summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I'm against Abortion except when the mother or child will die because of birth | I also believe life begins at conception, but I do also believe that abortion should be legal. Let me tell you why I think abortion is wrong, however, I think a woman should have some kind of say in what happens to her baby. Its her body after all. If she really wants to do something like that, then let her do it. It might not be worth it for the women to have a baby growing inside of her for 9 months. She might not be able to stand the pains of being pregnant because she doesn't love the baby inside of her, and resort to drugs. The baby then might come out with birth defects and lead a tough life. She could just put the child out of his / her misery. | cmv |
I'm against Abortion except when the mother or child will die because of birth | A fetus is not a person as it lacks everything that makes a human a person, i. e. awareness, will, etc. It has the potential to become a person. Must we ensure potentialities? If a potential person is to be considered as important as a person, then would you consider it a moral imperative for women to have as many children as possible, to actualize every potentiality? If not, why not? | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | I'll assume by your " climbing tax ", you mean a differential tax rate on different types of food. The greatest social problem posed by a sin tax is that you are applying a regressive tax on what is an essential good, which places a much greater burden on the lower income class than other classes. ( You could potentially offer a tax rebate based on income, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the taxation scheme in the first place? ) While you are right that fast / unhealthy food is more expensive in the long run, these costs aren't immediately relevant when you are have only X dollars per month to spend on food. It has also been noted that people are resistant to changing their spending habits. If food costs change, people will not immediately get up and say " Hey, no more McDonalds, let's just eat kale this week! ". The end effect is often MORE spending on the same amount of fast food, and LESS spending on healthy food as there is less money left over in the food budget. In my opinion, obesity needs to be addressed through education - - making existing food choices not financially viable causes more problems then it solves. | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | Why should I pay more for my balanced diet, which includes limited amounts of fast food, because others are incapable of controlling their diets / choices? Please give a reason not related to the alcohol / cigarette tax as I'm not claiming those are correct either. If you were to remove all food taxes etc and started from scratch, what would your reasoning for taxing'unhealthy'food be? | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | I'd suggest instead removing subsidies on corn, which keeps most junk food at artificially low prices. Other than that, we don't necessarily need to create incentives for choosing healthy food over junk food. Contrary to popular opinion, a healthy diet can be far CHEAPER than your average junk food diet. | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | I am a touring musician who is perfectly healthy. I have a normal body weight for someone my height and age. Same with my band members and crew. as a band on a budget, we rely on fast food as a cheap meal because gas prices are so high. You'd be adding on a tax, making our expenses go up, therefore making doing a job we love even tougher to survive. | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | They're actually doing that in NY. They were going to put an extra tax on Soda and sugary drinks. It was creepy to hear the obvious - propaganda radio commercials paid for by the soda companies... | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | What's healthy in your eyes? Low fat, low sugar, what? Is diet soda better than regular? Is the McDouble bad for me, at only 300 calories? Is a milkshake when I've not eaten much else that day? Whether or not these are healthy is subjective, is on a case by case basis. Just because lots of people are obese doesn't mean high calorie foods are inherently bad. The decision that this food is healthy and that one is bad for you is arbitrary, and not true for everyone. | cmv |
I believe that unhealthy food / fast food should have a " sin " tax. CMV | Why should I be punished monetarily for voluntary transactions between me and PepsiCo? I am making a decision as an adult to consume pop and chips and I will bear the burden of the health costs in the future. A lot of poorer families rely on unhealthy foods to survive ( as do college students ) so you are in effect implementing a regressive tax on these people. More and more of their income ( as a % ) is going towards this. What you are basically doing is imposing your own cost / benefit matrix onto other people. You even admit people should be able to do what they want with their bodies but you say'people should consider the long term costs when they buy this sort of food. " They ought to be they shouldn't be forced to. The idea that somebody is going to treat me like a child and force me to realize'long term costs'is downright offensive. I know if I eat McDonalds 3 times a day I'll probably be unable to run a marathon. | cmv |
I think children conceived through rape should automatically be given to the victim. CMV. | What stops people from lying about being raped? I mean if I want the kid enough I'm gonna do anything to keep them, yelling rape doesn't seem to hard to do. It would be used and abused, hearing everything out and listening is the way to go instead of just making a call that will effect a child's life for their entire life. While I agree with you on the fact that most rapists don't deserve custody, I have to disagree on the " automatically " just based on the fact that to nothing should be automatic when it comes to the topic of raising a child. Everything should be carefully examined and thought out. | cmv |
I believe that only females / women have vaginas and males / men have penises. Transsexuals and transgenders are none of the above. CMV | Do you think that a man who loses his penis in an accident is no longer a man? If he's still a man, how come pre - op trans men can't be men? ( And either way, some post - op trans men do have a penis, so how come they aren't men? ) | cmv |
I believe that only females / women have vaginas and males / men have penises. Transsexuals and transgenders are none of the above. CMV | To what end? What benefit do we gain from being that specific? Who has the job of looking down peoples pants to verify that they are a trueborn man / woman? It all comes down to the question, why should you care about how people refer to themselves? | cmv |
I believe that only females / women have vaginas and males / men have penises. Transsexuals and transgenders are none of the above. CMV | I've met many people with a similar view. It has actually been discussed here a lot. I think the thing that you are missing here is that the brain anatomy of a trans person matches their preferred gender. So if I'm a trans man and someone looks at my brain after I die, they are going to see a man's brain anatomy. If this doesn't convince you that trans people should be considered the gender they identify as then I'm not sure any science will sway your opinion. Also, our society has the gender binary ingrained in its culture. In order to fit in, you basically have to pick a side. If you don't then it will affect you every time you use a public restroom, every job application, every medical form, etc. To tell the trans community that they are unable to identify as men or women just isolates an already isolated group. | cmv |
I believe that only females / women have vaginas and males / men have penises. Transsexuals and transgenders are none of the above. CMV | What benefit would it bring to call them something different? What would society have to gain by singling out people who are already highly disproportionately abused and assaulted? If society does not benefit from their being called something else, then calling them something else would only hurt people who are already vulnerable. If it is a matter of accuracy that you're asking for, we already use different words on occasion. Trans - man. Pre - op trans - man. These are just qualifiers applied to the word man, though. The word man should be used in regular conversation so not to single the person out and make them feel like an oddity, expose them to marginalization and ridicule by others. | cmv |
I don't think it's a good idea to let military women into combat positions. CMV. | I don't think the problem of discrimination litigation leading to lowered standards is inevitable. From what I've read, allowing women in combat positions seems to have worked will for the Israeli Defense Forces. Why not wait and see what happens and presumably if there are any discrimination suits based on the fact women can't fulfill the same physical standards, people will be against them for the reasons you state. | cmv |
I believe NATO should enforce a No - fly zone over Syria and should use airpower to destroy Assad loyal military hardware. CMV | The FSA don't have popular support. Assad still has large support within Syria. This war isnt about self determination, its different ethnic groups fighting for superiority over a multi - ethnic country. If the FSA win, there is a good chance of an Islamist government taking over. There exists a Kurdish faction in the East that is fighting both Assad and the FSA. Should NATO bomb them too? | cmv |
Julian Assange should be thrown in Jail. CMV | By working for disclosure, solidarity and peace, no matter which way you do the sums ( long - term or short - term ), Julian Assange is saving lives. I truly believe this and I'm more than happy to talk this argument out to the specifics as far as you want to take it. EVEN IF, Assange has put people in danger, there are men in the world who have put a lot more people in a lot more danger by working for secrecy, division and war. Nothing would make them happier than for Assange to become a scapegoat for the exact crime that would otherwise sit on their conscience : " putting people in danger ". | cmv |
Julian Assange should be thrown in Jail. CMV | He isn't American and he is yet to step on American soil. We all break Saudi Arabian Laws every day, that doesn't mean we should be shipped to Saudi Arabia and prosecuted by them. The same applies here to America. | cmv |
Julian Assange should be thrown in Jail. CMV | Now, I'm no big city lawyer. I just think we should all be equal - is that a crime? If Julian stepped foot on American soil he would NEVER get a trial. He's what the government would call a " terrorist " and they don't need to try terrorists in court - we just throw a big ol'black bag over the boy's head and ship him off to Guantanamo Bay. Or actually secret government detention facilities. I move that there is absolutely no way he'd see justice in the hands of the Americans, and that's reason enough for him to stay away. | cmv |
Julian Assange should be thrown in Jail. CMV | Assange's leaks were not originally meant to be indiscriminate, he originally asked the DoD to tell him which leaks would endanger lives of operatives, sources, military personnel, etc. However the DoD refused to cooperate, so Wikileaks had three options : 1. Release everything. 2. Release nothing. 3. Try to self - censor. To my knowledge they went for no. 3, but I am not 100 % certain. Regardless, Assange and Wikileaks were willing to cooperate with US Defence but were turned away. That, I believe, clears Assange of unethical actions in this instance. | cmv |
Julian Assange should be thrown in Jail. CMV | Firstly, Manning and Assange were very careful not to release any documents that were detrimental to national security or the security of individuals. Even in the video showing the killing of the two journalists the pilots never have their names revealed and are referenced only by their callsigns. Secondly, Assange is only acting as a journalist. If he's being prosecuted, why shouldn't the US extradite the journalists who interviewed Snowden? Freedom of the press is fundamental to democracy as the people must have a right to information. | cmv |
I think taking over North Korea would be a good idea CMV | I'll start with the pacifist / isolationist argument, and state that war / occupation is unnecessary until it directly affects us as Americans. We as a people don't have the money to enter another war. All NK has been doing since the 70s is threatening everyone and their mother. Until there is any legitimate concern for safety, don't mess with North Korea. Also, we as Americans want the North Koreans to have a democracy, or so we say. We actually want someone ELECTED into office THAT WE LIKE. If we take over NK we are imposing our judgement upon the masses, who are too brainwashed to think straight. Who are we to inject someone we feel is right into an already destroyed society? | cmv |
I believe their needs to be wide ranging social policies and laws that crack down on all forms of Pornography in the Porn Industry. Change My View. | A & B : Are you also advocating reform on all other forms of media that show these traits? C : Wut? I don't know what you're saying D : Agreed E : Just like sci - fi writers take advantage of the preferences of sci - fi lovers? | cmv |
I believe in meritocracy and don't understand our society's obsession with achieving equality beyond legal equality CMV. | I like the monopoly game metaphor. An ideal meritocracy is best modeled as the start of monopoly : everyone has $ 1500, and is starting at exactly the same space. Now is this the real world though, that's the question. Would you call it a meritocracy if you were invited to a game of monopoly that had already been going on for a few hours, and every property on the board was already bought except for Mediterranean Avenue? How well would you take it if the other players start asking you why you suck so bad at monopoly because you're losing then? This is the actual reality we deal with : people are not starting from the same original position, and this nullifies the entire concept of meritocracy. That's why people propose tweaks to compensate for this. Now what tweaks are appropriate and reasonable is certainly up for debate, but there is no possible way to defend the case that an actual meritocracy as envisioned is possible. | cmv |
I believe in meritocracy and don't understand our society's obsession with achieving equality beyond legal equality CMV. | The problem is the world is naturally equal. All humans are naturally a base zero and equal. Whatever a man does of greatness ( let's just say that + 100 ) is counteracted by the other bad things he does ( - 100. ) " Great " men do awful things and treat people poorly. Everybody manages to make their way back to Zero. Everybody. That's just how nature works. | cmv |
I believe in meritocracy and don't understand our society's obsession with achieving equality beyond legal equality CMV. | Meritocracy is fine in concept, but in practice it's very complicated. Who decides what is of merit? Which characteristics are to be rewarded? In human history, the characteristic that receives the most merit is having been born wealthy, powerful, or both. If we could strip all people of the advantages of birth, meritocracy might be practical. | cmv |
I believe Snowden is a traitor and should be jailed accordingly. CMV | Other people have quibbled over the definition of treason, but that's really immaterial to your overall point. The more salient part of your view is " should be jailed accordingly ", not the particular label we assign to him. My question is this : if you supported Snowden blowing the whistle on the NSA spying on private American citizens, why would you not support him blowing the whistle on them similarly targeting Chinese citizens? | cmv |
I believe Snowden is a traitor and should be jailed accordingly. CMV | Snowden is a high school dropout who was hired by the National Security Administration to oversee the details of a classified government program. If anyone should be tried its the idiot who decided to give that kind of responsibility to a guy without a college degree. He wasn't a soldier, he wasn't a government official sworn to secrecy, he was a guy with a job. He felt uncomfortable about what that job entailed and decided to go public. He had that right as a citizen and still maintains that right. If the government wanted silence then they should have given the job to a soldier. The reason Bradley Manning is being tried for treason is he is a soldier. Soldiers sign away their rights in a lot of ways and are forced to abide by military law ( that law involves treason and leaking of classified information ) A citizen is not obligated to follow that code and is therefore immune to the issues involved with it. | cmv |
I believe Snowden is a traitor and should be jailed accordingly. CMV | " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court " Treason is a wartime act, we're not at war with China. | cmv |
I believe Snowden is a traitor and should be jailed accordingly. CMV | I think the challenge to your view here is your assumption that the Chinese government is as naïve as you are. There is no chance at all that this is a surprise to the Chinese government and will likely have no impact on the American government's operations, which are going to continue. I gather you've conceded that this does not amount to treason, which refers to war time. I also assume that when you say you supported Snowden until this moment, you accept the premise that the surveillance of U. S. citizens is illegitimate / unconstitutional. To revise your statement ; when someone hurts the American government's operations, even those that are illegitimate, they've crossed the line and should be jailed. I am trying to think of an argument that would change your view, the only thing that might work is to think about that line you've drawn. So long as you keep your protest and dissent from impacting government operations in any way, that is so long as you make sure to have no effect on that which you are trying to protest, you are ok. Otherwise, go to jail. That's tough, even non - violent street protests impact traffic and police operations. | cmv |
I don't believe having stricter gun control policies will reduce the amount of violent crimes with firearms. CMV. | Strict gun control works in Canada, Australia, the UK and most other first world countries. All these countries have much lower homicide rates than the US. Why do americans think it won't work for them for some reason? | cmv |
I don't believe having stricter gun control policies will reduce the amount of violent crimes with firearms. CMV. | But we don't have nearly as much roving gang violence in the united states as in central american countries. None of the mass shooters were in gangs and most of the gang violence is gang on gang anyway. Yeah they might still have guns but they only really shoot at each other. Furthermore, no one wants to get rid of guns. But the idea is you should be able to defend yourself very well with an m9 with a capacity of 10 + 1. No one should really need 30 rounds and it would in theory cut down on the availability of these guns when you think that all of the mass shooters came from middle class homes with no illegal ties and all the guns started out legally owned | cmv |
I don't believe having stricter gun control policies will reduce the amount of violent crimes with firearms. CMV. | " Gun violence " is a terrible metric for any society. Murder is murder and " gun violence " statistics are inflated by suicides and shootings by officers. Murder is murder and even in countries where legal firearms ownership is nearly impossible ( Brazil, Mexico and Columbia ) people find ways ( sometimes with firearms, sometimes not ) to murder each other. We can't even prevent murders in prisons. Gun control advocates like to cherry - pick countries like Japan and ignore the overall sociological factors that lead to violence. Adding needless bureaucracy that only affects lawful citizens ( while violating the constitution in America's case ) will not reduce violence. | cmv |
I don't believe having stricter gun control policies will reduce the amount of violent crimes with firearms. CMV. | In the eighteen years before stricter gun control laws were introduced in Australia in 1996, there were thirteen mass shootings. In the seventeen years since there have been zero. Homicides involving guns dropped 50 - 60 % between'96 and'09. Whoopty - fucking - do. | cmv |
I Believe that we are on the cusp of an economic meltdown of a size that has never been seen before.. CMV | The financial turmoil is at a it's end phase. The market rallied because of the reported financial job numbers along with rising housing prices. Keep in mind, recessions are actually overall positive for economies. What they help do is remove unhealthy loans, businesses, and other financial strains, and helps clean the gears so to speak. We might be pulling ourselves out of this quagmire slowly, but we're pulling ourselves out of it. | cmv |
I Believe that we are on the cusp of an economic meltdown of a size that has never been seen before.. CMV | Maybe you should turn off listening to Ron Paul / Fox News for a day. A lot of companies have had record profits in the last year. That's why stocks are doing so well. As for the other stuff, we're recovering from a recession ( remember 2008? ). | cmv |
I think that if a person's gun is used to commit a crime, that person should be treated as an accomplice unless they report the gun stolen within 24 hours of the theft taking place. CMY | What if you don't notice the theft? Should all firearm owners be required to take a full inventory of their guns every 24 hours, to avoid potential jail time? Furthermore, the punishment is way out of line with the offense. Using your example of dangerous chemicals, should the owners of a plant be charged with being an accomplice to terrorism if someone steals some stuff from them and poisons a piece of a city? | cmv |
I believe the NSA is rightful in their actions of invading the privacy of citizens. CMV | From a practical standpoint, the terrorism threat is vanishingly small compared to many other everyday dangers that we all take for granted. It's a small threat not because of any action by the government, but because there aren't a lot of capable terrorists to begin with. Given the tiny number of threatening terrorists, cost to catch even one is very very high. So high in fact that the same resources would be better spent on resiliency than on prevention. As for your everyday citizen, realize that the government isn't some monolithic entity working toward well - defined goals. It's made up of individuals and groups of individuals with their own motivations that may or may not be in line with the general welfare of the population. Having this kind of fine - grained and intimate level of information on practically everyone carries a very high risk of abuse by government workers seeking personal or professional advantage. Additionally, the government itself has a history of collecting data for one purpose and later using it for something completely different. It wouldn't be surprising to see the NSA data set be employed for non - terrorism - related ends in the future. This is troublesome because everyone is legally guilty of breaking one law or another, so anyone in power can selectively prosecute anyone they want. | cmv |
I think some gender roles are natural and men and women are not inherently the same. CMV | Out of curiosity, OP, what do you think about transgender people? If men and women are not the same ( e. g., they are mentally, innately different ), does this mean that they have different brains? And if so, could gestational factors cause someone with a female brain to be born into a male body? | cmv |
I think some gender roles are natural and men and women are not inherently the same. CMV | While obviously there are some things that each gender is " naturally " accustomed to doing ( due to our brains / bodies ), I would make the case that what distinguishes us from animals is our ability to ignore what is natural, and create our own set of norms. Therefore, it falls to us to decide which norms should be gender - neutral ( ex. employment opportunities ) and which should not be. | cmv |
I think some gender roles are natural and men and women are not inherently the same. CMV | The problem with your view is that you commit what is known as the " Naturalistic Fallacy ", meaning that just because something may be " natural ", doesn't necessarily make it " good ". You may well be right that there are natural tendencies that differ among genders ( As far as I know, nobody denies that ). That, however, does not mean that these are " right " or " good " or should be plainly accepted. In many species, a new leader will kill all the children of the pack, so that his own will not have to compete for anything. This is certainly a " natural " way to ensure the well - being of one's own offspring, though most people will agree that it is not a model behavior to strive for. The Bottom line is this : Wether or not gender roles are natural has nothing to do with wether or not they are a good thing that contributes to a society's overall well - being and prosperity. The 1950ies are not a model we should look to as a recipe for human happiness. | cmv |
I think some gender roles are natural and men and women are not inherently the same. CMV | Young boys and girls don't have a natural tendency to play with guns and dolls respectively. Its simply what they are bought from a young age. It is always deemed CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE to give guns to the little boy and dolls to the little girl. there is nothing natural about this. This simply marketing and cultural programming. It starts when they are toddlers and you dress the girl in pink and the boy in blue. THen when you grow a little older and go the super market stores the little girl see the pink isles and automatically assumes thats where her toys are. Also both the young children will see kids similar to themselves on the toy boxes. A little girl will never see another little girl holding a nerf gun and a little boy will never see another young boy with a doll on the boxes. How is any of this natural? | cmv |
I think some gender roles are natural and men and women are not inherently the same. CMV | I like to view it this way. In the jungle, women were the most valuable part of the group because without them the group couldn't survive. Therefore, it's genetically ingrained into males to want to subdue women. I'm not saying women ought now to be subdued, but this is to me an explanation of why we're genetically inclined to do so. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | Respectfully, science supports the idea that you should not be able to consent. The pre frontal cortex in the brain controls weighing consequences of behaviour and modulation of intense emotion. This area of the brain can be developing up until your mid twenties. Anecdotally at 15, I was not able to anticipate the increased brain capacity I would have by my early twenties. So you can say that you have the ability to be safe and understand the emotional consequences, but you don't have the same capacity as the adult'you'will have in ten years time. There's an arbitrary line drawn and it has to be drawn somewhere. As a fifteen year old, you don't have the capacity to support a child if you created one. You are completely dependent on your family to pay for any medical care that results from an STD. An average fifteen year old does not have the same capacity to plan, to weigh risk or to make decisions under stress and duress that the average adult would. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | Honestly, your brain has not stopped growing yet. It has been proven time and time again that your frontal lobe - where you make decisions, understand consequences, and can basically see long term and short term decisions - is NOT fully grown, and NOT adequate. You go for impulse, not control. That being said, there are smart people and there are dumb people. But laws must be for everyone under a specific category - and thus, the law was born. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | You yourself may be intelligent enough but many other 15 year olds are not. I don't mean this to be offensive in any way, I'm just saying that a teenager's brain isn't mature enough to make such decisions. They don't know the risks and precautions that you may know. My point being is most people at that age aren't capable of making a decision like that. Trust me when I say this, 3 years can make a difference. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, REALLY sleep deprived. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | Age of consent laws are about making crude, wide brush effort to protect young people from relationships with huge power imbalances that could easily become manipulative or abusive. While many people probably as young as 14 or 15 are fully capable of making informed decisions of this nature, it's thought that most are not so the line is drawn at 16 or 17 or 18. Of course, plenty over that age are still not really capable of making wise choices, but again it's a crude wide brush effort. There can never be a perfect age of consent or age of majority since every individual matures at a different rate. There simply has to be a balance between protecting people incapable of protecting themselves and limiting the freedom of people capable of making their own choices. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | There's two problems. 1 : Most 15 year olds don't really comprehend any of those thigns, no matter how you want to look at it. In fact, if you are basing the argument on thinking that YOU do and ignoring the reality that most would not, chances are you don't as well as you think you do either. and more importantly. 2 : Abuse and control and manipulation of younger people by older is a severe threat. If it's someone as young as 15, with someone in their 20s its effectively a guarantee that there's something shady going on. People of that age would really not be okay with that big of a shift since those connotations are readily prevalent, unless they simply did not care about them. There may be exceptions, but the exceptions are the deviance, not the norm. | cmv |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to ( legally ) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV | Maybe you are smart enough to know the difference between real feelings and manipulation. Most 15 year olds are not. The law attempts to protect you from coercion and manipulation as a child. You are still a child... I'm sorry... But you are. So based on a system of averages, the law will never be on your side here. | cmv |
I believe that what Edward Snowden did was wrong and stupid. CMV | I'll agree with stupid but I will not accept what he did was wrong. 1. No one owes their government anything ; 2. Breaking a contract with a morally deviant person / group is a moral gray area ( i. e. Lying to an ax murder ) | cmv |
America should make an official declaration to the international community that it isn't a democracy. CMV | It's laid out pretty clearly in the US Constitution that the government is a federal republic. That seems like a very official declaration to me. I don't think it's the governments business to correct foreigners ignorance about out system of government. | cmv |
I think that anyone who uses terms like " sheeple ", " libtard ", or others throughout the left - right spectrum has opinions not worth reading or considering. CMV. | I have less respect for people who use those names, but I don't discount their opinion entirely. You are assuming that just because some people who use those names cannot articulate their point, that everyone who uses those names cannot articulate their point, which simply is not true. There are some nasty, bitter people who are still right about a lot of things. Then there is the thing about logical fallacies, but others have already explained that plenty. | cmv |
I think that anyone who uses terms like " sheeple ", " libtard ", or others throughout the left - right spectrum has opinions not worth reading or considering. CMV. | I agree with this when it comes to the use of " libtard ", though I myself am conservative. I think " sheeple " has a worthy use that's not simply derogatory so I'm okay with it, and use it myself from time to time. I agree that insults that are simply meant to defame people via their associations are usually just trying to start a fight, and serve no purpose other than to stroke people's egos. That's something that all conversation would be better without, in my opinion. | cmv |
I think that anyone who uses terms like " sheeple ", " libtard ", or others throughout the left - right spectrum has opinions not worth reading or considering. CMV. | That's likely to make the problem worse rather than any better - people tend to venture further into extremist positions when they feel their views are not getting the attention they feel they deserve. And, of course, when people see their own in - group slandered, they tend to immediately form an emotional counter - reaction regardless of the merits of the argument being presented. And that leads to responses sprinkled with counter - terms like conservatard or anarchist - which in turn generate their own emotional counter - reactions, and each side sees less and less of the merits of the arguments being presented to them because of the emotional cargo drowning out everything else. The older I get, the more I notice that the people who I can have an intelligent discussion with DO tend to resort to name - calling less and less, but there are valid points sometimes made even by people who do call people " doo doo head " and the like. It makes you a better person if you can recognize these emotional responses and refuse to let them get in the way of the discussion and not let them turn it into a confrontation instead of a reasoned argument. | cmv |
I believe that a majority of " Obesity Rights " groups are perpetuating an unhealthy and dangerous mindset CMV | Granted there are people out there that use the fat acceptance movement as an excuse for the way they look. There are also people that encourage unhealthy eating as a form of beauty, which is definitely something that should be more questionable for those involved. However, there are people in this world who truly cannot help the way they look. Fat acceptance ( in the most proper manner anyway ) is for those people who are just built larger than others and therefore end size discrimination. Many are there to promote positive self - body image over unhealthy eating. It's not about being obese, but rather working to change how we perceive things. | cmv |
The United States Government powers and corruption have grown too much, to a point that we, the people, cannot change anything about it anymore. CMV | I don't think we have gotten " too " comfortable, but we are undeniably more comfortable than generations past. While what you are saying may be true about the collective " we " as in " The American People " I think it is not true at all about the generation on the rise. The people born after 1980 or so. Around the world and in the US that generation has proven to be motivated, opinionated and different than generations past. However in the US that generation is dwarfed by Baby Boomers and Gen X. So people can change and things will change... in due time. ( when the preceding generations are dead and gone or severely outnumbered ). | cmv |
I believe the current form of government needs to be massively outvoted | If people agreed with you, that would be perfectly reasonable, but they don't. Most people love their own representatives ; it's all those other ones that are causing problems. And I don't see how it helps for people to vote for someone they don't think is the best candidate. Why do you think that the new candidates will be any less likely to be corrupt? | cmv |
I believe biometric locks should be required for all newly manufactured guns. CMV. | I don't have a single, strong argument, but I do have a few smaller ones : Applying this to only newly manufactured guns would severely limit its utility, as old guns are just as good as new ones. Well made guns don't wear out, or at least some haven't since the invention of smokeless powder over 100 years ago. ( if you want to see for yourself, search for " Pre 64 winchester " guns, which are still actively traded after more than 50 years. ) Re : kids stumbling on to guns : How is a biometric lock better than a normal one? As others have said, guns are actually quite simple. Here is an exploded diagram for a bolt action rifle. Notice that it has only 29 parts in total. Here is a revolver and here is a semi - auto pistol. Note that neither of them are very much more complex. | cmv |
I believe biometric locks should be required for all newly manufactured guns. CMV. | This sounds like something that could not reasonably be done. Guns are relatively simple machines and this device would by easily removed. Gun owners regularly dismantle their gun for cleaning, there's no way to make it impossible to fire without such a verification system that could not easily be worked around. This would only serve to hinder lawful gun owners as criminals could simply remove it. Imagine you tried to create such a system for bikes. How would it work? You could have the device lock the gears or the wheels or any other part of the bike, but it would be trivial to remove it and go on using the bike anyway. And for guns it's worse, at least with a bike you could tell by inspection that the device is not present because bikes are often used in public. This is not so for guns, which are often kept in the home or concealed. | cmv |
I believe biometric locks should be required for all newly manufactured guns. CMV. | One group of people likely to be killed by their own weapons is police officers. The FBI publishes a ton of data on killings of police officers. In the two most recent years for which data was available, 2010 - 11, 118 officers were feloniously killed by firearms. 10 of these were with the officer's own firearm. Furthermore, at least 7 additional officers were accidentally killed as a result of firearm mishaps. So police would seem to have the largest incentive to use a system like this - and they would not even have to pay for it. The taxpayer would foot the bill. The fact that no police department in the country uses such a system should indicate to you that the technology simply is not there. These locks are not reliable enough for this application. Hopefully in the future they will be, as I'm sure all gun owners would love nothing more than to have complete control over who is able to fire their weapon. | cmv |
I believe biometric locks should be required for all newly manufactured guns. CMV. | I don't have a problem with biometric locks, but lets be realistic about what it will and will not prevent. In the case of Newtown, there's a good chance the mother would have given him access to the guns. In the 2 / 3rds of gun deaths that are suicides, the lock won't help. You might get a reduction in the number of gun deaths, but not by as much as you hope. | cmv |
You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide CMV. | If every person who has access to your private information is perfectly honest, perfectly competent and perfectly fair minded, then you have nothing to fear. Otherwise, you have plenty. If you have ever said anything you wouldn't want your mother, boss, minister or the police to know, you might be blackmailed by an unscrupulous individual. This could also happen even if they have nothing on you, because if it is assumed they know everything and there is no oversight, they can make up anything they want. This applies to everyone, including politicians and other powerful people. You will never know if they have been blackmailed, making it even harder to know whose interests they represent. | cmv |
You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide CMV. | Well, the problem with worrying about it then and not now is it could be too late at that point given that the authorities have already built a robust surveillance network, and additional legal means to react to what it deems a threat. A threat by who's determination, the likes of McCarthy and J Edgar Hoover? Also, you're stating the main argument of the NSA, which is a bit of a red herring, as for many the issue is privacy. | cmv |
CMV : I think that laws against having sex with someone at the age of 18 are almost completely arbitrary. | In theory, I really appreciate your idea that courts should determine if someone is mature or not. I don't think it's practical, however. I think it would be subject to a lot of error and would be very time consuming. Also, this opens up the idea that someone could essentially molest a kid and then claim they believed they were mature enough. The hard number is there to prevent issues with clarity. Imagine how hard it would be to determine if the girl you were about to sleep with would be considered mature enough by the court to do it. In a small group of people, this idea may work. For an entire country, there are too many ways this could go wrong and be taken advantage of. | cmv |
CMV : I think that laws against having sex with someone at the age of 18 are almost completely arbitrary. | I don't think the group of people who drafted these laws said to themselves "This magic age changes everything for a person", nor do most people who live in society believe this. Now again, I'm not sure what the mindset was of those who framed these age - based laws, but at least in the United States at 18, one should have been through the primary education system. At this age a person should have learned enough to be able to make informed decisions about their lives, and have an understanding of the consequences of those decisions ( it's a whole different debate on whether the education system does an adequate job of preparing children for the "real world" ). So in that sense, 18 isn't fully arbitrary. "Maturity" is a very subjective term, and to ask a government to define it via some sort of test or screening process would very difficult in theory and likely impossible in practice. Imagine some kind of test, ( or assuming the government has unlimited resources, a panel of professionals who determine when someone is "mature" enough to vote / have sex / consume alcohol. Cheating and otherwise rigging the outcome would be rampant, as well as constant appeals ( assuming that was allowed ). | cmv |
CMV : I think that laws against having sex with someone at the age of 18 are almost completely arbitrary. | Well they are arbitrary. The biggest issue is that you have to set a standard of maturity that the legal system could judge people on and that's pretty difficult to do uniformly. What are our standards for what constitutes maturity? Why those? What if different courts disagree with the standard to use? The line is arbitrary because its pretty much impossible to make a system of evaluation good enough to stand muster in a legal system. | cmv |
I think that crass, lewd American and European gay rights activists are partially to blame for the homophobic backlash in Russia, Uganda, Jamaica etc. CMV. | The parades that you cite as an example of " crass, lewd... activists " represent a minority of the LGBT population. Furthermore, these are not example of activism, per se, rather they are a celebration of cultural pride. The St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC is not an example of Irish - American activism, after all. Actual LGBT activist groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign, do conduct themselves with a high level of professionalism and respect. The anti - homosexuality law in Jamaica dates back to the late 19th century, so you can hardly cite this as an example of blowback against LGBT activism. Russia's new attempt at censoring any positive information regarding homosexuality is more relevant, but the fact that it passed the lower house of parliament with 0 " no " votes makes me a bit suspicious. As to Uganda, one might argue that years of political maneuvering and fear - mongering by certain Western religious zealots has more to do with the direction that country's laws are heading than the actions of a small group of outliers in the United States and Europe. | cmv |
I think that crass, lewd American and European gay rights activists are partially to blame for the homophobic backlash in Russia, Uganda, Jamaica etc. CMV. | The activism you're criticising is only upsetting to homophobic people because they're homophobic. You're essentially saying that gay people would be more accepted if they were less gay. Of course that's true, but that's not the point of gay activism. Calling gay rights activism lewd and obnoxious is itself being homophobic. I don't find them lewd or obnoxious, they're just people having fun celebrating their freedom and trying to combat discrimination. Gay marriage isn't the final objective for western gay rights, far from it. Gay people still experience a lot of discrimination and bigotry even in countries with longstanding gay marriage rights. So activism remains necessary everywhere. | cmv |
I think it's a good thing Snowden is being charged with Espionage. CMV. | It is clear that he was in violation of the law. Many people, including me, think that those laws are wrong, sure. But there is no serious question that there are legitimate laws which he violated. Trying him would set no useful precedent. | cmv |
I think it's a good thing Snowden is being charged with Espionage. CMV. | I do think that in theory, every whistleblower should be charged and prosecuted for their leaks. A discovery of facts and motives in an adversarial court would ultimately shed light on the action, and whether or not the'whistleblower'was in fact acting in the public interest, or just using that as a shield while they sought monetary / other gain in leaking state secrets. The problem with this course of action is that it contains an implicit assumption of a fair trial. Obama's administration has already tortured a whistleblower ( Manning ) in its custody with sleep deprivation, isolation, humiliation, forced stress positions, and myriad other punishments while he has been in their custody and has not even been sentenced for the crimes he's supposedly committed. It's also been aggressive in pursuing journalists who leak material that it deems embarassing, even though they are supposed to be protected both within the bill of rights and a supreme court precedent. With these facts in mind, Snowden himself has said that he understands fully he will be made to suffer for embarrassing the American government, and he knows that he does not have a chance at a trial where the cards will be set against him. | cmv |
Capital punishment should be broadcasted over the internet and tv CMV | This would just add to the allure of performing mass shootings. Not only do they get their name, picture, and crime posted on the news for months along with it being implanted into our minds forever. They would then get to have their execution publicly shown to the enjoyment of themselves. This would be the opposite of a deterrent. | cmv |
The United States should switch to approval voting, CMV | Ranked voting systems also allow you to name who you want least. You may approve of candidate a and b but also want candidate d less than c. It is a better system that you should switch to instead, | cmv |
I believe that all voters should prove proof of Identity Citizenship, and eligibility ( US ) CMV | Gerrymandering is more of an issue than voter fraud. Why not work on a real problem. Poor people don't have IDs much of the time. It's a fact of life, if you don't need to drive you don't need a picture ID. Same with elderly people. In New York you have to show an " ID " An ID is : you may use a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or some other government document that shows your name and address. You may include a copy of one of those types of ID when you mail this form. They also verify your social security number OR drivers license number so that eliminates the double registration issue. | cmv |
I believe abortion is not pro - choice in the sense that the baby itself is not the woman's body. CMV! | A fetus requires a lot of resources from the woman's body which it acquires through the placenta. A large part of the placenta is the woman's body which induces a lot of change. So if it helps, think of pro choice as choosing whether or not to maintain a part of your own body : the placenta. | cmv |
I believe abortion is not pro - choice in the sense that the baby itself is not the woman's body. CMV! | The fetus is dependent on the mother's body. Thus, the mother can choose to do with her body procedures that would lead to the abortion of the fetus. That's why it's pro - choice. | cmv |
I believe abortion is not pro - choice in the sense that the baby itself is not the woman's body. CMV! | I've got some cells in my body that have separate DNA. I've got a ton of cells that have nearly 0 % genetic similarity to me. I've got a mess of cells in my abdomen that have at most a bit over 50 % genetic similarity to cells next to them, and I've got some mutant cell lines hanging around in various places. I'm not a giant mass of cells with identical nuclei. With the right medical procedures, I could have cells in my body from a different species or that originated in a different person. So unique DNA doesn't mean that a cell's not mine. Can it be physically separated from me? Is it dependent on me, and only me, for nutrients? Then it's mine. | cmv |
I believe abortion is not pro - choice in the sense that the baby itself is not the woman's body. CMV! | Aborting a fetus which is not viable is choosing to remove life support, a choice granted to the host of life support due to the fetus not being an independent and competent adult. Doing this via abortion could be compared to an overdose of morphine rather than pulling the plug and letting the entire existence of the fetus off life support be a much slower and certain death. This would also be the choice of the host of life support. If the fetus is not a part of the woman's body, then she may remove from her body that which is not a part of her at any time she sees fit. This is not a matter of abortion as much as it is a right to remove what is not your body from your body. | cmv |
I believe sequestering a jury is as bad as false imprisonment and should not be allowed to happen. CMV | Your submission has been automatically removed because it is too short. Your submission must contain a minimum of 500 characters to be approved. Please expand your post to include any relevant information to your viewpoint so others can better understand and challenge it. Please message the moderators to have your thread approved. Thank you. [ I am a bot ] ( / r / AutoModerator / comments / q11pu / what | cmv |
I believe Patriotism is a bad thing. CMV | Look at it sort of how you would look at your family. You have a natural inclination to'value'them, even though they't not necessarily better than other people. I think this is a healthy thing. It makes you want to take care of what is close to you and value it. " Blind faith " in leaders is quite another thing and I would argue that that is not the norm or how people would define a patriot. | cmv |
I believe Patriotism is a bad thing. CMV | I think it is important to discuss the differences between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is showing some respect for your country, your fellow countrymen, and those of your country who have made significant contributions to humanity. It does not necessarily mean you dislike people of other countries, it simply means that you are fond of the country you are in or the country where you were born. Nationalism believes that people of one country are inherently better than people of another. They might kill you just for disrespecting their country. Anything their country does ( as long as it is under the " right " leaders ) is perfect and opposing countries are the devil. Some days I don't much feel like being patriotic when I am frustrated with my country, but patriotism does not mean you are in agreement with everything your country does. And true, sometimes the lines between patriotism and nationalism get blurred and you are called unpatriotic for not being nationalistic, but we should fight against that. So, regardless of whether or not you feel patriotic, you shouldn't call someone evil just because they prefer their own country. | cmv |
I believe Patriotism is a bad thing. CMV | It's not that you need to Change Your View. You need to change your definition. Patriotism is not " fervent nationalism "... You are describing fervent nationalism to an extreme. Patriotism is being proud of your country of origin. That's all you need to change your view about. | cmv |
I believe Patriotism is a bad thing. CMV | Do you believe it's bad now or that it's just bad in principle? Nationalism is an outdated philosophy in an age of globalization when the collective sacrifice of Chinese wage slaves has probably done more for improving your standard of living than your own government, but for the vast majority of human history this was not the case. Rudimentary infrastructure meant that you had to rely on people within your immediate geographic area for survival, which made it justified for you to hold these people above those who did not benefit you. | cmv |
I believe Patriotism is a bad thing. CMV | How do you define patriotism? Once you start thinking about more than yourself, do you stop with your family? Community? Town? County? State? Country? Continent? Planet? When I see patriots, I'm initially happy that these people are thinking about someone besides themselves personally. From the above - named levels, maybe " Country " shouldn't hold any more weight than the others from the outset. For most people though, entities at the Country level have done more for them than entities at the other levels. From a simple ethical " you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours ", increased loyalty at the Country level makes sense. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | This directly goes against the equality we in western culture strive so hard for to achieve. Person A and person B should be treated as equals to the law. Their income should not matter when they break the law. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | I think that the point of a speeding ticket is ( or should be ) to compensate society for the risk you created by speeding. You've marginally increased your chances of injuring or killing someone beyond the acceptable level, so you put money into the system so that others can pay less for the same level of government services. You're creating the same risk by speeding whatever your wealth, so the ticket should reflect that, and not be based on wealth at all. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | This would put huge pressure on police departments to pull over and ticket people who look rich to increase the amount of money that their department rakes in. Money is not the only part of a speeding ticket. There is a points system attached to your license, and if you run up enough speeding tickets ( It's usually a fairly low number ) you can lose your license. Ticketing proportionally based on income would end up with these laws being unfairly enforced against people who drive nice / new cars, and the fine is not the deterrent, the deterrent is the threat of losing your license. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | It would bring aboult discrimination. Cops would target people in nice cars, write more expensive tickets for the rich people. Since their are fewer rich people then poor they would be searching for them. Less incentive to stop anyone else. Statistically their are more poverty based crimes then upper class crimes. Also given into the fact that white collar crime is usually not handled and discoveried by the police first anyway. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | Your argument seems to revolve around the punishment for speeding being proportional to ones income. But why should it only apply to speeding? Should rich people have to pay more in fines for every justice issue? And the real question - should wealthy people get longer jail sentences than poor people, all else remaining the same? The basis for this is that wealthy people have a longer life expectancy than poorer people, so if we want to punish them equally surely they should receive longer jail terms? This can also apply to races - should whites get longer sentences than blacks due to their longer life expectancy? | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | If traffic tickets were supposed to inconvenience you some fixed amount, we might adopt your proposal, so that we retribute evenly against everyone who breaks the law. But, I think a more sensible " philosophy " of traffic tickets is that the perpetrator is making society worse in some way, and we want compensation for that harm. The harm to society of violating a traffic law is the same regardless of who the driver is, so we should get the same money back. If this means rich people have less of an incentive to follow the law, that's okay, because if speeding does 300 dollars worth of harm to society, and it's worth more than 300 dollars to them to speed, society is better off with them speeding and charging the ticket. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | I came here to make my argument but after reading the rest of your post you sort of changed mine. What I was going to say is that as someone who's fine would be about $ 2 I should be all for this, but moraly its just not equal. The laws all apply to us the same, we're all expected to follow them the same, the punishment for not following them should be the same. To punish one person more than the other just isn't fair even if its proportionate. But you have a good point about fines becoming trivial to the very rich. If you had millions of dollars and no moral compass, you'd just shrug off a daily speeding ticket as the cost of driving. In which case maybe punishment of your defiance should be proportionate. $ 200, $ 400, $ 800, $ 1600, $ 3200. Of course the super rich could shrug that off as well so the next step after $ 3200 is 10 days in jail, then 20, then 40. At that point it doesn't matter how much money you're willing to blow on fines, 10 days in an orange jumpsuit will get through to them. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | How about more community service and less fines, instead? Time is equally valuable to everyone, and reflects a proportional part of their income - without giving police an incentive to go after more affluent people for the bigger payday. It would also combat the rampant problem of cops writing BS tickets and cities writing BS laws not for public safety or public good, but just for the $ $ $ they can make off it. Like red light cameras, for instance. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | It seems like a person's income is a commonly accepted score for how much they should be fined, in this case for breaking a law but this also comes in discussions of the income tax. I agree that it's a much larger chunk out of a low wage person's paycheck to pay a flat fee, but what if the person is a low income single adult versus a high income parent supporting a family of two kids that are off to college? It could be that the 200 $ fine hurts the high income earner more if he has expensive liabilities due to his livelihood. It's difficult for me to accept any type of fixed percentage rate based off of income alone. But that might be asking for to much investigation into the lives of every individual to be feasible. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | Then by following this line of thought, that punishment should be equal for all, then it should have the same effect on jail sentences. This would mean that people who have a high income would lose more from a jail sentence then a low income person. therefore the rich person should be given a less harsh prison sentence then poor people would get. That means that a person making 100K would only have a tenth of the time behind bars where for a similar incident a person making 10K would have the full time? ( or a 5K person double time? ) I think that this is unfair but essentially the same as saying that rich people should pay more for fines. ( Also this does not take in effect that this might be happening already, theoretically it's undesired. And there should be no institutionalization of this train of thought. ) | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | What's the limit though? Would it be OK to drop six figures on a speeding ticket? If you think i'm joking, I am not. This happens in some jurisdictions Your premise makes sense to a certain extent, but I could not justify such a disparity between different people for the same crime. | cmv |
I believe fines for breaking laws ( speeding tickets, etc ) should be proportional to income rather than a flat rate. CMV | Ask yourself : " What problem are you trying to solve? " Are there too many rich people speeding? I don't see that happening. If the problem is that you just don't feel that it's fair that they aren't hit as hard financially, then the problem is you and not them. | cmv |
I believe Edward Snowden should be caught and brought to justice for ( if not espionage ) theft and fraud. I believe he is endangering the country by giving other countries sensitive information, and that without PRISM like programs, we'd have a lot more terrorism. CMV | There are many good reasons to fear programs like PRISM already in this thread, but I don't think anyone has mentioned the implications behind not requiring a warrant to investigate an individual and the lack of knowledge we have regarding oversight of PRISM intercepts. Who watches the watchmen? Say NSA employee Bob had a bully in high school, lets call him Joe, and wants to get back at him, is there anything that prevents Bob from scanning Joe's private data for blackmail and closing Joe's file as a false positive? This wouldn't be possible if Bob had to secure a warrant to utilize the program, yet I don't imagine it being too difficult to convince a judge to allow for the investigation of a likely terrorist. The bottom line is that if PRISM were to merely investigate likely terrorists, there only advantage not requiring a warrant gives the NSA is convenience. | cmv |
I believe Edward Snowden should be caught and brought to justice for ( if not espionage ) theft and fraud. I believe he is endangering the country by giving other countries sensitive information, and that without PRISM like programs, we'd have a lot more terrorism. CMV | I have a rock here that keeps tigers away. Tigers are very dangerous and can even kill you. You know how my rock works? : : looks around : : I don't see any tigers, do you? Now - to keep you safe from tiger attacks which kill thousands of people a year, all I ask in return is your facebook password, copies of all your emails... and a history of all the porn you've ever searched. Meager price to pay for my rock, isn't it? | cmv |
I believe Edward Snowden should be caught and brought to justice for ( if not espionage ) theft and fraud. I believe he is endangering the country by giving other countries sensitive information, and that without PRISM like programs, we'd have a lot more terrorism. CMV | How is prism making us safer? Its a well established fact that real terrorists don't use Skype to plan their attacks. They don't use gmail either. How does the NSA reading American citizen's emails making us safer? True snowden broke his contract, but he also had another contract - - - his contract as a citizen of the United States. He has an obligation to the country that outweighs his obligation to his employer. | cmv |
I believe race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation should not be included on college applications. CMV | Prior to yesterday, I probably would have more readily agreed that affirmative action might be too strong. However, with the supreme court ruling yesterday, I think it has been weakened to a point that it is much more reasonable. If you're not aware, the ruling brought in a new standard, which said that these features can only be considered if the college can prove that there is no other way to achieve diversity in their school. So I guess my point of disagreement with your post now is that it might actually be more of a response to how things used to be. | cmv |
I believe race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation should not be included on college applications. CMV | Having a diverse student body population can contribute to a learning environment by offering viewpoints from a variety of background that one would not normally be exposed to. This exposure to new viewpoints can alter ones own view and provide insight and knowledge that one can apply to concepts that they already know and will learn going into the future. Without having any of these factors it is difficult for universities to accurately judge the student body composition they are getting. While on its face it may be encouraging " only the best and brightest " students are best served when they are exposed to new viewpoints that can challenge their own. Taking away all of these criteria makes it exorbitantly hard and quite subjective for a university to create a great learning and social environment for their students. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.