Your most controversial view?

I hate the the uk and im british should i be tagged and deported?

Agree with tony blair witch project.

I'm empathetic towards most things, but I can't stand fat people complaining about being fat. I view being fat as a lack of self control. You need to be able to manage your impulses, if not then you should at least take responsibility for them. Instead of looking for excuses.

That obese American actor, I think she was in Precious, goes on all the time about being happy with herself and her weight. That's perfectly fine, for her. If she's happy, then good. She shouldn't be shown as an example of self-acceptance though. Being that way isn't good, most people couldn't do that mentally.

Being obese isn't fine. It's a physiological and mental red flag.

(I'm on about being obese, not just overweight)

Maybe, yes.

pointing out a countries flaws gets you deported? Send me to canada please.

Why Esperanto?

Because it is the most popular constructed language in the world. We need a common language that is neutral and pronounced consistently.

- Tony Blair is an evil man, who should never get a knighthood, ever....

- People from oppressed groups who have vocal prejudices should be thrown in jail (,i.e. racist gays, homophobic blacks, etc.)

- Muslims who claim to hate the UK yet were born here should be monitored, tagged, and deported to their parents' countries.

- Catholicism should be banned everywhere, due to its historical and current crimes.

- The UK was just as much to blame for WWI as Germany was. IMHO, MORE SO....

Interestingly, consistent pronunciation would be pretty much impossible to achieve, as people's mother tongue is what influences their accent when speaking other languages. So it would take many generations learning it from birth (infinitely more effective than learning a language later in life, but up till five/sixish is ok-ish for sounding native) all taught by people who pronounce esperanto consistently to achieve uniformity of pronunciation.

So it wouldn't happen, basically.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I wouldn't say 10%, but I still wouldn't mind bombing ISIS until they're obliterated, since many jihadi militants will never repent for their crimes against humanity, even if we gave them the chance to. What's your idea of "style"?

ISIS are imbedded in Iraqi towns across the country which they have captured and are now subjecting to brutal Islamic law. So more innocent civilians would die in your scheme than terrorists.

Continuing with targeted air strikes is fine, but they have proved far less damaging than people expected

I meant obliterating its military forces in action and crippling the leadership rather than doing Cambodia-style carpet bombing.

I think the disadvantage of ISIS compared to Al Qaeda is that it is a self proclaimed caliphate, and that its legitimacy is based on the status of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a member of the Quraish tribe (viewed as descendants of Muhammad, which is apparently one of the requirements for one to be a caliph). Knocking him, along with others in the hierarchy, will decimate ISIS (since some of its most qualified leaders have been knocked down by airstrikes).

Here's a conversation between me and a pacifist you may wish to look at:

It won't hamper their aggression, but it'll certainly make them less appealing to potential recruits and cause a huge blow to their morale.

I won't advocate a 2003-style invasion. I'd rather boost funding and training to the Peshmerga even more and send more advisers to the incompetent Iraqi Army, and increase the scale of airstrikes. You may call it mission creep, I call it a necessity.

Haha in all honestly I wouldn't say that's particularly controversial. I think everyone generally thinks we should help the Peshmerga more, no one has any problem with sending advisors and I have no problem with the RAF doing more.

Agreed.

Would you advocate teaming up with Iran to defeat ISIS (I personally wouldn't due to Iran's nefarious intentions in Syria)? I won't attack your point of view, I'm just curious.