summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that any proper Muslim must needs be a terrorist. CMV. | Islam requires that all Muslims lay down their lives to protect Chistians and Jews. Chrstianity requires that all Christians love everybody. Neithe side really does it, that's how religion works. People filter beliefs through other beliefs. | cmv |
I believe that any proper Muslim must needs be a terrorist. CMV. | The problem with this viewpoint is that it is not shared by Muslims. I mean, there are Muslims who believe they should be terrorists, but I don't know that there are any Muslims who believe that the Koran logically compels all Muslims to be terrorists. As such, your point of view of what one needs to be a proper Muslim isn't particularly valid. As to what is required to be a " proper " Muslim, my thinking is that it is the Five Pillars. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | Obviously, mental health is a major issue. But the majority of gun - related crimes are not committed by people with any kind of recognized mental illnesses. Actually, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victimized or self - harm than to attack others. So yes, access to proper mental health care is very important. And it will probably stop some level of gun violence. But that will be a drop in the bucket. " Better mental health care " is a laudable goal in it's own right, but it is not a solution to problems relating to gun violence. The only area where I can see it making a major impact is the level of suicides where a gun was used. Statistically, people who commit suicide are much more likely to have a mental illness, and guns are a common method of committing suicide. And while reducing the number of suicide - by - gun's is obviously a good goal, it doesn't sound like it's the kind of gun violence you're talking about. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | The problem is, a lot of this comes from nowhere. I agree that it is an important issue, but these people often aren't crazy. Sometimes they may have Aspergers, which is a high functioning form of autism that really isn't very noticeable. You probably know people with it ; I know quite a few ( probably a lot, but only a few for a fact ). It has no linked violent tendencies. So a lot of this would be questionable. The issue of mental health is not so cut and dry. Guns? Yeah. Regulate them. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | Mental health is an extremely challenging issue that people have only just begun to recognize as a problem. Aside from politics, gun control is almost trivial to implement. I don't think most people would disagree with your view, but gun control is much lower hanging fruit. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | It is certainly the most contributing factor in these acts of violence but it is also the most elusive. What can really be done, better parenting? More counselors in schools? There is seemingly nothing that can be done from the standpoint of legislation. The best thing we can do is to raise general public awareness on mental illness ; practice compassion with our fellow citizens ; and understand traits of sociopath behavior. Education, empathy, awareness. That is the only lasting remedy for this problem and it is one that must be taken up by each of its citizens. Not an easy task. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | Self - professed gun nut here : Mental health is an issue BUT, it isn't a significant one in relation to US gun crime. If we could reasonably assume that all attempted spree shootings in the US were committed by the mentally ill, that is still a drop in the bucket ( < 10 % ) when it comes to our statistics for violent crime or violent gun crime. The problem is the underlying culture. No, not videogames, but a country which has incentivized using firearms in the commission of criminal acts. Reducing gun crime is something that has to be done with an 80 / 20 approach. We can largely reduce the numbers significantly by simply passing laws with draconian sentencing for criminals using weapons to commit a crime. Seeking out the mentally ill is incredibly difficult because many don't show any outward signs of instability to the casual observer. | cmv |
I believe that mental health is a much more important issue than gun control, CMV | As a person who has spent a lot of time with the mentally ill I would say these things are not well related. If a mentally ill person wants to do harm they have all the same options as a mentally well person. If those options include a gun then both sets of people can do more harm. The idea behind this question is exploiting fear of mental illness as a scapegoat for gun violence. It's comforting to put people into tidy little boxes labelled'stable'and'unstable ', but the truth is that all people are dangerous and unpredictable. Giving people guns only makes them more dangerous. The mentally ill are many time more likely to commit suicide than harm anyone else and guns will help them do that. You're far more likely to be shot by a mentally stable person. The mentally ill are kept away from weapons to stop them from harming themselves. | cmv |
I believe PETA is crazy, and thinks of amimals as more important than humans. CMV. | Why do you believe that PETA thinks animal are more important than humans? My understanding was that they based their philosophy on Peter Singers preference based utilitarianism, under which animals certainly have a lot more moral value than is normally accorded them, but still much less than humans on account of having less developed preferences. Also why are they crazy? The only argument you gave was a bald assertion presenting your own view, without presenting or discrediting their view nor supporting your own. If their philosophy is as I claim based on Peter Singers, then they are not crazy but instead have a well developed philosophy that leads to conclusions which are, in our society, radical. | cmv |
Feminism is too nebulous for it to be anything but moot. CMV | I think your problem is that you want to argue with " feminism " and not feminists. If your argument is something like " feminism is wrong because this is something feminists have done " you are not saying anything meaningful. It would be like trying to debate " America " rather than " an American. " I'd suggest that if you're discussing gender related issues ( or any issue really ) with someone you try to understand their ideas on an individual case - by - case basis rather than making a ton of assumptions because the feminist label is so broad. | cmv |
Feminism is too nebulous for it to be anything but moot. CMV | I dont think there is a single political or religious movement that is entirely unified ; they all fracture into different sects and sub - movements. This is true for Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam ad infinitum. So if Feminism is moot for being too nebulous then all other political and religious ideologies are also moot. However I think what underlines your CMV is that you'll have people say " if you want equality for women, then you're a feminist ". This will be said by literally any feminist from the most liberal, casual feminist to the hardline radical feminists. However, as soon as someone disagrees with some small part of feminist ideology ( against quotas or something ) then suddenly they're not a feminist and are misogynists or something. So the nebulous nature of feminism come from simultaneously trying to have good PR and just being simply about equality while also being a very complex and extensive ideology with many disagreements between feminists. | cmv |
Feminism is too nebulous for it to be anything but moot. CMV | There are many ways to define what it means to be a good person. Does that mean it's pointless to strive to be a better person? There are many ways to define art. Does that mean that all art is pointless? There are many ways to define love. Does that mean it's always a lie? Just because something is difficult to define, does not make it entirely pointless. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | I would think that a benevolent government of any kind would be the best form of government. I'm nut sure why a benevolent dictatorship would be particularly better than a benevolent monarchy or direct democracy. What maters is beneficence. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | I would argue that every system of government is perfect in a perfect world. Your chosen system only works without greed infecting everything and everybody under that system agreeing with what the dictator does. As others pointed out, this is never the case. This breeds resentment, hate and usually a violent coup. Likewise, communism works without greed just as small communes of hippies work because they are like - minded and don't want to make a bunch of money - they just want to live in harmony. The reality of millions of people living under any system of government means it's never perfect and will always breed contempt. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | There are quit a few political scientists who will admit a truly benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. However the issue with it comes in the form of succession. Because no matter how strong of respected and loved the passing leader might be in life, after they die, even if they lay down safeguards, there is no guarantee that an evil or selfish person might not take over. This leads to a political roller coaster effect over several generations. Look at Roman history starting with Augustus onward to see a prime example. Sometimes the emporer was someone spectacular and effective who helped the empire like Hadrian, and sometimes the emporer was a batshit insane person who did nothing but cause damage like Caligula. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | There is no way to have the best interests of all the people at heart. No matter what, there will be an opposing camp who will work their absolute hardest to prove the disingenuous nature of the dictator's efforts - and the dictator will be forced to either succumb to their demands or force their silence. Most dictators have chosen the " force silence " method, sometimes going so far as to purge the existence of the opposition entirely. Not so benevolent anymore, eh? It is simply impossible to please everyone, and if someone has total authority then the people they don't please have no recourse. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | No single person can POSSIBLY be as good for the people as the people themselves. No matter how nice the dictator is, they're only one person, and so they can't possibly take into account all the competing interests of everyone in the state. Basically, when you say " fast and effective " I hear " haphazard and arbitrary ". | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure that most prospective dictators don't really have the best interests at heart. I mean, look at Hitler and Kim Jong Il. They have their own best interests at heart, not the country's. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | Benevolence is not universal. There are no choices without tradeoffs, and everything you do to help some people will have consequences for others. The job of any leader is to decide who suffers. That goes for deciding who gets the graveyard shift, to who goes to war. And the the problem with dictators in general, benevolent or not, is that they're really difficult to remove. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | The problem arises when the leader dies and power has to be transferred. History has shown this countless times with monarchies and despots. Unless the ruler is immortal, despostism will lead to power struggles. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | I suggest you study Roman History. It is the best example of how well dictatorships and how terrible they can go. Good Emperor Examples : Hadrian, Pertinax, Marcus Aurelius Bad ( evil even ) Emperor Examples : NERO, Caligula, Commodus. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | I would say that any system of government where the individual feels ( and is ) completely powerless to effect change, where there are no incentives to understand political questions, and where there is no political responsibility vested in the private citizen has serious problems. Would you agree with such an assessment? We can talk about whether our current systems of government achieve these goals, but there's no question that even the most ideal benevolent dictatorship fails miserably. | cmv |
I believe that a benevolent dictator is the best form of government. CMV | Your argument overlooks the fact that information gathering is not costless. The cost to a central body of acquiring information regarding the utility function of every individual in a given nation is effectively infinite. It just makes sense to let people make their own decisions, since they have costless access to their own utility function. | cmv |
I agree with Gov. Rick Perry that freedom of religion does not mean the same as freedom from religion. CMV | If I'm free to practice Christianity, I obviously must be free not to practice Islam. If I'm free to practice Islam, I must be free not to practice Christianity. So why can't I simultaneously use my freedoms not to practice each individual religion? How would that work? | cmv |
I agree with Gov. Rick Perry that freedom of religion does not mean the same as freedom from religion. CMV | " In other words, the amendment protects religious individuals, not non - religious ones. " Your interpretation has no basis in legal reality or precedent. Even the Founders, who refused to pray while in office and wouldn't even recognize Thanksgiving for fear that it was to religious of a holiday, agreed that the 1st Amendment's religion clauses have two roles - preserving freedom of religion and freedom from religion. See [ e. g. Lee v. Weisman ] ( Our decisions in [ Engel ] and [ Abington ] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. 505 U. S. 577, 592 ). | cmv |
I don't believe the state of Israel should exist. CMV | I don't see why Israeli nationalism is any less legitimate than Palestinian nationalism. There had been Jews and Muslims living in that area for thousands of years. And I think you are claiming that the creation of the State of Israel was a direct response to the Holocaust. Sure, the international community was more likely to vote for the Partition Plan because of the horrors of the Holocaust, but Zionism predated the Holocaust as a national movement. | cmv |
I don't believe the state of Israel should exist. CMV | One point I'd like to make is that the people who were living in Israel prior to 1948 weren't there for generations. When Mark Twain visited Israel in the late 1800s, he found a land desolate, barren, and largely uninhabited. Many of the people who lived there at the time of the founding of the state of Israel ( less than a hundred years later ) were either brought in by the British as laborers or were attracted by improving quality of life due to the Jewish immigrants. I'm told this is even evident in many " Palestinian " last names, many of which indicate countries of origin. As an interesting aside, there is some evidence that those Palestinians who were there for hundreds of years before the State of Israel was founded are actually Jews who were forcibly converted by the Ottomans. Source As long as I'm commenting, one thing to notice about refugees. For whatever reason ( it's been discussed already ), somewhere between 600k - 800k refugees were made of each Jews and " Palestinians. " The " Palestinian " refugees remain today in refugee camps both unwilling to move and unaccepted by their " fellow Arab nations. " By contrast, the Jewish refugees were painstakingly accepted and integrated into Israeli society, to such an extent that most people don't even remember they existed. If you want to blame the " Palestinians'" suffering on anyone then, blame it on their neighbors who refused to accept them, refused to integrate them, and largely keep them in limbo as an international weapon to delegitimize the State of Israel. | cmv |
I think that reinforcing gender - normative behaviours in children and in the greater society as a whole is an archaic practice and contributes to violence towards the LGBTQ community. CMV. | Yeah, I agree with your actual views, I just wanted to point out deconstructive gender / queer theory which does not come from the LGBTQ community. There is an amount of queer theory which comes from an anarchist tradition rather than LGBTQ, and often this takes the form of an anti - assimilationist queer theory which derides the LGBTQ movement for trying to be " just like everyone else. " Looking at something like Queer Ultraviolence ( Bashback! ), or Til the Clock Stops, are some examples. Some folks also get to queer theory / gendered deconstruction from strictly a critical theory milieu ( Derrida, Foucault, et cetera ). There are also some ( though not as many as the other avenues ) who come to a queer perspective from a nihilist tradition. In addition I would say that, even though Butler does come from a LGBT background, her queer theory is more a result of feminism ( albeit a critique of feminism, " Gender Trouble " ) than it does from an LGBT view. Though I suppose the lesbian v non - lesbian struggles within feminism could be seen as a sort of impetus for the discussion of " real " genders. | cmv |
I think that reinforcing gender - normative behaviours in children and in the greater society as a whole is an archaic practice and contributes to violence towards the LGBTQ community. CMV. | I think that we should allow children to grow into their own identity. If a boy wants to play with dolls and a girl wants to play with trucks thats perfectly ok. I think parents who decide to raise their children with no gender identity is just as wrong as forcing an identity onto a child. Let the child play with what he or she likes but don't eliminate the idea of having a gender identity completely. | cmv |
I think that reinforcing gender - normative behaviours in children and in the greater society as a whole is an archaic practice and contributes to violence towards the LGBTQ community. CMV. | Western society is trending towards greater acceptance of diversity. My challenge to your view is this : you basically assert that DIFFERENT = VIOLENCE, then proceed to blame the difference. I think that eliminating the concept of diffence and diversity would not serve to remove violence, which seems to be what you advocate, it would just re - target it. Violent trends in society is the cause of violence toward " different " groups of people, not their " different " status. It's the violence that needs correction. | cmv |
I don't believe that there should be any legal prohibition on the access, sale, or viewing of sexual and / or violent media based on age. CMV | I think there is definitely value in controlling what a child can see and watch. I would be concerned if any child of mine was watching how - to videos on making bombs, for example. When the information contained in a video poses a direct threat to people's health and safety I see no reason to not allow parents to control their children's viewing. Also, there's the matter of property and money. It's all well and good if you think children should be allowed to consume violent and sexual media, but how are they going to get it? The parent owns the computers and TV's in the house, and is presumable paying the electrical, cable and internet bills. If the parent wants to control how a child uses those resources, that should be their right. | cmv |
I don't believe that there should be any legal prohibition on the access, sale, or viewing of sexual and / or violent media based on age. CMV | Society as a whole has a responsibility to protect then innocent. While I believe natural acts like sex shouldn't be screened so dramatically from young people, that is very different from saying that we should allow something like a 5 year old watching The Last House on the Left, where there is a lengthy rape scene. I believe that is correct not to let a parent bring a 5 year old to such a movie, and that doing so would constitute abusive parenting and the state should get involved. I do agree that seeing sex or violence won't create sex addicts or violent adults, but having more freedom is not the same as giving a carte blanche to parents and allowing them to show very young, vulnerable and innocent children the very worst the world has to offer. | cmv |
I think maternity leave should be unpaid, and that if she isn't able to do her job fully due to the pregnancy, the employer should have the ability to fire her. CMV | Adding on, this would be a direct punishment for women and not men for having children. This would not only harm the woman in question, but likely her husband as well. When you place such a heavy financial burden on a child, especially a newborn, those effects are going to be felt later in life, overall the education and well - being of the child. Also, maternity leave is required. Businesses offer it to attract talent and it's a common business practice. What you think may be helping a business is actually just hurting it. | cmv |
I think maternity leave should be unpaid, and that if she isn't able to do her job fully due to the pregnancy, the employer should have the ability to fire her. CMV | It all depends on your values. You value a businesses right to do that. I think more good is done in the world when we don't enact policies like that which demonstrably harm women's access to jobs. Men and women should have equal access to employment, and creating ( or maintaining ) a policy like this unfairly punishes women due to an accident of genetics and biology. This reinforces harmful gender roles for men and women : that men are allowed to follow their dream job and do whatever they want, while women are allowed to follow their dream job as long as they don't intend on having kids. They have a choice to make that men don't have to. By allowing women to be denied maternity leave, you are effectively removing a huge number of people from the job market. A woman who loses her job upon having a baby will find it much harder to find a job afterward, and the longer the unemployment, the worse her prospects become. If the woman in question is educated, then all the time and effort and money spend educating her is now possibly wasted. If the woman is poorer, her family is hit ever harder by the policy, and would result in even higher levels of disparity between the rich and the poor. | cmv |
I believe that the rule of law is little more than a standing threat of violence. CMV. | This is less of a poly sci question than it is a legal one You are mostly correct in that the rule of law is maintained through the threat of violence. However, I would disagree that this is done based on the arbitrary rules and whims of the state. The idea behind our criminal justice system is that when you commit what is considered a crime, the state is the real victim. When someone steals your wallet, you are out a wallet, but the society you live in is also a victim in that the act of theft erodes trust and stability. The idea behind the rule of law is that by giving up our right to seek our own justice, we can insure that justice is administered more fairly and consistently. I'm not particularly articulate on the matter, so I highly recommend the illustrated guide to criminal law. Link Complete with pretty pictures. This is a great read - at least go through the first chapter. | cmv |
I believe that the rule of law is little more than a standing threat of violence. CMV. | Okay, sure. What you have described is accurate. But while you claim you're not saying it's good or bad, you really are. It's like saying that employment is a standing threat of starvation, because if you don't have a job you won't get food. That's not wrong, per se, but nobody who wasn't trying to make a point would frame it that way. | cmv |
I think the current political systems in the world are corrupt, unrepresentative, ineffective and, essentially, broken. I would move to replace them with a new system partly based on mass and social media as well as Reddit style forums. CMV | What about when a coalition of 50 % plus one person shoves tons of legislation through according to their own agenda? Aren't the other 50 % minus one person now unrepresented? A representative democracy, like the US, prevents this degree of tyranny of the majority by allowing directly elected legislators who are beholdent to their constituents create laws. Clearly the system in the US isn't perfect, but there is a very good reason why most modern nations are democratic republics and not pure majoritarian democracies. | cmv |
I believe that proof of citizenship should be required to vote in elections. CMV | Try looking only at the end result of such an action and its effect on the American electorate. Study Finds Voter ID Law Hurts Young Minorities It's a strong enough argument for me that because of the significantly disproportionate harm this will have on young minorities, voter ID is unnecessary. The harm this puts on the electorate is far greater than any harm caused by voter fraud. The Myth of Voter Fraud Why address a problem that barely exists? Why ask people to pay for something they have never needed before in anticipation of a problem that hasn't yet happened? | cmv |
I believe that proof of citizenship should be required to vote in elections. CMV | Twenty dollars is a lot of money for a family that is below the poverty line ; families that have to make the choice between eating that night or paying for their voter registration. It is simply a form of voter suppression, attempting to solve the problem of " Voter Fraud " which does not exist. It makes it harder for poor families to vote, especially if their job gives them hours that restrict them from going to the DMV while it is open. | cmv |
I believe that proof of citizenship should be required to vote in elections. CMV | Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. was more about the supremacy of federal election law over state. States under this decision simply have to accept the NVRA form as sufficient proof of citizenship. States still can petition the federal government to allow them to require proof of citizenship on their voting roles or, if denied, the state can seek out in the courts that it has a constitutional right to require proof of citizenship.--- The issue isn't that a one time $ 20 fee isn't too expensive but to actually take the time to do get these ID's can be difficult. If you work 7 days a week getting a card requires that you take off work, spend money on transportation to a facility, and then spend the money to get it. A day off may not seem like much but some people absolutely need to save those days in case they get sick. For many American poor this is simply not a risk that they can take. Perhaps requiring government facilities that issue ID's to stay open later or issuing ID's for free could be a solution but we have to make due with the cards we are dealt. | cmv |
I believe that the American Civil war was not fought over slavery. CMV | / r / AskHistorians can handle this better than I can. They had a good thread on this a while back : How accurate is it to say the Civil War was fought over slavery? | cmv |
I believe subsets of the overall population should be held accountable for their respective radical's actions. CMV. | All groups that you can possibly think of have members that do things that are disagreeable. Why should you be held responsible for the actions of other people that you haven't contributed to in any way? If you want to avoid the impression of holding other people to unreasonable standards tell us to what group you belong to and the things you do to " If they are disagreeable to you, I believe you should also actively do something about it rather than pout in silence. " | cmv |
I believe subsets of the overall population should be held accountable for their respective radical's actions. CMV. | Radical elements usually emphasize values that are not accepted by the mainstream. To follow your example, radical Muslims use violent as a means to their end ; mainstream Muslims believe that violence is not a part of Islam. It should be assumed that radical elements of any group are not representative of the mainstream unless otherwise stated, and it should be assumed that a particular member of a group is mainstream unless they express views that indicate otherwise. A group whose radicals represent them loudly and poorly might have an interest in controlling public perception, but by no means should we assume the radical and the mainstream feel any sense of responsibility toward one another. | cmv |
I believe subsets of the overall population should be held accountable for their respective radical's actions. CMV. | How are you dividing the different subsets? Should followers of the Republican party be lumped in with the government of Turkey, as they are both conservative? Should the Aborigines of Australia and the Inuit in the far north be judged for each others'actions, becasue they are both native peoples? These are obviously ( I hope ) absurd examples, but what about more subtle distinctions, like Sunni vs. Shia Muslims, Catholic vs. Protestant, or between two similar nearby countries? | cmv |
I believe subsets of the overall population should be held accountable for their respective radical's actions. CMV. | That's absurd. So, let's just say you're an atheist. If some guy bombs a church " in the name of the atheist movement, " should you be held accountable? Are all people who identify by a certain religion ( or, even worse, who have a certain color skin as you have mentioned, SOMETHING THEY CANNOT CHOOSE ) the same to you? They should all be accountable? I'm assuming you're white. Will you take a share of the blame for the OKC bombings? After all, Timothy McVeigh was white. Or is it just for " minorities? " Or anyone that is different from you? | cmv |
I believe subsets of the overall population should be held accountable for their respective radical's actions. CMV. | So when one man rapes a woman, are all men held accountable? And if all Muslims are held accountable for the action of an extremist Muslim, how does this work across state boundaries? Is a Pakistani Muslim extremist the same as an average Iraqi Muslim citizen that gets blown up by them in a suicide bomb? An Afghani Muslim member of the Taliban the same as an Indonesian Muslim? How about for the denominations? Is a Shiite lumped in with Sunni? Anywhere that you draw the line is relatively arbitrary. That's the problem with your reasoning. | cmv |
I think all drugs should be decriminalized for personal use. CMV | Drugs don't kill anybody ( Keith Richards is a prime example ).. The drug lifestyle and Drug Prohibition kill people, ruin lives and overall cost society 10000X more than if ALL drugs were legal. The problem is in the US of A there are too many groups that profit from the drug prohibition, and none of them want to get their snouts out of the trough.. 1. Politicians.. tough on drugs always scares up votes.. and money and power 2. Prison industrial complex Judges, lawyers, jailers, police, prison systems.. medical staff, drug prohibition feeds this huge machine 3. Legal state sanctioned drug system, from Pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and cigarettes have deep roots and political power to keep drugs illegal, the biggest problem with marijuana is that it can be grown by anyone, requires no refining and is very hard to tax ( privately ) 4. The illegal drug trade makes huge profits from drugs being illegal the last thing they want is legalization | cmv |
I think all drugs should be decriminalized for personal use. CMV | The reason many drugs are illegal is because they don't just have negative effects upon the person who takes the drug, but also on society. Crack and heroin addicts will rob, steal, even kill if it will help them get their next fix. Decriminalizing does not mean legalizing, police will still be involved. Decriminalizing may actually increase police involvement. Your first point talks about jail time for only drugs, but often with hard drugs there is no other alternative than crime. I also take issue with your second point. Drugs are not a disease firstly. Secondly, addictions are legal issues and health issues. | cmv |
CMV The US constitution is outdated. | What is it about the Constitution specifically that you think is outdated? The Constitution outlines a very limited Federal government, as it is a document of enumerated powers, so if something is not listed in the Constitution, it is not a power of the government. There is nothing about political parties in the Constitution, they are simply a function of representative democracy. | cmv |
CMV The US constitution is outdated. | What do you expect a new constitution to change? And are you aware of how many laws have been struck down or heavily modified because they would be " unconstitutional "? That " outdated " document has protected you from laws that range from intrusive to downright draconic. | cmv |
I'm a moral nihilist. CMV | Organisms want to survive. Cooperation between organisms leads to a higher survival rate. We consider the survival of ourselves as " good " and dying as " bad " in a vast majority of cases ( we have the will to survive unless there is something wrong with us ) Therefore, morality should have a basis in cooperation. | cmv |
I'm a moral nihilist. CMV | It sounds like you are not capable of empathy for others. That is the foundational part of morality. Most people have it, but from reading your post it sounds like you don't. | cmv |
I'm a moral nihilist. CMV | The Sophisticate : " The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else. " The Zetet : " Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two - color view, yet you replace it with a one - color view... " | cmv |
CMV I think that Personality test on job applications should be Illegal. | A company has a right to weed out people they don't deem would fit into the company culture, as long as they're not discriminating based on race, gender, etc. My first job out of college required me to take a ridiculously long pre - employment personality test before I even interviewed with HR. I was hired, but I was absolutely not " totally subordinated ", to use your wording. In fact, during my time with that company, I excelled in my position and was given extra responsibility, salary increases, and was held in high esteem by my employer. All of that not because I was ripe for assimilation into the Borg collective, but because I was able to think on my feet, think outside the box, and get work done with minimal supervision. Long story short, my boss trusted me to do a good job and didn't have to exploit poor, little, docile ninj4z for his hard labor. Have you dealt with such a personality test in the past and wound up not getting the job, and so feel that your responses on the test may have contributed to your not getting the job? | cmv |
CMV I think that Personality test on job applications should be Illegal. | Generally those personality assessments are utter bullshit anyway. They are as useful as a horoscope reading. This means that they are pretty much useless anyway. Even if they are, the law provides minimums for wages, leave, etc. If they are looking for someone who will take bare minimum working conditions and not complain, then that is their right. If you have an issue with the minimum conditions, then address your concerns there, not at the employers who are looking for someone who will accept them. | cmv |
CMV I think that Personality test on job applications should be Illegal. | The law is not for you to settle your petty piss - ant squabbles with. It's insane to make the legal system so long and convoluted that no one can possibly keep up with every little law for some mildly irksome dilemma. It's as bad as having no law at all, if no one knows what the law is. You want to not be jerked around by employers? Make yourself valuable to employers, so that THEY want YOU and not the other way around. | cmv |
I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV. | The only aspect I can challenge here is the assertion that what you've described constitutes'war'in any traditional sense. Calling loosely - affiliated factions and groups a single'enemy'seems fairly hyperbolic. I don't consider the War on Terror to be a true war in the same sense - you can't just re - define what an enemy is to suit your philosophical leanings on the subject of mass conflict. Also, to what ends to we define this as war? Is there someone we could kill or some place we can invade in order to fix the problem of mass - suffering? Clearly, no there is not. The problems that affect mass - suffering are far more complex and deeply - rooted than the details of any war or any armed conflict. Other peeps commenting have already explained some of that better than I can, though I will add that I believe we need a completely new global economic understanding based on the highest possible efficiency and effectiveness of resource allocation. This is all about who gets how much of things, and that's where we need to start. | cmv |
I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV. | People live together in a society. Insofar as the economy is concerned, this means they both cooperate to produce things and they compete for those produced things. When a group of people work together to produce a good or service, they trade it ( generally for cash ) and split the proceeds amongst themselves. That cash is then used to trade for other goods in the society. People compete on a level of demonstrating their worth to that team in producing that good or service, they compete with other groups of people by demonstrating the worth of their product, and then they compete with their cash to purchase other things. Competition is the result of limited goods / services. Now, without getting too complicated, we can reasonably say that our society is going to have various levels of competition and cooperation, and I would say its fair to say that different demographics are going to do better in some environments than others. What you describe in your post is different environments and how they're suited toward richer demographics. The demographics are cooperating and competing for wealth - I wouldn't call this a war, just the result of any competition with a prize at stake. | cmv |
I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV. | As I see it, the " Bourgeoisie " is nothing more than a bunch of people looking out for themselves and only themselves, which all things considered doesn't make them any different than anybody else, with the exception that they are in a position that allows them to have wide - reaching influence. They don't care if their actions are " good " or " bad ", they choose to do whatever makes them the most money. How these decisions affect others is simply not a concern. It isn't about whether the poor suffer, or the rich suffer, or nobody suffers, as long as they profit. There is neither a class - thinking, nor malicious intent in their actions, they simply don't concern themselves with the opinion of the sheep. | cmv |
I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV. | karl marx's class struggle concept is often misinterpreted, the classes don't cause the struggle, the struggle causes classes. so yes there is a class war, but it isnt an evil concious war of the corrupt versus the destitute, its a war with our own standing in life and the limited resources on earth. in literary terms its not man vs man, but man vs world. even in a class less society this struggle will exist. this means it isnt really a class war, but a constant, inevitable struggle to make the most benefit out of limited resources. | cmv |
I believe there is a very real and ongoing class war. CMV. | Since when is secondary education NOT meant to be preparation for the workforce. A liberal arts education received at a University is where critical thinking skills should be developed. I'm not saying secondary ed should be entirely about rote memorization but it also shouldn't be a place of'liberating education '. It's job is to prepare students for the next stage in life, for which the majority should be the workforce. If you ask me, the problem isn't with the secondary education system, its with post - high school institutions behaving more like companies. Having a skilled trade can be of much higher value than crippling student loans and a degree. | cmv |
After taking in all the information, I still think the NSA Scandal is not a big deal and not a threat to the majority of Law Abiding American Citizens. CMV | Dozens of the people that could have had access to your personal info were caught purchasing and downloading child pornography over the Internet. Now consider how they might use the access to your child's personal info ( emails, online diary, homework writing assignments ) to trick your child into a dangerous situation. There has been a case in which a Google employee stalked teens using his access to their personal info. This personal info can be used to convince children that a stalker was an old family friend. Stalkers with access to personal info can read about things children would think only a family friend or relative would know. The predator could then call up children and convince them that he was an old family friend or relative so it would be safe for them to let them in their house or meet in person. Now, imagine a predator that had little oversight working in secret for the NSA. | cmv |
I don't believe Native Americans deserve any kind of special treatment under the law. CMV | Way before your I were even born, this land was their land, they had self sustaining cultures and had a good way of life. Unitil Europeans showed up treating them like sht first taking their country and then shoving them into reservations. if a law means a disadvantaged Native American kid can afford to go to college - its the least we can do. | cmv |
I believe proof that you paid taxes the past four years should be required to vote. CMV | If you think that your right to vote is tied towards your payment of taxes, I don't understand how this would satisfy you. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that people who pay more taxes deserve more votes? ( And I think we can all agree that people don't deserve more votes just because they're richer. ) | cmv |
I believe proof that you paid taxes the past four years should be required to vote. CMV | They're still part of society, and it would allow the candidates to abuse the rights of the poor and those not earning much of an income. The homeless could have no care, the students no support, the disabled no support either. That is NOT a country I would like to live in. Ofcourse there are people who wouldn't vote for those who disregard those groups, even though they are not part of them, but the impact would be much smaller. I am not okay with a government that disregards the weakest members of our society. | cmv |
I believe proof that you paid taxes the past four years should be required to vote. CMV | The people who don't buy into the system should have every right that anyone else has, because voting is how you change the system. It's a rather far - fetched scenario, but what if over half of the people in a nation decided not to pay their taxes for four years in protest of the tax system? Should they not be allowed to vote, even though their view is the most widely held in the country? The point of democracy is that the people living in a state have the power to change the way the state works. It would be illogical to disallow someone from changing the way the state works, because they disagree with the way the state works. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Only the mom gets to decide if she wants to have her kid or not. Honestly, if some psycho cut my balls off, I'd push for him to get 10, 000, 000 consecutive life sentences. Fair is fair. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | I don't think that it should count as homicide either and I'm radically pro choice. But I think this comes down to my opinions on fetal personhood. I don't think that fetuses are people and should not be treated as such. I would be fine if you charged the person with destruction of property criminally and unnecessary and devastating emotional damage on the civil level ( if she is still alive ). This is separate from the assault or murder charges that will already be levied of course. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Just because someone is ok with killing their baby doesn't mean they can kill mine. If someone forced me into an abortion, why shouldn't they be charged with homicide? It's against pro - life and pro - choice to kill someone's baby that they don't want killed. It's a double homicide because you're killing the baby without the woman's permission and the woman at the same time. Killing people is legal in some circumstances. A person living inside your body with no way to remove it without killing it is one of those. Ever hear of justifiable homicide? Or soldiers killing " the enemy " in war? Those are circumstances where it's legal to kill people as well. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | The part of the narrative you are missing, is that most if not all pro - choice advocates opposed the fetal homicide laws, especially the language that equated ending a pregnancy with murder. There was no hypocrisy because two different and opposed groups advance the two legal frameworks. The double standard was an intentional move by pro - life activists to find a way to chip away at the logic of legalized abortion. Judging from your question, it seems that they were at least mildly successful. Even if you don't want to accept this, however, it still wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical. No one argues that the fetus isn't alive, instead they simply believe that they aren't a full person yet and therefore don't have all the rights of a full person. Additionally much of the abortion debate from a pro - choice perspective focusses on bodily autonomy which holds regardless of whether we consider the fetus a person. There are other frameworks by which we can support abortion rights without an argument that the fetus is not a " life ". | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | It's not about whether the fetus is alive or not, it's about the choice the woman makes. In the case of the double homicide, the woman chose to have the child and they were both killed. In the case of abortion, the woman chose not to have the baby. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Well, murdering the expecting mother removes the choice she has to govern her body as she sees fit. Also, we can't know if she was going to have the child or abort, and since she's yet to abort, you've now killed two people. When the expecting mother chooses to abort, it's no longer her child ; it's now essentially a tumor she wants removed. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Many replies to this question state that a woman has a right to choose whether her fetus should live but that a murder makes that decision for the mother and violates the mother's will. I think this is hypocritical for several reasons : - A mother knowingly risks pregnancy by having consensual sex. - A father should have some say in the abortion decision. - A nine month pregnancy out of wedlock followed by adoption no longer stigmatizes the mother or child and is this a viable alternative to abortion. - An aborted fetus resulting from rape is the second rape victim rather than the perpetrator of an offense against the mother. - Arguments that society benefits from abortion of the poor or that the poor benefit from abortion amount to eugenics and devoting resources to helping these children and their mothers would go further to help society and reduce the harm from poverty. - An individual's view on abortion does not necessarily derive from his or her religious views, gender, life experience, affluence, or political leanings, therefore opposition to abortion is not gender or economic discrimination. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | The legal reasoning of Roe v Wade is about a right to privacy which is ( implicitly ) enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There is no privacy - based reasoning involved in an act of violence against the mother ( and fetus ). Therefore, the whole balancing test of Roe isn't relevant when discussing a homicide committed by another person. That's how these seemingly contradictory legal interpretations can coexist. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Try this scenario on instead : If you sneak into a hospital room where an elderly patient is hooked up to a breathing machine and disconnect them, it is murder. If instead that same elderly patient's surviving spouse, with doctor's advice, makes the decision to turn off the machines, it is not. See also : doctor assisted suicide. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | I too am against abortion, but have a different argument for you just for devil's advocate : Whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant. It's an issue of bodily integrity. Even if another human's life depends on it, you are not obligated to give up the use of your body. If someone requires blood, and you are the only available donor in the country, you are not required to donate. You can just sit at home, watch TV, whatever. Sure it might be reprehensible to do, but fact is the law greatly values bodily integrity. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | In the U. S. the legality abortion is normally governed by the " viability " metric established in Roe v. Wade. Basically, up until the point where a fetus can survive outside the mother it's legal to abort, but after that it's illegal to do so. Usually this is considered to be somewhere around 24 - 28 weeks. After this point, the fetus is treated much like a living person because it's no longer fully dependent on the mother for its survival. One consequence, of course, is that it's no longer legal to abort it except in emergency cases. Another is that if it's killed by someone else, it's treated like a person for the purposes of criminal law. Thus, in cases after 24 - 28 weeks killing the mother and child is considered a double homicide. Earlier would be hypocritical, but to my knowledge all of the cases in question have fallen after that essential 24 - 28 week mark. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Yeah, it's kind of hard to talk about this without debating abortion, but I don't understand how people don't see the difference between abortion and murder. It is the woman's body, only she gets to decide what happens to it. How is that a difficult concept? I mean I know I sound rude, but seriously I don't know why people don't get this. It's her body. No one gets to decide for her whether she's going to be pregnant or not. So you can't force a woman to have an abortion ( i. e. kill her fetus in any way ), nor can you force her not to have an abortion. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | If you understand the underpinnings of the Roe v. Wade decision, you will see how to construct an argument that it is valid for the state to punish people who kill fetuses while invalid for the state to punish abortions. Allow me to attempt it : The first thing to understand is that Roe v. Wade was about balancing the mother's right to privacy and bodily autonomy with the state's interest in prohibiting abortion, not with the child's right to life. The Roe decision stated emphatically that " the word'person,'as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn, " so the fetus itself does not have any cognizable interest. The Roe court balanced the mother's privacy / autonomy with the state's interest in protecting potential life, and held that prior to viability, the mother's interest outweighed the state's interest in protecting potential life. However, it went on to find that after viability, the state's interest in protecting potential life became larger than the woman's interest in privacy / autonomy, so a state could constitutionally prohibit abortion after viability. Now let's shift to the murder case : the state has a legitimate interest in protecting potential life, as we see from Roe v. Wade. The person committing the homicide does not have a legitimate interest in killing people analogous to the woman's interest in privacy / autonomy. Thus, when we balance the state's interest with the killer's interest, we see that the state's interest in potential life can outweigh the killer's interest in killing people even from the point of conception, so a prohibition on killing fetuses is constitutional. | cmv |
I think it's hypocritical that if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal. CMV. | Is it considered a double homicide at any stage of the pregnancy? Because abortion is legal only up to a certain point. So at that point it's no longer a double standard. | cmv |
I don't believe stopping any number of terrorist plots justifies the intrusion by the government into our private lives. CMV. | So how much do you care about the 315 million other people's rights? What if they could all die from a huge nuclear explosion that the government could have found out about? In other words, how many people would have to be in threat of dying for it to be morally acceptable to have a computer program that tracks certain keywords, which then gives the government probable cause to further track an individual? | cmv |
I don't believe stopping any number of terrorist plots justifies the intrusion by the government into our private lives. CMV. | I disagree with " any number of terrorist plots ". At the moment, government spying is more of a problem than occasional terrorism. However if terrorism was an almost daily thing in the US, and claiming thousands of lives a year, I think the spying would be justified if it could prevent a large number of deaths. | cmv |
I support education reform. Please CMV. | I don't think it's possible to counter the view that the education of our citizens should be improved because there is always room for improvement. The debate is over HOW and WHAT that policy needs to be. Do you tie funding to performance on standardized tests or college placement or student happiness or none of these things? How do you use the resources that exist, like money, buildings, supplies, and teachers, and best allocate them to achieve maximum results? Should funding for art, music, and PE be cut to support math and English? Should schools require the study of a foreign language? These are some of the important questions that need to be addressed. Saying " I think we should improve the quality of education in this country " is akin to saying " I wish everyone would be happier. " It's a sentiment that most people agree with, but the methods of achieving that goal are the source of the controversies. | cmv |
I don't view healthcare as a right. CMV. | A young mother has cancer. Tell her children how their mother deserves to die because she can't afford the treatment and feel nothing as they cry. That is what it takes to truly believe health care is a luxury. If you feel bad for her then you are a hypocrite, if not you're probably a psychopath. | cmv |
I don't view healthcare as a right. CMV. | Everyone has a right to access healthcare. No one has a right to have their health care paid for by someone else. There should not be anything impeding you right to access the healthcare by a government agency. There should not be a government agency that forces you to have health care or forces you seek health care as well. If you get hurt, you have the right to go to a doctor and get fixed, you also have the right to take the bill and throw it in the trash. You will get collected on or sued for the bill. I also think with your right to access health care, a doctors office has the right to refuse service as a legal operating business entity. Health care is a need and not a want, so everyone should have the right to access it. | cmv |
I don't view healthcare as a right. CMV. | Basically you are saying that if you are not wealthy you deserve an early horrible, slow, painful death that could have been prevented. If parents are poor then their children should die in the womb or during child birth rather than having a C - section. Women should die slowly from infection after giving birth. After all this is the natural way that things happened before modern medicine. When you look a dying suffering child in the face and say " let them die " or " please help them ", then you will truly know whether you believe healthcare should be a luxury or a right. | cmv |
I don't view healthcare as a right. CMV. | What if you were born with an illness that had to be treated or else you would die? Your father is dead so you are left with your mother who is struggling on welfare and cannot afford your treatment. Should you be entitled to healthcare? By your logic, no. | cmv |
I'm conservative. CMV. | I'm going to interpret this completely literally, which I understand isn't what you mean, but you can probably move from there and you haven't actually given much to go on. To be conservative is simply to support the status quo. This is a philosophically healthy position to take, as there are an infinite number of potential changes to the status quo and most of them are bad. However, to ONLY ever be conservative is to say that current legislation is perfect. Effectively, someone who only identifies as a " conservative " is saying that they can't imagine a situation where legislation should ever change. | cmv |
I'm conservative. CMV. | I don't think there's anything wrong with the philosophy of conservatism. I often fail to see the connection between conservative philosophy and the political stances of the conservative movement, however. Why is it considered conservative to be pro - big business, pro - Wall Street, pro - individualism, anti - environmentalism, etc.? | cmv |
I believe soldiers are just paid assassins, murderers who don't deserve an ounce of respect. CMV. | You claim " the key part for most of the soldiers is to kill. " I've seen this a lot in this sub, and I'm always confused as to where this assumption comes from. I guess it depends on where you are from, but in the U. S. I'd say less than 1 % of people in the Armed Forces see actual combat these days. Even a lot of those deployed never see combat, and the amount of those deployed is very small compared to the amount that isn't. While this may not be exactly true for all countries, I'd say it is pretty close to the same in most Western countries. | cmv |
I believe soldiers are just paid assassins, murderers who don't deserve an ounce of respect. CMV. | Not all people enlisted in the military are killers. Even if they are in a combat role, it's in the name of national defense. Men and women put their life at risk to protect us ; they might not deserve respect, but their actions do. Most soldiers don't enlist to go on a massive murder spree, or assassinate and murder another man ; most of them enlist to protect their friends and family. If we had no soliders risking their life, and in the process killing ; then we'd be the ones being killed. | cmv |
I believe soldiers are just paid assassins, murderers who don't deserve an ounce of respect. CMV. | Things can't be this black and white ever. We don't live in a world like that. The reason people treat soldiers as heroes is because they are brainwashed into thinking that the war they're fighting is for the defense of the US when in reality it's most likely for whatever personal interest the power that be holds. Not all soldiers are the same. If a soldier disagrees with the politics of the war yet kills for the pay, then I agree with you. That is disgusting. If a soldier is killing because they agree with the politics of the war, then I am only slightly less disgusted because it is my opinion that any war but defense is wrong. Now, when you say killing for whatever reason is wrong is where I disagree. You, OP, are going to contribute to society in a much more positive manner than a murderer, or say, a radical religious zealot bent on killing opposition, so you deserve life more than that person. I know that sounds terrible, but I believe that people who are less likely to infract on the rights of others are more entitled to their rights, so sometimes killing is justified as an absolute last resort when detainment or punishment aren't immediately possible. | cmv |
I don't think there's a logical argument against legal marijuana in a society that legalizes alcohol and tobacco. CMV. | When laws first start coming into effect to prohibit certain drugs, there were two different arguments that often came up : that drugs were harmful to public health ( thus creating a negative externality, which the government ought to fix ), or that they were morally corrupting. The latter argument may seem antiquated but it's actually very relevant. Alcohol and tobacco both have long histories of legal usage. They lack the sort of attached stigma and cultural institutions that accompany illicit substances ( for example, " stoner culture " has no equivalent for drinkers, or smokers ). The problem with these cultures is that they are deliberately " deviant ". The same logic that controls graffiti can be applied it : it might be art, but it's art that subconsciously contributes to an atmosphere of urban decay, which in turn encourages crime and other " deviant " behavior. Legalizing any substance wont make the culture that developed due to its illegality disappear overnight. I'd also like to direct you to this, which I found very interesting. It's another argument against marijuana legalization from a cultural perspective, this time focusing on race | cmv |
I believe that the United States is now a fully functioning police state | You can post this, in full public view, and not be in fear for your life, property or freedom. While you may feign worry that you're now on some secret government watch list for saying this, you know that you're not, because no one cares if you think you're in a police state unless you're planning on using that as an excuse to cause violence. Additionally, we, as citizens, still have legal protections from the government in our constitution, as well as elected representatives. There is no curfew, I. D. checkpoints, ghettos, etc. I agree that there are many problems in the U. S. that need to be addressed currently, but in an actual police state, no one would be able to say that without fear for their freedom, at the least, and fear for their life at the worst. | cmv |
It is hypocritical to be pro - life and not support contraceptive use at the same time. CMV | This is not a view I hold, but the position that opposes both contraception and abortion is usually a Roman Catholic one. It's a view that not only is abortion wrong because it is the intentional killing of human life, but a view of sex as something that ( a ) ought only take place within marriage, ( b ) every act of sex ought to be open to the possibility of life ( i. e. conception ). You don't need to agree with this view to acknowledge that within RC theology it's a coherent position to hold those two positions together. | cmv |
It is hypocritical to be pro - life and not support contraceptive use at the same time. CMV | Those people who protest both contraception and abortion are usually advocates of total abstinence outside of a committed relationship, i. e., marriage. This is usually tied to strong religious beliefs against premarital sex. To an abstinence - only advocate the entire idea of having sex simply for pleasure, with no concern for procreation, is morally wrong. Personally I don't support that view, and I don't think many rational people do either, but that's usually the cause. | cmv |
It is hypocritical to be pro - life and not support contraceptive use at the same time. CMV | The problem here, and the reason you can't understand people who are opposed to both abortion and contraception, is that you are approaching the problem through a completely different ethical framework than they are. You are presenting a consequential argument for contraception - - that the consequences of promoting it would have the good consequence of reducing abortions. Consequentialism is a common way of talking about things in public life, and tends to be a default assumption of nonreligious people. Christians, on the other hand, are primarily deontologists, especially Catholics. This means that, in their ethics, the act is more important than the outcome. If using contraception is intrinsically wrong, as they believe, preventing abortion through contraception is still absolutely wrong. Therefore, even if you might disagree ( as I do ) with the deontological framework, it is internally consistent on these issues, and so opposing both abortion and contraception is not hypocritical from a deontological standpoint. | cmv |
It is hypocritical to be pro - life and not support contraceptive use at the same time. CMV | It's not hypocritical at all, they're both positions of different issues. The pro - life argument is that the baby is alive in the womb, thus abortion is murder. Being against contraception has to do with the argument that sex is for procreation and consummation, not just pleasure. The reason why many people hold both of these views is because they are common characteristics many religions. However, it is common for these people ( i. e. Catholics ) to view contraception as a lesser evil compared to abortion. | cmv |
It is hypocritical to be pro - life and not support contraceptive use at the same time. CMV | I explained in my other commment that the simultaneous opposition to contraception and abortion is not primarily consequentialist, but there are also a couple of consequentialist arguments that have some currency. The first is that contraception use creates or reinforces a culture where sex is separated from procreation, which will lead more people to have sex in situations where they don't want a baby, and thus lead to morr abortions. A second argument points to the phenomenon of risk compensation, which says that when the risk of an activity is reduced ( like, say, by wearing a bike helmet ) people are more likely to take greater risks in other ways ( riding more recklessly, e. g. ). By this mechanism, contraception might increase abortion rates. I have to say that I don't find either of these convincing reasons to oppose contraception, but I do believe that a rational person could be conviced of them, and thus unhypocritically oppose both abortion and contraception from a consequentialist standpoint. | cmv |
Pro - lifers should change their name to Pro - birthers. They shouldn't be called pro - lifers until they try just as aggressively to ensure the quality of the life they are " saving " from abortion. | Most pro - lifers would describe themselves as being pro the provision of those things anyway. Why would you claim that they don't? But, and this is the significant point, from the pro - life view providing health - care and education is not on the same moral level as killing an unborn person, why would you expect them to show an equal amount of moral outrage over issues they don't see as morally equivalent? That is, in fact, inconsistent. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.