What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to start shaming hard drug users and stop enabling them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

You can say that it’s unhealthy and they look beautiful though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who spilt apart double stuff Oreos to make quadruple stuff are my hero!

Counterpoint: Original Oreos are the platonic ideal. Double stuff disrupts the proper cookie to filling ratio. What you are celebrating . . . well, that's an affront to God and man.

Original Oreos are gross.

Eloquently stated. About what I would expect from someone who prefers Double Stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who spilt apart double stuff Oreos to make quadruple stuff are my hero!

Counterpoint: Original Oreos are the platonic ideal. Double stuff disrupts the proper cookie to filling ratio. What you are celebrating . . . well, that's an affront to God and man.

Original Oreos are gross.

Eloquently stated. About what I would expect from someone who prefers Double Stuff.

PP here, I prefer Double Stuff EL Fudge to regular EL Fudge as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

You can say that it’s unhealthy and they look beautiful though.

No one said anything about “beauty”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

I wouldn’t say it’s overwhelming stupid, but to say that all bodies are morally neutral is the same thing as giving kids cigarettes is inaccurate best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

You can say that it’s unhealthy and they look beautiful though.

No one said anything about “beauty”.

NP. What do you think the body acceptance movement is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should stop IEP and 504 plans. It is your crotch goblin, stop making live by YOUR rules.

Stop nut free classrooms. 90% of kids do NOT have FA’s!

Agree. Public schools would be so much better without all the catering to the IEP’s and 504’s. Pretty soon those kids and poor kids will be all that are left in the publics because everyone else will have left.

Oh puhleeze … our DD had an IEP and is now doing a PhD in a rarefied stem field … her BF had an IEP and now works for NASA. Many many students with IEPs are truly brilliant (gifted talented with learning differences) … if they get the supports they need when they are young, they usually have a lot to contribute to society. If they don’t, they are much more prone to being life long burdens on either their families or the state. It is a win win for them and society to help them to flourish.

But why should the taxpayer have to pay for your kid's special education?

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for your husband’s viagra? Because we support each other as a society, that’s why.

Maybe you shouldn't have used viagra with that 53 year old man who got you pregnant with a kid who will need special education and lifetime care on the taxpayer's dime.

This is Nazi s**t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility treatments shouldn’t be a thing. Not everyone was meant to have bio children.

So is adoption ok for a couple who can't conceive? Or they're just not meant to have children so the kids should stay in an orphanage or only go to people who can conceive?

I’m mostly fine with adoption but have my issues with transracial adoptions. I think those getting treatments should adopt instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the fat acceptance cult. It is equivalant to giving children a pack of Marlboroughs.

Do you like to advertise how stupid you are to the world? Posts like this are like neon signs that say “I’m scientifically illiterate!”

And genetically skinny.

It isn’t even that. It’s just someone who is overwhelmingly stupid. Sad.

It is not “overwhelmingly stupid” to state that being overweight has health consequences. It would be overwhelmingly stupid to ignore this fact about the human body. No one needs to be supermodel thin, but I agree that teaching children that being overweight is normal and has no consequences, is also not a good thing.

You can say that it’s unhealthy and they look beautiful though.

No one said anything about “beauty”.

NP. What do you think the body acceptance movement is?

I think it’s a movement that promotes people becoming and remaining unhealthy. Obviously, it’s a controversial view to some. But I would never encourage my child to eat nothing but junk food and live a sedentary life. Regardless of whether there’s a “movement” to make overweight people feel beautiful. Just like I’d never encourage them to smoke or do drugs or make any unhealthy decisions.

[Anonymous]

Everyone saying shaming overweight people and drug users to they change their behaviors….that doesn’t work though? I agree we need to hold people accountable. But accountable and shaming are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people, including on this board, claim that their children are SN, because they don't want to admit that their kid has only average intelligence. Average/below average is not a SN.

That’s not what special needs means though. I think parents in DCUM are actually pretty honest about their kids special needs’ struggles. It’s the one group of parents that are helpful in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman is a human person with a XX chromosome pair.

A man is a human person with a XY chromosome pair.

Apparently, this is a controversial position.

Not controversial at all - simply wrong. You’re simplifying gender identification which is in the brain and is part of a genetic structure even if an abnormality.

Which hinges on the definition of what “is” is.

But you conflate biological sex at birth with gender identity.

It's true that XX = female biological sex assigned at birth, and XY = male biological sex assigned at birth. Except for the rare genetic defects, like being born XXY or something. It's science/biology. Identifying as something different is a whole other subject.

“Assigned at birth” is the most annoying phrase ever.

I internally roll my eyes every time I hear it.

+1

Recognized at birth is more accurate. “Assigned” makes is seem more random, like you were assigned a seat in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman is a human person with a XX chromosome pair.

A man is a human person with a XY chromosome pair.

Apparently, this is a controversial position.

Not controversial at all - simply wrong. You’re simplifying gender identification which is in the brain and is part of a genetic structure even if an abnormality.

Which hinges on the definition of what “is” is.

But you conflate biological sex at birth with gender identity.

It's true that XX = female biological sex assigned at birth, and XY = male biological sex assigned at birth. Except for the rare genetic defects, like being born XXY or something. It's science/biology. Identifying as something different is a whole other subject.

“Assigned at birth” is the most annoying phrase ever.

I internally roll my eyes every time I hear it.

+1

Recognized at birth is more accurate. “Assigned” makes is seem more random, like you were assigned a seat in class.

Exactly, PP.