What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Not because of the founder’s beliefs, but I don’t get the appeal of a Chick-fil-A original chicken sandwich.

Popeye’s and Zaxby’s is much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When building a new home, make the kitchen the largest room in the house! It’s where everyone ends up when we entertain!

PLEASE DO THIS! I cannot afford to build a new home, but I want one with an enormous kitchen and tiny everything else. Why is that so hard to find?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mommy wine culture is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.

+100! It's glorifying alcoholism.

[Anonymous]

Jack in the Box tacos were and are still the coming out drunk from the bar meal at 2am ever!

[Anonymous]

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.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

I hate it when pet owners call their cats or dogs "fur babies." They are not "babies"; they're DOGS! CATS!

[Anonymous]

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.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mommy wine culture is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.

+100! It's glorifying alcoholism.

+100000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Male circumcision should be banned (except for truly religious reasons).

Came here to write this. Circumcision is mutilation.

I'll also add that a lot of UMC white people are boring as heck.

[Anonymous]

We should go back to fat shaming for the health of our insanely obese country.

[Anonymous]

There has never been a dish on a cooking competition show that has appealed to me.

[Anonymous]

I don't like dogs (unless they don't jump on me and don't slobber me, which is super rare in my experience).

Children don't need to be over programmed. One sport or class is FINE.

We don't need to eat meat and would be better off if no one did.

[Anonymous]

All the people who hate babies and children are evidence that there is something deeply wrong with our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should go back to fat shaming for the health of our insanely obese country.

I don't know about fat shaming, but I think fat acceptance is getting out of hand. It's not healthy and sends the wrong message.

[Anonymous]

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.

And if a woman decides to get pregnant—it’s really not hard to remove an IUD yourself, I removed mine—then it’s mandatory they have an abortion?

Sick sick people! As bad as the forced birthers. You win this post, that’s for sure.

No and I'm the original poster who said the parenting for 25 and older. I didn't mean mandatory BC. We aren't China. I meant "offer" at zero cost. This is not the option most women get who are low income. I am a big believer in making BC over the counter (like it is in some other 1st world countries) so we don't even have to worry about abortions (or at least make them fewer). I firmly believe if it was free, and super easy to access, a lot of our societal woes would be ameliorated. And if you purposely take out your IUD or Norplant, then the child's finances should be on you, like any other fully developed adult, if you choose to continue the pregnancy. I still think everyone (regardless of age) needs a 3 month course on child development and parenting. There should be a financial incentive at completion to make people attend.

I just do not see how avoiding teen pregnancy is a big deal.

Who should pay for this course (course instructor's salaries/materials?) Would this be a full time (40 hours a week?) course? What happens to the course attendees jobs while they are attending courses, should they still get paid their salary? Are their employers just expected to eat that cost (along with the cost of maternity/paternity leave costs?)
Beyond just the actual costs of salaries, what about the fact that these people's work won't be getting done during that time--are their co-workers just expected to work extra hours? In addition to more of the same during maternity/paternity leave?

I don't know - how about we at least have the requirements that we have for driver's ed, perhaps? Given that it's an 18 year commitment and how someone does on parenting impacts everyone else? I meant as a weekly course over the period of months (let's just say 4 hrs, 12 weeks, offered at a variety of times like nights and weekends). Give people $500 for completing it. We pay for it with our taxes, duh, and the taxes should be only on the top 5% income holders - like a lot of us DCUM people. As a society, we are already paying for it - there are a lot of parents who take a back seat on important things or repeat their own parents' errors (actually, probably all of us) - do I think a course is going to eliminate all that? Course not. But the idea is making parenting a more well thought out, conscious, intentional decision, and making people more self aware.