summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I think ignorant voters, not special interests are the problem with Democracy. CMV | You're partially right, but I'd argue that the special interests are keeping voters ignorant. It's HARD to be an informed voter. We're taught from a young age that being informed begins and ends with paying attention to the news media, but now the media is almost entirely owned by the same people - - the " special interests " - - who own the candidates. You can be a 24 / 7 news junkie and still never understand most of the really important issues. This is why so many voters think that most of the federal budget is going to food stamps, PBS, and pork - barrel projects. The media defines the debate and keeps us stupid. At the very least, they keep us intentionally voting within the two - party system. Being an informed voter is like being a healthy eater. There are a lot of people who are ignorant and think Cheetos are good for them, but there's a lot more people who try to eat healthy but don't because the deck is stacked against them by how the food companies frame the debate. " It says whole grain, it must be healthy! " | cmv |
I think ignorant voters, not special interests are the problem with Democracy. CMV | Eh, I feel that even if we had a voting body which knew exactly what the big candidates were campaigning under, I feel like the issue of campaign publicity is more pertinent. Say I prepared for the election and familiarized myself with the candidates, and found that neither of them represented my views or that it was really a lesser - of - the - evils affair? The ignorance of voters is an issue, but even if they did fully research the policies of those campaigning, who is to say their policies would in any way accurately reflect the beliefs of the masses? Meanwhile these special interest groups who manage to fund big name candidates can continue to pour funding into future campaigns conditionally on the candidate's support of the lobbyists, and give these individuals who may weakly represent the ideals of their constituents more publicity in the future. | cmv |
I think ignorant voters, not special interests are the problem with Democracy. CMV | People have a sort of rational ignorance about politics. What I mean by this is that it is rational for anyone person to remain ignorant about politics and focus on other things. This is because, despite everyone collectively having a significant effect on who gets elected, each individual has a close to zero chance of affecting the outcomes of elections. It takes hours upon hours of reading and watching the news to understand current issues and policies, but when your vote will almost certainly not affect what actually happens, there is not enough incentive to stay informed for many people. Now let us compare this to researching a product to buy. Some products might take a similar amount of time to understand, such as cars or insurance. However, there is plenty of incentive to research cars, insurance, or whatever else you want to buy because the decision you make will be exactly what ou get, every time. My point is that this ignorance is inherent to democracy. Sure, I suppose you might say schools could educate people more on politics, but this could easily lead to teachers adding bias and, since most schools are run by the government, a hidden agenda being presented in the lessons ( and in my experience this already happens to some extent ). | cmv |
I think ignorant voters, not special interests are the problem with Democracy. CMV | How do you feel about people who let only one or two issues affect who they support? For example : Someone who would have voted for Romney, except because republicans are generally not pro gay marriage, that person voted for Obama only because of that one issue. Does that person count as ignorant in your mind? | cmv |
I think ignorant voters, not special interests are the problem with Democracy. CMV | While you're absolutely right that American voters are stunningly ignorant ( this really extends to most representative democracies ), your error comes from the point where you infer that special interests being knowledgeable implies that they will make good decisions. These are two very different things. The problem with special interest groups is that they're almost universally ideological. They're not groups who sit down and look at, say, the issue of gun control, review all the relevant research, and then work to craft relevant, sensible and feasible policy suggestions. Instead, what you get is one group funded by gun manufacturers and aimed towards maintaining and protecting their business interests, and another group which wants to ban all the guns because they're baaaaad, despite most of its members not having any relevant knowledge on the subject. ( This is how we get ridiculous " assault weapon " bans where firearms can be legal or illegal based on how scary they look rather than any relevant aspect of their operation. ) The thing you'll notice is that neither of these groups are at all sensible, and neither are actually devoted to crafting good policy. What they're trying to do is push an extreme agenda to exactly the level government and voters will accept. In other words, you're absolutely right that American voters are ignorant and that it's a serious problem. However, special interests are at best equally bad, and at worst vastly more problematic. | cmv |
I believe that filibusters should not be praised or supported, and that anytime one is happening, it is a subversion of democracy and a complete waste of lawmaker time and taxpayer money. Any lawmaker who uses a filibuster to block a vote should be reviled. CMV | Simple majority rules government is not a good thing. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, and filibustering. If 51 % of people want to do something unfair to 49 %, the 49 need to have nonviolent ways to defend themselves. Imagine 51 % of senators had wanted to intern the Japanese or massacre some Indians and a senator who knew it was wrong didn't filibuster because he believed it was wrong. Even if filibustering can't stop it, slowing things down is good. Remember how a bunch of people voted for the Patriot Act without reading it? Wouldn't it have been nice if a filibuster had given them the time to have their aides read the whole thing or for citizens to become informed and voice their concerns? | cmv |
I believe that filibusters should not be praised or supported, and that anytime one is happening, it is a subversion of democracy and a complete waste of lawmaker time and taxpayer money. Any lawmaker who uses a filibuster to block a vote should be reviled. CMV | Filibustering serves a very specific purpose - to slow down progress. Not all progress is progress in the right direction, and laws that are passed to hastily can do damage. The filibuster is one tool the senate has at their disposal to prevent what they see as bad legislation from being passed. Keep in mind that a filibuster is not absolute - it can be stopped with a 60 % vote, which is a bit more than would be needed to pass the bill being filibustered. This is intentional. A filibuster requires a lot of effort to pull off, and so if a senator feels strongly that a bill is bad, it's a way to make it harder to pass the bill, there must be a stronger consensus to pass it. It's not like it's feasible to block every bill they disagree with this way, so a filibuster is reserved for things that a senator strongly opposes. | cmv |
I believe that filibusters should not be praised or supported, and that anytime one is happening, it is a subversion of democracy and a complete waste of lawmaker time and taxpayer money. Any lawmaker who uses a filibuster to block a vote should be reviled. CMV | I think the purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a 51 % majority from automatically being able to do whatever they want. This wouldn't be a problem in a direct democracy where 51 % of the population actually goes in and votes for a bill, but in a representative democracy, 51 % of the representatives can have been and often were voted in by a minority of the population. I won't claim that standing up and talking for hours is the best way to protect those represented by the 49 %, but it does make it much more difficult for laws that a majority party wants to be put in place without a majority of the population wanting them. | cmv |
I think the North Korean people are partly to blame for their oppression. CMV. | The idea of a dictatorship brainwashing its citizens is to make the citizens believe the distorted views that are inconsistent with reality. They perhaps have a deep hatred of foreigners, they may not, we don't know. If they do, it is the result of massive propaganda and the view that Kim Jong Un is virtually a god. In North Korea, living standards are extremely low, and there aren't many people living there. If they were to start a rebellion, they would immediately get crushed by loyal North Koreans, the government, and its massive military. Many of its citizens, I speculate, want to get out of the status quo in some way, but they fear the government. Perhaps it is because the North Korean government has such a tight control over its population. | cmv |
I think the North Korean people are partly to blame for their oppression. CMV. | It seems to me like the North Korean government just found the winning combination of propaganda, seclusion, and psychological tricks to keep the people form revolting. What would you say is the cause of the cowardice? The fact that the government so tightly controls the media presented to the people means it can manipulate the views of the Korean people and keep them ignorant - this is something you can hardly blame them for, they literally have no way of knowing otherwise. How can you blame them for that? | cmv |
I think the North Korean people are partly to blame for their oppression. CMV. | How do you know that the people haven't revolted in North Korea? It's entirely conceivable that there are occasional scattered rebellions we just never hear about, because there's no even remotely open national media. If poor foodless village # 1052 decides to throw off their oppressors, poor foodless village # 821 is never going to hear about it ; the first people will just fail independently. | cmv |
I believe text - based forums, such a / r / changemyview, are far superior for intellectual debate than verbal debates. CMV | It's hard to say which is " superior " when the two are so drastically different. Live debate requires a different skill set and, because things you mentioned like tone, employs different tactics. From a " more useful " stand point I think live debate far exceeds written formats, if only because knowing how to change someones mind in person could be very advantages. Whereas this format may be better for really fleshing out a discussion, I feel it falls short in terms of using that discussion to any real end. | cmv |
I believe text - based forums, such a / r / changemyview, are far superior for intellectual debate than verbal debates. CMV | 1 ) Text based debates allow you to edit your words after the fact to make bystanders think the other guy is off the mark. 2 ) As you said the tone is neutral, and tone is a very important part of communication. Things can be misinterpreted without tone. 3 ) It is easy to abandon an online debate without losing face, but in the real world it is much harder. | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | As a Canadian, I heavily rely on our covered healthcare to keep me alive. Living with Type 1 Diabetes, I wouldn't be able to afford a life in America. It's the way a healthcare system should be. I get my flu shots and other vaccinations covered, and doctor visits / hospital visits. The day the US government smartens up and gives you guys a better healthcare system, I'll consider living there. | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | My only real problem with the notion of a national health care system in the US comes from my belief that it will be used to enact all manner of oppressive measures to promote someone else's idea of healthy living on the population at large. The feds directly funding the maintenance of our lives will give them the prerogative to tell us how to live. For ( hopefully ) an absurd example, wouldn't it be entirely rational to enact a helmet law mandating that everyone wear protective headgear all the time? I mean, wouldn't the effect on your appearance and a general inconvenience be more than outweighed by the lives and money saved? Your fellow citizens are paying for your healthcare, so don't you have a duty to take every possible measure ensure your own safety? As I said, this is an extreme example but I'm not sure how you could logically argue against it were it to come up. More likely, I suspect, would be nationwide bans against large sodas and trans - fats and similar measures that would most certainly be good for us, but that I don't particularly want to be forced upon me. | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | Healthcare used to cost a days labor ( $ 2 ) for full coverage before the government got involved and started regulating it. In the end when the government provides something it ( i ) becomes an inferior product then what the market would provide and ( ii ) costs atleast triple what the market would charge. In the end we aren't helping the poor. We are creating poverty. Money is being wasted and the economy is being destroyed. This means less opportunity. If we get government out of these kinds of services people would be more prosperous and receive better care. | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | The government's job is to protect rights. If it starts forcing people around at gun point to make sure that everyone gets politically popular free stuff then they have switched from being a protector of rights to a violator. This would mean betraying the very reason government exists. | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | I wish I had an eloquent, articulate response full of facts and numbers. Instead I came here to ask one question... Why do people find themselves so entitled that they expect others to care for them? Health Care comes from a society's tax dollars, why should a total stranger be responsible for your well being? Do you expect the strangers surrounding you on a daily basis to feed you, dress you, pay your rent? Would you approach them and face - to - face, demand their money for your needs? | cmv |
I believe one of government's primary functions should be to provide healthcare. CMV | The government doesn't have to provide health care. They just have to regulate it. In Germany for instance, there is a catalog with medical treatments and procedures and their prices. For example, lets say an eye exam is 95. 63 Euros. The doctors can put in a multiplication factor when billing the insurance company if it has been more complicated for whatever reason, but it has to be well reasoned and can be denied. The government only makes sure that everybody has signed up for a health insurance company of their choice and that every employer gives a fraction of the salary to that company before paying the employee. This way, you still have competition in the market and the patients have a choice. If you feel like spending extra money, you can sign up for a premium health insurance that covers more than the minimum required by law ( you get a single room in the hospital with no extra charge for example ). Having had experiences with emergency rooms and regular doctor visits in both the US and in Germany, all I can say is that this works extremely well in Germany. Last year, some health insurance companies even made too much profit ( like, way too much ) and were ordered to give a payout to their clients. | cmv |
CMV - Minority only scholarships are unjust and unfair. | Many of these scholarships are given out by private organizations. Who are you to tell them what they can do with their money? They could give it out only to left handed people born on February 29th if they want. Don't like it? Start your own organization and vote with your wallet. | cmv |
CMV - Minority only scholarships are unjust and unfair. | Think about it like this. Imagine I kidnapped all the white people from America and sent them to Africa as slaves. I break up families, makes sure to punish teaching of reading and writing, and I kill anyone who disagrees or runs away. 100 years later I outlaw slavery but make sure to still give whites worse nutrition, educational opportunities, and lynchings every now and then. 100 years later I pass laws making everything equal but prejudice still persists without certain portions of the population against whites. Whites makes less money, score lower on tests, and are disproportionately representened in prisons. In an attempt to make things better for whites, I pass some legislation and provide grants specifically designed to help whites. These programs are effective, but African population, which claims to be completely past thier racist ways and just looking for equality, argues that the programs are just hurting Africans. How would white people feel? That's how most minorities feel when whites talk about how things like affirmative action are unfair. | cmv |
I don't trust insurance companies one bit and thus never plan to get insurance. CMV | Insurance is the same as the extended warranty on appliances. You are paying more up front to prevent yourself financial disaster if something happened. Of Course the insurance companies are able to price premiums in a way they always stay profitable. You however get the benefit of piece of mind, knowing if the worst happens you are covered. Auto insurance is important because most people couldn't afford to pay a huge claim out of pocket and they also cover uninsured drivers hitting you. All insurance is probably considered negative lifetime equity, however they are important in helping people avoid financial disasters. One massive car accident, home fire or medical claim could bankrupt you and your family. | cmv |
I don't trust insurance companies one bit and thus never plan to get insurance. CMV | One aspect of insurance that is often overlooked by many, at least in the U. S., is that the policy generally provides a legal defense on your behalf. You get sued after a car accident and have insurance, that policy will post for an attorney to defend you and will pay the judgment or settlement if it comes to that. No insurance and you're liking at legal fees and a damage award out of your own pocket. Why lock up $ 100, 000 of your own money that you won't be able to touch just in case when you can buy an insurance policy for a fraction of that? Yes, insurance companies fight against pushing on policies but not being insured makes no financial sense whatsoever. | cmv |
I don't trust insurance companies one bit and thus never plan to get insurance. CMV | tl ; dr of the responses so far : only insure against events that you can't afford to cover. If you have an ample emergency fund, that means you should have liability insurance on your car ( if you have one ), homeowners insurance ( if you have a house ), and life insurance ( if you have dependents counting on your income ). For us here in the U. S., health insurance is also a must because a hospital stay could run us tens of thousands of dollars. | cmv |
I don't trust insurance companies one bit and thus never plan to get insurance. CMV | If insurance actually made perfectly rational sense, the companies offering it would go out of business. Statistically speaking, you must necessarily be paying more than the actual risk of something happening is worth HOWEVER, insurance is protection against risk that appeals to naturally risk - averse people, and everyone is risk averse to a certain extent. The premium you pay on insurance over the money they actually pay out is really a payment for " peace of mind ", it's the money you pay so you don't have to stress about the possibility of something beyond your control ruining your life | cmv |
I believe that Churches should be subject to taxation in the United States. Change my view. | The basic reason that the government doesn't tax churches, according to a Supreme Court, is that the " power to tax is the power to destroy ". For example, if conservatives with a fear of Islam were in charge of Congress, and they wanted to make it impossible for Muslims to practice their religion in the US, they could simply put a very high tax on all all mosques, high enough so they could not operate. By not giving the govenrment the power to tax churches, we are keeping church and state separate, and protecting one way in which unpopular religions may otherwise be targeted by the majority. | cmv |
I believe that Churches should be subject to taxation in the United States. Change my view. | It is often thought that churches and other religious institutions cannot, under law endorse political figures, or preach politics. This is not true, they can do this, but in doing it they lose their tax exemption. So if we just get rid of the tax exemption get ready for every church in the country endorsing candidates for office. | cmv |
I believe that Churches should be subject to taxation in the United States. Change my view. | It's an old custom, and if the government started taxing churches now, a large number of people would be up in arms about it, which is something the government definitely does not want. So even though it all makes sense in ideal circumstances, it would have a lot of blow back. Unpredictable changes would result. Besides, the U. S. government is no stranger to waste. | cmv |
The fight against abortions can't be a war on women or an attempt to control women because MORE men support women's rights to abortions than women. CMV | A group of people can hold opinions that don't line up with their own best interests. e. g. poor people and low taxation on the rich, or children vs adults in opinions on just about everything. There are plenty of racist people in opressed racial minorities, plenty of women and men who adhere to gender stereotypes which negatively affect their own gender. There's nothing mutually exclusive about being something and believing in an idea that's bad for people who are something. Or put another way, stupidity and hypocrisy exist. | cmv |
The fight against abortions can't be a war on women or an attempt to control women because MORE men support women's rights to abortions than women. CMV | If the fight against abortions is primarily about the welfare of children, that implies a lot of other things. The people fighting against abortions should be in favor of paid maternity leave, and birth control, and welfare, and all the other things that ensure children either aren't conceived or have a good life after they are born. But that's not what happens. Most people who fight against abortion also fight against birth control and welfare, and don't care much for paid maternity leave. So we have to conclude that it's not actually about what they say it is. It's about the other thing they sometimes talk about : " holding women responsible " for having sex. | cmv |
I believe that halal and kosher slaughter is wrong. CMV | Can you support the claim that these methods of killing animals for consumption cause significantly more pain to the animal? How graphic it does or doesn't look is irrelevant. A popular interpretation of kosher slaughter is that it causes less pain to the animal. It's possible that they're wrong, but I don't think you've presented real evidence that they are. Also, almost inevitably, killing an animal inflicts pain. If performed efficiently using any procedure, it will not be drawn out. On the other hand, the industry of producing meat for consumption is a long and drawn out process which is painful for the animal. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't care about animals at all, but it seems that it would be a shallow victory if we stopped ritual slaughter while animals are tortured during their lifetimes. I think halal and kosher meat being wrong strongly implies that most of the meat we eat today is wrong. Which is a fine stance, if you're willing to take it. | cmv |
I believe gay pride parades are a gross and inappropriate festivity that damages the LGBT community. CMV | When was the last time you actually watched a Pride parade? From my observations of parades in Minneapolis, Boston, Northampton, Brooklyn, and Manhattan, there seem to be as many ( if not more ) floats or marchers for politicians, local businesses, churches, social groups, community activists, LGBT sports teams, and corporations as there are glittery naked people. Seems like a pretty diverse representation to me. | cmv |
I believe gay pride parades are a gross and inappropriate festivity that damages the LGBT community. CMV | The key element of shame for gay people is that they have to hide their sexuality. Are you really surprised that a celebration of their pride would involve not hiding their sexuality? You need not feel bad about eschewing taking your children to gay pride events for exactly the same reason that you'd eschew taking them to Mardi Gras. It's not for them. There's no reason why that should convey any kind of message about being gay / straight in either case. | cmv |
I believe gay pride parades are a gross and inappropriate festivity that damages the LGBT community. CMV | There are family - friendly LGBT events in nearly every city. But the gay pride parade ( for the most part ) as you said is not family - friendly. Don't take your kids to them. Gay pride parades aren't about kids. They're not about children. They're about being flamboyantly an openly gay and celebrating the ability to be completely free and open about your sexuality in a culture and time period that has seen almost universal repression of non - heterosexual orientations. Most LGBT people have to shut up about their sexuality in public, with friends, with family, etc because the dominant social culture has no place for them in public. Our society is constructed around the idea of male - female relationships so people with other preferences often feel aloof and unable to express themselves in society. Gay pride parades serve as a way to release that tension. The public aspect of gay pride parades is important because it allows LGBT members to be open and flamboyant, something that is not allowed and often explicitly not allowed in mainstream culture. | cmv |
I believe gay pride parades are a gross and inappropriate festivity that damages the LGBT community. CMV | I think the message it sends is " We're here, we're queer, get used to it. " They can act all batshit and keep doing it every year and you can't stop them. That's the message it sends. Does it hurt the whole " We're just normal people like you or everyone else " gay agenda? Absolutely. But it has its benefits too. | cmv |
I believe the western countries are socially liberal only because of a higher material standard of living and not some sort of higher enlightenment on the part of the citizens, CMV | It isn't that the standard of living is higher, it's that education is better. Poverty does not correlate with bigotry because being poor causes you to be bigoted, it correlates with bigotry because the poor are less likely to be well educated. You will find that the actual causal relationship is between education and bigotry, not wealth and a lack of it. | cmv |
I believe the western countries are socially liberal only because of a higher material standard of living and not some sort of higher enlightenment on the part of the citizens, CMV | Read Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature : Why Violence Has Declined and check out the chapter called The Civilizing Process ( based on work by the sociologist Norbert Elias ). You'll get a much better discussion on this there than you'll find here. But basically, liberalism has evolved over the centuries within Western culture which is why it's here today. It's only somewhat related to wealth ( it's related to the scope and scale of commerce. ) Even wealthy countries in the past were " backwards " compared to society today. What happens is that society becomes more progressive through education, political debate, etc., people are born and get used to this new level of progressiveness as the norm, and then society gets even more progressive from there and the trend continues. Wealth definitely helps the trend continue but it doesn't entail liberalism itself. If the world economy collapsed we wouldn't see a return to the past because it wouldn't be the norm. Everyone's minds would have to be erased and history rewritten for that to happen. | cmv |
I believe the western countries are socially liberal only because of a higher material standard of living and not some sort of higher enlightenment on the part of the citizens, CMV | The poorest regions of the U. S. are poor because they are regions whose economy was devastated by the civil war and the subsequent abolition of slavery. The south never recovered from that. They were racist when they were wealthy plantation owners too. Has it occurred to you that the reason that the social liberal parts of the EU have social safety nets is because they valued such practices and not because they somehow can afford them? The U. S. has far more wealth than those countries do yet we have an atrocious healthcare system and fail to properly educate our children. You also haven't provided any mechanism by which becoming wealthy would inspire anyone to take on any particular belief. Why does being poor mean you have to hate anyone? The successes of the civil rights movement relied upon experiences of integration amongst workers protesting for their rights : the picket line forced people from disparate backgrounds together and enabled them to cut through years of manufactured racial hatred and see a common enemy. That's a pretty clear method for people changing their ideas : by having experiences that cause them to update their worldviews. | cmv |
I think the American two party system is detrimental to democracy. CMV. | One problem with multi - party systems is that then, after the election, you usually have to form a coalition to govern. This sometimes means that in order to get a majority, the leading party has to ally itself with small fringe groups, sometimes including extremist groups with fascist, racist, or extremely nationalistic viewpoints, and then that gives those fringe groups far more influence over the govenrment then they should have. This is a serious problem in some multi - party parliamentary systems. | cmv |
I believe TOR isn't NSA - proof. CMV | Thirty years ago it became public knowledge that The NSA remotely monitors what's on computer displays by decrypting their EM emanations - recreating, visually, exactly what the computer user is using ( TEMPEST ). This would have remained secret, had a hacker named Van Eck not demonstrated the process with $ 20 in civilian radio equipment. Of course TOR isn't NSA - proof. | cmv |
I believe TOR isn't NSA - proof. CMV | The problem isn't that TOR is government run, the problem is it won't actually protect you from an NSA - caliber organization anyways. Here's a pretty good article that summarizes the problem. The author basically argues that if Osama Bin Laden - back in the day - had used TOR to do an AMA once a month, it would probably take no more then three months for US intelligence to trace and neutralize him. That's because Osama was going up against the entire US. Fortunately, you probably aren't. | cmv |
I believe TOR isn't NSA - proof. CMV | Anything you can't personally verify as secure is insecure to that extent. The technology behind TOR can be used in a more darknet type situation whereas the connecting computers only allow connections to each other, and in those specific cases the technology behind TOR is solid, but if you're talking about the TOR browser being compromised? Please, please, please, assume the NSA is listening, please. | cmv |
I believe TOR isn't NSA - proof. CMV | It very well may not be but if the NSA has compromised the Tor network they will admit so in a trial or inform lower tier organizations like the FBI of it. Tor will keep you safe from most signals intelligence agencies and almost certainly all Federal law enforcement. Real terrorists are going low - tech like Bin Laden did. | cmv |
I believe TOR isn't NSA - proof. CMV | Well, if I use a secure browser to open Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon or anybody else NSA is tapping it doesn't matter. Google isn't giving away your emails while you read them - they're just giving them away from their servers. Your secure connections means nothing to the NSA. Lastly, the NSA employs the best IT department in the world. If they want to get around your puny VPN / SSH / SSL connections they will. | cmv |
I agree with the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act, and don't know what all my facebook friends are complaining about - CMV | I live in TN. Voter disenfranchisement is a huge deal in the South. In my state, they passed a Voter ID law really close to the election in order to bar people who don't have IDs ( those who don't drive or are too poor to take days off to go to the DMV etc ) from voting. And IDs cost money in the state of TN. You have to pay money for a license, so it was also essentially a poll tax. People say this is to stop voter fraud ( except that no verified cases exist of voter fraud done in this manner ), but what really ends up happening is people not being able to vote who should have been able to vote. The Voting Rights Act placed these places under scrutiny because these are the places that try to change their voting practices at the last minute to disenfranchise the poor ( as my state did ). When you need federal clearance to enact such things, such things are far less likely to pass. I guarantee that you will see an increase in regulation on the voting process in places like Mississippi because of this. | cmv |
I agree with the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act, and don't know what all my facebook friends are complaining about - CMV | well places that went 10 years without a record of voter discrimination could apply to " bail out " of the requirement. ( Places could also be added to the list. ) It has been use 74 times since the year 2000, and I think 20 times in 2002. | cmv |
I agree with the supreme court's decision on the voting rights act, and don't know what all my facebook friends are complaining about - CMV | The problem is that the Supreme Court's decision will not lead to laws against polling abuse being enforced everywhere. They'll just be enforced nowhere. It's silly to talk about these particular states as being racist " in the 1960s ". This provision of the Voting Rights Act has been renewed repeatedly ; if Congress felt that conditions had changed, Congress would have used a new rule. If you believe that they have a right to make any rule ( which the Supreme Court did! ), how can you justify saying that this specific rule isn't allowed? | cmv |
I believe anyone who generally opposes background checks for gun purchases is a moron. CMV | To me you have to look at the cost benefit analysis. It is costly in terms of time and money to run comprehensive background checks and some people are wrongfully denied so that is a burden. What if you want to sell a gun to your best friend but the government says you have to pay them a fee, wait a period of time, and register the gun before doing so? Background checks don't really solve any problems because criminals will just buy guns illegally. If you really want to get a gun you will be able to get one. ( see prohibition ) I am not 100 % against gun background checks but at a certain point the costs outweigh the benefits so they are not a great idea. It is not hard to see how you could hold this view without being a moron. | cmv |
I believe anyone who generally opposes background checks for gun purchases is a moron. CMV | One major problem is that it's not enforceable. 300 million guns are already owned by American citizens, the vast majority of which are not registered. Let's say your law goes into effect tomorrow. How will you know if the guns owned already are transferred in a private sale? | cmv |
I believe anyone who generally opposes background checks for gun purchases is a moron. CMV | I think ( in general ) that the background checks people are opposed to are not criminal records checks, but rather broader checks, like mental health or hey, why not tie your credit score into your gun purchase? e. g. Low credit rating? You're probably buying this gun to rob a liquor store! You had depression in High School? No gun for you maniac! Also, background checks ( in general ) don't really stop criminals from getting guns, even if you have a national firearms registry, guns are one of the most stolen pieces of property, and there are umpteen million guns already on the black market, so what do background checks change? Sorry for being a moron. | cmv |
I believe anyone who generally opposes background checks for gun purchases is a moron. CMV | I understand where you're coming from and I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this argument, but to say they're morons is a bit of a stretch. Requiring a background check and restricting access like that is basically ruining private sales. If I buy a weapon from a dealer and go through all the proper background checks, my name is now on some list that the government has and I can be tracked. Now, if I buy a gun from my buddy Steve down the block, the government has no clue. The second amendment wasn't put in to protect my right to go hunting, it was to protect my right to protect myself against the government. Requiring a background check on everything would completely destroy private gun sales, which I believe is protected by the BoR. That being said, I think we've evolved to the point where background checks aren't " too invasive " and I think they're generally a good idea. However, I don't think that anyone who disagrees with it is a " moron. " | cmv |
I believe that the pro - life stance is not mysogynistic. CMV. | Of course the STANCE is not, since it is based on an important value assessment. Only the most extremist of extremists say otherwise That is independent of the fact that some people's interpretation of it might be. I. E. guys who claim to be pro life but love sleeping around irresponsibly, and ignore that they are at fault for anything that results. | cmv |
I believe that the pro - life stance is not mysogynistic. CMV. | Even that very framing of the debate is sort of misogynistic. You're considering only the rights of the fetus without caring at all for the woman it's a part of. I see a lot of " the fetus will naturally turn into a baby " framings from the pro - life side of the debate, which is absolutely 100 % false. The fetus will " naturally " die instantly ; it's only the mother's uterus providing it with nutrients that makes it eventually grow into a baby. The strong pro - life stance relies on the assumption that the rights of a single human cell take precedence over an entire adult woman. Obviously that's misogynistic, right? | cmv |
I think the DOMA ruling today was badly decided. You cannot draw the connection from equal protection under the law to the unconstitutionality of a uniform definition of marriage. CMV | Your analogy is not unlike saying, " Handicapped people have the same opportunity to get into this building as I do. Why should we build a ramp? " You're forgetting that Americans are not one, uniform kind of people. | cmv |
I think the DOMA ruling today was badly decided. You cannot draw the connection from equal protection under the law to the unconstitutionality of a uniform definition of marriage. CMV | So long as marriage has legal rights attached to it denying it to same sex couples is gender discrimination. Your argument about the duet misses the fact that this is a tax break for being born a certain gender. So if you marry someone and then they die and you're the same sex then you are forced to pay for the estate tax as your marriage isn't recognised by the state. However if you're opposite genders then you don't have to pay the estate tax. This is clear discrimination based upon what gender you were born as. | cmv |
I think the DOMA ruling today was badly decided. You cannot draw the connection from equal protection under the law to the unconstitutionality of a uniform definition of marriage. CMV | None of the responses so far are from anyone who has read the ruling... these are all just general arguments about gay marriage... The actual ruling was this : equal protection is being denied because the federal government recognizes some legally married couples, but not others. Marriage licenses are handled by the states, but DOMA was singling out some people that had valid state marriage licenses and denying them equal treatment at the federal level. This was not a decision about whether gay marriage is a right, or whether a uniform definition of marriage is constitutional, but was much narrower as it was solely based off unequal treatment of legitimately issued state marriage licenses. Gender wasn't even considered. | cmv |
I think the DOMA ruling today was badly decided. You cannot draw the connection from equal protection under the law to the unconstitutionality of a uniform definition of marriage. CMV | Marriage has had an evolving definition for a very long time. Family is a primary good for many people in society, supporting same sex marriage supports families as much as supporting hetero marriage supports families. And there are any number of forms for family and marriage, "there is no checklist of characteristics that will invariably be found in all marriages. " ( Austin v. Goerz ). The Charter ( Section 15 ( 1 ) ) supports equal protection and benefit of the law. It is as arbitrary to define marriage based on sexual preference as it is to discriminate based on skin color.. | cmv |
I don't think stopping abortions after 20 months is bad. CMV | For a lot of people I think the argument has nothing to do with the fetus but just with bodily autonomy. They sometimes make analogies like the following : " If you woke up one day and found yourself hooked up to a bunch of machines and learned that your body was keeping someone else alive, would it be immoral of you to try and remove yourself from that situation? Or rather, would it be moral to use force to stop someone from doing so? " This is primarily why I am pro - choice, even in late term cases. While I might think a late abortion where no one's life is at stake is immoral, I think I would definitely not be okay with using force to prevent someone from exercising bodily autonomy. | cmv |
I think the filibuster should be ended. CMV. | To have a government where it's hard to make it oppressive ( or at least hard to do so quickly ), it has to be easier to hit the brakes rather than the gas in government action. That's why there are so many hurdles to get something enacted as law. If it becomes too difficult for someone, even a very small minority, to say " wait a minute, this is wrong " and gum up the works of a bad or oppressive bill on its way to becoming law, then it gets easier to shove through oppressive or otherwise bad laws. | cmv |
I think the filibuster should be ended. CMV. | Would you prefer two houses in Congress where a small majority of a given political party controls every single thing that goes on in Congress? The filibuster ( in the U. S. Senate ) allows the minority to hold some control in Congress, leading to more compromise being possible. As Ben Franklin ( actually never ) said, " Democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. " | cmv |
I believe abortion at 24 weeks is murder and the limit should be decreased to 6 - 8 weeks or even less, try and CMV | You've made a concrete statement of principle, but you've failed to provide any reasons why you believe what you do. You did not expressly state, but I can assume based on your argument from pathos, that you believe a 24 - week - old fetus has a right to life. Why? What gives it that right? | cmv |
I believe abortion at 24 weeks is murder and the limit should be decreased to 6 - 8 weeks or even less, try and CMV | I'm not going to try and change your view. Reading the other comments makes me think you don't want to change it. I will however say that late term abortion isn't as big of an issue as you make it out to be. Most abortions ( around 90 % ) are carried out before a pregnancy reaches 13 weeks, and virtually all abortions ( around 98 % ) are performed before 20 weeks.. I also want to say that your comments about morality and intelligence are quite insulting. Most people that have an abortion don't take it lightly at all. It's simply the lesser of two evils. | cmv |
I believe abortion at 24 weeks is murder and the limit should be decreased to 6 - 8 weeks or even less, try and CMV | While the fetus at that point may look rather similar to a newborn, the brain, the part of humans that makes us different from the majority of animals, is still woefully undeveloped. It has not begun showing any of the developmental features that are associated with higher consciousness. As such, it shouldn't be considered a person. | cmv |
I believe abortion at 24 weeks is murder and the limit should be decreased to 6 - 8 weeks or even less, try and CMV | Well I think the real question is when a does a group of cells get to be called a " person " and granted civil rights. I personally believe that if the fetus is not viable than a woman should be allowed to abort it. I place more importance on the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body, than on the rights of a group of cells that cannot live on its own. I read one of your responses, you make a comparison between old people and if they can't live on their own why don't we just euthanize them. In my mind life is more than having a pulse. Life is having experiences, memories, people who you love, etc. etc. A person who is elderly has experienced life and so they feel a sense of loss when it draws to an end and that is why we go out of our way to comfort them and help them to enjoy whatever portion of life they have left. An unborn fetus has not experienced life, it will not feel a sense of loss or fear, simply it has not been " alive. " | cmv |
I believe assisted suicide should be legalized and that the fact it isn't is an infringement on those individuals'free choice. CMV. | In regards to the financial burden, I will put this forth. If assisted suicide were legalized, you can bet that it would soon cost thousands, on top of the amount the funeral would cost. It would become legalized and as soon as it did, the price would skyrocket, insurance would come into play ( somehow, idk exactly how ), and insurance would likely turn people down causing them to pay out of pocket. If you disagree, just look at how much common medical procedures cost compared to what you are charged for them. I sincerely doubt this would alleviate any financial suffering for anyone. | cmv |
I believe assisted suicide should be legalized and that the fact it isn't is an infringement on those individuals'free choice. CMV. | Do you think that a person suffering clinical depression should be able to commit assisted suicide? If not, what if they're also suffering terminal cancer or something similarly unpleasant? Where would you draw the line? | cmv |
I believe assisted suicide should be legalized and that the fact it isn't is an infringement on those individuals'free choice. CMV. | Do you think that all laws which protect people from killing themselves should be abolished? What about seatbelt laws, for example, which increase seatbelt usage by 10 - 20 %, saving thousands of lives per year? I don't see anti - suicide laws as any different from seatbelt laws. In certain cases, such as when someone is provably terminally ill and suffering severely, I'd be pro - euthanasia, but certainly not in the much broader way that you're laying out. | cmv |
I've flipped between pro - choice and pro - life, and now I'm pro - life but open CMV | Your argument seems to be based on having unprotected sex. What about accidents? What about cases where the woman is on the pill and the guy uses a condom? Even using your logic, the woman didn't relinquish the right to her body, unless you think than anytime a woman has any kind of sex she relinquishes the right to her body, which is completely unfair. Also, does having consensual unprotected sex mean the woman also relinquishes her right to life if something goes wrong? | cmv |
I've flipped between pro - choice and pro - life, and now I'm pro - life but open CMV | I don't care what a persons opinion is on this... I care that people feel they have the right to impose their opinion on others. If you don't like abortion, don't get an abortion. Seek out ways to make them less common ( sex education, contraception, and so on ). Not liking something doesn't entitle you to the right to force that on others. If it did dubstep would be illegal. | cmv |
I believe that giving food to starving nations during a famine only worsens the problem in the long run. CMV. | Food Aid is not intended to solve long term food security issues. It's intended to save the lives of those who would otherwise starve to death. Allowing 100 children to die today for the sake of future food security is simply abhorent. Sure, food aid by itself won't solve the long term problems created by the conditions that led to the famine but it does save lives and that's it's purpose. Developed nations should provide both food aid during times of crisis as well as education and programs which will ensure food security over the long term in order to prevent future famines. Bottom line, I don't think the two options presented are mutually exclusive and should be tackled simultaneously or in close succession. | cmv |
I believe that giving food to starving nations during a famine only worsens the problem in the long run. CMV. | I think non - emergency aid is the cancer of developing nations. However, in an emergency those are human lives at stake, it doesn't matter what math you are doing. Think the Irish famine, if it occured in modern times, would it be wise to teach them sex ed and non - reliance on potatoes? Maybe. But would it be wiser and, considering it never reccured, cheaper to just give them food to pull through? | cmv |
I believe that giving food to starving nations during a famine only worsens the problem in the long run. CMV. | Famines don't happen because there are too many people to feed. Famines happen when you have a combination of overreliance on a single crop, inadequate government welfare, and random bad weather. Overpopulation just doesn't have anything to do with it. | cmv |
I believe that giving food to starving nations during a famine only worsens the problem in the long run. CMV. | IMO the only way your view could be justified was if the famine was the result of government policies. In that case the aid would only delay a citizens revolt against the government. Or, if the aid was just being re - sold on the black market rather than being distributed to the needy ( common ). Beyond that, people don't deserve to die painfully just to teach the rest of them a lesson. | cmv |
I believe that giving food to starving nations during a famine only worsens the problem in the long run. CMV. | We grow far more food than we consume. Famine tends to come from a temporary environmental disaster ( flood, drought, fire ) in conjunction with a human disaster ( war, corruption, transportation collapse ) that prevents surpluses from other regions from reaching the effected population. If either element is resolved then we no longer have a famine in that location. Bear in mind those surpluses generally come from a province over, or in the form of market transactions. Food aid is really only necessary when facing rampant corruption or war that prevents merchants from doing their thing. Many areas in Europe, Asia, and the Americas used to suffer from famine and no longer do so. They don't have famine and also support much higher populations when they did so. The same thing can / is happening in the worst hit areas, but only when people have the stability to farm and build improvements to protect themselves from flood and drought without interference from corruption or war. | cmv |
I believe that terrorism is a very real threat, especially to air travel, and that we need to have more alert security to prevent attacks and hijackings to take place. CMV. | The sheer change in culture that occured because of 9 / 11 is very good security against highjacking attempts now. Before ( and during ) 9 / 11, passengers were passive, because they thought they would just land somewhere, get negotiated for, then leave. Them crashing planes changed that perception. United Flight 93 was the first plane to fight back and foil the hijackers'plans, but every attempt from then on will meet resistance at that scale. | cmv |
I believe that terrorism is a very real threat, especially to air travel, and that we need to have more alert security to prevent attacks and hijackings to take place. CMV. | How easy is it to hijack or blow up a series of buses? How easy is it to explode a train or poison a subway system? How easy is it to sneak a bomb into a huge sporting event or to a performance or to a rally where there are lots of people standing outside? How easy is it to just go to the biggest square in some big city with an automatic rifle and shoot everybody? If you are not concerned about your wellbeing and not particularly concerned about your effectiveness there are much easier terrorist targets than airplanes. And yet a life where you avoid all methods of transport and all public gatherings for fear of terrorism is not what any of us want. I think it's useful to, as other posters noted, look at the rarity of terorist events in order to put them in perspective. | cmv |
I believe that terrorism is a very real threat, especially to air travel, and that we need to have more alert security to prevent attacks and hijackings to take place. CMV. | The biggest issue is that we have tons of security... that isn't very effective. People quite literally write books on how most of the measures by the TSA are so called " security theater " because they only make us appear safe. What we need is smarter and more effective security that can identify threats not necessarily more. | cmv |
I believe that terrorism is a very real threat, especially to air travel, and that we need to have more alert security to prevent attacks and hijackings to take place. CMV. | If someone wanted to kill the president no matter what the cost he would do it. No matter how much security you have, that security can be overcome. 9 / 11 happened because the people thought it would be like previous hijackings where they flew the plane to Cuba and everyone goes home. That had been what previous hijackings were like. After 9 / 11 passengers aren't going to sit by, because what's at stake for them isn't adding an extra day or so to their travel plans but rather the prospect of being intentionally crashed. They'll kill anyone dumb enough to brandish a weapon, with their bare hands I might add. Most of the attempts at terrorism afterwards were bombs and what not. That's the real threat, and that's also a threat that current security is designed to handle. I think that passengers who know how serious hijacking is are all the security necessary to prevent the vast majority of hijackings, and the security required to prevent those that the passengers couldn't would make flying difficult or impossible. | cmv |
Killing animals is barbaric. CMV | I was surprised to learn that a few of my friends who moved from Africa to America were arrested for inttending to kill a goat for Christmas, which is a tradittion in my country. Anyway, where does it stop? Aren't plants just immobile animals which are really rigid? If we went by your logic, we would keep animals from harming plants, whales from eating krill and lions from eating zebras and we would all starve to death.. But we would be resurrected in heaven by a photosynthetic god for not touching his only morally upright creation. Smith said we are viruses, we are parasites. We are here because of it. And your view can remainas rigid as a tree but unless we can eat them alive.. | cmv |
Killing animals is barbaric. CMV | Animals killing animals is natural, we evolved to eat other animals instead of relying solely on vegetation. It is a way of life that has been with us since before there was recorded history. It is a cruel, but a necessity. | cmv |
Killing animals is barbaric. CMV | I don't ever make this argument about who does and does not feel pain. It's not a logical enough basis for the decision. You're not particularly specific in your post, but I'm going to assume that what you're getting at is we shouldn't kill animals to eat. Animal cruelty for funsies is obviously wrong. But in the case of food, the animal isn't being killed for a cheap thrill or to see what its insides look like. It is being killed to provide vital nutrition that human bodies require to function properly. It's not cruelty ( which is a sadistic disregard for the well - being of others ), it's self preservation. | cmv |
Killing animals is barbaric. CMV | The problem is that, for a large majority of the world's population, there isn't any viable alternative. Sure, you don't need to eat meat, but don't kid yourself - even egg production leads to the death of animals. Completely abstaining from animal products is highly unnatural for the human body and requires careful monitoring and supplementation, which is challenging even in the affluent West. Now, we can definitely continue to improve the situation, with more humane treatment of animals and reduced meat consumption. Eventually, we should be able to easily synthesize delicious food that provides the full spectrum of necessary nutrients without the need for killing animals. Until then, though, pretty much everyone is stuck being " barbaric ". | cmv |
Killing animals is barbaric. CMV | It's all in the context and intent of the killing. We kill some things to eat, some things for fun, some things because they annoy us, some things to save them further pain and misery, some things because we can't keep them alive, and some things accidentally. We make a distinction between humans and all the other animals because we are humans. It's not just in killing, but in pretty much all rights. | cmv |
I think anyone who believes global warming is fake is simply a partisan sheep. CMV. | OK, my beef with this global warming thing is NOT the denial that it's going on, it's the belief that man is causing this, and now man can FIX the weather! Hogwash. I was on vacation in Alaska and our ship stopped in Glacier Bay. The National Park Service rangers got on the boat and did a commentary on what we were looking at. They opened the presentation up to questions and someone asked about global warming, if that would affect the rate of glaciers calving, and stuff like that. The ranger said something surprising, that the tribal people who have been up in Alaska for eons have told the rangers that in their experience, the earth has warmed and cooled for thousands of years, and that this is a normal thing. The ranger added that all of the advice they've gotten from these tribes has never been wrong, that they really know nature. That was enough to convince me. I would rather listen to a people who have literally had their ear to the ground for thousands of years than this partisan b. s. that is going on now. | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | Your reasoning is wrong for the same reason the following reasoning is wrong : " Letting black children go to the same public schools as white children is regressive. No children should go to school. By letting black children go to school, we have actually made things worse not better because government should have nothing to do with children's education. " To spell it out explicitly, the problem is that your view supports the inequality of the status quo. You're more concerned about some abstract principle of government not supposed to do something rather than the principle of fairness and equal protection under the law. | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | I actually agree with your broader argument about marriage ; I would prefer that the institution of marriage in its current form be abolished. The problem with your argument is that even if we were moving towards abolishing marriage, it's still unfair to bar gay couples from getting married in the interim. I fail to see how gay marriage is " regressive " ; either way, people are still getting married. Realistically, the abolition of marriage isn't going to happen any time soon because there's not a strong enough movement behind it. Better to gain equality in the short term, then we can start focusing on the broader problems with marriage as an institution. | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | As long as civil marriage is provided at all, it should be provided equally to all couples, regardless of their gender combination. It's quite telling though, that many people have only started objecting to civil marriages now, after all these years, when states finally try to introduce equality in civil marriage. Never before have there been any serious objections to atheistic straight couples getting civilly married by the state. | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | Okay, here I go : Imagine a typical family. One man, one wife, 2 kids a dog and a white picket fence. The husband has a well respected 9 - 5 job and the mom stays at home to look over the household and the children. The husband obtains vast workplace experience and skills while the mother obtains none. The mother forfeits the opportunity to obtain skills / experience / money with the expectation that she does not need these skills because of a pre arranged agreement with the husband. This is secured by the government through marriage. Now, these special tax breaks are in place because you have a wife who is " dependent " on your wages. You have a full fledged member of society with no net income, you may require a higher percentage of income to keep sustaining your family ( the whole reason why you work int eh first place ). | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | I'm not going to get into taxes, but having the government recognize a marriage means that they can protect the married couple from 3rd parties that might try to deny them rights. For example, if some hospital in rural Iowa has a bigoted staff they might try to prevent visitation rights for a spouse of the same sex. Because the government recognizes their gay marriage as legal, this allows the couple an avenue to fight back against the bigoted hospital by threatening to sue ( and if they don't back down, actually suing and getting compensated for their discrimination ). The same reasoning could be applied to insurance companies that provide coverage to family members but might try to charge gay couple extra because they aren't " really " married. If the government recognizes the marriage as legal they can step in and stop the insurance company from using a discriminatory policy to try to extract more money from its clients. There are still certain " benefits " to being married that require the government's backing to enforce and prevent discriminatory abuse. | cmv |
The US Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is regressive. CMV | You can get married without getting a civil marriage... it's entirely optional. Obviously you won't get all the legal benefits of doing so, but that's your goal, so that wouldn't be a problem. All this did was make civil marriage available to those who do want it... it doesn't force anyone to have one. So in light of that, is there actually anything you have a problem with about the existence of civil marriage as an option for those who want it? | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | I think the scenario would be quite the opposite. The US right now has the more powerful military in the world, but has been losing support from the people ( not the government ) due to unnecessary conflicts and such. None the less, the american mindset is that of heroism, patriotism and self - reliance.. you are the ones that stand up from the crowd... so if anyone was to attack the US, public support would be 100 % ( think WW2 as a reference ). I think in case of a major war, the US military would have all the resources and support they could ever want, and thus enabling them to engage in a total war scenario. | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | You aren't completely wrong ; the American military would be able to defeat most if not any adversary in a fake world with solitary fights. However, the American people would be the reason we " lost. " ( I. e. Vietnam. ) | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | The keyword is " any " serious war. Public motivation will determine how many casualties can be had before the war is surrendered. We lost less men in Vietnam that we lost in single battles of the Civil War, and even less currently in the Middle East. However, people were in full support for war on both sides in the Civil War and many were highly against Vietnam and current affairs. If we were to put in another act that censored public opinion, we'd be in the clear. Our country spends more money on our military than the next 5 or so countries combined. We surely have the military power to knock out any other country. And with real war, AKA not guerilla warfare that we're fighting now, we can simply launch our 1, 000 nukes anywhere we want and win in a day. The only reason we didn't use them since WWII is because there would've been too many civilian casualties and not enough clear targets. | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | If Americans collectively wanted to win a war, it would be very hard to stop us. That's assuming we were able to overcome our apathy, of course. Frankly, all I think it'd take is a single attack on American soil to see the attacker beaten back into the third world. | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | China would have almost no chance against the US in any serious war. Our weapon systems are so much more advanced. It's been over 30 years since a US plane has been shot down in air to air combat. US submarines can hear the heartbeat of a whale fetus inside its mother. China has one aircraft carrier and its suitable only for training. We've been sparring, and learning with combatants since WWII. It would never come to what your suggesting. | cmv |
I think America would cave in any serious war. CMV | I don't think you are taking into account the power the Joint Chiefs have, and how little their view on the world has changed since the first bush era. You have to think about what a large - scale conflict would even look like nowadays, and its not pretty. First, the air - strike capability is terrifying. Most of a large - scale conflict would be fought without any intention to put troops on the ground to kill other troops. The first order of business is to disable the infrastructure. Now, if you consider China, it has one of the largest standing militaries and Air Forces today, but China is a very big place, and they can't cover everything. There are contingency plans, executive guidlines, and classified booklets that have a detailed plan of what to do if practically any country decided to mount an offensive. If China attacked, our first goal wouldn't be to cave, it would be to launch a fleet of B2s from Alaska, bomb every power - plant from Shenzen to Hong - Kong, and route all of our naval resources to the area. If it was the people making the call about whether or not we go to war, maybe you'd be right. But in the end, the decision to retaliate falls to the joint chiefs and the president, the decision to declare war falls to congress ( in, actually, a very loose way ). | cmv |
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. | I believe that those aspects of Islamic culture should not be respected or acknowledged in modern society. I think discrediting Islamic culture as a whole based on the two aspects in question is kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The same could be said of American culture 50 years ago based on the way we viewed African Americans and women, but instead of throwing away our entire culture, we simply changed those aspects of our culture in order to evolve as a society. Islamic culture should do the same thing. | cmv |
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. | 1 ) Everything you just said about Muslim / Arab culture could easily have been said about the totality of Western culture 60 years ago. " Modernity " ( whatever that means ) hardly has anything to do with these deficiencies. 2 ) There really isn't any such thing as a monolithic " Islamic " culture, any more than there is a monolithic " Christian, " " Western, " or even " ( Insert your country )'s " culture. Undoubtedly the elements you describe exist in a lot of the Muslim world, and likely in a higher proportion than they do in the " Western " world, but they are hardly omnipresent. Likewise, you could probably find a lot of those attitudes in the country / state / province / town that you live in yourself. 3 ) The Arab / Muslim world is in a HUGE state of flux right now. It took a huge reactionary swing during the Cold War ( for reasons that are a little complicated, but that I would happy to explain to you ), and now things are swinging back in the progressive direction. I'm not just talking about the Arab Spring and various democratic movements ; but women are fighting the same fight in the Muslim world that women here in the US started fighting 100 years ago. In fact, they have a slightly easier hill to climb, because they have seen what women in other countries have achieved, and they know that it is possible for themselves. Long story short, the Arab / Muslim world you see today is different than the one 40 years ago, and it is drastically different than the one that you will see 40 years from today. | cmv |
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. | You know, places in Indonesia and those surrounding areas have millions if not billions of people that are Muslim. That area of the world is extremely technologically advanced and get along with surrounding non - muslim countries like South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia and Japan without much issue. Traditional Christian values hold not only the same views of women or religious law but they hold the same people in high regard. Abraham, for example, is highly regarded in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. They have nearly identical values but the " bad stuff " of their texts isn't usually followed. When it is you see situations like in some areas of the Middle East. When it isn't, you get situations like Indonesia and surrounding areas. | cmv |
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. | First of all, Islamic does not equate to Arabic culture. There are a lot of places that are predominantly Muslim that do are not Arabic. Less than a hundred years ago, most women couldn't vote in Western countries and were expected to be subservient. Women who did not act in this approved member were often met with hostility and derision. Only a few women could, from the sidelines, make big decisions. Despite the fact that two of Britain's most beloved and capable rulers ( Victoria and Elizabeth ) were Queens, the British didn't treat women with much respect. Then, gradually, society changed. We became more connected ; we relied less on physical labor, which is something that men do far better ; and we gained intellectual jobs. Muslims in Western countries, at least all of the ones that I know, treat women better than many of the Christians that I know. As Islamic countries with poor track records on women rights are modernized and connected, women will be forced to be given jobs by the demands of business. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.