What Extremist Views Do You Admit To Having?

[Orwell]

I think I have extremist views regarding religion and spirituality: the best way to get me interminably rant is to bring up the subject of church/state separation, the abuses of faith, New Agey bunkum or religious cults. I refuse to shake hands with priests, and I can't talk with very religious or "spiritual" people without somehow eventually mocking them...

Also, I don't like automobiles... In fact, I think I hate them with a passion. I think they're generally ugly, smelly and unnecessary at least half of the time. All those single drivers stuck in traffic make me fume with rage. I like spitting on luxury vehicles, making fun of old guys in red sports cars, flipping the bird at SUVs and generally being a nuisance to drivers. "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells"

 

[toddjh]

What 'strangers'?

We trust our elected legislators to write laws. Let a bipartisan Congressional committee create the test.

And when the bipartisan Congressional committee has an agenda? Sure, it's easy to come up with a lot of good questions. That doesn't mean they couldn't also come up with bad ones designed (either intentionally or subconsciously) to disenfranchise a certain group of people.

Given all the flag-waving and "God bless Americas" we see today, I can easily imagine a situation where this bipartisan Congressional committee introduces -- out of Pure Patriotism, mind you -- additional questions to make sure voters know what Americna really stands for.

Plus, the last thing you want to do is let elected officials mess with the voters. Look at the huge mess that redistricting has caused...and gerrymandering has nothing on disenfranchisement.

Jeremy

 

[Jon the Geek]

My "extremist" views, in no particular order:

* Third parties are a bad thing. The person who is elected to an office should get more than half of the votes. As a corollary, primaries should be looked at as a bigger deal, should be easier to get into, and should all occur on the same day for national elections. A series of run-off primaries should be held to determine the national candidate for that party. This would allow for the "vetting" of the candidate that takes place during our current goofy primary season, but people in Iowa and New Hampshire would have as much effect on the election as people in later-primary states.

* Everyone should be required to pass a citizenship course in order to become a citizen of the US, whether they're born here or not. Immigrants who become citizens are required to know something about America. Why aren't those who were born here through no fault of their own?

* There is no reason that I am aware of for anyone to believe in any deities or other supernatural things. I know that's not extremist here, but it's extremist compared to the rest of society. Children should be taught skepticism in school, without shying away from skepticism about religion. However, I wouldn't ever advocate it in that way outside a skeptic-heavy forum, because I realize most Americans would be against it.

* The only time it is acceptable to kill a self-aware human being is when they must be killed to protect another self-aware human being. If it is possible to protect the individual without killing the aggressor, killing is wrong. No matter what they've done (short of heavy self-mutilation resulting in them becoming no longer self aware, of course), criminals are still self-aware human beings. I'm fuzzier on when someone becomes a self-aware human being, but it's definitely after the second trimester, so I have no problem with abortion. Where I get extremist: I can imagine myself being convinced that it's ok for parents to kill infants up to a certain point, provided those infants are not self aware. I don't think I could be convinced that it's ok for others to do so, but it's more because of the effect on the parents than the effect on the infant.

* If my brain still works but I'm in constant, excrutiating pain, I want to live. If my brain doesn't work but my body is perfectly healthy, I am no longer alive, and my organs should be harvested. Once my brain dies, as far as I know I no longer exist. I want to continue to exist as long as possible, because pain is more enjoyable than non-existance.

* Funerals and burial rights are for the peace of mind of the living, not the dead, and there's no reason for the "wishes of the deceased" to be taken into account at all. That said, when I die, I'd like for any parts of my body that can't be used directly in helping people (organ transplants, etc) to be fed to something, used as fuel, or otherwise used in some useful manner. Spending money/energy to burn my carcass or wasting land to burry my carcass is an enormous waste. That hunk of meat is no longer me. If I could convince my living family members that it was the right thing to do, I'd like to treat the corpses of my family members the same way when they die.

* All human beings are entitled to a certain standard of food, shelter, and clean water, if it is possible to provide that to all human beings (which I'm pretty sure it is). No human being should live above that standard until all human beings live at least at that standard. However, I'm not sure what I'd be willing to do to make that a reality. Note I'm not exactly advocating pure communism here; I think there should be a safety net to keep people at least at that level, but hard work should allow you to rise above it.

 

[Fengirl]

What I view as animal cruelty sends me into an irrational rage. Can't stand hunting, blood sports, the fur trade and cosmetic tests on animals, but I eat tons of meat and agree with pharmaceutical testing.

I struggle with my own lack of consistency in this area. I am horrified and upset by films of what actually goes on on farms and in slaughter-houses …and yet not horrified enough to give up eating meat.

I condemn groups like PETA who engage in intimidation and terrorism in the name of animal rights…and yet I suspect that I would be capable of killing someone who intentionally hurt one of my own dogs. (In fact, my husband once had to physically restrain me from attacking someone who kicked my dog in a public park – I completely lost it.)

As far as hunting is concerned, my rule is: unless you killed that animal in self-defence or for genuine pest control reasons, you damned well better be prepared to eat it. I actually feel less conflicted about skinning, cleaning and cooking the rabbits my husband occasionally shoots than I do about buying meat from the supermarket. But I still buy it. And eat it. And love it.

 

[Kodiak]

And when the bipartisan Congressional committee has an agenda? Sure, it's easy to come up with a lot of good questions. That doesn't mean they couldn't also come up with bad ones designed (either intentionally or subconsciously) to disenfranchise a certain group of people.

Given all the flag-waving and "God bless Americas" we see today, I can easily imagine a situation where this bipartisan Congressional committee introduces -- out of Pure Patriotism, mind you -- additional questions to make sure voters know what Americna really stands for.

Plus, the last thing you want to do is let elected officials mess with the voters. Look at the huge mess that redistricting has caused...and gerrymandering has nothing on disenfranchisement.

Jeremy

In that case, why don't we just get rid of politicians and government all together?

Sorry toddjh, but we require classes that end in pass/fails tests before people get their driver's license, their CCW permits, and even their citizenship...that's it!!....make everyone pass a modified test based on the one taken by immigrants who apply for U.S. citizenship before they are allowed to vote.

 

[Kerberos]

I'm extremely wishy-washy. I don't think there's any trully objective basis for any moral posistion, and with a few exceptions, I tend to be uncomftable with discussions that are based on moral issues. I'd much rather discuss what's true than what's right.

 

[billydkid]

the problem

I struggle with my own lack of consistency in this area. I am horrified and upset by films of what actually goes on on farms and in slaughter-houses …and yet not horrified enough to give up eating meat.

I condemn groups like PETA who engage in intimidation and terrorism in the name of animal rights…and yet I suspect that I would be capable of killing someone who intentionally hurt one of my own dogs. (In fact, my husband once had to physically restrain me from attacking someone who kicked my dog in a public park – I completely lost it.)

As far as hunting is concerned, my rule is: unless you killed that animal in self-defence or for genuine pest control reasons, you damned well better be prepared to eat it. I actually feel less conflicted about skinning, cleaning and cooking the rabbits my husband occasionally shoots than I do about buying meat from the supermarket. But I still buy it. And eat it. And love it.

Part of the problem is this insistence on pinning people into one corner or another. You either advocate animal torture or you think it should be a crime to step on an ant. I do not have a problem with meat eating. Most primates were designed to eat both flora and fauna. I do think people are to far removed from the suffering involved to get them their bacon. I hate animal cruelty and I think all domesticated animals should be treated ethically and humanely. I think it should be a serious crime to wantonly hurt animals. I do, however, think it is appropriate to use domesticated animals for food. I think hunting is fine. I don't like the inhumanity of factory farming. I think food animals should be treated humanely and slaughtered humanely. It is possibly to slaughter animals without putting them through hell. But yes, cruelty to animals and children is one of those things that keeps me up at night. I couldn't possibly watch those animal cruelty films - I would not sleep for months. It is like being poisoned mentally as with watching, say, a snuff film or a child porn film would be. Like they said in that movie 8mm - there are some things you can't unsee.

 

[billydkid]

Bah

I believe that hedonism, is self-destuctive and self-defeating, and I find sad that it's becoming more and more common.

At the same time, I don't think people have the right to control other people's private behaviors, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I seriously doubt that hedonism, per se', is any more or less prevalent than it has been throughout all of human history. And I am not clear what you mean. Is it the love of pleasure that you find troublesome? One could argue that whatever one does would be hedonism is as much as one does what gives one the most satisfaction. For example, if you find satisfaction in puritanical self denial, then that is your hedonism. In fact, I would argue that pleasure is THE good thing. It is pleasure that drives us even in our most altruistic moments. My greatest pleasure, for example, is seeing my son joyous - hearing him laugh when he finds something truly funny. has nothing to do with sensual gratification on my part, but a great source of joy and pleasure. I can't help but think this whole "hedonism" thing has its roots in a distorted puritanical mindset. In some cultures the notion of hedonism is entirely meaningless - and yet these are caring, compassionate and rich cultures.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Re: Bah

I seriously doubt that hedonism, per se', is any more or less prevalent than it has been throughout all of human history. And I am not clear what you mean. Is it the love of pleasure that you find troublesome? One could argue that whatever one does would be hedonism is as much as one does what gives one the most satisfaction. For example, if you find satisfaction in puritanical self denial, then that is your hedonism. In fact, I would argue that pleasure is THE good thing. It is pleasure that drives us even in our most altruistic moments. My greatest pleasure, for example, is seeing my son joyous - hearing him laugh when he finds something truly funny. has nothing to do with sensual gratification on my part, but a great source of joy and pleasure. I can't help but think this whole "hedonism" thing has its roots in a distorted puritanical mindset. In some cultures the notion of hedonism is entirely meaningless - and yet these are caring, compassionate and rich cultures.

Yes, I'm always going have trouble with definitions, on this subject. Again, I'm not against pleasure, definate not against pleasure, but pleasure as your primary goal is what I'm talking about. The lack of pleasure, doesn't imply pain in my thinking.

Let me try and explain it this way, some work because it is engaging, some people work to just to pay for their pleasures and neccesities.

Now, in the research I have read, refering back to "flow" and positive psychology, easy to google. People in flow states don't have a sense of feeling or self, they are totally engaged in the moment, feeling only comes after the event and ask about the event. Pleasure, is not the goal, but after product of being engaged.

I'll have to write more later, busy day.

 

[Magyar]

I have 3 actually.

1) People should have to get a license to be parents.
I mean you have to have a dog license for crist sake, but you can
bring any number of serial killers into the world

2) Punishment for all child molesters is that they become the
the property of a randomly selected victim untill that victim deems fit.


3) First a general coment. I have no understanding what-so-ever why Americans insist on, and believe, the myth that experienced or educated (by which I mean formally trained like lawyer or doctor or an engineer) politicians are a bad thing.

No one I've ever heard of said "Oh, give me the new guy " just before going under the knife, but it seems we collectively insist that somehow the new guy will know better when it comes to politics. Now comes the extreme part.
Any politician caught taking bribes or controled or cattered to special interest groups should receive the death penalty.

 

[Cleon]

No one I've ever heard of said "Oh, give me the new guy " just before going under the knife, but it seems we collectively insist that somehow the new guy will know better when it comes to politics.

Because the existing ones suck donkey balls, but few people have the C.O. Jones to actually vote for third-party candidates or others that actually say what they mean.

Now comes the extreme part.
Any politician caught taking bribes or controled or cattered to special interest groups should receive the death penalty.

It would've taken less time to just say, "kill everyone in Congress."

 

[rikzilla]

Oh, just thought some more extra controversial thoughts...

• No battlefield prisoners should be taken in Iraq or Afghanistan unless deemed necessary for intel. Death for Allah; or a 1-way ticket on "Air Torture" to Cairo...no more Mr. Nice Guy @ GITMO.
• Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.

 

[Seismosaurus]

* No adult should be eligable for citizenship unless they are fluent in the national language. Nobody, no matter where they were born or how long they've lived there. Similarly, no government office or service should make any effort to accomodate foreign languages when dealing with its own citizens; no forms in foreign languages, no translators provided, nothing.

(Unless we're talking about braille for blind people, sign language for deaf people or the like.)

* Abortion should be legal on demand for every woman, of any age, for any reason, at any time during pregnancy. It should be impossible to legislate against this in any way shape or form.

* Suicide should be legal and easily available to all adults.

* Sex offender registers should be abolished. You serve your time, you're done.

* The death penalty serves no useful purpose and should be abolished.

* All dead bodies should be used for transplants and/or medical experiments unless the person is carrying a card at the time of death forbidding it. Wishes of the relatives should be irrelevant, and anybody who forgets their card doesn't care enough to have their opinion count.

* Cruelty to animals should be treated as being about as severe as cruelty to children.

* Judges should be appointed, not elected, and should serve a life term unless they choose to resign.

* I really don't see a lot of point in sending aid to Africa until the people there come up with a way to stop it being stolen, and to stop making things worse for themselves.

 

[Sushi]

Oh, just thought some more extra controversial thoughts...

• No battlefield prisoners should be taken in Iraq or Afghanistan unless deemed necessary for intel. Death for Allah; or a 1-way ticket on "Air Torture" to Cairo...no more Mr. Nice Guy @ GITMO.

• 
  
  Why, they're all necessary for intel!
  
  

  [*]Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.

Yes, fair and impartial military tribunals.

 

[seayakin]

This may get some screams in certain circles but I often wonder if a true eugenics program wouldn't be bad. Maybe, I liked "Dune" too much.

-Establish eugenics orginizations

I do not mean based on the pseudo-science of racists but to breed humans for specific tasks like we do dogs. I was thinking more along the lines of the Bene Gesserit and Choam from the Dune series where they are trying to emphasize certain qualities.


-Voting test (of course such a test would have to be created in such a way to avoid Jim Crow type laws)


All in all, I can't say I'm passionate about any of this (except maybe in agreement that child molestors should receive capital punishment).

 

[Rolfe]

Extremist?

I'm a fully-paid-up, card-carrying Scottish Nationalist.

Some people around here seem to think that's extremism. (Brian Wilson, for a start, until you dig into his own past....)

Rolfe.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I believe we should allow all foreigners into the United States. Assuming they speak our native language...... Apache (or any other American Indian language).

My apologies to Steve Martin

LLH

 

[Darat]

I was thinking, the next time we get someone who accuses "all you sKeptics" of being alike and "you all believe the same thing" this will be a very good thread to point them to.

I've not seen so much foaming at the mouths since Dawn of the Dead.

 

[gnome]

Empty GITMO by military tribunal. Summary execution for AQ or Taliban linked fighters. Others to be repatriated to their nation of origin and watched very closely.

Not arguing against your point (in this thread ) but I just wanted to note that if they got a tribunal it's not a summary execution.

 

[Czarzy]

All parents should have to pay a set percentage of their income for their child's education, because what is "free" is not valued by them, and this is reflected in their children's behaviors.

(It's "free" to them, but a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, with little benefit).

Funding for schools not based on how many bodies are in attendance. (As it currently stands, going to any expense to get students who do not want to be in school to be there).

Those parents who are jobless required to work at the school in return for matriculation of their child. If the parent will not, his/her child who tries will still be able to matriculate.

Those children who prevent (by continuous, willful, disruptive behavior) the education of other children in a classroom be babysitted in a separate setting.

Schools being the settings for academics only, not running sports programs (where for example, only a few male students get to play the games, for which the taxpayer must fund not only the lights, heat, and insurance, but the personnel on security, the clean-up, the coaches' salaries, etc). As it is now, the tickets paid by the fans do not even begin to pay for all the expenses.

Instead, let the parents of interested students volunteer to be coaches, let them entirely fund the sports programs with their "booster club" activities, and then let them contractually rent the facilities, so that the taxpayer does not have to fund these activities.

In other words, do not keep milking the public cow when ever more milk is demanded by the few, who do not appreciate the cow.

If people get something for nothing, that expensive-to-others means little to them.