summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I Believe that the Most Gun Control that is Needed is Background Checks. CMV | The view I'm about to give you isn't entirely representative of my own view, but it's just a point about background checks. You could say that background checks are flawed because someone with a clean record could still be crazy and could still be a dangerous person to give a weapon to. By relying on background checks, we're making it so that someone has to do something horrible / insane before we know not to give them a weapon. If we really want to prevent bad things from happening due to irresponsible weapon usage, then background checks aren't enough because the people we would " catch " with background checks have already done their damage to society in one way or another. The actual, absolute availability of weapons to citizens should be regulated, or there should be some kind of test other than a background check. | cmv |
I Believe that the Most Gun Control that is Needed is Background Checks. CMV | IMO a more important aspect of gun control would be mandating that all guns be fired and their metallurgy, rifling, firing pin marks, and so on all be logged as part of the registration process. That way, when ammunition is found at a crime scene, it can be quickly and easily matched to the owner of the gun, or at least to a small pool of people with similar guns. I think Switzerland does that, at least with their military - issue rifles, but I don't know if anywhere else does. | cmv |
I Believe that the Most Gun Control that is Needed is Background Checks. CMV | The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume that we don't already have legally mandatory background checks. Any time you buy a gun from a licensed vendor, you have to submit to a background check. The problem here is that the system currently in place is terribly flawed. You have a tremendous rate of false positives and incredibly long delays, especially for people with common names. Also, record - keeping and sharing is often flawed or inadequate. Fixing the background check system currently in place must occur before trying to expand it. | cmv |
I Believe that the Most Gun Control that is Needed is Background Checks. CMV | Honestly I think its more complicated than that. We need to ban handguns yet expand access to rifles. That logic may not make sense to people who haven't looked at the issue but heres the reality. Pistols are the biggest factor in most gun crimes. The reason is they are small, they are easy to carry, and no one can see the person using it until its too late. Rifles only count for a small percentage of gun violence and the majority is hunting accidents. If everyone had rifles they would be easier to regulate. You can see if someone is carrying from a distance away and cops would feel more security because they would know what they were walking into rather than feeling uneasy every time they stepped toward a car. Plus we still get our right to bear arms which means everyone wins. Society is safer and the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government is secure. | cmv |
I think finding the " cause " of homosexuality is an irrelevant and useless plight. CMV. | If you find the cause of homosexuality, there's a chance you could change the physiological factors that make somebody homosexual. This doesn't mean homosexuality is bad, or that people should want to be straight. It just means is a homosexual man happens to want to be straight, and we are able to do such a thing, the option would be open for them. But even then, advancement of human knowledge on biological and behavioral processes is helpful to the sciences. It isn't about deciding if it is moral or amoral, the knowledge gained from studying sexuality could further research about sexuality and how it functions in the brain and the body, and what factors cause sexuality. | cmv |
I think finding the " cause " of homosexuality is an irrelevant and useless plight. CMV. | I am a supporter of gay marriage, and by answering this question I don't want to, nor do I mean to offend anybody. I think the main reason people want to find the " reason " is because it might give people some insight into the fact that homosexuals are like the rest of us : a little unique. This might help people relate to homosexuals if they were not able to relate to them before, which could lead to equal rights. I am not an expert on this topic, this is just a theory. | cmv |
I think finding the " cause " of homosexuality is an irrelevant and useless plight. CMV. | I agree with you about everything, except that scientific knowledge doesn't need to have an immediate use to be valuable. Let's say we discover something today about interactions between the genes and fetal environment that determine sexuality... and maybe it tells us something tomorrow about similar kinds of interactions that determine psychopathy, or autism, or dyslexia, or who the hell knows what. The cool thing about science ( some days, I think, the only cool thing about science ) is that you never know where the rabbit hole is going to lead you. | cmv |
I think finding the " cause " of homosexuality is an irrelevant and useless plight. CMV. | OP, why is it so important to find the cause of the universe? Why is it so important to find out the process of the birth of stars? Why is it so important to find out about continental drift? Why is it so important to find out about dinosaurs? Why is it so important to find out how early man hunted? Why is it so important to find out about why some people are born boys and others are girls? Why is it so important to find out about why some people have brown hair and some are ginger abominations? Science does nothing besides ask why. Did you know that a snail can crawl across a razor blade and not cut itself? Science knew that. | cmv |
I am a monarchist, read the text and let's see if you can attempt to CMV. | You've heard of the " No True Scotsman " thing, right? Monarchist arguments are like this. Ivan the Terrible, Emperor Hirohito, Saint Louis, Aurangzeb, Sihanouk, hell, anyone, all are isolated examples or don't count. They were brought up wrong, or had the wrong family pedigree or it was not their fault. Monarchy cannot fail, only you can fail the monarchy. For the counterargument look for the improvement in peoples'wellbeing once monarchies are abandoned apart from their ceremonial role - and the unpopularity of monarchism among the populace. For the record on the popularity of Queen Liz vs. Obama, I do agree that it's useful to have a Head of State who is different from Head of Government. So I'm fine with monarchy, but certainly not as a system of government. I am a strident monarchist as far as Civ is concerned, though. | cmv |
I am a monarchist, read the text and let's see if you can attempt to CMV. | Why is stable always better? If I was living under Ivan the Terrible ( or similar ) I think I'd much prefer a less stable government. Also I think it's kind of laughable to say that monarchies are more stable than republics considering that Europe has a long history of warfare involving among other things multiple succession crises and attempts to seize the throne which cannot possibly happen in a republic. Monarchies practically invite backstabbing and other forms of political intrigue, while democracies invite power transfer to be carried out in the open. This is why, while in a democracy the particular people in power are not so popular, the system itself is much more popular. I'll bet you that most of those 20 % of people who don't like Queen Elizabeth think that the monarchy should be abolished outright. | cmv |
I believe that poor, uneducated people should not be allowed to vote in elections. CMV. | Ultimately the detailed reasoning behind a vote will wash out in a large enough sample. What won't wash out is that politicians are often responsive to their constituencies. Do you think the United States is run in a way that is insufficiently friendly to the life of rich people? I don't know if you do, but I don't. If you don't, it will be counterproductive to give them an even bigger voice. | cmv |
I believe that poor, uneducated people should not be allowed to vote in elections. CMV. | But the elections still affect them, how can you deprive an adult of the right to vote when it may have a direct impact on their life? Isn't that the point of living in a country like the US? No taxation without representation ring any bells? | cmv |
I believe that poor, uneducated people should not be allowed to vote in elections. CMV. | Though I would agree that education should be a requirement, wealth should not. I know plenty of people below the property line that are way more intelligent then anyone I've ever met. Wealth as no direct connection with intellect or education and shouldn't be a voting requirement. | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | To expand on the point made by / u / Jazz - Cigarettes : During the American Civil War, virtually all enemy combatants were US citizens acting as accomplices to treason. However, only the leaders of the secessionist state were ever tried, nearly a tenth of a million of the confederate soldiers were killed in battle, and approximately the same number of civilians were killed as a result of the actions of both sides. That said, it's hard to imagine trying Lincoln for either the killing of confederate soldiers or the civilian deaths that resulted from the war. While the unintended deaths resulting from the Civil War and the strike on Al - Awlaki were both unfortunate and tragic, collateral damage is always a danger in war, and even modern drone technology cannot wholly eliminate that risk. | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | Other users have shown how his actions are probably legal, but from a moral standpoint, why is the fact that some of them were American even relevant? Is killing an American worse than killing a foreigner? With regard to Al - Awlacki, if you are involved in a terrorist group, why should the fact that you were born in the US protect you? I understand why people have a problem with drone strikes in general, but I don't understand why the fact that one of the targets was American matters for any reasons other than legal ones. | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | The deaths of the three citizens who were not direct targets are the unfortunate collateral damage of a military action. Collateral damage is a side effect of war, generally, and probably a feature of the majority of President - ordered military actions throughout history. That these people were citizens strikes me as immaterial. No one would be prosecuted in a hostage situation on U. S. soil if one of the hostages was accidentally killed along with the captor ; how is this different? Also, the term " high crimes and misdemeanors " has a specific meaning, relating to political crimes that constitute an abuse of power that are meant to circumvent justice. Even if collateral damage in a military action constituted felony manslaughter ( and I argue it doesn't ), it still would be unlikely to qualify as a high crime by any historical definition. | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | Frankly, al - Awlacki should be the harder sell, as it was the intentional, pre - meditated killing of a US citizen - not the accidental killing of a US citizen. Let me pose you a question : should the chief of police, mayor, governor, or President be charged with a crime in the death of many of the " collateral " deaths of no - knock warrants in the US? It's an abhorrant policy, and seems to frequently result in someone who is not the target of the warrant being killed, but does that mean executive officers should be tried for crimes? After all, they were US citizens, and they were accidentally killed in a violent government action. To me, that seems unreasonable, regardless of how misguided the policy is. If an American citizen was in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, should that have been the triggering factor for bringing up Truman on a single manslaughter charge? | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | I think that in general, the drone strikes are problematic in a veritable cornucopia of different ways, but here's my take on al - Awlaki. He was both a U. S. citizen a senior member of al - Qaeda, and so it's fairly difficult to argue that he wasn't committing treason, right? So in a perfect world, he'd deserve a trial for that treason, the result of which almost certainly would've been conviction and execution. But he'd been out of the country and on the run for years, AND he was still actively participating in and abetting the operations of al - Qaeda right up until his death. So what if a trial for al - Awlaki was never realistically going to be a possibility? What if there was never going to be a feasible opportunity to capture him or conduct a raid on him a la bin Laden? It's not like he was a random high - value terrorist who regularly made visits to the U. S. where he could be easily captured. If he was revealed to be checking out a falafel restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Obama administration chose to drone strike him into oblivion when they could have easily apprehended him instead, that would be a regrettable decision. I think al - Awlaki raises an interesting question : what do you do about an American citizen who is actively committing treason against the country, but is doing so while on the run and who may be difficult or impossible to capture? Do you allow him to continue coordinating terrorist attacks against you because you can't capture and try him, even though you could kill him? | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | There has already been a legal analysis of this. If you have access to a university IP address, you can read it here. The gist of it is that there are plenty of instances throughout US history where it has been done, and is therefore legal. While we may have strong opinions one way or the other, the legal analysis says it is legal. I'll try to get a link to it if you don't have scholarly access. | cmv |
I believe Obama should be impeached and tried in civilian court for the unlawful killing of US Citizens in drone strikes. CMV. | There are exceptions to the right to life in times of war or if it is in the name of public safety. It's like Lincoln suspending habeus corpus ( spelling ) during the Civil War. War was never declared during this time, because Lincoln still considered them citizens, and the seceded states were still part of the United States as far as he was concerned. ANY Southern citizens that were with confederate soldiers could be shot and killed, even arrested ( I say " even " arrested because killing could be unintentional / accidental ) This is the best example I can think of, and is the closest comparison. While these killings are unacceptable, one could claim it's in the name of public safety. | cmv |
If a bill fails to pass, there should be a mandatory waiting period before it or a similar substitute can be reintroduced. CMV | How would you implement such a ban? In the US system, I would imagine that courts would be the only quasi - independent way of determining if a bill is similar enough to be effected by this law. So, would we be giving the courts a veto power power before the law can even be entered into the federal registrar? Or, would we wait until the law comes into effect, and then challenge it? If we do the latter, how would it sound if congress passes a law, it gets signed by the President and then, years later it's overturned because it happened shortly after another, similar, bill failed? Additionally, I think this would just make the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader less likely to put something up to a vote unless they know it can pass ahead of time. This is already an issue, often resulting in the other side crying " just give us an up - or - down vote ". Finally, this could be used as a blocking tactic by a minority party. If the minority party can put their own proposals up for a vote in their body of the legislature and it goes down in flames, then at least the majority party cannot put forth their own proposal during the cooling off period. | cmv |
If a bill fails to pass, there should be a mandatory waiting period before it or a similar substitute can be reintroduced. CMV | The problem then is who gets to define what is a completely new bill and what's not. How many words of SOPA would they have to change to resubmit it immediately as a " new " bill? Also free speech and stuff like they said. | cmv |
I believe that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances. CMV. | My understanding of the strict pro - life argument ( that is, no abortion under any circumstances except where necessary to save lives ) is that everyone has a right to life, and that right ranks highly compared to other rights. A child of rape does not have fewer rights than a child of love does, and a child with defects does not have fewer rights than a child without defects does. One's right to live takes precedence over one's right to not be pregnant, no matter who the child is or who the mother is. Although I am strongly pro - choice ( I think the right to your own body takes precedence over anyone else's right to your body, even if it is life - and - death ), I am sympathetic to this particular pro - life line of thinking. It is the only pro - life argument I've encountered so far that is consistent and fair ( i. e., doesn't give some people more rights than other people ), and that is clearly focused on saving the fetus rather than on punishing promiscuity. | cmv |
I believe that the US has neither the right nor responsibility to settle disputes in foreign countries with military action. CMV | The US engages in conflicts because their interests worldwide are in question. Rarely are humanitarian concerns the chief basis for intervention. Why shouldn't the US be allowed to use force to ensure its success? I'm also curious as to which conflicts you view as the US having no right to take part in? | cmv |
I believe that reddit and the Internet consists of at least 70 % North Americans. CMV! | There's a whole " other " Internet that you never see. This Internet is populated with Chinese, European, Korean, Japanese, and other users. There are 530 million Internet users in China, more than the entire population of the USA. The reason why you think that the Internet is mainly North American is because you're going to the websites that are the most popular to North Americans. You're not searching things on Baidu or reading Korean language posts on Daum cafe. | cmv |
I believe that the media, politics, and the church are the most to blame for sexism, racism, homophobia and class - ism in America. CMV | You're not misguided but I'd say you're wrong. The real issue is the wealthy and here are a couple well - timed images from / r / conspiracy that illustrate this : less and more Basically it boils down to the wealthy companies consuming everybody and now controlling everything you see. Even when you think you're going around the main stream to get the real news or the real story the odds are great you're still in the " system " and are being made to think you're getting the real story. If everything you see is from these limited, corporate shill news, radio and TV stations then it's natural for you to feel this way. Most people just don't care so at least you've got that going for you! The best way to get around this? Get out there and talk to people directly. Why wait for 6 MASSIVE corporations to tell you what's going on in the world, what the world is like or how you should live? ; ) | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | Things in politics are much easier said than done. Take Obama closing Gitmo. He promised it but once he got into office he found numerous previously unforseen obstacles. There are things you just can't know until you are in office. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | The problem is that you'd be electing something like a computer program without the ability to " debug " it in production. They could promise two policies that conflict with each other in practice, and in a way that's difficult to foresee that far in advance. Running for office also does not mean you get access to classified information ( from MI5 or CIA, for example ) that might complicate your stated goals. If they add enough qualifications to their manifesto to handle unforeseeable problems and surprise information, they'll quickly get to the point where the manifesto is meaningless because it can be interpreted any way they want. The main goal of communicating with an electorate is to give them a sense of what kind of values you have and, depending on the position, how you respond to challenges. Voters mainly want to know that a candidate is someone who thinks like they do, and manifestos and campaign promises are ways to show that. Unfortunately, as Helmuth von Moltke the Elder once said about war : " no plan survives contact with the enemy. " | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | If the politician doesn't follow through on why you elected him, don't vote for him again. That's why most nations have terms for their officials. there doesn't need to be laws for " fulfilling promises " if voters keep politicians accountable. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | I get what you're saying, but some of the things they promise to do can be out of their control. ( ex. I'd love to create a welfare program that offers extra - curricular education programs to inner city youths, but I'm elected with a legislative branch that is dead set on reducing gov't spending no matter the costs, and they're not going to let me have it ). I think it'd be smart to at least set up policies to force them to attempt to do what they promise. ( ex. If I try to get the bill put forth into legislation, and it gets denied, well I tried and it's really not my fault so there shouldn't be punishment. ) | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | While I agree in principle, this would not allow for changing views with changing information. For instance, if a politician ran on the platform of banning a specific chemical form addition to food, then new evidence arises that it is not harmful, and in fact prevents the development of Parkinson's Disease - you would probably want them to change their view. Have I changed yours? | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | I think the real need is a media that will take politicians to task for breaking their promises. The mainstream media is too afraid of losing access to politicians to call them out. If a major news network called out politicians who voted contrary to their campaign promises, politicians would only break their promises when they're ready to publicly defend their position. We should generally want politicians who change their policy when available information changes. We don't want to get stuck with politicians whose hands are tied despite an emergency or changing information, but they shouldn't get a pass when they break their promises either. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | I know according to the rules here i'm not supposed to agree with you completely and this will get deleted but I can't help myself. The situation with this is Australia is seriously out of hand and people just ignore it. Arguably all of our federal elections for almost two decades now have been decided on promises that were just flat out lies. GST, carbon tax, mining tax, gay marriage, withdrawing troops from the middle east. The fact that a group can be elected on a premise and then have no obligation whatsoever to follow through is ridiculous. Completely undermines the democratic process in this country. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | Six months before the election : " I promise to bring Iran to its knees with the full force of the U. S. military, to bring them in compliance with UN regulations regarding its nuclear program. " Three months later, peaceful revolution overthrows the Ayatollah, but chaos reigns making it hard to implement UN policy in 90 days. 9th of November : " Sorry people of Iran, but we have this law, you see... " | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | What do you think about the fact that, the candidates who make a lot of unreasonable promises will have an edge over candidates who make less promises but more feasible ones? Given this law in place, people will view these candidates who make " unreasonable " promises as feasible because now they're legally required to do so. Doesn't that feed the type of people we don't want into office? Or we'll be too busy dealing with the mess that these people would have deal with? Or if we go step further, there'll be a competition on promises made, and the politicians would be too busy trying to keep promises than to be able to deal with other issues that may come up as situations change. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | The problem with this is that some politicians truly believe that they will do what they promise, and have every intention in doing it if they get elected, but then find that they are unable to because of money / time constraints / opposition from other officials etc. While this is incredibly disheartening to the voters who believed in them, forcing them to carry out their campaign promises could put the country in a much worse position than it was before. Because of this, sometimes the best thing for the country is for politicians to amend their aims once they are in office and have a clear understanding of the exact position that the country is in. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | What if they change their minds upon getting a more fully informed view of the situation? You're challenging whether they should be representative robots or autonomous delegates of their representatives'will. If the former, then why have MP's at all? Just have direct democracy. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | Hmm, one counter example of why this might not be so simple is that environments change is Woodrow Wilson. He promised he would keep the US out of the war, but didn't. Was it the right decision? | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | The big problem is that this would depend on people being able to do everything that they promised, which they often can't. Compromise is a huge part of politics. In addition, the points that people make would be reduced to become meaningless. My school's student government had elections recently, and one of the election tickets ( a team of three candidates ) promised to match the percentage of their position's salary that they accept to the percentage of the promises that they made. The problem is that every promise was " we will lobby for... " or " we will work towards... ". Nobody liked that team because ( among other things ), they didn't really stand for anything. If a politician says " I'll cut taxes for 95 % of families ", they stand for something. If they say " I'll try to cut taxes for some significant part of our population ", they don't. | cmv |
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV | There are many unforeseen circumstances that could contribute to the scenario and make what they initially promised unfeasible. Also, making something legally binding would mean that it would have to be crystal clear and precise from the start ( otherwise it just turns into a huge mess ). Making a political platform legally binding would therefore require foresight into the future in order to have this clarity, and frankly no one can predict the future with that amount of accuracy. | cmv |
I believe that the US has neither the right nor responsibility to settle disputes in foreign countries with military action. CMV | Do you think the US intervenes out of pure altruism? War is costly and the only justification for that cost is long - term gains or prevention of loss. They're being pretty nonchalant about Syria and only got riled up about North Korea when they potentially aimed nukes at Guam. Rest assured the US does not intervene arbitrarily. One can argue in these situations that it has a right and is even obligated to protect the interests of itself and its citizens. | cmv |
I believe that the " right " to self - determination of individuals and cultures should not be held above other things like safety and happiness. CMV | You could say that widespread control is necessary for a better life, but how would we judge the efficacy of the new plan of control? You could say freedom and thus autonomy is the spirit of human experience we try to mold laws around, but what do we do when autonomy conflicts with other goals? Well it ends up we make laws when that happens, and for better or worse we pass those laws with the particular type of representative democracy and democratic republic we have, and if things don't work out we repeal it like prohibition. I would have to ask you, why does widespread control seem so much better than autonomy? Is it because autonomy seems chaotic and control seems concise? | cmv |
I believe that the Commander in Chief ( The President of the United States ) should be with our troops during times of war on or near the battlefield until the war is resolved. CMV | If the president was with the troops or near the battlefield, he'd be in danger and at risk of getting killed. Not the best idea to put our president in danger for the purpose of giving morale to the troops. That's other people's job. The president has too many responsibilities in the White House to be going and hanging out with the troops. | cmv |
I believe that the Commander in Chief ( The President of the United States ) should be with our troops during times of war on or near the battlefield until the war is resolved. CMV | At its core, this is a new variant of an argument I've heard before : " If we make it more difficult and burdensome to fight wars, we will only fight just wars. " I would argue : 1. There is no correlation between how quick and easy a war is, and how justified it is. If you only fight easy wars, you'll see more interventions like America's invasions in Latin America : quick and motivated purely by national interest. You'll see fewer humanitarian interventions and less sustained commitment to nation - building. 2. If a war is just, we shouldn't make it unnecessarily difficult on ourselves to fight it. 3. It makes just conduct in war less likely. Rules like " minimize civilian casualties " make fighting a war more difficult but are morally necessary. An arbitrary rule such as " our head of state must be on the battlefield " makes it harder to follow the morally necessary ones. For example, if you're trying to avoid putting the President at risk, you might choose to just bomb someone into submission, resulting in more civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure. | cmv |
I think objective morality is a ridiculous concept that doesn't exist ; CMV | Yes, objective morality doesn't exist. However, everything on earth boils down to survival at the core. The one moral of survival : don't die, or don't let too many die. Therefore, killing is immoral, except when used to stop someone from killing many. Also, killing of another species is always moral to the killer if it means saving their own life, or many other of their own species lives. | cmv |
I think objective morality is a ridiculous concept that doesn't exist ; CMV | It is objectively true that some actions have better outcomes for the people that performed them as well as society generally. For any action someone makes, the outcomes of this action are in principle measurable. Different possible actions in a given kind of situation can be evaluated and compared to determine optimum result. This can be statistically applied to provide general guidelines. Thus morality is objective. | cmv |
I think objective morality is a ridiculous concept that doesn't exist ; CMV | Here is an encyclopedia page that you may find helpful, along with accompanying sources. Do you believe that there are norms of rationality? For example : if P is true, and'if P is true then Q is true'is true, then Q necessarily follows. This is a logical syllogism which we take to be a core component of logic and something where, if someone does not accept the conclusion, then they are irrational. I think that there's a good case to be made that if you accept rational norms then you'll be strongly tempted to accept moral realism. | cmv |
I think objective morality is a ridiculous concept that doesn't exist ; CMV | The amount of pain anyone experiences at any given time is an absolute. Morality is a code to try to lessen this. There is no way to interpret that there is not an absolute format, except in some minor details. | cmv |
I think possession and making of child porn should not be a criminal offence, CMV | The problem is when it's not illegal to obtain it that means there is going to be a demand for such material. When there's a demand for such material there will be people to provide that material for a price. The problem lies in that for them to provide that material they have to create it which is in itself harmful to the child. By obtaining child pornography it is perpetuating a cycle of child abuse and by allowing it you are demonstrating the willingness to allow those children to be abused. | cmv |
I think Anjem Choudary should be stripped of his British passport and nationality, and removed from Great Britain. CMV. | Anjem Choudary is certainly an outspoken individual whose views are bound to cause controversy. I assume that's why the BBC and Channel4 interviewed him. Let's face it, the majority of Muslim spokespeople are condemning the terrorist murder in Woolwich, which is a bit boring in terms of getting an interesting story. I don't know a lot about Anjem Choudary other than his " preacher of hate " reputation. Has he actually broken any laws? We value free speech in this country, even the BNP bang on about it. Freedom of speech works both ways. Sometimes, we might not like what we hear but we should and do allow the speaker his right to speak. Whether we should give him air - time or column space is another issue. | cmv |
I think Anjem Choudary should be stripped of his British passport and nationality, and removed from Great Britain. CMV. | I'm no expert but surely this guy isn't 100 % squeaky clean. Can't they get him on taxes ( like Capone ) or aiding and abetting terrorist activities? And as for free speech, you can't yell " fire! " in a crowded movie theatre nor incite a riot so why can't they nail him for inciting murder? Maybe the problem is your police aren't corrupt enough. | cmv |
I think Anjem Choudary should be stripped of his British passport and nationality, and removed from Great Britain. CMV. | How exactly does a natural - born citizen " forfeit " the right to remain in his own country? Child rapists don't lose this right. They go to jail, but they aren't exiled from the country or stripped of citizenship. Why is encouraging horrible things in the name of a religion the specific crime that leads you to think the person should be stripped of citizenship, OP? And why associate this man with other Muslim countries? Should a gay - basher in the U. S doing so on religious grounds be deported to the Eastern Orthodox Church? Are they responsible for said gay - basher? What about the Vatican? | cmv |
I think Anjem Choudary should be stripped of his British passport and nationality, and removed from Great Britain. CMV. | He was born in Britain and is a British national? Where exactly would you deport him to? Which other country would have him? If he has done something wrong ( like actively aiding terrorists ) you should be able to put him in jail. However, hating British society isn't reason to take away their nationality. Hell, a lot of the EDL supporters hate the current British society, but you can't take away their passport. Because you can't make somebody stateless even if you disagree with their actions. | cmv |
I think that keeping men out of domestic violence shelters is nothing but bigotry. CMV | The idea behind female only domestic violence shelters is that some women have been abused so badly that conventional treatment and telling them logical statements such as " not all men are like him ", which may make sense to us, are not going to help. These women are scared, they see men not as " some good and some bad " as all people are, but as monsters. This is not their fault, this is human psychology. The closest analogy that I can come up with is that if you were attacked by a lion, and survived, you would not think to yourself " not all lions attack people ", which is true, you would be thinking " please please please never let me see another lion again ". The hope of every domestic violence shelter is that the women who live there will eventually recover and be able to rejoin society as strong and independent people, there is no attempt to demonize men. Domestic violence shelters are just that, a shelter, a necessary way to save the lives of people who otherwise have no place to turn. Regarding the question of why mens'shelters are not in equal number, domestic violence does exist, but it is much less common. Society does require some care for men, but it is a different problem with a different solution. | cmv |
I think that keeping men out of domestic violence shelters is nothing but bigotry. CMV | Would you agree with me that the actual problem isn't segregating men and women in DV shelters, but that the problem is a lack of DV shelters for men? Emotions aren't rational, someone can understand that not every man is out to get her, but still be afraid, especially for the time that she is in a DV shelter. It is an irrational fear, but that doesn't mean that the fear isn't real, and that the shelter is supposed to be a place where she can feel safe. The reason that there aren't as many men's shelters is what SJW's would call " patriarchy ". Men are stereotypically independent and can take care of themselves, therefore there are very few shelters for men. There should be enough shelters for men fleeing domestic violence ( note that i'm not saying equal amount, for that I'd need to see research that said the amount of men and women seeking shelter are exactly the same ). That there aren't is the problem, not that the ones who already have women in them are trying to let these women feel safe. | cmv |
I think that keeping men out of domestic violence shelters is nothing but bigotry. CMV | Do you have any kind of documentation that shows there is a demand for adult male violence shelters? Perhaps this has more to do with supply and demand than " bigotry? " There are plenty of organizations that will take in men going through trouble. Does it matter that these places are not called " violence shelters. " Is it possible that men might want to avoid going to a " violence shelter " out of manly pride? | cmv |
I think that keeping men out of domestic violence shelters is nothing but bigotry. CMV | It's not really that they're keeping men out of shelters that's the problem, it's the lack of male shelters. Think of it like this, a woman gets abused by her husband, sexually and physically, she finally manages to get away and take her and her kids to a shelter to feel safe but there's men roaming around, she's probably not going to feel so safe. Lots of the help put in place in these shelters is targeted towards women, such as womans aid counsellors, they aren't equipped to deal with male abuse victims. I feel the problem isn't that men aren't allowed in these shelters, rather that there aren't enough shelters targeted towards men. Though with the increase in publicity surrounding domestic violence towards men there has seen more and more shelters that are specifically for men, just not enough yet. | cmv |
I think that keeping men out of domestic violence shelters is nothing but bigotry. CMV | Do you have any evidence that men are in need of domestic violence shelters? I once read that the number one cause of homelessness for women is leaving an abusive relationship. The number one cause of homelessness among men is substance abuse issues, followed by mental illness. It is far less likely, and I'd go as far as to say exceedingly rare, that men exiting an abusive relationship don't have the means to financially support themselves. It is very common for women to not have the means to support themselves, and their children. There are lots of homeless shelters for men, but they are not domestic violence specific. The largest homeless shelter in my home state of Indiana is the Wheeler Mission, which is men only. On the corollary, there are virtually no homeless shelters for women, only domestic violence shelters. I had a homeless female friend who was turned away from every women's shelters in Indianapolis because they were domestic violence shelters, and required that she have children with her and that she have a restraining order against an abusive partner. | cmv |
I believe that purposefully holding false beliefs is as immoral as driving while drunk. CMV | If a person doesn't recognize that their beliefs are irrational, I don't see how they can be blamed. Even when faced with an excellent argument against their belief, sometimes people just don't understand the objection and therefore are still exempt from being blameworthy. I understand your argument and why you equate irrational belief systems to driving while drunk, but I think you are overlooking the fact that many people simply don't realize that their beliefs are irrational. There are beliefs that you and I hold that are irrational and we probably don't realize it. I don't think we are morally culpable for that. | cmv |
I believe that purposefully holding false beliefs is as immoral as driving while drunk. CMV | What if a false belief is necessary in order to make some peoples dignity upheld, and them able to function in society? For instance, no reputable scientist actually thinks that differing populations, by location and characteristic can all be expected to have identical I. Q. s. But in common every day speech people saying that some intangible equality overrides this and everyone is wholly equal is actually a NECESSARY lie. Since it prevents anyone from thinking that their race or anything else will make it too hard for them to succeed, and thus not try. | cmv |
I think the awarding of punitive damages in civil court is inherently antithetical to the concept of proportionality. CMV. | Punitive damages are necessary deterrent in order to prevent rampant disregard for civil laws. Pretend for a second that we abolished them. You go and con 100 people out of $ 10, 000 each. Let's say 80 of them sue you, and 70 of those 80 win. You are forced to give back $ 700, 000 if the money you stole, but still come out $ 300, 000 ahead. Even in the worst case scenario ( for you ), you give back only what you took. Punitive damages help to keep that sort of behavior in check. Because they can be so disproportionately high compared to the actual damages in some cases, they act as a successful deterrent. | cmv |
I think the awarding of punitive damages in civil court is inherently antithetical to the concept of proportionality. CMV. | Punitive damages are not really a punishment for wrongdoing ( well, you could make the case that they are, but that's not their primary purpose ), they're a deterrent against wrongdoing in the first place. They exist so that companies won't do something like design a car and then cut corners in its production after making the decision calculus, " Well, if we do this, it'll save us X dollars, but 1000 of the cars will explode at random and kill their drivers. However, the cost to pay compensatory damages to those 1000 people in lawsuits is actually less than the X dollars we'll save, so in the end we come out ahead. " If the company knows that there'll be a threat of punitive damages that they can't really account for or estimate effectively, it'll make them less likely to take actions that could get them sued to begin with. You might be right in that they don't perfectly adhere to the principle of proportionality, but I would argue that they're intentionally designed to be disproportional in order to serve the effect of deterrence. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | This is both assuming : 1. The'America'which decides to go to any war is the public majority. 2. Getting 400 million people to vote would be do - able in a reasonable time - frame. Say 41 % vote for war, 30 % vote against, and 29 % don't show. Is it still okay to increase taxes with only a minority explicitly favoring it? For another example, let's apply this to something like Pearl Harbor. After the attack, we'd have to get everyone together to vote. I think trying to get so many people to assemble would take an enormous amount of time. The ability of small amounts of people to make quick and important decisions is the reason why presidential emergency powers exist. Also, if the result is to go war, which I think is a reasonable assumption, is it okay that we practically punish the general public for retaliating against an attack? | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | If my history is correct all of the Vietnam war protests stopped when Nixon killed the draft. He knew that if people did not think there was a chance that they would have to go fight that they would not care how long the war dragged on. If the goal is to stop these endless wars all we have to do is reinstate the draft and open it up to all citizens. Suddenly there will be plenty of political will to put a stop to it - much more than a simple tax. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | Unfortunately, because American citizens have so little sway in their nation's decision - making, the best they can do is to make their voice heard. One can vote for, say, a president or a senator who claims he / she will promote / demote a certain issue - but voting on the issues themselves is uncommon and done individually. Even if citizens could vote directly on wars, then, this would most likely be done separately from voting on taxes ; regardless of one's opinion on America's international position, he / she would most likely act in self - interest and vote against a tax increase. I think yours is a nice idea, just not one that could be practically instituted considering what makes American politics tick. Politicians, our decision - makers, want to relate to the people and be re - elected. This priority doesn't leave much room for rationality, and certainly doesn't consider how various issues will effect each other. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | Not every war is necessarily as expensive as the Iraq War. If the government happens to already running surplus, it doesn't make sense to raise taxes just for the sake of making ordinary citizens " feel the pain " of war. And I'd say that it'd be better if we could just get Congress to vote on all our wars. In the event of a real act of war, such as the attack on Pearl Harbor, do we really want to be organizing a popular vote? | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | How about people who vote for the war have to pay an extra tax for it. To be fair, people who want to support programs like welfare and food stamps will have to pay tax for that as well, and people who support prisons can pay the tax for that, and people who support the war on drugs pay a tax for that. This is where your argument leads, i'm not even sure I disagree with it though. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | The real issue here is deciding what you count as a war, because the US has only declared war 5 times in it's history despite engaging in significant troop deployments overseas many hundreds of times. In this modern age of non - state actors such as terrorist groups and insurgencies, the concept of'declaring war'against any particular entity is becoming increasingly outdated. We can't'declare war'against the Taliban, or Al - Qaeda, or Boko Haram - that's like trying to strangle smoke. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | War doesn't work at the speed this would take. Even with almost universal support, it took nearly a month for boots to get on the ground in Afghanistan following 9 / 11. The US has no plan in place for an ad - hoc national election, but one must assume that the week it took to authorize military force would be greatly extended. | cmv |
I think a prerequisite of going to war should include a significant tax increase on American citizens. Also, the wars should be voted on by the people. CMV | In answer to your second point, why don't we have votes on every new law? Surely the whole point of having politicians is that they're experienced, knowledgable individuals who make the decisions that are too complicated for most people to understand? The average person simply doesn't have the knowledge and experience to deal with the extremely complicated web of decisions and consequences that a war involves - a trained military official does. | cmv |
The right for gay couples to be married should be considered a religious argument covered by the 1st Amendment. CMV | While this might help convince someone that their religious opposition to gay marriage should not dictate the law, it is legally not a good argument. Freedom of religion does not generally grant you the right to legal recognition of religious practices. The better argument is based on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | cmv |
The right for gay couples to be married should be considered a religious argument covered by the 1st Amendment. CMV | It's important to note that there is a difference between what a church does and what the State does concerning " marriage. " What the State does is a specific legal contract. Currently, that institution is gender - restricted. I think this is wrong, but it's also not what we're talking about. What the church does is, legally speaking, nothing. That's between you and your religion, and the State stays out of it. It's entirely possible to get married in the church sense to whatever you want. You could marry twelve men, a goat, and a photograph of Ken Hamm to one another. It just won't have any legal standing. Basically, religious marriages are already considered the way you want them to be. | cmv |
The right for gay couples to be married should be considered a religious argument covered by the 1st Amendment. CMV | The problem that marriage is not about religion in the US, but about tax and contract law. That is left up to the state by order of the 9th amendment. They do have the right to go to a church and get married in front of a minister, but that has no bearing on if the state will recognize it and give them the benefits that it gives straight couples. | cmv |
The right for gay couples to be married should be considered a religious argument covered by the 1st Amendment. CMV | Um... the first amendment has nothing to do with ideology. There are not " religious " ideologies and " nonreligious " ideologies, there are only ideologies. The first amendment is about ensuring that any church does not become a state body. Disallowing gay marriage is wrong for other reasons. But don't make the authoritarian mistake of trying to arbitrarily take away the right of 60 % of people to vote. | cmv |
Courses that are not useful for finding employment should not be taught in universities CMV ; Also bonus CMV about leftist bias in universities | I'm going to ignore all your left - wing / right - wing stuff, and cut back to this view of what universities ought to teach. You do realise that universities were not started in order to train people for jobs. They were meant to be institutes of learning and research, for the sake of learning and research. This whole idea that they should train people for jobs is a very recent one. You want vocational training? Go to a vocational training college. This problem, in my opinion, is the exact opposite of what you're proposing - universities shouldn't have to pander themselves off as expensive job - skilling places. | cmv |
Courses that are not useful for finding employment should not be taught in universities CMV ; Also bonus CMV about leftist bias in universities | I submit to you that the point of University is as much to prove your ability to independently study and work, think about complex concepts, gain communication / social skills, essay / report writing etc. So - called'transferable skills '. Getting a degree proves to an employer that you have these skills, regardless of whether that degree consisted of'the extreme left's talking points'or'Critical McCarthyist Film Analysis '. Thus, it is useful in gaining employment. | cmv |
Courses that are not useful for finding employment should not be taught in universities CMV ; Also bonus CMV about leftist bias in universities | Why do you think there are a lot of left leaning people in the universities? It's because when you start learning how society works and how people actually have it at the bottom of society your political views tend to go in that direction. There is no secret leftist society that controls the world, or the universities. If you think leftist ideology is all people learn in sociology, feminist studies and critical studies then I assume you've never taken such a course? Sociology in particular does a lot of good for society. They do research on a lot of things our society would be worse off without. Examples : suicide prevention, crime prevention, government policies of all kinds, surveillance, police brutality, domestic violence, family structures, the role of media in society, cross national comparisons and so on. You are talking about decades of research. And you want to throw all this out because... you think it's too leftist? I think that's unacceptable. | cmv |
I cannot take any feminist seriously. CMV | It gives those people that feel being a woman is disadvantaged or advantaged, but popular opinion says they are not a platform where they can feel empowered and have discourse with like - minded people. People are passionate about a lot of different things. If it bothers you, then do something about it or ignore it. I don't think I like people that watch Oprah, but I ignore most of them. | cmv |
Citizens United was correctly decided. CMV. | Money can disappear and yet our physical bodies, minds and ability to communicate still persists. We can exist without money. To equate money with speech is an egregious failure to interpret the constitution in a myopic manner. | cmv |
Citizens United was correctly decided. CMV. | Citizen's United allows domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to influence American law making. In other words, American employees can create PACs for foreign bodies. From there it's not difficult at all for foreign government's to influence American law making. That's the only argument I need. | cmv |
As disappointed as I am with current US government, its crime against humanity is nowhere near what Japanese did during WW2. CMV | I'm going to disagree with THEM by saying that even if the US was actually being as bad as the Japanese, it wouldn't invalidate what the Japanese did in WWII. One wrong doesn't disallow the criticizing of all wrongs - hypocrisy doesn't mean one is wrong, after all. I could smoke all day and still be right in telling others that they shouldn't smoke. | cmv |
As disappointed as I am with current US government, its crime against humanity is nowhere near what Japanese did during WW2. CMV | All of what you are describing is stuff that Japan did 60 years ago. Japan is no longer aggressive and narcissistic like it use to be during the WWII era. The country has moved on, and people who are against Japan for the reasons that you gave should move on as well. Now, Japan has more important things to worry about than " which countries are we more supreme to ". Believe it or not, the country is now very communitarian and modest about their society. | cmv |
I believe that morality is purely fabricated ( moral nihilism ) and that it is impossible to have moral absolutes. This scares me somewhat. CMV | Morality is a description of the absolute states of help or harm other entities are receiving. You don't need to cite an abstract to make it work out, like a " god. " Do you think the absolute amount of harm someone is perceiving at any time is not an absolute? Because that is an absurd notion, since its literally the definition of an absolute. | cmv |
I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for'class'or'income'based affirmative action. CMV. | Sorry but before I even post a response, I need to know what you mean by " race based affirmative action. " A lot of people have no clue what affirmative action actually is, so I end up offering up my whole argument and they just look at me clueless because we've accidentally been having two completely different discussions. So please, elaborate on what you believe affirmative action is and I will happily defend it based on that. | cmv |
I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for'class'or'income'based affirmative action. CMV. | We tried that. It didn't work. Lets take an example. There was for a long time a program to help poor, small, farmers. Black poor small farmers were systematically found ineligible for assistance when white poor small farmers in the same circumstance were found eligible. So the " colorblind " program actually functioned as a " whites only " program due to biases in the people administering it. Adding specific programs to help minority farmers brings them to the same level as the white farmers who are the monopoly recipients of aid from the " colorblind " programs thereby leveling the playing field to some extent. For a fun back - and - forth on how our colorblind systems didn't work check this snopes article investigating claims that the settlement was unfair. | cmv |
I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for'class'or'income'based affirmative action. CMV. | I thought the purpose of affirmative action was to bypass prejudice and diversify the workplace. If I am wrong, please enlighten. If the idea is to promote hiring equally ( or almost equally ) qualified applicants that happen to be a minority in that area, then it need not be restricted to race. One non - race based example is hiring women ( in areas such as computing science ). However, what does it mean to higher " poverty " applicants? If they have trouble getting access to education, doesn't that mean that they won't be as qualified? Do you have any examples of an employer interviewing an appropriately qualified person and then discriminating based on poverty? Instead, there should be programs geared towards poor people for education. And I think this is already the case. I agree that more scholarships, however, should be for poor people, rather than minorities. | cmv |
I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for'class'or'income'based affirmative action. CMV. | I am categorically against affirmative action in the workplace. Why would anyone want to hire someone who is underqualified just because they happen to be of a certain class, race, gender, etc? I know people who grew up without prejudice who BECAME prejudiced due to affirmative action. When they learned they didn't get a job because that employer had to fill quotas, that just inspired hate for that certain demographic. You're going to make poor people feel better with this new affirmative action but you're only going to inspire hate from those qualified for the position who just so happen to not qualify for " poor ". I will have to agree with your shift for affirmative action in education. While your ability to perform should be the first and only consideration in the workplace, how are you ever going to compete in the workplace if you don't have somewhere to learn how to perform? If anything, it would seem would could make the greatest difference in society by empasizing education for our low performers. I'd just be careful not to disincentivize those who are actually putting in the effort. | cmv |
I believe race based affirmative action should be phased out for'class'or'income'based affirmative action. CMV. | Minorities ( i. e. since I'm sure your referring to blacks ) are 3 times less likely to get accepted for office jobs by the same employer with the same qualifications as a white person. Many people don't comprehend the disadvantages many minorities face once they're outside the realm of college. Just my two cents. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | By killing one person to save to you've actually destroyed two people to save two. You destroyed your victim and you've destroyed yourself. That's not to say that it's not always worth the destruction of your'inner innocence'to save someone, but it's something to consider. If everyone followed a similar belief and acted on it, the world would be made of killers. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | Here's a challenging scenario, but it might make you reconsider the strict formulation of your rule : Would you kill your mother / wife / husband / child to save Bashar al - Assad and Michael Adebolajo? The first is the war - criminal president of Syria who has been murdering many of his own citizens these past few years, and the second is the unrepentant murderer of a British soldier killed a few days ago. If you wouldn't, then I think that you're not attached to the strict formulation of your view, but rather something more specific. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | For me personally, I believe it would be more difficult to deal psychologically with the knowledge that I killed somebody than it would be to deal with the knowledge that my inaction allowed one person to die. ( only one person and not two because that is the net increase in death ) Philosophically I believe circumstances, coincidence, fate, time and what - have - you will eventually kill every person on earth. I prefer to live with the knowledge that I never expedited that process. I can conceive of a scenario where I may sacrifice my own life for the " greater good " ( fighting against a corrupt government, as in the American Revolution, for example ) But my own life is really the only one I am justified in sacrificing. I believe claiming ownership over another person's life is worse than allowing one person to die due to unfortunate circumstances. Yes, by necessity you are claiming ownership over another person's life if you choose to kill them. I believe ownership of your life is a most basic human right. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | Under the assumption you made, logically you should be working 24 / 7 in order to save people's lives. You should be completely willing to sacrifice a life ( your own ) in order to help other people live. As ( I assume ) a fairly well off person in a first world country, you should be able to contribute enough resources to save / help tens, if not hundreds of people in the third world. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | So let's you're a doctor and two people need organs to live. One guy walks in for a check up and has perfect health. Would it be okay to kill him to get organs for the two other people? | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | OP's point of view is on The Trolley problem, of which there are many variants. The article on wikipedia discusses the ethics of either position ( i. e. kill 1 person to save 5 or don'thing and let 5 die ). Although this post might violate Rule # 1 I thought OP would appreciate the insight. Most interesting to me is the variation in which the person who must die is the person's mother. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | Actually how does intentionally acting out of ignorance absolve you of responsibility? Also do you think this situation models anything in life? I mean is the whole V a sterile thought experiment in a bottle or do you think it has some real world implication, and if so what? There is almost no information in your hypothetical that would allow for a meaningful decision. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | If you haven't already, I would recommend watching the movie : Never Let Me Go ( there is also a book ). Its a depressing story set in a dystopian world, that deals with a similar issue as you are suggesting. Interfering with an innocent person's life is cruel and obstructing a life which did not want to be destroyed. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | Would you brutally kill one person to save two from a painless death? Would you kill a child to save two grandparents? Sure, all equal, less deaths are better, but death itself isn't the only concern, but also how one dies. I bet it also depends on how you are able to kill them. Do you have to personally choke the life out of them? Or stab them with a dull knife? Will they fight back? All of these would make doing the act very difficult for more non - psychopaths. | cmv |
I would kill 1 person to save 2. CMV | At a very basic level, consider that this means that the one person will kill you to save themselves. And be quite justified in doing so as they are killing in self defense. To even begin to be logically consistent and morally correct you would have to also be willing to sacrifice yourself to save two people. If you aren't then you are just playing god. | cmv |
I think that not voting for either candidate in a presidential election simply because you disagree / dislike both of their views is absurd. CMV | Both Obama and Romney were going to continue to pursue military actions resulting in us killing civilians, including children, overseas. I find this to be immoral and would not vote for anyone wishing to pursue it. I'm not grading on a curve here. At some point you have to draw a line. That is just wrong and I will not sign my name to it by voting for its pursuer. | cmv |
I think that not voting for either candidate in a presidential election simply because you disagree / dislike both of their views is absurd. CMV | What you are basically arguing for is a perpetuation of the two party system. I believe it was George Washington who warned of this is his departing letter from the office of presidency ( too lazy to find a source as this also might not be true ). A two party system can result in a power hold over the populace, especially with our modern social climate, which can be manipulated to create a system of government resistant to significant change / improvement. Voting for a democratic or republican candidate only for the sake of voting pretty ridiculous to me. If you don't agree with either, why should you compromise yourself by pledging support to either candidate? With the electoral college it wouldn't even make sense to vote for a tertiary party as the states delegates are capable of completely disregarding the public's will as demonstrated in the vote ( look at last year's democratic primaries ). If he doesn't want to vote, that is just as much as his freedom as it is yours to vote. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.