summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
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. | The terms are all political spin, as people have pointed out. If we wanted them to have names that were consistent with their ideologies, instead of their political aspirations, they should be called something like " pro - legal - abortion " and " anti - legal - abortion ". Pro - choice is just as overly broad as pro - life. Really the focus of both groups is the legality of abortion, and nothing else. | 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. | The " accuracy " of the term pro - life is entirely beside the point. If your goal here was to point out the hypocrisy of pro - life activists, good job I guess, but " pro - life " is a political buzzword, created by partisan focus groups to bolster an argument. This is why the other side is called " pro - choice " instead of " pro - abortion ". It's why the new health care law is referred to as Obamacare on the right and the Affordable Care Act on the left. Ditto " failed stimulus " vs. " recovery ". And how references to " gay marriage " have slowly but surely morphed into references to " marriage equality ". It's all just political messaging. | cmv |
I think people who believe that Bush lied to the American public about why he invaded Iraq and yet attack " conspiracy theorists " for being crazy are hypocrites. CMV | I think you're using a different definition of the term " conspiracy theory " than is in normal usage. Pretty much everyone believes that conspiracies happen sometimes. Few people fail to notice that the bosses cousin doesn't do any work and yet keeps getting promoted anyway, and after they notice they connect the dots. But that doesn't make them conspiracy theorists. The conventional use for " Conspiracy theorist " is to describe someone who specifically believes in non - credible conspiracies, generally going to absurd lengths to defend their beliefs. If you think that the CIA is the real power behind the US government and that all presidents since Eisenhower have been but puppets, for instance... I would not be inclined to believe that without very hefty evidence that I doubt you have. But if you think that the CIA gets ordered to do dirty political stuff in other countries, yes, I have already seen lots of evidence for that. | cmv |
I think people who believe that Bush lied to the American public about why he invaded Iraq and yet attack " conspiracy theorists " for being crazy are hypocrites. CMV | " Conspiracy theorists " refer to a group of people who hold conspiracy theories to be true. Conspiracy theories are attempts to explain the causes of large - scale, important political or social events. A key feature of conspiracy theories is that the evidence required to prove the usually outlandish claims that are made doesn't exist, or at least the evidence conspiracy theorists claim support their theories, doesn't. In the " Bush lied about Iraq " case, even you admit there is evidence enough to believe he lied about the reasons why we went into Iraq. So while " Bush lied " is a claim supported by evidence, claims of the sort that are normally classified as " conspiracy theories " aren't, and therefore can be dismissed without hypocrisy. | cmv |
I think people who believe that Bush lied to the American public about why he invaded Iraq and yet attack " conspiracy theorists " for being crazy are hypocrites. CMV | The existence of one conspiracy does not validate of the correctness of all conspiracies. Each must be evaluated on its own merit. We know that Tuskegee syphilis experiment happened. But does that mean the lizard people really run the world? Of course not. Do we need to seriously review the evidence of the lizard people conspiracy? No. Its proponents must offer good evidence. The problem with most conspiracies is that there's no good evidence. | cmv |
I think people who believe that Bush lied to the American public about why he invaded Iraq and yet attack " conspiracy theorists " for being crazy are hypocrites. CMV | My buddy and I make some nachos and place them in the center of the table. We leave the room to get something to drink. When we comeback a large chunk missing. My 2 other friends on the couch say they don't know what happened but they didn't take it. Now I believe they're are lying and are conspiring together. My friend who made the nachos with me thinks the Jews stole them as part of their new world order. Am I a hypocrite or believing my friend I crazy? | cmv |
I think animal charities are pointless compared to charities helping humans, CMV | Animals have emotions just as humans do. If it only costs $ 100 to $ 1000 to turn a wild animal into a viable pet, you could be saving it a dozen years of suffering. By comparison, the basic needs of a human cost around $ 10, 000 per year. It really comes down to how much you weigh humans'rights against animals'- yes, the human is probably more important, but they're also far more expensive to care for. It's not about whether you would save a human or an animal - more like 1 human or 10 - 100 animals. | cmv |
I think animal charities are pointless compared to charities helping humans, CMV | What if you are dealing with someone who inherently dislikes people? If enough people give to a certain animal charity that charity might not need to organize a fund raiser giving more face time to people charities. and Some people view animals as 100 % dependent on humans, most of their misery is caused by neglect. If I had an extra 100 bucks I would give it to an animal charity versus a human one. | cmv |
I think animal charities are pointless compared to charities helping humans, CMV | I would agree that animal well being is a lower priority than human well being, but there are enough people and enough resources to address both issues at the same time, at appropriate scales. If people took all the time and resources spent on animal charities it would probably be less than a fraction of a percent of what's spent on people. Are you suggesting we forbid people from helping animals until all the human problems are solved - whatever that means? Donating to an animal charity does not mean you've chosen to allow a human to die, it just means you have helped an animal rights cause. Another approach to solving many problems at the same though, while prioritizing the big ones first, because they take the longest, is to simultaneously solve the little ones, because they can actually be solved. If you want until all the big problems gets solved until you work on the little ones, you will never get to the little ones. This is basic scheduling theory. | cmv |
I think animal charities are pointless compared to charities helping humans, CMV | This sort of argument is generally a red herring, because the entirety of its structure seems to be " oh if you think that's bad, well look at this ". If someone says they support Make A Wish, you can tell them it's a waste because domestic violence shelters are more important. If they support DV shelters, you can tell them that their money would go way further curing people of river blindness in Africa. If they support river blindness treatment, point them to starving people, etc. There's more than one thing wrong in the world, and it seems only reasonable for different organizations to focus their efforts on different issues. | cmv |
I think gender roles in today's modern times is stupid. CMV. | Tell him that also means that you are obligated to throw feces at him. Gender roles are useful in that they can help illustrate possible ways of interacting but they are not obligations and true only in the aggregate. Individual animals and people use the existing social structures for maximum personal benefit. | cmv |
I think gender roles in today's modern times is stupid. CMV. | There are always going to be gender roles but there's no reason to assume they have to be strict. Men can do the laundry, women can fix a car, men can do the dishes, women can mow the lawn. There are women out there that like doing traditional female gender role things and enjoy having a man that does traditional male gender role things. They may even get off sexually on it. The point is that gender roles exist, they can be broken whenever you want ( biologically allowing ) and nobody should force anyone into roles if they don't want to do them. | cmv |
I think gender roles in today's modern times is stupid. CMV. | There are indeed gender roles for all living things, including humans. However, human men and women are extremely similar except for a few aspects, such as physical strength and height. In a modern society, these don't really matter, so men and women should have the same ( or very nearly the same ) roles in society. However, there are still a few cases where the division clearly comes up - i. e., men are generally better in fights, women have better parental instincts. That said, these small differences in no way should allow for a 20 % pay discrepancy in jobs where these minor skills have no effect on the quality of work. | cmv |
I believe that Europe should be a single, federated state in the same was as the USA. CMV | The bigger the organisation, the bigger the crooks that try to take it over. You see this very clearly in America recently, but also already in Yurp if you're paying attention. It's better to keep sovereign states small because humans can not be trusted with power. | cmv |
I believe that Europe should be a single, federated state in the same was as the USA. CMV | In the USA, everybody more or less speaks the same language. In Europe, this is most definitely not the case. Creating unity in such a scenario would be incredibly difficult. | cmv |
I believe that Europe should be a single, federated state in the same was as the USA. CMV | In the USA surplus states such as California end up paying for deficit states such as Alabama through federal income tax. This is not fair to industrious states with effective policies and presents a moral hazard rewarding states that should - fail from bad policy. In Europe however, efficient states like Germany don't have to bail out failed states. They do none the less ( because they have a vested interest as a lender )... but they attach policies and requirements to the money to fix the problems in the failed state. This is a better solution not just for German ; but for Greece and all of Europe as well. To have Europe adopt the failed Americas fiscal policy is not a good idea. | cmv |
I believe that Europe should be a single, federated state in the same was as the USA. CMV | Are you aware of the existence of the EU? An integrated economy with free flow of internal emigration? Common defense policy? While it's a full fledged state, it's certain more united than a simple regional customs union. There are even major fractions within the EU that wants to take the project further and transfer more sovereignty to it. Now, EU has its share of inherent problems. There are credible reasons why the EU might not survive. But is there a reason why you want to talk about a European Federation rather than the EU? | cmv |
I believe in the elimination of the American Republic and the expansion of direct democracy. CMV | Firstly : I will define " effectiveness " in the government to be the ability of a person, agent or party to be able to turn an idea into law or an act of government. When you think about it, the elimination of the republic will actually make the government LESS effective rather than more effective. That's because when you think about it, a politician in the senate only needs to convince his fellow senators, whereas when you try the entire American populace, you'd have to change the minds of millions of people. In fact, when you think about it, one of the reasons why politics is so ineffective now is that due to the introduction of the Sunshine laws, politicians are now speaking to the American public as opposed to their peers, thereby decreasing the ability to compromise. | cmv |
I believe in the elimination of the American Republic and the expansion of direct democracy. CMV | Think of how stupid the average person is. Do you really want them telling you how to live? Representative democracy does three important things that direct democracy does not. First, it allows the government to execute the will of the people without being subject to the whim of the people. We would spend so much time writing and rewriting laws as popular opinion swings back and forth. Second, it ensures that only people who want to participate do so. Nobody runs for Senator without actually wanting the job, and they understand what legislating entails in terms of responsibility. With direct democracy, you end up with lots of people voting on legislation who don't know about, care about, or understand the issues. Finally, representative democracy creates a system where the citizens don't need to know the ins and outs of every piece of legislation because we basically hire people to do it for us. By electing representatives, we agree that we trust the person chosen to do his or her job and act in the best interest of the constituency. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | Models of this kind of program show that the cost of testing, processing, and bureaucracy significantly outweighs the money that would be saved by not giving money to certain welfare recipients. When they did it in Florida, over 98 % of people passed the testing Also, a federal court struck down the Florida law because it involved the state coercing people to waive their constitutional rights. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | Why waste more money when that money could be used for other government programs? I think you're wrongly stereotyping the majority of people who receive government assistance ( or perhaps you would prefer " handouts " ) as drug dealers and people who merely sit on their ass and shoot up all day. The amount of people you would actually kick out of the system would probably not cover the costs for testing. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | They tried this in Florida for welfare recipients and it was not cost effective. Only about 2 % of the people in Florida failed their drug tests, and cost the state about $ 120, 000. They had to pay back everyone who passed their drug test, usually about 30 $ a person. Of the failures, a large majority was for marijuana, a drug that will probably be legal in the next decade. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | A lot of people could be taken advantage of by this sort of thing. As it stands, a simple drug test doesn't matter much. But if this becomes commonplace, what could be next? We might try to force labor upon recipients who already have a full - time job and children to take care of, and eventually the price of welfare could become even worse. The kind of people who rely on welfare are often desperate to get food from day to day, and they would have no choice to accept the suffering for the sake of their families. This is not the sort of treatment that we should be putting the worst - off Americans through. Sure, a drug test isn't that bad, but there's not much to gain from it anyway, and it opens the door to stricter, less fair measures. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | We are giving people money and you want to forbid them from spending in on some arbitrary things you dislike? Should they spend their welfare checks on red bulls? Probably not, so should we test them for that? It's just pointless and a waste of money. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | Say that you have a mother who uses pot once in awhile but she works two jobs and still needs assistance for medical and food for her children. Say we drug test her and she comes back positive, what happens with the children? Do they now lose the benefits just because their mom smoked a bit of weed? Are we going to send her children to DCF care and have even more children in the growing foster system? Also, money from your EBT card can only be used for food. There is cash assistance programs, but you can not control everything that a person buys and or does with their money. Also, in Florida they tried this and stopped because there was not as many people on welfare using drugs as some like to think. It costs more to test and that is just more wasted tax money. | cmv |
I believe those who receive government assistance should be drug tested regularly. CMV | One reason I can think of is that suppose addicts receive government assistance and need help kicking their habits but don't have the means and can't survive without that aid. It can be hard to relate to addictions and it's easy to call them junkies when they have that issue. Also these druggies may have children that need that aid. It's much more complicated than iy appears. | cmv |
I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed ; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution. CMV. | So I can just spontaneously decide not to follow government rules, go and murder someone, and then say " Nope! You can't prosecute me! I've withdrawn my consent to be governed! " See, government with the consent of the governed means that the people living there have come to the majority decision that they are willing to establish a government to rule over themselves. If they decide with another majority to throw off that government, that is valid, but other than that society wouldn't function without everyone being held liable to the government, even those that don't want to. Unfortunately, there is no other option but for those unconsenting to leave, or they will be able to break laws that need to apply to them. | cmv |
I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed ; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution. CMV. | Okay, let's say that this is actually possible. Now, you're a free man... except, you just have to be prepared to fend off any robbers / killers / rapists by yourself, because law enforcement doesn't care about you anymore since you've withdrawn your associations with the government. Oh, what joy would bring to the outlaws when they find out that it's now'legal'to rob, kill, and rape you! Also, since you can no longer enjoy the national defense provided by your government, troops from any foreign country can attack, kidnap and enslave you without your government's interference. Now, does this sound like the life you want to live? | cmv |
I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed ; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution. CMV. | Freedom is not a default position... it's the government that protects you and gives you freedom in the first place. If you were outside society, and any member of society could come onto your land, kill you, and take your land / stuff. Are you saying that you are prepared to fight to protect your property? | cmv |
I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed ; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution. CMV. | The rule of law breaks down if anyone can opt out at anytime. If anyone could withdraw from the government's influence, and thus the law's influence, then how could order be maintained? Want to manufacture drugs? Secede. Want to hit your wife with impunity? Secede. Want to engage in almost any illegal activity? Just secede. Obviously I'm only talking about extreme cases, but people will abuse the right to withdraw from governmental rule if they are given it. There are a few other problems. Would you be able to use roads that you don't pay taxes for? Would you be able to cross from your land into the government's land at all? | cmv |
I believe I should be able to withdraw my consent to be governed and not be forcibly governed ; while still residing on my land without fear of persecution. CMV. | I think this is sort of what the Native Americans do. They live on land here in the United States, but the government doesn't tax them or bother with them much. The consequence is that they get the crappy land and they don't get any assistance from the government. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | I'm a huge horse person, and their are a couple points people haven't touched. We routinely give horses wormers, medication, fly spray, etc. These are not fit for human consumption. Cows and other livestock are banned from getting medication harmful to humans, but their is nothing keeping Joe down the street banamine and bute two days before sending the horses to slaughter. It is just too difficult to regulate medications to horses, unless they are raised specifically for slaughter. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | For a majority of people that interact with horses, it's as pets, rather than as tools or resources. And there are a lot of such people. It's all about emotion... which doesn't make it non - real. People don't like think about animals that they consider pets being eaten. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | The terrible thing is that people don't understand that the people who would sell their horse for meat when they're done with them are the same people who would let the horse starve to death when they're done with them. My sister worked rescue for a while and rehabilitated animals in the exact condition I mentioned. If you think people couldn't be that heartless you're wrong. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | Despite the rules of changing your view, my wife's philosophy is ( in my opinion ) the best : Animals that we can bond with, such as cats and dogs, shouldn't be eaten. Animals that we can't bond with, like fish and rabbits, are okay to eat. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | In regards to your current view on eating humans ( and perhaps you know this and were simplifying your view of it ) but an argument on the " value of human life " is irrational. Humans, just like any other mammal, have the capacity for good and bad equally. A good reason to argue against it however is that there are significant health risks associated with it, even if the meat is properly cooked. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | christianity started it and the point that horses are inefficient at converting grass into meat stands. however, most people are sentimental over horses and see them as closer to the family. as an interesting side note : " According to the Entomological Society of America insects generally contain more protein and are lower in fat than traditional meats. In addition they have about 20 times higher food conversion efficiency than traditional meats. In other words they have a better feed - to - meat ratio than beef, pork, lamb or chicken. " source. if we're going for rational and logical over sentimental food choices, we should ban horse, cow and all other traditional meats and switch to entomophagy. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | Not here to argue, I'm from Russia, we eat horse meat ( southern regions mostly ). It's good, healthy and tasty. It's been part of traditional diet in the region for 6 + + centuries. I don't really get why western countries are so against it. It's 100 % cultural / religious, there are no objective reasons to not eat horse meat ( unlike some other meats that are unhealthy ). I'm curious what others have to say. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | steak du cheval is so delicious. Those farms in belgiums breed some juicy horses. I believe horses should only be slaughtered if they are bred for this exact reason. Otherwise slaughtering them for meat is 1 ) disrespectful for the services they have provided us as a farm animal or a means of transportation and 2 ) it may be dangerous since lots of horses end up in races where they are pumped full of steroids and antibiotics. I would eat horse anyday if i knew it was bred for that reason, and that reason alone. I wouldn't touch a horse if i didn't have assurance of where it was bred. This is my moto for all domesticated animals though. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | Indians have a relationship with cows, but we eat them. Most of the world likes guinea pigs, but Ecuador eats them, and then doesn't keep them as pets. It is all culture. I think you have the ability to have a relationship with any animal, and so one must either not eat any or accept the they mostly can all be meat. | cmv |
I believe that the slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U. S. CMV | We have a lot of " we don't slaughter pets " answers here, also " they're not safe to eat due to the drugs they're given, " and also " that's how it's always been. " I don't see this answer : Generally speaking, we don't slaughter animals that are intelligent enough to know their fate. Horses are smart enough to figure out that there's no coming back from the trip to the slaughterhouse, and that's not humane to put them in that state of mind. Of the animals we do raise for their meat, the only one I can think of that might be smart enough to do likewise is the pig. So there are exceptions, but this is how I draw the line for myself. | cmv |
I don't believe the Xbox One's " always on " Kinect is a problem. CMV | What happens one day when someone finds an exploit ( which will happen ) and they compromise your xbox? What happens if one day you decide to start doing something intimate in your front room? Can you ever be sure that you're not being watched by it? Seems kind of creepy to me. I don't know what microsoft would want, but there's all kinds of things that other less scrupulous people might be able to use. | cmv |
I don't believe the Xbox One's " always on " Kinect is a problem. CMV | What if you were holding a political rally in your living room? What about a sensitive meeting with business partners? What if you had some very personal discussions about your mental health? | cmv |
I believe political parties are a negative thing. CMV. | That's a problem with certain parliamentary systems, not political parties in general. In American political parties, for instance, each representative is perfectly free to vote how they want. We have party whips, but they have only soft power ; they can't expel people for voting the wrong way, and people vote against their party all the time. ( Specifically, this problem is usually due to the existence of implicit no - confidence votes. If the wrong bill failing to pass can immediately trigger an election, rigid party discipline is necessary to ensure government stability. ) | cmv |
I believe political parties are a negative thing. CMV. | The average voter is dumb as dirt and for whatever reason, won't leave parts of the ballot blank. They go in to vote for one thing and then fill in the rest of the ballot based on the letter nest to the guys name. If its a nonpartisan position, a lot of idiots will vote based on what they can glean from the name : he's a man, she's Italian etc. | cmv |
I believe that having children should require a license. CMV. | While I understand your incentive, this is a very, very dangerous road to go down. As soon as we cross the line into allowing the government a say in who can and can't have children, a precedent has been set. People become accustomed to the idea, and there will surely be pressures to expand the limitations to further groups. And don't forget that the people responsible for running this system have a dangerous amount of power. Even without true legal precedent for this, there's history in the USA of policies that have involved forced sterilization of women based on race and class. ( See the book Killing the Black Body for more ) The right to procreate has to be one of our most fundamental rights, probably only second to the right to exist. To deny someone that right is to deny them one of the most basic pieces of being human. We exist to reproduce. This is a fundamental fact of our evolution, as any species without a drive to reproduce will be quickly outcompeted by those that do. | cmv |
I believe that having children should require a license. CMV. | What if the people who come up for the criteria for the license decide that Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to breed? For people who accidentally get pregnant, would you forcefully abort their baby or put it into the almost - definitely overflowing foster system? There's no good news here. Besides, it's incredibly un - American ( in my mind ) to dictate who has the right to breed. | cmv |
I believe that having children should require a license. CMV. | A simpler enforcement would be to only give LONG TERM welfare to people that agree to be sterilized. I am not advocating this for unemployement, WIC, etc. This would only be for people that admit that they have no way to take care of themselves and never will. The state would agree to support them and their existing children. And they would agree to to not add to the problem. | cmv |
I believe that Human life starts at conception and therefore shouldn't be aborted at any point CMV | The biggest reason that I support a person's right to an abortion is in the case of a child being born into poverty. Every day around the country, children are born to parents who can't afford to take care of their kid, so they turn to WIC and food stamps, which are drains on the American economy. More often then not, these kids end up being locked in a vicious cycle of poverty : they grow up without many opportunities, so they become poor adults, they have kids who are born into poverty, etc. Now imagine if the poor woman at the beginning had access to abortion. She could have made the conscious decision to save this kid ( and future generations ) from a lifetime of misery and struggle. Also, many people bring up adoption as a possible alternative, but those people seem to forget the thousands of kids who are stuck in foster care because nobody will adopt you if you're not a cute, white, blonde child. The system only works some of the time and forcing people to have children only to be subjected to that system is far less ethical than any abortion, in my opinion. | cmv |
I believe that Human life starts at conception and therefore shouldn't be aborted at any point CMV | Wouldn't sperm and woman's eggs be life? What makes animals not sacred then? They are life. You are saying a zygote the size of a pea is more important than a 10 year old elephant. | cmv |
I believe that Human life starts at conception and therefore shouldn't be aborted at any point CMV | You believe abortion should be allowed in instances of rape. So, let's say abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or disability. In that case, a woman would have to admit to being raped ( something VERY difficult for many women to do, especially right after the event ) and something that carries a lot of shame ( although it shouldn't - but many women feel this. ) Then, she would have to prove being raped, all to get an abortion. Is this not inhumane to you? Is this not violating her more than necessary? People don't just get abortions willy - nilly. There is a reason for them. It is a medical procedure that should be between a woman and her doctor. | cmv |
I believe that beating children does more harm than good. CMV | Beating children I agree but physical discipline I feel is beneficial for children of younger ages and here is why. small children from walking age till about 9 are learning to do things for the 1st time a lot and their brains are not developed enough to process danger, right and wrong, parental respect, etc. As a parent you can not reason / explain to them " don't run outside by yourself because you could get kidnapped " they just will not get the gravity of the situation. what they do understand is " last time I went outside I got a spanking and I did not like it ". In summary spankings are what children understand and want to avoid but they grow older and able to grasp more life concepts / danger you can speak more and spank less. | cmv |
I believe that beating children does more harm than good. CMV | Your misconception is that just because you want violence to not be " an acceptable reaction to a problem " that it will become a reality. The world is a dangerous place and our bodies have pain receptors for a reason, to protect itself. If you refuse to use pain in a controlled way to teach, the child WILL test the limits of his world and the world may cause them greater pain or even death. It is interesting you refer to spankings as " physical abuse ". I believe that a spanking should be reserved for direct willful disobedience or life threatening actions. What is the greater abuse : a few controlled slaps to the backside, or a hospital stay because they had no fear of dad when he told them to behave. | cmv |
I believe convicted child molestors / rapists / abusers / murderers should not be put in to solitary when they are jailed. CMV | Does this hold true for statutory rapists as well? Should that 18 year old woman who'raped'a 14 year old girl while also having a loving long term relationships be thrown in a male prison for life? Also, how are you defining abusers? What about someone who gives a young child a spanking a few times during their childhood? Also, even if you are only meaning the'worth of the worst'individuals, how can you be sure that such an ideal will not spread? | cmv |
I believe convicted child molestors / rapists / abusers / murderers should not be put in to solitary when they are jailed. CMV | They aren't put into solitary. They are generally placed in general population and then are transferred to protective custody, which is distinct from solitary, when there is a clear threat to their safety. This rarely happens to murderers, who are applauded for their crimes by inmates. As for the balance of them, the argument is that the state, not random people in prison, gets to set punishment. To claim that a crime that carries a 10 year prison term should actually carry a de facto death sentence is absurd. To suggest that people are " safe and sound " in American prisons is grotesquely absurd. | cmv |
I believe convicted child molestors / rapists / abusers / murderers should not be put in to solitary when they are jailed. CMV | There is fine line between criminals and psychiatric patients. There people often have had abuse in their own childhood or suffered some major trauma. This doesn't justify anything but it puts things in perspective. There actions are totally wrong but maybe they can be cured from their bad thoughts. If they are given the right help maybe they can see where they went wrong and become good people. It is also my believe that a lot of pedophiles can't help being attracted to children. Just like you have people attracted to the same sex, or to old people or to fat people or even to cars. Don't get me wrong it is still wrong because children can't choose for themselves, but imagine how hard it is if you can never have sex with the person you want to. I feel we should help these people and if we find that they can control their urges they can be given a second chance. Just like any other person. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | I would say that the event of 9 / 11 is not what is important about 9 / 11. The reason 9 / 11 was a big deal is because it was used as an excuse for our government to get involved in a senseless, futile war. This is bad, but far worse are the ramifications of personal freedoms. Things like the Patriot Act and the recently unveiled PRISM, to name just a few are results of the power that the US government took to " end the war on terror. " In my opinion, it is the use of 9 / 11 to move the United States towards a police state that is a real issue here. N. B. : I don't mean to undermine the loss of civilian life or the sacrifices of our armed forces that were made as a result of 9 / 11. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | 9 / 11 wasn't that big of a deal. There have been far worse things that have happened before and since that day ; however, none have been so influential in global politics and I think that is what you are forgetting. Let us refer to the popular phrase, " Might Is Right. " The US government spends billions more on their military than any other country in the world, and with an arsenal that will destroy millions of lives on a whim, the US can afford to speak softly while carrying a big stick. With that in mind, they also can speak very loudly, and with the scary idea of " terrorism penetrating into the suburban homes of patriotic Americans ", they can use this fear as a tool to justify all kinds of bullshit ( supporting civil unrest half way around the world? No problem! Using drones in other sovereign country airspaces? Only the US! The list goes on ) tl ; dr 9 / 11 wasn't a big deal relative to other events, but the fact that the US government blows it out of proportion makes the event a tool for justifying all kinds of absurdity across the globe and even within its own borders | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | In much the same way that the attacks on Pearl Harbor changed Japanese imperialism from'something happening over there'to an'imminent threat ', the attacks on 9 / 11 changed radical Muslim terrorism from'Europe's problem'to'something we need to deal with '. 9 / 11 also was the reason a slew of draconian ( by US standards ) laws were allowed to be passed, such as the Patriot Act. You know the news about how our NSA has been able to spy on everybody ( including you, even though you are European )? Those wheels were set in motion by 9 / 11. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | In terms of magnitude of daily global tragedy, you are probably correct. There are lots of awful attacks all over the place all the time. In terms of long - term ramifications, it is hard to overstate 9 / 11's impact. This is certainly true for America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other nearby countries, and to varying extents for the rest of the world. There are other single incidents that have arguably had a greater impact ( the assassination of Franz Ferdinand comes immediately to mind ), but 9 / 11 is high on the list. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | It is a big deal. And so is every other violent event that has occurred in recent history. Or any terrorist attack by any group at any point. The reason it's so... for lack of a better word at the moment... exaggerated... is because it was used by the government and propagandists to ignite the war with the Middle East. The US needed an excuse to go there, and there it was. I guess it just never went away. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | Obviously the families of the people who died will argue a different point but for me and I was in the military it hit Americans mentally more then everything. Not saying its all bad but for the 1st time since the beginning of WWII it show that American was not invincible and can be touched. on a positive aspect it had uniting affect on Americans as well. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | To the American psyche, it was a huge deal. After decades of thinking we were invincible ( and acting like it ) suddenly we realized we weren't. It was the most serious attack on our own soil since Pearl Harbor. Yes, there are smaller terrorist attacks going on all over the world, and they did happen in America in the intervening years. But 2 of the most important buildings in our biggest, brightest city were gruesomely destroyed, our headquarters for military defense was hit, and the White House would have been hit if not for a combination of heroism and luck on that plane. I hear what your saying about the destruction and death toll not being that huge in comparison to some other things. It was the impact on America's psyche and identity that made it such a big deal to us - which makes it a big deal to the world because the behavior and attitude of its biggest superpower changed that day. | cmv |
I don't think that 9 / 11 was that big a deal. CMV. | The importance is in what has happened as a result in the U. S. The Patriot Act, increased TSA searches and scans at airports, wiretapping, a general sense that liberty can only be protected from terrorism by sacrificing privacy, and many more things spawned because people finally realized that terrorism happens here too. For those outside the U. S., maybe it mattered less, but this was the turning point of a lot of Americans'mentalities. | cmv |
Liberalism Does Not Mix With Prosperity. CMV. | If you carry more people out of the lower classes, they will stop depending on welfare. Yes this will lead to inflation, but that will be offset by the larger gains in tax increases ( + 4 % on average for inflation, if everyone jumped from lower / lower - mid to middle class at least you're seeing a jump from 10 % to 28 % + in taxes ). This will lead to better resources, thereby increasing the productivity of an area, etc., etc. Please tell me why you think this is a flawed concept. | cmv |
I don't believe lobbying is ethically or morally right. CMV. | What you're basically saying is that nobody should try to convince a congressperson to understand their point of view. No company should do it. No civil rights group should do it. No religious or charity group should do it. Nobody can talk to congresspeople, because any influencing that occurs would be lobbying. Clearly this doesn't make sense, because our congresspeople are there to represent us. If they don't know us, and our problems, they can't represent us. I think the real problem you have is with special interest groups pushing crony capitalism ( where laws are made specifically to favor or disfavor particular companies or industries ). | cmv |
I don't believe lobbying is ethically or morally right. CMV. | I don't think you do understand the basics of lobbying. Most people don't. They conceptualize lobbying as some kind of magic process, where money goes in the hole and, if you've put enough money in, the result comes out. But in reality, lobbying is just talking to politicians to try to convince them that what you want is right. How can it be immoral for lobbyists to talk to politicians, but not immoral for you to talk to politicians? | cmv |
I don't believe lobbying is ethically or morally right. CMV. | I wrote a dissertation on the Food Industry and its influence on lobbying. The biggest issue in American politics is its incredible dependence on money - for election campaigns, in decision - making, and the like. As many posters here said, lobbying in itself is not immoral - it is a way of providing expertise on many subjects congressmen know nothing about, to raise pertinent issues, and the like. The problem stems from the fact that the lobby groups with the economically powerful corporations that back them, and thus the most capital, are more likely to be heard, as they'll hire former congressmen and other influential individuals with contacts, and have the economic capital to back it up. The problem then becomes that the only issues debated in congress are those presented by powerful corporations - say the beef lobbyists pitted against the corn lobbyists, and congress'views of the issues are narrowed to those talking points. Money talks, and the people, including activist groups, don't have much money, and are thus relatively powerless. They have a perceived access, but as they cannot afford lobbyists with influence, nor present views from powerful corporations, they become sidelined. | cmv |
I don't believe lobbying is ethically or morally right. CMV. | The problem isn't that lobbying is morally wrong. It's just that the power to lobby isn't evenly distributed. A company can do tons of it by paying a team of lawyers. You can do a little by calling your senator, but you don't have the same amount of power. Effectively, the people who own the company have more voting power than you do. Even so, you could probably start a political organization to gather funds if it matters that much to you. While I agree that the system is flawed, being able to reach your representatives is an essential part of a republic. | cmv |
Anytime a country wants to go to war they should have a vote by the public. Only those who vote " yes " should have to fight. CMV | I disagree fundamentally with this statement, AND I have a better alternative. Most people are not affiliated in any way with the military and have nothing to lose sending our troops into other nations. If the history of consolidated media has taught us anything, it's that the public perception is EXCEEDINGLY malleable : Just spend enough money to repeat the big lie and / or half - truth long enough... I propose a better solution : Only those who serve 2 years in the military get to vote. People who understand what war is, who have been taught structure and responsibility for themselves and their fellow men and subordinates, should be the ones guiding society. Do you ever wonder why the generation immediately following WWII had so much prosperity and integrity? It's because the vast majority of young and able men ( VOTERS ) were in the military and taught these values. The " Starship Troopers " voting system would probably be the closest we could get to meritocracy without imposing entirely capricious tyranny. | cmv |
Anytime a country wants to go to war they should have a vote by the public. Only those who vote " yes " should have to fight. CMV | What's to stop everyone who's ineligible ( old people ) from voting yes because it's not their lives? One way to hit everyone is to require a plan to go to war to include budget adjustments that don't cause war to add debt. So, if we're going to war, you're paying for it in taxes. But anyway, how often do we need to go to war and have enough notice for there to be time to hold a vote? | cmv |
Anytime a country wants to go to war they should have a vote by the public. Only those who vote " yes " should have to fight. CMV | - This sort of arrangement would prompt people to act in their own self - interest and self - preservation when voting for war, instead of making a genuine political decision about whether the war is justified. This would make wars hard to start - you may view this as a good thing, but you have to acknowledge that this stems from your own political anti - war agenda, which you would be pushing onto everybody else. - By forcing the army to select troops according to a criterion other than combat - fitness, you would be reducing its effectiveness. Which would be bad for the troops, and for the country. - Democracy is based on a spirit of'we're all in it together '. Minorities make concessions towards the wishes of the majority. Compartmentalising a population like you're suggesting is anti - democratic. Anyway, I do believe that the question is sort of moot in the first place, because technological advancements mean that a small, professional army is far, far preferable to a huge mass of bumbling amateurs. Mass conscription isn't likely to ever happen again, unless world society collapses after some sort of apocalyptic event. | cmv |
I believe Canada's health care system is better than the United States. CMV | Coworker of mine went with her husband and son on a scouting trip to Canada. Husband falls and breaks his leg. Tries to go to a Canadian hospital but is turned away because there are other people in front of him in line. Spends two days in a hotel room trying to make do with aspirin while waiting for his turn to get medical care. Finally they give up and get a flight to the US. Within hours after arriving at the US hospital his leg is set and he is given morphine to ease the pain. Coworker vows never to leave the country again. I have to believe parts of the story were exaggerated and / or this was a rare situation, but this coworker was not a woman given to BSing. See also. | cmv |
I believe Canada's health care system is better than the United States. CMV | The US has many of the top hospitals and doctors in the world. People often travel to the US to get procedures done and the US is often on the forefront of new medical care. Places like Sloan Kettering and Other research hospitals are world renowned and massively important for the development of new medical procedures and tech | cmv |
If homosexuality is acceptable, consensual incest between adults should be as well CMV | Hypothetical question OP ( and emphasis on the word hypothetical to anyone who may be offended ) : Lets say that we showed that homosexuality was strongly correlated with emotional problems, drug abuse, and psychological disorders among adults who were above the age of consent. Let's also say that homosexuality itsself was the root cause, not any social stigma around it. So in this world, it's bad to be gay. Do you think its justifiable for the government to take action against homosexuality among consenting adults? | cmv |
If homosexuality is acceptable, consensual incest between adults should be as well CMV | What stops my dying multi - millionaire mother from marrying me to avoid estate taxes? I don't think you can equate homosexuality to incest anyway. If you want to support incest, I think it shouldn't be related to homosexuality. I think you can accept incest and not accept homosexuality or vice - versa. It doesn't need to be " we're breaking cultural norms anyway so... " | cmv |
I believe that the U. S., and most major economies of this world, should revert to the gold standard. CMV. | I believe your view of the gold standard does not accurately reflect an understanding of how our economic growth is dependent upon money supply. Without proper management to keep the money supply in a " sweet spot ", you will end up with one of two things happening : Inflation due to overabundance of money and lack of aggregate demand, or Recession, due to unmet needs for credit for expansion to meet swelling aggregate demand ( preventing hiring ). The gold standard dictates that for the money supply to expand, one of the following must happen : 1 - more gold must be harvested 2 - the currency must be devalued point one prevents governments from adequately responding to external cyclical forces, resulting in recessions spiralling out of control. point two results in inflation, as things like housing and energy are arguably equally inelastic as gold. Even when we were legally on the gold standard, our government often " cheated " to avoid the ugly aspects of points 1 and 2. The ills our economy has been facing over the past 30 to 40 years are NOT the result of fiat currency, but the result of federal insurance of deposit coupled with the repeal of common - sense regulations to prevent private entities socializing undue risk. ( Glass - Steagall ). | cmv |
I believe that the U. S., and most major economies of this world, should revert to the gold standard. CMV. | Your claim about the Federal Reserve Bank being privately owned is simply false. It is an independently operated arm of the federal government. The local branches do sell " stock " to the member banks, but this isn't the same kind of stock that you get when you buy 10 shares of Apple or your buddy lets you own 25 % of his business for a ground - floor investment. The weakness in a commodity - backed currency like a precious metal standard, is that it totally inhibits monetary policy. In times of recession, the Fed can lower interest rates and infuse cash into the economy by buying up bonds. This increases the amount of money in the economy which stimulates investment spending which allows for more consumer spending and lower unemployment. This type of policy during good economic times causes inflation, but the Fed can also raise the interest rate and sell bonds to have the opposite effect, controlling inflation and reining in GDP growth. On a commodity - backed currency, the Fed can only create as much money as there is commodity reserves, which is fine when the goal is to reduce the money supply, but you run into problems when you hit the cap when trying to increase the money supply. A gold standard would absolutely keep inflation low and a worldwide standard would effectively eliminate the need for forex markets, but if you look at the US economy today, inflation is not at all a problem and has been at or below 2 % since the recession started. In cases like this the Fed needs to be able to pump money into the system to stimulate demand without the constraint of a hard cap on the amount of money there can be. | cmv |
I believe that the major difference between China and the USA is that people in the USA believe that they actually have political influence. CMV. | But you're forgetting about a second major difference. In the US, I can get popular traction by gathering a bunch of people and protesting together. In China, money and money alone speaks. In the US, it doesn't matter how rich you are, if the evidence is against you for anything in court, you're going to lose the case. In China, the police could have caught you red handed in the act, but you'll still be able to arbitrate away anything ( including murder ) so long as you have the money for it. That's why the First Amendment is important – in the US, you can't bribe or buy out free speech. In China, this is completely possible. | cmv |
I believe that the major difference between China and the USA is that people in the USA believe that they actually have political influence. CMV. | Um, Americans have a legal court system. Random American people get their case thrown into the supreme court and it can change the law of the land and maybe even really big policy changes. Does that exist in China? If I was not a wealthy person but I believed in something, I can lobby and demonstrate it in the U. S. Protesting is really frowned in China. Think about the civil rights movement... that was a people led movement for change that got civil rights on the leader's agenda. | cmv |
I believe that the major difference between China and the USA is that people in the USA believe that they actually have political influence. CMV. | That's a superficial difference between two enormously different cultures. What's the " so what? " The bigger implications that is. You know what I think is the biggest difference between Europeans and Americans? Just as a European - American offering my interpretation of cultural differences. European culture is born of peasant culture, something they know and dislike. American culture is born out of peasants who forgot they were peasants. | cmv |
I think " Palestinian " is a made - up ethnicity. CMV! | I'm sure you're aware of this, but most Palestinian Arabs are refugees from the British Mandate of Palestine. It is completely sensible for them to use that name. I just don't see what other name they would use? Clearly not Israeli Arabs, because that is a word that means something and it designates a small subset of Palestinians. How is calling themselves Palestinians any more wrong than for the Portuguese Jewish community in the Netherlands to label themselves Portuguese Jews? Also, I am for the creation and existence of Israel, but I don't see how you can claim that the indigenous Arab population who lived in Palestine and were driven out are attempting to " steal something that isn't theirs ". | cmv |
I think " Palestinian " is a made - up ethnicity. CMV! | Of course it's a made up identity. So is Israeli, American, and every other nationality. Oh, and an elaborate secret plot by the Arab League? That is a pretty awesome conspiracy theory. And no, not all " Arabs " are going to find unity. The pan - Arabic movement failed. Just because they share an ethnicity, does not mean that they all have the same values or goals. | cmv |
I think " Palestinian " is a made - up ethnicity. CMV! | Is it possible that before the challenges they faced with the israeli's they didn't feel the need to label themselves? Take for example the aborigines of Australia. Before English occupation, they probably weren't identifying themselves as a nation or collective of Aborigines, however years later they have identified themselves as aboriginies as a group and as a culture. | cmv |
I think " Palestinian " is a made - up ethnicity. CMV! | All ethnicities are " made - up " as you say. The Palestinian identity developed from numerous factors including the Nakba, the continued occupation and the mistreatment of Palestinian refugees in other Arab countries. Palestinians have a shared experience distinct from other Arabs and so have their own nationality. Additionally, genetic testing has found that Palestinians and Jews are closely related, along with other Levantines like Lebanese and Syrians. | cmv |
I think " Palestinian " is a made - up ethnicity. CMV! | Ethnicity is a very controversial term in itself as how large a scope of genetic similarity do you take into account when designating an ethnic group? As it's probably the case that palestinians share more of the same genes with one another than say an Ethiopian Jew and a Polish Jew do, with them almost certainly having more in common culturally when Israel was formed. Now I don't know what your views on this are but can't a people that are are not classed as their own ethnic group by some, still feel they share much in common and aspire to have their own national state? I feel this is what many of the original foinders of Israel would of thought themselves | cmv |
I'm cold and selfish to others and I have my reasons. CMV | You are completely wrong when you say that most people behave like you but just don't realize it. It's true that the overwhelming majority cares much more about their friends and family than about strangers, but they don't not care at all. Psychological studies have confirmed altruistic behaviour in adults, infants, even chimpanzees. I think since you say you ignore anecdotal evidence, the easiest way to prove it is to look at economics research on the Dictator game and similar games ( trust game, ultimatum game, prisoners dilemma variants, etc. ). The way the Dictator game works is one player gets some sum of money, and can decide how to split it between themselves and the other player ( who doesn't do anything, so is technically not a player ). That's it. If everyone was really into being cold and selfish to people they don't know, the other player would never get any money. Yet in every culture where these tests are performed, the other player gets some of the money! And here is the reason : altruism feels good to people in many situations. Like other things that make you feel good and don't harm others, I suggest you should try it. | cmv |
I'm cold and selfish to others and I have my reasons. CMV | I don't get why knowing you makes someone more eligible to be treated like a human being. I realize that treating your friends well is what feels good, but for some reason you've decided it's okay to make other people feel bad because it doesn't make you feel good. First of all, this is all kind of vague so I may get some stuff wrong. The first part, that you don't feel people pay eachother random acts of kindness, I say I agree with, that doesn't happen very much. I just don't understand how that justifies the second part, that you would hurt them to any degree for your personal gain. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | In reality, the way the world works is that those with power are ale to dictate what we should care about. It isn't that white people are the majority, it's that the people in power tend to be white men. Hence the interests of rich, white guys is prioritized over others. Groups that are critical of this attempt to add other agents of change into the mix, so that policies ( or caring ) is redistributed properly according to percentage. Black people are 10 % of the U. S. Therefore, we should focus some resources specifically to black people's empowerment so that 1 out of 10 CEOs are black instead of 1 / 100. Women are 1 / 100 MDs? Let's focus on women's education and now women are 50 / 100 of MDs... which make sense. If anything groups that focus on minorities are giving them an equal chance where the mechanisms that marginalize them are giving them less priorities than you even suggest. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | By this logic, we shouldn't ever really care about single murders, because the individual is just a group of one - - proportionally, they matter pretty much zero. Also, there is a difference between apathy and antipathy. Just because you don't think you should empathize with someone's problems doesn't really justify actively contributing to those problems. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | Your theory has one very big flaw : I'm white and I care. And I am not alone. So while 70 % white vs the 30 % not white might sound like a majority, white people in favor of white people aren't enough of a majority to not vote a black president, 2 times. Being part of a group doesn't mean you support that groups interests, many find that there is no conflict to get involved in and are therefor more interested in other groups problems. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | Let me just make sure I'm clear, what you are suggesting is that the majority should be able to do anything they want to the minority. I mean literally anything they want, because the majority's view should always overpower the minority's. But that means that, for instance, white people can vote to legally imprison or kill black people, if enough white people believe it's a good idea. Do you believe that this is right? If you believe that it cannot be a moral possibility, even if there are a billion white people and one black person, then you are accepting that sometimes minorities have absolute rights regardless of the majority's belief. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | On the contrary, groups that have a smaller population need to be prioritized more, specifically so that we can avoid marginalization. White people are naturally going to care about issues that largely affect white people, black people will naturally care about issues that largely affect black people, and so on. If a group of people is small enough, their voices are going to get swallowed up, and this is a problem : They are people, too, and they have problems that you and I might not identify with. Just because fewer people deal with them doesn't mean they're not problems. The majority of Americans are white, yes, but problems that are larger priorities within, say, the black community ( poverty, poor education, gun violence ) deserve attention as well. Then again, I'm black, which is 13 % of America, so I guess my opinion only counts for about 1 / 5 of what a white person's counts for. | cmv |
I support marginalization of minorities. That is, the smaller a group is, the less you should care about them. CMV | There is actually a name for this : the Tyranny of the Majority. So in order to marginalize you, all anyone needs to do is find a characteristic about you that happens to be less common in the population, and boom - they have a valid reason to discriminate against you. Let's assume for a moment, that you are left - handed and your boss discovers this. All he needs to do to fire you, would be to say it's because of your left - handedness, and he would be off the hook, because the left - handed are only 10 % of the general population. | cmv |
I believe that two of modern societies greatest problems - wealth inequality and overpopulation - could be solved by making having children more expensive. CMV | So what happens when people who can't afford it have kids? There will just be more kids living in crappy conditions because it costs more to have them. Also, in the US death rates exceed birth rates. | cmv |
I believe that two of modern societies greatest problems - wealth inequality and overpopulation - could be solved by making having children more expensive. CMV | I was under the impression that world population was going to cap at 10 billion and then slowly move back to either 8 or 6 billion. Children are already incredibly expensive to have. If you want poor people to stop having kids you should stop subsidising them through welfare. I understand that it is not fair to kids who have to grow up poor but if we stop subsidising poor children then we will have less of them and we won't have to pay for them. | cmv |
I think the sex - positive movement is incredibly naive and ignorant of basic human drives / behavior. CMV. | I myself agree with most of what your saying here to an extent but I'd say that I really don't care if a 7 year old girl is wearing something like a bikini or anything, as I don't feel that is necessarily sexualising the kid. However I would say I don't like it when some parents decide to put their kids in t - shirts reading " future porn star ". I think that is far more creepy | cmv |
" Victim blaming " is a necessity in a free, democratic society, and is not inherently wrong. CMV. | I agree with you op, victim blaming seems to be an effective way of absolving oneself of any wrongdoing by conjuring the spectre of the perpetrator's crimes. Say for example, when one implies that a rape victim could have done anything differently, this is called often called victim blaming. The problem is that people like you and me ( I'm assuming ) tend to think in terms of causes, whereas the kind of person who uses the term " victim blaming " in the way you are describing tends to think in terms of intrinsic right and wrong. In other words, they think that these problems occur because of some evil inherent in the perpetrator, and that this evil is not influenced by anything else. One way of looking at this is in terms of shaming. Because shaming is used against the alleged perpetrator, and shame is contagious through association, the reporter of rape is terrified that they will become associated with the shame of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, changing one's behavior is seen by the victim as an admission of wrongdoing, and because public image is taking precedence over personal health, the action that will buffer public image ( not admitting wrongdoing ), will be chosen and no change in behavior will occur. This means that there is an emotional entanglement with the subject, and consequentially, a lack of articulation inherent in the thinkers that you are trying to criticize. They simply cannot separate causality from blame, and are so terrified of admitting any wrongdoing that they cannot improve their behavior, because they believe in a white and black, good and evil version of the way that the world works. This ends in a vicious cycle of denial of responsibility, where the physical consequences of denial fuel the delusions that support it and so on and so forth. | cmv |
I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. CMV | Justice is not ensuring that a criminal is sentenced as guilty or not, even in cases where it is extremely obvious that the defendant committed the alleged act. Instead, justice means that the defendant receives a fair trial. While it is true that there are bad lawyers who take such cases only for their paycheck, lawyers ( the effective ones, at least ) are still needed to ensure a fair trial. | cmv |
I think some criminal lawyers are just as bad as the criminals they represent. CMV | The vast majority of defense lawyers are paid crap, and spend most of their time filling out paperwork and telling their clients they need to take a plea bargain. The kind of lawyer you are imagining is basically nonexistent. In fact, the problem is the opposite for most people ; unless you can spend a lot of money, you may not get a good defense even if you're innocent. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.