMES more likely to show symptoms of ADHD!

https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/07/18/preschooler-screen-time-linked-to-attention-problems/

It was also found the kids that were Not allowed to look at a screen or play video games had such bad hand eye coordination they make terrible surgeons.

You all must have toddlers.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/399740

Ok? Correlation is not causation. You have screen times for your high schooler?! I doubt this!

Google the research I just grabbed the 1st result. I’m not saying let them play 24x7 but most surgeries are done with electronic screens and video games help.

Oh 😂 I am talking about people who think they will be able to set screen time for their teens. Absurd. My kids have no limits on screen time beyond the other forces that control their lives, like homework, sports, going out with friends, or music lessons. As long as they maintain a 4.0 (or super close to it —no Cs), they can play as much PS4/switch or watch YT as much as they want.

4.0 lol

Why is a 4.0 funny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think ADHD is caused by poor or neglectful parenting.

That isn't just controversial, it's so ignorant. I have ADHD. Damn, I wished I had been diagnosed in my youth and gotten proper treatment. My life is night/day with treatment.

How do you explain how many more kids have it today? It is SO many more kids and not just because of additional diagnoses. It has to be environmental somehow.

There are as many poor and neglectful parents as there have ever been. You can't explain a change (increased incidence of ADHD) with something that hasn't changed (parenting quality). Science 101.

False. Screens and screentime have increased by orders of magnitude.

And there are many who believe it has negative results, especially for kids.

Researchers found by age 5, children who spent two hours or more per day, looking at screens, were 7.7 times more likely to meet criteria for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, than children who watched screens for 30 minutes or less each day.

OVER SEVEN TIMES more likely to show symptoms of ADHD!

https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/07/18/preschooler-screen-time-linked-to-attention-problems/

It was also found the kids that were Not allowed to look at a screen or play video games had such bad hand eye coordination they make terrible surgeons.

You all must have toddlers.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/399740

Ok? Correlation is not causation. You have screen times for your high schooler?! I doubt this!

Google the research I just grabbed the 1st result. I’m not saying let them play 24x7 but most surgeries are done with electronic screens and video games help.

Oh 😂 I am talking about people who think they will be able to set screen time for their teens. Absurd. My kids have no limits on screen time beyond the other forces that control their lives, like homework, sports, going out with friends, or music lessons. As long as they maintain a 4.0 (or super close to it —no Cs), they can play as much PS4/switch or watch YT as much as they want.

4.0 lol

Why is a 4.0 funny?

Your kid is punished for straight B’s or getting 1 C lol you are crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fights in school are not a big deal and the zero tolerance is stupid.

I agree! Kids do not have fully developed brains/impulse control so fighting seems like a reasonable solution for some. Schools should force them into therapy with counselors to discuss feelings and dealing with impulses and anger. We would have a much better society!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching religion to children under the age of 13 should be considered child abuse.

I disagree.

Schools should teach about all religions to all students and try and find the commonalities in all of them from an early age. This will lead to a harmonious society.

Parents should teach about their religion to students in a way that there is emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of religion only. This will connect the children to others in the community and improve their mental health.

Religion should never be taught in school unless it is a Seminary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching religion to children under the age of 13 should be considered child abuse.

I disagree.

Schools should teach about all religions to all students and try and find the commonalities in all of them from an early age. This will lead to a harmonious society.

Parents should teach about their religion to students in a way that there is emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of religion only. This will connect the children to others in the community and improve their mental health.

Religion should never be taught in school unless it is a Seminary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars paying into subsidized housing, WIC, subsidized child care, food stamps, heating and cooling, etc. all because some poor lady wanted babies.

They already are, though

Yeah I know. Which is why I said what I said. People should have to pay for their own offspring and not foist in upon taxayers.

Do you also think only people with superior intelligence, blue eyes and blond hair should have children and everyone else should be sterilized?

Nope. I just don’t think people should ask for a handout to pay for their own children. Anyone can have kids…as long as they don’t expect the government to support them.

Why not? My tax dollars support stuff you so that doesn’t benefit me at all. This is the cost of living in a society that provides services.

Also what happens to somebody who gets pregnant but doesn’t have what you consider enough money?

Did you even read the original thread i was replying to? That poster advocated required BC.

Right but unless you’re surgically sterilizing someone against their will you can’t prevent someone from getting pregnant. As I said earlier, IUDs are easy to remove yourself. You could cut out an implant in your arm. Also birth control just fails sometimes; so what happens when these people get pregnant against the government’s will?

If you purposefully remove your iud or cut out your Norplant, you’re on your own. No gov’t help for you. It’s called personal responsibility. Which in this day and age has apparently gone the way of the dodo.

Birth control failing? Now that’s a sticky wicket. I’m not sure about that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women under the age of 24 should be offered safe, semi-permanent BC at age 16 (IUD or Norplant, etc). Boys should be given some sort of equivalent. The minimum of age of parenthood should be 25. You need to take a 3 month training course before having the BC removed.

And provide evidence of financial viability and stability. Not saying you need to be rich or even middle class. But you need a stable job and a decent apartment that you pay for yourself, and with enough of a buffer to also pay for childcare.

This is a terrifying opinion. The government should be in charge of who can and can’t have children. That’s what you’re saying.

Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars paying into subsidized housing, WIC, subsidized child care, food stamps, heating and cooling, etc. all because some poor lady wanted babies.

They already are, though

Yeah I know. Which is why I said what I said. People should have to pay for their own offspring and not foist in upon taxayers.

Do you also think only people with superior intelligence, blue eyes and blond hair should have children and everyone else should be sterilized?

Nope. I just don’t think people should ask for a handout to pay for their own children. Anyone can have kids…as long as they don’t expect the government to support them.

Why not? My tax dollars support stuff you so that doesn’t benefit me at all. This is the cost of living in a society that provides services.

Also what happens to somebody who gets pregnant but doesn’t have what you consider enough money?

Did you even read the original thread i was replying to? That poster advocated required BC.

Right but unless you’re surgically sterilizing someone against their will you can’t prevent someone from getting pregnant. As I said earlier, IUDs are easy to remove yourself. You could cut out an implant in your arm. Also birth control just fails sometimes; so what happens when these people get pregnant against the government’s will?

If you purposefully remove your iud or cut out your Norplant, you’re on your own. No gov’t help for you. It’s called personal responsibility. Which in this day and age has apparently gone the way of the dodo.

Birth control failing? Now that’s a sticky wicket. I’m not sure about that one.

Should have identified myself as a NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fights in school are not a big deal and the zero tolerance is stupid.

I agree! Kids do not have fully developed brains/impulse control so fighting seems like a reasonable solution for some. Schools should force them into therapy with counselors to discuss feelings and dealing with impulses and anger. We would have a much better society!

Uh no. Have you ever worked in a school
Other students are traumatized but witnessing violence. They don't feel safe. Curious, would you say the same about a man who beats his wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Royal Family is a huge asset to the UK.

I think they are parasites and am eternally grateful that George Washington refused to be a king.

[Anonymous]

Obesity is a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching religion to children under the age of 13 should be considered child abuse.

I disagree.

Schools should teach about all religions to all students and try and find the commonalities in all of them from an early age. This will lead to a harmonious society.

Parents should teach about their religion to students in a way that there is emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of religion only. This will connect the children to others in the community and improve their mental health.

Religion should never be taught in school unless it is a Seminary

How would you teach history? You know it has a pretty big part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Air fryers are a scam

This is pure blasphemy!!!
In all seriousness, I'm a vegetarian and could never cook meat for $h!t, and I can now do that in the air fryer. For some reason it makes it so much easier.

What meat are you cooking in an air fryer (she asks apprehensively)?

Mostly chicken and fish.
I use it almost every day. I even did fried ice cream!!

O.k., I'll bite. How do you fry ice cream--recipeband photo of finished product.

[Anonymous]

Restaurant food costing more than $30 or wine costing more than $20 a bottle are wastes.

[Anonymous]

I've wondered what if, hypothetically, some popular trends in thoughts or ideas are not organic, but rather were very purposefully spread around by bad actors wishing us harm. Take the movie Idiocracy - imagine a bad actor started the Gatorade trend on purpose, it kills our crops, but hey, only stupid people use water, everyone knows that!