summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | The separation of church and state is to protect churches from the state : not the other way around. It was a response to the persecution and rampant abuse of power by the Anglican church. The law specifically states that Congress shall make no law towards the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Says nothing about not letting churches ask for tax exemption. | cmv |
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | Your 4th point is exactly why religious groups should be tax - exempt. When a group doesn't pay taxes they don't get as much influence in the political system. ( nor should they because the money being collected / spent is not theirs. ) The fact the religious organizations end up having influence anyway is not a problem with the law but rather its enforcement. I believe churches should be required to follow your 1st and 2nd point because they are in fact nonprofits. | cmv |
I believe that all religious institutions in the USA should have their non - profit status revoked and required to pay taxes. CMV | Just really quickly I want you to imagine what would've happened to Mosques in the immediate aftermath of 9 / 11. Keep in mind this would be in the Bush years, we already have confirmation that the IRS is not above applying excessive scrutiny to political opponents, and it is fully legal to throw someone in jail for tax evasion. Really quickly meditate on how things might've played out if the government had been allowed to meddle in the affairs of churches. | cmv |
I firmly believe that " organized society " in the form of a central government is the root of the majority, if not all, of people - created problems ( racism, crime, sexism, terrorism, etc. ) CMV | You're completely wrong in your understanding of how pre - Neolithic clan / tribal societies worked. Our best evidence ( from studying more modern tribal societies ) suggests that these societies were EXTREMELY closely knit at the clan level, and in effect very discriminatory toward outsiders. It was in effect a " super - discrimination " that cut across all lines of race, sex, whatever, and basically meant that if you didn't grow up with them from birth, you hated them and wanted them to die. Not only that, you see this in the great apes as well. In fact, it was government which created a measure of control over larger populations, allowing these impulses to be suppressed in favor of cooperation with people you didn't know. | cmv |
I think that America's domestic ( and foreign ) policy over the last decade will be viewed by history as a modern Red Scare. CMV | Well terrorism is a tactic, not an ethos, so i assume you're referring to the threat of radical Islam. It won't be the same, part of the scare of communism was that they infiltrated our gov, but we know an Al - Qaeda won't do that. Also, I would recommend looking into homegrown terrorism, don't forget 7 / 7 was perpetrated by British born terrorists. | cmv |
I think that America's domestic ( and foreign ) policy over the last decade will be viewed by history as a modern Red Scare. CMV | Well terrorism is a tactic, not an ethos, so i assume you're referring to the threat of radical Islam. It won't be the same, part of the scare of communism was that they infiltrated our gov, but we know an Al - Qaeda won't do that. Also, I would recommend looking into homegrown terrorism, don't forget 7 / 7 was perpetrated by British born terrorists. | cmv |
I believe that if you are campaigning for equal rights for homosexuals, you should also be campaigning for equal rights for zoophiles, polygamists, necrophiles, and even pedophiles to some extent. CMV. | The short and simple answer is consent. Animals can't give consent and children cannot give consent. Just like you cannot marry a toaster. It cannot give consent. Two adult males or two adult females or any other combination can give legal binding consent. | cmv |
I believe that if you are campaigning for equal rights for homosexuals, you should also be campaigning for equal rights for zoophiles, polygamists, necrophiles, and even pedophiles to some extent. CMV. | You are equating sexual preference to legal marriage. While these two things often go hand in hand, they are not equal. There is plenty of sex without marriage and plenty of marriage without sex. | cmv |
I believe the controversy over this NSA scandal is a bit over the top. CMV. | I could write out a big, long explanation. Or I can link to a Redditor who lives in an " Arab Spring " country and who explains firsthand what the big deal is. Nothing I could say would add anything to that. | cmv |
I believe the controversy over this NSA scandal is a bit over the top. CMV. | It doesn't matter if the program successfully eradicated terrorism from the country, it still is wrong because it violates our right to privacy. If you want a country where the government tracks everything you do in order to avoid terrorism, I'm sure North Korea will be happy to have you. Obama is still at fault, because he continued the program. He's been president for over 4 years now. Anything that he has direct control over, like this, can now be fully blamed on him. | cmv |
I think the two party system has killed American politics. CMV | It's not the two party system, that's just a symptom of the problem. It's the result of the winner - take - all system we have. That's the problem, and it's what resulted in the two party system we have. If we change to some other voting scheme, smaller parties have a better chance at getting represented. However I more or less agree with the rest of what you said. | cmv |
I think the two party system has killed American politics. CMV | Every session congress passes numerous pieces of legislation with bipartisan majorities, shaped through genuine democratic review and study, and you just don't hear about it. I think far too many people fail to realize how little party politics actually matters for the governing of the state. On systemic issues like abortion, yes the party political divides will be real and exist, but it's not like the divide between the two parties has prevented you from receiving most basic government services. Afterall, your street outside is paved, right? | cmv |
I think the two party system has killed American politics. CMV | The US has more or less had a two party system since 1792 with Hamilton's Federalist Party and Jefferson's Republican party. There have been a few odd elections here and there, but for the most part there have always been 2 major parties since then. So unless you're saying American politics died 3 years after Washington was inaugurated, I think you're going to have to make a more specific argument. | cmv |
I think the two party system has killed American politics. CMV | We've had a 2 party system since adams. Did american politics die in 1796? If you look historically you'll see that the Us vs. Them mentality has been there since close to day one. There are some ups and some downs where the groups are more peaceful or more hostile but today is pretty much the status quo for the system. | cmv |
I think any Libertarian who isn't an anarchist is a hypocrite. CMV | Every ideology should be tempered by pragmatism. Radical changes to governments historically don't have the consequences that theorists hoped for. Accordingly, a person who believes in the Non - Aggression Principle may reasonably decide that we should start by reducing the circumstances under which we initiate force and see how that goes before figuring out how / whether to reduce those circumstances further. It would be reasonable, for instance, to decriminalize marijuana, give it a few years, and then figure out whether or not to decriminalize cocaine. I hope decriminalization will work well, but I don't presume to know for sure. An example of the difference between Anarchists and Libertarians is that a Libertarian believes that policing theft has to be a government function whereas Anarchists believe it does not. Neither view is hypocritical - it is a factual question, and one to which we don't yet have the answer. If we can cut down the government while building up institutions capable of policing without the government, we may get closer to finding out - but right now, we just don't have the evidence we need to know. | cmv |
I think any Libertarian who isn't an anarchist is a hypocrite. CMV | One of the main axiom's of this is the Non Aggression Principle ( NAP ), meaning that the initiation of force is never justified however retaliatory force is justified. - By this logic all men and women should be able to own personal nuclear warheads. Look if you want to examine it in the literal sense of the word, yes we're hypocrites because we don't believe that any single rule can be applied 100 % of the time. The more accurate word though might be'pragmatists '. We can't have everyone owning personal nuclear warheads, nor can we allow people to excessively pollute the land they occupy ( even if it doesn't spread over their property line ). As great as it is to think that any one rule can be applied to every scenario, no philosophy is perfect. If we did come up with a rule that applied 100 % of the time with no problems it would be infinitely long, as there are infinite special situations which no rule could possibly account for. | cmv |
CMV : I believe the welfare state ( ala : Scandinavian nations ) is inherently doomed for failure in the long run. | You are making very long - term predictions based on very short - term observations. Here in Denmark, for instance, 2nd. and 3rd generation immigrants are getting educated, going to high - school and university just as Danes are, and there is no reason to assume that this process won't continue as new populations are integrated / assimilated. You're also making a huge leap in step 3 - why would lowering benefits force an uneducated workforce into a market that requires education? Wouldn't the education of said workforce be a better solution, and more in keeping with the needs of both the state ( which needs educated workers ) and the population ( which needs jobs and workers )? | cmv |
CMV : I believe the welfare state ( ala : Scandinavian nations ) is inherently doomed for failure in the long run. | Over the long term, low fertility rates will theoretically make welfare doomed for failure. But over the long term, low fertility rates will also theoretically make the population zero. It's just silly to make decisions based on broad future predictions like this. ( I also question your assumption that there are lots of people who would work, but don't bother because they can get welfare. ) | cmv |
I believe vegans are an insult to the human evolution. CMV | I for one support veganism in a world that may some day may find itself on the brink of massive food shortages. If you are a lover of meat you should support vegans based partly on the fact that there will be more meat for yourself to consume ; one less person consuming the meat that you could be enjoying yourself. Secondly, in the case of a world food shortage I'd recommend keeping as many vegan friends as close as possible, for if humanity, in it's darkest time, must inevitably turn to cannibalism, I'd assume the grass - fed organic humans would taste best ; succulent, less - gamey and fewer preservatives, mmmmm! | cmv |
I believe vegans are an insult to the human evolution. CMV | This is an appeal to nature fallacy. How, exactly, does someone " insult " evolution, anyways? The same process that gave us the ability to eat meat also gave us our intellect, and with it our empathy. How is it wrong, then, for some people to choose one over the other. Most vegans have chosen that path as a result of their empathy for animals, not a desire to give evolution the middle finger. ( The ones that are claiming veganism is healthier, that I have no patience nor understanding for. ) Plenty of vegans get by just fine without any particular cravings for meat, and those that don't generally just need some supplement tweaks. You might as well chastise those who use birth control for insulting evolution by subverting the desire for sex and reproduction. | cmv |
I believe vegans are an insult to the human evolution. CMV | It is our right to consume whatever we wish to consume. We have evolved to be critical thinkers. We don't mindlessly devour what is put in front of us like a dog. If a person uses their highly evolved brain to decide that a vegan diet would be more beneficial, then we are demonstrating the best thing evolution gave to the human species. Not the freedom to eat meat, but the freedom to think without relying completely on instinct. Also, " the human evolution " does not have feelings ; therefore it cannot be insulted. And lastly, remember that every vegan chooses their lifestyle for a different reason. It is not fair to judge them for making a personal choice especially when we don't know the full extent as to why they chose it. | cmv |
Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime. CMV. | Those of us who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. People should be able to say whatever they want, but deniers actually want to forget it. Changing history should be illegal. | cmv |
Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime. CMV. | Even in the United States, we ban incitement to riot. The point is, that if your speech can be reasonably expected to cause imminent harm to others ( e. g. the infamous falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater... which is a precedent that people really don't understand, but whatever ), then it can be banned. In the United States, holocaust denial is unlikely to do this, and almost certainly shouldn't be banned. In some European countries, where there's a long history of this sort of thing, it very likely can. In the U. S., we're not qualified to judge whether this sort of thing should be considered incitement to violence in, say, Germany... only they are. Every culture bans some speech ( legally defined " obscenity ", for example ). The question is where to draw the line. I'm not overly concerned either in this case, because holocaust deniers have exactly zero useful points to make. The principle and unintended consequences do have to be considered. But if a society has considered those principles and unintended consequences, and the speech they are banning has no redeeming qualities, more power to them. | cmv |
Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime. CMV. | Why would an act that does not cause physical harm to a persons body or property be a crime? If it was a crime, what is the proportional punishment? I think it's a stupid, illogical, and unethical position to support using violence against people for voicing their opinions, no matter how stupid they might be. | cmv |
I think people complain too much about their governments, and have overly high expectations of them. CMV | If the constant criticism / whining ever stopped, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before complacency and rot starts to set in? It seems to me that however unaesthetic the whining actually is, it accomplishes an absolutely essential role ; namely keeping the government accountable. Accountability via exposure in the media is one of the fundamental mechanisms of free speech. Perhaps people should mitigate their expectations, but I find it hard to recommend that they should ever stop whining. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | People assume that democracy gives you a say in how things are run. That's not true, democracy only gives you a vote. It doesn't offer any guarantees about who you can choose to vote for, most democracies have limited realistic voting possibilities. It doesn't offer any granularity of options, you get one choice and that choice applies to everything. It doesn't even offer direct representation, there are various ways that the people in power don't reflect the voting. So I agree, its overrated, but its also the best we have. It could be improved, but there's no active political system I'd rather live under. Humans are tribal, territorial animals, and the system we use to choose leaders reflects that. To have a more enlightened system, we need to be more enlightened people. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | People sometimes say that democracy is the worst and only option that works. I mean, everyone knows the system is flawed but it would be difficult to think of how it could be better without regression or sacrificing important ideals such as freedom of speech. Are you advocating Chinese socialism over democracy? | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner. It's a antiquated system of oppression whereby the 51 % can initiate any type of violence against the 49 %. Slavery, the subjugation of women, Hitler coming into power, the election of many of the worst tyrants in history ; all a result of the democratic process. Democracy is based on the idea that people can delegate rights they don't have when grouped in large numbers. It's both not logical and unethical. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | Your basic premise is that democracy isn't a useful type of government but then you pick the most extreme examples to illustrate your point. Compare Finland to North Korea and you'll get a different result. You also seem to be under the assumption that the seemingly huge economic growth in China means that the people are directly reaping the rewards but you hear countless stories about workers being mistreated and living in absolute poverty. Your argument also seems to ignore personal liberty and freedom of speech, two concepts that can't flourish under an oppressive dictatorship. Are you arguing that democracy isn't always the best answer or that it is a useless form of government? | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | The problem is the way you judge the quality of a government : economic growth. It's true that ( some ) autoritarian regimes are better at producing economic growth than democracies, but to say that you'd rather live in China seems ludicrous to me. China has huge economic growth, yes, but the value of life is rather low there, freedom of expression / speech is virtually nonexistant, and suicide rates are some of the highest in the world. Same for Stalin by the way : Yes there was quite some ( military ) growth, but there were also huge famines, the risk of being trown into a goelag and all that other nice stuff. Compare that to countries like Sweden, which doesn't have such enormous economic or military growth ( That's why you almost never hear of it ), but it's proven to be one of the happiest on the planet. Isn't citizen happiness more important than economic growth? Another problem is that the autocratic leader might be a benevolent despot, but the next one will usually be consumed by power. As an example i quote ancient Rome : Octavian was one of the best thing to ever happen to Rome, but Tiberius was a weak leader, Caligula was so crasy he made his horse a senator and Nero, well, Nero was Nero. I'll end this wall of text by saying that democracy does indeed have some problems, but in the words of Churchill ( forgive me for not checking this quote ) : " Democracy is the LEAST BAD system of government. " | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | This Churchill quote sums it all up : " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. " Your arguments make sense except you haven't talked about standard of living being greater in most democratic countries, which for me is really how you measure a system of government. I've been to China, trust me you don't want to live in China. Haven't been to communist Russia but I feel like its the same story. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | While you may have good points, using Nigeria is an extremely poor examples of democracy. Nigeria up until the late 1990's was more of a military dictatorship than anything ; an illiberal democracy at best ( see 1st, 2nd, and 3rd " republics " ). Their constitution wasn't even written until 1999 so its kind if hard to compare China's 70 something year old communist government to Nigeria's 14 year old government. Sorry, I guess this doesnt really help to change your view. I just thought Nigeria was kind of an unfair / manipulative example. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | If you look at the privileges the US afforded itself in the constitution you start to wonder why a government would give itself such powers. For instance the government gave itself the ability to put its people in debt. That seems wrong to me. It also gave itself the ability to take its people to war, that seems wrong to me. It also gave itself sole arbitration over justice, that seems to create natural conflicts of interest. If you're feeling this way presently, you may want to re - visit the constitution and observe it from the, " what right do these people have to allow themselves to do anything " perspective and I think you will find it quite distasteful. To the matter of what is the best type of government, why not try none? No one's really tried it on the large scale... maybe it would work. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | Simply put, democracy is the most effective way to put power in the hands of the people. Yes, some people are corrupt, and yes, those people often manipulate their way to the top of government. However, the ability to check corruption is a hallmark of an EFFECTIVE democracy. | cmv |
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV. | You could see a functioning democracy as trading forward mobility in the development of a nation for the security of not falling prey to a disastrous dictatorship ( such as in North Korea or Iraq ). If your country is already in a good state, democracy ensures that it will stay that way for a long time. But if your country is already in a bad state, democracy ( if it even establishes properly ) will only cause the problems it has to persist indefinitely, since nobody has the power to fight them to any real degree. | cmv |
I believe that every country is entitled to nuclear weaponry. CMV | There countries whose governments are ruled by religions which 1 ) believe the end of the world is a good thing. 2 ) believe that dying in the name of their God results in rewards. You want to give these people the means to end the world? | cmv |
I believe that every country is entitled to nuclear weaponry. CMV | Nuclear weaponry, and MAD, have the effect of preventing invasion ( and subsequently guaranteeing autonomy ) for the nation which possesses them. This can be a good thing if it prevents an all - out war between two military super - powers like the USA and the USSR. But it could also be a bad thing if it prevents the overthrow of an oppressive and tyrannical government. If the Confederate States of America had nuclear weapons, then the civil war would have never happened, and the CSA would have remained a separate country, with slavery built into its constitution. I'm sure you can think of many other repressive governments that shouldn't have this kind of autonomy. The threat of invasion adds a separate source of pressure ( aside from internal politics ) to governments to dissuade them from being too oppressive. | cmv |
I believe that every country is entitled to nuclear weaponry. CMV | Having nuclear weapons carries a lot of responsibility, such as securing them and establishing a good protocol for arming and launch if need be. If you gave nuclear weapons to every country, especially failed states such as Somalia, you dramatically increase the risk that protocol will not be followed and an accidental launch will occur, or that one of the warheads will be stolen. Also, most recent conflicts have been intranational, not international. How will nuclear weapons prevent those those conflicts? Won't they result in rulers using them on their own people in order to maintain power? Consider how the Libyan war would have proceeded if Ghadaffi had the bomb. | cmv |
I believe that every country is entitled to nuclear weaponry. CMV | If your argument boils down to " nuclear weapons as a deterrence for using nuclear weapons ", doesn't the fact that the ( actually, 9 ) countries with nuclear weapons now don't actually use them already? With the understanding that nuclear war would be a very, very bad thing, is further deterrence actually needed? Would proliferation somehow help reduce nuclear weapon usage below 0? | cmv |
[ US ] I think the people should elect the President's cabinet. | There is a pretty different between the best person for the job then someone that will actually be elected to the position. People that are elected to positions are much more likely to be people that may be good at presenting their ideas but when it comes down to it might not be the best candidate. The people can make many decisions but especially when their are 14 people to vote on, there is no way the average voter would have the ability to make an informed choice about the candidate. | cmv |
[ US ] I think the people should elect the President's cabinet. | The US is a representative democracy. We elect the individuals to make decisions for us and they go and vote. We don't even elect the President, we elect the electors in the Electoral College and they go vote. Now in order to make it into the President's cabinet the people nominated must go through a confirmation process within the Senate. If you want to have a Presiden's nomination not be accepted you need to lobby your senators and tell them not to vote for her / him. So we as voters, do influence who is on the cabinent. That all being said, it would do very little anyway, since the cabinet members have no power over the President. Unless your proposing a 4th branch of government. With as big of problems the President has working with Congress and all the political deadlock and time wasted I simply don't see how adding another fighter in the ring would help. Too many cooks in the kitchen. | cmv |
[ US ] I think the people should elect the President's cabinet. | If the President does not have ultimate authority to decide who runs executive agencies, she's not really the President anymore. What you're really proposing is to abolish the presidency, and give executive powers collectively to the Cabinet. But this would be horrible, because Cabinet members would have to do what's best for the public perception of their individual department. For instance, the Attorney General would be highly incentivized not to prosecute any controversial cases ; she can't rely on her good record in other areas, because the prosecution of crimes is the only area she's responsible for. | cmv |
I think that Churches should maintain their tax - exempt status. CMV. | Churches are exempt because they're non profit and serve a public purpose. If you deny them exempt status, you're treating them differently than other non profits. That would be religious discrimination. I'm fine with the government taking away perks that are only available to churches. However, if they're going to tax churches, they better take a closer look at all non profits. Including atheist non profits. | cmv |
I think that Churches should maintain their tax - exempt status. CMV. | Taxing churches is not in violation of separation of church and state, this only refers to the separation of churches in lawmaking, in that we cannot favor a single church. Just my opinion. I also think that churches cannot merely earn their tax exempt status from being charitable. Bill Gates has donated at least 28 billion to charity, Source. Should he be tax exempt? I am sure that can easily contend with any contributions to the poor that a church could make in a soup kitchen, and he pays taxes just like anyone else. What you call a small revenue bump has been recognized as around 71 billion dollars, how is that in any way a small bump? I am on my phone, so I will leave it at that. Just to be clear, I also can understand your point of view as well. May I ask if you are religious? | cmv |
I think veganism / vegetarianism is morally superior to being carnivorous. CMV | I went vegetarian at age 20 to see what it was like. I stuck with it not because of any sort of moral obligation I feel towards animals, but rather because I don't consume nearly as many calories and actually feel more full during the day than when I ate meat. The way I see it, whether or not I myself am a vegetarian animals will be killed for food. It sucks because they're cute but what you have to remember is that animals don't sit around contemplating their inevitable death. A cow doesn't care if it lives to age 4 or 40, because it doesn't sit around reflecting its mortality. However animals do understand pain, so if you want to eat meat, and you know the animals were given a comfortable life, there's no need to feel guilty. | cmv |
I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV | Rags to riches stories exist but are incredibly unlikely. If I tell 1000 people to compete for one chance at wealth, do the 999 that failed have any real choice? They could have tried harder, but there is no gurantee that any individual would have made it. What if there was one king and 7 billion serfs on earth? Even in a strict meritocracy this system is set up so that most people will live in poverty. Besides, you don't take into account luck. Reember that time you died horribly in an accident? Oh wait, that was someone else. Good luck for you, bad luck for them. | cmv |
I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV | I don't believe in free will. I'm a hard determinist. Let me ask you a question : What is'you '? What is your mind? What is this thing that is perceiving and making decisions? If the answer to the above is " my brain ", then how can the chemical reactions in the brain create the ability to choose? If a ball can't choose to not roll down a hill, then what can choose things? | cmv |
I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV | It's easy to talk about choice when you're young because none have really been made. Failure and real stakes are a part of choice, as well as unforeseen consequences, like you turning on.. you. Try fasting for three days and you'll see how deep your choices and convictions and control really run. You won't impress yourself, neither when fasting or in life. | cmv |
I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV | Choice without power is meaningless. I can choose all kinds of things, but unless I have a path to make them happen, they won't. Let's look at your thinking in an extreme case. Say you are a child born in a Nazi death camp. Can you choose to survive? You can choose to be determined and clever and try your hardest, but you can be ended at any moment. Sometimes you just lose the lottery. So clearly outside influences can make or break a person. | cmv |
I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV | Simply being born in an impoverished area or a third world country cause you to be malnourished and unhealthy. Those obviously directly affect your fate and are completely based on circumstance. Also, you will probably be in poverty without any access to the first world. No chance for a rags to riches story there. | cmv |
I believe gerrymandering is one of the most destructive aspects of our electoral system, and should be illegal. CMV. | How about this point - most of the African - American members of congress today are elected via gerrymandered districts. Not crazily shaped ones necessarily, but districts which are intended to be " minority - majority ". If these did not exist it is entirely possible that large minority populations could be divided between many different districts and hence not gain any representation at all. | cmv |
I believe gerrymandering is one of the most destructive aspects of our electoral system, and should be illegal. CMV. | Imagine you have a minority population who want to elect a representative. If they are split over a large area their votes will likely be in different electorates and they will never get enough votes to elect a representative they want. If however gerrymandering was used to group them together they would likely get their representative elected. This is a positive swing on gerrymandering where it allows minorities representation ( i. e. Maori electorates in NZ, sort of ) The way gerrymandering is used in the US is the same as for all first past the post ( FPtP ) electoral systems and it gets abused. In other systems like MMP it doesn't have such a large effect. So the problem with gerrymandering is more the electoral systems fault than the intrinsic badness of gerrymandering. | cmv |
I believe gerrymandering is one of the most destructive aspects of our electoral system, and should be illegal. CMV. | Is the purpose of elected officials to accurately represent GROUPS or accurately represent AREAS? If you answer geographic areas, then districts should be redrawn to be completely equal in size and shape. Too bad if the population in rural California ( maybe 5 % of total ) gets to decide policies for the other 95 % of the state. If you answer cultural / ethnic / religious groups, then districts should be redrawn to reflect those groupings, though the geographic shape of the districts will be bizarre. The second option is better. | cmv |
I believe our country would be better off without career politicians. CMV. | Politicians already do tend to be lawyers or busniness men. For example, Obama is a lawyer and he was also a professor at the University of Chicago Law school, so there you have a lawyer / teacher. Romney was a the CEO of Bane Capital so there you have a business man. Many are also veterans, such as John Kerry and John McCain. It is pretty important for politicians to be lawyers, or at least understand the law, because they write it. Which is why a lot of them have law degrees. | cmv |
I believe our country would be better off without career politicians. CMV. | So here's part of my response : What do you think being a politician entails? Because its not always about knowing a particular viewpoint. Being a politician not only means being able to write critical laws, but it also means being able to get support from different sides of the aisle, knowing how to talk to people, knowing how to counter balance many different viewpoints, etc. And that's not even going into how to work and manage the bureaucratic systems that often form 90 % of the government but the public rarely hears about them because they're not front line. Career politicians suck, yes, but they're the ones who know how to handle this. They're the ones who know how to push laws that are unpopular with one side or another. | cmv |
The Republican Party hasn't contributed anything positive to American politics in the last ten years. CMV | Aside from his foreign policies, Bush was fairly progressive as far as Republican presidents go. He passed a massive expansion of Medicare with Medicare Part D. Whatever you may think about NCLB testing requirements, it still greatly increased public school funding for schools that need it the most. Plus a lot of aid to Africa. And though most redditors would disagree I would say TARP was essential in saving the economy and ended up being profitable for the US government. The US had already let Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. die, and the results were disastrous. | cmv |
I'm willing to let the government see my emails, listen to my phone calls, etc. if it improves our nation's security, CMV | You are comfortable with allowing the Goverment putting a system in place that allows them near absolute power over their people? A system which, once in place and deeply rooted and accepted in our society, would be impossible to wrestle away? There has to be a point where " it's for our safety " ends... where would you say that point is? For example, placing an armed soldier on your property at all times who logs when you come and go from the house. You've got nothing to hide, right? What would be wrong with this scenario, but not wrong with the current scenario? How about the government implanting a chip which tracks you at all times via GPS. YOU'RE not doing anything wrong, so whats the harm? Is that right? | cmv |
I'm willing to let the government see my emails, listen to my phone calls, etc. if it improves our nation's security, CMV | Think of every mad, bloody, tyrannical king or emperor or dictator, think of every oppressive regime throughout history. Literally rivers of blood spilled because power corrupts. I oppose the government abusing my privacy, and not because it is ineffective, or because it is too expensive, or because there is something I don't want them to know. It is because it is the first step towards a totalitarian regime, and every single one of them, no matter how idealistic at conception, was corrupted at one point or another, and began, at the very best, to violently silence critics, opposition and mutinies, and performing genocides at the worst. Even there are horrible crimes going because some leader has too much power and nobody dares to speak up, lest he be killed. | cmv |
I'm willing to let the government see my emails, listen to my phone calls, etc. if it improves our nation's security, CMV | Government might not always use spying as a way of defending national security. Imagine if the government, under control of a certain party or regime, institutes intensive spying methods and uses them to combat terrorism and crime. Then, another party or regime assumes power, either through a democratic process or a violent coup d'etat. This new group is willing to use those existing spying techniques to gather information on political opponents, the press and others. Soon, they start rounding up those they watch and accuse them of crimes such as treason or planning a rebellion. Or maybe they don't charge them at all, because they will find out who is complaining about their treatment from the communications they monitor. If you have never read " Nineteen Eighty Four " by Orwell, I encourage you to do so. It is a glimpse into a fictional government which used constant surveillance of its citizens, with one of the benefits purported to be the capture of spies from other nations and rebels. | cmv |
I'm willing to let the government see my emails, listen to my phone calls, etc. if it improves our nation's security, CMV | Perhaps from outside the US, but I did not see the patriot act stop the Boston bombings, which were broadcast on national news, or any of the numerous nationally known school shootings, which I would consider important enough to deal with in this country. Also, that act was created in response to 9 / 11 if I remember correctly, which was one single terrorist attack, despite it being horrible. We therefore have no control to test the theory that the act stopped many terrorist acts except the time before 9 / 11, and although I am not that old, I cannot remember any attacks before 9 / 11 either. | cmv |
I believe that the second you start using the internet, you basically give up your right to any privacy. CMV. | Often times you give companies permission to your data, because you want to use their services. You know those long " terms & conditions " that you never read? It usually states in there what they're going to do with the account you've created to use their website and services. Also there are persons who try to forcefully take information from unwilling parties ( hackers or whatever you wanna call em ) and in most cases this is illegal! To sum it up internet is not private because you give them permission to access your data, otherwise it is illegal to do so. | cmv |
I think feminism is almost entirely based on lies, fallacies, and first world problems. CMV | American feminism is very much related to other fields like sociology, media studies, psychology, literature... You are dismissing these subtle critiques as " first world problems ". Can you refute the claims of the Bechdel test? Or do you think those facts are not a problem? | cmv |
I think corporations should be democratic. CMV | The advantage to being an employee instead of an owner is you are not liable if the company fails, which most will at some point. Employees just move on to a new job. The owners of the company can be on the hook for outstanding debt. Probably most people don't want that kind of risk in their lives, which is why they work for someone else rather than start their own business. | cmv |
Those who collect disability for mental retardation shouldn't be allowed to vote. CMV | We don't allow people to vote because we're trying to figure out the best candidate ; we allow people to vote because people have the right to have input into who governs them. If a mentally challenged person likes a certain candidate, they have a right to be heard, because they will be governed by the winner. Most fit candidate is a secondary concern. | cmv |
I don't believe having children is something that should be encouraged at an institutional level. CMV. | All developed countries have birth rates below the replacement rate. In fact, many developed countries have a problem with underpopulation. In the countries where overpopulation is a problem, having children is not encouraged at an institutional level. | cmv |
I don't believe having children is something that should be encouraged at an institutional level. CMV. | Having a demographic bust is always a problem. Look at Japan and a lot of Eastern European countries - they're not having enough children to support the older population, so those countries are trying very hard to increase birth rates. Also, China is about to face a demographic bust soon due to its one - child policy that is projected to slow its GDP growth. | cmv |
I believe America needs to ban corporal punishment in all states in schools and homes. CMV | I don't know of any school system in the U. S. that enforces corporal punishment, I have never looked into though. I certainly don't want the government tellingme what I should or should not do in my own home with regard to raising my children. Haven't we learned enough through recent events that the government has overstepped it's bounds and is already encroaching to far into our personal lives. I personally don't believe in spanking, I've raised two sons to adulthood without using it. But that isn't the governments business. | cmv |
I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised. CMV | Roofies and similar drugs are used not for recreation but for malicious intent. Rohypnol and the like are kept illegal because of the serious harm that they can be put to use for, with no realistic ( to my knowledge ) medical or recreational use. Why unban those? | cmv |
I think all laws not restricting violence, trespassing, and theft should be abolished. CMV. | Have you heard of the tragedy of the commons? With no central control, all renewable resources would be exploited into oblivion as quickly as possible. Goodbye fisheries, forestry, and parks. What would stop a mine from opening next to a city, and dumping its tailings upstream from its water supply, or factories from clouding it in smog? With no zoning laws, how would you feel if a nightclub opened next to your house and played loud music all night? After all, a place to drink within walking distance of many houses would be very desirable when one of the few laws remaining is DUI. I assume that building codes and other regulatory rules ( such as government mandated crash safety ratings on vehicles ) would also be abolished. If you were shopping for a new home, how could you tell that the house is actually good to live in ( or that the food you buy is safe, or your car will protect you in a crash )? | cmv |
Globalization overall has effected our world negatively, CMV | Globalization has allowed for unheralded economic development worldwide. My favorite video about this is the Milton Friedman Lesson of the Pencil. It truly captures the magic of what the market does and how it is able to deliver goods at incredibly cheap prices to consumers like you and me. The blending of cultures and the increased development worldwide far outweighs any negatives of globalization. | cmv |
Globalization overall has effected our world negatively, CMV | I think it would be impossible to weigh the positive effects against the negative effects since every single person would put different weight to each aspect. However, in the long run I believe the most important thing for humanity is the free sharing of information. Only by actually talking with people from different cultures do we have a chance to battle prejudice and also to ignite change. That is also the way to engage every human being in finding what they really want to do / enjoy / care about so they can help help in making that specific aspect of humanity / civilization / technology better, together forming a more awesome tomorrow. | cmv |
Globalization overall has effected our world negatively, CMV | Transnationals - I'm assuming that you are referring to corporations. This is just a loaded word that people throw around when they want to bash western economies. Child Labour - I don't want children working in factories but if the choice of a child is between working in a factory and starving then it would make sense to work. Child Labour was eliminated because of increased economic productivity not because of laws. Child labour and minimum wage laws have also prevented western kids from entering the work force and attaining real world skills at a young age. AIDS and other infectious diseases - Modern medicine is saving hundreds of thousands of lives all over the third world. I'm not sure what you are talking about with obesity and terrorist attacks. I would attribute those to child abuse and religious fundamentalism combined with us foreign policy. You never define globalization so I'm not sure if you mean global capitalism or international relations in general. | cmv |
I'm gay and I think the'T'( transgender ) shouldn't be associated with the LGBT community. CMV. | Sexual orientation and gender identity are two separate things. That said, some transgender are gay. A male who transitions to female, who is sexually attracted to women, is a lesbian. A female who transitions to male, who is attracted to men, is gay. And, even the transgenders who are nominally'straight'( i. e. FTM who likes women and a MTF who likes men ) are outside of the heteronormative structure due to their refusal to pretend to be the gender they appear to be at birth. | cmv |
I'm gay and I think the'T'( transgender ) shouldn't be associated with the LGBT community. CMV. | L, G, B, and T are grouped together because discrimination against us comes from a similar place : our gender nonconformity in a heteronormative society. The most strictly gendered parts of society would say that a man is someone who : has XY chromosomes, a penis, male - typical secondary sex characteristics, is masculine, and is attracted to women and women only. And for women, the opposite, obviously. LGB people defy at least one of those categories ( attracted to opposite sex only ), sometimes more. Many LGB grew up as gender - nonconforming kids and were teased and bullied for it. Hell, plenty of gender - nonconforming straight kids or kids with no developed sexual orientation are bullied in the same way. Transgender people may defy all of those things, or just the physical ones. I'd say at this point in the US, we've gotten to the point where most people understand that you can be a man who is attracted to other men, but not so many years ago that wasn't true. At the end of the day, what we are all doing is questioning ( and forcing society to question ) what it means to " be a man " or " be a woman. " | cmv |
A husband should be able to divorce his wife with no legal consequences if she gains too much weight CMV | So how long does a women have to lose weight after giving birth until she's in violation? That can be difficult, especially if she gave birth to multiple children and the father works full time. She can easily not have the time to work out at all or there are other things ( like the kids ) that are more important. Or she cant afford a babysitting to watch the kids so she can work out. | cmv |
A husband should be able to divorce his wife with no legal consequences if she gains too much weight CMV | Sure, as long as she can do the same. Ideally, I believe that when two people commit to marriage there is a level of emotional attachment present between them ( again, ideally ). It is probably waaay more likely that a spouse would approach an issue of weight gain with " I love you and I don't think this is healthy. I want to be sexually attracted to you and I want you to live a long life with me - let's work together at changing this ". Of course, what I think you're getting at is that maybe the spouse would reply with " I can't, I won't, love me unconditionally like you always used to or we're getting a divorce and I am taking your money. " Irreconcilable differences ( I think ). And I guess the only solution to that is to choose someone wisely in the first place. Otherwise, divorce is too messy of a process with shared property and children and time invested in livelihoods for a black and white separation based on someone being fat. What scenario do you have in mind where you think the overweight spouse is entitled to nothing? | cmv |
I believe that people have the right to refuse a sex partner for being transgender. CMV. | You're right, because you have the right to refuse your partner for literally any reason ever... because this is'murica and not Afghanistan... But to play devil's advocate... It's what's on the inside that counts, and you're just shallow for caring what's on the outside. | cmv |
I believe that people have the right to refuse a sex partner for being transgender. CMV. | I am trans, And I am not going to try and convince you that they are entitled to sex with anybody. I believe that people have the right to turn down a sexual partner for what ever reason they want, even if I disagree with the reason myself. How ever, that people who say they accept trans people worry about whether they are still lesbians if they sleep with a trans women is concerning. As this implies that the trans women are men. So while I believe a person has the right to refuse sex to anyone they want, that doesn't mean that trends cannot concern me. She also mentioned partners worrying over how their friends or family would react and being disrespected after coming out to them. These things aren't isolated, not even close so complaints about it makes sense to me. | cmv |
I don't believe illegal immigrants should receive services from the US. CMV | Well, just because they aren't a legal resident doesn't mean they don't pay any taxes. Of the 12 million, about 9 million pay some form of income tax, the IRS even has a special form for people to file taxes without the government being able to then come after them for being undocumented. That also doesn't count sales tax, property tax, gas tax, cigarette / alcohol tax, these are very big parts of funding local schools and health care. That also doesn't factor in the economic benefit they have by creating demand for goods and services, and providing a cheap source of labor which make things cheaper for everyone. But the reason so many come here is not for our services but our opportunity. Guatamala for example has an average income that is equivalent ( when adjusted for cost of living ) to making $ 5, 200 in the US before taxes. If you work 60h / week, 50 weeks a year, that's the equivalent of being paid $ 1. 73 / h. The average hourly wage for undocumented workers are around $ 3. 75 / h, that's more than double what they make at home even when you factor in higher cost of living. It's closer to tripple if you don't factor in cost of living. They are coming to the US the same reason our parents or grand parents did, for the chance at a better life than they had in their home country. | cmv |
I don't believe illegal immigrants should receive services from the US. CMV | Honestly, I believe that " illegal " immigration will be something we are utterly ashamed of in a couple of centuries. Economics only feel like a decent reason to deny human rights when it's coming out of your own pocket. We consider that it was wrong to be pro - slavery with the belief that abolition would damage the economy ( regardless of whether this economic belief turned out to be correct ). Will future generations judge us the same way for denying rights to certain people based simply on their country of origin? | cmv |
I don't believe illegal immigrants should receive services from the US. CMV | Texan here. Illegal immigrants from Mexico make up a huge proportion of our labor force, providing value for the economy, and they are often ( read : almost always ) underpaid to a degree that would be illegal if they had citizenship. We don't give out healthcare, and you can't get on WIC if you're here illegally. They get very few services for free, pretty much only their children ( born in the US, therefore citizens ) get to go to public school, and a fair amount of them end up being productive members of society. If anything, I'd say immigrants are amorally exploited to the benefit of the economy. I realize it's very hard to cite sources favoring or opposing your viewpoint, because so much of it happens under the table, but do you any substantive claims that immigrants are a drain on the economy? | cmv |
( US ) I think voting should be compulsory. CMV. | As an Aussie who has to vote or get fined the problem that I have noticed with everyone having to vote is that the order on the ballet form plays a massive role. For people who don't care about their vote they are more likely to vote for the name at the top of the list rather than read through them and consider what each representative might bring to parliament. It would be nice to get a slice of pizza as a reward for turning up rather than a $ 50 fine for not. | cmv |
( US ) I think voting should be compulsory. CMV. | As someone else already noted, you'll have ( well, we already have ) nutbirds who know nothing but vote anyway. So many people vote for the " nicest dude " or the person with the most campaign signs and have no idea about any of this person's proposed policies or stances. Also, people who really didn't want to vote could just write " Billy Goat " in the write - in section, and therefore they haven't really voted... What I think we should do is severely limit campaign time and money and eliminate political parties. For example, candidates only start running a month before the election. They have a few debates and clearly outline their policies and stances. There are several candidates to choose from, and hopefully people will have to do ( at least a miniscule amount of ) research before choosing who to vote for ). | cmv |
( US ) I think voting should be compulsory. CMV. | Then you'll have a bunch of people who have no idea what is going on voting. Remember that moron in HS who was never prepared and made designs with the dots on his answer sheet? yeah, that. | cmv |
( US ) I think voting should be compulsory. CMV. | I am a hardcore leftist as well. There are no major politicians that accurately represent my point of view. As a result, I don't vote. Under your system, I would be forced to vote for someone I don't believe in. I think that's worse than not voting. | cmv |
This subreddit has far too many politics and morality discussions and not enough discussions about practical matters of dispute. CMV. | I think the reason for that is that in practical matters you either ( a ) have a solution that works, and so aren't looking to change it or ( b ) don't, and so are not particularly likely to want to defend your view. Less charitably, this isn't a good venue for obtaining practical information. I would like to get good cookie recipes, but I know that if I post " this is the best cookie recipe, CMV " most responses will be about how my cookie recipe sucks, or about how the word " best " is meaningless or whatever. | cmv |
This subreddit has far too many politics and morality discussions and not enough discussions about practical matters of dispute. CMV. | Alright, post some excersize. 7 minute workout is my favourite. Investing? Blue chip stocks make up 50 % of my portfolio, 30 % to bonds, 20 % to riskier endeavours. Subprime mortgages brought the 30 that was risky down to 20. I think it's easier to argue politics, feminism, x, y, or z because there is no correct opinion on these topics, and never an opinion that is completely correct. Whilst a fitness trainer can tell you exactly what type of workout you need to build the muscles you want where you want them in the time frame you're looking at. Investing is a bit closer to politics, that might work for a spin. I've owned stocks of every dow member for the last ten years, playing with the cycle. The 90's were the best and i still miss it, i havent trusted tech since. With the shitstorm that was the arab spring and the deep water horizon fiasco behind us i think oil ( re : xom ) is a good way to go. | cmv |
I think that the gender wage gap is due to the majority of women's decisions and not discrimination. CMV | You unduly separate " women's decisions " and " discrimination ". A woman's career choices can be affected by the judgments she expects from people. Even a simple " I want to help people " thought can automatically and unconsciously lead to teaching or nursing for a woman and being a doctor for a man. This is because of the lack of stereotype - breaking role models in children's lives. Additionally you fail to ask why all those traditionally female roles are less well - paid. Teachers'pay is set centrally so it's not just the market ( although if something is caused by the market that doesn't mean it's not caused by the patriarchy too ). Why do we value things women want to do less than we value things men want to do? | cmv |
I think that taking pride in being part of a culture, race, ethnicity, or'groups of birth'is wrong. CMV | There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your heritage as long as you don't allow it to define who you are as a person. I'm a Jew... but Jew does not define me as a person. I am a combination of all of my traits and history and so on. | cmv |
I think that taking pride in being part of a culture, race, ethnicity, or'groups of birth'is wrong. CMV | I am very proud of my heritage, for me it is a reminder of what you are capable of. If my ancestors were brave enough to cross the Atlantic to an unknown fate, then I'm brave enough to get through a little job interview. It's amazing to think that I share the DNA of those who survived wars, plagues, genocides, and natural disasters. Maybe it is a bit foolish to feel pride in that, but humans have a need for unity and a innate desire to be a part of a community, so we will never be completely individualistic in my opinion. | cmv |
I don't think the " Founding Fathers " are the infallible people that many Americans make them out to be. CMV | It's not so much that they are infallible but that their ideas were very good and they had a vision of the direction they wanted the nation to go in. They structured the Constitution specifically to be vague in certain places and allow for change later in order to " keep up with the times " because they knew they could not foresee the problems we would be facing over 200 years later. When people say that they want to stay on track with the Founding Fathers they don't mean they think the Founding Fathers knew the answer but rather to use their ideas and vision as a guiding light. They were different from current politicians in that they did not get involved in minutia and were able to keep their sentiments more pure and better keep the interest of the country at heart because of it. | cmv |
I don't think the " Founding Fathers " are the infallible people that many Americans make them out to be. CMV | Infallible? No, that is not the claim. The claim is that they recognized several ideals that had been denied by government authorities before their time, and that those ideals led to the best possible government : 1. Government gains power by consent of the governed, in whom all authority resides fundamentally, inherently, and individually. 2. Individual rights have supremacy over government authority. 3. Limited authority is granted to the government, by the governed, to do the will of the governed, and that authority is controlled by the governed through checks and balances, scheduled votes and limits on the authority granted. If you can come up with a better plan that actually works, ( Communism, for example, fails uniformly into despotic totalitarianism ) let us know. | cmv |
I believe that people should be allowed to be naked in public without being arrested. CMV | While I think nudism should be more allowed, I suppose one part of it being punishable is the fact that it may promote the spreading of diseases. Park benches and subway seats would be quite unsanitary. So atleast a pair of underpants should be required. Otherwise I see no problem with nudism. | cmv |
I believe that people should be allowed to be naked in public without being arrested. CMV | Well, one example I can provide is here in Finland, indecency laws could fall under a public safety category, at least in the winter. IIRC, it is a law that you cannot sleep outside during the winter, and if you try the police will arrest you and take you to jail so you don't freeze. In this case the laws make sense, other than that, I dunno. | cmv |
TCMV Tues - err, Thursday 6 / 13 / 13 | A few years ago, I still had conflicting feelings about gay marriage, but my view was essentially that civil unions should be " good enough " for gay people. Then I saw this video by LGBT blogger Zinnia Jones, and something clicked for me. It wasn't so much all the potential disadvantages she lists for civil unions, though that's a pretty compelling case in its own right. But at 1 : 30 in the video, she changes tack slightly. If civil unions are identical to marriage in every way but in name, why is there a need to make a distinction at all? What does marriage offer that straight couples feel they need and gay couples can't have? It doesn't matter whether it's a specific set of rights, or an air of dignity and formality, or even just the ability to fit in with everyone else. As long as there's something that makes straight people want marriage rather than a civil union, gay people will justifiably want it for similar reasons. Once I realized that, the necessity of gay marriage became obvious. | cmv |
I think companies drug testing their employees or potential employees is a violation of privacy and serves no purpose but to stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. CMV | I work for an aerospace repair station. The machinists and inspectors who handle the parts that come through our shop are certifying that the work that has been done to these parts has rendered them safe to be returned to service on a commercial aircraft. If one of the inspectors stamped a part while he was high and overlooked a defect or area of damage, it could cause that part to fail in service and potentially result in the loss of an aircraft and hundreds of human lives. I'm very ok with the fact that all of these guys face random drug tests. | cmv |
I think companies drug testing their employees or potential employees is a violation of privacy and serves no purpose but to stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. CMV | Can you propose any way for company to easily, reliably and efficiently determine if a person is doing drugs during working hours or not? Simple external observation doesn't count as some drugs external sign are not very obvious. Average job performance ( as long as you're doing your job ok so far ) does not count either because drug test are usually done on career where it can be lethal for you to make mistakes when you're high ( ie it only takes one time ). | cmv |
I think companies drug testing their employees or potential employees is a violation of privacy and serves no purpose but to stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. CMV | Using drugs is actually illegal, though - that's the difference. If companies want to know whether their employees / potential employees are breaking the law, they have a right to know that. Also, as for the title of your CMV, you claim that drug tests stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. Sure, but why is that a bad thing? People who use illegal drugs are criminals. We want to discourage crime on a societal level, so we therefore should discourage drug use. Furthermore, the reality of it is that being a raging alcoholic or using heroin does interfere with your ability to work. Some drugs probably don't, such as weed, in which case the issue is purely legal. In any case, someone who uses drugs signals to the world that they are willing to break the law and put their health at risk for the purposes of achieving some short - lived satisfaction. | cmv |
I think companies drug testing their employees or potential employees is a violation of privacy and serves no purpose but to stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. CMV | Companies drug test to weed out ( heh, no pun intended ) people who they, rightly or wrongly, may believe would not make the most honest, law - abiding, ethical employees. It's not discrimination to deny an employment opportunity to someone if they are found to be engaging in an activity that is currently deemed illegal. Companies do it for cover - your - ass ( CYA ) legal reasons. A company does not want its reputation tarnished or to have lawsuits filed against it due to the actions of an employee who was under the influence of illegal drugs while performing work duties. Look at drunk drivers. Not all people who drink try to drive drunk, but a certain number of them do, assuming their performance will not be impacted. Similarly, not all people who drink or do drugs off company time will go to work under the influence, but a certain number of them will and do, assuming their performance will not be impacted. If I were a business owner, I would not want my business harmed by someone who even poses a chance of coming to work under the influence or even hung over. ( What concerns me is the growing abuse in the U. S. of legal pharmaceutical drugs that are not currently tested for in illegal drug screens. ) | cmv |
I think companies drug testing their employees or potential employees is a violation of privacy and serves no purpose but to stigmatize and discriminate against drug users. CMV | I'm a little curious as to why drug abuse should not be stigmatized. Yes, what you do on your own time is your business but anything that has a potential chance to bleed into your work productivity is the business of an employer. A drug abuser is more likely than a non - drug abuser to come into work unable to complete their tasks. That is time and money wasted on training an employee whose productivity may eventually amount to nothing if they have to fire you for unbecoming conduct. Companies cannot discriminate on race, gender, or sexual orientation because those, in and of themselves, don't affect your ability to work. Drug abuse, gambling, unbecoming conduct, a criminal record, etc. all indicate instability and that's not ideal to an employer. Employees have a right to an accepting work environment but that does not mean employers should give handouts to people who are risky investments. Any time you hire someone to work for you, you are taking a risk. I should have the right to minimize that risk and make as informed a decision as I possibly can. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.