summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
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 feel someone should point out that the only drugs urine tests can catch realistically are Marijuana, PCP, and Methadone. Most drugs are undetectable in your system only a day or two after use, and that's generally not enough notice for a drug test. Marijuana and PCP on the other hand can stick around for a month since last use, and Methadone can be detected years later. So the way I see it, the vast majority of drug tests don't really weed out anyone. | cmv |
Lying to save your hide is part of human nature CMV | I'm not so sure it's strictly human nature. Consider this : if there were 100 % no consequences to always telling the truth, would we still lie? In the scenarios you described, why do we lie? Because there are consequences to telling the truth, no? I think on some level, just about everyone starts to recognize situations where they can see the basic outcomes of telling the truth or lying. If they see that telling the truth would create conflict ( major or minor ) and that's not what they want, it's really a pragmatic choice to lie. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | The underlying problem to this is that if the man chooses to not support the child, and the woman goes ahead and has the baby... what happens if she can not support the baby? It becomes a problem for the state - welfare or whatever. This child is now every tax payers financial liability / obligation. The ultimate solution will be when men have access to an effective birth control pill thus effectively giving them almost a 100 % chance of not impregnating a woman without their consent. Male pill & condom... The other problem with your idea is fraud. Being the baby will need financial help from the state, it'd be easy for low wage couples to supplement their income by purposefully excluding the father from financial obligations. It would happen. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | Child support isn't for the woman, it's for the child. Now, I agree with you in some sense. In an ideal system, the state would simply guarantee a decent level of support to every child who requires it, and this issue wouldn't even exist.. But we don't have that system, and until we do, the child needs to be taken care of somehow. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | If the father wants the child and the mother wants to abort it, should the mother give birth to it and hand it to its father? Will she have no more responsibility after birthing it? The word'it'is used to indicate the child. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | If this accompanied a universal social consensus of the moral neutrality of abortion and no expectations of any kind regarding the fetus prior to birth, then sure. This would be fine. But that's not the world we live in. Here, the only way this would work would be if both parties made their intentions clear prior to having sex. As it currently stands, both carrying an unwanted pregnancy / single motherhood and abortion carry social liabilities for the mother in the United States. It is utterly wrong for the father to be able to opt - out of the consequences of unplanned pregnancy after the fact, while the mother cannot. Currently, the last point at which both potential parents can make a value - neutral decision is before they have sex in the first place. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | This would entail that a woman in such circumstance would need to choose between a potentially emotionally traumatizing abortion, OR raising a child without proper financial means to do so. Two people had sex, two people should share its consequences, whether or not the father thinks he knows what the mother ought to do. The choice is hers ( ultimately it is her body ) and the father still has responsibilities to the person he helped create. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | Eventually, as developers are working on such things now, there will be a means of semi - permanent birth control for men, akin in efficacy to an IUD. When this comes into play, condom failures and pill forgetfulness will not interfere with a man's desire not to get pregnant. When the man could have this choice open to him, it makes sense that he take it if he doesn't want a child. Child support could continue to operate as it does now, and men can shed that responsibility by reliably keeping his sperm out of the picture. Sounds like a solution to me : the woman retains authority over her own body, the children born are provided - for, and men who don't want to be fathers have an easier, fairer, and politer means of making sure they don't become fathers. All that being said, it is still sensible for such a man to take as many other precautions as possible, including condoms, until better male birth control comes into play. Obviously a man can't very well go around banging without protection expecting women to undergo the emotional hardship of an abortion whenever things... er, go south. | cmv |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV | How could this possibly be enforced, legally? Any man, regardless of his stance on abortion at the time of pregnancy, could default on paying his child support by simply saying " well I asked her to get an abortion and she didn't so I will no longer pay. " Also, I'm assuming you're not a woman. You have no idea how difficult it is to make a choice like this. Implementing a law like this would make unwanted pregnancies even more diffiult than they are. It's basically institutionalized support for abortions, with men controlling womens reproductive health in an even more horrifying way than the current climtate. Regardless of anyone's thoughts in abortion, this is not a world I would want to live in. Sorry for typos, on phone. | cmv |
I think the NSA did nothing wrong. CMV | Because the supply of information is outside the control of the public. They could say you are making suspicious plans, etc., whether or not that's true, and they would be believed because they control the only source of verification. Your response to this is probably one of two things, either a ) they wouldn't do that - in which case, you have too much faith in the government. b ) they wouldn't do that to me - in which case you should read the poem " First they came... " | cmv |
I think the Smith Act of 1940 goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers. CMV | It was an attempt to bring the world out of the 18th and into the 20th century. Violence is not how modern, advanced nations change government. The institution of violence for a change of government would lead to civil war. Peaceful discourse is more than enough for a modern democracy, as are peaceful protests. | cmv |
I think the Smith Act of 1940 goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers. CMV | The " Founding Fathers " wrote that as rhetorical justification to their document. Their will, however, would have been to quash any rebellion of their newly formed nation. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion. Or the Alien and Sedition Acts. | cmv |
I think an eye for an eye is perfectly just punishment | If someone stabbed me in the arm and then I was handed a knife and told " this is justice " I couldn't do it. If anyone does it's lowering yourself to their level. You're saying " I don't see anything morally wrong with what your doing, it's only that it is an inconvenience to me. " Doing the same doesn't help you, it just hurts other people. It presumes that it wasn't WRONG to do it, just that is was unfair. there is a huge difference. | cmv |
I think an eye for an eye is perfectly just punishment | Courts gets things wrong fairly often. That's why we have appeals court, and appeals to that, and appeals to that. In capital cases, you can get up to 15 appeals. When a court realizes there has been a miscarriage of justice, the court can fix this. You may not be able to reward lost time, but the situation from then on is at least fixed. Execution and'eye for an eye'makes fixing a judgment pretty hard, if not impossible. | cmv |
I think an eye for an eye is perfectly just punishment | Your definition of eye for an eye is vague. The law is complex because society is complex and there are too many situations to apply some vague maxim as the keystone of law. The history of laws and punishment is very long and going back to Hammurabi's code is exact how it sounds, its ancient history. | cmv |
I think an eye for an eye is perfectly just punishment | " Eye for an Eye " is just the golden rule inverted. " Do unto others... " kind of thing. Here's my objection to that : Let's say we all agreed to live by the " eye for an eye " standard. Now meet Ted. Ted becomes sexually stimulated when people force themselves on him, torture him, and rape him. If Ted wants it done to him, should he do it to others? The problem with " eye for an eye " is that it doesn't always serve justice. My example is a bit extreme, but my point is : What is a punishment to one person might be a reward to another. | cmv |
I think an eye for an eye is perfectly just punishment | I think at least part of problem here is that intent goes a long way towards determining the severity of the crime. Certainly there's a difference between a person who kills because they want to rob a house, and a person who say, shoots their long time abuser. Not to mention the fact that we also need to account for crimes committed while someone is unable to appreciate their actions ( through some sort of mental illness ). Also, criminals are criminals because they've done something society deems to be wrong or unjust. It therefore completely undermines our justice system to turn around a commit those same acts against someone. We don't want a government that tortures, rapes, or mentally abuses its citizens ( at least not more so than it already does I suppose ). | cmv |
I think human euthanasia should be legal. CMV. | I'm not going to try and change your view entirely. But you should think about the real issue with euthanasia ( youth in Asia? ) is how to implement it and what is the regulatory framework? Should there be oversight or limits? Should mental disorder be grounds for termination? It's easy to support it in extreme cases of elderly in pain. The hard part in legalizing it is to determine the rules. | cmv |
I don't believe marriage should have any sort of government recognition. CMV. | Marriage started out as a religious ceremony, yes, but it's simply not anymore. Marriage is a status backed by the government because it typically means two people will live the rest of their life together, so they get certain rights like joint tax filing, easy inheritance, child custody if a divorce should occur, joint adoption, etc. Marriage isn't a religious ceremony, it's a change in status that is recognized officially. Marriage doesn't always take place in a church, because it's not a religious act to become married. Legalizing Gay Marriage isn't about forcing ideals onto a church, it's the church protesting against a change in federal laws. | cmv |
I don't believe marriage should have any sort of government recognition. CMV. | I'm echoing another Redditor but I don't see why churches get to handle marriages. Marriage existed way before Christianity and in different capacities than the Christian religion too. It certainly existed in China separate from its development according to any church. How do you reconcile your view with these facts? Why do you say churches should handle marriage when it wasn't them who invented it? | cmv |
The disproportionate success of Asians proves that racism is not what is keeping Hispanics and African - Americans back. CMV. | So, wait, you're arguing that because there's no prejudice against Asians succeeding ( stereotypes demand they succeed above their peers or be considered a failure ), that automatically means that there are no prejudices against black people doing the same? And to prove this, you're directly comparing your neighbors in the ghetto to the people you've met in finance? So, that's how many people standing in for hundreds of millions of others? You realize that's kind of defeating the purpose of your original post, no matter how good your intentions may be, at heart? | cmv |
The disproportionate success of Asians proves that racism is not what is keeping Hispanics and African - Americans back. CMV. | Did you ever consider the difference in culture and history between the races? I don't need to tell you that Asians come from a different world than Hispanics or African - Americans. Many Asians are able to immigrate because they come from well - off families who already recognize the value of education and have money to start a good life out ( of China, at least ). Put some Asians in the same position as an African - American and then judge their ability to succeed. That would be a better comparison. | cmv |
The disproportionate success of Asians proves that racism is not what is keeping Hispanics and African - Americans back. CMV. | I went to school for a couple of years in NYC, and I must say there is a lot of " self - racism " among black and hispanic students. These kids don't believe that they can come from the " hood " and become anything, so they don't try. It's self perpetuating because, like you said, there are almost no hispanics or blacks in successful fields ( from the hood ) other than ball players and rappers ( probably two of the most competitive professions in the world ). There are no role models to prove to them that they can make it to law school or wall street. Asians on the other hand have a plethora of successful professional role models to look up to. | cmv |
The disproportionate success of Asians proves that racism is not what is keeping Hispanics and African - Americans back. CMV. | The stereotypes of asians and those of blacks and hispanics are very different in the US. Black people are stereotyped as lazy, athletic and stupid. As rappers, sports stars and gangsters. Hispanics are stereotyped as unreliable, dishonest and cheap. As fast - food workers and illegal immigrants. Asians are stereotyped as hardworking, nerdy and weak. As doctors, scientists and mathematicians. The fact that asians achieve success doesn't show that racism isn't having an impact. The impact on asians is going to be very different from the impact on blacks and hispanics, due to the very different form of racism involved. | cmv |
The disproportionate success of Asians proves that racism is not what is keeping Hispanics and African - Americans back. CMV. | In order for this to be true you'd have to show that there is some kind of'lets keep non - whites down!'racism inherent to the system, or stereotypes that all non - whites are less successful. This DID exist in the past, when Asians in the US were essentially poor, cheap labor ( which many illegal Hispanics fill now ). And back then there were no / extremely few highly successful Asians in the US. Hispanics, and to a smaller extent black people are still in that situation, and Asians are not. I do agree with you that racism alone isn't what's keeping minorities back. It's a huge, complex issue. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | IF everything stayed the same and no trading and taxes would change why nt slip us the USA? Try out different laws and see what government prevails. The military and everything else would pretty much stay the same. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | You touched on this a bit in your post, but I think the biggest reason that the US shouldn't need to be fractured into separate nation - states is federalism. Each US state can have differing laws about lots and lots of things, and they already use this to reflect the political and cultural differences between different regions. So, simply reducing federal power could have the benefits you mention regarding political autonomy, without losing some of the benefits of being in the same nation - state : Better regulation of interstate commerce, better combined military streetlight, and greater combined influence in international politics... | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | I think the founding fathers had this in mind when they drafted the Constitution. Over time the system became corrupt and overbearing and will, I think, ultimately be the demise of our society. Look what's currently happening around the world in Turkey, Brazil, etc. With this whole NSA nonsense America can no longer trust in their government, nor can America trust their elected officials to do the right thing. I think giving the states their rights back and having much less Federal involvement in state politics would be a much better way to do things, the founding fathers did. Unfortunately I just don't see that happening in my lifetime. I think a revolution will happen before common sense Constitutional politicians are in the most powerful chairs of the country. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | Speaking purely anecdotally, I live in a cultural pocket in the south that does not share much history, culture, or values with the rest of the south ( central / southern Florida ). If we were sectioned into a " country " with the rest of the south, we'd be a worse fit than we are with the general United States. Regional / cultural divides aren't as strict or beneficial as you may think. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | I'm not American, but in the modern age of fast travel and iformation, divising country into smaller country doesn't feel like a good idea. The USA would lose a big part of their history and identity, and their place in the world. The differents countries couldn't face China or India like a united country can. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | While fragmenting the country may make some sense when it comes to efficiency ( easier to govern 10mil than 300mil ) The overall financial hit each state would take counteracts that efficiency. Keeping borders completely open between states, keeping language common and unified, and using the same currency are all things that help state economies - shaking that up would damage them. In our time where a plane ride makes anywhere ( contiguous ) 3 hours away and the internet makes them 3 seconds away - countries having the largest territories have an upper hand when it comes to access of resources. We are more successful together than divided. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | Economically there should be no issue with how the system is run right now. The federal level " shouldn't " be making those kind of economic rules and leave that to the states to regulate. Comparing this ideal to splitting the states into countries i would choose the former since In times of emergency all the states could stand together whereas if the country split apart entire regions could collapse or be attacked with no incentive for other " countries " to help. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | Right now, the US is the most powerful country with the most powerful military. If suddenly, we are 5 smaller countries, that leaves China to be the most powerful ; which is our biggest threat right now. If China wages war against our 5 countries while we are setting up our new army regulations and political regulations, we would be utterly stomped, unprepared, and destroyed. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | I would strongly recommend reading the Federalist Papers for an excellent analysis of this. Madison and Hamilton ( and occasionally Jay ) put a lot of thought into the benefits of having a larger state with no competing states along the border ( yes I realize we have Canada and Mexico, but much of the discussion still applies ). Not least of the arguments is what happens when each of those mini - states needs to deploy a standing army to hold its borders. There's enough debate just over immigration from Mexico, when considering nations of similar strength the concerns multiply to deterring military invasion. This has been one of the chief differences between the U. S. and Europe, WWI and II were possible because Europe is fragmented into much smaller nations, and the U. S. was a deciding factor in those wars mostly because of our size. Had the U. S. been similarly fragmented at the time, the nations here would have been fighting each other, and things would have gotten much uglier. I recognize that even with this setup, we did have a civil war. But this has been much rarer here than wars in Europe, and is made much less likely by having one integrated military. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | I don't think we should force the country to break up, but I think states should be allowed to succeed. I think it is immoral to use to force to make them stay. Free association is a human right. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | The second point follows the " just let the states decide " argument. It would certainly end a lot of the stalemates that cause practical issues such as passing a budget impossible due to some tangential fight over abortion. The problem is a lot of these issues are universal human rights issues and once something gets framed as a fundamental human right, it's really hard to stomach letting a government trample all over that. Going back to the era of slavery - how can someone be a human being is one state yet a piece of property in another ( similarly I find it mind boggling that the death penalty is administered on a state by state basis ). If one state considers abortion to be murder, how would they react to a neighboring state " slaughtering " all those babies? And say a state believes homosexuality and transsexualism to be deviant and illegal, things will be problematic if their closeted citizens suddenly get ideas about their personhood by another state with a transgender governor and full marriage and adoption rights. Then consider how wide variations in laws concerning sex trade, drug trade, immigration, etc could lead to huge amounts of smuggling and could really bolster the power of criminal organizations facilitating said smuggling. Sometimes it really seems that it would be so much easier if we just split off into Jesusland and the Peoples'Republic of Liberal Treehuggers and be done with it, but it would also create a lot of problems. And without one supreme body to declare that this is the way it's going to be, it can get chaotic both between states and within states. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | While I don't agree with OP that splitting up the country would be good, I do think there needs to be some rearranging of state lines and sizes, which might change the number from 50 to something higher / lower. Most of the reasons for drawing state lines as they are are antiquated and irrelevant ( the whole early 1800's Slave state / Free state thing for example ). 1. Do we really need a North and South Dakota? 2. California could be split into at least two states. 3. New England, it's not the 1700's anymore ; just combine already. 4. Texas already has a backup plan in place to break into five smaller states, right? Why wait? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to add more. | cmv |
I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. | I'd just like to point out that the divide in America is not between states, but between urban and rural populations. Illinois is only a blue state because of Chicago. Wisconsin is only blue because of Madison, Milwaukee, and Green Bay. Illinois is only a few hundred thousand votes away from turning into Alabama, and as for Wisconsin, the process is already well underway. On the other hand, Texas will turn purple within the next 10 years or so. | cmv |
Warrants ( arrests, search, etc ) are useless and law enforcement should do whatever in their favor to stop crime without getting evidence for a warrant. CMV. | Sure, that works if they ARE guilty, but what of the innocent? A man if suspected of a crime that he didn't commit, should the police be able to enter his household, search it, beat and arrest him, all for a crime he didn't commit? This is giving the police far too much power, and it'll eventually lead to police using brutal force just because they can, and it makes their life easier. | cmv |
Warrants ( arrests, search, etc ) are useless and law enforcement should do whatever in their favor to stop crime without getting evidence for a warrant. CMV. | You think law enforcers are magical people above corruption and petty revenge? We trust these people with an awful lot of power, there needs to be checks and balances so they do the right thing. Have you never seen anyone abuse there power before? Have you never taken an plane anywhere, been stopped for nothing, tried to take a drink outside? | cmv |
Warrants ( arrests, search, etc ) are useless and law enforcement should do whatever in their favor to stop crime without getting evidence for a warrant. CMV. | Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but unchecked authority like that lends easily to the creation of an authoritarian state. In the US currently, if the government passed a law banned certain items with affiliations to conflicting political ideologies, it would be as unenforceable as it would be unconstitutional. But, if police have the right to search homes without indication of wrongdoing, it becomes very enforceable. The need for warrants ensures that law enforcement suspects individuals of wrongdoing and there exists a reasonable amount of evidence to that point. Without that, police officers could go into houses looking for crime without prior suspicion. It would simply lead to a completely different lifestyle in the United States. | cmv |
I don't think that minorities don't deserve any more scholarships than others. CMV | Pretend I am someone / a company that wants to give out scholarships to some students. I want to see more girls in the workforce because at my company there are few and the few who are there offer many wonderful things. So I put a scholarship for women to help diversify the workforce ( or hopes to ). This is my money. Since this is mine I get to choose how to spend my money. Sure you might not like how I throw my money around, however I may not like your expenses either. If you can regulate how I spend my money, can I regulate yours? It's all about perspective. | cmv |
I don't think that minorities don't deserve any more scholarships than others. CMV | That's simply not true. As of 2011, white students made up 62 % of college students, but received 75 % of scholarships. Source White students are 40 % more likely to receive scholarships than non - white students. Source Only 0. 25 % of college scholarships are restricted to racial / ethnic minorities. Source Simply put, minorities are not receiving any more scholarships than others. But white people are. | cmv |
I don't think that minorities don't deserve any more scholarships than others. CMV | What advantages? Direct quote from here : " Caucasian students receive more than three - quarters ( 76 % ) of all institutional merit - based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two - thirds ( 62 % ) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40 % more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. " So what that quote helpfully told us was not only do white students receive more financial aid and scholarships than minorities, but they also are the majority ( 62 % ) of those who attend higher education. | cmv |
I believe that spending millions of dollars on cancer research is a waste of money, considering that we have many well - known, effective interventions with a much greater impact on public health. CMV. | Cancer is the # 2 leading cause of death in the United States. It affects millions of Americans per year, and we do have some responsibility to take care of our own house. I don't understand why you take issue with cancer research in particular, since this isn't exactly an either - or choice. | cmv |
I think people who believe welfare recipients should be drug tested are uncompassionate and unrealistic, CMV. | quick one : if they do take drugs, it is a waste of many and supports the drug trade. If they don't, they have nothing to fear from a drug test other than it taking up some time. Given they need welfare payments, they should see the point of view of the state ( or whoever ) | cmv |
I think being against red light cameras is an undefendable position. CMV | There are a few good objections to red light cameras, IMO. The tickets go to the owner of the vehicle, not the driver. They increase rear - end collisions. ( ignoring the fact that they reduce side impacts ) The tickets can take months to actually get to the person, which severely reduces how effective they are at getting people to learn the consequences of their actions. as / u / carasci said, they lack discretion. They can be circumvented by various measures, and those measures are unlikely to be detected. Overall, I don't think that red light cameras are worth the cost, mostly due to those reasons. | cmv |
I think being against red light cameras is an undefendable position. CMV | One big problem is that when the light is red if you stop in front of the right line it tickets you. Many people get caught that way. And sometimes it is hard to stop because and you end up stopping a little bit in front of the white line. | cmv |
I think being against red light cameras is an undefendable position. CMV | If budget allows it is the key term here. We as a society have to determine where we want our resources to go, and most people dont want them going anywhere near traffic enforcement no matter how needed it is. For something that happens quite rarely ( at least outside of movies ) but would still cost a lot ( cameras are expensive, there are literally millions of intersections across any country and you would need 3 - 4 for each ) most people think its a waste of money. | cmv |
I think being against red light cameras is an undefendable position. CMV | Many people are providing good arguments here, but for me it boils down to one example. I ride a motorcycle, and occasionally the road sensors won't pick up my bike. The light won't ever change for me because of that, which basically means that automated ticket enforcement would unfairly punish me. I strongly believe there needs to be a human element involved in law enforcement, because not all circumstances are equal. | cmv |
I believe that once elected, leaders are free to do whatever they want, whatever their campaign fundraisers told them to. CMV | I get what you're saying. Let's use for example Obama, since his office is not in jeopardy, since he can't run again. The big answer is that no politician is an individual. Obama is not running again, but all of Congress is up just next year, and POTUS requires a cooperative Congress to press the party agenda. In the eyes of the voters, Obama / the DNC cannot sustain such a hit as the failure of the Affordable Healthcare Act, so perhaps Humana or Aetna will receive government contracts for supplemental care. If this hadn't been done, then perhaps those companies would raise prices while publically blaming the act, jeopardizing the jobs of his fellow party members. We see this very thing as oil companies raise prices while blaming the threat of or loss of their tax exemptions. And the AHCA is just a single example. This is the simple and most apparent answer to a complex and messed up system. | cmv |
I believe that the two party system in the US is no longer working and that anyone who tells people that they are only for one party are wrong. CMV | I am not a huge fan of the two - party system at all but let me try my best to play devil's advocate for you. One of the fallacies that we fall into when invoking the Founding Father's intentions on contemporary political issues is assuming that they wanted tidy, nice policy that would easily pass and change things. The system was intended to gridlock easily. It's by design. The drawbacks of this are obvious, needed and popular reforms are continually and easily stymied by the overrepresented rural populations. I would cite Civil Rights, slavery, old age pensions ( Social Security ), and lack of universal healthcare. But one of the positives of our systems is that it vets out crazy lunatic and crackpot ideas. Having an American Hitler would be impossible because there are too many checks and balances. But it also makes ending stupid government policies ( i. e. corn subsidies, ethanol and defense largesse that both lefties and libertarians agree are bad news ) extremely difficult. | cmv |
I believe the CIA should not try to arm the Syrian rebels. CMV | To reach a diplomatic compromise, the rebels have to be strengthened and the Assad regime ( and his backers ) weakened. If the rebels lose then Assad has no incentive to negotiate. If the rebellion is kept alive and the resources of Assad and his backers ( Hezbollah, Iran, Russia ) get increasingly strained, then there is a greater incentive to reach negotiated settlement. All the options are terrible but the arming of the rebels in an effort to reach a negotiated settlement is the least worst option. | cmv |
I believe that it is unethical for people to eat animals when they have other ways to feed themselves. CMV. | I grew up raising cattle on a small farm. An animal that goes from 40 - 1200 pounds in 18 months and produces steak is a delicious gift from God ( or our domesticating ancestors ). Done properly, the cows feel no pain throughout their lifetime ( bull calves possibly excepted ), and go through life eating grass, running around, and being curious. They go down with a simple, single gunshot, dying instantly. This animal that has been bred and raised for consumption will then feed a family for the next year. | cmv |
I believe that it is unethical for people to eat animals when they have other ways to feed themselves. CMV. | I used to think this way as well, but then I realized that the reason so many domestic animals are alive is because of the food industry. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc... are bred, raised, and taken care of because of the meat market. To put it simply, they wouldn't even exist without the demand. There are also regulations to insure the most painless, humane killing practices, so its not an inherently sadistic practice. I do, however, disagree with sport hunting. I don't believe it is fair or moral to take the life of a wild animal for fun, when you can get your entertainment elsewhere without causing suffering, and nutrition from human - cultivated food sources. Reap what you sow, in a sense. | cmv |
I believe that people who are not vegan / vegetarian don't care about the planet. CMV | You think they don't care because that one part of their lifestyle uses more resources than necessary? That's true of any luxury item, like SUV's, vacations, large houses, many disposable goods, and most other things as well, to some extent. Just because a person does not take one measure to reduce their environmental impact, it doesn't mean that they haven't taken others or that they don't care. | cmv |
I believe that people who are not vegan / vegetarian don't care about the planet. CMV | I think it is the ends we go to supply such vast demands is what is harming the planet. There are just too many people on Earth. It's not just a matter of meat, it's about providing housing, transportation, and utilities to people as well. The more the population the more demands that need meeting. So if there were less people on the planet, they would need less resources to maintain therefore allowing the planet to regenerate et cetera. | cmv |
I believe that people who are not vegan / vegetarian don't care about the planet. CMV | Sometimes, people don't have the resources to become a vegetarian. Google'food deserts'and you will find large portions of the country where people are economically depressed, miles from the closest supermarket, and without a car or accessible public transportation. You can care about the environment all you want in that situation, but if you have a full time job and kids to look after you're going to rely on meaty fast food and convenience stores most of the time as your food sources. | cmv |
The U. N should prioritize human rights over national sovereignty. CMV | Yeah I think this argument is akin to having a " Free Tibet " bumper sticker in California ( going by the logic that Tibet should be free, so should California be part of Mexico, and Poland be part of Germany, or is it Russia? ) Every country has dirty laundry, and if the U. N. were to get involved in every violation, they would be causing more instability than the human rights abuses in the first place. I think an important factor in considering this debate is that instability causes more human rights abuses than any corrupt government. So a central factor in the U. N.'s intervention calculus is what intervention would do to stability in the region. A great example of this is that the UN thought the Iraq invasion was a bad idea. Oh well... | cmv |
The U. N should prioritize human rights over national sovereignty. CMV | The main purpose of the UN is to preserve international peace, not to protect human rights. You can't have that if you can violate countries'sovereignty so easily. To answer your question directly, the UN considers national borders more important than human beings because the UN was set up to protect national borders, not human beings. | cmv |
The U. N should prioritize human rights over national sovereignty. CMV | The UN has has no jurisdiction over member nations. The only thing it can do is kick nations out, and send you to international courts. Also, the US doesn't recognize most international law, and we are what keeps the UN together. So they couldn't try us. But other countries really like being sovereign, and so does the US. and they wouldn't attack us, they exist in America. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should be blamed for NSA invasion of privacy because he doesn't hold the power to change it as President. CMV | The President sets the agenda for all organizations that are part of the executive branch. Every President puts his own stamp on the organizations. Clinton made it a priority to include more women and insisted that the FBI ( presumably as well as the NSA ) increase its emphasis on economic security ( foreign espionage against US corporations ). Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, put the existing intelligence agencies under it, and made the War on Terror a priority. Obama ended waterboarding, but has otherwise chosen to increase anti - terrorism activity, encouraging the CIA to expand its anti - terrorism role by the use of remote drone strikes. He could next week announce new rules regarding the retention of US citizen data. If there is enough outcry, he will. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should be blamed for NSA invasion of privacy because he doesn't hold the power to change it as President. CMV | The NSA falls under the DOD, which is part of the military, and Barack Obama is the commander in chief. I do believe they, at the very least, fall under his Jurisdiction. The CIA too, I'm pretty sure, but not so much about the FBI. | cmv |
I don't believe Obama should be blamed for NSA invasion of privacy because he doesn't hold the power to change it as President. CMV | When you win the Presidency you have the dubious honor of inheriting responsibility for the nation's biggest problems : it's part of the job. That's one of the things the presidency is for. The President might actually be able to control it directly with an executive order, but even if PRISM is outside of that, the president is expected to be the leader of his party, which | cmv |
I think joining the military is stupid. CMV | Forget honor or whatever, the military provides a very nice paycheck and benefits to young men ( and women ) who might otherwise be unemployed or working dead end jobs. On top of that, you get lots of good training that can be applicable to the civilian workforce, and only a small percentage of military personnel ever see actual combat. It's a pretty sweet deal if you're a kid in a small town, without education or connections. | cmv |
I think joining the military is stupid. CMV | It seems your problem is with the leaders of the country and not the soldiers themselves. People who enlist have absolutely no say so on where they are going or doing. Its the policies instated by your elected officials that really drive it. How else is there going to be a military force without people joining it? Explain that to me. Also what is an honorable decision in your mind? | cmv |
I believe that murder is ethically wrong. CMV | There are not many justifiable cases in which would classify as murder ( depends on state and jurisdiction ). One such case would be is if a family member was suffering pain, and no such cure existed. If they were to come to me and ask to end their life, I would. It would be willful and meditated. This would undoubtedly be a'murder ', yet something many people could ( and would justify ). Case in point : Jack Kevorkian was a phsicican whom was called " Dr Death " for doing physician assisted suicide. He was charged with second degree murder, and was only let out early on condition he never give any advice on ending lives. His life and choices still remain a great argument. Was he right, or wrong? | cmv |
I think that government is running exactly as we are telling it to run CMV | The central faulty assumption that you're making is that electing the other guy would substantially address the problem. But neither candidate is running on fixing these issues. As far as they're both concerned there is no issue. Because the issue gives them power, influence and money. I think the issue is less about the people doing the voting and more about the system we vote with. Because this issue seems to be systemic, it stands to reason that the true solution to addressing it lies with fixing the voting system. | cmv |
I think that government is running exactly as we are telling it to run CMV | There's 535 members of Congress - I only get the opportunity to vote for 3 - 55 of them ( and that's a half - facetious answer ). You could also be a young adult - I earned the right to vote 4 years ago yet I've only voted for a senator once and a representative twice. This and other factors lead up to the unstartling conclusion that I can do my best to be a good civic leader ( or at least a person who engages in civic duties ) and yet still be disenfranchised with the government as a whole. It also means that I'm largely incapable of controlling any appointed position in the government, in the Judicial and Executive branches. | cmv |
I think that government is running exactly as we are telling it to run CMV | You assume that the election process gives voters a blank slate based on infinite options. In actuality, the candidates that end up making it to the ballot box for our vote are the ones who were already pre - selected FOR us. Large campaign donors ( namely corporations ) are the ones that basically do the vetting process based on who they believe will represent their interests ( which are often diametrically opposed to what's good for the people ). Thus, the government is no longer beholden to the public as much as they are their campaign donors. There's a huge difference here. Your belief is akin to you thinking you have complete control over what you wear... when your only options are shopping at either WalMart or Target. Yes, you might have complete control over what you wear at those places, but it ignores the premise that your choices were decided for you by someone / something else. Our government's the same way. | cmv |
I believe affirmative action ultimately hurts more than it helps. CMV | I am a recent entrant into medical school which is has affirmative entrant schemes for particular ethnic minorities underrepresented in the population of doctors, and also bars are lowered for rural students. I can understand why it is seen as unfair but personally I feel its for the greater good, the people from these communities are wildly intelligent as are the other students so they aren't having a qualitative effect on the profession. Primarily I feel that it means that members from the community which are " disadvantaged " see people that work actually achieve which is a huge boost to the community especially where there is real poverty. It really can change communities... however slowly. Secondly I feel that at least for professions which the government pay for greatly ( Government pays around NZD 60k a year for a med student ) they can dictate the distribution so that they can create a cohort of physicians which represent the population, rather than the individual basis. | cmv |
I believe army's and wars are unnecessary. CMV. | War is sometimes necessary because for some people ( or some leaders of other contries ), violence is the only language that is understood. Picture if you will, someone breaking in to your house, armed to the teeth and hell bent on killing you. He will not stop to listen to your reason and so for you the only way for you to make it out of that alive is to grab the shotgun from under the bed and kill him before he kills you. Wars are similer, just on a larger scale. | cmv |
I believe army's and wars are unnecessary. CMV. | That is very easy for you to say when you have no idea about the connotations and roots of the conflict. It's convenient to say " killing people is unnecessary, we're all just humans. " So all I can do to change your view is tell you to actually learn some history. | cmv |
I don't think the U. S. Interstate Commerce Clause should remain valid CMV | Actually, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the Affordable Care Act was not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power. You don't seem to be proposing an amendment to the Constitution, so by what mechanism do you propose we eliminate the Commerce Clause power? Who's going to stop Congress from invoking it, and under what authority? | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | Look at polygamy from the perspective marital property in our legal system. In the event of divorce, it's easier to divide assets fairly with only two partners who share no wealth or property with anyone else. The family law codes of virtually every country on Earth are built around those parameters. It's not like same - sex marriage in the sense that every law on the books could not just be fixed by changing " man and wife " to " marital partners. " The same could be asked of the next of kin procedures in the event that there is no living will or last will. Who is the default executor of the estate? Who makes end of life care decisions when their spouse is unable to give consent? Polygamy was, for the most part, practiced when the law was more straightforward ( and unfair ) in matters of inheritance and when if you stopped communicating, you weren't ever waking back up. | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | Gay marriage = marriage between 2 people of the same gender. Polygamy = numerous people in a relationship. Gay marriage and polygamy are two completely different things, it's silly to compare them. I support gay marriage, and I couldn't give a damn how many people are in a relationship as long as everyone in the relationship agrees. Polygamy isn't my sort of thing, but it's not hurting me, so why should I protest it? | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | Here's an argument from pragmatism : If you want to legitimize the gay rights movement to someone who's ill - informed about it, the worst way to go about it is to tie it to a movement that's less popular. This doesn't really apply to whether someone can support it in private, but for the movement as a whole, it's got to be one step at a time so that we can at least make that first step. And a question as well : How would marital benefits work in a system that allows polygamy? Keep in mind that there are a LOT of married couples who like to have their marital benefits, so removing these benefits might not happen. | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | The thing is, they're completely different issues. The gay marriage debate is all about who you can marry. But this is still contained in the nidea of only two spouses, for a good reason. There is no inherent difference between if I married a man or a woman. But if I married one of each, things get a lot messier. Who gets our kids when I die? How do they split up mt money? Who gets the house? There are a lot of legal difficulties in several interconnected spouses that don't care what gender they are. | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | Polygamy destabalizes countries because of the ability of the top men to take a lot of women. Polyandry has never been able to take up the slack. Leaving 50 % of your young male population with no chance of getting laid let alone having a family leads to lots of disgruntled violent men and subsequent instability | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | I agree that polygamy should be allowed but there are too many logistical problems involved. Because marriage has lots of legal and especially economic benefits tied to it, polygamy would change the game entirely. How would one fill out tax forms with 4 wives? Wouldn't there be economic benefits to having multiple spouses? How would custody hearings go? Would a spouse have a right to a child who was not hers? There are lots of problems involved with legalizing polygamy. If someone would comprehensively tackle all of them to allow for fair, legal polygamy, I'd be all for it, but to my knowledge no one has done so. | cmv |
I believe it's hypocritical for people to be fighting for gay marriage, while simultaneously disagreeing with polygamy. CMV | Just because gay marriage is illegal now doesn't mean it should be conflated with every other kind of illegal sexual relationship. That's a false equivalence. In my opinion, gay marriage should be considered every bit the legal, social, and moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. I don't have a strong opinion on polygamy either way. But a person who supports gay marriage but not polygamy isn't any more hypocritical than a person who supports straight marriage but not polygamy. People make this same logical mistake when they talk about the " cause " of homosexuality. They ponder whether it's genetic or environmental or a choice but they never seem to realize that we don't know the cause of heterosexuality either. In other words, they accept heterosexuality as a default but because homosexuality is more rare they question the details of exactly how it develops. You're doing the same thing in your post by comparing gay marriage to polygamy when that makes no more sense than to compare straight marriage to polygamy. | cmv |
I believe that in comments, it doesn't matter who holds which view. CMV | Devil's advocate here, If you're playing devil's advocate, you might be not be arguing to your fullest capacity - - you could be presenting a lackluster case. This, in turn, could give the the OP a distorted view of what actual holders of the belief believe, and at worst present the OP with a strawman argument without them actually realizing it. There's a saying, and I don't have have a source for it, that ( very ) roughly paraphrased goes " the best way to attack a point is to defend it poorly, " and I think warning OPs of devil's advocate posts helps minimize the not - necessarily - justified damage of a potential poor defense. | cmv |
I think striking is a rude and irresponsible / unethical thing to do in a developed country, CMV | What other tools does labor have to get attention? You mention yourself that jobs are tight. Would you even pay any heed to the situation if you weren't minorly inconvenienced? How rude is blatant indifference? Your whole argument underscores just exactly why striking is the best strategy. | cmv |
I believe that governments should take care of the needs of the people, and that corporations should take care of the wants. CMV | I think the biggest issue with this dichotomy is employment. If employment is a need then the government has to be able to employ you, and if you aren't skilled labor, they have to find a place for you, and they have to educate you. Which sounds fine until you realize the government is giving people employment, employment which is supposed to be the purview of corporations. You can't have a dichotomy like this and have it both ways. If government handles needs and corporations handle wants, one or the other has to provide employment to everyone, not both, because employment is either a need or a want. If it's a need the government employs everyone and there are no corporations, if it's a want corporations employ everyone and we have no government. | cmv |
I believe people should be held fully accountable for any decisions made while intoxicated. CMV. | Say I am a landlord who walks around bars looking for extremely drunk people to sign a lease in which they pay 10000 per month for a tiny apartment. The court can rule that lease is void. On the other hand, I can not drink a few beers, smash someone's face into concrete leaving him / her with medical bills and go to the courtroom and say " Well I was drunk so I'm not responsible. " The law is protecting drunk people from others, and protecting everyone else from drunk people. | cmv |
I believe people should be held fully accountable for any decisions made while intoxicated. CMV. | There's a legal concept called " Dutch courage " or " liquid courage " that applies. Say you hate your spouse, but you're afraid to do anything about it. So you buy a bottle of whiskey and a knife, and in the morning you wake up with a hangover and the knife in your spouse's chest. In this case the courts would rule that you planned and made arrangements that would lead to the murder, and this is sufficient to convict you for the crime. In the case of DUI, you are expected to make arrangements for someone else to drive before you begin drinking. The prosecution would argue that you failed to give your keys to a designated driver, or do your drinking at home, arrange for a taxi to pick you up, or whatever. The same defense can't be applied to sex while under the influence of alcohol, unless there's extraordinary evidence that the victim deliberately made preparations with the intent to have sex after getting drunk. You can't otherwise assume a person is implicitly consenting to sex just by having a drink or getting drunk. | cmv |
I believe people should be held fully accountable for any decisions made while intoxicated. CMV. | What I have learned is that there is a strict differentiation between unconsensual sex and rape. Rape is where there is no consent the entire time, unconsensual sex is where a person might actually want to have sex at first and then realize that it is not what they want and then revoke consent and want to stop. So the situation you described would be her basically regretting sex but she wouldn't be able to call that rape. Most police stations are VERY serious about rape accusations. Hope this helps a little, I was kinda scattered writing it and may have lost my point somewhere in there. | cmv |
I believe people should be held fully accountable for any decisions made while intoxicated. CMV. | I believe that in Canada it is really difficult to use alcohol as a defense for your actions, like violence or homicide. For the issue of consent, I would argue that alcohol clearly can, when consumed in a high enough quantity, cause a sort of automatism or at least impact competence sufficiently enough to impact consent ( which usually relies on competence to some degree I believe ). Also, in one of your scenarios, the woman has failed to maintain the standard of care required, and as a result has harmed someone. In the other, the woman is not competent to consent and is harmed by someone. Your examples seem slightly divergent in that way. | cmv |
I believe people should be held fully accountable for any decisions made while intoxicated. CMV. | This is not a double standard at all. In one case, we're holding a drunk person responsible for harm which they cause. This seems eminently reasonable ; " I was drunk! " does not erase the harm that was done. In the other case, we're saying that nominal consent to sex given when drunk doesn't count as consent. It makes no sense to frame this as a matter of accountability ; it does no harm if I say I want to sleep with someone. | cmv |
I hold the view that civil commitment, psychiatric holds and the insanity defense should all be banned and outlawed. CMV. | The original foundation of the insanity defense was cases where the defendant would've been fully legally justified in their actions had what they believed to be true actually happened. Obviously it's not just to punish someone for slaying a dragon even if IRL they killed some random person, because they had no idea they were doing that. The law doesn't punish people for doing things by accident, or against their will. You need some kind of knowledge you were doing something wrong or could've been doing something wrong for the state to be able to say you should have known not to do it. | cmv |
I hold the view that civil commitment, psychiatric holds and the insanity defense should all be banned and outlawed. CMV. | OP, just so you know, you keep saying " my understanding is that... " when other people give evidence instead of just accepting that your " understanding " is flawed. This isn't / r / debate. This is / r / changemyview, and you should consider all evidence rather than just trying to argue with it. Some of the things you are disagreeing with are as indisputable as the fact that the Earth is far closer to being a sphere than it is to being any other uniform shape rather than disagreeing with an interpretation of morality. | cmv |
I hold the view that civil commitment, psychiatric holds and the insanity defense should all be banned and outlawed. CMV. | I can challenge your thoughts on the use of the insanity defense in criminal trials. There are three different tests used by US courts to evaluate that defense. Each test requires proof of a mental disease or defect and then they change, mostly semantically. The root of this in American jurisprudence is that we don't convict on simply thoughts alone or just on actions ( for serious crimes, ignore statutory rape, it's a complicated exception. ). We require both. Opening a door that knocks someone over and causes them to become injured should only result in me being convicted of the crime of battery if I meant to hurt that person with my action of opening the door. If it was an accident, then I should not be criminally liable. Simply buying a gun with the intent to kill someone but not going through with it should not expose me to a murder conviction. The idea behind allowing the insanity defense is that we don't want to punish those who just acted if we don't believe they had the corresponding intent. A mental disease can compromise this and we choose to treat rather than imprison. | cmv |
I hold the view that civil commitment, psychiatric holds and the insanity defense should all be banned and outlawed. CMV. | Being in favor of allowing suicide is not the same thing as being in favor of letting people throw their lives away because of a treatable chemical imbalance. A great many people who commit suicide could be cured by modern psychiatry. Dying because your life is ruined beyond repair is not the same thing as a chemical imbalance throwing your brain out of whack for a short time. By detaining someone for a short time and giving them treatment, it may be possible to save a life with no downside. If the person really just wants to die for a real reason, then by all means allow suicide. That doesn't require letting people do it at the drop of a hat. | cmv |
I believe that the heads of bureaucracies ( CIA, FBI, IRS, DOJ,... ) should be elected positions by citizens, and not appointed. CMV | My primary issue with this is that, at the moment, a massive majority of Americans don't have any security clearance. Thereby, we simply don't know enough to properly judge who is a good candidate for a position. In addition, anonymous123421 stated it well that " Elections are popularity contests. Presidents need to appeal to citizens and represent their interests. These agencies are part of the executive branch, and thus their heads should be appointed by the President, who in turn can largely control what they do. " I'd like to add to that by also stating that since the POTUS is elected by citizens, we, technically, elect the heads of these agencies indirectly since the President is the one who appoints these people. | cmv |
I believe that the heads of bureaucracies ( CIA, FBI, IRS, DOJ,... ) should be elected positions by citizens, and not appointed. CMV | Absolutely not. Elections are popularity contests. Presidents need to appeal to citizens and represent their interests. These agencies are part of the executive branch, and thus their heads should be appointed by the President, who in turn can largely control what they do. It would actually be unconstitutional ( see : separation of powers ), not to mention counterproductive, to have uninformed citizens deciding who is the best candidate for just technical and involved jobs. | cmv |
Fascism is NOT a right wing ideology, but rather a movement and belief of the left | Fascism is considered a right wing ideology because it is basically " worship of state, " or the belief that nationalism is the highest possible value. It is authoritarian nationalism. Stalinist Russia, on the other hand, was based on the ideology of universalism ( which is never actually lived up to, but we are talking about ideologies ). Communism is a universalist political ideology, and fascism is a nationalistic ideology. Because the political left leans more universalist than the political right, and fascism has in the past taken a reactionary form, fascism is associated with the right. Remember : Authoritarianism can exist on either side of the political spectrum. But when it exists on the political right, it has often taken the form of fascism. | cmv |
Fascism is NOT a right wing ideology, but rather a movement and belief of the left | The standard definition of conservatism is " against change ", and the standard definition of liberalism is " for change ". This is political science going all the way back to Burke. Fascism is the construction of the entire state in such a way it prevents political dissent and thus political change most effectively, as political dissent and change is seen as the primary danger to the state. It's sort of the archetypal right wing ideology ; you really can't get more right - wing than fascism. | cmv |
Fascism is NOT a right wing ideology, but rather a movement and belief of the left | Left - wing + authoritarianism = Stalinism Right - wing + authoritarianism = Fascism The common element between the two is authoritarianism. Neither left - wing or right - wing governments are necessarily authoritarian. There are also left - wing libertarians and right - wing libertarians. There are also left - wing and right - wing governments that reside in a middle ground that is neither authoritarian or libertarian. The error with your definitions is that you seem to be proposing that authoritarianism is always a part of left - wing policy and never a part of right - wing policy. Authoritarianism can, however, be present or absent from both. | cmv |
Fascism is NOT a right wing ideology, but rather a movement and belief of the left | If we're to shoe horn fascism into our schema of politics, " Fascist " is right wing authoritarianism. That you're able to draw parallels between it and left wing authoritarianism ( aka Stalinist communism ) doesn't make it left wing. The common thread is authoritarianism - - not leftist ideology. 1930's fascists were explicitly anti - communist. | cmv |
Fascism is NOT a right wing ideology, but rather a movement and belief of the left | How can any ideological movement whose wish was more or less explicitly to undo the French Revolution be a left - wing movement? The idea's nonsensical. Right wing does not equal free market. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.